Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Error Analysis and Correction

Error Analysis and Correction One of the things that I 'frequently' encounter when I'm conducting "Introduction to USPSA" classes is that ... well, frankly, not everyone who shows up for the class is a good pistol shooter. Not that this is a MAJOR problem; most folks interested in competitive shooting have (in my experience) been shooting the same pistol for several years. They're aware of their idiosyncrasies, and they're constantly working to correct the things they do which are 'not helpful'.

Still, it's a problem which occurs 'frequently'. Specifically: a student seems to be doing everything right, but all of his hits are to the left. Or left/low. Or to the right, or .. well, you know. When your misses are consistently grouped in the same not-in-the-A-zone place, it's a sure sign that you've picked up some bad habits. Either that, or nobody has told you how to cultivate "good habits" in pistol shooting. Usually, the problems lie in one (or more) of three areas:
  1.  Grip
  2. Finger-on-the-trigger placement
  3. Jerking the Trigger (or anticipating recoil)
I've always been aware that there are charts available for those who would learn; these charts divide a target into a 360-degree image, based on quadrant.  If your hits (or misses!) are consistently in the 270 degree quadrant, for example, and if you're a right handed shooter, it suggests that your trigger finger is not sufficiently 'into' (on) the trigger .. so you're pushing your pistol to the left.  Conversely, if the hits are consistently in the 90 degree quadrant, you're probably PULLING your pistol to the right.

Simple, isn't it?

When I see a shooter hitting to the left, I can just recommend that he make sure that the fullness of the first-joint finger-pad of his trigger finger be centered on the trigger, and that he make a conscious effort to pull the trigger toward his dominant eye.

In point of fact, if he is hitting to the RIGHT: the advice is the same.  The only difference is, he's either "PUSHING" or "PULLING" his shots, because of trigger-finger placement.  He needs to find the sweet-spot, and then make a habit of always using the same finger placement.

Easy, huh?

But what if he is consistently hitting high, or low?  I'm thinking it's his Grip, but I'm not always sure exactly what advice to offer!

In an ideal world, I wouldn't have to worry about correcting these minor technical thingies. Everyone I meet should be a crack shot, and all I would have to do is to make sure he knows the rules of competition and understand how targets are scored.  Right?

Wrong!

The original 'deal' with my agreement to teach this class, was that every student who couldn't demonstrate proficiency with a handgun (in both accuracy and safe gun-handling) would be required to attend and pass a course in "Basic Handgun".  This is a course which is offered by my home club, the Albany Rifle and Pistolc Club (ARPC).  My mentor was going to interview every candidate for the class,  and 'new shooters' would be "Strongly Encouraged" to take the Basic class.

It didn't work out that way .. and yes, I'm aware (for long-time/frequent readers of this blog), I've mentioned this before.

In the actual event, everyone who thinks this is a good way to learn to shoot a pistol, shows up here, first.  They sign up for the monthly class the week before .. or the night before ... and I never know what I'm getting.  I don't know what they do or do not know about shooting a pistol, or whether they can shoot out the eye of a Franklin Dime at 20 paces OR they don't know whether their pistol has a safety.  (Yes, this has actually happened.)

It would be very nice if the people who sign up to learn how to shoot a pistol COMPETITIVELY can be expected to know how to shoot a pistol COMPETENTLY.  Or even, just SAFELY.

Yes, I am venting.  Sorry .. I'll try to be less critical in the future.  Maybe next week, eh?

Well, it's obvious  that I find myself spending more time teaching basic gun-handling skills, and accuracy skills, than safety and competitive skills .. and I'm sometimes frustrated.  I'm thinking it would be great if I could glance at a target and tell a student: "you're jerking the trigger", or "You have the trigger finger too deep on the trigger" or " .... not deep enough", or whatever.

Lucky me, I found a place which provides a diagram, showing exactly which 'errors' result in shot-displacement based on where the bullet hits .. which suggests how to correct the errors.


