Tuesday, March 08, 2016

Fitness of Blacks to Own Guns? Not On Target!

‘Progressives’ Join Bloomberg in Challenging Fitness of Blacks to Own Guns:
USA – \March 07, 2015(Ammoland.com)-
“These horrifying new numbers show how America’s lax gun laws hurt black Americans,” a Violence Policy Center-inspired screed against gun rights on Vox claims.
I'm pleased that David Codrea chose to address this obnoxious subject.

Because it's not 'lax gun laws' that hurt 'Black Americans'.

It's the culture which allows and accepts violent behavior which hurts Americans .. Black, or any other color!

I attempted to write in response to the original screed. I tried four times, and couldn't make the words I chose to describe the societal ills of America today.

It always came out sounding as if I blamed the race of the people involved, when I really wanted to blame the culture in which the people were raised.

It's the CULTURE of poverty; 
It's the 'privileged' culture of assuming that people of "certain ethnic groups{ (blacks, Chicanos, hillbillies, .. do we need more cultural labels?) cannot be expected to raise their families to be responsible members of society;
of using artificial laws to provide 'racial preference' in admission to colleges where the expectations are greater than students have learned to expect in public schools.

 Generally speaking, America has decided to treat ethnic groups as 'second class citizens' because of historic "issues", and so we have a strong segment of our populations of whom we expect less than they are capable of doing.

And we are doing them a damage by asking less than they can produce.

The problem of ethnic groups is often that men and women bring children into the world in casual relationships, but then the men "move on" and fail to provide the support of the male parent for the children which they create.

Why should they not?  They know that we have low expectations of them and they fulfill those low expectations.  (Not a universal trait, but it happens often enough that we see too many 'single-parent' families for our society to assimilate in a wholesome manner.)

When a woman gives birth without a strong father to reinforce the rules of civilized behavior, the offspring tend to become rebellious and autocratic.  It's exceedingly difficult for a single-family parent to raise a child to become a responsible citizen, when the father doesn't care enough to remain as a reinforcing example that his and her children should emulate the example provided by a caring couple.

If the "family" has no responsible couple to provide a good example, why should the children be expected to be responsible in their own private lives?

In a society ... a culture ... a family where the most successful male is the pimp/gangster/criminal is the one with the most 'disposable' income; where one's parents are more frequently un-married; where the father may or may not provide support for the family; and where the mother might introduce a new "uncle" every few months  --- it's difficult for a daughter to learn to be particular about the men with whom she associates.

And where the Alpha Male in the neighborhood is a drug dealer, a pimp or a thief, it's difficult for a son to learn the value of education, making an honest living, and supporting a family.

I grew up "lucky".  


My family stressed that when I was old enough to work, I would work.  And I would pay for what I wanted by using the money I had earned from honest labor.  I knew that it was shameful to cheat, to steal, to make promises I couldn't keep, or to take advantage of the weaker members of my community.

And I had a family that I saw frequently.  Holidays would see aunts and uncles, cousins and other people who were related to me by blood.  And all of them were earning an honest living.

Criminal behavior was ... not just rare, but non-existent!

If I broke the speed limit, I was expected to pay the fine and that was non-negotiable.  I did it, it was my problem.  I got jobs mowing yards, taking care of neighbor homes while they were on vacation.

Education was important.  Assumed responsibilities were enforced; when I took up the cornet and joined the band in junior high school, my mother dinged me to practice for a half-hour every night.  I was a terrible musician!  I have no idea how my parents endured the agony of my nightly practice, but when we went to visit 'family' in other towns on the weekends, my mother made me practice an HOUR the night before, so I wouldn't lose trumpet-time on the nights we were away.

She cared.  My father cared ... they often disagreed, but when Mom said I should do something it was fruitless of me to go to Pop for a different decision.  When I asked him for a special dispensation, he would always ask:
"What does your mother say?"



and the next words out of his mouth were, invariably:

"Well, if that's what she told you, that's the way it is."

I was often disappointed, but I always knew that my parents were involved in my life, and that they cared what I did with my life.

I don't see that sort of parental involvement in the news stories I read today.


What I see now, when I read the newspapers ...

...  is that parents are not only not universally involved in the children they bring into this world, but often they're not all that involved in each other.


HOW DO WE FIX THIS?

Beats the hell out of me!

It would be very easy to blame "Racial Preference Quotas", but they do some good by allowing minorities to 'bootstrap' their exceptional children above the societal norm.

It would also be easy to blame "The Government" for advocating failed policies such as "No Child Left Behind" ... which looks good in print but seems to be ineffective.

Ultimately, the search for blame is worthless.   The only 'fix' is for parents to take responsibility for their children, and to help them in their goal to raise their children to have a better life then they themselves had.

We can't do this by "Government Mandate"; we put too much reliance in the Government to fix our problems already.

Remember that Government is populated by people who want to be elected to High Office, because it makes them look good.  And most elected people are Lawyers, so you have a major impediment to actually 'doing something' right there!

The best we can do, I think, is to expect more of our children than they think they can accomplish.

You (and I) are occasionally amazed by people who manage to exceed expectations.  You can't do this as a 'third person' (or a "Government").   You can only do this by .... ?

I don't have an answer.  I have a lot of questions, and a lot of complaints that the best people we have are too often "left behind" because of lost opportunities.

I suspect that private charities are a much more effective measure to improve our society; when we expect "GOVERNMENT" to "fix things", the politicians get involved and the original goal is almost invariable forgotten.

YOU, though, can help.  Find a private group who seems to be dedicated to the improvement of the 'least of us', and contribute to it.  I make no recommendations.

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

Sunday, March 06, 2016

One Man's Feature Is Another Man's Bug

Another feature of any tracking device is that it can be tracked by someone other than the owner.

Clearwater company developing device to track stolen guns
A Clearwater business is developing a way to alert gun owners the moment their weapons are on the move and help them track them back down. TracFind is developing a small GPS device that can be attached to guns. The device, which combines GPS tracking technology with smartphone signals, can track in real time a stolen or lost weapon to within three feet.
An added feature notifies the gun owner immediately if the secured gun moves as much as an inch. Some gun owners dislike the gun locks and other devices that they believe may impede the use of the gun should the owner need it in a self-defense situation. This doesn’t do that, TracFind officials say, and that’s a big selling point.
(Note that this article is categorized as "Gun Control".)


Friday, March 04, 2016

Ridicule? Sounds reasonable to me.

Hillary Clinton wants to 'send a task force' to 'alien prison' Area 51 | Daily Mail Online:

Hillary a UFO Freak?   Why not, she has had worse ideas!
,,,
Podesta continued: 'More attention and more discussion about unexplained aerial phenomena can happen without people — who are in public life, who are serious about this — being ridiculed.' In December of last year, Clinton said much the same at a meeting with The Conway Daily Sun, in which she 'enthusiastically' told the editorial board, 'Yes, I'm going to get to the bottom of [the UFO files].'
 ("A later CNN report characterized the remarks as 'tongue-in-cheek,' a descriptor not used in the Daily Sun's report. ")
Well, Hillary has certainly captured the UFO Freak vote.

