'Stand Your Ground' Law Repeal Proposed

'Stand Your Ground' Law Repeal Proposed:

It's called the "Stand Your Ground" law. More than a dozen Michigan lawmakers want to get rid of it. They're afraid that the current law will lead to vigilante justice.


More than 24 states, including Michigan, have some version of the "Stand Your Ground" law. Michigan's went into effect on October 1, 2006. Now, these politicians say they're not aware as of yet that this law has lead to any unnecessary violence, but they want to prevent it from happening. ...

Well, that sounds like a good reason for preventing people from defending themselves from predators.

Not!

Crimson Trace® to Host World's First And Only Midnight 3-Gun Invitational

Shooting Wire: (Wilsonville, OR)   May 18, 2012 Crimson Trace, maker of the industries finest laser and lighting systems for personal defense, is hosting the world's First Annual Midnight 3-Gun Invitational this summer. This three night competition will take place just outside of Bend, Oregon in the high desert. What makes this 3-Gun Event so unique? The entire shooting competition will take place at night, in complete darkness. Competition will kick off just after sunset July 16 and continue into the wee hours of the morning each evening, with the closing ceremony the afternoon of July 18. The top 3-gunners in the nation, such as Jerry Miculek and Juli Golob, are registered and scheduled to compete.

For more information, click this link.

Lawn-mower guy gets Fired for Turning in a Gun He Found on Street

(Wayne County, Detroit county worker John) ... Chevilott found a gun while mowing the lawn [ed: ... on city property]. The gun was in the way of him doing his job ... so he picked it up with the full intention of handing it over to police. He eventually handed it over to police. Then, he got fired for picking up a loaded firearm off the street and handing it over to police. 

Words John Chevilott isn't likely to say in the immediate future:

"I LOVE THIS JOB!"

Nobody Is Perfect

I checked my results from last weekend's ARPC match (sent from USPSA.ORG) and ... as much as I appreciate the great statistical-reporting we now enjoy, I was appalled to read that I had got major penalties in almost every stage.

 I took a picture of the printout: this was sent to me at 1:50 pm after the match.

(Right-click on the image to see full-size image in a new tab)

Yes, that was my USPSA member number all right, and the right class, division, power factor ... but down in the lower right corner under "Pistol Statistics" it says:
Total Penalty Points: 140

... according to this, I shot only one stage clean.  Gee, I know I haven't been practicing much for the past few years, but I could only recall two stages where I got penalties!  (Wow!  I must be getting Sudden-Onset Alzheimers since last weekend)

A little explanation; I haven't read my email for a week, and I always read from the oldest unread email to the newest.   So the next email was ALSO from USPSA, sent at 2:00 pm.  It told a slightly different story:

 (Again .... right-click on the image to see full-size image in a new tab)

 Same identification info as the last time, but this version has my competitor number as #79 ... which I recall as being correct since I was almost the last to sign up for the match, and I saw guys in line ahead of me with numbers between 49 and 78 ... so I know I wasn't competitor 48.
and the actual stats were a lot closer to what I remembered, too:
Total Penalty Points: 20

... Except these (a) were the stages for the APRIL APRC match, not the MAY ARPC match, and (b) it shows me as DNF on the last stage (classifier: "Melody Line"), and I shot that match complete, including the classifier. And I strongly doubt that my competitor number was "79" in April, because there were not that many competitors for that match.   Since the email identified it as the results for the MAY ARPC match, and I dispute the reported results for that match, I have no confidence in any of the match results I receive.

...

It has been a long time since I really worried too much about being competitive.  In fact, it has been since I was no longer able to reload .38 Super ammunition, so I could compete in OPEN division (in which I can still see the sights AND the target clearly).   Consequently, I'm not concerned that my reported statistics from ... well, either or both matches .... don't meet my very low expectations.

However, if YOU are competitive, and you want honest accurate reporting on the results of your matches, I strongly advise you to record your own stats from the match before you leave the range, and compare them to the results you receive from USPSA.

TEAM X-T.R.E.M.E. & Cpl Todd Love

TEAM X-T.R.E.M.E. & Cpl Todd Love - YouTube Thanks to SCOTT for pointing out this extraordinary story and video. (I especially liked the Seal Suit!)

No Dundee Match for May

Bill Marrs  sent out an email announcement to all Columbia Cascade members earlier this week.   If you're not a member of the Section, or if you must missed it, here it is:

There appears to be some confusion as to whether there will be a match at Dundee on 5-26.

NO.   There will be no match at Dundee this month.  I'm headed to Bend to shoot the Oregon State match,
and so it everyone else that I could think of to do the Dundee match!

See you at the points match at Dundee in June.

Bill

Enough said, and thanks to Bill for letting us all know.

Oregon Primaries

If God had wanted us to elect our leaders, he would have given us candidates.

I'm trying to fill out my ballot for the current election (which includes Presidential Primaries), and all I can say is that the local issues are more interesting --- and I can be more "hopeful" about them --- than anything on either the state or national venue.

I would have (albeit reluctantly) voted for The Newt as the Republican Presidential Candidate,  until I learned he had been found guilty of "Jumping the Shark", and was no longer a viable candidate.

At the ARPC match yesterday,  I asked The Hobo Brasser if he could tell me for whom he planned to vote, as the Republican Presidential Candidate.   He told me .... but was unable to complete the discussion without reverting to the most foul anglo-saxon terminology.  I think he may even have mentioned the word "D*m*cr*t" once.  (I probably should not have said this; I hate to embarrass my friends.)   (Oh, that's right, I don't, do I?)

What I'm thinking is that the ballot should include the category "ANYONE BUT ______" (name your choice, I know who my "Anyone But ____" choice would be on the Presidential election).

So what we're left with is Montrose's Toast:

 "He either fears his fate too much,
Or his desserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all!"

Translated:  "You pays your money and you takes your chances"

Not very comforting, is it?

And I thought *_I_* had too much drama in my life!

[HAT TIP to The G-man, who is recovering nicely from his surgery according to his latest email)

GO FULL SCREEN ON THIS ONE                 – with sound!

FANTASTIC!  You just never know what might happen next time  you go out for a quiet cup of coffee! Press the red button and find out........

How to rip off the IRS for Big Buck$

"Undocumented Workers" from Mexico are claiming ... and receiving ... BILLIONS of dollars of exemptions on their tax returns (and receiving tax refunds) for "Dependent Children Who Live In The Home", for children who live in Mexico.

Can this be true?  Who knows?  At least one TV station in Indiana claims to have interviewed one such "Undocumented Worker" who confirms the story.

According to Indianapolis News, the Inspector General knows this is happening, has reported it, but the IRS is doing nothing to rectify the situation

Indianapolis News Video | Weather Video Forecast | Sports - 13 WTHR Indianapolis (Hat Tip: G-Man)

Travels with Hansel and Gretel

Travels with Hansel and Gretel The Hobo Brasser has started his own blog. There ... in a forum in which he proposes to share the merry adventures of his annual travels (decrepit pickup, dented fifth-wheel, spicey wife, and the dog and the dogette) he proves himself to be the master of understatement. The man is stealing my blog material!

Update-on-Fast-and-Furious-with-attachment-FINAL.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Update-on-Fast-and-Furious-with-attachment-FINAL.pdf (application/pdf Object)

The Seven Deadly Sins of USPSA Competition

When I teach the "Introduction to USPSA" class at the Albany Rifle & Pistol Club (ARPC), I recognize the importance of presenting the class material in a user-friendly, positive manner.