... actually, this is for a right-handed shooter.  (The left-handed shooter problems are the mirror image.)  And the 'finger not on the trigger correctly" zone is for a shooter who has his finger not-deep-enough on the trigger; he's pushing the shot.  If he has his finger too deep on the trigger, he's pulling the shot and the hits are in the 90 degree arc, rather than the 270 degree arc (pushing the shot).  For those of you who are perhaps more experienced, you already know that.  Sorry if I appear too pedantic at times, but that's just me.

So .. it appears that I need to develop another visual aid, which incorporates the information available here.  I don't mind, of course; it's just that I already have visual aids which summarize the "Seven Deadly Sins of IPSC" and  "IPSC Range Commands" and "Scoring Zones" and "Power Factor Calculation".  There comes a point where the visual aids become a distraction, rather than a helpful mnemomic.


Doesn't matter, really.  I'll make a duplicate of the chart, and it's up to the student to learn from it.

And yes, I will accept the challenge of teaching my students to not only shoot competitively, but to shoot accurately.


The only problem is, I have only one hour to teach the "classroom" issues, and two hours to teach the "Live Fire Exercise".  Instead of being a three-hour course, it should be at least four .. probably five .. hours of instruction.  When I took my certification course in 1983, that's what it was then.



Maybe I should change the structure of the class?  I don't know.

What do YOU think?

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Happy Birthday to the U.S. Marines!

Today ... November 10, 2012 ... is the 237th birthday of the United States Marines The Marines' Hymn

(I almost missed it!)

Congratulations, Marines! For longer than the United States has BEEN a country, you have helped keep our country strong. We salute the brave men and women who have done so much, sacrificed their numbers greatly, and for so long have held your banners high.


Even though it may be presumptuous for a mere dog-soldier to say ...

Semper Fidelis!


In a personal note: I was attending a USPSA match today and one of the people I was talking to looked up and observed that the host club had not hoisted the colors. He commented, and I agreed, that the oversight was not appropriate to the occasion. But then, the match director wasn't quite old enough, nor experienced enough, to have an appreciation for the date.

And as I looked around, I noticed that the speaker was wearing a cap which denoted he was an ex-Navy Submariner. And I remembered that someone in the sign-up line had noticed (and commented to his daughter, who was also at the match) that the belt buckle I was wearing was a replica of the Combat Infantryman's Badge.

Perhaps we don't always perform the MAJOR observations which our serving and past members of the military deserve. Still, there are enough people around who notice, and comment, and in at least this small way we recognize the contributions of our Citizen Soldiers (and Gyrenes, Dogs, Squids, etc.)

Incidentally, one of the stills in the video is the iconic image of the Marines raising the American flag on Mount Suribachi during the conquest of Iwo Jima   ("Garlic Island"). This was in celebration of their conquest over incredible resistant of the embedded Japanese forces. It is an important day for me; it was the day I was born.)

Thursday, November 08, 2012

Hell in a Handbasket

We've done it to ourselves.

Remember the Richard Pryor movie, "Brewster's Millions"?  This guy was the heir to $300 dollars, but he had to prove that he knew how to handle money.  The test was, he had to spend 30 million dollars in 30 days, but at the end of that time he had to have spent it ALL and have no tangible assets to show for it.

Our Hero managed to do it, but his most successful 'waste of money' was to sponsor a political campaign.  The crux of his campaign was to espouse the slogan:  "Vote for 'None Of The Above'!"
The result of that vote would have cancelled out one vote each for ALL of the candidates; it was a vote against all of them! The candidate who had the largest number of resulting votes "FOR" would win ... if any of them had any votes FOR them.  If nobody was left ... screw it, maybe we don't even need that office any more.

We could have used that ballot option this week.  As I have said here before: "IF God had intended us to vote, he would have given us Candidates".

Maybe we don't need a President any more.

Nobody really liked "Der Mitt", but those of us who were Conservative were forced to vote for him, if only because the only legal alternative was "Mister Fourteen Trillion Dollars" ... the greatest raid on the American Economy in the history of the United States.


Nothing really new here.

We've had "Zero-Sum" candidates before.  In fact, we've had a LOT of them.  Some of them were more obviously of 'presidential timber' than others ... most were not at all.

