"... Get that gun from those who shouldn't have it"

Why do police need a CHL to justify carrying concealed carry?

If they find someone "who shouldn't have" (a firearm), don't they have means to determine whether that person "shouldn't have" it?   If it was legal to carry a concealed firearm without a license, couldn't the police do a background check in the field.

It seems that the police facing this policy change are upset because it means they will do more work to check whether that person would qualify for a CHL, if it was required.     (And that would be a valid reason to oppose the CHL movement .... if it had been cited!)

Police flood Alabama Capitol, ask lawmakers to keep concealed carry permit requirement | WBMA:

 A debate at the Alabama State House centers on this question: Should people be required to have a concealed carry permit in order to carry concealed firearms? Law enforcement from across the state filled the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee meeting in Montgomery Wednesday. Most were there in opposition to Senate Bill 24. 

(The bill would make it legal to carry a concealed firearms without the requirement of buying a CHL: a"Concealed Handgun License")

"I think it's a vote against the safety of our citizens," Mountain Brook Police Chief Ted Cook told the committee.  Cook spoke on behalf of the Police Chief's Association, where he serves as vice president."We can't measure the lives we've saved using this law to get in there and get that gun from those who shouldn't have it," Cook said.

The benefit of a CHL is that the carrier has already been vetted to carry.   That means the person is not a felon, not wanted, not insane, not an 'alien' and is of legal age.

Chief Cook is obviously worried about using his officers to check backgrounds of people found with a firearm.   His statement makes it sound as if there is no other way to vet these folks.   

(Perhaps he should encourage this measure.)

It's easy to sympathize with Chief Cook; he doesn't want his officers to spend 10 minutes (or hours!) running a background check on a citizen when they find a concealed weapon.  Unfortunately, the Constitution acknowledges the right of citizens to "... keep and bear arms ..." 

If he had simply stated: "It will impose an intolerable burden on my officers to require them to run a background check in the field on everyone we found with a concealed firearm",  that would be understandable.  Instead, he implied that the lack of a CHL would make it virtually impossible to determine if the person in question is one of "... those who shouldn't have it".  That's disingenuous, and misleading.

(Disclaimer:
I actually agree with Chief Cook.   It would be civil to require a CHL to carry concealed. I just don't like the manner in which he stated his case.)

A policeman's lot is not a happy one.

Carry a gun? You're a Paranoid!

Quote of the day—Vivek Murthy | The View From North Central Idaho:

I got into some trouble for saying gun violence is a public health issue. A little bit of trouble. But you know, I was stating what I think is the obvious, and I think most people in the country understand, which is that far too many people die from gun violence. And in my book, every single death from gun violence is a tragedy because it was preventable. It’s unacceptable.

-- "Surgeon General", via Joe at joehuffman

well, yeah.

You must understand, there are various gradations of "Public Health", mostly determined by the actions of the the victim!

Minor example: if you don't brush your teeth for years, you're a skuzz and you get a lot of dental issues.

If you don't go for an annual check-up from your doctor, minor infections can become major illness.

And if you don't prepare to defend yourself against violent criminals, you are a a possible victim of homicide.

Oh, Wow!   That's a HUGE step beyond Halitosis and Skin disease!

Strangely, many of us are more concerned with relatively 'minor' infections, and completely oblivious to violent attacks.   You got to ask yourself ... if the risks of all three threats are roughly similar possibilities, why don't more of us go for semi-annual checkups, brush daily, and carry daily?

The answer is that brushing your teeth is easy to do and socially acceptable; annual medical check-ups are just "a reasonable thing to do: because we're all subject to communicable diseases;

But being attacked by a violent predator?

Gee ... you must be PARANOID!

• Here are some highlights from Crime in the United States, 2014:
• There were an estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes (murder and non-negligent homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults) reported by law enforcement.
• Aggravated assaults accounted for 63.6 percent of the violent crimes reported, while robberies accounted for 28.0 percent, rape 7.2 percent, and murders 1.2 percent.

I'm kind of hoping that someone will compare the rate of Gingivitis annually, vs violent assault.


Considering the consequences of each, I'm still willing to bet Big Money that more Americans brush daily, compared to those who regularly carry means of physical defense against assault.

So, what's it going to be?

Brush every day?

Carry every day?

Why can't you do both?

Howard Dean doubles down on support for UC Berkeley excluding Ann Coulter - The Washington Post

Howard Dean doubles down on support for UC Berkeley excluding Ann Coulter - The Washington Post: Former Vermont governor, presidential primary contender and Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean has been arguing that Ann Coulter’s speech at the University of California at Berkeley could be canceled because it’s “hate speech.”

Point One:  Howard Dean is an idiot.
Point Two: Howard dean has no idea what Ann Coulter (or any other speaker) might have to say ... to arbitrarily suppose that another speaker would use "Hate Speech" is ludicrous.   He just doesn't want to hear anything said by anyone who doesn't agree with him.  THAT is 'Hate Speech"!
Point Three:  Democrats tend to define "hate speech" as anything they don't want to hear.   Yes, it is repeating point Two.
Point Four: Howard dean is an idiot, an ignoramus, and he doesn't have anything to contribute to a political dialogue..
Point Five: Howard the Coward attempts to suppress 'free speech' because he is intellectually incapable of presenting a cogent, logical argument in opposition.
Point Six: Nobody want's to hear what Howard has to say because he is an idiot and he can't even express himself clearly without screaming.



Well, that didn't work out so well, did it?

"Combative" Jaywalker?

I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't seem ISN'T right!


Black man arrested for jaywalking was beaten in jail, stripped naked and mocked, lawsuit says - The Washington Post:

(See link for video)

When Nandi Cain Jr. was seen on video getting slammed to the ground and pummeled repeatedly by a police officer, that was not the end of his ordeal, according to his attorney. A new federal lawsuit states that the 24-year-old was also placed on psychiatric hold and taken to an isolation cell of a county jail, where the officer and other employees beat him repeatedly, stripped his clothes off and made obscene comments. Cain was then left in the cell, where he spent hours without food, medical attention or a chance to make a phone call, the lawsuit says. 

The lawyer is filing a civil suit.

In their statement, Sacramento police officials said they have reviewed the video and “determined the officer’s actions appeared to be outside of policy.”

Sacramento (California) police shouldn't expect a pay raise in the foreseeable future.

Personal:  I'm generally supportive of Law Enforcement Officers.

These, though, seem to be acting more like animals that Officers of The Law.
I'm sure there's more to the story than has been presented here, but it's difficult to justify denial of rights of a prisoner, no matter what the circumstances of his arrest.

For JAYWALKING!!!!

Resisting Arrest?   Perhaps physical force might be appropriate.

Deliberate shaming? Depriving the accused of civil rights?

Not in the story, at all.

Not "officers of the law", but animals with a bloated sense of Judicial Privilege.

I'm resisting the temptation to use the word "Disgusting" until more information is made available; but based purely on initial reporting, I doubt that will happen.

It's difficult to excuse this kind of abuse of a prisoner; even one who is resisting arrest; especially when the punishment exceeds accepted treatment of a prisoner who has been incarcerated and not, apparently, offering further resistance.

How to become your own worst nightmare

Getting the Gun | The Huffington Post:
(2013)

Following the Newtown massacre in December the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, told the country, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” I wondered what would it be like to be that good guy with a gun? What would it be like to get that gun, live with that gun, be out and about with that gun and finally, what happens when you don’t want that gun any more? I decided to find out.

The author of this article, Heidi Newman, goes on to describe how EASY it was to "get a gun", despite the facts that she had never had a gun, had no idea how to use it, and it scared the pee-wadding out of herself to even hold it in her hand.