That's why I emphasize all the ways in which a competitor can "DQ" (Match Disqualification for violating a safety rule).

You can't do 'right' unless you know what is 'wrong'.   It's easy to say "Go, shoot, be safe".  But unless people know what are UNSAFE actions ... well, it's complicated.

The easiest way to teach people how to be safe, is to define the actions which are NOT safe.

I'm developing a teaching guide for instructors who are attempting to familiarize new shooters in USPSA competition (this almost exactly follows IPSC rules, as well), and in the process I've boiled the competition rules into a simple seven-element set of  "DO NOT" rules which will help the new competitor to shoot safely, over 90% of the time.  [I would say "100%", but nothing is all- right.

These seven deadly sins are:

1. Muzzle (180)
2. Finger (1 & 2)
3. Sweeping
4. Dropped Gun
5. D&D
6. Over The Hill
7. Cheating

Seven rules, ten words (more or less).  The "Four Basic Rules of Gun Safety" are:

1. Treat Firearms as if they are loaded;
2. Point the muzzle away from non-targets;
3. Keep fingers off the trigger;
4. Be sure of your target, and what is beyond it

Lots more words to remember.  And actually all of the rules are embodied in the USPSA rules which define "unsafe acts".    But competitors need to know the elements of these rules, and the even more esoteric rules which are elemental in a competitive environment.

Here are the Seven Deadly Sins again, with some explanations:

I:   Muzzle (180)

Face downrange, and extend your arms to each side.  Your arms define the 180 degrees in which it is 'safe' to point your firearm.  If you point your firearm 'behind' that 180 degree line, you are breaking the "180 Rule".   That is, you are pointing it uprange, where there may be people standing.  It matters not what you are doing or where people are actually located relative to your firearm; as the competitor, you are responsible for everything that happens with your firearm and breaking the 180 rule is ALWAYS unsafe.

II: Finger (1 & 2)

The rules say you cannot have your finger on the trigger unless you are actively engaging targets.  This breaks down to two general situations:

• You cannot have your finger on the trigger when you are loading, reloading, clearing a jam, or during any activity other than actively engaging targets.
• You cannot have your finger on the trigger when you are moving, except when you are actively engaging targets.

This last part is a bit complicated.

If you take ONE step, you may keep your finger on the trigger.   That's Part 1.

But when you are "actively engaging targets", you may have your finger on the trigger 'anyway'.
That means, your firearm is mounted ... it is raised so that you may see a sight picture with the target generally including the front and rear sights, and the target.  If your firearms is below the sight-line between your eyes and the target, the Range Officer may reasonably assume that you are not "actively engaging the target".  ("Engaging" means shooting at, or trying to shoot at, a target.)   That's Part 2.

III: Sweeping

The term "SWEEPING" include any motion of your firearm or your body which may result in the muzzle of your firearm pointing at any part of your body.

It (according to the rules) does NOT include such actions as are needed to holster, or un-holster, your firearm.  I'm not sure why this is true, except that with some holsters it's impossible to holster a weapon without using your 'off hand' to expand a pliable holster so you can place the muzzle of your firearm in the holster.  This may also be true when using a "gun rug' rather than a holster at the beginning or end of a stage.

At all other times, though, if during the course of fire you combine the actions of your hand which holds your firearm with ANY other activity in such a way that the muzzle of your firearm points at any part of your body, that is an Unsafe Act.

For example:
You are required to open a door so that you can pass through it; if your free hand passes in front of your firearm, you have just "swept yourself".

Or:
You drop your magazine at the end of a stage.  If you reach down to retrieve the grounded magazine before holstering your firearm, you may "sweep yourself".

IV:  Dropped Gun

IF "during a stage" you lose control of your firearm ... it is not in your hand under circumstances which are not required by the stage directions or after you have drawn your firearm from the holster ... and the firearm hits the ground, you may be DQ's for having dropped your gun.  It matters not whether your firearms lands pointing safely down-range.  If you are not in full control of your firearm at all times, you are subject to a DQ.

The phrase "during a stage"   is significant.
If you are NOT an active competitor under the direct control of a Range Officer, and you drop your gun while you are not shooting a stage (eg: you are in the squad area or walking through a stage, and your pistol falls out of your holster and drops to the ground), you are NOT automatically DQ'd. Unless, that is, you touch your firearm. The thing to do under this circumstance is to protect the firearm, call for a Range Officer, and let the Range Officer do whatever is necessary to SAFELY retrieve the firearm and return it to a safe condition.

Of course, this does not obviate the rules which forbid you to handle your firearm other than when  you are at a SAFETY TABLE or under the direct supervision of a Range Officer.

V: D&D

The acronym "D&D" refers to "Drunk & Disorderly".
"Drunk" refers to any situation where the competitor is under the influence of substances to the point where he or she is incapacitated ... which is a very fine line, considering that this is a sport where the 'normal' competitor can be described as "running around with loaded guns".  Essentially, if you are under the influence of alcohol, or drugs, you should not be handling firearms.  This includes such situations as taking prescription medication under the care of a physician.  Any substance which undermines your ability to be entirely responsible for the safe handling of a firearm, including those which only have the warning "may cause drowsiness", is entirely incompatible with USPSA competition.

You're welcome to come observe, tape targets, reset steel targets, and visit your friends.  Please do us all a favor and leave your guns at home.

"Disorderly" refers to many ancillary activities, including coarse/foul language while arguing with a Range Officer.  An armed society is a polite society; one who allows him/her self to display belligerent behavior during a competition event may reasonably be defined as one who should NOT be allowed to "run around with a loaded firearm".  Disorderly conduct is, of course, defined by the Range Officer or other range officials.

These activities may fall under the general category of "Unsportsmanlike Conduct", which is complete in "Deadly Sin #7: Cheating".  (See below.)

VI: Over The Hill

This section refers to both negligent discharges (there is no such thing as an "Accidental Discharge", as we are all entirely responsible for anything which happens with our firearms) and shots which are so badly aimed that the bullet passes over the berm.  The berm is provided by the range to stop any fired shot; if you can't keep your shots low enough to hit the berm after they pass through the target, then you are not a safe shooter.

This also refers to any shot which impacts the ground within six feet of the competitor (or behind the competitor) unless it is obvious that the competitor is actively engaging a target which is close to the ground within that range

VII:  Cheating

This is a general catch-all phrase which envelops situations which may not have been defined previously.  Essentially, this is "unsportsmanlike conduct" or a deliberate attempt to obviate the rules.  This is presumably to gain a competitive advantage, but not necessarily so.

A good example is the rule which requires all competitors to wear both eye-protection and ear-protection.  If, during the course of fire, a competitor may lose either piece of competitive safety equipment, the Range Officer is obliged to stop the competitor, correct the situation, and mandate a re-shoot for that competitor.  There are no options available for the Range Officer; the competitor has, at last, lost time by the loss of safety equipment, and consequently has not been presented with an 'equitable shooting problem'.  The RO must mandate a reshoot.
This provides the competitor who is 'having a bad stage' with an opportunity to re-shoot the stage; by merely doffing ear muffs, the rules would mandate a reshoot.

However, the rules specifically forbid this under the "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" clause; it is cheating.

The number of categories is small, but the detail is large.  This approach doesn't pretend to simplify the rules of competition.  It only serves to present the rules in an easy to remember set of categories, and provide the instructor to bunch the most important safety rules in a simple framework for presentation.

BlogMeat for April

I know I know, I haven't been talking here for .... well, far too long. Almost every night when I turn the lights out I lay in bed and think about the things I want to talk about here. But by morning, it's all gone out of my head.