New California Gun Laws 2016

New California Gun Laws 2016 "EDITED READ DESCRIPTION" - YouTube:
Published on Jan 1, 2016

California is going NUTS on it's new restrictions on Firearms Ownership.   It's increasingly obvious the CIOs (Chief Idiots in Charge) have the goal of pecking the Second Amendment to death via laws which nibble around the edges until honest citizens just throw up their hands and say "Enough, Already!"

(Including Background Checks on EACH AND EVERY Ammunition Sale and an ammunition permit fee !)

This ten minute video * provides a worth-looking-at summary.  If California gets away with these anti-constitutional laws, other states will try them too.



The cited bill ... SB1446 regarding magazine capacity limits, can be read here,

EDITED READ CORRECTION: A Firearm Restraining Order can only be applied for by IMMEDIATE FAMILY!! 2016 is going to be another fight for California on the Gun Control front. With new laws affecting us every year the fight never ends. To help fight back please check out https://www.firearmspolicy.org/ and https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/ Fight Gavin Newsom in 2016 and say no to more Ammo and Gun Restrictions

Thursday, March 03, 2016

Celebrity Opinions

James Woods: Don’t Confirm Obama SCOTUS Nominee - ‘Just Ignore Him, as He Does the Law’: “This could not be simpler,” Woods tweeted. “Absolutely, do not confirm an #Obama SCOTUS nominee. Don’t discuss it; just ignore him, as he does the law.”
This could not be simpler.

Ignore Celebrity Opinions.

Even when they appear to agree with you,

You have nothing to win,  and a great deal to lose, when they turn on you after you embrace them.

Wednesday, March 02, 2016

Hiatus

Geek Blogging will be sparse, terse, and mis-spelled for a while.


I tripped over the doorsill and fell hard on my patio early this morning, busted a nasty gash in the heel of my hand.  Ten stitches and a splint on my hand from the Emergency Room later, I'm typing with one hand for at least until they take the stitches out next week. (No bone or nerve damage, thankfully; the splint is just to protect the stitches.)

If nothing else, it makes me appreciate the obstacles that Clayton Cramer has been dealing with.

If I can handle this crap as well as he has, I will be a much better man in a couple of weeks,
Which should make my readers happy ... both of them!

Silver Lining

This election has been described as a "Shit-fest by more than one blogger, but there is at least one "good thing" you can say about it;

We won't have 'Dopey Joe' hanging like an albatross around our necks any more!


Tuesday, March 01, 2016

"Smart" ideas about "Smart" guns

Exclusive: The “Smart” SetGuns Magazine.com | Guns Magazine.com:
*(David Codrea writes about Politics and Gun Control measures)

Obama wants the next large purchase of firearms for the military to focus on "safe" guns rather than "lethal" guns; not everyone is convinced that this shift in priorities it the best way for our Military to serve their nation.  As David Codrea suggests:

 Depending on who wins the presidency look for this nonsense to be rescinded if a Republican is elected, or expanded with a vengeance if Hillary or Bernie grab the brass ring. If that’s the case, and note this is being written before it’s even determined who the opposing candidates will be, there’s one other option that could be tried: Propose a bill requiring that before “smart guns” can be mandated on gun owners, they must be the exclusive weapons assigned to the presidential Secret Service protective detail.
I think this is a Smart Idea.

Any leader should be willing to expose himself to the same perils and limitations as those people he leads.

That's the leadership principle I was taught when I was in the military as an NCO, and I'm pretty sure that concept is taught in ANY "leadership" school in the nation.

A leader should not ask more of his cadre than he is willing, and able, to do himself.

Obviously, that doesn't necessarily apply at the 'highest levels of government', but if it did then perhaps our Fearless Leaders might pay a little more attention to the peril to which they have exposed their 'underlings' when they impose Draconiam restrictions on the people who are charged with their lives to enforce National policy.

Unfortunately our Dear Leader is more willing to impose restrictions than to protect rights; more prepared to suffer criticism than to suffer consequences; and more of a figure-head than a leader.

Which defines him as less qualified to be a Leader than the lowest Non-Commissioned member of any of our armed services.

As the Clintons had no respect for the Secret Service members who were charged to protect them, to the point of sacrificing them to protect the "National Leadership", some of us had more respect for the working men and women of the Service than we had for their bosses.

On the contrary, Obama seems to have had a very good working relationship wish his Secret Service protection detail.

Which strongly suggests that it's not the Political Party which occupies the White House as much as it is the trash which sometimes infiltrates ... and yes, I am pointing my fingers at the Clintons.

I don't agree with all of our current president's policies, but he seems to be a better person than "The Man From Hope".  And even if the First Lady seems like a food nazi (never mind) she would have to work hard to become the Harridan from Hope.

At least he's not Rich White Trash.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Excuse me?

They’re killing machines - NY Daily News:

Yes, firearms are indeed "Killing Machines".
That's what they were designed to do, and they do so most effectively.
(Name Not Acknowledged) gunned down three and injured at least 14 more with an automatic rifle in Kansas Thursday, blasting away randomly from his car and then in the industrial building where he worked. Just another day in America. 
 This nation cannot awaken from a nightmare: Madmen wield weapons of war to indiscriminately slaughter, in their workplaces, on streets, in movie theaters and in elementary schools.  (Name Not Acknowledged) added to the tally of slaughter as Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis is considering the merits of a wrongful death suit — brought by family members of Sandy Hook Elementary School children and one survivor of that assault. LUPICA: GUN-LOVING GOP HOPEFULS IGNORE KANSAS MASS SHOOTING They are trying to sue Remington, America’s top manufacturer of guns and ammunition in the civilian marketplace, for negligent entrustment in manufacturing AR-15s for purchase and use by ordinary Americans. These assaults rifles are weapons of war.
Excuse me?

In the first place, this idiotic guy was the instrument of senseless slaughter.  Whatever weapon he chose to use was not the instrument .. it was just a tool.  You know, like a hammer (useful for building homes) or a knife (useful for building Dagwood Sandwiches),

Overblown rhetoric, such as this article typifies, are not helpful.  Yes, newspapers (et al) are useful; they keep us informed.

Guns and Knives and Newspapers can have a negative side effect.

When someone deliberately misuses them, every gun/knife/newspaper casts a shadow on every instrument of their ilk, and tangentially on every person who uses said instrument in a responsible manner.

Every armed person is someone just waiting to become a criminal

According to YDR.COM: "Every armed person is someone just waiting to become a criminal":

 In reality, every armed individual is someone just waiting to become a criminal. If you believe so strongly in the Second Amendment, then you should arm yourself with a musket and a flintlock pistol, because that is what the founders had in mind when they established the Constitution.
Oh.

Okay, thank you so very much for clarifying the issue of the "Embarrassing Second Amendment".

I had (foolishly, it seems) thought it had something to do with the  individual right of each (person) to protect his/her person, family and property.   You know, like the First Amendment acknowledged the right of each individual to speak their mind, regardless of how inconvenient and embarrassing those thoughts might be to someone who did not agree with them.

I certainly did not understand that, while the First Amendment still protects the right of free speech regardless of the media (such as television, radio, etc. which did not exist in the 18th century when the constitution was written), the Second Amendment does not protect semi-automatic weapons, "assault rifles", etc. because they did not exist in the 18th century.

Therefore, while everyman may carry a pencil (or an IPOD, or a cell phone, or a pocket camera), he may not carry a 1911 style pistol (for example) because eighteenth century technology RULZ!