She had become a gun owner, she was eminently unqualified to own one,  and apparently wrote the article to illustrate how easy it was for an ignorant (not stupid, just not knowledgeable) person to "Get A Gun".

This is what I love about the Huff 'n Puff Post; there is no limit to the extremes to which their contributors will go, to prove their political point.  In this case that guns are evil and unqualified people shouldn't own one.

Or two.  Or heck, why stop there?

Actually, I agree with Heidi.   If you aren't trained, if you are afraid of guns, you probably shouldn't own one .... unless, of course, you make the basic minimum of finding a qualified trainer who will help you decide if  'having a gun' is right for you.

In much of America, it's not difficult to find training.
My local club (Albany Rifle and Pistol Club) provides regular classes for new gun owners.  And some classes for experience gun owners, as well; I teach one of them.  

In Oregon, gun laws are what Heidi and her Friends would call "Lax".  I would call them "Constitutional".  
If you're not a convicted felon, or an alien, or legally insane, or under the age of your majority --- you're assumed to be a legal  ADULT citizen.  Yes, the second Amendment applies to you!

So the experience that Heidi describes is something of her own making.

She hadn't purchased a firearm because she wished to exercise her Constitutional Right to be armed; her goal wasn't hunting, home/self defense, or competition.  

She was making a political statement, which the Leftists among us typically describe as: "I have a right not to be frightened because people around me might be carrying guns, and I don't trust them to have the sense to not be a jackass while they are armed!"

Given the details of Heidi's private experiment in exercising her civil rights, there's some justification to that attitude.

Heidi, you're a jackass.

You were sold a gun without training (although I'm quite certain that you had to pass an FBI Background Check proving that you're not legally insane or a felon or an alien) and you frightened yourself.  And you did so deliberately, for the SHOCK VALUE of creating a "publishable article".
 (Read: you could sell it to the Huffington Post)

You frightened me, too; you were irresponsible and inexperienced,  Those were not what frightened me; you put yourself in that situation deliberately, to provide material for a "Scare Article" in order to undermine the freedoms guaranteed to you by a bunch of privileged white men hundreds of years ago.

I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers had weak-sister women (and men) in their community, and their fair share of idiots and crack-pots.   I'm not sure they had so many as to combine all three in-admirable character flaws in one pamphleteer;  on the other hand, in the 18th century it generally required that a pamphleteer pay printing costs, and publishing this article cost you no more than your monthly internet access ... which suggests that you took advantage of both the 2nd Amendment and the 1st Amendment to publish your screed.

Sigh.

It doesn't matter.  I happen to support your Second Amendment Right to own a firearm.
I also support your First Amendment right to write and publish an article intended to undermine the Second Amendment under the protection of the First Amendment

"I do not agree with [or "I disapprove  of ... "] what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"

That statement is commonly ascribed to Voltaire, but it was probably penned by Evelyn Beatrice Hall; and the gender of the author is unimportant but noticed.

I think, Heidi (may I call you Heidi?  You may call me Geek!) that you have demonstrated bad judgement in your constitutional experimentation.   The fact that you voice discomfort is not proof that American Constitution Law is not sufficiently cognizant of the fact that some people are frightened by Too Much Freedom.

It's proof  that you have exceeded your natural good judgement in order to write a publishable article.

That you couldn't get it published in a more responsible venue than The Huffington Post suggests that you either couldn't get adequate readership through your own blog, or that you deliberately chose a venue which you knew would agree with, and publish, your article because it supports their anti-constitutional opinions.

Heidi ... you're such a rebel.  I like that.
I don't agree with you, I don't support your political views.

So, you want to go out for a cup of coffee some time?

(You won't have to 'carry'.)

Yes, you were right to vote against her; no, you were not wrong to oppose her!; yes, she was a bitch who would have destroyed America! and yes, you should have voted against her!

New Poll: If Hillary Faced Trump Again Today, She Would Still Lose | Fox News Insider:

" ... many Clinton voters did not feel strongly about her candidacy ... "

Hillary would have destroyed America.

Nothing more should, or needs to be said.

Obama Speaks in Chicago: 'There's a Gap Between Who's Governing Us and What We Believe' | Fox News Insider

Obama Speaks in Chicago: 'There's a Gap Between Who's Governing Us and What We Believe' | Fox News Insider:

Former President Barack Obama made his first public remarks since leaving office, speaking to young people at the University of Chicago.

He has nothing important to say, but he relishes the opportunity to get some face time on television.

Nothing has changed. He's still irrelevant.

I'm sure glad for term limits!

Intrusive websites

I've noticed that some of my favorite websites have new features; they want to know more about me than I care to share when I comment on their webpages.

I'm certain that these "updates" are not enforced at the option of the authors; they're something that the  software they use has implemented to track readership and provide marketting tools to them ... the software managers.

I'm not aware if BLOGGER (my website server) has imposed these new requirements on this website, but please be aware that ... if so, it hasn't been done with my consideration, let alone with my agreement.

Frankly, if I have to provide a lot of personal data just to comment on a blog post, I'll reserve my comments and choose not to provide opinions which I think will be more helpful to readers.  It's not my blog, so screw them.

Okay, that's a bit more radical than I want to sound.

I enjoy reading a lot of different blogs, and when I noticed that their software was requiring personal information from commenters, I was appalled.   The worst thing is, I don't know if the bloggers are aware that their readers must provide "tracking" information when they attempt to provide textual comments to their articles.

It astonished me when the guy in the desert ( won't provide a URL ) website accepts comments only when intrusive personal information is provided.

  Come on .... a guy in a desert probably isn't a great fan of Big Dot Com!

(Assume "F-word inserted here) me once, your shame; twice?   my shame!

I will NOT be commenting on any website which requires that my (verified)  website link is autofilled.

And if you have to give up your drivers license number (as at least one social website now requires( in order to comment on anything I have to say here ... I wouldn't encourage you to make comments.

Even though I am may be full of shit, it's just not worth it.

Fuck them, and the white horse they rode in on!

Please don't let the screen door hit you out your way out!

President Trump Just Fired Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy. The NRA And Gun Owners Thank Him. – InvestmentWatch:

Bumping a surgeon general (highest ranking physician in the country) was needful because America doesn't need the Medical Profession declaring that firearms are "a medical problem".

Firearms aren't the problem; they're the solution.

From the article:

 We do not want to lose our Second Amendment Rights, because there are those who actually think guns are the problem.  

But even more troubling is the fact that the same (Obama) Administration has been said to have participated in the crime known as gun running. 

Extreme political solutions to Constitutional Issues have no place in America.   

When the personal opinion of public employees seem to be supported by the President, the issue becomes more important.  Unlike the author of the original article, I do not assume that the Surgeon General had the well-being of citizens as his highest priority.  

I believe that his personal agenda was pursued without consideration for the Constitution, and when a federal employee makes decisions based on his personal bias rather than the virtues of the constitution, he has lost legitimacy.

Also, he has lost his job; which is the best outcome for a Maverick Magistrar!

Lethargy is Lethal

One of my two best friends in the world died last week.

I wasn't there to ease him though his pain.  I didn't even know that he was in danger.

Worse, I was not there to talk him out of the unhealthy habits which lead to his death.\

Ed, I have known for 40 years, passed away quietly in his sleep.  He had no noticeable chronic illness, other than that (according to his/my/our children) he "just sat on the sofa and watched television".

I guess it would be reasonable to say that he died from a sedentary life style.