So what I'm going to do, with your kind permission, is to just grab a few of the many subjects that won't let go of my brain and do kind of a free-style "chain of consciousness" core-dump.

My Lai:
I went to the local library yesterday and checked out some DVDS from their limited stock. I ran across a short series pertaining to the Viet Nam war, and I brought that home. The video on the My Lai Massacre was so horrendously sickening to watch, I had to shut it off last night and finished watching it this evening.

The thought that anyone, especially American Soldiers, could willingly ... even eagerly ... take part in a massacre of men, women, children and infants is appalling. The video ( available online through pbs.org/american experience ) made me almost ashamed to be an American, let alone a veteran of that horrible war. I understand the combat pressures and failed leadership which drove those soldiers to such extreme reactions, but I still cannot countenance it.

The massacre took place on March 16, 1968. The first news became popular media grist a year later. I entered the service in September of 1968, and went to Viet Nam a year later. We were just becoming aware at that time. I remember being horrified even then, and my determination was to NEVER find myself in a position where I was as helpless as those young men in C-company must have felt. I went through NCO school, and arrived in Viet Nam as a Staff Sergeant (E6) on September 20 of 1969. My determination was not only to bring every man in my platoon home, but to prevent ANY combat reaction which preyed on unresisting, unarmed civilians.

(I didn't bring 'every man' home; one man was killed by a booby-trap, another was wounded. One man was snake-bit; the venom gave him a 70% profile, and got him out of the field, so at least HE was satisfied.)

Thankfully, my experience was not that extreme, and the situation was not one with which I had to contend. But I had nightmares before Vietnam, and during my tour .... and they were much worse than those which I experienced after I returned to civilian life.

The nightmares are few and far between, but I suspect I will experience "What Might Have Been" nightmares for a few days to come.

Introduction to USPSA classes:
The Albany Rifle and Pistol Club, where I conduct these introductory classes in IPSC/USPSA training, has historically worked hard to ensure that the people who show up a the classes have at least rudimentary skills in firearms handling techniques. This year, the 'filtering' process broke down; I was designated at the primary contact person for enrollment, and most frequently prospective students contact me only a few days before the next scheduled class.

So I don't have time to insure that they have the background in gun-handling and pistol shooting, and sometimes when the students begin their live firing exercises I discover that they have some seriously bad habits which are not consistent with shooting under the pressure of competition.

When that happens, I notify Mac that this person should not be allowed to sign up for a match, and I watch the registration for that match to insure that they are not accepted as a competitor. Usually, I respond to their registration email to inform them that they need more training.

That was the case last class (actually, this month/first Saturday) with a student I'll call "Vern".

Vern is a helluva nice guy ... well, almost all of the students are (is there something about personality types of those people who want to compete?) ... and when I contacted him after the class I told him that I would prefer that he get more training.

The problem appeared to be that he learned to shot handguns as a child, and he was given a revolver to shoot. Unfortunately, whomever taught him allowed him to brace the heavy weight of the revolver by bracing his right wrist with his left hand, his left thumb over his right wrist.

That works fine for revolvers, but he planned to compete with a semi-automatic pistol; a Beretta 92 variant, if it matters.

EVERY time it was turn to shoot, he started out with his left thumb in the way of the recoiling slide. I would shout "STOP!", explain to him that it was personally dangerous to put his thumb in a position where the slide might hit his bracing thumb. He acknowledged the danger, but could NOT break himself of the practice!

That night, I decided that I could not let him shoot. I told ARPC that he needed more training, and then I told Vern that this was a problem which could not be ignored. Sure, he had no problems with just casual shooting at the range, but under the pressure of competition it was almost inevitable that eventually he would do himself a damage.

Vern replied with a surprisingly understanding tone. He realized that my concern was for his personal safety, and was not offended that I had singled him out for special treatment.

So he and I made a date to meet at the range this afternoon (he is a club member, so access to the range was easy for him), and I agreed to coach him.

We started out with dry-fire exercises. Then we went to one-round stages, where I watched him carefully for his instinctive "thumb-over" grip. We worked together for two hours, and I tried every trick I could think of to rattle him. I kept telling him his draw-to-first-shot time, thinking he would be so concentrated on improving his shot that he would forget his grip.

He did not.

I gave him shoot-then-reload exercises. Surely that would distract him from reverting to his old grip.

It did not.

Finally, after two hours and over fifty separate live-fire exercises ... he had been gripping his pistol safely 100% of the time.

I told Vern that he could shoot on my squad any time, and I would be glad to watch him complete his certification match safely. We parted friends, still, and I think it's going to be really fun watching him at his first match.

Barb:
On the other hand, sometimes there's an impulse to just let the shooter try a match and see if they can consciously overcome their ingrained problems. It doesn't always work.

Barb and her husband first come to my August, 2010, class. She was completing her chemotherapy treatments for Cancer, and she was totally bald. Immediately I attached my feelings about SWMBO's long (30 months) losing battle with Cancer, so Barb became something of a "Teacher's Pet" in my mind. I was so determined that she get through her training successfully, I may have been less critical than I should have been about her inability to keep her finger off the trigger during loading/reloading/clearing a jam.

Some time went by after her August training, during which they were unable to make it to a Certification Match; so they came back to my February, 2011 class for a "refresher". By then, Barb had successfully completed her chemotherapy and had her hair back! But Barb still couldn't keep her finger off the trigger, even though I "DQ-ed" her during the class.

Finally, she shot her certification match in February. I was the RO for her first stage, and she violated the "FINGER" rule three times in quick succession before I finally (reluctantly, but necessarily) DQ'd her.

It pissed her off. She wasn't mad at me; she was angry with herself. She knew that we had worked on that, and she just hadn't been able to overcome her bad habit. The problem was, she became self-conscious when being watched by a lot of people, and under pressure she reverted to old, bad habits.

The next month, I asked her to not only come to the class, but to be my "Demonstrator".

In each class, we set up from 5 to 10 different stages (depending on how much daylight is available). I explain the shooting problem to the class, take questions, and then my Demonstrator shoots the stage so the new students can see what should be done.

That put Barb very much in the lime-light, when she knew that everyone there was watching on her ... and counting on her to set a good example.

Barb performed beautifully on each and every stage. Of course, there were some glitches when she had to clear a jam on one stage, but that was also a training experience.

Finally, this month (last weekend) she shot her Classification Match clean; I squadded with her, and I got to RO her for several of the stages. There were some awkward moments, which is natural ... I had a few awkward stages too (I have GOT to practice more!) but she was always safe.

At the end of the match, I got to award certification cards to Barb and to one other new shooter, Bob. (Bob had his wife and his little daughter with him for the last two stages, as an Unofficial Cheering Section; it worked well for him, but his daughter wouldn't share her Oreo cookies with me.)

During the award ceremony, traditional at every club match in the Columbia Cascade Section ... when Barb came forward to receive her certification card, there was just the slightest hitch in my throat.

She had told me earlier that this day, April 14, was exactly the one-year anniversary of when she had been diagnosed with Cancer. That day was very special, to her and to me. That she was there, and able to play with new friends as a "normal person", was a bit of a miracle. I don't know which of us was the most moved; Barb, her husband, or me.

July:
New Shooters who intend to take the Introduction to USPSA class in July ... are probably not reading this. But I have already informed Mac that I will not be available to instruct the July class.

