(NTSF: (Not Safe For Work)
Or Home.
Or anywhere.
Fifteen minutes of shame.
Geert Wilders finally found a host.
UPDATE: 28-MAR-2008
I didn't see this coming: Live Leak has removed the FITNA film, and replaced it with an explanation.
That is, they had received so many lethal threats that they felt compelled to remove the film. They had intended its presentation to be a strike for freedom of speech, but "... in the end, the price was too high".
I'll let you imagine the source of the threats. My personal opinion is that the Radical Islamists in Britain and around the world reacted in what may be considered a by-now-predictable manner.
The result is that the statement of Geert Wilders has been silenced by the outrageous actions of a barbaric mob.
No, I was wrong. That was the effect. The result is that his implied condemnation of their barbarism has been proven by their own actions.
My greatest regret is that I had the opportunity to download the film, and it never occurred to me at the time that it would so speedily be censored by the murderous mob.
... so I went to You Tube, and found 'another version' of the film.
This is not identical to the LiveLeak version I presented here yesterday. I noted some significant differences.
First, although this version is identified on You Tube as 'the official English version', it is not. It's titled in a Germanic language, with English titles superimposed.
Also, the scenes are not as I remembered. There was much more footage in at least two segments ... the 9/11 sequence at the beginning, and at least one clerical rant half-way through. The beheading scene actually includes the raising of the decapitated head, which was mercifully absent in the earlier version (and I do wish I had not been exposed to that abomination.) The film was 5 minutes shorter than the earlier version, and some other scenes were also longer. I can't tell you what was absent, because I only watched the earlier version a half-dozen times during composition of this article.
Finally, the last few minutes were different. The earlier described the sound as 'ripping a page out of a telephone book' while this version describes it as 'ripping a page out of a book' with no more attempt to emphasize that it was NOT the result of actually damaging a Quaran. (sp)
I would rather have found an exact copy of the version I presented earlier, but I will be satisfied with this version.
And I DID download this version, before it can be 'removed' from the host.
You can download the 24MB 'FLV-format' ("Flash Video") file here. You may need to download FLV (free) or Real Player software (not so free) to play it. (You may need to download and install Java to play it too, if you don't already have it installed.)
But play it you can, and as of now the Radical Islamists can't shut down your right to hear speech which they would deny you.
UPDATE: 31-MAR-2008
Yuri at The Real Gun guys was more a realist than I was; he downloaded the original English version of the video. You can see it here.
I'm not sure that this film would ever have been considered very important to anyone, until the Islamists made it an issue by their insane rhetoric and death threats. They have, once again, made themselves more despicable than any "blasphemy" which may or may not be contained in the video. (Actually, there's nothing new in the video ... it's just a recap of the atrocities, threats and barbaric behavior of which we are already too aware.)
If you choose not to view the video, you might drop by there anyway and read the few comments.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
AK-47 "types"
H/T The War On Guns:
How does the Media handle it?
I sincerely doubt it.
UPDATE 28-MAR-2008:
The author of the article comments, swears that the "rocks and bone fragments and teeth" are indeed more than mere hyperbole.
I apologize for my skepticism, and strike the statement. (But not the statement of doubt ... it does have that effect.)
ENNER, La. — The cake had been served and the children were jumping up and down in a big, inflatable castle when the birthday party turned to bedlam.A tragedy, no question.Clarence McGraw's jaw dropped as he saw the visitors coming, guns drawn. The screaming began.
Children ran everywhere in the courtyard of the low-income apartment complex; adults fell to the ground. Bullets flew. The killers wounded three youngsters, but for reasons police can't explain, it was 19-year-old McGraw they were after.
As McGraw lay in the center of the green square, the gunmen stood over him and fired again. He was shot 15 to 20 times in all.
How does the Media handle it?
.. The Media presupposes a charnel yard .. "littered with ... bone fragments and teeth."On Saturday, Sept. 15, at the Glenwood Apartments in Kenner, Trinioucka Martin rose early and cooked all morning for her twin boys' birthday party — meatballs, fried chicken, baked macaroni, sandwiches. She had already ordered a cake with the youngsters' picture on it, hired a DJ, and rented the inflatable castle and house.
McGraw woke up at his aunt's house across a highway from the apartment complex and had a hankering for something sweet. He wanted some cake.
At the party, after the crowd had dispersed and the officers arrived, McGraw lay dead on the ground near a sewer grate, his torso and lower body riddled with bullet wounds. Balloons still floated from ribbon; the "Happy Birthday" banner still hung.
No arrests have been made. McGraw was buried in a $450 grave against a chain-link fence in a crumbling New Orleans cemetery. The mound of dirt above his casket is littered with rocks and bone fragments and teeth. There was no money for a marker.
This is yellow journalism at its best. Or at its worst.
It causes the reader to doubt the veracity of the rest of the article.UPDATE 28-MAR-2008:
The author of the article comments, swears that the "rocks and bone fragments and teeth" are indeed more than mere hyperbole.
I apologize for my skepticism, and strike the statement. (But not the statement of doubt ... it does have that effect.)
What about the Encoded Ammunition bills?
The NRA is doing its job ... as defined by the NRA:
(The most recent comment regarding Encoded Ammunition bills from NRA-ILA is dated January, 25, 2008.)
Has the NRA been bought by the UN?
TALLAHASSEE - Without debate, the Florida House gave the powerful gun lobby a major victory today by passing a bill to allow employees to take their guns to work - as long as the employee has a concealed weapons permit and the weapon is left in the car.... as defined by the NRA.
(The most recent comment regarding Encoded Ammunition bills from NRA-ILA is dated January, 25, 2008.)
Has the NRA been bought by the UN?
UN Human Rights Council Maintains Standard of Excellence
To the sound of cheers, and by an overhwelming majority of 40 out of 47 votes, the UN Human Rights Council today elected Jean Ziegler, the co-founder of the "Muammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize," as an expert advisor representing the Western world. And for its new Palestine expert, the council chose Richard Falk, who, like Ziegler, accuses the U.S. of being responsible for many of the world's ills and describes Israel in Nazi terminology.[Emphasis added ... redundantly]
"Even within the benighted UN Human Rights council, today was a dark day for human rights," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a Geneva-based human rights monitoring agency. "The very credibility of the UN human rights system is now at stake."
Well, there's nothing new about this.
Why in the world do we need these 'tards cluttering up Turtle Bay? For $29.95 we could throw the
I'm in for $20.00
The Michael Bane Blog: TSA Stupidity Puts Pilots At Risk!
TSA Stupidity Puts Pilots At Risk!
Did you read the news articles about the armed airline pilot who put a round through the bulkhead while supposedly 'flying' the airplane? (Here is the original news story.)
Were you confused? Did you wonder why the Main Stream Media (MSM - you know, the newspapers and their internet equivalent) didn't give us enough information to properly evaluate the news? Did you jump to the conclusion that the pilot was mucking about with a loaded pistol, and was completely responsible for his negligence?
So did I. In fact, so did one of my most respected 'favorite bloggers', Xavier, as is noted in excruciatingly embarrassing detail here.
I give myself no credit for restraint; I might easily have been as critical of the pilot had I been swayed by the paucity of information available from the MSM.
Leave it to Michael Bane to wade through the incomplete early reports and uncited references to dig out the truth of the matter.
That is, that TSA regulations requires armed Flight Deck Officers to holster weapons AND PUT A PADLOCK THROUGH THE TRIGGER GUARD to secure the weapon. (Click on the link at the top of the page for the full Bane treatment.)
Bane rightly compares this with IPSC/USPSA safety regulations, and the absolute need to keep pistols (especially DAO) in holsters which completely cover the trigger. Instead, TSA encourages holstering a pistol with a round in the chamber and then attempting to insert the hasp of a padlock through the trigger guard to insure holster retention.
Look for a big shake-up in TSA ... again. Now that they have allowed Flight Deck Officers to carry weapons during flight, they need to start listening to people who know something about carrying loaded pistols and the best ways to keep the bang-switch protected.
In the meantime, consider this scenario: The FDO was holstering his pistol and locking it in place, as is required by the TSA regulations. Insertion of the padlock hasp bears upon the trigger, and the gun goes off ... resulting in a hole in the bulkhead.
What would have been the consequences if the pistol, rather than being pointed toward the port bulkhead, had been pointed at the controls or the pilot who was engrossed in the actual pre-landing piloting?
I think it speaks volumes for the FDO who knew enough to watch the muzzle.
And I wouldn't want to be responsible for the consequences if I had to (mandatory) put a padlock through the trigger-guard of a pistol cased in a (mandatory) exposed-trigger holster.
It can't be done ... safely.
________________________________
UPDATE: 31-MAR-2008
Xavier has this short article, accompanied by a video which shows just how EASY it is to cause a Negligent Discharge using the "Holstervault" holster for pistol retention.
The conclusion by Xavier is that " ... The problem with the shot that was fired through the skin of an A319 Airbus over Charlotte North Carolina is the responsibility of the man who caused the firearm to discharge. "
Well, yes. And no.
I agree that it IS the responsibility of the man with the gun in his hand to prevent Negligent Discharges, which is why I term it a "Negligent Discharge" (N.D.) rather than the more common term "Accidental Discharge" (A.D.). The FDO should have recognized that the arrangement was a certifiable POS and should have taken more care in handling the gun ... especially in the process which was obviously, as they say, "fraught with peril". Still, I take exception to the implied assignment of 100% of fault on the FDO, for several reasons.
Not least of the reasons for my seeming forgiveness of gun-handler error is that the pistol/holster/lockup combination was mandated by TSA; any reasonably competent firearms owner would have seen that there were design flaws, but the TSA refused to bend on this decision.
That still doesn't absolve the FDO, and it shouldn't He should have perceived the problematic nature of the combination, and have been more aware ... and therefore, more careful.
Add to this, though, the TSA regulatory requirement that the FDO must secure the firearm every time he leaves the flight deck, and then re-establish the firearm as an easily accessible resource upon his return (holster off the belt, padlock positioned secure the firearm in the holster; conversely, padlock removed, holster returned to belt.)
This feeds into what Micahel Bane has colloquially referred to as the "Futz Factor". Informally interpreted, this is the principle that "The more you futz around with your gun, the more likely that Something Bad Will Happen. (The precise definition of the term "Futz" is left as an exercise for the Student.)
Here we plainly see that the FDO has Futzed Around with his gun so frequently that it has become a matter of habit, and he has lost all sense of danger in this common occurrence. He has failed to perceive that the firearm has been cocked, and has been moved within the holster, and as a consequence he does not take the time or trouble to thoroughly insure that the gun is 'safe' before inserting the padlock. More, it has become a common practice which he feels confident that he can perform while he is flying the airplane.
Clearly, the FDO is not focusing his attention on the gun safety requirements which should be a significant event; instead, he is distracted and complacent.
His failure to properly assign securing the gun as his primary responsibility is inexcusable, but understandable. The TSA's regulations must be assigned some part of the responsibility for the resultant mishap, and it is left to pure dumb luck that the N.D. did not result in the wounding of the FDO, fatal damage to critical instruments in the console, or both.
TSA is responsible for the egregious procedures which are to be followed, and the abysmal equipment which it has mandated. More, it is responsible for the training and the lack of follow-up training afforded to the FDO.
While the individual is responsible for his own actions, the organization is responsible for equipment and training.
Both have failed miserably here, and until that fact is recognized and accepted we cannot expect
that the failure will not recur.
Did you read the news articles about the armed airline pilot who put a round through the bulkhead while supposedly 'flying' the airplane? (Here is the original news story.)
Were you confused? Did you wonder why the Main Stream Media (MSM - you know, the newspapers and their internet equivalent) didn't give us enough information to properly evaluate the news? Did you jump to the conclusion that the pilot was mucking about with a loaded pistol, and was completely responsible for his negligence?
So did I. In fact, so did one of my most respected 'favorite bloggers', Xavier, as is noted in excruciatingly embarrassing detail here.
I give myself no credit for restraint; I might easily have been as critical of the pilot had I been swayed by the paucity of information available from the MSM.
Leave it to Michael Bane to wade through the incomplete early reports and uncited references to dig out the truth of the matter.
That is, that TSA regulations requires armed Flight Deck Officers to holster weapons AND PUT A PADLOCK THROUGH THE TRIGGER GUARD to secure the weapon. (Click on the link at the top of the page for the full Bane treatment.)
Bane rightly compares this with IPSC/USPSA safety regulations, and the absolute need to keep pistols (especially DAO) in holsters which completely cover the trigger. Instead, TSA encourages holstering a pistol with a round in the chamber and then attempting to insert the hasp of a padlock through the trigger guard to insure holster retention.