I wasn't aware that he was in ill-health, unto six weeks ago when his family informed me that he was deathly ill, and in the hospital.  I drove down to California to check on him, in the hospital.  He seemed ... old. He was 'Infirm" in the sense that he found it difficult to  walk.

But I accompanied him during one of the (man?) exercise regimines prescribed by his doctors.

He shuffled,and was transported by a wheel-chair .. but he was able to walk, as long as he had a set of parallel bars to hang onto; I got the impression that the served to help him maintain his balance, rather than to carry his weight.     He actually seemed stronger than his family and his doctors gave him credit for.

However, he had little energy (then this was in August/September .. it's April now),  It was difficult the to determine whether his muscles had atrophied through some sort of disability, or through willful disuse.

He was released from the hospital, and I went home.

Two days ago, I was informed that he had died in his home.

Peacefully.

Well, I guess that's one of the best ways to die.  Peacefully.

I remember my paternal grandfather, who  died at age 95, in an "old folks home" section of a hospital,, and the last note recorded on his medical chart was that they had to take away his cane because he was beating the crap out of his room-mate.

Nobody knows why he was so aggressive, or why he so detested his 'room-mate' that he deemed it appropriate that he beat the crap out of him.

I didn't know Grampa (He was DECADES older than me!) that well, but I always kind of suspected that his room mate disagreed with Grampa on fine points of politics.  Further comments would be opinion only.

The thing is .. I kind of admired my Grampa for maintaining his curmudgeion persona to the last day of his life.  I might not agree that he was right to assault a (probably perfectly innocent) room mate

(I won't even try to guess the politics of his room-mate!)

,, but the point is, Grampa went out fighting.  I mean ... within minutes of whatever disagreement!

As For Myself:  
I spent a year fighting against people who had ... generally ... never done an unkind act toward me, or any of my friends.  I didn't like the, or dislike them; they were just target (as were we).

I did some minor harm  to a few of them; they did some minor harm to a few of my friends, too.

It never occurred to me that I would ever "go down" in any mode other than fighting..

Hell, I went there not expecting to come back ... other than in a box.
(Most of us had the sane expectation; it apparently was a significant survival factor.)

So, when U came home with no damage other than a major case of Bamboo Poisoning (which took over a year to cure), I figured that my Tour Of Duty was over.

SURPRISE!
My friend, who had never been outside of the Continental United Sates (CONUS) ...
.. died of  lethargy.

I know you're thinking that U;n dissing my friend.  Nothing can be further from the truth.

Ed was one of the kindest, gentlest men I've ever know.
 He didn't hit his dogs; that has to speak well of his restraint!

(His wife//my ex-wife ... well, there was a chili-pepper mutt that I would have strangled, given 2 minutes in a dark room/ I detest incontinent yappers!  And the dog was worse!)

But Ed put up with the worst that tiny hairless dogs and their owners can do to the carpet, and the sofa.

(I kind of think Ed might have considered a soft death to be an acceptable alternative to living with a walking/yapping bladder, but I digress.)

I don't like BG's; detest DISCO music ... but I can't help liking the One Good Thing From Disco: Staying Alive!

This is classic.

Trump Jr.’s Montana prairie dog hunt prompts backlash

Trump Jr.’s Montana prairie dog hunt prompts backlash:

The Humane Society of the United States condemned Trump’s hunting plans, saying prairie dogs are an important species for the Great Plains because more than 100 other animals depend on the prairie dog either as food or move into the burrows they dig, said Lindsey Sterling Krank, the organization’s director for its Prairie Dog Coalition.

Let them dig their own darn holes.

And let the weepy tree-huggers cry for the cattle who break their legs in prairie dog holes, and suffer in agony until the rancher finds a lamed heifer and has to put her down .. often leaving a orphan calf ("Dogie") to die because no other heifer will adopt him.

Ranchers ... who grow the hamburgers that the Humane Society probably eats at their fund-raising BBQ's ... have two ways of minimizing the Prairie Dog Menace:  Poison, or shooting.  Trapping is not an effective means of killing of Prairie Dogs (who are the victims of Coyotes ... who will gleefully take down a calf or a nursing cow).

Poisoning either Prairie Dogs or Coyotes is not a good alternative, because the carcass will end up being eaten by scavenger, such as the Bald Eagle (our national symbol) and they die from the effects of "secondary poisoning".  

And then some other scavenger eats their body, and the strychnine moves on.

There is a good reason why Prairie Dogs are also called "Prairie Rats".

Hunting them is the most humane method of keeping the rodent population down to manageable levels.  When coyotes find a dead prairie dog, their pack feeds for a day.

 And the ecological benefit of the coyote?

They eat lamed cows.   If the rancher doesn't find the cow first, coyotes don't bother to kill the cows, they just start on the hind legs and keep eating until they get to the vital parts.    They particularly enjoy eating the intestines of cattle before they are dead.   I've seen parts of cattle spread over a half-acre when a pack of coyotes finds one that can't keep up with the herd.   The cow just drags herself along on three legs while the dogs snarl and bite and rips raw flesh from the living animal.  THAT is pitiful, and cruel.

Cattle are a lot easier to catch than Prairie Dogs, and there's enough there for a pack to feed for three days.

If you don't know the ecology of the prairie, you probably aren't qualified to opine about the poor prairie dog.

Bill would end requirement to tell police you're carrying a gun | WSYX

Bill would end requirement to tell police you're carrying a gun | WSYX:

Failure to tell a police officer you have a gun is a misdemeanor. Ohio is one of only 10 states with a law like that on the books.

I have no problems with a law like that.
I DO have a problem with a poorly written article ... such as this one, which doesn't clearly define under which circumstances you need to notify an officer.

I've already written about my practices if/when I'm pulled over for a traffic offence; even knowing that the officer is aware the owner of a car has a CHL (Concealed Handgun License), I have my drivers license, my insurance card, and my CHL in my hand when he approaches the car ... and my hands are in plain sight, on the steering wheel.   He knows I'm the person he expected to see behind the wheel.

CHL owners are the last people who should concern LEOs ... but it never hurts to demonstrate to the cop who pulled you over in the middle of the night that you ARE the owner of the car, and you ARE ... at least potentially ,,, carrying a firearm.

Keep your hands in view, have your ID ready in your hand, and BE POLITE!

I don't carry because I'm afraid of police.

I don't want them to be afraid of me, either.

I'm no threat.

Oregon lawmakers consider stricter gun laws

Oregon lawmakers consider stricter gun laws:
(April 16, 2017)

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — Three new bills that would strengthen gun background checks and make it possible for law enforcement to take guns away from people with mental health issues will be introduced in the Oregon Senate on Monday. There’s already high interest in the bills — SB 764, SB 797 and SB 868 — and there’s expected to be a big turnout for public testimony on both sides.

Without even looking at the bills ... I'm against them.

But let's look at the bills anyway, just to see why I'm against them.

SB 764: Written test required to prove gun-handling skills - 
This is just silly.  You can't prove that you are competent to handle a gun by passing a written test.

I teach a class in gun-handling safety.   I've seen too many 'students' who could pass a written test, but don't even know where the safety-switch is located on their pistol ... or even that there IS a safety-switch!

SB 797: Close the Charleston Loophole -
The term Charleston Loophole refers to a murder which occurred because someone (name not cited) in Charleston was able to purchase a firearm because the NICS system was unable to verify his ineligibility to purchase a firearm.   Yes, (name not cited) was a drug user who had been arrested and charged ... but he had not been convicted of a crime; he was not legally a criminal.

It is not legal to deny one's constitutional rights without trial.  Therefore, there were no legal grounds to deny his purchase.