My son, my daughter, and both their families all live in San Diego. Independence Day is the Wednesday before the "First Saturday" of the month. I'll be in Southern California on Independence Day, and I don't expect to return in time to attend the class. I've already told Mac, but if you are planning to suggest that friends attend the class in July ... take a hint. I don't know yet if the class will be cancelled, or Mac will teach it, or it will be rescheduled. We're still trying to work out the details.

I have my priorities, and I'm very clear on them. Family first, THEN shooting ....


Snow Bird:
The Hobo Brasser and his charming wife Sharon "Spicey" Brasser typically spend their winters in a trailer park in Texas. This has been problematic for them.

Last year, some fool put regular gas in their fifth-wheeling diesel pickup. They spend two weeks in Shasta, California, waiting for the local mechanics to put a new engine in (which cost them much more than their retired-folks budget could easily accommodate).

This year they experienced a hail-storm .. with hail the size of golf balls ... just before they were scheduled to return to God's Country (Oregon, for those of you who are not familiar with the concept).

Since then, they have experienced a few other mechanical calamities, including the need to replace three tires on the New/Improved Pickup.

The Hobo Brasser has requested and required that I meet him at the Dundee match at the end of the month .... that would be the 28th. We will retire, after the match, for our traditional repast of Wheat Bear and Linquica Pizza at the Abby's Pizza Parlor in Newport Newberg, Oregon. Fellow devotees of the shooting sports are invited to join us: the story telling will be dominated by the Mad Irishman, but you must buy your own freakin' pizza & beer!
_______________________--

Update: changed NEWPORT to NEWBERG as the closest Abby's Pizza Parlor. thanks for the Hat Tip, Guy!

Grip

It's kind of funny, in a suicidal kind of way, the kind of things that shooters will do on their way to becoming "Competitors".

Last weekend, for about the tenth time in the past year, I watched a student in the "Introduction to USPSA" class wrap his weak-hand thumb over the top of his strong-hand thumb.

He was shooting a 1911-style pistol ... you know, the kind where the slide rocks back every time you pull the trigger? And his off-hand thumb was splayed right below where the slide could rip that sucker off!

I'm asking if you can get the picture, here. Because from my (Range Officer) point of view, this looks like a recipe for disaster. So when I saw this Good Ol' Boy gripping his pistola that way, I hollered "STOP!"

Ol' Vern, he didn't do nothing, but he didn't change his grip none, either.

So I hollered "STOP!" a couple or four more times, until Vern looked back at me like a Coon Dog when you holler about the same damn thing, y'know?

It's like you holler your lungs out on a Chocolate Lab, and he's so pleased to please you he looks back, lays his tongue over his bottom teeth, and pants at you, just so show you how happy he is you're talking to him even though he's got no IDEA why you're talking so loud.

Crap-o Crap-o Doo Dah .. these are the moments when you realize how GLAD you are that at least you've taught the concept of the "STOP" command!

In case you are not intrinsically familiar with the range commands, Stop means that if you are the competitor .. when you hear the word spoken in the "Command Voice" you stop whatever you are doing and wait for the Range Officer to tell you what to do next. It doesn't matter who yells STOP ... you just stop!

So, while we "assume" that all of the people who go through the "Introduction to USPSA" course, the minimum discipline which is established during the classroom phase is that when someone-one says "STOP", the shooter STOPS!

---

The situation was, the shooter (I had never met him before, and had certainly never seen him shoot) was laying his weak-hand thumb over his strong-hand wrist while he was trying to shoot his semi-automatic pistol ... the mechanism of which involved slinging the slide back over his hand every time he pulled the trigger.

Now, if that thumb is situated low enough on his strong-hand wrist, there's no problem; plenty of room for the slide to rack back on every shot, and miss his weak-hand thumb.

The guy has used this wimpy, unhelpful, dangerous grip for (who knows HOW long?), and he has no idea why why it's not a Good Thing to do.

As Chill Wills says in the movie McClintock:

People, People, People!

Give me your attention here.

I know that you've been shooting your 1911-style pistola like this for YEARS, and it has never caused you any problems.

How can I say this?

I don't give a SHIT what you've been doing for years!

Don't do it HERE!

The thing is, we're trying to teach you how to shoot competitively, safely. All the stuff you've been doing without hurting yourself? It doesn't mean SQUAT. When you begin trying to shoot, better, faster, you forget about safety and you fall back to your old (bad) habits .... you put yourself at risk.

I don't want to see it, and I for sure don't want to be part of the squad who is obliged to chase all over the bay to find the parts of your left thumb which have been splattered all over the North 40 because YOU think it's okay to put it behind the slide of your semi-automatic pistol!

---

This is not the first time I have seen a "New Shooter" try this really really STUPID way to support your shooting hand. And every one who has done so, I've either corrected it to the point where I'm sure he will NEVER do this again, or I've stopped him (as well as I could) from competing in a USPSA match.

You want to know why I'm opposed to this technique? It's because if you get all excited in a COMPETITION environment and forget how you are supposed to hold your pistol while you are shooting ... there are three consequences, in order of escalating consequences:

1. the slide will take the skin off your thumb;
2. the slid will take the bone off your thumb;
3. the slide will take your entire freaking THUMB offa your hand!

None of these are A Good Thing. But I can't convince you of this, during the class. Why? Because you've been holding your pistol with your weak-hand thumb on the back of your strong-hand wrist for YEARS, and it has never caused you any problem!

When I tell you not to do that ... you ignore me.

Oh, sure, you (talking to the student/shooter) have been doing that thumb-over-wrist grip-thing for YEARS, and it has never hurt you. But you have not been shooting in COMPETITION, which is a whole other thing!

But do you listen to me? Sure, for the duration of the class.

Am I confident that you have learned from my advice?
NO! You think I'm an idiot, so why should you listen?

Question: why are you taking the class? Because you have to do that to shoot in competition? And why have I told you so many times that the most important thing we are trying to teach you is SAFETY?

You get all flummoxed in competition, and you do not always get the exact perfect grip ... because you're trying to cut down the time you're spending on non-shooting moments. Just as I have taught you, right?

And you grip your right hand just a LITTLE bit higher, and the slide takes your thumb off your hand, and when the Insurance Adjuster comes around at the Emergency Room and asks you how the HELL you blew your thumb off, you tell him "Hey! I took the training course, and my instructor never told me that was a dangerous practice!"

Guess what?

It is dangerous, and if you can't beat your bad habits, I'm not going to let you compete in USPSA matches!

NOBODY flunks the "Introduction to USPSA" class, unless they have shown that they cannot handle a firearm safely. It's not just about keeping the muzzle pointed safely downrange. It's also about ensuring that you won't hurt yourself.

I don't really care if you go to the range and hold the gun in an unsafe manner, and frankly, I don't really care if you hurt yourself because you haven't a CLUE about what "gun safety" means as long as you don't endanger yourself.

But I've seen three different people try to hold a pistol in this manner (with your thumb in the way of the reciprocating slide), and I will no longer allow ANYONE to complete the "Introduction to USPSA" course until I'm confident that you not only know why this is an unsafe act, but you are not going to repeat the egregious action .... even under the stress of competition. (Well, none of the other two people actually went to a match, but you may ignore that precedence, and I can't allow that.)

YOU may be willing to shoot that way, but I'm not willing to allow you to shoot that way. Hell, I might be squadded with you. I might be the guy who has to put a tourniquet on your arm, so you don't bleed out.

I'm not "comfortable" with that. So don't do it. Either learn to shoot safely, or don't shoot in competition.

It's your choice. But don't learn it on MY time!