Look for a big shake-up in TSA ... again. Now that they have allowed Flight Deck Officers to carry weapons during flight, they need to start listening to people who know something about carrying loaded pistols and the best ways to keep the bang-switch protected.
In the meantime, consider this scenario: The FDO was holstering his pistol and locking it in place, as is required by the TSA regulations. Insertion of the padlock hasp bears upon the trigger, and the gun goes off ... resulting in a hole in the bulkhead.
What would have been the consequences if the pistol, rather than being pointed toward the port bulkhead, had been pointed at the controls or the pilot who was engrossed in the actual pre-landing piloting?
I think it speaks volumes for the FDO who knew enough to watch the muzzle.
And I wouldn't want to be responsible for the consequences if I had to (mandatory) put a padlock through the trigger-guard of a pistol cased in a (mandatory) exposed-trigger holster.
It can't be done ... safely.
________________________________
UPDATE: 31-MAR-2008
Xavier has this short article, accompanied by a video which shows just how EASY it is to cause a Negligent Discharge using the "Holstervault" holster for pistol retention.
The conclusion by Xavier is that " ... The problem with the shot that was fired through the skin of an A319 Airbus over Charlotte North Carolina is the responsibility of the man who caused the firearm to discharge. "
Well, yes. And no.
I agree that it IS the responsibility of the man with the gun in his hand to prevent Negligent Discharges, which is why I term it a "Negligent Discharge" (N.D.) rather than the more common term "Accidental Discharge" (A.D.). The FDO should have recognized that the arrangement was a certifiable POS and should have taken more care in handling the gun ... especially in the process which was obviously, as they say, "fraught with peril". Still, I take exception to the implied assignment of 100% of fault on the FDO, for several reasons.
Not least of the reasons for my seeming forgiveness of gun-handler error is that the pistol/holster/lockup combination was mandated by TSA; any reasonably competent firearms owner would have seen that there were design flaws, but the TSA refused to bend on this decision.
That still doesn't absolve the FDO, and it shouldn't He should have perceived the problematic nature of the combination, and have been more aware ... and therefore, more careful.
Add to this, though, the TSA regulatory requirement that the FDO must secure the firearm every time he leaves the flight deck, and then re-establish the firearm as an easily accessible resource upon his return (holster off the belt, padlock positioned secure the firearm in the holster; conversely, padlock removed, holster returned to belt.)
This feeds into what Micahel Bane has colloquially referred to as the "Futz Factor". Informally interpreted, this is the principle that "The more you futz around with your gun, the more likely that Something Bad Will Happen. (The precise definition of the term "Futz" is left as an exercise for the Student.)
Here we plainly see that the FDO has Futzed Around with his gun so frequently that it has become a matter of habit, and he has lost all sense of danger in this common occurrence. He has failed to perceive that the firearm has been cocked, and has been moved within the holster, and as a consequence he does not take the time or trouble to thoroughly insure that the gun is 'safe' before inserting the padlock. More, it has become a common practice which he feels confident that he can perform while he is flying the airplane.
Clearly, the FDO is not focusing his attention on the gun safety requirements which should be a significant event; instead, he is distracted and complacent.
His failure to properly assign securing the gun as his primary responsibility is inexcusable, but understandable. The TSA's regulations must be assigned some part of the responsibility for the resultant mishap, and it is left to pure dumb luck that the N.D. did not result in the wounding of the FDO, fatal damage to critical instruments in the console, or both.
TSA is responsible for the egregious procedures which are to be followed, and the abysmal equipment which it has mandated. More, it is responsible for the training and the lack of follow-up training afforded to the FDO.
While the individual is responsible for his own actions, the organization is responsible for equipment and training.
Both have failed miserably here, and until that fact is recognized and accepted we cannot expect
that the failure will not recur.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
XL650 comes back from the doctor
You may recall that on March 01, 2008, I wrote "XL650 Goes To The Doctor", explaining just WHY I sent my (15 year old) Dillon reloading press back to the manufacturer for repair and refurbishing.
For those of you who are disinclined to follow the link, here is a summary of the mechanical problems I was experiencing ... not intermittently, but with every darn round:
Well, it's old. I'm old, too, and I wish I could get myself refurbished as easily.
I had been fighting these conditions for over a year, because I was loath to take my reloading press out of service for who-knows-how-long; that would mean I couldn't load ammunition for the local club matches, so we (SWMBO and I) couldn't go shooting.
But when your ammunition reloading productivity degrades from 600 - 1000 rounds per hour to 60-100 rounds per hour, it's just not worth the frustration any more. I realized that I was procrastinating so bad, we were skipping matches anyway, just because I was unwilling to subject myself to the freezing Winter temperatures in the garage (where the reloading bench is located) long enough to load up the 300-400 rounds needed to compete in a club match.
When I called Dillon 3 weeks ago, they said they could complete the job and return the refurbished press in three weeks, and today I discovered that they were right. (There was some time lost in shipping to and back, and Fed-Ex needed a signature before they would deliver so I lost a day in the return when I came home last night and found a "we tried to deliver, but you need to sign this card" note on my front door.)
I signed the card last night, stuck it on my door this morning, and when I got home from work tonite the big box with the press in it was sitting on my doorstep.
When I opened the box and checked it out, I found that the shell plate, the primer assembly and the case insert slide were much tighter than I remembered them being. (Click on image to see the full-size image.)
The parts list takes up two pages.
the cost for labor was $0.00
The cost for parts was $76.95 ... and the "Applied Credit" was $76.95.
The total bill was $00.00, and I have a press that's just like new!
The press looks, at first glance, very like the way it looked when I sent it. There's some paint missing (just as it was when I sent it in), but the frame looks like new because it has all been cleaned much better than I ever managed.
I'm a little excited about this.
No, I'm not going to re-assemble the press on my bench and load 1,000 rounds of .38 Super ammunition tonight. The temperature in my garage at 6:30pm (when I got home) was 39 degrees, and the wind-chill factor was -6 degrees. It's my personal policy, established today, not to reconstruct loading presses and load ammunition when the temperature is within five degrees of freeze-my-ass-off. Maybe tomorrow, maybe this weekend, but not right NOW.
But I'm encouraged by the look and feel of the press, so I'll not likely let it sit in its box on the washing machine for too long.
I need ammo, and I have over a thousand rounds of brass that will be crying for attention as soon as it warms up.
When I get it set up, I'll take more pictures. Then I'll load a batch of ammunition and let you know whether the difference is dramatic or only 'just better'.
Most important, I'm impressed by Dillon's responsiveness. Most folks, I am given to understand, send their presses in for repair and refurbishment during the winter months. I sent mine in just before the Spring, and Dillon did their part well within the estimated time limit.
Of course, the Dillon Warranty is Legend, and they live up to their reputation every time. I have never been disappointed by them. (The only vendor I know, of any type, with as comprehensive and 'No BS' as Dillon, is STI.)
You won't be either, so if your press is as mucked up as mine was, don't hesitate to send it to them before the Practical Shooting Season gets into full swing.
You'll be glad you did.
For those of you who are disinclined to follow the link, here is a summary of the mechanical problems I was experiencing ... not intermittently, but with every darn round:
- the shell plate wouldn't index consistently, leading to
- the primer plate never lined up with the primer pocket of the cartridge, and
- the primer plate wouldn't index anyway, because the primer return cam spring was too weak, and
- the killer was that the cartridge slide cam wouldn't move the brass into the next slot in the shell plate.
Well, it's old. I'm old, too, and I wish I could get myself refurbished as easily.
I had been fighting these conditions for over a year, because I was loath to take my reloading press out of service for who-knows-how-long; that would mean I couldn't load ammunition for the local club matches, so we (SWMBO and I) couldn't go shooting.
But when your ammunition reloading productivity degrades from 600 - 1000 rounds per hour to 60-100 rounds per hour, it's just not worth the frustration any more. I realized that I was procrastinating so bad, we were skipping matches anyway, just because I was unwilling to subject myself to the freezing Winter temperatures in the garage (where the reloading bench is located) long enough to load up the 300-400 rounds needed to compete in a club match.
When I called Dillon 3 weeks ago, they said they could complete the job and return the refurbished press in three weeks, and today I discovered that they were right. (There was some time lost in shipping to and back, and Fed-Ex needed a signature before they would deliver so I lost a day in the return when I came home last night and found a "we tried to deliver, but you need to sign this card" note on my front door.)
I signed the card last night, stuck it on my door this morning, and when I got home from work tonite the big box with the press in it was sitting on my doorstep.
When I opened the box and checked it out, I found that the shell plate, the primer assembly and the case insert slide were much tighter than I remembered them being. (Click on image to see the full-size image.)
The parts list takes up two pages.
the cost for labor was $0.00
The cost for parts was $76.95 ... and the "Applied Credit" was $76.95.
The total bill was $00.00, and I have a press that's just like new!
The press looks, at first glance, very like the way it looked when I sent it. There's some paint missing (just as it was when I sent it in), but the frame looks like new because it has all been cleaned much better than I ever managed.
I'm a little excited about this.
No, I'm not going to re-assemble the press on my bench and load 1,000 rounds of .38 Super ammunition tonight. The temperature in my garage at 6:30pm (when I got home) was 39 degrees, and the wind-chill factor was -6 degrees. It's my personal policy, established today, not to reconstruct loading presses and load ammunition when the temperature is within five degrees of freeze-my-ass-off. Maybe tomorrow, maybe this weekend, but not right NOW.
But I'm encouraged by the look and feel of the press, so I'll not likely let it sit in its box on the washing machine for too long.
I need ammo, and I have over a thousand rounds of brass that will be crying for attention as soon as it warms up.
When I get it set up, I'll take more pictures. Then I'll load a batch of ammunition and let you know whether the difference is dramatic or only 'just better'.
Most important, I'm impressed by Dillon's responsiveness. Most folks, I am given to understand, send their presses in for repair and refurbishment during the winter months. I sent mine in just before the Spring, and Dillon did their part well within the estimated time limit.
Of course, the Dillon Warranty is Legend, and they live up to their reputation every time. I have never been disappointed by them. (The only vendor I know, of any type, with as comprehensive and 'No BS' as Dillon, is STI.)
You won't be either, so if your press is as mucked up as mine was, don't hesitate to send it to them before the Practical Shooting Season gets into full swing.
You'll be glad you did.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
The Other Side of '43'
Reviewing my Blog statistics, I see that I've received some traffic from 'Mausers, Medicine and Motorcycles' (specifically, this March 10, 2008, post).
The reference is embedded in this comment:
I'm a blogger; I am never foiled on the Internet, so I include my response here:
The reference is embedded in this comment:
It turns out that there are statistics to back up my surmise. Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. As for what’s happening on the streets, Foer quotes the FBI: "For every justifiable handgun homicide, there are more than 50 handgun murders. The expanding right to carry concealed guns make us even less safe."I attempted to reply to MM&M in the COMMENTS section, but apparently the comments section was closed (without warning), and so my attempt to expand on the topic were foiled.
See Cogito Ergo Geek for the answer to the "43 times" fallacy. And consider this: how many times have handguns dissuaded a violent act without resulting in the death of the potential attacker? Somehow I don't see you being happier if the ratio where 1:1.
I'm a blogger; I am never foiled on the Internet, so I include my response here:
As the author of Cogito Ergo Geek, I appreciate your reference to my research.
http://tinyurl.com/3dtccq
Actually, the results of 'my research' are that the original article in the "New England Journal of Medicine" (NEJM) is no longer available.
That is to say, Kellerman's original article is no longer available on the NEJM website, and so those who quote him ... no matter how peripherally ... aren't really quoting him because they are unable to cite the source.
I've made the attempt many times, and I always end up frustrated because the NEJM has removed that article from their archive.
However, several referential articles remain, and these are the sources I've cited.
Generally, these are secondary sources. That is, they 'quote' studies who in turn 'quote' Kellerman ... or paraphrase him.
At this point, we are reduced to citing tertiary sources, which unanimously (as of this date) debunk Kellerman for his shoddy sampling techniques.
Playing the Devil's Advocate, I've attempted to establish the veracity of the original Kellerman study. Nobody seems willing to justify these statistics; rather, the citations are entirely critical of Kellerman and his '43 times more likely' assertions.
If the '43 times' theory was at all justifiable, given the attacks on the study over the past decade, one might reasonably expect the "anti-gun" proponents to replicate the study under conditions which were less vulnerable to constructive criticism.