It had .. and I'm being entirely candid here ... never occurred to me that the First Amendment Rights were predicated on the CONCEPT of thought, but Second Amendment Rights are predicated on TECHNOLOGY.

Okay, I've got that clear in my mind now.  And I cannot tell you how grateful I am to YDR.COM for clearing up that niggling little difference between the First Amendment to the Constitution and the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The things you can learn from the Internet.

Oops.  Sorry ... they didn't have that Internet thingie in the 18th Century, did they?

Okay, so I guess you're just full of shit.

Never mind.

Fear and Loathing on .. college campus?

COMMENTARY: NRA stifling academic freedom:
The gun lobby has seized on this environment of academic stifling, promoting firearms as the answer to an array of problems on campuses and beyond. Don’t want to get raped? Carry a gun, or it’s your own fault. The best way to prevent an active-shooter situation? Everyone pack heat.
Apparently, the "people" on college campus in South Jersey are not only outraged, but actively revolted by the proposition that students, staff and faculty are now legally 'permitted' to exercise their Second Amendment rights on the grounds of the college campus.

Oh, bad.
Not only bad, but WAY bad!

That conservative forces have long sought to squash dissent and curtail rigorous academic debate on campuses is far from a secret. From the militarization of many campuses, academic repression of faculty, excessive and difficult-to-navigate bureaucracies, limitations on free speech and more, college students, staff and faculty members today face many challenges as they seek to explore, debate and take action on critical and difficult issues.
Huh?  What the HEY??
College instructors, teachers, professors and other academicians no longer feel safe when they are brainwashing  drilling instructing teaching their students in the Next Generation of Progressiveness?  Oh, that's just SO bad!

Texas passed a campus-carry law that is set to take effect on Aug. 1. Already, professors at the University of Houston were told that once the new law is effective, they might want to “be careful discussing sensitive topics,” “drop certain topics from your curriculum,” “ ‘Not go there’ if you sense anger,” “limit students’ access off hours,” “go to appointment-only office hours” and “only meet ‘that student’ in controlled circumstances.”
Oh.  Okay, I get it.

Since students, staff and faculty are now allowed to carry guns on campus, the faculty (the staunch conservators of "Liberal Thought" (and no other) are worried that if they preach a gospel which is not kindly received by their drones students,  said students might respond by shooting their professors!

(Yeah, right.  Like THAT is going to happen! Ammunition is expensive, y'know?  Hammers are cheaper.)

And they (the staff and faculty on South Jersey campuses) are worried that "conservative forces" might "squash dissent and curtail rigorous debate on campuses"?


And "they" (supposedly, the students) might register their dissent by shooting their erudite/liberal/progressive professors?

[Well, I guess that getting SHOT might occasionally have an adverse effect on Progressive brainwashing instruction. But in reality, Progressives are so head-in-the-clouds  clueless, chances are that they would not even notice their colleagues being murdered in the next room.  They are THAT distanced from reality .... and the level of true "intellectual thought" can, as a consequence, go no-where but UP!]


And this is "A Bad Thing"?

Or is this just another version of "... rigorous academic debate ...."?

Kitchen/Heat/Exit strategy?

Frankly, I fail to perceive the problem.

Okay, okay;  it may result in a slight winnowing of the faculty, but still;


 where's the Down Side?


Obama's Parthian Shot at America: HIV

Obama Opens the Border to More STDs | Center for Immigration Studies:

In his first year in office, President Obama lifted an entry ban on foreigners with HIV. In his final year in office he will lift the entry ban on three more sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The president's own Health and Human Services department says this guarantees more infections in the United States, proving once again that immigration is the defining issue for politicians like Obama. Increased immigration trumps all other concerns.
I've left this post to lie fallow for a few days, because (a) I'm just mad as hell, and (b) I'm not sure what I can contribute to the story.

The answer is (c) there's nothing that I can add.  Y'all just gonna have to figure out for yourselves how you feel about this.

Certainly I was not aware that Obama was allowing foreigners with such pernicious infectious diseases to infest our country.

I'm not particularly surprised ... but this is the kind of thing which one tends to reject because

It Can't Possibly Be True!

but it is,

Saturday, February 27, 2016

When It’s OK to Kill

Inside the School Teaching Cops When It’s OK to Kill - Bloomberg Business:

 Forty cops are in a classroom, watching recent footage of protesters in San Francisco denouncing the police. “Your children are ashamed of you,” a black woman in the video tells a black officer, who looks away. “Coward!” others shout. A young demonstrator walks up to a cop and sticks out his middle finger. A female officer trips, and the demonstrators laugh.
The volume is way up, and the cops in the room are leaning back in their chairs, crossing their arms, getting tense. Jim Glennon steps to the front of the room and stops the video. Glennon, 59, spent 29 years as an officer in Lombard, a suburb of Chicago, at one point running county homicide investigations. He’s 6-foot-1, 210 pounds, and has the gravelly voice and bearing of the desk sergeant on the 1980s TV show Hill Street Blues who told cops to “be careful out there” before the squad cars rolled. “Welcome to our world,” Glennon says. “It’s as bad as it’s been since the ’60s and ’70s.”

I spent a few days on Whidbey Island this week, visiting my son and his family.

Said son (aka "The Squid Kid") is a Master at Arms in the U.S. Navy.   He was recently promoted to E6 (Petty Officer Something ... I never was any good at Navy Ratings, but that's the equivalent of Staff Sgt. in the army) and in part my visit was an opportunity to again tell him how proud I am of his hard-earned promotion.

We had a chance on the last day of my visit to chat in private, without his wife and children listening to our conversation.  It was a bit of a letting-down of the hair; shared war stories, and he described many of the training operations he was becoming responsible.  

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

0.83 seconds ... reloads during competition

Nobody is perfect, but we should be perfect; and that's a goal that all of us who compete in shooting sports which reward a fast "first shot A-zone hit" (IPSC, et al) strive to achieve.

And that is the reason why we practice.

Paying attention to your draw technique – Notes from KR:
At 0:07 seconds, the shooter has a full firing grip on the pistol and the support hand is close to the body. That’s good. His support hand is really low on his body though, compared to where it eventually needs to be.
I once spent an afternoon at the range, with an observer running the timer, where I tried to get first-shot A-zone hits at a standard IPSC target at 7 yards in the fastest time possible.

My experience was that when I used the standard two-handed grip, I couldn't get the desired hit in much under 1,5 seconds.  It was only when I quit trying to get the weak hand on the gun that I managed to get a best-time hit in 0.83 seconds.  Once.

The thing is ....  I'm not sure that I was very safe in doing so.  (Which is why I don't recommend this kind of testing; the time may not be impressive to most people, but I felt as if I was "pushing the edge".)

The "Draw Technique" video cited emphasizes safety, and when we compete we should always keep safety as the most important criteria in any shooting-sports criteria.

Most of us don't have the advantage of a slo-mo record of the way we draw, and how/when our finger actually curls onto the trigger.  Trying to beat some kind of arbitrary 'best time" is a good way to find ourselves in an "I JUST****** SHOT MYSELF!" scenario ... and that's obviously not the very best way to learn that we have just put Performance above Safety.
(Thank you, Tex, for performing a public service .. however unintended.)