OSP to Firearms Purchasers: "DON'T CALL US"

The Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF) has an interesting editorial at DON'T CALL US, which describes a contretemps between Oregon firearms purchasers (and retail dealers) and the Oregon State Police.

I've bought a few firearms in Oregon over the years (don't ask how many) and some of them were from retails dealers in their brick-and-mortar stores. Other firearms were purchased from Dealer Tables at Gun Shows. All of my purchases were "approved" within five minutes through a contact from the dealer to what I assumed to be a direct connection through the FBI to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System ( NICS ).

Apparently, my ignorance is without bounds. According to the referenced "Don't Call Us" article, those background checks were actually conducted via the Oregon State Police (OSP) office of Firearms Instant Check System (FICS). To me, it makes sense that the volume of traffic would be smaller going through a State system (FICS) than a Federal system (NICS) ... so the response time would be faster. That translates to quicker clearance of a retail sale; good for everyone involved in the transaction. Until, of course, the state computer goes toes-up for a few hours during a major Gun show in ... say ... Albany, Oregon.

oops!

According to the same OFF article, there is an ongoing history of "missed communications" between the OSP and OFF.

Here's what the OFF folks have to say about it, in their March 19, 2012 article:

Don't Call Us, We Won't Call You

As far too many of you know, the Oregon State Police ID Unit was shut down for most of Sunday, crippling multiple gun shows, halting countless sales and costing dealers, buyers and gun show hosts untold thousands of dollars. If you ever wondered why we oppose background checks, this should tell you. All OSP has to do is throw a switch or blow a fuse and gun sales end. Both their phone lines and their new "computer system" were unavailable. But there is a bigger, more constant problem we need to address.

Several years ago OFF was receiving so many complaints about the awful treatment people were receiving from the State Police ID Unit when they attempted to make firearms purchases that we arranged a meeting with them.

At the time both dealers and buyers were frequently lied to about the process, and attempts to contact OSP for an explanation of a delay or denial were routinely ignored.

During our first meeting, OSP gave us a copy of a manual they said they provided to gun dealers that explained "the rules." On the very second page we noted information that was false and against state and Federal law.

During that meeting we were promised that service would improve, the error in the manual would be fixed and staff would be retrained so they would no longer dispense false information to dealers and buyers. For a long time things did seem to improve. The complaints we got dropped off to almost zero. Calls to the challenge line were, as promised, being returned promptly. We have never approved of background checks, but it did seem like an effort was being made to do a better job. Still we believed that because of several factors, including a $10.00 fee and the fact that OSP was databasing info on the gun being purchased, and thereby creating a gun registry, that this job was better done by NICS directly. In 2011 we introduced a bill to do just that. It passed out of House Judiciary only to die in Ways and Means when the Public Employee Unions came out to testify that the Oregon economy would collapse if OSP was not doing gun purchase background checks.

Now it seems we are back to the bad old days. The number of complaints we receive about unjust delays has once again started climbing, but what's worse is the new attitude of the OSP ID Unit.

Where once if you received a delay or "pend" you were promised a response in 24 hours, now OSP is telling people not to bother them and not to expect a call back. Their "challenge line" has an outgoing message saying you will be delayed at least a month and don't even bother to leave a message before a month has gone by since they will NOT call you back. This is an astonishing response from a State agency. "We are going to deny your rights and you'd better not ask us about it."

The attitude of the OSP ID Unit is outrageous and unacceptable. The outgoing message tells people that their "standard delay" is 35 days. But that does not mean you will even get a response then. They can extend their delay forever.

Clearly, a right delayed is a right denied.

Think of the person who has a reasonable fear for their safety. The State Police tell them "tough, it's your problem." and then to add insult to injury tell that person, "don't bother us with questions."

It is important to note that with or without the OSP's approval you are entitled to the gun after three business days as long as there has not be an outright denial. As you would expect, there is nothing in their message that informs callers of this and it is the policy of the OSP not to inform buyers or dealers of this fact. NICS, on the other hand, informs buyers of their rights.

The State Police ID Unit has turned itself into a dictatorial gun control agency that routinely denies people their rights and then demands that it not be questioned about it. This has to stop.

First, call the challenge line to listen to the arrogant and outrageous outgoing message if you press 1 for a "delay". That number is 503-373-1808.

Then call Patricia Whitfield and demand to know why her agency is treating taxpaying Oregonians like an unwanted nuisance when they
are denied their rights by her agency.

(For contact information and a suggested comment block, see the link at the top of the page)


Searching the OSP site, I found this 03/20/12 news release which explains the outage:

Information Related to Sunday's Interruption to Firearms Instant Check System background Checks
03/20/2012
This was updated March 28, 2012.

3/27/2012
On Sunday, March 18, 2012 at approximately 9:44 a.m. the Century Link telephone company experienced a network card failure. At the time, Oregon State Police (OSP) did not know what caused the interruption in service that lasted 3 hours and 32 minutes. This equipment failure rendered the OSP Identification Services Section unable to conduct business functions, including: Firearms Instant Check System (FICS) background checks on persons attempting to purchase firearms, applicant background checks for employment and licensing, as well as criminal arrest identifications and record updates from law enforcement and criminal justice agencies.

In the days following this unexpected technical problem, some questioned the commitment of the FICS unit to complete background checks in a timely manner. OSP is sensitive to how our services affect those who rely on the FICS unit to complete factual research and an informed decision to determine if a purchaser is qualified to lawfully receive and possess a firearm under both state and federal law.

The OSP website goes on to state:

The FICS unit is required by Oregon law to provide the licensed dealer with an estimated time of when the background research request can be completed. The amount of time varies, but in a best case scenario for “Pended” matters the research may be completed within 3 days. Some situations are more complicated and can extend the final determination to a month or more. In each case, the FICS unit is required to contact the dealer upon completion of the research to provide a final qualifying determination.

I couldn't find any statement in this website which acknowledges the OFF assertion that if a purchase is not denied within5 days, the purchase would be automatically approved by NICS.

Here's the text from the final version of the Brady Bill:

it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to an individual who is not licensed under section 923, unless---
...

(ii)(I) 5 business days (meaning days on which State offices are open) have elapsed from the date the transferor furnished notice of the contents of the statement to the chief law enforcement officer, during which period the transferor has not received information from the chief law enforcement officer that receipt or possession of the handgun by the transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law;

Make of this what you will.
_________________________

I also couldn't get OFF's "OUTGOING MESSAGE" link to work, either. I don't know whether this demonstrates OFF's inability to maintain a technology which may be beyond their ability to maintain 100% reliability of service, or their arrogant unwillingness to provide ALL the information needed for ALL their users to be completely satisfied by their services.

This whole brouhaha may merely exemplify the frustration we all feel when required to be all things to all people while dealing with SFC's (Stupid F**king Computers).

But, it's better to know than not to know. Isn't it?

PS: For the record, I think that the NICS approach is the best possible compromise available, until someone comes up with a better idea. Thank God and Browning that we no longer have to fight the original Brady Bill and the egregious "Waiting Period". What a cock-up THAT was!

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

"Unsafe Gun Handling"

I've had about a week to think about the sole Match DQ at last weekend's ARPC Club Match, and I'm still not sure what happened.

I mean ... I was there. I was watching the guy, and when I say it happen I said to him: "What are you DOING?"

What he was doing at the time was to violate the single simple rule of competition, which is to NOT handle your gun except (a) at the safety table or (b) under the direct supervision of a Range Officer.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: BACKGROUND
This was the second stage of the match, which I guess was Stage 4. The starting position was (as nearly as I recall ... ignore the quotation marks) "Sitting at the table, with your gun flat on the table, unloaded, slide forward, hammer down".