That this study has not occurred (or that it HAS, but the results were so nonsupporting of the Liberal agenda that the results were never published) speaks volumes of the original 'study'.
If Kellerman's many supporters are unable to definitively defend his assertion, we can only conclude that it is indefensible.
Which is what I (and you) have already proposed.
The next time and every time you see the number '43' in some gun-control context, be secure in your confidence that the author is lying.
That's what they do, and will do, until someone confronts them.
Friday, March 21, 2008
College Students on the Second Amendment
I love college students!
As some of you may know, I work on a college campus and, under the circumstances, I find many situation in Campus Life which I deplore.
Among these are the distressing tendencies of college students to:
But this week, in response to DC vs HELLER, I was delighted to find that College Times recently presented an article which reminded me why college students are so enjoyable.
The original article merely presented a summary of the DC v HELLER controversy. I thought it was well-presented, concise and (if you will excuse the expression) 'balanced'.
(This was not the first time that College Times discussed the Second Amendment & 'Right to Carry' issues... c/f "The Facts behind Gun Control need to be cleared"; August 7, 2007, re: Virginia Tech and CCW.)
This current (March 20, 2008) article ("Constitution fully maintains the right to own a handgun") article only reports on the current DC v HELLER issues, in reference to the Supreme Court case.
Go there and read the commentary, as well as the comments.)
The proposition of this article seems to be that the 2nd Amendment is an "Individual Right", rather than a "Collective Right" applicable to formal Militias, such as the National guard. (There's a Leap of Faith involved here.)
While there seems to be a consensus in the comments, there is not unanimity of opinion. We should pay special attention to the(few) dissenting voices here.
I would like to pay special attention to one single dissenting voice, which (since there are no permalinks guaranteed on this website) I will cite in full:
"Joe Edwards: Freshman, Forestry" comments:
"Concealed Carry is unnecessary for Safety"
Well, yes. However, the Second Amendment postulates, by inference, that American Citizen may not be charged with purpose of the Second Amendment is to " ... keep criminals off the street."
That's the normative view of the purpose of Police, who are too few and too often too far away. If you want to defend yourself against criminal predators, the Second Amendment only serves to acknowledge that, in the absence of Police, you have the right to provide for your own personal defense.
Mr, Edwards also states:
(I will not bother to address the statement that "... It is true that only law-abiding citizens can buy firearms legally...", except to note that "law-abiding citizens" must submit to background checks, while "other" "non-law-abiding citizens", do not typically concern themselves with any requirement to conform to current firearms-control laws.)
...
Skipping lightly over several more egregious opinions, Mr. Edwards concludes:
You are entirely unconcerned with the intent of current Firearms Laws. Instead, you have your own personal agenda to pursue, and all other considerations pale in comparison.
If the Second Amendment guarantees the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms", and you cannot discern a legal means to undermine it, then you are perfectly comfortable with starving that Constitutional Right by denying legal firearms owners the ammunition necessary to make the Civil Right work.
This is tantamount to saying: if the First Amendment is uncomfortable, we may deny newspapers the right to possess printing presses, paper or ink; we may deny protesters the right to speak in public places (only private residences will be secure in this right), and Religious Organizations the zoning variances necessary to build churches.
For these accouterments are no less necessary to the First Amendment than ammunition is to the Second Amendment.
And you, Joseph Edwards, are no better than Joseph Stalin in your zeal to deny your fellow countrymen their Civil Rights.
I'll bet you never thought of yourself as a Tyrant before, did you?
As some of you may know, I work on a college campus and, under the circumstances, I find many situation in Campus Life which I deplore.
Among these are the distressing tendencies of college students to:
- clutter parking lots in the near vicinity of dormitories with discarded beer cartons and broken beer bottles;
- complain vociferously that "there are not enough parking spaces!";
- ride bicycles too fast and with no apprehension of the general Rules of the Road - bicyclists typically consider that whatever rules (pedestrian vs vehicular traffic) provides them the best advantage, that's the rule they rely upon.
But this week, in response to DC vs HELLER, I was delighted to find that College Times recently presented an article which reminded me why college students are so enjoyable.
The original article merely presented a summary of the DC v HELLER controversy. I thought it was well-presented, concise and (if you will excuse the expression) 'balanced'.
(This was not the first time that College Times discussed the Second Amendment & 'Right to Carry' issues... c/f "The Facts behind Gun Control need to be cleared"; August 7, 2007, re: Virginia Tech and CCW.)
This current (March 20, 2008) article ("Constitution fully maintains the right to own a handgun") article only reports on the current DC v HELLER issues, in reference to the Supreme Court case.
Go there and read the commentary, as well as the comments.)
The proposition of this article seems to be that the 2nd Amendment is an "Individual Right", rather than a "Collective Right" applicable to formal Militias, such as the National guard. (There's a Leap of Faith involved here.)
While there seems to be a consensus in the comments, there is not unanimity of opinion. We should pay special attention to the(few) dissenting voices here.
I would like to pay special attention to one single dissenting voice, which (since there are no permalinks guaranteed on this website) I will cite in full:
"Joe Edwards: Freshman, Forestry" comments:
"Concealed Carry is unnecessary for Safety"
I have a response in regard to the column, "Constitution fully maintains the right to own a handgun," (CT, March 20).Today's world presents times of tragedy and turmoil, regardless of the right to own or carry a handgun. While the second amendment does in fact permit the right to keep and bear arms, it is wonderfully inappropriate to assume the founding fathers meant for us to buy and keep firearms to keep criminals off the street.
It is true that only law-abiding citizens can buy firearms legally, but it has been proven that these so-called law-abiding citizens can quickly turn into psychopathic killers. It is crazy to think how gun supporters use mass shootings to promote the sale and use of guns when the killers bought the guns legally in the first place. This does not make me feel safe at all.
I have never felt threatened at all in my home or anywhere for that fact. I do not need a gun for safety. I can lock my doors and shut my windows. If there is such a need for guns, then why don't we sell the guns and make it impossible to get the ammunition? Then everyone could be happy. The gun enthusiasts could have their guns and the people who are out to shoot people can't get the ammunition they need to do it.
Joe Edwards
freshman, forestry
I draw your attention to certain phrases in this comment:
While the second amendment does in fact permit the right to keep and bear arms, it is wonderfully inappropriate to assume the founding fathers meant for us to buy and keep firearms to keep criminals off the street.
Well, yes. However, the Second Amendment postulates, by inference, that American Citizen may not be charged with purpose of the Second Amendment is to " ... keep criminals off the street."
That's the normative view of the purpose of Police, who are too few and too often too far away. If you want to defend yourself against criminal predators, the Second Amendment only serves to acknowledge that, in the absence of Police, you have the right to provide for your own personal defense.
Mr, Edwards also states:
"It is true that only law-abiding citizens can buy firearms legally, but it has been proven that these so-called law-abiding citizens can quickly turn into psychopathic killers."Mr. Edwards not only fails to cite justification for this extremist Point of View, he has established an iconic statement which has been the subject of ridicule by websites which require more substantial authority than personal bigotry. In short, he has established his own personal '15 minutes of fame' by leveling unsubstantiated charges.
(I will not bother to address the statement that "... It is true that only law-abiding citizens can buy firearms legally...", except to note that "law-abiding citizens" must submit to background checks, while "other" "non-law-abiding citizens", do not typically concern themselves with any requirement to conform to current firearms-control laws.)
...
Skipping lightly over several more egregious opinions, Mr. Edwards concludes:
If there is such a need for guns, then why don't we sell the guns and make it impossible to get the ammunition? Then everyone could be happy. The gun enthusiasts could have their guns and the people who are out to shoot people can't get the ammunition they need to do it....Ahhh .. there you reveal yourself to be a True Progressive Liberal, Joe.
You are entirely unconcerned with the intent of current Firearms Laws. Instead, you have your own personal agenda to pursue, and all other considerations pale in comparison.
If the Second Amendment guarantees the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms", and you cannot discern a legal means to undermine it, then you are perfectly comfortable with starving that Constitutional Right by denying legal firearms owners the ammunition necessary to make the Civil Right work.
This is tantamount to saying: if the First Amendment is uncomfortable, we may deny newspapers the right to possess printing presses, paper or ink; we may deny protesters the right to speak in public places (only private residences will be secure in this right), and Religious Organizations the zoning variances necessary to build churches.
For these accouterments are no less necessary to the First Amendment than ammunition is to the Second Amendment.
And you, Joseph Edwards, are no better than Joseph Stalin in your zeal to deny your fellow countrymen their Civil Rights.
I'll bet you never thought of yourself as a Tyrant before, did you?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
"I'm Back!"
They wanted Harrison Ford to star in another Star Wars! film.
He said: 'Uhhhhh no. I don't think so."
So they said it was either that, or a fourth Indiana Jones movie.
On October 31, 2007, Steven Spielberg at IndianaJones.Com announced the completion of principle photography on "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."
Starting May 22, 2008.
In movie theaters everywhere.
Just thought you would want to know.
CAST:
Ray Winstone, who plays one of Indie's "sidekicks", starred in Beowulf (2007).
Shia LaBeouf, who plays another "sidekick", starred in Transformers.
Karen Allen reprises her role as 'Marion Ravenwood' from the first Indiana Jones movie, Raiders of the Lost Arc.
John Hurt is the real veteran (and one of my personal favorite actors). Among his many credits are Mr. Ollivander in the first "Harry Potter" movie, and Dr. Bruttenholm in Hellboy. He is perhaps best known for being the first victim in Alien.
Cate Blanchet played Galadriel in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
Ian McDiarmid played 'Supreme Chancellor Palpatine' in four Star Wars movies (I, II, III and VI).
He said: 'Uhhhhh no. I don't think so."
So they said it was either that, or a fourth Indiana Jones movie.
On October 31, 2007, Steven Spielberg at IndianaJones.Com announced the completion of principle photography on "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."
Starting May 22, 2008.
In movie theaters everywhere.
Just thought you would want to know.
CAST:
Ray Winstone, who plays one of Indie's "sidekicks", starred in Beowulf (2007).
Shia LaBeouf, who plays another "sidekick", starred in Transformers.
Karen Allen reprises her role as 'Marion Ravenwood' from the first Indiana Jones movie, Raiders of the Lost Arc.
John Hurt is the real veteran (and one of my personal favorite actors). Among his many credits are Mr. Ollivander in the first "Harry Potter" movie, and Dr. Bruttenholm in Hellboy. He is perhaps best known for being the first victim in Alien.
Cate Blanchet played Galadriel in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
Ian McDiarmid played 'Supreme Chancellor Palpatine' in four Star Wars movies (I, II, III and VI).
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
DC v Heller - Transcript
The Supreme Court heard DC v Heller yesterday, and last week and Tuesday I gave you some places to look at the commentary. (Also see Michael Bane's DownRange TV summary here.)
The transcript is now publicly available, on the NRA website and a lot of other places. For your convenience I've also made the PDF version available to you here.
(Adobe Reader needed to read it, you can download the latest version here.)
The transcript is in legal format, and although it is 110 pages long the file is only 409KB so it should download fairly quickly.
No, I haven't read the whole thing. I've read the first dozen pages where Walter Dellinger (the attorney for DC) presented his arguments for the District of Columbia. My first impression is that the Justices interrupted his presentation 'frequently' (read: 'a lot'), usually keeping Dellinger off-balance with the need to respond to their questions and often side-tracking him until he lost the thread of his theme.
Even Justice Kennedy seemed almost confrontational.
According to Jim Shepherd of The Shooting Wire (who attended, and who wrote a summary today), Justice Clarence Thomas had not a word to say. This is his usual practice.
"As is his custom, Justice Clarence Thomas did not speak during the arguments, but has gone on record in favor of the individual right interpretation."
Shepherd also described an incident which occurred as he was interviewing Dick Heller, "the defendant of the case"*:
[* NOTE: in the transcript, the "District of Columbia, Et Al" is identified as "The Petitioners"; Dick Anthony Heller would be "the Respondent". Heller's attorney of record, Alan Gura, is identified as speaking "on behalf of the Respondent". Because I intuitively understood that Heller was challenging DC, I would have thought him to be the "Petitioner", which would make the District of Columbia the "Respondent". As I have mentioned before, I am clearly no Constitutional Scholar, nor am I trained in legal matters. ]
How do we interpret this?
I don't know how you choose to prognosticate on the case, but anything I could say would only be an expression of hopeful yearnings. I yearn to be positive about the future of the Second Amendment; I hope that the Supreme Court determines that it defines an 'individual right' (as do all other items in the Bill of Rights).