SO, HOW DO WE SHOOT FAST, SAFELY?
(This section specifically  applies to shooting sports which allow reloads with un-expended magazines, such as USPSA: YMMV):

When it comes to action-shooting competition, the best way to save time on a stage is to minimize the 'time-wasting' activities:

  • Plan reloads; a "standing reload" is the greatest 'time waster' in competition;
  • always reload when the stage requires you to do something else, such as moving to another shooting area or when you are waiting for an appearing target to start moving;
  • If you are competing in a "Limited Capacity" division (eg: Production, Single-stack, Limited 10, etc.) always plan your stage attack so that there is a logical point where you have PLANNED to make a reload ... that reduces your need to think about doing a reload.  A Decision Matrix is something which should have been evaluated, and decided upon, before you start shooting the stage.
  • You can never have too much ammunition, or too many magazines:  In some competitive games, you are allowed to reload when it seems appropriate to you; in other competitive games, you must abide to arbitrary rules which only allow you to reload when you have expended all of the rounds available in your magazine.   In the more 'permissive' games, it's often competitively advantageous to drop a magazine which has remaining rounds because you can do so in 'dead time' and avoid the time-penalty inherent in doing a "standing reload".  The option to reload to competitive advantage is significant.   I won't spend much time discussing forced-reloads, because I think it's even less "practical" than USPSA has become.  Essentially, reload when it is to your advantage.   In a real-life self-defensive situation (where you might typically carry no more than 1 or 2 "extra" magazines) it would be a good idea to retain partially filled magazines; in competition, you may have a LOT more magazines, and so it would may be competitively advantageous to drop partial magazines, 
In a 'real life' situation, you would probably carry no more than 2 or 3 magazines; in that case, it would be exceedingly advantageous to retain partial magazines.

Monday, February 22, 2016

Abortion Rights vs Gun Rights

A recent article at POLITICUSUSA.COM argues that Right To Life Measures conflict with Right to Bear Arms issues.


Gun Owners Need Roe Vs. Wade: HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act),
... a law created under the Clinton Administration, which is an outgrowth of Roe vs. Wade explains the law regarding mentally ill patients and firearms. If a person is ordered by a judge to seek mental health treatment, the person is banned from purchasing a firearm. So, people like: John Hinckley, Jr and Mark David Chapman are banned for life from purchasing firearms. Yet, what of those who were not adjudicated? People who slipped through the cracks or those who are depressed and need medical treatment for mental illness and voluntarily seek treatment on their own free will? They can purchase a firearm legally ...
I can't follow the logic, but it sounds like a "Catch 22" attempt to use Conservative "Right To Life" priorities to simultaneously confound "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" priorities.

As nearly as I can tell, the author assumes that people use the 2nd Amendment to justify killing people, and that conflicts with anti-abortion priorities to protect life.

I may be wrong as hell in my (admittedly cursory) evaluation of this confusing logic.  Or perhaps I'm just too stupid to understand the logic.

But I always thought that there was no conflict between one drive to preserve life (anti-abortion) and another drive to protect live life (self defense, via the 2nd Amendment).

AGAIN ... I accept that I'm either over-simplifying the original argument, or completely mis-understanding it.

My hope is that someone who is better at parsing a complex statement ... which is NOT completely defined in the truncated quote presented here (please go to the original statement for the full text!) will take the time to translate it into "**** FOR DUMMIES" terms.

I'm reluctant to dismiss the argument ... whatever it is.  I suspect that there is a legitimate point being made, but either it is too complex for my immediate understanding or it contains a logical fallacy which I have not identified, or it's all political.


[updated 92/28/16 to correct spelling errors]

She Still Lives!

E.R. Boroughs, in his "John Carter of Mars" series, epitomized the phrase "I STILL LIVE!"

That seems an appropriate tagline for this article.

New Jersey State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat who sponsored a state law which supposedly required that as soon as a "smart gun" was sold ... it would be the only firearm which would be legally sold in NJ ..... is still around, and is insistent that her bill be the "law of the land"; at least in New Jersey.

That was, we all assumed her (political) death knell.
We were wrong.

She's back.  And she brought at least one ape with her this year.

Two new gun control bills hit Christie's desk | POLITICO:
In 2002, James McGreevey signed a law that would have required all guns sold in New Jersey to be equipped with “smart” technology designed to be fired by just one person, using fingerprint scanners, watches or items things intended to verify the owner. But the law has been criticized as holding up the development of the technology. State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat who sponsored that law, has introduced a bill to repeal it — but only if New Jersey gun dealers sell at least one firearm equipped with the technology within three years of it becoming available on the market.
I have a LOT to say about this, but as a personal favor to the four or five folks who actually read this scribbling, I'll resist the urge to drill down for a few thousand words.

However, I will mention that at the time this controversy came to a political head, the ONLY pistol which provided this technological wonder was only available in .22 caliber.  It was only offered by one firearms dealer, and the outrage was so vehement and so widespread that he actually only sold ... none of them.  (Poor guy, I don't know if he's still in business, but he has had his moment in the sun.)

Keep a weather eye out for Loretta Weinberg, though.  She's a crusader, she has a cause, and although I absolutely reject her political stance, I can't help rooting for her to stick to her guns.

uh ... perhaps that was an unfortunate choice of words.
z

SNARK!

Top 10 Gun Headlines You Will Never Read Anywhere But Here:

Oh, yeah.  I'm loving this.  Nice Satire

Sample:

#3 Potential Mass Shooter Drops Gun and Runs after reading "GUN FREE ZONE" sign




What's the difference between IPhone Security and Firearms Security?

Forget iPhones, let's require passcodes on guns - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram:

Why is it a 6-year-old child can pick up an iPhone and be prevented from accessing its contents because of a passcode, but that same child can pick up a gun and shoot his 3-year-old brother in the face and kill him by accident? If a judge can order Apple to create software that can unlock phones that are now impenetrable, why can’t Congress order gun makers to lock their guns?
Where do we start?

(1) A child should not initiate a fatal firearms accident ... parental responsibility.   Does it sound too simplistic to suggest that cell phones and firearms should not be subject to the same security protocols?   If you own a firearm and your minor child has access, the consequences are YOUR fault!

(2) "Passcodes" are intended for access restrictions of electronic devices; they are not intended for access restrictions for defense firearms.  ANY protocol which delays immediate access to a defensive firearm cripples the 'defensive' capability of a firearm.  Good people die when artificial restrictions cripple an honest citizen's access to a defensive weapon.  Cell phones .... not so much.

(3) The role of Congress is to uphold and defend the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment.  Too often the Liberals think that the job of Congress is to enact "feel-good" laws.  There is a technical term to describe people who conflate personal physical security with cell-phone security.  That technical term is "IDIOTS!"

(4) The job of legislation is to protect private rights, not to limit them.

Friday, February 19, 2016

USPSA "Provisional" class": Pistol Caliber Carbine?

There has been some talk about adding a new (provisional) USPSA competition division:

Pistol Caliber Carbine

well ... actually, there has been very little talk about this at all!

Pistol Caliber Carbine - USPSA


WHY should we do this?

I don't know why we should add another Division ... I'm under the impression that this is a "provisional" Division,  but nobody is talking about it.  Well .. except me, and I do think we should talk about it.

Because I think it sounds like fun.

