... AND YOU CAN BELIEVE AS MUCH OF THIS AS YOU WISH

Anyone falsely portraying this gun control debate is 'trying to sell you something':

“There is a very specific type of gun that we want banned – none of them,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign. “All we are trying to do is keep guns out of the hands of people we all agree that shouldn’t have them. Whether you love or hate guns, you agree that a convicted violent criminal, domestic abuser, someone who is dangerously mentally ill, or a would-be terrorist should not be able to get their hands on guns.”

Hillary Clinton at DNC 2016 on 2nd Amendment: I'm not here to take away your guns | AL.com:

 Hillary Clinton told delegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention she had no interest in taking away anyone's guns but didn't want others to be a victim of firearm violence. Speaking in Philadelphia, Clinton said: "I'm not here to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I'm not here to take away your guns.

ATF HEAD: Our Job Is Not To Take Away People's Guns

In his first television interview, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Deputy Director, Head Thomas Brandon tells CBS' "Sunday Morning" that the agency's job is not to take away firearms from people, but to regulate weapons that can be misused.

"We're a small agency with a big job," Brandon tells correspondent Richard Schlesinger, in an interview to be broadcast Sunday, July 31.

Brandon also says his agency is hampered by not having the necessary technology. Congress has imposed constraints on ATF, such as prohibiting the agency from creating a computerized database of gun purchases.

Comment on this last:

Tommy, Sweetie ...  We believe you, really.

Actually, we don't.

We don't want you to database our purchases.  Can you guess why?

Because that is the backbone of registration, and registration leads to confiscation

I have a very specific instance to illustrate exactly WHY American Riflemen (gun owners) don't believe the lies of politicians.

I call it ....

The Locklear Subjugation:

I've written about this many times before.

In the late 1990's California Attorney General Bill Locklear published a 'finding' that the SKS rifle was a legal firearm, but required only that they be registered.

After honest, law-abiding citizens owning an SKS rifle registered their guns, Locklear performed an about-face and declared (arbitrarily, and without justification) that SKS rifles were NOT a legal rifle, and required that all SKS rifles be confiscated.

It's not so much  that the guns were confiscated; it's that a 'trusted public servant' took advantage of our trust, and then betrayed us

Those of us who are legal gun owners have since been reluctant to accept the assurance of politicians that we have nothing to fear from registration.   Locklear may have done more harm than good by his underhanded, pusillanimous, arbitrary mismanagement of office.  He had, in a single stroke of the pen, done more to undermine the American Rifleman's faith in his government than any other single official.

And his legacy lives on.

No American will ever again trust any politician who suggests that 'registration' is nothing more than a technicality.

Registration has been proven to be the first step toward confiscation, and nothing that any mere politician -spit- may ever say again in favor of registration will be believed.

And as for Locklear:  may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his scrotum.

(h/t: gunfeed,com)

Good News/Bad News for lawful firearms owners

New evidence confirms what gun rights advocates have said for a long time about crime - The Washington Post:

Lawful gun owners commit less than a fifth of all gun crimes, according to a novel analysis released this week by the University of Pittsburgh.

Surprising analysis from the Washington Post!

There are a few 'poisoned bullets' hidden within the editorial:

In the study, led by epidemiologist Anthony Fabio of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, researchers partnered with the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police to trace the origins of all 893 firearms that police recovered from crime scenes in the year 2008.

.. but it's YOUR fault, because you own (owned) a gun and it ws used in a crime.  You are automatically suspect.

More than 30 percent of the guns that ended up at crime scenes had been stolen, according to Fabio's research. But more than 40 percent of those stolen guns weren't reported by the owners as stolen until after police contacted them when the gun was used in a crime.

So, because your gun was stolen, and you didn't realize it (as the author offers in amelioration), you MAY NOT have reported it as stolen.   So you are now a suspect in a crime which may be much more serious that burglary.

"We have a lot of people with a lot of guns," Fabio said, referencing statistics on the large number of guns in circulation, "And some of them aren't keeping track of them for different reasons — maybe because they have a lot of them and they don't use them that often."

All of this brings us down to the recent plethora of state laws which require firearms owners to report lost or stolen guns within (a variable amount of time) or face prosecution.

There are anomolies, as in the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooter who murdered his mother in order that he could steal her guns from her gun safe.   And then murder children and teachers.   So it's easy to understand why The State would want people to report stolen guns 'promptly'.

(Nancy Lanza was not charged with failing to report a gun theft; well, she was dead.)

First, because Law Enforcement people can be aware that a firearm used during a crime is not necessarily one used by the original owner to commit a crime.

Second, because if a firearm is recovered at the scene of a crime and traced back to the original owner, if that owner says "oh, yeah .. that was stolen from me MONTHS ago!" ... the police can say: "uh huh, and why did you not report it???"  (And you are put on the top of the suspects list.)

Third, because as soon as a firearms owner reports a stolen gun, the information that this person owns a gun (and may own more guns) is part of the information police want to know when they investigate an possibly-non-related crime.  As in:   "we can't have a firearms registry, but this is an "indicator" that we can treat you as a suspect person and a possible hazardous contact".

(Just because we're paranoid, that doesn't mean that we're not a target.)

Nobody Wants To Take Away Your Guns! (Except for the dangerous ones)

We've been hearing a lot about the media-inspired (and vaguely defined) "Assault Rifles".

In an attempt to accelerate the daily "Two Minutes Hate", gun-grabbers and the media have introduced a new term:
"High-powered rifles".

... gun control advocates from the West Coast are banding together to call for a 10-bullet magazine restriction and a ban on all high-powered rifles they call assault weapons. 

[emphasis added, click on the link]
OOoooooo ... scary!

But while the term "High-powered rifles" may scare little girls, it's suggestive of "Another Gun Ban Movement" ... which might be scarifying to little old men.

In truth, the Left, the 'Anti-Gunners' and other media whores are becoming more adept at inventing new political platforms from which they can attack The Embarassing Second Amendment.

As usual, there is no definition to the term.  In my home state, it was illegal illegal to hunt deer with a caliber less than .25* (which has since been changed in the game laws).

Now that the .223 and the .22-250, etc. are legal to hunt 'big game', does that mean that every deer rifle in America will be confiscated by the Gun Haters?

Well, that does seem to be the trend.

But remember: "Nobody Wants To Take Away Your GUNS!"

Just the dangerous ones.

Oh, and if you have a moment, see the under-the bar parts: 310

Trey Gowdy speaks to the NRA

(July 15, 2016)
He's a brilliant oratorian, and as such he's a bit frightening as he is gathering power along with his popularity.

There's a youtube channel here.

Jack Reacher #2

Tom Cruise is not believable in this role.



He talks too much.

And he's too small, in too many ways.

I'll see the move when it comes out on DVD... in about three weeks.

Murder in Munich

Gunman in Munich Kills 9, Then Himself, the Police Say - The New York Times:

MUNICH — A gunman opened fire outside a shopping mall in Munich late on Friday afternoon, killing nine people, wounding 21 and sending Germany’s third-largest city into lockdown as the police scrambled to find what they initially thought were as many as three assailants. By early Saturday, the authorities said the attack was probably the work of a single gunman, an 18-year-old German of Iranian descent who they said held both German and Iranian citizenship. The body of the presumed gunman, whose name was not immediately made public, was found less than a mile from the mall with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, officials said.