What I expect is a little more middle-of-the-road-ish":
I hope not.
We've had our best shot (sorry) at judicial relief from the constant barrage of arbitrary and agenda-driven attacks on the Constitution. We don't have the luxury of writing our Congress-critters to petition for redress; it's up to one clench-jaw woman and 8 old men, all robed in black dresses, to decide whether we are a free people or subjects.
The Brits blew it. I sincerely believe that our system of government is superior.
Check back here in July, where there will either be a Happy Dance Party, or a pronounced gnashing of teeth.
The transcript is now publicly available, on the NRA website and a lot of other places. For your convenience I've also made the PDF version available to you here.
(Adobe Reader needed to read it, you can download the latest version here.)
The transcript is in legal format, and although it is 110 pages long the file is only 409KB so it should download fairly quickly.
No, I haven't read the whole thing. I've read the first dozen pages where Walter Dellinger (the attorney for DC) presented his arguments for the District of Columbia. My first impression is that the Justices interrupted his presentation 'frequently' (read: 'a lot'), usually keeping Dellinger off-balance with the need to respond to their questions and often side-tracking him until he lost the thread of his theme.
Even Justice Kennedy seemed almost confrontational.
According to Jim Shepherd of The Shooting Wire (who attended, and who wrote a summary today), Justice Clarence Thomas had not a word to say. This is his usual practice.
"As is his custom, Justice Clarence Thomas did not speak during the arguments, but has gone on record in favor of the individual right interpretation."
Shepherd also described an incident which occurred as he was interviewing Dick Heller, "the defendant of the case"*:
Speaking with him [Dick Heller] on the Supreme Court steps after the arguments - and his long question-and-answer period with the media, I asked him how he felt about “his” lawsuit.
"It's a simple case to me," Heller said, "It is wrong for the government to tell me that it is OK for me to have a gun during my work hours, but illegal for me to have a gun when the only thing I want to protect is me."
At that point, a reporter interjected: "the Mayor (DC Mayor Adrian M. Fenty) says the handgun ban and his initiatives have significantly lowered violent crime in the District. How do you answer that, Mr. Heller?"
The initial answer certainly wasn't expected - Dick Heller laughed. Ruefully.
Pointing at the Mayor who was making his way across the plaza, surrounded by at least six DC police officers, Heller said, "the Mayor doesn't know what he's talking about."
"He doesn't walk on the street like an average citizen. Look at him; he travels with an army of police officers as bodyguards - to keep him safe. But he says that I don't have the right to be a force of one to protect myself. Does he look like he thinks the streets are safe?"
There was no follow-up question.
[* NOTE: in the transcript, the "District of Columbia, Et Al" is identified as "The Petitioners"; Dick Anthony Heller would be "the Respondent". Heller's attorney of record, Alan Gura, is identified as speaking "on behalf of the Respondent". Because I intuitively understood that Heller was challenging DC, I would have thought him to be the "Petitioner", which would make the District of Columbia the "Respondent". As I have mentioned before, I am clearly no Constitutional Scholar, nor am I trained in legal matters. ]
How do we interpret this?
I don't know how you choose to prognosticate on the case, but anything I could say would only be an expression of hopeful yearnings. I yearn to be positive about the future of the Second Amendment; I hope that the Supreme Court determines that it defines an 'individual right' (as do all other items in the Bill of Rights).
What I expect is a little more middle-of-the-road-ish":
- In the best possible case, the Supremes (whose final decision isn't expected before June) cannot rule in a manner which will throw every existing Gun Control Law -- rumored to be on the order of 20,000 laws -- out the window and expect the States to fit their 'local preferences' into a new framework. Some of those laws will have to be accommodated in order to avoid total anarchy.
- I expect that restrictions will not be added to the private purchases of firearms which do not involve a 'dealer' (possessor of a FFL - Federal Firearms License).
- I expect that the purchases of firearms from 'dealers' will still have to pass a background check.
- I expect that these processes will continue to disallow sale to felons, certifiable madmen, etc.
- I expect that the decision will NOT address the current trend toward State limitations on the availability of ammunition (Encoded Ammunition) nor on State requirements that firearms be fitted with a means of marking ammunition during firing (Microstamping). The sly Gun Control crowd have cleverly anticipated a Federal ruling on outright attacks on the Second Amendment; they started their Second Front years ago, to restrict access to ammunition.
I hope not.
We've had our best shot (sorry) at judicial relief from the constant barrage of arbitrary and agenda-driven attacks on the Constitution. We don't have the luxury of writing our Congress-critters to petition for redress; it's up to one clench-jaw woman and 8 old men, all robed in black dresses, to decide whether we are a free people or subjects.
The Brits blew it. I sincerely believe that our system of government is superior.
Check back here in July, where there will either be a Happy Dance Party, or a pronounced gnashing of teeth.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
DC v Heller ... Early Vote Counts
The Countertop Chronicles : Freedom
There are plenty of smart people talking about whether the Supremes seem more or less inclined to decided that the Second Amendment acknowledges an Individual Right to own firearms ... including handguns.
Wayne LaPierre (who is not my favorite person) wrote today that he was "... confident the Second Amendment will soon return to the District. "
Well, he has to be confident, doesn't he?
But the NRA's live video forum "Cam & Company" video available today (sorry, no link ... it's live) included several people (including Jim Shepherd of 'The Shooting Wire' (not a permalink), who is one of my favorite people) who spoke eloquently for 2nd Amendment rights, and proposed that Justice Kennedy seemed to be amenable to the "individual right" interpretation.
Michael Bane has some podcasts ... software download NOT required ... discussing the issues. John Lott, Jim Shepherd, Dave Kopel, et al.
All in all, the prognosis is that the Second Amendment may be in effect everywhere in America, even in the District of Columbia.
Whether this decision may be applied in Chicago and New Jersey is yet to be determined.
Maybe tomorrow.
There are plenty of smart people talking about whether the Supremes seem more or less inclined to decided that the Second Amendment acknowledges an Individual Right to own firearms ... including handguns.
Wayne LaPierre (who is not my favorite person) wrote today that he was "... confident the Second Amendment will soon return to the District. "
Well, he has to be confident, doesn't he?
But the NRA's live video forum "Cam & Company" video available today (sorry, no link ... it's live) included several people (including Jim Shepherd of 'The Shooting Wire' (not a permalink), who is one of my favorite people) who spoke eloquently for 2nd Amendment rights, and proposed that Justice Kennedy seemed to be amenable to the "individual right" interpretation.
Michael Bane has some podcasts ... software download NOT required ... discussing the issues. John Lott, Jim Shepherd, Dave Kopel, et al.
All in all, the prognosis is that the Second Amendment may be in effect everywhere in America, even in the District of Columbia.
Whether this decision may be applied in Chicago and New Jersey is yet to be determined.
Maybe tomorrow.
Monday, March 17, 2008
The Brits:police 'experts' blast themselves
Gun injuries soar as police 'experts' blast themselves and colleagues by mistake | the Mail on Sunday
Hat tip to Kim:
I've refrained from criticizing "The Brits" for ever so long. I've tried to be a Good Boy and ignored the egregious socialistic measures they've imposed on their subjects.
But this ... THIS! THIS exposition of the way the once-proud British Bobby has sunk into despair because they cannot get the hang of "Keep your Booger-Hook off the Bang-Switch" concept drives me beyond the brink of restraint.
British Bobbies have historically NOT been armed. In an attempt to establish a cadre of Bobbies who are authorized to carry firearms, the Brits have ignored a single, important, salient priority: your trainers in Gun-Handling need to be competent.
This small, but significant criteria seems to have been overlooked, to the detriment (in physical health terms) of the training subjects.
You and I know that hormone-addled adolescents can be safely rote-trained in gun-handling skills. We've seen it; we've done it. For that matter, pre-adolescents as young as ten years old can be taught to "shot safely".
The difference between the American (clearly superior) and the British (clearly inferior) model is, "you don't let anyone handle a gun until they have demonstrated that they can do so without close and overbearing supervision".
Why am I so blatantly chauvinistic about Firearms Training in comparing the British vs the American experience? Because The Brits have officially 'determined' that "Guns Are Bad, And Must Be Discouraged"; while Americans have 'embraced' the Gun Culture and codified both usage and training in a realistic context.
That is to say, we accept firearms usage as a normal part of our culture. The Brits have demonized firearms usage, and resist any attempts to train themselves in the safe usage thereof.
Secretly, the average Brit glorifies The Way Of The Gun, and each Brit considers himself intuitively expert in Gun Handling. In the actual fact, they haven't a clue ... and they demonstrate that mistaken incomprehension at every opportunity.
Here in America, we generally tend to admit that we don't really know how to handle weapons, but we're willing to learn.
In illustration of that comparison, from the Original Article:
Did these guys even know these three basic rules? Well, perhaps intellectually. But one thing is clear: if they had ever been told these rules, they dismissed them as being not applicable to their personal selves.
Until they shot them self, or their friend or colleague.
[sigh]
The worst part of these painful scenarios is not that people were shot.
The worst part is that these experiences serve to reinforce the concept that guns are so dangerous, they will shoot you if you allow yourself to be in the same room with a gun.
What a bunch of horse-radish!
The guns didn't shoot these cops; the cops shot these cops. (Am I being too subtle here?)
[sigh]
The training protocol in England sucks; it encourages cops to shoot cops.
The anti-gun (Socialist) environment in England sucks; it is based on the assumption that the individual is not only responsible for his own actions, but he is not able to control his own base impulses.
[sigh]
With no great effort, I could point The Brits to a hundred Adolescent American Girls who could establish a "Gun-Handling" program superior to anything The Brits have so far used.
All that is required is that the instructor insist on a commitment by the students, and that the instructor insist on close supervision of every step of training. These USPSA Juniors know what is Right, and what is Wrong. That establishes them as instructors superior to whatever The Brits are using now.
But will The Brits accept instruction from "Our American Friends"?
No.
[sigh]
Your loss.
Hat tip to Kim:
I've refrained from criticizing "The Brits" for ever so long. I've tried to be a Good Boy and ignored the egregious socialistic measures they've imposed on their subjects.
But this ... THIS! THIS exposition of the way the once-proud British Bobby has sunk into despair because they cannot get the hang of "Keep your Booger-Hook off the Bang-Switch" concept drives me beyond the brink of restraint.
I attribute these lapses in gun-handling expertise to training ... or the lack of.The number of armed police officers accidentally shooting themselves – and other colleagues – has soared in the past five years.
Now, nearly half of all injuries caused by police shootings are the result of officers blasting themselves or a colleague, often during bungled training and demonstrations. [emphasis added]
Since 2003, there have been seven incidents in which armed police injured themselves or a fellow officer due to the careless handling of a gun, compared to just four in the previous 12 years.
The disturbing statistics call into question the competence and training of the 6,700 officers authorised to carry firearms in the 43 police forces in England and Wales.
British Bobbies have historically NOT been armed. In an attempt to establish a cadre of Bobbies who are authorized to carry firearms, the Brits have ignored a single, important, salient priority: your trainers in Gun-Handling need to be competent.
This small, but significant criteria seems to have been overlooked, to the detriment (in physical health terms) of the training subjects.
You and I know that hormone-addled adolescents can be safely rote-trained in gun-handling skills. We've seen it; we've done it. For that matter, pre-adolescents as young as ten years old can be taught to "shot safely".
The difference between the American (clearly superior) and the British (clearly inferior) model is, "you don't let anyone handle a gun until they have demonstrated that they can do so without close and overbearing supervision".
Why am I so blatantly chauvinistic about Firearms Training in comparing the British vs the American experience? Because The Brits have officially 'determined' that "Guns Are Bad, And Must Be Discouraged"; while Americans have 'embraced' the Gun Culture and codified both usage and training in a realistic context.
That is to say, we accept firearms usage as a normal part of our culture. The Brits have demonized firearms usage, and resist any attempts to train themselves in the safe usage thereof.
Secretly, the average Brit glorifies The Way Of The Gun, and each Brit considers himself intuitively expert in Gun Handling. In the actual fact, they haven't a clue ... and they demonstrate that mistaken incomprehension at every opportunity.
Here in America, we generally tend to admit that we don't really know how to handle weapons, but we're willing to learn.
In illustration of that comparison, from the Original Article:
How officers have been wounded
Recent accidents involving police firearms include:
• A civilian control room operator was shot in the abdomen during a firearms awareness course in Kidlington, Oxfordshire, last year. A Thames Valley Police firearms officer had been showing staff his Glock pistol, unaware it was loaded.