Let's face it, when Col. Jeff Cooper gave up his presidency of USPSA  in 1997 because he considered it to be "no longer even vaguely practical", the doors swung open and we can play any games we want to.

(If we really want to.)


And I'm only talking about it now because I spent thousands of dollars (that's a lie .. it was more like a dollar two-ninety-eight) to buy a mech tech caliber conversion unit from The Hobo Brasser where my 1911 would slide into a carbine barreled action with a rifle stock and it would turn into a carbine.

Which I discovered was REALLY FUN to shoot!
(okay, it currently has an electronic dot-sight, which complicates the equation, but ... we'll talk about that, too.)

My 1911 works quite well in this framework, although I've discovered that I need to load my .45acp ammunition to a bit higher power-factor to make the much heavier action work reliably.  Okay, that's talking point #1.

What are the other talking points?


Wow!  Assuming that the Division might be approved by USPSA, there are some basic questions that need to be discussed.  For example:


  1. What is the starting position?
  2. Can the Carbine legitimately compete against other divisions for "Over All" scores?
  3. Sights?
  4. Magazine Capacity?
  5. Can it fold into "Open Division"?


Looking at each question:

1. Starting Position could obviously NOT be "pistol holstered".  It would have to be the "Low Ready" position (default for 3-gun?) or something that looks like "laying flat on the table ... " etc.
2. Over all scores (if the division were truly accepted only as a 'provisional' division) might not be affected by inclusion of Pistol Caliber Carbine.   Or should it?
3. Sights?  Most people (all three of them?) would probably choose to use an optical sight rather than an iron sight, if only because since this division would obviously be a "Red-headed Stepchild" Division, you might as well spend an extra couple hundred bucks and get a Red-Dot Sight to go with your "Red-headed Stepchild"   BUT perhaps some people would prefer to shoot with iron sights?  I don't know why, so I'm going to assume that SIGHTS would not be the basis for initiating a subdivision.  Use whatever you have, no limit on sight configurations.
4. Magazine Capacity:  One assumes that (since current production of this Bastard Division only accommodates 1911 single-stack and Glock pistols .. which might change) this would require a division sub-genre with "limited" (10-round or less, as in Single-Stack frames) or "open" as when a Glock 19, for example, offers a 19-round magazine capacity).  So we're talking about 2 sub divisions based only on magazine capacity.  But this is not, really, necessary. Use whatever you have, no limit on magazine capacity.
5.  Fold into "Open Division"?  Why would we want to do that?  We've  (0kay .. *I* have) already arbitrarily proclaimed that magazine capacity and sights don't necessarily need to be included into the Division specification.  If you look at the mech-tech webpage, you'll see that there are more options than were available when I bought my version a decade ago.  Which, in my mind, makes the question even more appealing!

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

KSTG VS "iT'S a GAME, FOLKS!"

Gamer, Timmy, Neither or Both? – Gun Nuts Media:
When, oh when, do you wear the IDPA vest out in public? Who’s the gamer????
Okay, I admit it.  This article is comparing IDPA vs USPSA (IPSC), and thanks a whole lot to Gun Nuts for opening the subject for discussion.  Because IDPA is like the Spinach Rules of Pistol Competition; I've never tried it, but it smells yucky, so I've decided I don't like it and probably never WILL try it.

Back in a previous millenia, when IDPA first entered the competitive shooting scene, I thought:
"Wow!  Another pistol shooting venue!  What a gas .. I can DO this!!!"

Then I got a link to the rules, and I saw restrictions which, frankly, turned me off.
(International Defensive Pistol Association rules here)

"Failure To Do Right" was the first thing that attracted my attention.  WTF does that mean?
I don't know yet, but apparently if you 'game' a stage, and engage a stage in a manner which doesn't violate the published stage procedures but still provides you a significant competitive advantage over other competitors who didn't perceive the flaw in the stage design ... you might just be a Gamer.

And that's A Bad Thing.

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

TEOTWAWKI?

Hillary Clinton: Racism Behind GOP Push to Block Obama Supreme Court Nominee - The Daily Beast:
Clinton, speaking to an incredibly supportive audience in her home state, suggested that Republican opposition to President Obama’s plan to appoint a Supreme Court justice to take the late Antonin Scalia’s seat is predicated on the inherent racism that has made Obama the enemy for the past seven years of his administration.
So, "Liberal" is the new "Black"?



Saturday, February 13, 2016

More Guns Linked to More Mass Shootings? NO redeeming factors? Hah!

Study: More Guns Linked to More Mass Shootings | RealClearScience:
(February 02, 2016)
After peaking in the 1980s and early 1990s, crime has plummeted in the United States. The rates of forcible rape, murder, violent crime, property crime, and aggravated assault are currently as low as they were in the 1960s.
Some studies have suggested strongly that this reduction in crime can be directly tied to the increase in the number of states which allow concealed carry (and often "open carry" ... where firearms are NOT concealed but in open view ... predominately in holsters) by private citizens.  

("Correlation does not imply causation", but the author of this article uses the word "relationship" in the discussion.   Based on that synchronicity,  it seems reasonable to suggest that some 'relationship' exists between the statistics on violent crime and the increased presence of 'carried' firearms.)
 While these statistics demonstrate that Americans are about as safe from crime as they have been in over a half-century, there is a particularly horrendous type of crime that has been alarmingly on the uptick: public mass shootings. In places like San Bernadino, California, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Roseburg, Oregon, Charleston, South Carolina, and Newtown, Connecticut, innocents have been mercilessly gunned down in great numbers.
However, other studies , such as the Texas A&M study reported here dispute that assumption:
According to the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, crime, and specifically violent crime, has been decreasing nationally since 1993, with a similar decline in other Western nations. Some commentators claim the decline in the United States is attributed to the increase in concealed carry legislation. But criminologists point to a variety of factors that have lead to the drop in crime, including changes in policing, punishment, crime prevention technology and socio-economic factors.
The Texas Tribune article, quoting state Rep. Garnet Coleman, a Houston Democrat who chairs the House County Affairs Committee, which tackles criminal justice issues asserts that:
“People who commit crimes are less likely to go through that background check,” he said.  It’s also unlikely that a concealed handgun license holder would be in the right place at the right time to stop a crime, Coleman said.
That statement seems a little disingenuous.  The purpose of undergoing a background check to acquire a concealed carry permit is specifically to catch criminals ... who don't want to apply for a license to do the illegal actions for which they need guns.  ("Circular Reasoning" is a difficult concept to explain.)

As to the "unlikely" probability that a CHL holder "would 'be in the right place at the right time" is disproved daily in news reports.  For example, John Lott recently described four crimes stopped by civilian handgun carriers in one week in December, 2915.

And  in April of 2015, Lott (author of "More Guns, Less Crime") published an article titled
(Please follow the links from that starting point ... there is a lot of information, including links to published articles.)

This is all background, presented to establish the statistical evidence that firearms ownership DOES have a positive effect on crime prevention, and introducing another opinion on the question whether (civilian) concealed carry provides another approach to crime prevention.

Justice Antonin Scalia, RIP.