Basically, the gun was to be in the same state as it would be during the match when you were not competing, except that it was on the table: safe.

We all are aware that we need to be immediately available when it's our turn to shoot. And the competitor was obviously aware that he could only handle his handgun at the safety table, or on the line under the direct supervision of a Range Officer.


It was his second match after his certification training; he had been told that, and he understood that.


WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: IMMEDIATE
When it was his turn to shoot, he quite confidently moved to the starting box, pulled his pistol from the holster, placed it on the table and assumed his pistol in the chair. His arms were crossed, he was confident and secure in his confidence that he had done exactly what the Stage Procedure Document stipulated. (This was the point at which I said: "What are you DOING?")

Unfortunately, he forgot one small detail: the Range Officer had his back turned and the competitor was not under the "direct control of the Range Officer". That is; the "Make Ready" command had not been given.


WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: ULTMATELY
When the RO turned around, saw that the competitor was more-or-less in the starting position, he said: "I am DQ-ing you".

The RO, a trainer and a long-time competitor, knew EXACTLY what the competitor had done, as soon as he saw the pistol on the table. Making unfounded assumptions (considering the lack of RO guidance), the competitor had assumed the "ready" condition, which unfortunately required him to handle his pistol. His understanding, I assume, was that it was okay for him to place his pistol on the table at his convenience ... not under the "direct control of the Range Officer".

The competitor is a helluva nice guy, we all knew that he was just trying to make the match run faster. It did not occur to him that he was performing an Unsafe Act. He know that nobody was downrange, and in his mind there was nothing wrong with performing exactly the same actions as he would have done when the RO turned to him and said: "Make Ready".

But he forgot that SAFETY is the most important component of IPSC/USPSA competition; and that "direct control of the Range Officer" isn't just A Good Idea, it's The Law.

COMPETITION VS "JUST FOOLING AROUND
This is a mind set which I usually see immediately after a class.

For instance: immediately after a class I was talking about guns to a student at the safety table, trying to explain to her the difference in controls (if I remember it correctly ... but it doesn't matter) between the controls of a 1911 and a "safe action" pistol such as a Glock. She had her pistol in her hand at the time, and it was pointed at the safe backstop behind the Safety Table. During her response, she casually turned to face me ... and rotated the pistol until it was pointed at my belly. (Not the first time this has happened after a class, by the way.) I mentioned that she was pointing her gun at me. She blushed, turned around and bagged her pistol. I never saw her again. Sometimes embarrassment can serve as to filter out the people who think "Safety" is only important during a match, vs those who understand that "Safety" is important ANY time a firearm is present.

The conversation is incidental; safety is paramount, all the time, every time. That's what I try to teach, but it doesn't always take. (Note to self: I do need to stress this point in future classes!)


WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN?
This is not something which typically happens with people who are entirely new to pistol shooting.

It happens with people who have been shooting for a while, but their experience has usually been in a more casual circumstance. They are accustomed to coming to the range, and everyone is on their own; at their leisure, they un-bag their guns and lay the pistols on the counter which separates the "shooting area" from the "downrange area". It is ASSUMED that they are safe, because .. hey, there's nobody downrange from them. No problem!

The concept of a Range Officer ... of "oversight" ... is not common to their experience. And at first, "Range Safety" is a casual, interpretive, unimportant concept. They are with friends, or alone, and there are no rules, really.

They're not "Bad", but in the context of the character in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" ... they're just drawn that way.



And so, when they feel most comfortable and relaxed ... they are at their most vulnerable moment; and most likely to BE unsafe because they FEEL MOST SAFE.

...

I'm not going to denigrate new shooters because of their prior experiences have taught them to be lackadaisical in their approach to firearm safety. They don't know any better, and sooner or later they are bound to act as if it's just an afternoon at the range with their friends.

After all, haven't they all been taught that? I know I'm guilty as much as anyone, because that's the way I feel at a match.

But, until the concept of SAFETY is fully ingrained by experience, it constitutes a disservice to our New Friends to allow them to thing that ... just because the timer is not running at a match ... they can ease off on the Safety Regulations.

(SIGH)

It's impossible to cover all possible ways of "Doing Wrong" in a three hour class; and nobody would stand still for it, it's so negative!

Ultimately, the only way to gain experience in a potentially dangerous high-stress competitive environment is to tell the new practitioners what they must and must not do, and then allow their friends to serve as bad examples, for the edification of the others.

I'm not happy with that "solution". I think that every new shooter should have the experience that experienced shooters have; that is a conundrum, I admit, and it bothers me that I can't teach them EVERY way that they can .. well, "screw up".

It's a balancing act. As a trainer, if make the training too tough, I lose the potential of new shooters who are interested, but are discouraged by the negative tenor of the class.

If I'm too "nice", I lose the value of the Safety Training; I graduate people who don't understand how easy it is to be unsafe/how important it is to achieve the discipline to be always safe in a "running gun" situation.

On the other hand, if I'm too "tough", I dissuade people who have the potential to be safe, EXPERIENCED competitors who understand that ... "Hey, we want you to come shoot with us, but we will hold you to a 'higher standard' which flies in the face of all the practices you have experienced in a less stressful environment" ... your experience is unsafe, and we will not tolerate a lower level of safety."

(more sighs)

SUMMARY:
This is a very long and convoluted post, and I apologize for imposing my "angst" on you. I'm not really trying to apologize for my inability to be a perfect trainer. What I'm looking for is some s
suggestions from other trainers about how to achieve the perfect balance of "tough" and "attractive" in a three-hour training session. Ideally, each student would be given individual instruction, and ideally the training session would continue until the student had learned all that he or she needed to know.

Practically speaking, that is impossible. Even under the most ideally perfect situation ... it ain't going to happen. It's beyond the realm of human endeavor to cover every possibility; the best we can do is to hit the high points and hope for the best .... and in the actual event, to monitor the performance of each New Shooter very closely ... without making him or her feel so self-conscious that he/she has no possibility of performing "satisfactorily".

The only thing that I can suggest is a concept which I have only recently realized is a viable goal: That they perform "right" rather than "well".

In the early stages of a new shooter's career, they should not attempt to "perform well" (to be competitive); they should only attempt to "perform right" (to be safe).

I'm not sure that's a conceptual differentiation which will be acceptable to every new shooter, but it's a goal which may perhaps be achievable.

And it may prevent them from DQ'ing because they tried too hard, too early.


x
x

Desecration on UK Commonwealth World War Cemetery in Benghazi - YouTube

Desecration on UK Commonwealth World War Cemetery in Benghazi - YouTube

I've tried to say this so many times, and I've never had the guts ... or had the exact/specific example to say what I wanted to say. Perhaps today, given this example, I can say it.