• A Sussex police officer accidentally shot a 48-year-old PC in the body at the range at Gatwick police station in August 2007. Body armour saved him from serious injury.
• A trainee firearms officer shot a Met instructor in the thigh as he was setting up a target in a mock-up of a night-time alley in 2003.
• A diplomatic protection officer in Central London shot himself in the leg getting into a car in September 2007.
• A firearms officer from West Mercia Police shot himself in the leg and foot in January 2006 after his gun became caught in his clothing.
• An airport security officer from the Met shot the top of his thumb off when he put it in front of his MP5 sub-machine gun during training in 2005.
Here (courtesy of the American "National Rifle Association" are the three Basic Rules of Gun Safety:
- ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
- ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
- ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Did these guys even know these three basic rules? Well, perhaps intellectually. But one thing is clear: if they had ever been told these rules, they dismissed them as being not applicable to their personal selves.
Until they shot them self, or their friend or colleague.
[sigh]
The worst part of these painful scenarios is not that people were shot.
The worst part is that these experiences serve to reinforce the concept that guns are so dangerous, they will shoot you if you allow yourself to be in the same room with a gun.
What a bunch of horse-radish!
The guns didn't shoot these cops; the cops shot these cops. (Am I being too subtle here?)
[sigh]
The training protocol in England sucks; it encourages cops to shoot cops.
The anti-gun (Socialist) environment in England sucks; it is based on the assumption that the individual is not only responsible for his own actions, but he is not able to control his own base impulses.
[sigh]
With no great effort, I could point The Brits to a hundred Adolescent American Girls who could establish a "Gun-Handling" program superior to anything The Brits have so far used.
All that is required is that the instructor insist on a commitment by the students, and that the instructor insist on close supervision of every step of training. These USPSA Juniors know what is Right, and what is Wrong. That establishes them as instructors superior to whatever The Brits are using now.
But will The Brits accept instruction from "Our American Friends"?
No.
[sigh]
Your loss.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Constitution: 'A Living Document' or 'Rule By Law'?
The United States has historically served as a shining example of Rule by Law in the world.
America is the first nation state openly to be predicated on the concept that a nation should be established under the proposition that all men are created equal, all should enjoy equal opportunities and equal protection under the Law, and that it is the primary duty of the State to protect these God-give rights.
In the Declaration of Independence, that basic premise looks like this:
In all other nation states existant at that time, rights were defined and controlled by a certain class of peoples. The presumption was that this class alone was competent to determine whether certain actions were acceptable by all people, and to decide what rights (pick and choose according to the prejudices of the ruling class) should be 'granted' to the people who were not members of the ruling class.
The United States of America has prospered during the last part of the 18th Century ... since the Constitution of the United States was proposed and accepted as Law.
Part of this prosperity was because of the vast natural resources available in this new land. As more of the North American Continent was added to the United States of America, more opportunity for prosperity was made available for use of the individual.
A Lesson in Civics:
Part of this prosperity was because the principle of Capitalism was protected: it encouraged economic growth, and it also encouraged abuse of the freedoms which were central to the basic philosophy of a Free People in a Free Nation. At the same time, as the residents of the country learned that some controls were necessary to prevent these abuses, the laws were changed (by an established legislature) to protect the rights of its citizens while continuing to encourage economic growth, and prosperity not only for capitalistic entrepreneurs but for the common working man.
Much of this growth was painful: national expansion resulted in abuse of Native Americans; the desire for 'cheap labor' encouraged the Slave Trade; as more immigrants reached our shores we discovered that Big Business was abusing the rights of new citizens to earn a wage commensurate with their labors.
Protection for Native Americans arrived late in America, as did the rights of those who were brought to these shores as indentured servants, and as outright slaves. We fought a Civil War (in part) to free our country of outright and economic slavery; the rights of Native Americans was never adequately addressed, to our everlasting shame and sorrow. Today, Native Americans are not specifically provided with federal protection despite a plethora of Treaties which vowed concessions to this class of citizens "as long as grass grows or water runs".
But most of the wrongs we did were addressed by changing the Laws of the Nation, which continued even to the Constitutional Level until, in 1863 (during the Civil War) President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. (It was flawed, but it was significant as a step to repealing the right of one man to legally possess another.)
In the nineteenth and twentieth Centuries, we addressed the rights of Labor. Congress ("the legislature") was slow to recognize the societal wrongs implied and explicit in Capitalism vs Labor, and Labor Unions were formed ... not usually in a peaceful manner. Eventually, the Nation recognized that Capitalism was fraught with peril in an unregulated society, and federal laws were proposed and enacted to protect laborers in America.
The Constitution Today:
Today we are on the threshold of revaluing another Constitutional Right: The Second Amendment.
In DC v Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States is tasked with interpreting the United States Constitution to determine whether the Second Amendment is an Individual Right or a States Right.
Why?
The Second Amendment is one of the original Ten Amendments which constitute the Bill of Rights.
Let's talk about the Amendments to the Constitution.
During the Constitutional Process, Congress addressed societal issues which, in the opinion of the original Framers of the Constitution, had not been made clear. The goal was to enumerate specific Rights which were "Granted by God", not 'granted by the state'. (This was an expansion on the original acknowledgments in the Declaration of Independence: " ... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ... ".)
The Bill of Rights refers to those rights of "... all men..." not as new 'rights', but as an enumeration of rights already in place; granted by God, not by The State. Specifically, The State (The Nation, not individual states) did not grant these rights, but the Federal Government only acknowledged them on behalf of 'All States'.
Starting with Miller vs US in 1939, various agents of the Federal Government usurped the U.S. Constitution by legalistic subterfuge to establish the groundwork necessary to suppose that the right of the individual to possess a firearm was not constitutional.
This Federal decision is frequently referenced in support of the proposition that firearms possession is not an individual right. However, reading the original opinion one finds the passage:
In a footnote, the court notes but dismisses that the 1934 National is 'not a revenue act', but 'an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States', which might have been a legitimate defense:
POINT:
All Second Amendment related court rulings have been unavoidably tainted by the undefended 1939 Miller decision. While the federal courts are hamstrung by this ruling, the Supreme Court today has the unique opportunity to ignore this egregious (and legally unavoidable) decision.
More importantly, the question is: "should this issue be decided by the courts?"
The United States is in the arguably enviable position of ignoring the question.
Instead, this Constitutional Amendment could more appropriately be addressed by the Legislature.
The United States Constitution, according to some scholars, is not subject to interpretation other than in the context which existed at the time it was originally enacted.
Witness the Eighteenth Amendment (establishing Prohibition of the 'manufacture, sale or importation of spirituous liquors') and the subsequent Twenty-First Amendment (repealing Prohibition), both of which addressed the issue of Liquor Control. These two amendments addressed a 'societal problem' in which the cure was empirically found to be worse than the problem.
How different is 'Liquor Control' from 'Gun control'?
Well, that is a subjective definition, but it does serve to demonstrate a few facts of the American Constitutional Process.
First, the Constitution is not a 'Living Document', and if you don't like the way the Constitution does NOT restrict Civil Rights, the historically acceptable solution is not by Judicial Fiat; the 'right' way to change it is by legislation.
Second, if 'Judicial Fiat' is accepted as a legitimate manner to change the meaning of the Constitution, there exist no legitimate for the 'Will of the People' to change this interpretation. The Judiciary has already been given unconstitutional powers due to the opinion of a few judges, and the Will of the People is undermined ... as is the power of the Legislature to enact a change in Federal Law (the Constitution) by non-Judicial means.
Third, (and as a sub-set of the 2nd point) by defining the Constitution as a "Living Document", the Balance of Power (specifically and by implication) in the Federal Government loses its ability to 'Check and Balance' one branch of Government against another. This is explicitly and obviously contrary to the intention of the Founding Fathers.
Summary:
The attempt to use the Supreme Court to change the Constitution by 'interpretation' is intrinsically flawed.
If the Constitution is perceived to no longer meet the needs of Modern Society, an attempt to change the "Interpretation" of the Constitution is in and of itself unconstitutional.
The only legitimate and legal way to change the 'interpretation' of the Constitution at this point is Legislative, not Judicial.
That is, the Supreme Court of the United States does not have the Constitutional Power to legislate on this question; the Supreme Court should decline to rule in opposition to the Second Amendment, or at a minimum should find that this is an Individual Right as opposed to being a "Collective Right".
If the Legislature opposes this definition, it is empowered to propose, lobby for, and legislate an Amendment to the Constitution ... which must be ratified by the states.
The United States' Government has no powers which are not granted by the Constitution. Any attempt to end-run these powers should be viewed as an attempt to usurp the rights of the Citizen, and treated accordingly.
The Miller Decision was erroneous because the shotgun in question actually met the test of 'suitable for a militia', because it was similar to Trench Guns used in WWI. Only government lawyers showed up for the trial, no defendant or legal representation for the defendant appeared, so only biased Governmental arguments were made. They weren't about to undermine their own case by mentioning that, so the judge couldn't reference it in his decision. (I discussed this also in the COMMENTS section.)
Also, in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address we see the President who held office during the Civil War deliberately reinforcing the importance of the unique genesis of this country:
Lincoln's affirmation of the Declaration of Independence made a powerful connection with the war to insure that "all men" meant exactly that. Later Constitutional Amendments provided a further expansion to include "all women" (by enacting the XIX amendment in 1920). This served as an excellent illustration of the way that constitutional amendments ... not judicial activism ... has always before been understood to be the acceptable means to 'modernize' the Constitution to include a more liberal interpretation of rights, not to restrict rights.
Finally, a comparison of the progress of the XIX amendment with the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" (ERA) is an example of a constitutional amendment which was widely lobbied for, but failed to gather sufficient votes from the states to be ratified. The ERA sounded reasonable on its face, and Congress was ready to ratify it. However, a grass-roots campaign forced state legislators (and the general public) to look beyond the emotional furor and understand the likely consequences of its ratification. Today we see some of the same issues which we dodged back in 1977 are again being proposed at the state level (most tellingly in California) -- to the general public distaste across the country.
All of these background issues should have been included in the original essay, and they were intended to. However, I wrote the article in a single draft without even having drawn up an outline. I was secure in my overconfidence that I couldn't possibly forget these points ... and produced a weaker argument than I intended.
I apologize to my readers for presenting a flawed document. I hope these abridgments will make the thesis more understandable, although the reading will reveal its disjointed organization.
As an update, I happened to find a blog-article at abc.com which benefited by an excellent discussion in its own comments section. This remarkably civil exchange of private opinions and interpretation should serve as an example of the public opinions about the DC v HELLER when the question "whether the second amendment is an individual or a collective right" is considered objectively by private persons.
America is the first nation state openly to be predicated on the concept that a nation should be established under the proposition that all men are created equal, all should enjoy equal opportunities and equal protection under the Law, and that it is the primary duty of the State to protect these God-give rights.
In the Declaration of Independence, that basic premise looks like this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
In all other nation states existant at that time, rights were defined and controlled by a certain class of peoples. The presumption was that this class alone was competent to determine whether certain actions were acceptable by all people, and to decide what rights (pick and choose according to the prejudices of the ruling class) should be 'granted' to the people who were not members of the ruling class.
The United States of America has prospered during the last part of the 18th Century ... since the Constitution of the United States was proposed and accepted as Law.
Part of this prosperity was because of the vast natural resources available in this new land. As more of the North American Continent was added to the United States of America, more opportunity for prosperity was made available for use of the individual.
A Lesson in Civics:
Part of this prosperity was because the principle of Capitalism was protected: it encouraged economic growth, and it also encouraged abuse of the freedoms which were central to the basic philosophy of a Free People in a Free Nation. At the same time, as the residents of the country learned that some controls were necessary to prevent these abuses, the laws were changed (by an established legislature) to protect the rights of its citizens while continuing to encourage economic growth, and prosperity not only for capitalistic entrepreneurs but for the common working man.
Much of this growth was painful: national expansion resulted in abuse of Native Americans; the desire for 'cheap labor' encouraged the Slave Trade; as more immigrants reached our shores we discovered that Big Business was abusing the rights of new citizens to earn a wage commensurate with their labors.
Protection for Native Americans arrived late in America, as did the rights of those who were brought to these shores as indentured servants, and as outright slaves. We fought a Civil War (in part) to free our country of outright and economic slavery; the rights of Native Americans was never adequately addressed, to our everlasting shame and sorrow. Today, Native Americans are not specifically provided with federal protection despite a plethora of Treaties which vowed concessions to this class of citizens "as long as grass grows or water runs".