Justice Antonin Scalia, RIP.:
The El Paso ABC News affiliate reports, “Catholic Priest Mike Alcuino out of Presidio was called to the ranch and administered Justice Scalia’s last rights just moments ago.” The 79-year-old died in his sleep last night after a day of quail hunting at Cibolo Creek Ranch outside of Marfa, Texas. The Justice did not report feeling ill and retired to his room after dinner. The source, who was traveling with Scalia, told ABC-7 an El Paso priest has been called to Marfa. Scalia was the longest-serving current Justice on the Supreme Court. He was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. Scalia’s death leaves a vacancy on the court. The court can operate with eight justices, but any decisions that result in a 4-4 split among the justices leave the lower court decision unchanged:

UPDATE: Supreme Court Neutrality, RIP: 
But Obama quickly vowed that he would nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court and expected the Senate to confirm his choice.
“I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time,” he said. “There will plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.”
Obama said he took his constitutional responsibilities “seriously.”
“They’re bigger than any one party,” he added. “They’re about our democracy.”

Thursday, February 11, 2016

OMG! I had no IDEA that killing Bambi was morally reprehensible !

The Victims of Gun Violence Politicians Won't Talk About:

In the brewing national discussion on gun violence, the most numerous victims--animals--are left out of the conversation. For every human life taken by a gun, hundreds, if not thousands, of nonhuman lives have also been taken. Yet for these victims, gun control advocates not only erase their deaths, but also actively promote and protect the killings. We fail to label the unnecessary killing of animals as gun violence, and instead we euphemize and romanticize it as "sportsmanship." But hunting is gun violence. A bullet ripping through flesh, puncturing arteries, taking a life is violence no matter the victim's species. And these deaths are far from as clean and easy as often presented





Liberals are SO funny when they get on their moral high-horse.

(Sorry, I imagine the expression "High-Horse" is probably species-ist.  Or whatever.)

I like Vegetarians ... like Bambi,  More tasty, less filling.

(Butterfly not included.  YMMV.)

Meat-eater comments are actively solicited.

COSMO gives us the straight poop about guns and relationships

It's Time To Talk About What Guns Have to Do With Dating:

"So can we talk about your guns?"

Oh dear, it's all about that "CAN WE TALK" thingie, all over again.

Generally speaking, the person who wants to talk about "your guns" is the one who is obsessed by them.  If it's not you ... find another partner.

If it's you ... get a life.

Keep BOTH hands on the steering wheel while driving

Man Dies In I-75 Crash While Allegedly Watching Porn Behind The Wheel, Pantsless  CBS Detroit: DETROIT (CBS Detroit)A new level of distracted driving was reached when a 58-year-old man, allegedly preoccupied by a pornographic movie on his phone, crashed and rolled his vehicle. It happened at about 3:30 a.m. Sunday on the ramp from the Lodge to I-75 in Detroit, Michigan State Police told WWJ 950. Michigan State Police Lt. Mike Shaw said it’s the strangest thing he’s ever encountered on the roadway. “We see people putting on makeup, we see people doing different things as far as hygiene, as far as reading books, it’s almost to the fact there’s so much technology out there a lot of people are more paying attention to what they’re doing other than driving their cars,” Shaw said. Clifford Ray Jones of Detroit was partially ejected through the sunroof when his 1996 Toyota rolled and he was thrown from the vehicle and died.

There's a truly climactic pun here somewhere, but I'm not going to touch it!





Oh, Crap!

Okay, I should have been more ... demure .. in the title.  But still, that's what it's all about.

For no definable reason, I'm listening to NPR this morning.  Okay, it's because nobody else is broadcasting at this hour (does that mean that NPR is really needy?)

Why does nobody else listen to NPR?  Well, at this moment, the guy and gurl are talking about HIS issues with walking his dog.

As in, the dog poops, and he's picking it up in a plastic bag.

I ask you ... is that significant of a political attitude?

Guys I know just .. let the poop lay where it is.  Not THEIR problem!  (Okay, those of us who follow their path may be  discomforted ... but it's indicative of "deal with it" attitudes of Conservative people, so ... mmm okay, it IS MY problem, isn't it?

So, I'm listening to NPR (because that's the only radio station that is on at this time of day) and some of the things they say are .. wow!  just stupid!

Example: the thing I talked about before, withe the guy who walks his dog and picks up the dog-poop in a plastic bag.
Yech!

I'm sure that conservative people are as responsible about their canine pets, but really?

Oh, Crap!

Perhaps I need to spend more time listening to NPR (National Public Radio), but I'm afraid that there is a limit to the degree of nausea that I'm willing to endure.

So .. what's the equanimity between dog shit and NPR?

Oh, pretty much the same thing.  I don't even have to WORK for a punch line this morning.



This is why I don't think "The Shooting Wire" is as worthwhile as it use to be!

Odds and Ends | Shooting Wire:
First, the "internet controversy" du jour: A lot of internet traffic was generated over a snippet of video that apparently depicted an unintended discharge of a firearm, the subject being a nationally known instructor. Immediately the internet peanut gallery began throwing stones. Admittedly, some of the critics have some background – but many have no apparent background. That the object of the exercise had some people making excuses didn't help. Adults in the room – Dave Spaulding and Pat Rogers – noted that people using machines have accidents and that doesn't make them "bad." Attacking people with keyboard vitriol is counterproductive and silly.
You people, those of you who consider yourself to be the intelligentsia of the Firearms Community, make the rest of us look bad.

Really bad.

WTF is this, where you're making excuses for a "professional" who can't keep his booger-hook off the bang-switch?

RICH GRASSI ... In case you were not aware, there are NO excuses for pumping a round down-range without a target.  Holy Christmas, how can you be so forgiving of a major safety fuckup?

You seem to be mildly disappointed, in a very forgiving and gentile manner, that some under-trained and over-reactive bloggers criticize this "ND" incident.

Well, we are are not as cosmopolitan as you are.  To you, it's a 'glitch'.

For some of us .. the experienced and highly trained Range Officers?\
It's a "HOLY FUCKING CHRIST! WHAT THE HELL DID YOU JUST DO?  GET THE F**K OUT OF MY RANGE" moment.

Okay, I may have overstated it, but for me?  I think that anyone who did what this guy did (Can I say "Negligent Discharge" without seeming to be over-reacting?) should be really uncomfortable with his "oopsy", and his friends should NOT be excusing that action which is the WORST THING YOU CAN DO in a competitive environment.

So, there are people who screw up, and they are disqualified from further competition during that match.

On the other hand, there are people who screw up, and they are on the 'buddy list" (not related to a competitive environment), and their friends are all too ready to forgive them.

"Hey, it would have been worse .. the gun might not have been pointed downrange!"

Hey, Asshole .. there could have been someone downrange taping targets.

ANYONE who excuses unsafe gun-handling practices because "nothing bad happened", is not only teaching new shooters the priority of Gun Handling Rules, but is in fact supporting people who fuck up .. when they deserve to be held up as a good example of bad safety practices.

And BTW .. attacking people with a keyboard may seem "SILLY" to you, but some of us do that only because we weren't at the range when this "professional" fucked up, and we couldn't bitch-slap him at the time.

Which he very much deserved.


Oh, and Mister Apologist?

You deserve a Bitch Slap of your own,



Sixties Music: Iron Butterfly

a few days ago I eulogized Signe Tolson, citing "Tobacco Road" as her signature contribution to American musical history.

That was the 1960's version.   The saying goes, if you remember the sixties ... you were never really IN it!