And what about this report is surprising?

It is formulaic( to coin a phrase) and not significantly different from other Murderous European Events.

The only thing which would make this report "newsworthy" would be if there was an armed person present who would take action to stop the carnage .. instead of a (ho hum) just another time when some jerk-off  decides to invade a NO GUNS ALLOWED public forum for the sole purpose of demonstrating that if guns are not legally allowed there, people with guns and with an intend to perform mayhem will TARGET THOSE VENUES!

Frankly, I'm only amazed that the Europeans haven't figured out that a NO GUN ZONE is an asshole-magnet.

Well, that might be implying that Europeans are ... no, I won't go there.

But you may.





x
x

We Get The Government Which We Deserve

A couple of days ago I posted an opinion (Oh, This Is So Lame!) which generated a contrary opinion.

How sweet it is!

It's a rare event when readers comments are quite so interesting.

My thesis was that IF "Bengazi operatives would leave the military if Hillary was elected" ... they would be total wus.

I expected some controversy, but what was received was not at all what I thought I might find.

Here's the most interesting response:
Anonymous said...

In line with what the Geek said. Hillary might not make the most ideal president; however, if she is elected it will show the democratic process works and a majority of the American people supported her. Those of us who might not have voted for her or supported her will have to fall in line and obey her. After all she will be the historic first female president. We might disagree with her policies, but we must respect her office and the process which put her there.

July 21, 2016 6:18 AM

I am yet unsure whether that was heart-felt, or political rhetoric, or an attempt to generate a response.
Whatever the genesis, I appreciate the opportunity to counter-argue.

And this has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bengassi, nor military professionals .. but something to do with National Pride.

In America, we support (with money) people who CAN WORK, but who WILL NOT WORK .... and we congratulate ourselves for our sense of social  responsibility!

(That's nothing unique about America, but it's interesting that we have moved toward the European Plan!)

CONSERVATISM:
Personal: As I am of an age when I found it better to gracefully retire, rather than to continue working at increasingly unproductive tasks, I retired a few years ago after having contributed to the economy for over 50 years.  I live on my small social social security earnings, and have not yet accessed my much more renumerative pension plan (to which I have contributed for decades).

I'm old, and not as competent in the chosen profession as I once was; I found it better to retire, than to continue working at a job in which I could not perform to my preferable level of competence.

This makes me look like a sucker on the social teat; I admit that.  But still, I have small respect for those who can work, but will not, because they do not feel the need to be productive.

Hillary (and other Liberals) support these non-productive, but able-to-work people because Liberals know that they will vote for any politicians who will vote for free benefits .. earned or not.

Back to the comment from a viewer:

Hillary might not make the most ideal president; however, if she is elected it will show the democratic process works and a majority of the American people supported her. Those of us who might not have voted for her or supported her will have to fall in line and obey her. After all she will be the historic first female president. We might disagree with her policies, but we must respect her office and the process which put her there.

I reject this comment on many levels, and I suspect that the commenter offered the thought because he intended to elicit a comment; I will not disappoint him.

Fisking the comment:

Hillary might not make the most ideal president; however, if she is elected it will show the democratic process works and a majority of the American people supported her.

No.
Americans vote for the people who best represent their own, private priorities.  A vote for a Liberal Democrat is not necessarily a vote for the candidate; rather, it is a vote for that candidate's policies.

A vote for Hillary Clinton may very well be a vote for the (Liberal) federal policy of providing free money for unproductive voters.  As it is much easier to be unproductive, than to be productive, there is a large voter turnout who will always vote for Free Money.

Alexis de Tourquiville predicted this three centuries ago

Men in general are neither very good nor very bad, but mediocre... Man with his vices, his weaknesses, his virtues, this confused medley of good and ill, high and low, goodness and depravity, is yet, take him all in all, the object on earth most worthy of study, of interest, of pity, of attachment and of admiration. And since we haven't got angels, we can attach ourselves to nothing greater and more worthy of our devotion than our own kind.

We were not surprised when this philosophy was embraced by our European Friends, but we have not noticed yet that we have embraced it in our own country.

We cannot, in good conscience, condemn our fellow man because he has decided to take advantage of A Free Ride.  (Well, we me WANT to call him a slacker, but that's not fair to slackers.)

The Sick, The Lame, and The Lazy

We have always coddled, supported, and accepted the Sick and the Lame.

We know that they cannot always contribute to the National Good.

But The Lazy ... they are a pestule to the National Good.

They do not produce, nor do they contribute.    They require productive people to contribute to their continued benefit, even though they do not seem willing to provide to their own sustenance.

The worst, though, is that while they don't support themselves .. yet they can vote.

They vote for any measure, any bill, any law which supports their canker on the public good.

The Democrats think this is a wonderful thing; they love the lazy voter, because the lazy voter will invariably vote for any measure which supports The Public dole ... no matter how obscure it may be, the "Lazy Vote" will make the differnce between encouraging people to fend for themselves, think of the best for all people ... as opposed for any measure which will encourage people to vote for The Common Good.

A bill which supports freedom?  Vote it down!
A bill which supports the rights of the Individual?  If there's not a 'Welfare Rider', it will not be supported.

A bill which supports the Lazy Voter?  Vote for it now, and always~

We have become a nation which is ruled by the Lazy Voter ... the person who benefits best from the Public Dole.

Alexis was right:   If there is a way in which the "mediocre many" may benefit, that is a law which  will pass.  It matters not whether it supports 'the public good', as long as it supports mediocrity .. it will pass.  Because free men will ALWAYS vote for mediocrity.

And that's the way it is.



Alexis_de_Tocqueville

Oh, this is SO lame!

Benghazi Vet Special Ops Will Quit If Clinton Is Elected | The Daily Caller:

 The best and brightest of the U.S. military and special operations community will quit if Hillary Clinton gets elected president, according to Benghazi survivor and former CIA operative John “Tig” Tiegen.

Am I the only one who remembers all of the Liberal movie stars who threatened to leave America if George W. Bush was elected president?
(They didn't ... and you won't; so you have just put yourself in a very small, very 'special' group of people who deserve no respect.)

I can't believe that now we have (supposedly adult) Conservatives OPERATORS doing the "WAA WAA I'M A BIG BABY WAA WAA" dance.

I guess that the 'operators' now consider themselves the liminaries of the Conservative movement, much as the Movie Stars slide into the same slot for the Libearls.

There is a great silence in muddville tonight, as our stone-cold heroes reveal their feet of clay.

This makes the "Black Socks Scandal" look like a walk in the park.

Mighty Casey Has Struck Out.

I have NO respect for military personnel who let petty political crap dissuade them from their sworn duty.  If you're among those "best and brightest" who don't have the intestinal fortitude to "shut up and soldier" when the politics go against you, then ... go ahead.  Quit.   We don't need you.

If you're not willing to abide your sworn oath to defend your country against " ... all enemies, foreign and domestic ..."  we don't need you.

If you would leave your wounded buddy on the field, while you retreat, then they don't need you.

If you have so little devotion to duty, and you were in my platoon, I would have put you on point.
You have no greater value to your fellow soldiers than to trip a booby-trap ("IED" in current parlance) which might otherwise have taken out a better man.

Here's a very special Military Acronym which just suits Quiters:    FOAD!