That's not a "loophole"; that's a "feature".   It's in the Constitution; look it up.

SB 868: Confiscate private firearms without proof of criminal action -  

SB 868 would let law enforcement take guns away from people convicted of stalking. It would also let concerned family members go to court to try and take guns away from a loved one, if they can prove that loved one is a risk to themselves or others.

This may be the most egregious of all laws, if it violates the constitutional rights of a private firearm owner without proof of "wrong doing".

Here is the bill:

The bill purports to allow the 'accused' (by a family member or member of the household) to be deprived of firearms as a consequence of any of several events.  One of the events which may be used to justify this order is:

(g) Evidence of an acquisition or attempted acquisition within the previous 180 days by the respondent of a firearm, ammunition of another deadly weapon

In other words, if you purchased, or "tried" to purchase, a firearm (or ammunition) within the past six months, you may be considered a threat by the court.  Other situations are applicable, but this is considered prima facie evidence that the confiscation of your firearms might be justifiable.


 There has never been a law passed which performs such an indefensible breach of property rights, and that includes those laws which, for example, allow a governmental agency to condemn your private property ... real estate ... to build a mall.

The worst part of this law is that it is so easily subject to abuse.

A jilted lover, a divorced spouse, a relative who learns he/she has been left out of your will ... any person with whom you have a relationship might potentially use such a law to gratuitously undermine your civil rights.  When you grant them the power to take away your rights, and the law does not noticeably allow you to defend yourself.

In practice in other states, this kind of law has been used to deprive lawful gun owners of their property.   It may sound paranoid, but at this point the burden of proof is on you; better find a good lawyer.

And if you haven't inventoried your firearms (including make/model/caliber/serial number and a photograph), this might be a good time to do so.  Otherwise, you may not get them all back after they have been confiscated.

Also ... you need photographs to verify the condition they're in before they were confiscated.

Photograph both sides of firearm, and the serial number.  The people who come to "turn them all in" may not be as careful of the fit and finish of your custom rifle as you are.

Watch: Dangerous 1936 LA Police Trick Shooting - AllOutdoor.com

Watch: Dangerous 1936 LA Police Trick Shooting - AllOutdoor.com:

What these guys are doing here is extremely stupid.

It's fun to watch, though.

(all outdoor.com)

On the value of legal "Concealed Carry"

Op-ed: Federal concealed carry reciprocity is wrong for Pennsylvania and the country — NewsWorks:

 An explosion in the number of people interested in carrying concealed weapons has occurred in recent years, due to the belief that a "good guy" with a gun can deter crime or violence. The facts simply do not support this notion. A recent study that analyzed data on number of concealed handgun licenses issued from 1998 to 2010 and arrests in every county in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas found no significant effect of concealed carry laws and increases or changes in crime rates ...

Cherry-picked data is no data at all; the above quote is a non sequitor, because to doesn't really have anything to say about the value of  "allowing" law abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm.

It doesn't' matter whether anyone can find verifiable data that a CHL ("Concealed Handgun License", in my state) has had a "significant effect of concealed carry laws and increases or changes in crime rates";  what matters is that the 'good guys' may legitimately carry a gun to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property.

In a way, I have some issues with the CHL system.   I think that the 2nd Amendment already justifies carry of a defensive weapon, and the CHL system is redundant.

But it does have some value, in that a LEO meeting an armed citizen can easily separate the felon-with-a-gun from the honest citizen (one whose right to be armed has not been abrogated by a felony conviction, etc.)

On the other hand, when a LEO meets an armed person, it's a matter of moments before a background check can identify a convicted felon who is forbidden by law to carry.

While I resent having to "prove" my status as a non-felon, it does have value because when (for example) I am pulled over by a LEO for a minor traffic infringement, the officer knows before he gets out of his car that (a) I am probably armed, (b) I'm not likely to be a threat to him.  As I'm forthcoming with my drivers license, insurance card and CHL license when he arrives at the window of my automobile,

This avoids the possible tragedy demonstrated by the Philandro Castille episode, where a CHL driver was shot by a cop when he reached for his CHL .. inside his jacket ... and the LEO thought he was reaching for a gun.

Cops aren't perfect; so you have to be.

Thus endeth the lesson/

Yes, I've already said all these things before; they bear repeating.

Welcome to Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love

I would think that a guy who was going to a job interview wouldn't be the most likely source of a lot of money for three men.

Watch the video.   This vicious beating was personal, not a robbery.

Caught on Cam: 3 Men Beat, Rob Victim Leaving Job Interview | NBC 10 Philadelphia:

 A man who had just left a job interview was brutally beaten, knocked unconscious and robbed by three men in the Kensington section of Philadelphia. The attack was captured on surveillance video. The 25-year-old victim, who did not want to be identified, told NBC10 he had just finished a job interview inside a restaurant at B and Tioga Streets back on April 15 at 12:30 p.m. As he walked out of the restaurant he was suddenly attacked by three men. A surveillance camera captured the suspects punching and kicking the man until he lost consciousness. The men then stole his cellphone, wallet and money before fleeing the scene.

They Kill Their Own Kind?

I'm amazed that "Hillary Clinton Supporters" might be so threatening to a "Liberal actress"!

I'm sure that must mean ... something; but I cannot understand the Thought Process of Liberals.
 I didn't even know they had 'thought processes'!

Susan Sarandon: Angry Hillary Clinton supporters forced me to change my phone number - Washington Times: By Jessica Chasmar - The Washington Times - Thursday, April 13, 2017

Liberal actress Susan Sarandon revealed Tuesday that she had to change her phone number after President Trump won the election because Hillary Clinton’s supporters wouldn’t stop harassing her. 

(emphasis added)

Note:   I like Susan Sarandon as an actress.
I never thought that she had a political opinion which we might share.

Warm and Fuzzy Feelings?  Probably not.

Cogito Ergo Geek

"Cogito Ergo Geek" means (in my personal lexicon) that I tend to "overthink" almost everything, and sometimes it gets me in trouble.  Literally, it means: "I Think, Therefore I'm A Geek".   (It should probably be "I'm A Geek, Therefore ..." you know)

But I chose that title for my personal blog because ... this blogposting thingie is a way for me to 'think out loud'.  And I write because I have to; not because I want to.

Sometimes (too often) I don't like where I end up at the end of a article, and I just don't publish it.

[Shrug]

Other people take the "undifferentiated meat" that runs through their mind, work with it, and publish to the benefit of their readers

Sebastian is one of those rare individuals who can change blogger-angst into pure gold.

Beliefs Change Over Time | Shall Not Be Questioned:

I’m short on things to write about, probably because I haven’t been paying as close attention to the news. It’s occurred to me that there’s a lot of things I believe now that I didn’t ten years ago. Ten years is an awful lot of time to be immersed in writing about a single issue, and there’s not much I haven’t thought through, thought through again, then thought through a third time just to be thorough. Thinking about a list:

That's what they call a "lead", in Journalism.   I'm envious of the intellectual prowess demonstrated in the article.

You should go read it.  Twice.

My only comment would probably be:
"Yeah; what he said"

Either that, or "I wish *_I_* had said that!

The comments are sometimes more interesting than the article! (Another KABOOM! Article)

Here's the original article:

POTD: Watch Your Hands When You Unload And Show Clear - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog:

Here's a typical comment:

 A shooter was unloading his handgun when this happened. From what Scott relayed to me, was that the shooter cups the ejection port to catch the round to save time from picking it up off the floor. Now to clarify, this was not a malfunction. It was not a FTF and the primer was never struck. What happened was that during the unloading process the shooter’s hand covers the ejection port. The round most likely ejected into the hand but since the hand was so close to the ejection port it got caught between the slide and barrel.