Having never been a member of the drug culture, I have no idea what that means.  But I spent a LOT of time in Bars in the late sixties, and two songs that were ALWAYS on the Juke Box (kids, ask your parents what this means) were "Tobacco Road" and .... one other.

The other song was sometimes either "White Rabbit" or "Somebody To Love";




 Gracie Slick stepped in for Signe and deserves an entire accolade for herself, but honey, you gotta die to get a NUMBER ONE WITH A BULLET on this chart.  (AND yes, I did buy SURREALISTIC PILLOW on

Still ... and I'm going back to the comments section from that original post ... there are some people who just get all cranky about how hard "Hard Rock" should/could be , so the Professor crank up the Way Back Machine for this one ... special ... psychedelic moment.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the unofficial theme song of IPSC:

INNA GADDA DA VIDA, by Iron Butterfly! (All 17 minutes of the Full Version .. play it as background while you surf the net ... I do.)




WHY have I designated this the "unofficial theme song of IPSC?

 Because it takes FOREVER to get through; nobody understands it, but they really like it; and if they don't, they play it once and then they never come back to it.

Trust me on this.


Al Jazeera America objects to Republicans who insist on voter photo IDs

Republicans Champion Voter ID Laws | Al Jazeera America:

Voting rights advocates say that what voter ID laws are really good at is making it more difficult for a particular subset of Americans to vote; primarily low-income black and Latino citizens — groups who tend to vote for Democratic candidates. The relative lack of academic data on voter suppression can make it a difficult argument to prove or dismiss. Voter ID proponents, for example, often point to studies showing an increase in black voter turnout in some states after voter ID laws took effect, while opponents highlight studies in other states that show the opposite result. Perez finds turnout to be an inherently flawed metric.
Has anyone suggested this in Chicago?

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Draft Chicks!

Never Yet Melted  Why Republicans Were Suggesting Women Should Register For the Draft:

Many – I want to say most – men cannot handle the rigors of combat arms jobs, and it is reflected in the wash out rates just in the infantry. The two things the flurry of studies before this stroke-of-a-pen change have proven about women in combat arms are: if the president says women shall graduate Ranger school, then farking wimmin shall farking graduate farking Ranger school, and the standards shall be de facto lowered.
Oh, yeah?

You've been there?

I've between 145 and 125 pounds while I was in the Army, and I was an Infantry platoon sgt.

If the criteria was "could I have carried a wounded man" while I was in Viet Nam, the answer is NO, I could not have done so.

But I did my job, and I never had to carry a wounded man out of a combat situation.  I worked hard to ensure than my men were not needlessly subjected to the vagaries of war .. including wound.

No, I was not always able to protect them from wounds; the few men wounded under my guidance never noticed the balance I had to achieve between caution and aggression.

  No, it was not always an easy job, and no, the troops usually never noticed, let alone acknowledged, the things their Platoon Sergeant did to keep them alive.

If you think that a 125 woman could not have performed her job in the same situation, you're just crazy.  The job of a trooper may be more physical than that of a leader, but competence in a lesser role causes a member to be promoted to a leader role.  
Which is very much more complicated and onerous, but requires less PHYSICAL contribution to the mission.   (Which is why I don't think that Women should be 'shielded' from the Combat branches of the military .. such as Infantry, Artillery, and Cavalry.

(Okay, Artillery has to do mostly with toting heavy shells to the gun; that specifically requires "upper Body Strength", which is gender-specific)

Hello. My name is Johnny CasSSSccccrreeeeech LAWDOG!

One of the most entertaining blogs since Kim De Tuit has resurfaced and I'm pleased to welcome LAWDOG back!

I have been a faithful follower of Brother LAWDOG for several years, but on April 15 of 2015 he just ... quit posting!

Bummer, Dude!

This morning, I found a link to his most recent post

apparently, he resumed posting on February 01, 2015.

The most recent post was February 08, 2015 ... two days ago.

Excuse my unseemly excitement, but I've missed The Dog.

I strongly encourage you to go check out the blog.   Texas lawman, laconic sense of humor, erudite and amusing.

Public attention encourages men who provide sunshine on cloudy days.

What's not to like?

(It has been too long since I was able to use the LAWDOG label on my posts)

"Don't put that on the f*ckin' film, holy shit!"

Uncut Travis Haley Negligent Discharge:
Posted by: ENDO-Mike February 8, 2016

 I was getting tagged dozens of times in a 5 second clip of this video on Instagram.  I had no idea what the context was since the clip was so short, so I gave Travis the benefit of the doubt initially.  In this full video we see him demonstrating pushing his index finger on the magazine release at 1:46 when it slips off and hits the trigger which fires a round off.  Embarrassing?  Sure.  No one died and hopefully he learned from the incident.  What else can a person do right?  I’ve never had an accidental or negligent discharge, but I also don’t handle firearms day in and day out, and manipulate loaded firearms in front of cameras while talking and demonstrating different things.


 TOO MUCH TO SAY .. I don't know where to start!

Okay, here's a place to start:
The only 'safe place" to put your trigger finger when you have no intention to shoot is along the receiver above the trigger group.

When I saw the video and heard "Haley" say he would put his finger inside the trigger guard, but in front of the trigger .. or rest it on the magazine release housing (in front of the trigger) but "put tension on the trigger finger" I knew that was a recipe for disaster.   It made me cringe to watch it.

"Disaster" is defined as ND (Negligent Discharge).

How Police Can Get Around "Open Carry" laws to harass you

Connecticut Carry - Press Releases:
On February 5th, Senior Assistant State's Attorney Timothy Sugrue published a memorandum to the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office detailing first what everyone in Connecticut should already know: The unconcealed carry of a firearm with a valid Permit to Carry Pistols or Revolvers is 100% lawful, and that police cannot stop a person carrying a firearm unconcealed (Open Carry) to demand their permit absent Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a crime.
Here's the link to that "memorandum".

Tuesday, February 09, 2016

Up In Arms

PART 01:
The question is whether a Methodist college should sponsor a "shooting program".  The Alumni are "up in arms" because they believe that a religious institutions should not promote any activity which involves guns.

(H/T: The Gun Feed)

While it's not clear what kind of 'shooting sports program' is involved, it seems reasonable to assume that this is a .22 caliber rifle/smallbore/bullseye target competition activity.

In a word, it's similar to throwing darts in a pub.
Oh, wait; that would also be contrary to religious priorities.

PART 02:
"It's clear that the students don't want guns on campus, the faculty don't want guns on campus, the parents of students don't want guns on campus and the we feel the majority of Kansas doesn't want this either," says Meagen Youngdahl with the Kansas Coalition for a Gun-Free Campus.
Oh.  That's okay, then.  If students, faculty, parents AND "Kansas" are all agreed that they don't want guns on campus, the solution is simple, and obvious:
Don't bring a gun on campus.
See how easy that was?
Now, if you can only convince that wild-eyed 18-year-old maniac with a stolen gun that he shouldn't shoot up your campus, there should no problem.

(PS:  You might consider sending an email to ISIS ... you know, those guys with that 'other' religious view ... telling them that they can not bring guns on campus, either.  That should solve THAT problem.)