Oh, and by the way: you have just made millions of Liberal Wimps feel privileged to look DOWN on you.  And you deserve their condescension.

They are BETTER than you; at least they know they are cowards.

BACKGROUND:

What's in YOUR Range Bag? Is it enough?

Emergency On The Range: Are You Prepared? - The Firearm Blog:

My friend was at a USPSA match last Sunday when the worst case scenario happened. Someone got shot. From what I hear, the match has concrete dividers for the bays. Supposedly a projectile managed to go inbetween a crack between the concrete blocks used as dividers. A shooter was down range in one bay, pasting targets, while another shooter in the bay next door was shooting his stage.

I've been competing in USPSA (IPSC) matches since 1983, and I've never seen anyone suffer from any injury more damaging  than 'road rash' (when a running gunner falls down on pea-gravel), until a young shooter was faster on the trigger than he was on the draw about 6 years ago.

In that case, the gun "went off" as he was recovering from a prone start position and drawing his open gun; his first shot was faster than his draw.  The bullet hit a bunch of keys in his pocket, driving one into his leg.  His father drove him to the doctor for a treatment and a bandage, and they were back before the match ended.  It was a self-inflicted injury, and while we were all horrified to hear of it, the consequences were not as bad as they might have been.

In this section, nobody has (to my knowledge) since designed a stage with a prone starting position.   Bad JuJu!

So this is the first actual "Somebody Got Shot" incident I've heard about at an IPSC match.   And I have to say: it had to happen sometime, but I'm sorry it did.

And the problem, apparently, was due to poor range construction and poor stage design, which means it was preventable.   We probably definitely need to learn from this.

But when injuries are not prevented ... what can we do to minimize the outcome?

A couple of years ago, I started to expand my "First Aid Kit" which I carry in my range bag at matches.

At first it was just band-aids, ibuproven, and disinfectant (hydrogen peroxide, with some isopropyl alcohol as a backup, in my car).

Then I added some gauze, medical tape, petroleum jelly and cotton padding. When you have serious Road Rash, you need to clean the injury, remove foreign particles (tweezers!), and protect the wound.

Lately, I have added not one but THREE First Aid Kits which I keep in the "Go To" box in my car.  I'm 3 minutes away from semi-serious medical 'stuff', but it's not enough.

Next on my shopping list is WoundSeal .. which encourages rapid clotting and 'stops bleeding' (for certain values of  'stops bleeding'.)   I'm not certain, however, that this is The Real Deal, so if anyone has information about a better product, such as First Respondents/Medic might use and which is available for private citizens, I'm be grateful.

I think that ranges which promote competitive shooting should stock up on more advanced wound-treatment supplies, and make them immediately available in every bay on their range.  That's not going to happen, because the ranges where I compete they're semi-public and there's the risk that the first-aid packs which are typically stored in each shooting bay would be robbed by casual shooters.

Since the ranges can't provide adequate first-aid supplies, the responsibility falls upon the people who show up at the matches and HAVE THE TRAINING to know when and how to administer these advanced first-aid supplies and techniques.

For now, I think it's a good idea for every competitive shooter to acquire his own first aid supplies, those chosen to to address the specific problem of being injured by a bullet or a bullet fragment.

Know you have it, make sure that your friends and shooting partners are aware that you have the means to (minimally) stop the bleeding.  Talk it up when you're waiting for your turn to shoot.  Encourage your freinds to stock up on appropriate first aid supplies.

Don't count on the range to take responsibility for accidental wounds; they won't do that.  They can't insure the integrity of any first-aid pack they leave positioned on the individual shooting bays.

It's your job.

Do it.

AXES May Be Hazardous To Your Health

There are two kinds of axes which, if misused, may be hazardous to your health.

The first kind of hazardous axe is physical:

German axe attack on train: Isil claim Afghan refugee who injured four as one of its 'fighters':

Islamic State has claimed an Afghan teenager who attacked passengers on a train in Germany with an axe on Monday night as one of its 'fighters'. Earlier on Tuesday, the interior minister said a hand-drawn Isil flag was found in the room of the 17-year-old, whose attack left three seriously injured. Police shot dead the suspect as he attempted to flee the scene. The assault in Wurzburg was the latest suspected terror attack to shock Europe following the atrocity in Nice last Thursday. 

Terrorists don't need guns to do their dirty work.   Law-abiding citizens need guns to defend against them.

The second kind of hazardous 'axe' is administrative:

Healthy patients to be axed from surgery lists if they don't see GP for five years:

20 JULY 2016 •  A scheme that discriminates against healthy people by axing patients from surgery lists if they have not visited their GP for five years will harm safety, campaigners have warned. Doctors’ and patients’ groups have said the cost-cutting measure also risks leaving elderly and vulnerable people accidently deprived of primary care. NHS England has employed the outsourcing company Capita to begin a process of “list cleansing”, whith [sic]the aim of cutting costs by ensuring accuracy over which patients are using which services.

Socialists don't need guns, either.  They have a pen and a cell phone, and they can do anything they want.   The insidious thing about Socialism is that the participants (citizens/subjects) have put their whole trust .. in effect, they have put their life on the line ...  in 'The System".

But the system is a heartless bitch, and if you live under her aegis, you have few alternatives when she turns her back to you.

It's difficult to determine which kind of 'axe' is more dangerous;  should you trust the terrorist, or should you trust the state?

In an unarmed battle, some people may find it easier to battle against terrorists than The State.
At least a terrorist won't tell you:  "I'm doing this for the general good".

NRA, you got a LOT of 'splaining to do!

In a recent COUNTERPUNCH article, Ken Levy contends that the National Rifle Association is at fault, in part and in whole, for firearms violence in America.

If You Don’t Support Gun Control, Then You Don’t Support the Police:

The NRA and their Republican supporters’ enthusiastic encouragement and passage of lax gun laws and policies over the past 30 years have sadly enabled hundreds of thousands of senseless, needless deaths and injuries. It’s high time, then, that they atone for their destructive influence by renouncing the same old unproductive, callous platitudes and canards and finally getting on board with a sensible multi-pronged approach that includes gun control. In the end, this is really the only way to honor the Baton Rouge and Dallas police officers who were viciously murdered – and to better protect all of the police officers who are still serving.

Ken Levy is the Holt B. Harrison Associate Professor of Law at the Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University.

It will be a fine day when Academics contain their lectures to their classrooms, where they are free to brainwash instruct their mallable students on the canons of Liberalism.

Unfortunately, they often feel obliged to lecture grown-ups as well.  In doing so, they demonstrate their Ivory Tower bigotry and flaunt their assumed intellectual superiority.

The good professor might spend some time with real police officers, who have said, recently and emphatically, that they cannot be everywhere; they cannot counter terrorism alone, and they encourage private citizens to arm themselves in order to promote the general wellfare.

(I think I read that last part here in DC, here in Ohio, here in Florida. )

Levy's polemic includes a duty of the citizen to "... protect all of the police officers who are still serving".

Funny, here's another thing I think I read somewhere:

"To Protect, And To Serve"

Oh, yes, now I remember.   It was written on the door of a police car.  

In fact, virtually all of the police cars in America carry that oath.

Levy confuses the roles which Americans assume with roles which Liberals take for granted.