(The author of the comment obviously intended to say "... the primer was never struck by the firing pin".)

Here's a much more ... atypical ... comment:

I saw that happen at a match I was ROing, the guy covered the ejection port as he was unloading and either the ejector or the edge of the slide creased the primer enough to cause it to go off. The case blew out the bullet got a crease in the nose from the barrel hood and he got one piece of shrapnel that went all the way thru his pointer finger and a piece stuck in his thumb. I was the one that took him to urgent care but despite the flesh wound, he received no lasting injuries. It was an STI 2011 the only damage it got was the extractor spring broke.

In the 30+ years since I started shooting IPSC, I've never seen anyone break the extractor spring on an STI, model 2011.      In fact, I've never seen a STI 2011 with an "extractor spring", although I've had occasion during an IPSC match to take my STI to the safety are and 'retune' the extractor using three rocks as a vice and a hammer.   But that's another story, and one I've told too many times.

---

Here's another one:

Looks as though the extractor hit the primer from the marks on the case, not the slide port itself. I too have done this technique at the range clearing a malfunction but always push the slide stop up to lock the slide open at the same time while turning the pistol to the side.

Again, I fail to understand how the extractor can work itself out of the extractor well in the slide and allow the pistol to continue firing/

I suspect that the authors of these comments were not referencing an STI 2011.  In the second example, it's possible that the author cited the 'extractor' when he meant to say the "ejector'.

UNDER THE FOLD: 
As much as I hate to have to explain a joke: for those who are not familiar with the construction and nomenclature of the 1911-style semi-automatic pistol ... an explanation of why I find these comments amusing can find the technical details.

Fly The Friendly Skies of United!

All this because UAL needed one more seat for a non-paying employee  passenger (Stewardess) to get to 'somewhere else' so she could work another scheduled flight?  Apparently there's a law that there needs to be FOUR (not "three") Steward on every United flight.

But what are the odds that the secondary flight couldn't have drafted a 'local' employee to fill in?
This entire scenario is just ... silly!

UAL couldn't find another stew at the destination to work the subsequent flight?   Preposterous!


Being dragged off United flight 'more terrifying' than escaping Vietnam: Passenger's lawyer - Yahoo:

The lawyer for a United Airlines passenger who was dragged off an oversold flight on Sunday said today that a lawsuit would "probably" be filed.

Duh!

Nobody ever stopped a murder by carrying a Concealed Rope in his pocket

It's impossible to be a caring human and not wish that the continuing plague of The Slaughter of Innocents would ... just ... STOP!!!

I don't know what the answer is.  

The easy, and most obvious solution is just GET RID OF ALL THE GUNS!

If just getting rid of all the guns would solve the problem of The Slaughter of Innocents, that might something that we should consider as a nation of conscientious people.

After San Bernardino shooting, we need more empathy, fewer guns (opinion) - CNN.com:

The murder of teacher Karen Smith and 8-year-old Jonathan Martinez, one of her students, shines a spotlight on at least four of the major correlating factors that increase the risk that a person will suffer violence: disability, domestic abuse, race, and guns. As we think about each one, we need to keep our empathy. We can't ever let ourselves get comfortable with this kind of slaughter. Then empathy must drive us to act by raising awareness about domestic violence and violence against people with disabilities. But most of all, as Karen Smith and Jonathan Martinez are laid to rest, we must first imagine, then act to create, an America in which there are fewer and fewer guns.

But it wouldn't stop The Slaughter of Innocents,

What it would stop is the ability of people to protect their own against the mad men.

There is no easy solution here.

"The only thing that can stop a Bad Man with a gun is a Good Man with a gun!"

Trite, and easily disdained by men of narrow vision, but there is an element of truth in it.

I have grandchildren in schools across this nation and in other nations, and I hope that they never find themselves in the horrifying situation where a monster intrudes upon their scholastic day with mayhem on his mind.     I don't know whether I could deal with the grief, sorrow and anger if any harm should come to these innocent boys and girls.

What I would like to do is to offer a simple, logical and easily implemented solution that would (with the stroke of a pen) completely eliminate the possibility that sad, lonely, angry, disenfranchised men would impose the consequences of their empty lives on my children, your children .. any child, anywhere.

I don't have that answer.  And the answers that have been presented are obviously inadequate; I have a nightmarish image in my mind of  Karen Smith and Jonathan Martinez .. he hiding behind his trusted teacher, only to join her victimhood as bullets rip through her body into his.

Even the most noble efforts to protect our children, however well intentioned, are too often in vain.

We cannot stop the bullets.  We cannot stop the guns.

What we need to do is to stop the gunmen.

In Minority Report, Tom Cruise played a character who had access to some kind of Weird Science which could predict when someone was about to "lose his nut".   That would be great, to be able to KNOW when some mild-mannered man is due to yield to his insane fantasies and commit mayhem.

But that was only fiction, it's a dream.  It will never happen.

Better to be Convicted than Buried ...

A father used a handgun in Trinidad to defend his son from assault; faces charges:

Trinidad Express Newspapers: News | Father fined for gun after rescuing son from attackers:

On his return to the station, Maraj told Hyacinth of the offences committed and cautioned him. Hyacinth said: “Men who I don’t know came out of a white B15…and they started beating up my son. They were pelting bottles at him and I was frightened that they kill him. “I take out my gun from my waist and I shoot in the air to get them off my son. I cannot recall if I shot at any car. I cannot recall where I throw the gun but it was somewhere near the road.” Following the facts of the case, which Hyacinth agreed with, Magistrate Margaret Alert entered a not-guilty plea on his behalf for discharging the firearm in a public place.

This is the problem with punitive firearms regulations: even when you're right, you're still wrong.

The father faces fines of several thousand of dollars for possession and use of a firearm to save his son from serious injury, or dearth; even though the court was sympathetic.

She fined Hyacinth $3,500 for possession of the gun and gave him 60 days to pay or serve nine months in prison. Hyacinth was also fined $1,500 for possession of the ammunition. He has to pay the money in 30 days or serve three months in jail.The father was placed on $15,000 bail for discharging the gun. He will return to court on May 9.

It may not be "Justice", but it's "The Law".

I wonder how long it takes for a Trinidad resident to accumulate $20,000?

But I'm sure the father thinks his son was worth it.

This is NOT going to look good on your resume!

Do as I say ...

https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/

not as I do:

Man Accidentally Shoots Himself at NRA Headquarters: Police | NBC4 Washington:\

 A National Rifle Association employee accidentally shot himself while doing firearms training at the organization's headquarters, according to police. The 46-year-old man's pistol accidentally discharged Thursday afternoon as he holstered the gun in Fairfax County, Virginia, police said.

H/T: Say Uncle

9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

I missed this when it was first posted on YOUTUBE.

About that "Them Twin Towers Wuz Deliberately Downed By The Gobmint, cause Jet Fuel Can't Melt Steel Beams!" set of theories.

Someone should have posted this little demonstration before, right?

Well, someone did. Some of us (me) just never heard about this one before.  But we're hearing about it now:




For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT - YouTube:

Published on Dec 15, 2015 Why don't these dumb things die? "For any licensing requests please contact licensing@break.com” Subscribe For More Blacksmithing Goodness and follow us on Facebook at "Purgatory Ironworks"!

Any questions?

No?

Good!

Who are you calling a "Gun Nut"?

You might be a Gun Nut. (Huge list):

If your gun collection is worth more than your automobile, 

you just might be a gun nut.