I BELIEVE .... all cultures produce their fair share of idiots; most often, among their young.
I BELIEVE .... each generation is driven to discount the values of their fathers, at least when appreciation for the contribution of a foreign culture is concerned. And probably in all other circumstances, especially if the new generation has been "brainwashed" by the radicals of the previous generation.
I BELIEVE .... that this sort of disrespect for their history is not limited to the Muslim population ... but it is here presented precisely that way.
I BELIEVE .... that the presentation of Muslim or Islamic ill-behavior is often presented precisely to denigrate their culture (ignoring that "Young Boys Behaving Badly" is not limited to any specific culture). Note that English "YOBS" have been found to desecrate World War memorials, as well.
SEE BELOW!
I BELIEVE .... that this specific culture is currently more susceptible to bad influences from their elders than are other cultures. Specifically, many Islaamics consider themselves personally "At War" against the West because of the recent incursions against the East from the West, for political reasons which are not generally accepted by these Eastern influential persons.
Or are they?
I BELIEVE .... that any religion may be confused with cultural influences; because of the specific belief system which is Islam, there is a history (including, admittedly, "The Crusades") which encourages the dichotomy between the 15th Century "history" and the 20th century.
On the other hand ... is the influence religious or cultural?
I BELIEVE .... that the recent migration between Islamic lands and European lands has encouraged Islamics to rebel against their perceived anti-bias. That is, the migratory Islamics feel persecuted because they THINK they are persecuted against.
However, they may be right.
I BELIEVE .... that this persecution is not without basis; however, the dichotomy of "I am a foreigner, thus I am treated as an alien" among immigrants is not primarily generated by the host country (s) as much as by the immigrant's unfulfilled expectations.
However, they may be right.
I BELIEVE .... that this fulfillment has less to do with what the immigrants had been led to be believed, than with what they chose to believe .. often with little or no encouragement from their host country.
I BELIEVE .... that when young men find their dreams unfulfilled, they tend to react against those peoples who they expected to provide the fulfillment; their own actions seem, to them, to be entirely reasonable.
However, they may be right.
I BELIEVE .... that Socialism is one of the factors in the disillusionment of immigration. New "citizens" reasonably expect that they will receive "Cradle to the Grave" support from their new host countries. When that level of support is not ("automatically") provided to them, they react negatively; and their friends and relatives from their country of origin mirror that disappointment, even if/when they are not directly affected.
I BELIEVE .... that the guy in the video who climbs a ladder and begins to hammer against the Christian cross with the obvious expectation that he can thus dislodge it... is a prototypical exemplar of people who have unrealistic expectations. In a word; he is an idiot.
I BELIEVE .... that the guys in the video who begin whacking vigorously at the base of the cross-pillar reflect at the guy pounding at the cross itself; they probably don't REALLY expect to take down the Christian symbol, they only wish to register their own personal protest. The RESULTS are unimportant; the EFFORT only serves to display their displeasure. (Note that the video ultimately does not extend to display any meaningful results, but tipping over gravestones is so instantly gratifying!)
I BELIEVE .... that this video is an ultimately embarrassing null-effort by the perpetrators. They are only expressing their frustration, and probably not dissing the brave men who gave their lives for their benefits. It's sad that they have no more productive manner of expression, just as it is sad that that they are so willing to denigrate the efforts of perfect strangers who died for their freedom to desecrate their graves.
I BELIEVE .... these kids are a bunch of Useful Idiots who someone will take advantage of, in order to make a political point.
I BELIEVE .... that I have just done that.


I wonder if they will be proud, or embarassed, that a Westerner will use their vandalism to show how shallow is their character?

OR ....

will we remember the November 05, 2005 incident when Muslim graves were desecrated in a British graveyard?

Hundreds of police officers were drafted on to the streets of Birmingham last night after dozens of Muslim grave headstones were damaged at a city cemetery, triggering concerns about fresh race riots.

The desecration was discovered yesterday morning by relatives visiting the Muslim part of Handsworth Cemetery in Birmingham.

Leaflets were also scattered among the grave stones with insults against Muslims which were attributed to a unknown group calling themselves Black Nation. Up to 45 headstones were smashed or pushed over.

We're real big about decrying the desecration of British graves by Muslim youths .... but why don't we notice the similarly despicable action against Muslim graves by British youths?

(Note that this reference was at least 100 levels down in a Google Search! Sure, it took place 7 years ago .... but why did it take such research in depth to find it? Could it be because we are so quick to condemn others for the things that we do ourselves?)

Just Saying ....

(H/T: ... Hobo Brasser)

USPSA Intro Class: March, 2012

There are some fairly interesting things going on with new shooters who are just starting out in the USPSA competition business, and it's fascinating to me how the program is expanding radically from the original concept.

Which is a much kinder, gentler way of saying that I'm learning as much from my students as they are learning from me.

Essentially, I'm not being as "kind and gentle" as I would have hoped to be; as it turns out, it's not doing any favor to the students if I'm quite as relaxed and easy going as I would prefer to be.

Maybe I should be more clear here. Previously, I've tried to give my students a 'break' when they do something unsafe. Previously, I've pointed out their error, and gently reminded them that they just can not DO this in "A Real Match". I found out last month (when a student made the SAME errors as during the class ... and I had to DQ the student) that criticism without reinforcement just doesn't work.

Student "W" and Student "M" both trained in August, and did fine. They couldn't either get to a Classification Match until February, so they both showed up at the February class for a refresher. (I don't mind accommodating students, and I was impressed that both "W" and "M" wanted to refresh their learned skills before attending the match."


While "W" did fine, "M" got the classic Match Jitters and forgot about the "keep the finger off the trigger when loading, unloading, or clearing a malfunction" Safety Rule. When that happened during the class, I just leaned over and quietly said: "By the way, you are DQ'd because you can't keep your finger off the trigger". Nothing much more was said, except that this did NOT mean "M" had to leave the class. In other words, no real penalty was applied. No lesson was learned!

During the pressure of Match Day in February, though, "M" made the same mistakes; I was obliged to Match DQ the student. I had no choice, one of the primary rules had been broken.

"M" was more embarassed than angry .. and perhaps a little self-disappointed.

So I was pleased when both "M" and "W" asked to go through the new student class again this month; that showed real determination, and I was impressed by the dedication of both to "beat this thing"; that is to provide mutual support and learn to deal with Match Jitters.

Also present today were three entirely new students: Jason, Mike and Rob.

The first thing I did was to declare that "M" ... who had DQ'd last month, would be my Demonstrator for class. This established some pressure which, while perhaps not as intense as might be experienced in an actually match, insured that this single student would ALWAYS be the first shooter .. with everyone watching.

(I don't know about you, but I've always felt at least mildly uncomfortable being the first shooter on a stage. It's not so bad now, since I'm so old and feeble that nobody expects much from me, and my memory is reduced to such almost-Alzheimer status that I've almost forgotten what it's like to be embarassed by screwing up on a stage.)

But I know (I can remember that far back) that it can be, for a new shooter, as if everyone is watching and being critical EVERY TIME you get up to shoot.

With "M" as my demonstrator, and "W" shooting last (if only to provide comic relief ... I can say that 'cause we are both personable and likeable) we had a solid shooting order.

Then the fun started.

It's not that "M" had problems ... on the contrary. We just witnessed mechanically perfect performance on every stage. No attempts to push the envelope; "M had a self-assigned role to provide a textbook perfect form as an example to the others, with NO violations of safety rules.
And it worked out just fine.

"W" performed as well, always looking smooth; it looked fast, too, which reinforced our mantra that "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast".

We had some ammunition problems, though.

Mike had a squib in the last exercise, which was personally disconcerting because I (as RO) never caught it. It's just that ... his gun suddenly refused to go into battery. Of course that happened when we played "El Presedente". Gun problems always happen on a speed stage, it seems. Still, I did not notice a difference in the volume of the report.

When he got the squib worked out, and switched to a 1911, he had high score on the exercise ... which provided us with an example to explain how every shooter's stage score was based on their relative 'raw' score to determine relative placement within a stage (This iss omething that we don't get to as often as we should ... and I think the class should include at least one stage where we 'do the math' so the competitors understand how placement works for each stage, and for the match. More on this at the end of this article.)