For example, police assume the role of enforcement of the law.  While they claim to "protect", their ability to protect anyone is exceedingly limited.  They can't stop someone from gettting shot, for example ... even their fellow officers.  They would like to but "we can't be everywhere" is just a truth that we all learn to live with.

Levy's assumed role is, apparently, to criticize the people who are trying to make a difference because they don't meet his standards of ... uh ... "difference-making".

No, he won't criticize the police who cannot 'be everywhere'.  

But he WILL criticize American citizens who choose to arm themselves in defense of themselves and others, even though these people CAN  'be everywhere'.

Levy is laboring under the misguided assumption that, if firearms were universally prohibited, America would truly be a land of peace.

He should take a look at Australia and Great Britain,  the Liberals' best exemplar.   Private citizens there aren not often murdered by firearms (although they sometimes are), but they find themselves in a state of aggressiveness against which they have no defense.   The elderly, women, minorities ... all find themselves targets of hoodlums, and the police cannot protect them.   And they cannot protect themselves.   Witness the increased number of rapes and other assaults in England and Europe.  Those victims have no way to protect themselves, because firearms are forbidden ... and only the law-abiding are disarmed.

The assaults suffered there are "just hooliganism" ... victimization by your neighbors.

Compared with terrorism (where people who don't live where you live, but still they wish to murder as many of you as they can) the "unarmed, law abiding citizen" has, literally, no defense at all.  And like the hooligans, the terrorists know that.

In America ... perhaps the only thing which dissuades terrorists from more frequent, more brutal armed attacks is the fact that they may run into a citizen with a gun.

One thing is certain:   terrorist assaults with firearms only occur in "Gun Free Zones".
Such as California.

Firing an AR-15 is horrifying, menacing and very very loud

Firing an AR-15 is horrifying, menacing and very very loud - NY Daily News: It felt to me like a bazooka — and sounded like a cannon.

OKAY .. so today, children, we are going to follow the trail of New York Daily News reporter Gersh Kuntsman as he experiences the (since gone viral) the traumatic Shooting of the Evil AR15!


Let's look at his reportial expose of the shock .. the horror .. the TRAUMA of shooting  Military Assault Rifle!

Quote:   It's " ... horrifying, menacing and very very loud ... ".

Um  .. I've never fired an AR15.

But I've fired an M16 .. a lot.  It was in a little test-firing range in South Viet Nam (children, ask your parent) and frankly .. I thought it was a poodle-shooter.  Suiable only for the murder of small, furry quadrapeds who yap incessently.  
(There have been times since, during which I longed for an M16; most recently, this morning when the neighborhood canines decided to talk to each other during the Dawn Hours, when I longed for either an M16 or an M79 Grenade Launcher;  but that's another story.)

When I was a teenager. I competed in an indoor-range competition rifle  series of matches; I used a .22 "Long Rifle" cartridge, and having fired the M16 in subsequent years I honestly didn't notice any significent difference between the M16 and the .22 LR.

(Well .. the M16 was louder, and had a "select fire" option which I never used ... I considered it to be a "stupid" option because I never saw anyone in a combat situation where Full-Auto was a viable option!)

So I will forgive the author of this original theme for considering the AR-15 "loud".  Having fired REAL "loud" rifles (7mm magnum, .338) I probably have a more ... 'learned' ... opinion about how loud the AR15 is, but I'll give him that.  He has no experiential background to define the word "IS".

Sorry:  He has no experiential background to define the word "LOUD".

Democrat

My uncle was a Taxi Driver in Chicago, and until the day he died, he voted Republican.

Since then, he has voted Democrat.

Catch And Release in Fredrick, MD

7-Eleven clerk disarms shotgun-wielding man | Cops And Crime | fredericknewspost.com:

“[The man] pointed it at my employee and started screaming at my employee, screaming in his face, and [my employee] grabbed [the gun] and took it out of the guy’s hands,” said Abdul Ayub, who owns the store. “And the guy ran out of the store, so now the police have the gun and he didn’t get anything.”

The whole story, and the accompanying video, are available here.

Isn't there some kind of safety rule about "keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot?"

This clerk is happy that his hooded nemesis observed that rule.

Houston, We Have A Problem

Actually, it's not HOUSTON, it's The Liberal Press which has a problem.
They don't get enough opportunities to show how awful gun-owners (and their masters, the NRA) are, so they need to recycle the stories that they find 'elsewhere'.

I wrote about this last Thursday, in response to an article from "Elite Daily";
check for yourself to see if THIS article has anything new to say:

NRA Ad Tells Women to Shoot Rapists, Abusers -- The Cut:

PART 1: "EMPOWERMENT" 

The ad ("NRA Ad" ... see the reference above) —which is less a message aimed at abusers and more a bulletin encouraging women to purchase firearms— goes on to say that "real empowerment" looks like millions of women buying guns to protect themselves and their families from any potential threat. In doing so, it not only transfers blame for assault from the assailant to the victim, but it seriously mischaracterizes both sexual assault and domestic abuse.

Yep ... the "Empowerment" message is there.

PART 2: "EDUCATE THE MALE"

Instead of educating men on the nature of sexual assault — and instead of cultivating a society in which rape and abuse of women is absolutely unacceptable, rather than an offense that's met with leniency — the NRA suggests we arm every single woman.

Yes, the suggestion (and I still can't believe I'm reading this) is that abused women should:
"[educate] men on the nature of sexual assault" .. rather than take positive steps to defend themselves, their family, and their homes.

The image of a woman who is being beaten by her estranged husband  *who is under a domestic violence restraining order* explaining that "sexual assault is a no-no" absolutely boggles the mind.  Apparently, the people who write this crap have no concept of what the word "domestic abuse" means.

And it gets better .. or worse.

PART 3:  NRA THINKS ABUSERS ARE ONLY STRANGERS!

The ad also fundamentally mischaracterizes rape and sexual assault. Rape is almost never, as the NRA seems to suggest here, committed by a stranger in a dark alleyway — ... most victims of sexual violence ... are attacked by someone they know... a spouse, a relative, or a family friend...

NO idea how the authors got that impression.  In the NRA video I saw, it was fairly obvious that the 'intruder' was an (ex) partner who was violating a restraining order.

PART 4:  YOU CAN BE KILLED BY YOUR OWN GUN!

"The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent," and, "more than half of women murdered with guns are killed by family members or intimate partners." 

This is a two-fer:

(A) 'if there is a gun in they house you are five times more likely to be murdered' is a meme which was originally published in the report of a study by a man named "Kellerman", who cherry picked his community (he only reported on homes in which a homicide had occurred and "... a firearm was present in the house..." whether or not it was involved in the murder); which study has been widely debunked as statistically fallable.  Which means, he made it all up.   Actually, this 'quote' undermines Kellerman's theme, which suggests that ' you are SEVEN times more likely to be killed if you have a gun in your home'.   Never mind whether it was a gun owned by the resident, or was brought into the home by the intruder, it all adds to Kellerman's pre-determined conclusion.

(B) "More than half of women murdered with guns are killed by family members or intimate partners".
Which presupposes husbands or co-habitating partners,    The supposition that this NRA video might apply negatively to a woman who defended herself against a stranger ("home invasion") assault seems to be intuitively obvious: anyone has the right to defend herself against an intruder.  Why this is even suggested to be a 'negative' message from the NRA is beyond me.   However, Kellerman (and the Liberal Press) conclusions make the victim appear to be the author of her own demise.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

Oh, hell.  Thanks to "The Gun Mart", we have this direct comparison between a woman at risk, and a woman who is prepared to defend herself, her family and her home.