Oh-oh.   I'm busted!

Blackhawk's "SERPA" holster found to be unsafe

The SERPA Sucks, And That's Just All There Is To Say About It:

  ,,, the BlackHawk! SERPA holster is one of the worst holster designs currently manufactured.
 The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) Field Training Directorate (FTD) launched an investigation of the design after “four incidents.” The resulting research discovered that the user’s trigger finger ended up proximal to the trigger on 25-percent of the draw strokes, and that 13-percent of attempted draw strokes began out of sequence. They concluded (PDF) that the basic design of the holster was likely to greatly increase the likelihood of an “inadvertent discharge,” and concluded that it should not be used in any of their training. Here’s Guns & Ammo TV trying to argue that Serpa’s are “perfectly safe.” Watch what happens with the expert’s finger.

(Click link at top of the post to see videos in the original Bearing Arms article)

Lemonade and Cookie and Guns Stand; what could go wrong?

Tennessee lawmaker tries to sell gun at downtown lemonade stand | WKRN News 2:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) – House Democratic Caucus Leader Mike Stewart set up a lemonade stand on a corner of Tennessee’s Capitol Hill early Wednesday that featured a newly purchased assault rifle to show how easy it is to buy a gun. But a few hours later, his bill to try and change that did not sway Republican colleagues. The lawmaker said he brought the knock-off AK-47 assault rifle in a parking lot after finding a seller on the Internet. There were no takers for the gun, the lemonade, or some cookies that were also for sale at the stand.

He should have offered Famous Amos cookies.

I swear, I am NOT making this up!
When it comes to bizarre political showmanship, you can't beat the Democrats.

I tried to set up a lemonade stand in front of my home when I was 10 years old.  No takers.
There were no AK-47 rifles available then, but I suspect I still wouldn't have any buyers.

If you're a Democrat, you have to be over 50 years old before you learn the same lesson.

Submarine Killer Bullets ...Oh, The Humanity!

"You can fire from a helicopter and take out a sub if you have a big enough caliber."

If nobody has yet notified "Mothers Against Nearly Everything" .... let me be the first!

These 'Swimming Bullets' Can Obliterate a Target Underwater - Kit Up!
{actual weblink!}

{April 05, 2017)

 NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland — A Norwegian company hopes the U.S. Navy will see the value in its revolutionary product: bullets that “swim” and remain effective on target for significant distances underwater. The secret to DSG Technology’s CAV-X supercavitating bullets is a specially turned tip and carefully calibrated balance and mass, creating an air bubble that allows the munition to shoot through the water, said Kristian Aksnes, director of Special Operations Forces for DSG. The bullets are tungsten with a brass shell and designed to be fired from conventional weapons, he said.

Forget the U.S. Navy ... where can I buy one of these?

Earplugs, Suppressors ... eh? Speak up, Sonny!

I've been shooting guns for sixty years .. indoor gun ranges, outdoor gun ranges, hunting, Vietnam, and IPSC competition.

When I was a kid, I got a kick out of it when people would ask my father (who trained me) a question and he would say "what?  Speak up, boy!"   I thought he was putting me on, but he shot rifles ... not pistols, and he was half deaf from the experience.

It made him look like an idiot.

Unfortunately, he never used any kind of ear protection, so he didn't teach me that!  Part of the reason was that he only shot rifles, and at that time there were few "inside the ear channel" options; it's hard to get a good cheek press with a rifle while wearing earmuffs.

But there were a few options;  I found them, and used them, and ignored his "A Real Man Doesn't" remarks.
I took to stuffing cotton in my ears before bench-rest testing his rifles ... like the .30-338, the 338 Winchester magnum and the 7mm Remington magnum ... which he built over the years.

(He loved building rifles in experimental calibers.  I was glad when he decided Jack O'Conner was his hero ... smaller, faster calibers, such as the 6.5-285, were easier on the ears!

Still, my hearing acuity has diminished over the years.   And this is not a 'minor issue'.  I'm now the grandfather who says "What?  Speak up!" and my grandkids get a kick out of their idiot grandfather.

Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership: Firearm Suppressors Fight Hearing Loss - Breitbart:

After showing that “significant, permanent hearing loss” can result from “a single exposure of 140 decibels or more,” DRGO points out that that “muzzle blast sound levels for most firearms (handguns, rifles and shotguns) range from 140 to over 170 decibels, more than sufficient to cause instant, permanent hearing damage.”

Bows and Arrow Not Mentioned

Registration .... the next step is Confiscation

Navajo Nation considers implementing gun registration - ABC15 Arizona:

 PHOENIX - Navajo Nation Tribal Council officials are reviewing a proposal that would require tribal land residents to register their firearms. The Daily Times reports the proposed bill would require residents to register firearms such as automatic guns, rifles and shotguns to the Navajo Nation Police Department.
 The bill would allow the police department to maintain a registry which would include the firearm's serial number, registration date and the owner's name and address.

"... automatic guns"?)

This is wrong in so many ways.

Delegate Davis Filfred says the measure would create accountability for gun owners and make identifying gun owners easier for police.

(Photo: Iron Eyes Cody ... NOT an Indian)

So ... Indians not only are depicted by Italians in the movies, but they now have anti-gun infringements imposed on them which are not shared by non-indians.

"First they came for the  Jews... Navajos, but I was not a Jew Navaho, and so I did not speak out", 

I Always Wanted To Be "That Guy"

BLUE ANGELS - Insane Footage Takes You Inside the Cockpit - YouTube




H/T "The G-Man"

Best viewed in FULL SCREEN with SOUND ON (go to the link)

Nobody Does It Better

When it comes to ignoring YOUR Constitutional Rights, nobody does it better than well-entrenched Democrats.

Pennsylvania lawmaker proposes 'no fly, no buy' gun legislation:

A Pennsylvania lawmaker has proposed legislation that would prohibit people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list, including the no-fly list, from possessing or purchasing guns in the state. House Bill 528, sponsored and introduced by Democrat Rep. Perry S. Warren, would call on Pennsylvania State Police to check the FBI’s terrorist watch list when someone attempts to purchase a firearm. Anyone denied the purchase of firearms would have the right to appeal.

(H/T: Guns.com)

Pennsylvania State Representative  Perry S. Warren  (Democrat, natch) knows what he wants, and he's just the guy to make it happen!

His philosophy is: "if you're not allowed to fly, you're not allowed to buy!"

Guns, that is.

Note: Nobody knows who is on the "Terrorist No-Fly List, or Why, or Whether They have been accused ... let along convicted ... of a crime.

Here'e the thing about Elected Democrats:

They're not idiots.
Correction: they're not ALL idiots.

Unfortunately, this particular Democrat is, demonstrably, an idiot.

But I think we can usually agree that this guy is a total 'tard.

Money for Nothin', and Checks for Free

The Gun Grabbers (democrats and the CDC) are at it again.

Democrats request $60 million for CDC to study gun violence as health crisis:

A group of 30 Senate and House Dems debuted a proposal on Tuesday to fund research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on firearms safety and gun violence prevention.
 Backed by U.S. Sen. Edward Markey D-Mass., and U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, along with a host of other Democrat and Independent lawmakers, the bill, S.834, would provide $10 million per year to CDC for a term of at least six years beginning in 2018.

You will note the list of radical leftest senators who are sponsoring this bill to use my federal tax dollars to politicize the "gun violence" issue ... again.

 The measure introduced this week would set aside $10 million in funding each year for FY2018-2023 to be added to the CDC’s budget, earmarked for research into guns. The money, if approved, would be the largest funding for federal gun use research since a 1996 amendment by then-Rep. Jay Dickey, R-Ark., precluded CDC’s funds from being spent on actions intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.