But most of the wrongs we did were addressed by changing the Laws of the Nation, which continued even to the Constitutional Level until, in 1863 (during the Civil War) President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. (It was flawed, but it was significant as a step to repealing the right of one man to legally possess another.)
In the nineteenth and twentieth Centuries, we addressed the rights of Labor. Congress ("the legislature") was slow to recognize the societal wrongs implied and explicit in Capitalism vs Labor, and Labor Unions were formed ... not usually in a peaceful manner. Eventually, the Nation recognized that Capitalism was fraught with peril in an unregulated society, and federal laws were proposed and enacted to protect laborers in America.
The Constitution Today:
Today we are on the threshold of revaluing another Constitutional Right: The Second Amendment.
In DC v Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States is tasked with interpreting the United States Constitution to determine whether the Second Amendment is an Individual Right or a States Right.
Why?
The Second Amendment is one of the original Ten Amendments which constitute the Bill of Rights.
Let's talk about the Amendments to the Constitution.
During the Constitutional Process, Congress addressed societal issues which, in the opinion of the original Framers of the Constitution, had not been made clear. The goal was to enumerate specific Rights which were "Granted by God", not 'granted by the state'. (This was an expansion on the original acknowledgments in the Declaration of Independence: " ... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ... ".)
The Bill of Rights refers to those rights of "... all men..." not as new 'rights', but as an enumeration of rights already in place; granted by God, not by The State. Specifically, The State (The Nation, not individual states) did not grant these rights, but the Federal Government only acknowledged them on behalf of 'All States'.
Starting with Miller vs US in 1939, various agents of the Federal Government usurped the U.S. Constitution by legalistic subterfuge to establish the groundwork necessary to suppose that the right of the individual to possess a firearm was not constitutional.
This Federal decision is frequently referenced in support of the proposition that firearms possession is not an individual right. However, reading the original opinion one finds the passage:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Note that the citations begins with the following phrase: "In the absence of any evidence...".
In point of fact, the original indictment involves two people: one had died before the issue reached the court, and the other had deliberately absented himself from the trial. Consequently, only federal representatives (who may reasonably be assumed to have a 'hidden agenda' were available to present evidence. Any testimony which might have been offered in defense of Miller was not presented during the hearing, because of the absence of the defendant. Therefor, only one side of the argument was presented, and the court found itself unable to consider demurring arguments because ... they were not available, no matter how telling or significant they may have been.
A Point of Reference:In a footnote, the court notes but dismisses that the 1934 National is 'not a revenue act', but 'an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States', which might have been a legitimate defense:
United States.' 1 [307 U.S. 174, 176] A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, U.S.C.A.-'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' [307 U.S. 174, 177] The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.This demurrer has been constantly ignored in subsequent court actions and court decisions, because the (undefenced) challenge to the Act which might have been defensible ... if it had been defended in fact rather than being ignored 'de jure'.
POINT:
All Second Amendment related court rulings have been unavoidably tainted by the undefended 1939 Miller decision. While the federal courts are hamstrung by this ruling, the Supreme Court today has the unique opportunity to ignore this egregious (and legally unavoidable) decision.
More importantly, the question is: "should this issue be decided by the courts?"
The United States is in the arguably enviable position of ignoring the question.
Instead, this Constitutional Amendment could more appropriately be addressed by the Legislature.
The United States Constitution, according to some scholars, is not subject to interpretation other than in the context which existed at the time it was originally enacted.
Witness the Eighteenth Amendment (establishing Prohibition of the 'manufacture, sale or importation of spirituous liquors') and the subsequent Twenty-First Amendment (repealing Prohibition), both of which addressed the issue of Liquor Control. These two amendments addressed a 'societal problem' in which the cure was empirically found to be worse than the problem.
How different is 'Liquor Control' from 'Gun control'?
Well, that is a subjective definition, but it does serve to demonstrate a few facts of the American Constitutional Process.
First, the Constitution is not a 'Living Document', and if you don't like the way the Constitution does NOT restrict Civil Rights, the historically acceptable solution is not by Judicial Fiat; the 'right' way to change it is by legislation.
Second, if 'Judicial Fiat' is accepted as a legitimate manner to change the meaning of the Constitution, there exist no legitimate for the 'Will of the People' to change this interpretation. The Judiciary has already been given unconstitutional powers due to the opinion of a few judges, and the Will of the People is undermined ... as is the power of the Legislature to enact a change in Federal Law (the Constitution) by non-Judicial means.
Third, (and as a sub-set of the 2nd point) by defining the Constitution as a "Living Document", the Balance of Power (specifically and by implication) in the Federal Government loses its ability to 'Check and Balance' one branch of Government against another. This is explicitly and obviously contrary to the intention of the Founding Fathers.
Summary:
The attempt to use the Supreme Court to change the Constitution by 'interpretation' is intrinsically flawed.
If the Constitution is perceived to no longer meet the needs of Modern Society, an attempt to change the "Interpretation" of the Constitution is in and of itself unconstitutional.
The only legitimate and legal way to change the 'interpretation' of the Constitution at this point is Legislative, not Judicial.
That is, the Supreme Court of the United States does not have the Constitutional Power to legislate on this question; the Supreme Court should decline to rule in opposition to the Second Amendment, or at a minimum should find that this is an Individual Right as opposed to being a "Collective Right".
If the Legislature opposes this definition, it is empowered to propose, lobby for, and legislate an Amendment to the Constitution ... which must be ratified by the states.
The United States' Government has no powers which are not granted by the Constitution. Any attempt to end-run these powers should be viewed as an attempt to usurp the rights of the Citizen, and treated accordingly.
UPDATE: March 17, 2008
Kevin Baker (not Bacon) was kind enough to point out a typo ... I had dated the Civil War as '1963', when I should have typed '1863'. I corrected that.
The Miller Decision was erroneous because the shotgun in question actually met the test of 'suitable for a militia', because it was similar to Trench Guns used in WWI. Only government lawyers showed up for the trial, no defendant or legal representation for the defendant appeared, so only biased Governmental arguments were made. They weren't about to undermine their own case by mentioning that, so the judge couldn't reference it in his decision. (I discussed this also in the COMMENTS section.)
Also, in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address we see the President who held office during the Civil War deliberately reinforcing the importance of the unique genesis of this country:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.
Lincoln's affirmation of the Declaration of Independence made a powerful connection with the war to insure that "all men" meant exactly that. Later Constitutional Amendments provided a further expansion to include "all women" (by enacting the XIX amendment in 1920). This served as an excellent illustration of the way that constitutional amendments ... not judicial activism ... has always before been understood to be the acceptable means to 'modernize' the Constitution to include a more liberal interpretation of rights, not to restrict rights.
Finally, a comparison of the progress of the XIX amendment with the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" (ERA) is an example of a constitutional amendment which was widely lobbied for, but failed to gather sufficient votes from the states to be ratified. The ERA sounded reasonable on its face, and Congress was ready to ratify it. However, a grass-roots campaign forced state legislators (and the general public) to look beyond the emotional furor and understand the likely consequences of its ratification. Today we see some of the same issues which we dodged back in 1977 are again being proposed at the state level (most tellingly in California) -- to the general public distaste across the country.
All of these background issues should have been included in the original essay, and they were intended to. However, I wrote the article in a single draft without even having drawn up an outline. I was secure in my overconfidence that I couldn't possibly forget these points ... and produced a weaker argument than I intended.
I apologize to my readers for presenting a flawed document. I hope these abridgments will make the thesis more understandable, although the reading will reveal its disjointed organization.
As an update, I happened to find a blog-article at abc.com which benefited by an excellent discussion in its own comments section. This remarkably civil exchange of private opinions and interpretation should serve as an example of the public opinions about the DC v HELLER when the question "whether the second amendment is an individual or a collective right" is considered objectively by private persons.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Warmup to DC v HELLER
I've been conspicuously absent from the rush to publish on this vital Supreme Court case. I have no expertise in constitutional law, but there are so many excellent commentaries in the gunblog world that I would rather read what they have to say about it than research it myself.
You can pick and choose among the better known blogs, or just pick one that you trust and follow his links.
My personal choice is the Michael Bane Blog. For starters, read his articles of March 12 and March 13, 2008.
You can pick and choose among the better known blogs, or just pick one that you trust and follow his links.
My personal choice is the Michael Bane Blog. For starters, read his articles of March 12 and March 13, 2008.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Storeclerk
Hat Tip to Hook for this one. Caution: Not exactly SFW (Safe For Work).
Gangbanger drops by the local Bodega to pick up a couple of bucks to tide him over, and gets more ... or less ... than he had expected.
Sure, she gave him the cash, and then storeclerk Karen cashed in his chips for him.
Well, not permanently, but effectively.
Note that sometimes a "D-Zone Hit" is entirely effective.
No, definitely NSFW.
Note also that I can't swear that the dialogue is accurate.
But if that's not the way the story was told, it's at least the way it should be told.
Gangbanger drops by the local Bodega to pick up a couple of bucks to tide him over, and gets more ... or less ... than he had expected.
Sure, she gave him the cash, and then storeclerk Karen cashed in his chips for him.
Well, not permanently, but effectively.
Note that sometimes a "D-Zone Hit" is entirely effective.
No, definitely NSFW.
Note also that I can't swear that the dialogue is accurate.
But if that's not the way the story was told, it's at least the way it should be told.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Practical Rifle: Segway
The Tri-County Gun Club (TCGC) at Sherwood,Oregon, has a very active Practical Rifle program.
They've been shooting this sport (earlier known as 'Tactical Rifle' until USPSA finally got on the ball with their own Multi-gun and 3-gun organized competition) forever. Okay, maybe it was only the last 15 years, but the dedication of the local adherents of this sport is impressive.
They shoot in the mud, usually. They make competitors crawl through the mud, roll in the mud and sometimes swim in the mud to get from one position to the next.
Did I say "Roll in the mud?" Sometimes they roll through the mud.
Last weekend (Saturday .. and repeated Sunday, March 8 & 9, 2008) the match included a stage where you were required to 'roll through the mud', shooting at targets as you go -- while mounted on a Segway.
The driving force of the program now is Randy S., a local LEO, who sometimes shoots USPSA Pistol. (I remember Randy winning some stages and his division at the 1994 USPSA Oregon Open, a state match before there was more than one Section in Oregon.) It's not that Randy can't shoot USPSA Pistol, it's just that he finds the Rifle competition so much more interesting, challenging, and fun.
Randy often has to design the courses of fire for each match himself, and stage designers are always on the lookout for a gimmick or an element of difficulty that is at least new, preferably unique.
I think he has probably outdone himself in the 'unique' department with the introduction of a Segway as a mobile shooting platform.
You remember the Segway? They were introduced in 2001 after a long period of pre-production marketing; we heard a lot about the word "Segway", but nobody knew what it was. It could have been a financial planning software package, a mobile-telephone plan, a personal airplane or a new brand of bubble-gum. All we knew was that it was going to revolutionize us in our personal life. Turns out that it was a "personal transporter", which was "more than a scooter".
One of the proposed uses was as a mobility aid for LEO on patrol, suitable for street/sidewalk, beach, parking lot and mall. As such, they were sold to several police agencies that had a patrol responsibility. (They were also marketed for inner-city courier services to replace the bicycle, commuters and shoppers, but that's another story.)
Apparently, an Oregon Police Agency (we're not all deep-woods rain forests here, we actually have cities in Oregon) bought one and it has probably been languishing in a store room for the past several years.
I'm guessing here that 'someone' finally decided that as long as they already owned the Segway, they should explore its utility vis a vis actual high-profile police situations. Specifically: what should be included in the training manual for officers on a Segway who find themselves in a Lethal Threat situation?
Since Randy is a Training Officer in a police department, it seems reasonable that he would be charged with experimenting with the Segway in a contact situation. And what better way than to employ the Segway in a Practical Rifle situation where Time and Accuracy are an intrinsic part of evaluating performance ... and the only 'new' element is the introduction of the Segway as a firing platform?
As I say, I am guessing here. And I don't know if other competitors used the Segway to navigate this Course of Fire. (Randy is the shooter in the following video.)
All I'm saying for certain is: this is what it looks like.
(Everybody is having fun here: even the cameraman is laughing. Note that the Segway 'drifts' while the shooter is engaging targets ... that information would be 'good to know' when training patrolmen to shoot from a Segway.)
_________________________________
UPDATE: 07-JUL-2008
BROKEN LINK?
Sorry, the video has been removed from the user. I'll see if I can get a copy of it and post it directly here.