PS:
Have a nice day.

Just Another Gun-Grabber

Gov. Brown Announces Plan To Curb Gun Violence . News | OPB:

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown announced an executive order Friday, ordering Oregon State Police to maintain a database of firearms transactions for five years after the sale. She also ordered state police to notify local law enforcement agencies if a person who is prohibited from buying a gun tries to do so.

When Kate Brown was appointed in February of 2015 to replace former governor Kitzenhaber, I commented here that I was relieved:  "She can't be worse than Kitzenhaber!" I proclaimed.

My friends warned me that she was a Democrat, and an appointee, and she was worse.
I should have listened to them, but it took this announcement today for the warnings to finally sink in.

It was bad enough last year when new laws in Oregon required that all firearms transactions, even private sales, be transacted through the firearms database (a clear violation of the Second Amendment), but I planned to either ignore the trash-law or avoid it.  I have no need for another firearm, I thought.

I was wrong.  It's not about me, it's about Oregon.

Background Check on Private Firearms Sales:

I was not happy when new Oregon laws required a background check on private transfers/sales of firearms.  I was especially disappointed to learn that it included the description (including make, model and serial number) of the firearm.  But I was (naively) reassured that the information was not permanently recorded.

As we all know, a registry of firearms transfers is the first step towards confiscation.  California learned that hard lesson several years ago.  (And it was reinforced last year!)

Comparative Acceptance in Baghdad By The Bay

Have I got this right?

In the place where they won't jail a wetback for using a stolen pistol to murder a woman, but they won't allow anyone to sell firearms or ammunition, and they won't turn anyone in for being in the country illegally ... a mob of sunbathers (not that they get sun more than 10 times a year) now beats a man half to death because he's ogling someone's GIRLFRIEND?

Man’s roaming eyes spark mob beat down in SF’s Dolores Park - SFGate:

A mob beat up a man in San Francisco’s Dolores Park for looking at the girlfriend of one of his attackers, police said Thursday. ...The mob then repeatedly kicked him while he was on the ground, police said. 

Can you say "Cognative Disonance", Children?

(I knew you couldn't.)

"Submit or Die": Trial Of The Century

"Trial of the Century" blog writes to demonstrate how some persons may willingly subvert the verbiage of the Second Amendment to 'prove' that it promotes Gun Violence.   Here's part of his reasoned counter to the original "THE NATION" article (which writing he terms "rampant historical revisionism") by Joshua Holland:

Submit or Die |:

On its face this argument is kind of breathtaking, because it implicitly assumes that a maniac murdering a bunch of cops is tantamount to “a heavily armed populace” taking action against “a tyrannical government running amok.” That the two are not in the slightest equivalent never seemed to have crossed Joshua Holland’s mind—he seems to be able to draw no meaningful distinction between Dallas last week and Massachusetts in 1775, between Michah Johnson on the one hand and Henry Knox on the other. Can a writer for a popular magazine—even a writer for the Nation—be so terminally clueless? 

 But maybe this isn’t simply an ahistorical [sic] gaffe: maybe liberals really are incapable of divining the difference between a psychopathic mass shooting and a rebellion against tyranny. Maybe the liberal political impulse has become so degraded that, as far as progressives are concerned, there is no situation—none at all—in which one can ever  be justified in rebelling against any authority anywhere, no matter how tyrannical the authority is, no matter how justified the case for rebellion may be. It’s all illicit, all forbidden not merely by statute but by moral law: government is so final an arbiter of morality and rightness that you can’t ever fight it for any reason, under any circumstances.

You may find that reading the whole thing  is a worthwhile use of your time.

I did.  I read both articles.

I found points with which I am inclined to agree in both articles.

However, I think the point made in 'submit or die' (which, again, is not the WHOLE THOUGHT) deserves to be emphasized, bearing in mind that the quoted verb it doesn't address the whole of the HOLLAND article.

It's a complex issue; the opinions will, of necessity, be equally complex.

NO PLANTS FOR LAWYERS!

Georgia police: Chattanooga attorney shot after breaking into elderly couple's house, throwing plants at them | Times Free Press:

Anybody want to bet me that the lawyer is NOT a Democrat?

Okay, this is a legitimate argument for Plant Control!

(Alternate title:  "Just Because You Say His Gun Isn't Loaded Doesn't Make It So!")

No Guns for Women?

"The risk of death for women increases by 500 percent when a gun is present in domestic violence, even if the woman got the gun for her own safety."

True, if she's not the one with the gun!


I don't know what "Elite Daily" is, but it certainly presents the "elitist" message clearly.

In reponse to the Dana Loesch video message which encourages women in danger to prepare to protect themselves  (ie: "gun-empowered women can fight back"), the elitists seem to ignore the threat to defensless people because it's just .... awful ... to think women might  feel it's necessary to defend themselves.   There are many emotional and physical factors which FORCE women to stay in abusive relationships ... nobody is saying those women must user force to resist force; only that this may be a viable alternative to deadly threats.


This Bizarre New NRA Ad Encourages Women To Murder Rapists And Abusers:

Real empowerment for me looks like men who are empowered to know they don’t need to defend their masculinity and assert their power through violence. It looks like men who understand consent. It looks like men who honor and value both my safety and the safety of other women.

The NRA wants you to think that rapists are strangers in alleys. But three out of four victims of sexual violence are attacked by someone they know, as New York magazine points out.

The NRA wants you to think that domestic abuse can be easily solved by a gun. There are many emotional and physical factors that contribute to why women stay in abusive relationships. Having a gun isn’t a solution.

As New York magazine points out again, having a gun while in an abusive relationship could also threaten your own safety. The risk of death for women increases by 500 percent when a gun is present in domestic violence, even if the woman got the gun for her own safety.

There are many things you can say to potential attackers. “Go ahead” shouldn’t be one of them.

I'm sorry, Elite Magazine, but you got the quote wrong:



There are "many emotional and physical factors" which FORCE women to stay in abusive relationships ... nobody is saying those women must user force to resist force; only that this may be a viable alternative to deadly threats.

Oh, I didn't want to put the whole 90 minute movie "The Burning Bed" up here, but please be aware that this is also another option for abused women in fear of their life.

That is, for women who don't live in your idealistic dream world, you .... elitists.

No Guns For Kids?

No guns for kids?

Latest Gun Control Legislation Takes Aim at Children, and Reveals a Sinister Truth – Bearing Arms:
Posted at 3:05 pm on July 13, 2016 by Jenn Jacques

Senator Edward J. Markey and Congressman Ruben Gallego introduced new legislation that claims will “ensure that powerful, military-style weapons don’t end up in the hands of children”. The Help End Assault Rifle Tragedies (HEART) Act of 2016 as announced by Markey and Gallego claims to protect children by prohibiting anyone under the age of 16 from possessing or firing machine guns and assault weapons, specifying that the law would extend to gun shows and shooting ranges. However, the bill clearly aims to shut down all youth shooting sports and young hunters’ ability to participate in any activity that uses guns.

[emphasis added]
So, how am I going to teach my grandchildren how to shoot?

Brit: "A Policeman's Lot Is Not A Happy One!"