(And there are NGOs involved in this effort, too ... which will come as no surprise.)

The bill is supported by a number of health care lobby groups and gun control organizations including the Newtown Action Alliance, Everytown, Moms Demand Action, the Brady Campaign, Americans for Responsible Solutions and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

This bill is an attempt to go back to the Good Old Days, when the CDC could pursue its own political agenda ... at our cost!   Before the Dickey amendment, the CDC could publish biased reports on "gun violence".   Their reports were long on the harm that guns can do, but absolutely lacking on any "positive effects" of private firearms ownership ... such as self defense, and the original purpose of the 2nd amendment (which was to prevent a runaway government from controlling an unarmed citizenry).

After years of whining because the mean old Republicans wouldn't let them undermine our Constitutional Rights at our cost, the Dems have taken the "Moral High Ground" by asserting that the CDC is hampered by the Dickey amendment.

Write your congressman.

I just wrote to mine:

Arizona Weighs In On Smart Guns ... kinda/sorta/maybe (We're Not Sure)

Some Arizona lawmakers voted to block a measure that would stop people from buying smart guns.   (WTF?)

Have I read this wrong?

The original article is unclear, but it sounds as if a "YES" vote would make it "unlawful" to buy a "Smart Gun".

Some states (notably New Jersey) have laws which REQUIRE people to buy Smart Guns if available;   is it possible that Arizona has taken The Road Less Travelled and is considering making them illegal?

Some Arizona Lawmakers Concerned About Smart Gun Technology | KJZZ:

Some Arizona lawmakers voted to block a measure that would stop people from buying smart guns. The House bill would prohibit any mandatory tracking technology on guns, but most of Thursday’s debate centered on the idea of who is and who isn't supposed to be able to fire the gun. Proponents said smart gun technology could prevent shooting tragedies like what happened last week when a little boy was killed by his two year old brother. But opponents like Senator John Kavanagh said the technology isn’t there yet.

It may not matter, since the technology is still untested, but it sounds as if they're only concerned about the option to track the guns. Which seems a valid reason to oppose them, based on privacy issues.  

We're going to assume that the short article was poorly written, and that the legislature is not really going to make Smart Guns Illegal ... just make it illegal to track them.

(By the way, the parent station KJZZ has a nice jazz station online, where you can listen to some good vibes while the reporter goes back to journalism school!)

John Farnam Says ... About 9mm Revolvers

QUIPS | Defense Training International, Inc.:
Bullet Migration in 9mm Revolvers by John Farnam
| 4 Apr 2017

 “Bullet-jump” with light-weight revolvers, particularly those chambered for 9mm: 
Last weekend, during a Defensive Handgun Course, a student brought a Ruger five-shot revolver, chambered in 9mm.
During an exercise, shooting factory 115gr hardball from a well-known and reputable manufacturer, a bullet jumped forward far enough to protrude from the face of the cylinder and thus prevent the cylinder from rotating normally. In fact, the bullet jumped forward far enough to physically separate from the case. This not only precluded the revolver from continuing to fire, but it also made it impossible to swing-out the cylinder, so the revolver could now not be reloaded!

I don't have contact information for Mr. Farnam (a well-respected trainer in these parts), but if you have a 9mm revolver, you may want to be aware of his warning.

Revolvers are often held to be "the most reliable handgun in the world" by some people, but I have had personal experience of "loose gripped bullets" in revolvers causing this cylinder lock-up.

In fact, while officiating at IPSC matches (over the past 30 years), I've actually seen at least one example.
This was, in fact a .38 Special revolver (I do not recall the manufacturer of the pistol or the ammunition), but it stopped cold the budding career of a wanna-be Revolver Ace.

This young man was a member of a group of revolver afficianados who came to a Major IPSC match in Oregon to prove that Revolver Shooters ... uh .... I'm not sure what he wanted to prove.   But he had a cartridge which was not sufficiently crimped (as I recall, he was using handloads with cannelured lead bullets) and he had failed to sufficiently crimp one round.

He fired over 500 rounds in a 600 round Crocodile Dundee High Round-Count Match, and he had his wife and his two (3?) Children reloading his speed-loaders for him.

I'm not sure, but I think he even brought his cat with him!

I had squaded with him, and I was at least  almost as disappointed as was he in his ill fortune.
(His family was close to weeping for "Daddy's Misfortune".)

They came from the Shasta, California are, and my friend if you are reading this I hope you are encouraged in knowing that you are not the only revolver shooter who has ever experienced this kind of 'failure' in a high-profile situation.

I suspect that having your revolver lock up during a John Farnam Class is at least as embarrassing as during a Crocodile Dundee Crazy Croc High Round Count / Weekend In Hell match.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr7rrjmcZ9s

Silence Of The Lambs

I use to compete in a sport called "Practical Shooting", which is where scenario-based stage designs are used to help people simulate 'defensive' pistol shooting scenarios.

One of the things we did in Practical Shooting Matches was to shoot at targets behind a partition ... variously called a 'baffle', or  'vision barrier..   What is was, was a wall that we had to shoot around.
You had to stand behind the baffle, and crane your neck (and upper shoulders) to get the handgun past the vision barrier far enough so you could engage the target.

You could't always manage to get the muzzle of your gun past the Vision Barrier far enough that you could see the target, keep your balance, and still keep the Vision Barrier between yourself and the handgun.

With the usual kind of handgun, that imposed a penalty of a LOT of the noise of the handgun firing bouncing back, so you heard more of the noise of the gun than was comfortable.

But some of us were shooting what were called "Open Guns".
They were guns which were fitted with Compensators.

Compensators were heavy metal additions to the 'front ends' (muzzles) of the barrel which (because of inertia) minimized the amount of "muzzle flip" between shots;  so that we could shoot two shots quickly with about the same sight-picture, but needed less time between shots, because the weight prevented the front part of the gun from 'bouncing' (recoiling) as much as it would without the Compensator.

Another factor of the compensator was that it had holes drilled in the top, and at the sides, so that the "muzzle blast" was directed both vertically and laterally so the "muzzle bounce" was not so extreme.  Thus, the word "Compensator" ... compensated for the nature tendency of the muzzle to rise dramatically between shots.

This allowed us to re-engage the targets faster ... we didn't have to wait the extra half-second for the sight picture to re-show us the target, so we could shoot two (or more) shots in quick succession.   Instead of waiting a second (or more) between shots, we could take our "double-tap" in "Split times" of 0.17 to 0.30 seconds.

In a stage with, say .... ten shots, that could save us as much as 2.5 - 3 seconds, depending on the number of targets we had to engage (it usually took us from 0.30 to 0.50 seconds to transit between targets, if they were placed close together).

And in competition, a full second is like an eternity. It can be the difference between first place and forget-it-ville.

JUST TO DEMONSTRATE the difference in seconds, here are two examples of shooting a 'stand and shoot' stage with a compensated and a non-compensated pistol.

(The videos may load slowly ... they are high-resolution files.)

(Later: Well, I can't get the videos to show.  I guess the 1MB+ videos aren't acceptable to Blogger.
Sorry)

The first competitor is using a non-compensated (limited-class) pistol:

The second competitor is using a compensated (open-class) pistol.

You can see how the compensator allows the competitor to get that 'second shot' at a target faster (and more accurately).

Well ... you can see it if my video load works correctly.