Monday, February 08, 2016

Hoplophobia: "Blue Steel"

Hoplophobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Hoplophobia is a political neologism coined by retired American military officer Jeff Cooper as a pejorative to describe an "irrational aversion to weapons." It is also used to describe the "fear of firearms"or the "fear of armed citizens." Hoplophobia is a political term and not a recognized medical phobia.
I've been talking about people with an irrational fear of guns, and the people who own guns, for years no.  (Actually, for decades; I started talking about them in 1984 .. which seems appropriate).
But I have never rarely used the term.

Recent articles which I have published addressed this cultural dichotomy in specific situations, but never referenced the word.

I'll be using this as a label on future articles, where appropriate, because it's a much more accurate term than those which I have most often used (such as "Gun Control").

I may, time permitting, go back to recent articles and attach that label to those articles which discuss people who area vehemently against private ownership of firearms because "guns kill people".

The best example of this that I can think of off-hand is the jamie lee curtis/ron silver movie "Blue Steel", where Ron Silver's character finds a revolver and becomes obsessed with shooting people ... merely because he has a gun, and because it empowers his latent psycho tendencies. (you can watch the movie on youtube)

Because they don't trust ANYBODY, that's why: Double Think v. Cognitive Dissonance

Newtown group seeks city-wide ban on carrying guns in businesses:
February 07, 2016
The Newtown Action Alliance, a gun control group based in Connecticut, has sent a letter to all of their local businesses requesting that they make their properties gun free zones, and not allow firearms to be carried on their premises. 
As is typical of all gun-control activists, this group does not believe that anyone can possibly justify being armed in public places.

Why? Because guns kill people.

These people would rather depend on their local sheriff to defend the public than anyone with a concealed carry license.  Because they trust the sheriff, but they don't trust armed civilians.

The problem is, these Newtown folks (and others with the same mindset) find themselves unable or unwilling to accept the "vetting" process by which their local sheriff determines that specific Concealed Carry License holders are legally determined to be a minimal threat to the community.

Which is to say, they trust their local sheriff to rescue them when they are threatened, but they do not trust their local sheriff to reliably identify and approve non-LEOs to possess the means to defend themselves (and others) when 'the police are just minutes away'.

There are two psychological term for this: the first is Cognitive Dissonance

Sunday, February 07, 2016

Brits: Still Crazy, After All These Years

Bang, bang -- democracy’s dead: Obama and the politics of gun control | OUPblog:
Don't you love it when the Brits criticize the Colonists for liking guns too much?

And now here's a British Academic suggesting that what we REALLY NEED is a "Benevolent Dictator"!  Damn Brits, they still want to tell us how to live.

Would that be, like, a King?  You know, a Ruling Monarch, like you guys have.  Y'all would love that, wouldn't you?  Someone who could just wave his pen and his cell phone and declare that the  Constitution was so much shit.  (Okay, I'm getting a little scared now.)

Maybe there is a residual resentment that Americans are free citizens, rather than 'subjects', and as such we get to decide for ourselves how we want to live.  (See: "Constitution" which applies to all American citizens vs "Magna Carta" which applies to English Nobelmen.)

Those goofy Brits, they're still pissed about that whole Concord/Lexington kerfuffle where they got their ass handed to them when they tried to take guns away from Americans.   Remember that time where they resented the American Independence Movement so they tried to resolve the issue using GUNS?

Didn't work out all that well for you, did  it?   And you're STILL trying to tell us how to live.

In some ways American gun control has regressed rather than progressed in recent years as the federal ban on military assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that existed between 1994-2004 has not been renewed by Congress. But it’s too easy to exaggerate the threats or to ridicule gun toting Americans but the reality is far more sad: most deaths occur from guns being used to commit suicide, or are found by children and toddlers who mistake them for toys with devastating effects. When it comes to gun control and American politics then maybe – just maybe – could there be a case for a benevolent dictator who understands that the ballot and bullets, just like guns and safety, just don’t mix?

(The Brits have always taken the Moral High Ground when it comes to firearms.  Well, after WWII, when we shipped a shitload of GUNS to them when they were in danger of being over-run by the Krauts; and then when that wasn't enough we came over and did their dirty work for them?  They resented us.     We saved their ass, and they never forgave us for that.)  

Oh crap, these same guys (The Brits) who wanted to kill Americans 300 years ago because we were too damned INDEPENDENT  have never forgiven us for our .. uh ... independence.  But today, they seem to have finally accepted that they are never going to dominate us politically, or militarily, so they're going to smash us by Speaking Ill Of Us!

So much for us ...

... but what about THEM?

"TIME" gets it wrong again .. as usual.

The Historical Problem With the Word ‘Militia’ | TIME:

But militias have historically been in service to the American government, not aligned against it. In trading on the language of militias, the Bundy group camouflages what it really is: an armed gang attempting to pervert history.
No.

"Militias", and other similar groups ("ref: "Minute Men"), have NEVER " ... been in service to the American Government".

They have been, historically, in service to the American People.

After more than 200 years, we are only a heartbeat away from being "an Independent People" rather than "Subjects To The Crown".

"The Government" is not necessarily "the American People", and it is difficult to understand why a respected  media outlet would make such a fundamental error .. unless it has an agenda which is contrary to the rights of "The People".

Which Time Magazine clearly represents.

(Assume 3,000 word essay describing the difference between "The Government" and "The People", and also Time Magazine .. to which I once subscribed before I realized it was a huge malodorous pile of bovine excreta.)

Shooting Culture: "Sometimes, you just need to shoot out of the box"

Competition shooting isn't just about "Hitting the A-zone"; sometimes it's about the friends you make.    Nobody talks about that any more.

I teach a monthly class (club sponsored) in "Introduction to USPSA".   My only criteria in accepting new students is that they have previous experience in handgun shooting, and that they care enough about receiving training to actually spend an afternoon in the class.  There is no charge for the class, I present the training just to encourage new shooters (or, sometimes, to discourage those who have neither the basic experience or skills to safely handle a pistol).   The class is advertised as "an ADVANCED class, and students who cannot perform basic gun-handling skills will not successfully complete the course".

SOMEBODY needs to evaluate the two-part skills sets of "new shooters":
(1) basic gun-handling expertise
(2) 'advanced' gun-handling under the stress of time factors

This is essentially a method of allowing shooters to experience "stressful" competition situations, so they can decide for themselves whether they should enter the competition pistol milieu.   It's sufficiently rigorous so that people who can't learn ... are discouraged.  (Not by me, but by their own experience in a setting which loosely parallels the competition environment which they have decided to "try out").

 Those who can learn are encouraged, because they advance their skills sets in a single afternoon of shooting.

Those who cannot learn usually never come back, because they have proved to themselves that they either need to get more training, or they just don't care enough about competitive pistol shooting to learn the skill sets needed to perform competitively.

Fifty percent of my students do not, historically, ever attempt to shoot in a match.
Fifty percent of those who do participate in competition never come back to shoot a second match.

Some of those who pass those two informal "filters" decide that they have learned what they need to know, but they are not really interested in competition.  

A small minority of people who take this class go on to compete, and may or may not continue for more than a couple of matches.

But the people who do come back are hooked for life.  And they learn more every time they shoot a match.

I've said most of that before, but for this month's class I was joined by my shooting-buddy "The Hobo Brasser" who volunteered to help me in the class.   He was not rewarded by the club for his contribution (he's not a member of the same gun club) but he just wanted to get some trigger time in, and this seemed like a good opportunity to shoot without having to pay match fees.