I Was A Cop In A Country With No Guns: 6 Startling Truths:

Over the first eight months of 2015, American police killed 776 people, while British police killed exactly one. American police are eight times as likely to kill a citizen, and ten times as likely to die on the job, as their essentially unarmed British counterparts. We wanted to get an idea of just why this was, so we spoke to Charley Clark, who spent nearly a decade as a police constable and a detective constable in Hackney, one of the most deprived and dangerous boroughs in London. Naturally, as we were writing about how much safer the UK is with its lack of guns, despite having a commensurate percentage of unstable potential criminals, this happened. But the fact that the attacker is alive to face trial is a testament to the police involved and to how long it takes Trojan, the British Police armed response teams, to arrive. The suspect was armed -- the arresting officers were not. Welcome to policing, British-style.

(Actually ... I posted this because this gentleman's story was both amusing and well written; if you have to go up against bad boys with nothing than an empty pocket and a smile, it seems to be good tactics to make the other bloke smaile as well.)


(sigh)

Philando Castile shooting

All I want to know is what was in the pocket.  Was it a Wallet, a Concealed Handgun License, a Driver's License, or a handgun?

Why in the HELL has the MSM not mentioned this in the past WEEK when they have printed thousands of words about it?

Minnesota officer reacted to gun, not race, attorney says:

The Minnesota police officer who fatally shot a black man in a Minneapolis suburb earlier this week spoke out through his attorney Saturday saying that the shooting had nothing to do with race. The officer, identified as Jeronimo Yanez, shot and killed Philando Castile Wednesday during a routine traffic stop. Castile and his fiance, Diamond “Lavish” Reynolds, were pulled over for an alleged busted taillight. Authorities told the Associated Press that Yanez approached the vehicle from the driver’s side while his partner, Officer Joseph Kauser, came around the passenger side. Yanez eventually opened fire, striking Castile multiple times. Minnesota attorney Thomas Kelly was mum on the exact reason why Yanez shot Castile, simply telling AP the Latino officer reacted to “the presence of that gun and the display of that gun.” Kelly went on to say that the officer, who was placed on administrative leave after the event, is distraught and saddened. The story made headline news after Reynolds live streamed the aftermath of the shooting on social media site Facebook. In the video, Reynolds narrates the scene, stating that the officer shot her fiance as he was reaching for his wallet.

Nice Try: No Cigar!

John McClaughry (Ethan Allen Institute) offers some thoughts about ...
McClaughry: Gun Control Ideas that Won’t Work :Times Argus Online:

" The difficulty the Democrats face is that, stripped of the emotion and politically driven posturing, their legislative demands either flagrantly violate the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, or are hopelessly ineffective and unenforceable against would-be terrorists and mass murderers."

There's nothing really 'new' about this: you've read it a hundred times and, if you're a legitimate firearms owner, you've thought it a thousand times.

 J.D. Tuccille, writing at Reason.com, points out that a California law to register “assault rifles” (sic) in 1990 resulted in 7,000 registrations, out of an estimated 300,000 semiautomatic rifles in private hands. In New Jersey, out of more than 100,000 firearms affected, a similar law brought in 947 people who were target shooters, 888 who rendered their guns inoperable, and four who surrendered them to the police.

Simply stated, people who own guns Will Not Comply with unconstitutional 'firearms control laws'.   More: historically, they "have not complied" with such laws.

Liberals and other "Gun Control Advocates" (eg: "Gun Grabbers") are grabbing at straws when they think to undermine the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. Barack Obama

These people simply do not understand the determination of Americans to demand the that their constitional rights be not only accepted, but revered!  

The Constitutional Amendments were reluctantaly accepted by The Founding Fathers; at the time, they thought that the Declaration of Independence and the Constition were suffecient: they did not think that the Individual Rights needed to be enumerated, but they were outvoted by those who thought that there needed to be some commentary to specifically point out the 'minutia' which exemplified the constitution.

Thus, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the constitution), which at the time were thought to be almost parenthetical.

After all, they had already made the point of "Don't Tread On Me".  What else needed to be said .. it was obvious!

Thankfully, they took the time to enumerate the issues which were protected for the people 
(EVERYTHING was denied to The State, except for specific duties and powers .. just in case).

And so, we find ourselves engaged in a debate about what each amendment means.

It was not meant to be so complicated;  what's so hard to understand about "SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED"?

It's so much simpler to say "NO!  UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!" than it is to say "Well, sometimes ... " and go into great detail about exceptions.

There are no exceptions to the Second Amendment.  Even the NSA exceptions are unconstitional, even though nobody cares/dares to argue against it. 

Americans gave up the right to own full-automatic guns.

Then they gave up the right to own .... well, it's a long litany of rights which firearms owners have allowed to be restricted, and what have we received in return?

Nothing.  Someday, it would be nice if the Gun Grabbers among us would seem to be willing to concede that the Second Amendment had some justification, some meaning.  

But unless we fight for it, that will never happen.   Unless we just fall back on the "Will Not Comply" thingie.  And then what well 'they' do about it?  Raid our homes and confiscate our legally owned firearms?

We might as well have Full Automatic guns;  eventually, everything we own will be conflated as 'as dangerous'.

Officer Target

Minnesota officer reacted to gun, not race, attorney says:

The Minnesota police officer who fatally shot a black man in a Minneapolis suburb earlier this week spoke out through his attorney Saturday saying that the shooting had nothing to do with race. The officer, identified as Jeronimo Yanez, shot and killed Philando Castile Wednesday during a routine traffic stop. Castile and his fiance, Diamond “Lavish” Reynolds, were pulled over for an alleged busted taillight. Authorities told the Associated Press that Yanez approached the vehicle from the driver’s side while his partner, Officer Joseph Kauser, came around the passenger side. Yanez eventually opened fire, striking Castile multiple times.

There are a LOT of things wrong with this story, and I can't believe that either the officer or the driver had so little sense of responsibility that it had to end in the death of the driver.

Ignoring the rumors about the driver, there are ways to handle a normal traffic stop which will help prevent a tragedy.

A lot of people have stories, and questions, about being pulled over during a routine traffic stop when they are armed.  I understand their concerns.   Most people with CHL aren't really conversant with the best way to deal with police; perhaps my own experiences can provide a exemplar.

Antigun Missouri Senator WALKS!

It must be nice to be SPECIAL!

Guilty Conscience?

State lawyer wants legislators’ addresses removed from pro-gun blog | The Sacramento Bee:

Warning of “a grave risk” to elected officials, the California Legislature’s legal arm has asked the blog platform WordPress to take down a post listing the addresses of lawmakers who supported gun control legislation. Gov. Jerry Brown on July 1 signed several gun control measures, fortifying California’s already strong gun restrictions over the objections of those who saw the bills eroding Second Amendment rights. Among other things, the new laws will require background checks to purchase ammunition, broaden the definition of illegal assault weapons, outlaw possession of high-capacity magazines and limit gun lending.

Should legislators, at any level, be held accountable for the laws they adjudicate?

That's the question being asked of the California State Assembly in regards to the recent draconian anti-gun laws they have proposed

Senators should listen to their people BEFORE they cast their votes.

Obviously, the second thoughts of the Elected Officials are driven by their concern that violance might be the result of their legislative efforts.

That reflects poorly on their trust in the citizens of their state.   Do they not trust their constituents?
Why not?   Don't they think they have properly protected the rights of the people who elected them?