Underreported: How Gun Silencers Became a Health Issue:

Most people only know about silencers from what they see in the movies—a stealthy gun accessory that helps criminals more easily kill by suppressing the sound of the gunshot. But silencers, some say, is a misleading way to describe these firearm accessories. Why? Because they don’t actually silence the sound of a gunshot.

x

Varying interpretation of the Second Amendment Over Recent Years

Firearms technology and the original meaning of the Second Amendment - The Washington Post:

Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms. It is true that in 1791 the most common firearms were handguns or long guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America. As of 1791, repeating arms were available but expensive.

(David Kopel, H/T Bearing Arms)

Actually ... while quite interesting, I'm not certain that the entire explanation is absolutely necessary.

However, it's also interesting to see the timeline of draconian regulation of firearms ownership, manufacture and transfer during recent years:

Gun Control has been entirely political since 1968

The Second Amendment has been accepted as (relatively) sacrosanct until the at least the Post-Eisenhower years, when creeping socialism became "popular" in America, and social activists began revising the image of America.

[see some sources at the bottom of this page]

In 1968, during the Johnson Administration, the Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed stringent controls on firearms. (Became the National Firearms Act)

Passage of the Gun Control Act was initially prompted by the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy in 1963.^[1] The President was shot and killed with a rifle purchased by mail-order from an ad in National Rifle Association (NRA) magazine American Rifleman.^[2] Congressional hearings followed and a ban on mail-order gun sales was discussed, but no law was passed until 1968. At the hearings NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth supported a ban on mail-order sales, stating, "We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.

While Johnson was a Democratic President, you will note that the NRA supported the new bans.
(This was only the first reason why I have since been reluctant to support the NRA, although I am currently a member; but the year is not over yet.)

The passing of the bill was encouraged by the assassinations of Presidential Candidate Bobby Kennedy and Afro-American Activist Martin Luther King, Jr.,in the same year.

In 1972, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was created.   This expanded the role of the Treasury Department, which was often referred to as the "Revenoors" during Prohibition.   Their new duty was enforcement of the National Firearms Act.

In 1986, we saw the laws against "Cop Killer Bullets" and, conversely, the Firearms Owners Protection Act (this last also imposed additional penalties on certain crimes committed with guns. and some restrictions on illegal importation of guns).

In 1990, the Crime Control Act (under president GW Bush) imposed penalties on felonies in school zones, and also unregulated construction of automatic firearms.

In 1994: The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act ...  Background Checks/Waiting Period, and NICS.

In 2013, President Obama proposed "sweeping" gun control measures ... most of which were already in effect ... and the rest ineffectual. Also Colorado voters recalled several pro-Gun-Control state senators who were just pissing them off!

[source]

The Zombification of America

One Gun A Month: Not Just A Bad Idea

Liberals often wonder aloud why Gun Nuts can't accept a "Reasonable Compromise" on the subject of Gun Rights.

The answer (as they know very well) is that there is no "Reasonable Compromise" on the table.  .
Once you start down that road, there is no turning back.

Ever.
(Note: this is an expansion of my April 01, 2017 article)

Editorial: How many guns do you need? - Daily Press:

Those who oppose the one-per-month rule and similar legislation frequently speak in defense of "responsible gun owners." But isn't that precisely who should be supporting these measures? Shouldn't legal gun owners want laws that target those who circumvent and abuse our state's lax gun laws? If you keep a licensed handgun to protect your home, wouldn't you rather make it harder for that intruder to have an unlicensed one?

Gun Control Zombies want to undermine, and ultimately eliminate, our Second Amendment Rights.

They have no respect for it, and cannot understand those of us who consider it as anathema.

It would be different (but only in the degree of outrage generated) should the Gun Control Zombies propose something of a quid pro quo agreement, if only as a beginning discussion point.

But I'm not sure what would be their valid initial proposal:

"Tell you what: we'll give up all the Anti-Gun Pro-Reasonable Gun Control Editorials in the New York Times for the next year   three months  week if you'll just give up your opposition to ... say .... "One Gun A Month".  How's that?   You could be just like us!"

Hmm ... no,  I don't see that happening.

However, I DO see that as being assumed a "reasonable starting point" for discussion .., from their point of view.

The author of the editorial which began this thesis seems to be thoroughly encamped in the community which would  accept the (farcical) proposal as "reasonable".

(I'm not calling him a "Gun Control Zombie", I'm only saying that his comments feed the political viewpoint which might eventually lead to even more infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights.)

Campus Carry: Thoughts

Inside the Fight Over Guns on Campus - Rolling Stone: How a group of students teamed up with the gun lobby to get firearms in the classroom at over 200 colleges – and counting.

Living (as I do) in a "college town", it seems both appropriate and significant that college students are becoming more aware of certain significant facts:

• If you are disarmed in a kill zone, you are a statistic
• If you are armed in a kill zone, you are less likely to be (a statistic).
• Yielding to the demand of a "mass killer" is not a "friendly gesture"; it is volunteerism in a venue where a willing killer seeks victims

Significant quote:

Shortly after the Virginia Tech shooting, in 2007, Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson suggested the massacre might have been averted had other students been armed. The comment was met with national ridicule; even the NRA's Wayne LaPierre disavowed the idea. But for a small group of conservative college students, mostly in the South and West, it was a rallying cry. One of them, an undergrad at the University of North Texas, launched a Facebook group: Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, or SCCC (later shortened to SCC). 

"... the massacre might have been averted had other students been armed. "

What a concept.  
Someone besides me should have voted for Fred.   
Sure, he is an oddball ... but what have we now?

Nope! No AR15's in Pennsylvania Deer Season!

Pennsylvania has decided that semi-automatic rifles (aka: AR15) are NOT legal for big game hunting.

Deer Hunters Relieved Over Semi-Automatic Weapons Law Change | WNEP.com:

On Tuesday, the Pennsylvania Game Commission made a last-minute change and decided not to legalize semi-automatic rifles for hunting big game like deer, black bear, elk, and turkey.

I agree with the Pennsylvania Game Commission.

The .556/223 is an underpowered caliber, deliberately designed for "war", where a wounded foe is better for the aggressor than a dead enemy ...  a wounded warrior hopes he has two buddies to get  him to medical help.

I've never been a fan of the .223 and its kin, because it is a wimpy  cartridge and over-touted; it is best suited for small game like woodchucks and prairie dogs

(ASIDE:  I own a .22-250 which is MUCH more effective even on small game, but much more powerful than the .223 cartridge.) 

MEAT:
I've hunted deer and antelope, and I'm a firm believer that a cartridge of at least .25 caliber is most likely to bring a quick and humane end to their life as fauna, and immediate transformation of their body into a locker.  Yummy!  (No .. Antelope does NOT "taste like goat"!)

I've served in Viet Nam, where wounded prisoners were brought in, and those were almost invariably 'wounded', not killed, by the 5.56mm/AR16 .. unless it was a "Head Shot".

Conclusion:
I agree with the Pennsylvania Game Commission that the 5.56mm/.223 caliber is not an appropriate (or at least a "controversial"  cartridge) for medium-size game such as deer.

Certainly, the .22* cartridge is not optimal for Elk, which are closer in size and vitality to a horse, than to a deer.

POSTSCRIPT:
Now, if the AR15 frame is presented with a more powerful cartridge than the .223/5,56 cartridge, I think that an overly broad definition of the term "AR15" is premature; that frame is capable of accepting more powerful cartridges (if only barely' the AR15 is not a "robust" frame, after all) and for the folks in charge in Pennsylvania to (apparently) have made such a broad statement is to accept that .
That's all I have to say about that.

On the other hand, I'm dumb as a stump and if you read down this far ... you already knew that.