Jason had a crap holster, some kind of soft thing with a strap and he got REALLY tired of fastening the strap. Of course, his shirt kept trying to get between the gun and the holster, so it took him forever both to holster his loaded picture. He had this monstrous big 9mm pistol that looked like Tom Selleck's in the movie "Runaway" where Selleck portrayed a government agent tasked with killing Robots. We found ourselves in the advantageous position where we could make "ROBOT" jokes every time Jason came up in the rotational shooting order.

Jason had some other, more serious, problems related to his unfamiliarity of using his pistol in a competitive environment. This wasn't obvious until halfway through the live-fire exercise, when he shifted his grip slightly and ended with his off-hand thumb dangerously near the recoiling slide. I stopped him immediately, and then attempted to explain why.

It wasn't because he had violated a safety rule, I said, or because he was violating ANY kind of rule ... but because I feared for his safety. I went on to explain that if he shifted his grip an eighth of an inch it might result in the recoiling slide catching his thumbnail ... which could rip his nail loose from his hand. Worse, if he shifted his grip much more, it might result in a broken thumb. I counseled him to try another grip.

He (quite reasonably) asked if I would suggest another grip. I quickly demonstrated the thumb-over-thumb grip (left thumb holds the right thumb down) and the "High Grip" which necessarily puts one thumb on the safety (his gun didn't have one, but the de-cocker might serve) and the other thumb under it. He tried these grips ... and immediately began to 'tank' his shots into the low-C-zone and often the low-D-zone.

This illustrated the problems with this kind of instruction. The assumption is that the students are thoroughly familiar with their pistols, and the basics of safe gun-handling need not be addressed. In this case, Jason needed some personal coaching. As it was late in the day, it was impossible to provide him with the personal coaching he needed. The "old" grip he was using ... and which he adjusted (not to his advantage) during a stage, obviously wasn't working, and was dangerous. The new grips which he tried were not accurate, as they caused him to jerk the trigger. I'm hopeful that he can work with this at home to get past the problem of dunking his shots, but I'm concerned that he doesn't have time between the class and the match to work on it.

I'll see if I can contact him between now and then, so we can work "one on one" to develop a grip he can use.

The final student, Rob, was so boring. He had no problems. He was shooting a true 1911, which fact I may here be seen present as an unfair suggestion that 1911's solve all shooter problems. (In the spirit of "Full Disclosure", I note that I have seen a plethora of students who could not safely handle a 1911 frame. On the other hand, my own son can't drive a stick shift ..... )

Still, I was impressed with his performance if only because it was relatively problem free.

This should not be interpreted to suggest that the other students universally encountered problems. I DQ'd more than one shooter, and I deliberately stood the shooters down and had them reshoot the problematic exercises after everyone else had finished the problem. I had told the class before we began the Live Fire exercise that they would be embarrassed during the class. When I asked one shooter (who had been 'rewarded' with less-than-exemplary comments) whether I had embarassed him, he said: "Yes, but I get that all the time at home".

I considered that as a sane, reasonable response indicative of a mature response to criticism; they weren't ignoring the criticism, but didn't find it so uncomfortable that they were so uncomfortable with the training environment that they would not feel comfortable shooting in competition. That was the goal in this newer approach.

FOOTNOTE:
After Mike had problems with his pistol, he switched to the 1911 which Rob had been using. IF the results are worth evaluating, he "won" the competition for the "El Presente" stage with his 1911, a fact which I mentioned earlier.

All of the students fired the "El Presente" stage under conditions which I attempted to be as difficult, and "judgemental", as they might expect to find in "an actual match". I made it clear that their scores would be recorded, and that their performances would be evaluated to determine the "winner" of the stage. (I'm not certain that I made that as clear as it sounds, but I'll work harder in my subsequent classes to apply the formula so as to impose as much pressure to perform as they might find in a match.)


I've computed the the scores for that wrap-up stage ... and I am sorry that this format doesn't provide non-proportional type so I can present the results in columnar format. Still, here's how the students raw performance worked out:

EL PRESIDENTE:

Mike:
Raw points: 55 Time: 11.59 Raw Score: 4.74 Percent: 100 Final Stage Score: 60.0000 Points

"W":
Raw points: 52 Time: 12.15 Raw Score: 4.27 Percent: 99.3468 Final Stage Score: 59.7468 points

Rob:
Raw points: 57 Time: 15.06 Raw Score: 3.78 Percent: 79.7468 Final Stage Score: 47.8481 points

"M":
Raw points: 52 Time: 18.07 Raw Score: 2.87 Percent: 60.5848 Final Stage Score: 36.3291 points

Jason:
Raw points: 42 Time: 27.56 Raw Score: 1.52 Percent: 32.8675 Final Stage Score: 19.2405 points


JUSTIFICATION:
Raw score is points / time
Percent is raw score divided INTO raw score of highest scoring shooter (Mike)
Final Stage Score is Percent x maximum possible score for the stage (60 points)


Again: this is the kind of example which should be provided (class time being available) to all of the students in future classes. Everybody wants to know where they finished ... and especially how they got there!

Hacker Attacks - Everybody's Doing It

(Koff Koff!)

Last month I got an email from my ex-wife, offering to give me the low-down on a GREAT money-making opportunity working at home!

After I quit laughing, I emailed my ex. She replied that she hadn't sent it to me, and didn't know anything about it. So I deleted the email, and quit worrying about it.


A few days later I received an email from a high-school friend, offering to give me the low-down on ... yep. You guessed it, another GREAT money-making opportunity working at home. So I deleted the email.

Two days ago I received an email from my daughter, with the heading "blessedday". The email contained absolutely NO content! So I wrote to her (did NOT replay to the email) and said "No content? What's with this?"

This afternoon when I got back to the range I found a reply from my daughter. She said it was news to her, she had scanned her computer and found no virus or bugs, but she did change her password and hoped that would clear up the problem.

I wrote back to say her mother had a problem lately too with her email address book being used to send bogus emails (one of which was sent to me), and concluded with the smug assurance that "... you didn't get that from MY side of the family!"

Smug didn't live long. The very next email I read was from a utility vendor informing me that the credit card I used to pay my bill was due to expire next month and I should change my payment information in order to continue uninterrupted service.

I don't pay that account with a credit card, and even if I did, it wouldn't be expiring. SO I contacted the vendor directly (via email ... not by replying to the original email) forwarding the 'bogus' email and asked them to please investigate and LET ME KNOW whether they had screwed up or whether this was just another "Phishing" attempt.

(Look up the term "Phishing" if you're not sure, but generally speaking it means someone is trying to get me to reply to the EMAIL rather than directly to the vendor ... who can NOT be reached using the email address provided. The hope is that I will provide private information including credit card account number, etc.)




What does this mean to you?

In case you haven't been attacked before, please be aware that there are naughty people out there who would LOVE for you to reply directly to their emails. Always verify the source of dubious emails even if they seem to come from a friend or family member.



Oh, and I checked my AntiVirus provider (Symantic) and they have no reference to a virus identified as "blessedday". Doesn't mean there isn't one ... just means it hasn't been identified as a "virus". That is, there is no software embedded in the email by that name. This should NOT be taken to mean that there's not someone out there sending apparently innocuous messages which, if YOU reply to it directly, will consider this a confirmation of your email address as an "active and legitimate" email address and continue to send you unsolicited messages ... or send you an email message which DOES have a virus.

As Sgt. Phil Esterhaus use to say in almost every episode of Hill Street Blues:
"Let's be careful out there!"



(Sigh!)