The people who elected them, trusted THEM to represent the interests of the people.

Now, these same ligislators want to preserve their anonymity.

One might be wary of politicians who don't want their constituents to know where they live.

If they don't trust the people who voted them into office, why should those voters trust them?

A Modest Proposal for Smart Guns

Allen West has a nifty proposal which may potentially resolve two issues:

1.  What do we do with "Smart Guns"?   It's untested technology; nobody trusts it.
2.  How do we arm our "friendlies" in the Middle East ... who change shirts at will?

EVERYBODY (almost) is touting the benefits of "Smart Guns", which cannot be fired by anyone except the 'registered owner'.  Some folks want Americans to put the lives of their families at risk by depending on this untested technology.

Americans have lined up to say "UH ... I DON'T THINK SO!"

One of the issues is that Americans love their country but fear their government;
"The Feds" can turn off the functionality of a 'Smart Gun' at will, because it's all electronics and NSA has the premier control in this world of electronic data transfer.

At the same time, we are arming our 'friendlies' in the Middle East, but we don't trust them all that much either.

Instead of imposing Smart Guns on the American People, why don't we give them to our allies?

The Real Issue of Gun Control - Allen West:
(July 06, 2016)

Both Afghanistan and Iraqi Defense Forces have difficulty determining the sympathies and loyalties of new recruits. Aware of these concerns, Florida-based Trigger Smart has now developed and patented a smart gun system that can remotely enable and disable weapons using wireless technology on the military field.  

While technology alone cannot replace proper vetting practices, smart-gun technologies can potentially mitigate the risk that our troops face. Equipping our ally soldiers with RFID-secured weapons, paired with wide-area control technology, can ensure that only authorized personnel can operate their assigned weapon. Weapons can be enabled and disabled by U.S. advisors whose military forces will designate safe zones throughout outposts and operating bases.

Tee hee hee

I can only imagine the Middle-Eastern turncoats who point guns at American 'advisers', only to discover that "The Furschlinger Gun Doesn't Work!"

(I don't know how to say that in Farsi.)

This is probably the best idea I've heard in years.

In the words of Andy Rooney: "Hey Kids, I've got an idea ... let's put on a show!"

Cop Killer Jacket?

NYPD checking ammo after knife wielder’s jacket stops cops’ bullets | New York Post:
(May 19, 2016)

Four of the shots that cops fired at a madman waving a knife in Midtown failed to penetrate his jacket — which was not bulletproof — and the NYPD will now check the weapons for malfunction, law enforcement sources told The Post. “The bullets we have may be defective and that’s very disturbing,” one source said. “When we fire our weapons, we want to make damn sure that our bullets hit our target — neutralizing our target.”

That's odd, isn't it?  Maybe the NYPD should interview the 'madman' and get the name of his tailor?
That tailor could make a fortune!

Actually, Lucky Gunner ran a test last year, which they called "The Heavy Clothing Test".   They found that even light clothing might offer significant protection from pistol caliber bullets:

The heavy clothing test simulates a scenario in which the target is wearing four layers of clothing: two cotton shirts, fleece, and denim. The FBI uses this standard not because it’s common for people to actually wear that exact clothing, but because they are common clothing materials, and when combined they represent something close to a worst case scenario for a bullet.
Clothing can present a challenge for some hollow point loads because the opening in the bullet can become clogged with clothing material and fail to expand once it reaches living tissue. This failure to expand gives the bullet a lower probability of striking a vital area, and also leads to the potential for over-penetration. Expanding bullets lose velocity quickly and are more likely to stay inside the target, but a hollow point that fails to expand can maintain enough energy to exit the target and potentially harm bystanders.
We used the same type of fabric specified in the FBI heavy clothing test, which calls for the following:

1. cotton t-shirt material (approximately 5.25 ounces per yard, 48 threads per inch)

1. cotton shirt material (approximately 3.5 ounces per yard, 80 threads per inch)

1. Malden Mills Polartec 200 fleece

1. cotton denim (approximately 14.4 ounces per yard, 50 threads per inch)

The four layers of fabric were stacked together and placed against the front of the gelatin block, secured with clothes pins to a bar suspended above the test block

What they discovered surprised them:  even a 'cotton t-shirt' offered some (and in some ways significant) resistance to penetration, especially by a hollow-point bullet.    Not that any of the ammunition tested failed to penetrate, but their tests showed that penetration of the body cavity, wound channels and expansion of the bullets were all affected by the cloth which which the 'target' (ballistic gel) was 'protected'.

Which is interesting, but still doesn't answer the question of WHY the NYPD's bullets did not (according to the article) even penetrate the clothing!

The cops are blaming "the bullets", by which one assumes they're talking about the ammunition, not necessarily the bullets themselves.  And they might have something there.

How often to they fire to qualify?  How often do they replace their ammuition .. you know, the stuff they actually load in their pistols?  

It's true that ammunition deteriorates over time; and gunpowder deteriorates quicker, if exposed to air and moisture.  

To suggest that these cops were carrying ammunition so old that even factory ammunition would lose effectiveness is ... well, mind-boggling.

I don't know what the NYPD Commissioner of Police is going to do about that, but he might take a few 'first steps' just in case:

(1)  Every cop on the force turns in his current ammunition ... or better yet, is required to shoot it on the practice range, and their scores are recorded;
(2) Every cop on the force is issued brand new ammunition;
(3) Every cop on the force is required to qualify twice a year, using his issued ammunition (ALL OF IT!) and is then issued new, fresh ammunition.
(4) The 'issued ammunition', as soon as it is purchased, is tested (random sample) for penetration of ballistic gel under various items of clothing, and also material such as cardboard, wallboard, and glass.

Because the cops on the beat might very well be correct .... there may be something wrong with their "bullets".   It may simply be that the ammunition is not expended in practice and has not been replaced in years.

Nah .. I don't really believe that.  It takes a long time for sealed ammunition to deteriorate to the point where it won't penetrate a denim jacket!   And police are required to qualify with their issued sidearm annually; surely they use their issued ammunition, and are then issued fresh ammunition.

I'm not about to suggest that the cops gunfire didn't actually hit the target.  That assumes that the cops can't hit what they aim at .. and that would be just silly!

Everybody know, police are the only ones qualified to engage criminals in gunfights, because cops are so well trained and stuff.

.Civilians are the people we don't trust to handle a firearm in a gunfight.  (Except for Criminals, of course!   They always have the best guns, best gear, fresh ammo and they practice ALL THE TIME!)

The staggering myths about gun control

When I'm feeling a little down, or bored, I know I can always get a quick "Pick Me Up" by reading SALON!

I'm coming down from the Independence Day Frenzy, so I'm grateful for this innervating article from Salon:  I'm ready to wrestle grizzly bears!
But I'll have to settle for the pathetic liars who appear on my computer screen.

“A uniquely American tragedy“: The staggering myths about gun control - Salon.com:
(July 02, 2016)

The issue of guns in America causes people in other parts of the developed world to look at our country and shake their heads. They just don’t get it. They don’t understand why so many Americans have such passion for their guns. They don’t understand why gun control is such a contentious issue. Most of all, they don’t understand how America can tolerate its chronic carnage of deaths and injuries from gunfire, particularly among our children and particularly after the horror of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012 in which 20 first graders and six adults lost their lives. American children ages five to fourteen are eighteen times more likely to die of a gun homicide and eleven times more likely to die of a gun suicide than children in twenty-two other high-income countries.