Thanks to Nick for reporting the 'broken link'.
They've been shooting this sport (earlier known as 'Tactical Rifle' until USPSA finally got on the ball with their own Multi-gun and 3-gun organized competition) forever. Okay, maybe it was only the last 15 years, but the dedication of the local adherents of this sport is impressive.
They shoot in the mud, usually. They make competitors crawl through the mud, roll in the mud and sometimes swim in the mud to get from one position to the next.
Did I say "Roll in the mud?" Sometimes they roll through the mud.
Last weekend (Saturday .. and repeated Sunday, March 8 & 9, 2008) the match included a stage where you were required to 'roll through the mud', shooting at targets as you go -- while mounted on a Segway.
The driving force of the program now is Randy S., a local LEO, who sometimes shoots USPSA Pistol. (I remember Randy winning some stages and his division at the 1994 USPSA Oregon Open, a state match before there was more than one Section in Oregon.) It's not that Randy can't shoot USPSA Pistol, it's just that he finds the Rifle competition so much more interesting, challenging, and fun.
Randy often has to design the courses of fire for each match himself, and stage designers are always on the lookout for a gimmick or an element of difficulty that is at least new, preferably unique.
I think he has probably outdone himself in the 'unique' department with the introduction of a Segway as a mobile shooting platform.
You remember the Segway? They were introduced in 2001 after a long period of pre-production marketing; we heard a lot about the word "Segway", but nobody knew what it was. It could have been a financial planning software package, a mobile-telephone plan, a personal airplane or a new brand of bubble-gum. All we knew was that it was going to revolutionize us in our personal life. Turns out that it was a "personal transporter", which was "more than a scooter".
(Note: when browsing the Segway website, note that some of the links will crash your browser. At least, that's what happened to me ... several times ... when using Firefox as my browser. You might have better luck using Internet Explorer to browse the Segway website.)
One of the proposed uses was as a mobility aid for LEO on patrol, suitable for street/sidewalk, beach, parking lot and mall. As such, they were sold to several police agencies that had a patrol responsibility. (They were also marketed for inner-city courier services to replace the bicycle, commuters and shoppers, but that's another story.)
Apparently, an Oregon Police Agency (we're not all deep-woods rain forests here, we actually have cities in Oregon) bought one and it has probably been languishing in a store room for the past several years.
I'm guessing here that 'someone' finally decided that as long as they already owned the Segway, they should explore its utility vis a vis actual high-profile police situations. Specifically: what should be included in the training manual for officers on a Segway who find themselves in a Lethal Threat situation?
Since Randy is a Training Officer in a police department, it seems reasonable that he would be charged with experimenting with the Segway in a contact situation. And what better way than to employ the Segway in a Practical Rifle situation where Time and Accuracy are an intrinsic part of evaluating performance ... and the only 'new' element is the introduction of the Segway as a firing platform?
As I say, I am guessing here. And I don't know if other competitors used the Segway to navigate this Course of Fire. (Randy is the shooter in the following video.)
All I'm saying for certain is: this is what it looks like.
(Everybody is having fun here: even the cameraman is laughing. Note that the Segway 'drifts' while the shooter is engaging targets ... that information would be 'good to know' when training patrolmen to shoot from a Segway.)
_________________________________
UPDATE: 07-JUL-2008
BROKEN LINK?
Sorry, the video has been removed from the user. I'll see if I can get a copy of it and post it directly here.
Thanks to Nick for reporting the 'broken link'.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Little Girl Dead: Liberal Milking of a Theme
From Sutton at "The Walmart Place" via Xavier Thoughts, we find this:
It's about responsibility in firearms ownership, and Liberal Angst, and one Liberal's desperate attempt to put a 'nuanced' (or 'balanced') face on the story of a little girl killed because he (another child, in the guise of a man) left a handgun where his girlfriend's 18-month-old daughter could just ... pick it up off the table, and pull the trigger.
As you will be, I am struggling to deal with the sheer outrage at an "adult" who is so irresponsible that he allows the tragic death of a child to happen because he likes playing with guns.
Yes, many of us consider firearms to be the means by which we can 'play' (at competition, or in other hobbies such as collection) or be a sport (again, competition, and hunting). Most of us, I imagine, have a more serious attitude toward firearms: they are a tool and like a handaxe or a hacksaw they are capable of causing injury.[
But never the injury of a child. We never assume that a child this young is capable of a responsible attitude toward firearms. At 18 months, everything is a curiosity .. everything is a toy.
In response (or perhaps as a follow-up) to this tragedy, "Sutten" goes to a gun show where strange people and stranger shooting-related products are for sale.
Sutton (a gender-neutral name, but I'll refer to the author as 'she') strives valiantly with the demonstrations of Bill of Rights displays which, to her, are obviously shocking. Her distaste is clear, but to her credit she attempts to describe rather than criticize:
Sutton treats a 'trip to a gun show' as if it were a city-kid's school field trip to the farm. She holds her nose against the smell and watches where she steps, trying to ignore the porcine bodies bumping against her.
A comment:
Gun Shows are a two-pronged affair, and participants have tried hard to accommodate those who don't understand them and who are uncomfortable with the concept that a private citizen may (usually) trade freely with another private citizen in exchange of personal firearms.
In fact, that accommodation is entirely one-sided, as those who believe firearms should always be controlled by the Government will never reciprocate, never attempt to really understand the concept of personal responsibility.
As Sutton says: "The question is whether we have any good way to prevent gun sales to the stupid at the policy level, as opposed to, say, harshly punishing the Smails of the world."
That's a good question. Stupid, but deserving of response.
Should the person who sold a pistol to "Smails'" vendor have declined the transaction? Certainly, but how is a seller to know that the buyer is an irresponsible mutt except by current actions? How would the grocer who sells a mop-pail know that the purchaser would leave it on the floor, full of soapy water, for an inquisitive toddler to fall into and drown?
I find it disturbing that when Sutton writes this piece, she casually mentioned that:
The fact that an unnamed *(?)* daughter is left in the care of a known irresponsible adult is more telling, to me, than that the identified "irresponsible adult" acted as he is known to act: Irresponsibly.
Should she ... the Mother of this child ... have left a toddler alone in the care of a six-year-old child? Probably, not; but why not?
It is at least arguable that the person of "Smails" had demonstrated no more sense of responsibility than another child, and an inexperienced and unthinking child, at that. The degree of responsibility is similar. Who's the responsible adult here?
Anyone?
___________________________________
Sutton has about exhausted her primary theme of the tragic and needless death of a small girl. But she isn't done yet. Instead, she harps on the theme of "Gun Shows Are Bad" ... as if the tragedy of a Little Girl Dead is only the catchy lead-in to a Liberal Anti-Gun Policy Statement.
Sutton goes on to list the characteristics of the Gun Show which disturb her.
But, Oh, I don't really want to go there.
To Sutton, this tragedy is a Talking Point. This is just another way to support a Liberal Political Statement about gun control, and how people who go to Gun Shows are unfeeling, uncaring, irresponsible jerks.
I know people who go to gun shows; this does not describe them. More, I know the people who sponsor, organize and run gun shows; this does not describe them.
Everyone that I call 'friend' is appalled by this story, by the death of a child. I know people who probably aren't so affected by the story, but they are not my friends.
They're people like Sutton, who is indistinguishable from an opportunist with an agenda; willing to make political hay while the societal sun shines ... and when the story is no longer Page 1 news are entirely willing to forget about that 18-month-old who died because her mother wanted a Man in her life more than she wanted to protect her child.
Why does Sutton write an article about a Little Girl Dead, then use the majority of her time talking about a gun show and how odious it is to her?
Because the child isn't important to her.
Except as a lead-in to a slam on Gun Shows, for Christ's Sake.
I have no sympathy for Sutton's Liberal Angst; it's as phony as her name.
And I have no love for the Walmart Blogger, whose societal awareness is less deep than John Edwards' $600 haircut.
A pox upon the "Sutton", for her false concern about the death of a child.
And another pox on her, for her touchy-feely article.
Also for her attempt to turn this story into a Liberal rant on their Liberal political platform.
I have no affection for dissemblers and liars.
I have no respect for those who would feed upon the blood of innocents.
I have no patience for those who disguise themselves as loving, caring people when they are vultures of the political spectrum.
Thank you, host Xavier Thoughts, for being so wise as to restrict your response to: "In the end, it's all about personal responsibility." You said the same as I, but didn't have to think it through to reach the true perspective, as I did.
It's about responsibility in firearms ownership, and Liberal Angst, and one Liberal's desperate attempt to put a 'nuanced' (or 'balanced') face on the story of a little girl killed because he (another child, in the guise of a man) left a handgun where his girlfriend's 18-month-old daughter could just ... pick it up off the table, and pull the trigger.
As you will be, I am struggling to deal with the sheer outrage at an "adult" who is so irresponsible that he allows the tragic death of a child to happen because he likes playing with guns.
Yes, many of us consider firearms to be the means by which we can 'play' (at competition, or in other hobbies such as collection) or be a sport (again, competition, and hunting). Most of us, I imagine, have a more serious attitude toward firearms: they are a tool and like a handaxe or a hacksaw they are capable of causing injury.[
But never the injury of a child. We never assume that a child this young is capable of a responsible attitude toward firearms. At 18 months, everything is a curiosity .. everything is a toy.
In response (or perhaps as a follow-up) to this tragedy, "Sutten" goes to a gun show where strange people and stranger shooting-related products are for sale.
Sutton (a gender-neutral name, but I'll refer to the author as 'she') strives valiantly with the demonstrations of Bill of Rights displays which, to her, are obviously shocking. Her distaste is clear, but to her credit she attempts to describe rather than criticize:
This was my first time at a gun show, and I didn’t know what to expect, exactly. I knew that gun shows are something of a flash point in our ongoing national debate about guns. The opportunity to sell guns to each other is important to a lot of gun owners, and gun shows are widely considered to be next on the chopping block when it comes to gun-control policy. If, for example, the federal government were to impose a nationwide three-day waiting period (which it’s not entirely clear the federal government would have authority to do, but still), gun shows would effectively cease to exist, since only sales initiated on Friday morning could be concluded before the weekend were over.
Meanwhile, to the “other side,” the people the gun enthusiasts refer to as “antis” (as in “anti-gun,” or maybe even “anti-freedom,” and of course, as the t-shirts for sale at the gun show advised, “freedom isn’t free”), gun shows are murky and ominous-sounding affairs where, it is assumed, people who somehow couldn’t buy guns otherwise are able to obtain them, not to mention the fact that the events gather concentrations of people who are really into guns, an enthusiasm that is frankly hard for many outsiders to understand.
It’s not hard for me to understand, at least on some levels. I shot for the first time in Coast Guard boot camp and carried a sidearm regularly (and long arms less regularly) when I operated as a boarding officer in the Florida Straits. I found I was passably good at target shooting, which was a thrill for a city kid who hadn’t grown up around guns, but that wasn’t the only attraction. Certain other powerful emotions took hold of me during those early experiences, emotions related to the high-stakes feeling of responsibility and the focused concentration necessary for safe gun handling, as well as the aesthetic pleasure of using one of the last categories of well-made things. Short of fancy sports cars, after all, one is not likely — in our increasingly disposable world — to become intimate with very many other mechanical devices that are machined and assembled and tuned to such precise and narrow specifications. .
So it’s not so hard for me to understand the enthusiasm some people feel for guns. There are some other things in the gun world it is harder for me to understand, however.
Really? She seems uncommonly introspective for one who is experiencing her first gun show.
At 10:30 in the morning, the show was already well-attended. The crowd was overwhelmingly male and tended toward middle age and girth, lots of plaid and fleece stretched over lots of ponderous bellies and wide backs, which made it hard to squeeze through the narrow aisles.
Sutton treats a 'trip to a gun show' as if it were a city-kid's school field trip to the farm. She holds her nose against the smell and watches where she steps, trying to ignore the porcine bodies bumping against her.
A comment:
Gun Shows are a two-pronged affair, and participants have tried hard to accommodate those who don't understand them and who are uncomfortable with the concept that a private citizen may (usually) trade freely with another private citizen in exchange of personal firearms.
In fact, that accommodation is entirely one-sided, as those who believe firearms should always be controlled by the Government will never reciprocate, never attempt to really understand the concept of personal responsibility.
As Sutton says: "The question is whether we have any good way to prevent gun sales to the stupid at the policy level, as opposed to, say, harshly punishing the Smails of the world."
That's a good question. Stupid, but deserving of response.
Should the person who sold a pistol to "Smails'" vendor have declined the transaction? Certainly, but how is a seller to know that the buyer is an irresponsible mutt except by current actions? How would the grocer who sells a mop-pail know that the purchaser would leave it on the floor, full of soapy water, for an inquisitive toddler to fall into and drown?
I find it disturbing that when Sutton writes this piece, she casually mentioned that:
"The girl’s mother, who was away from home on Wednesday evening, was quoted as saying that Smail was in the habit of handling the gun around the house."Yet she ... Sutton ... wastes no column inches discussing the responsibility of "the girl's mother" for her willingness to leave her child alone, unsupervised, in the sole care of a man who was "... in the habit of handling the gun around the house."
The fact that an unnamed *(?)* daughter is left in the care of a known irresponsible adult is more telling, to me, than that the identified "irresponsible adult" acted as he is known to act: Irresponsibly.
Should she ... the Mother of this child ... have left a toddler alone in the care of a six-year-old child? Probably, not; but why not?
It is at least arguable that the person of "Smails" had demonstrated no more sense of responsibility than another child, and an inexperienced and unthinking child, at that. The degree of responsibility is similar. Who's the responsible adult here?
Anyone?
___________________________________
Sutton has about exhausted her primary theme of the tragic and needless death of a small girl. But she isn't done yet. Instead, she harps on the theme of "Gun Shows Are Bad" ... as if the tragedy of a Little Girl Dead is only the catchy lead-in to a Liberal Anti-Gun Policy Statement.
Sutton goes on to list the characteristics of the Gun Show which disturb her.
But, Oh, I don't really want to go there.
To Sutton, this tragedy is a Talking Point. This is just another way to support a Liberal Political Statement about gun control, and how people who go to Gun Shows are unfeeling, uncaring, irresponsible jerks.
I know people who go to gun shows; this does not describe them. More, I know the people who sponsor, organize and run gun shows; this does not describe them.
Everyone that I call 'friend' is appalled by this story, by the death of a child. I know people who probably aren't so affected by the story, but they are not my friends.
They're people like Sutton, who is indistinguishable from an opportunist with an agenda; willing to make political hay while the societal sun shines ... and when the story is no longer Page 1 news are entirely willing to forget about that 18-month-old who died because her mother wanted a Man in her life more than she wanted to protect her child.
Why does Sutton write an article about a Little Girl Dead, then use the majority of her time talking about a gun show and how odious it is to her?
Because the child isn't important to her.
Except as a lead-in to a slam on Gun Shows, for Christ's Sake.
I have no sympathy for Sutton's Liberal Angst; it's as phony as her name.
And I have no love for the Walmart Blogger, whose societal awareness is less deep than John Edwards' $600 haircut.
A pox upon the "Sutton", for her false concern about the death of a child.
And another pox on her, for her touchy-feely article.
Also for her attempt to turn this story into a Liberal rant on their Liberal political platform.
I have no affection for dissemblers and liars.
I have no respect for those who would feed upon the blood of innocents.
I have no patience for those who disguise themselves as loving, caring people when they are vultures of the political spectrum.
Thank you, host Xavier Thoughts, for being so wise as to restrict your response to: "In the end, it's all about personal responsibility." You said the same as I, but didn't have to think it through to reach the true perspective, as I did.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Paul Does His Job
At the ARPC (Albany Rifle and Pistol Club) match yesterday, I was lucky enough to catch a USPSA Range Officer in the act of not DQ'ing a new shooter for violating a safety rule, but instead intervening before an "Unsafe Act" was committed.
The scene was a stage where vision and engagement of a series of targets along the sides of the bay was restricted by barriers. The shooter was channeled into a limited area moving toward the rear berm (I'll include a badly filmed video at the end to show what it looks like), and it was possible for shooters to see/engage uprange targets from a downrange shooting location.
Possible ... but not safe, and not legal.
The "new shooter" (Scott) engaged the targets on the left side of the bay from the first shooting position, and in doing so experienced a jam. Clearing the jam distracted him from his game plan, so instead of also engaging the targets on the other side of the bay, he moved downrange to engage the next set of targets.
From this second shooting position, he could see the pair of targets which he had failed to engage from the uprange position.
He must have hesitated, he must have given some unconscious non-verbal signal that he was about to turn back and engage these targets because Paul, the Range Officer, stopped him.
Paul, using only verbal commands, directed him to 'unload and show clear' and then directed the taping crew to retape the targets; he would require the new shooter to reshoot the stage after standing down for a few minutes.
All of this was not known to the rest of the squad at the time. We who were watching the action could see that targets were not engaged from a 'legal' position, and assumed that the new shooter had moved his pistol toward the uprange targets -- resulting in a Match Disqualification, or "DQ".
We were momentarily disappointed, because there were three New Shooters in this squad, and it's not only discouraging for anyone to DQ on his first match (second stage!), but disruptive for the other new shooters.
However, when Scott retired to the stage bay, we learned that he had not only not been DQ'd, but the RO had scheduled him to reshoot the stage after Scott had recovered from the close encounter of the unsafe kind.
As the targets were being taped and reset, I talked with Paul, the Range Officer. He explained that he could see that Scott was obviously upset because he had failed to engage the uprange targets as soon as he arrived at the next shooting position. Deducing that Scott would try to engage these targets from an unsafe location, Paul took advantage of the new USPSA rule which allow a Range Officer to 'coach' a New Shooter, or anyone else who needs assistance in a Level 1 ("Club") match.
Observers, who had been disappointed for Scott when we thought he had DQ'd, were enthusiastic about encouraging Scott not to allow this minor setback (no safety rules were violated) to detract from his enjoyment of the shooting experience.
When he got back up to the line for his reshoot, Scott performed well and, in fact, proved to be undaunted by his first engagement of the Texas Star target.
(I apologize for including a very amateurish video here; BLOGGER doesn't make it easy for me to edit the file before I publish it. But it's possible ... I am just too lazy to make the effort!)
After Scott's first 'truncated' attempt, RO Paul noticed me in the crowd of spectators and came over to talk.
He asked: "Are you going to write about this?"
I answered: "Now that you mention it, I am. I'm impressed that you stopped him from DQ'ing."
Paul suggested that if I did write an article about this event, I should title it "The Asshole from Dundee Finally Does Something Right".
I resisted the temptation to extend his sense of humor to the Internet. There were two reasons for my uncharacteristic reticence to indulge in 'shock tactics in Blogging':
First, Paul is not an 'Asshole'. He is an experienced, committed Range Officer who always strives to ensure that every competitor shoots safely and enjoys the experience, especially those who are shooting their first match;
Second, the title turned out to be too long to fit on one line of the blog title banner.
All kidding aside, I was impressed by Paul's skill and integrity, as much as I was impressed by Scott's ability to face up to the challenge of The Texas Star and end up Looking Good!
The scene was a stage where vision and engagement of a series of targets along the sides of the bay was restricted by barriers. The shooter was channeled into a limited area moving toward the rear berm (I'll include a badly filmed video at the end to show what it looks like), and it was possible for shooters to see/engage uprange targets from a downrange shooting location.
Possible ... but not safe, and not legal.
The "new shooter" (Scott) engaged the targets on the left side of the bay from the first shooting position, and in doing so experienced a jam. Clearing the jam distracted him from his game plan, so instead of also engaging the targets on the other side of the bay, he moved downrange to engage the next set of targets.
From this second shooting position, he could see the pair of targets which he had failed to engage from the uprange position.
He must have hesitated, he must have given some unconscious non-verbal signal that he was about to turn back and engage these targets because Paul, the Range Officer, stopped him.
Paul, using only verbal commands, directed him to 'unload and show clear' and then directed the taping crew to retape the targets; he would require the new shooter to reshoot the stage after standing down for a few minutes.
All of this was not known to the rest of the squad at the time. We who were watching the action could see that targets were not engaged from a 'legal' position, and assumed that the new shooter had moved his pistol toward the uprange targets -- resulting in a Match Disqualification, or "DQ".
We were momentarily disappointed, because there were three New Shooters in this squad, and it's not only discouraging for anyone to DQ on his first match (second stage!), but disruptive for the other new shooters.
However, when Scott retired to the stage bay, we learned that he had not only not been DQ'd, but the RO had scheduled him to reshoot the stage after Scott had recovered from the close encounter of the unsafe kind.
As the targets were being taped and reset, I talked with Paul, the Range Officer. He explained that he could see that Scott was obviously upset because he had failed to engage the uprange targets as soon as he arrived at the next shooting position. Deducing that Scott would try to engage these targets from an unsafe location, Paul took advantage of the new USPSA rule which allow a Range Officer to 'coach' a New Shooter, or anyone else who needs assistance in a Level 1 ("Club") match.
8.6 Assistance or Interference
8.6.1 No assistance of any kind can be given to a competitor during a course of fire, except that any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.
8.6.2 Any person providing interference or unauthorized assistance to a competitor during a course of fire (and the competitor receiving such assistance) may, at the discretion of a Range Officer, incur a procedural penalty for that stage and/or be subject to Section 10.6.
8.6.2.1 When approved by the Range Officer, competitors at Level I
matches may, without penalty, receive whatever coaching or
assistance they request.
Observers, who had been disappointed for Scott when we thought he had DQ'd, were enthusiastic about encouraging Scott not to allow this minor setback (no safety rules were violated) to detract from his enjoyment of the shooting experience.
When he got back up to the line for his reshoot, Scott performed well and, in fact, proved to be undaunted by his first engagement of the Texas Star target.
(I apologize for including a very amateurish video here; BLOGGER doesn't make it easy for me to edit the file before I publish it. But it's possible ... I am just too lazy to make the effort!)
After Scott's first 'truncated' attempt, RO Paul noticed me in the crowd of spectators and came over to talk.
He asked: "Are you going to write about this?"
I answered: "Now that you mention it, I am. I'm impressed that you stopped him from DQ'ing."
Paul suggested that if I did write an article about this event, I should title it "The Asshole from Dundee Finally Does Something Right".
I resisted the temptation to extend his sense of humor to the Internet. There were two reasons for my uncharacteristic reticence to indulge in 'shock tactics in Blogging':
First, Paul is not an 'Asshole'. He is an experienced, committed Range Officer who always strives to ensure that every competitor shoots safely and enjoys the experience, especially those who are shooting their first match;
Second, the title turned out to be too long to fit on one line of the blog title banner.
All kidding aside, I was impressed by Paul's skill and integrity, as much as I was impressed by Scott's ability to face up to the challenge of The Texas Star and end up Looking Good!
USPSA News
I don't often visit the USPSA website.
Maybe once a month, maybe less often. I'm not as concerned as some folks are about my classification scores and besides, I have a link on my blog which allows me to check my classification without going to the USPSA website first. (* You can use that link too; check the sidebar.)
But when I visited the website tonite to look up the new rule book, (found on the USPSA NROI website), I discovered that someone (USPSA Executive Director Dave Thomas?) had been keeping Webmaster (and Area Director) Rob Boudrie busy setting up New Features.
One pleasant surprise was that there's an entirely new category in the website: Ladies' USPSA, called the Ladies Zone. This is available directly, you don't have to go through either the USPSA website or the Members' page, with it's cumbersome sign-on protocol). It includes a very professional looking video, so don't be shy about expending the five minutes or so you will find yourself watching it.
Also on the Main Page (today ... expect this content to be updated):
. 2008 US Junior Invitationals:
Maybe once a month, maybe less often. I'm not as concerned as some folks are about my classification scores and besides, I have a link on my blog which allows me to check my classification without going to the USPSA website first. (* You can use that link too; check the sidebar.)
But when I visited the website tonite to look up the new rule book, (found on the USPSA NROI website), I discovered that someone (USPSA Executive Director Dave Thomas?) had been keeping Webmaster (and Area Director) Rob Boudrie busy setting up New Features.
One pleasant surprise was that there's an entirely new category in the website: Ladies' USPSA, called the Ladies Zone. This is available directly, you don't have to go through either the USPSA website or the Members' page, with it's cumbersome sign-on protocol). It includes a very professional looking video, so don't be shy about expending the five minutes or so you will find yourself watching it.
Also on the Main Page (today ... expect this content to be updated):
. 2008 US Junior Invitationals:
- This match is the first match of its kind in the United States and open to all USPSA members who are in the junior category (under the age of 18) at the beginning of the match and at special request of the USPSA President, Michael Voigt, their parents. Invitations will be sent to all junior USPSA members, inviting them to this match. All divisions and classes will be recognized. click here to read more about the match and click here to download an entry form for the match.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)