May I say this:

"They don’t understand why gun control is such a contentious issue."

Because IT DOESN'T WORK!

In 1994 Congress imposed a Draconian Federal Assault Weapons Ban which only passed because the Republicans insisted that it would be given a ten-year trial, and if it was not found to reduce firearms crime it would be deleted.   It imposed every restrictions the Anti-Gun people could think of, and in 2004 it was deleted by the "Sunset Clause" because it only imposed upon honest gun owners and had little (sometimes a 'negative') effect on firearms crime.

The Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."^[25] A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small

In other words, it was a stupid idea then and it's still a stupid idea today ... even though a new generation of politicians have chosen to ignore history in favor of political rhetoric.

But you won't read that in the Salon article.

Instead, you'll read that the NRA STOMPED ALL OVER CONGRESS AND FORCED THEM TO BACK DOWN:

What is truly astounding is that the NRA is able to block the enactment of legislation that is spectacularly popular with the American people. Reinstating the ten-year ban on AK-47s, UZIs, and other military-style assault weapons, enacted in 1994, enjoyed the support of 78 percent of the American people, with only 16 percent opposed, when Congress, under NRA pressure, allowed it to lapse.

No, I'm not going to fisk the entire article, but may I point out that the author devotes the opening paragraph to an entirely emotional approach to "(t)he issue of guns in America"?

You Tube Choices

I always have difficult choices to make when I want to watch YouTube.

I can't decide between:

• Whose Line Is It?
• Congressman Gowdy And Bengazzi/Hillary/Whatever
• Guess who killed their kid in what horrible manner
• Dean Martin Roasts Another Alcoholic Actor
• Bill O'Reily : Why Republicans Don't Like Democrats (or vice versa)
• Insane Person Attacks Family Member With Horrible Consequences
• Bernie Sanders Refuses To Concede .. Just Like Yesterday
• Charges Brought Against Men Seen In Moose Riding Video

Could it be I have too much time on my hands?  Or am I just ... "Too Particular"?

Or has the Internet become as trite as Network Television?

"Competition Will Get You Killed" (Oh, not THIS again!)

Is it that time of the year again?  Already?

Okay, NJT brought it up, so let's look at this misunderstanding again:

New Jovian Thunderbolt: Never understood that:
Never understood that The sentiment that "If you do handgun competitions, that is too much game and will get you killed in real life so don't ever do that!" What? I never understood that worry. Yeah, the whole when to reload and how, &c.and what have you might cement habits not ideal in every 'tactical' situation. I can see that part of the argument. But so what?

I never understood that mind-set either.   The best I can do is go back to an article (under the title I've used) which was published in a gun magazine a decade or two ago.   And people who have little or no understanding of what you can learn from competition 'heard that' from someone, and believed it.

I don't think they're talking about rifle and shotgun competition, not any kind of bulls-eye shooting, but 'action pistol' shooting such as IDPA and USPSA (IPSC).
(If you read the linked NJT article above, there's a link to an article from Lucky Gunner which provides a better detailed description.)

Here's the thing:  Competition isn't possible without training and experience.  Even without training, when you shoot an Action Pistol Match you need to know the rules and you need to be able do demonstrate Good Gun-Handling Techniques.

The rules are important for the match; the techniques are vital for self-defense.

TRAINING IS THE KEY

People who criticize "competition" as being either unrealistic or impractical seem to miss the point.

 Competition provides many opportunities for both training and experience which most shooters are unlikely to garner in any other venue.  Sure, you can spend hundreds of dollars taking 'professional' courses (most of which teach you to react to a combat situation) but does that really provide them the opportunity to PRACTICE their gun-handling techniques under the pressure of time and necessity?

And since when is it necessary to grow a beard and wear green pants to learn to handle your pistol well enough that you can shoot accurately and consistently under pressure?

Lots of people teach courses in competition (I'm one of them) and the virtues of that training is that they teach you practical techniques and practices.   When you go to an IPSC or IDPA match, you get to EXPERIENCE the effect of either knowing the techniques, or not knowing the techniques.  If you don't know how to handle your pistol safely and effectively, the feedback is immediate:
That cute little blonde girl is going to kick your ass in the finals, and your friends will laugh at you.
(And you're going to practice more, and better!)

The pressure of competing under pressure, and comparing your performance against other shooters, is perhaps the best feedback to your training regimen you can find; and it's difficult to imagine a venue which might provide a comparable benefit.

SAFETY IS THE PRIORITY: COMPETENCE IS THE EXPECTATION

People shoot competitively for many reasons:

• learn gun-handling techniques
• learn the rules, practices and procedures of  'action pistol'.competition
• get some range time with good targets and actual, interesting stages
• meet new friends with similar interests, and share experiences

What they discover is that they learn things they never expected.   Training is available, if not in private classes then at least during matches from more 'experienced' competitors.   We correct their grip, and the proper placement of their finger on the trigger. We teach them how to draw from a holster, how to reload from the belt, and how to safely move from one shooting position to another.   When someone violates a safety rule during the Live Fire Exercises, the rest of the class learns from their mistakes.

We learn the three kinds of Immediate Action Drills in response to the three basic kinds of firearms malfunctions:

Stovepipe

Tap/Rack/Bang (failure to feed: didn't seat your magazine properly during load/reload)

The Jam From Hell (another feeding failure)

IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER what kind of 'action pistol shooting' you do, there are always going to be some range safety rules, and some competition rules, which don't seem to apply to a self-defense situation.   IDPA teaches you to use cover and concealment and ammunition retention because these are specific DEFENSIVE PISTOL TECHNIQUES which you need to at least be aware of.  You may lose your head (zone out) in an emergency, but at least you have learned the drills and this is going to be an asset on 'the worst day of your life'.

In USPSA we do fire a lot more rounds per match and that may provide you with more opportunities to practice your reload, refine your grip and trigger-finger placement, and every round you fire for score is probably going to provide more effective training than taking yourself to the range for an hour a month and only practicing the things that you're already 'good at'.  

PRACTICE is an issue with most folks.  We don't know what to do in practice, so we do the things we already do well, because (a) we don't know any better and (b) it's fun.

When you engage in competition, you learn quickly and quite well what you do NOT do well!

Can you reload quickly without taking your eyes off the target?  Can you keep track of the rounds you have expended, and know when you need to reload, without thinking about it?   Can you engage a wide variety of targets at varying ranges?  Can you move laterally, forward, or retreat to a new shooting position ... all without losing situational awareness (and maybe performing a reload on the move)?  

Can you engage targets from a prone, kneeling or standing position, or shoot around a corner from cover or concealment?   Can you hit targets which are moving?   Can you hit targets while YOU are moving? Can you consistently hit small steel targets at 7 yards?  Can you double-tap three targets at 10 yards, perform a reload, and hit them again in under 10 seconds?   Can you accurately engage targets with either hand?

ALL of these techniques are commonly practiced in Action Shooting Competition.

Anyone who thinks that Competition just means standing in only place and plunking round after round into a bullseye target sitting placidly 50 feet downrange does not understand the full concept of Competition Shooting.

You may get killed, but it won't be because you've been honing your skills by competing in pistol matches.