Let's take a capsule look at the options we've been forced to endure.  Because I was born during WWII ("The Really Big One!"), and it's My blog, I think that's a good place to start.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (DEMOCRAT) 1933-1945

Twelve years.  TWELVE YEARS?  Conservatives (Capitalists) called him "That Man" and "A Traitor To His Class".  In a strong and decisive attempt to recover his country from The Great Depression, he instituted many social programs devised to improve the economy.  Call it "Social Reform", call it "Socialism", he set the stage for generations to come.  He also orchestrated international  coordination to beat the Nazi's and "The Yellow Peril".  Dust Bowl, "Grapes Of Wrath", etc.  He had a lot on his agenda, and I personally didn't like many of his social reforms ... but the man was a leader.  He knew what he had to do and he done it.  Also, we began to think that perhaps a Three-Term President was just a little too much.

Harry S. Truman  (Democrat) 1945-1953

As Frank's VP, Harry took over from Frank, when Frank died.  Decided to nuke the Japs. Saved hundreds of thousands of American troops, who were facing the invasion of Japan against an entrenched army and a nation prepared to fight to the last Geisha. No Shit, Man, This Really Happened.  Was elected for a "Second Term".   The man had a foul mouth, and he relieved General Douglas McArthur (one of the few Five Star Generals) when Mac decided he was The American Geisha and could do no wrong.  No apologies to "Dugout Doug"; the U.S. Military Commander IS the President.  Set better precedents than Frank; one of which was identifying the Soviet Union as a threat to American .. and world-wide .. security.

Dwight David Eisenhower (Republican) 1953-1961

"I Like Ike!"  Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) and Commander of the European Theater of Operations (ETO), Ike was the first military man to command his country for a long time.  Well, U.S. Grant showed him how not to do it. Ike got a little cozy with his lady driver in London, but he still kicked ass when it came to D-Day.   After election, he was uncomfortable when the Soviets successfully launched a satellite in orbit first.  Joke of the day:  "Why can't Ike ride his horse after dark?  Because he doesn't have a Saddle-Light!"  (I guess you had to be there.)  Mamma was a Quaker .. Ike didn't take to it.  As President, he made Jimmy Stewart a star when he instigated the Strategic Air Command;  don't want no Russian bombers attacking America over the Great Circle Route.   See:  "Doctor Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb".    Initiated the Interstate Highway System as an alternative landing system for returning American bombers.   Did a little this and that for Civil rights, including the end of segregation of Southern Schools.  See Governer Orval Faubus.  Established the Social Security System (how's THAT working out?)   Korea and Lebanon also were battlegrounds during his administration.  See also the US Incident,  and a bit of attention to an incidental country called "Viet Nam".

John F. Kennedy (Democrat) 1961-1963)

First Roman Catholic President .. and believe me, that WAS an issue!  Bay of Pigs,  Vietnam, "Ich Bin Ein Berliner", Marlyn Monroe, Jackie.  Youngest person to be elected president to date.  Rich, powerful family.    Civil Rights.  "Ask not what your country can do for you; rather, ask what you can do for your country:.  Charismatic, popular, with almost everybody except for the nut on the fourth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Repository.  Caroline and Jon Boy, Ari and Jackie.  The man was a movie star.  He was also assassinated ... A Dynasty nipped in the bud.   Did I mention the Bay of Pigs and the CIA?  Bobby as Attorney General?   "Military Advisers" in Vietnam?  Starlets in the Oval Office?

Lyndon Baines Johnson (Democrat) 1963 - 1969)

Kennedy's VP, he took over for Kennedy (after his death) as Truman had after FDR's Death.  But he was neither as competent nor as colorful as Truman ... nor, for that matter, as successful.  Well, he did share the singular trait of having a dirty mouth.  But Truman could still kiss Bess with that mouth; I'm not sure that anybody could kiss Lady Bird ... you know, the alcohol breath and all.  At least Lady Bird cleaned up junk yards across America, and went to Rehab.  Johnson's personal problems?  FUBAR.

Accelerated the War in Viet Nam (Thanks, Lyndon ... You Drafted My Ass!  Where were YOU when the green tracers were coming into the lager?) Initiated "The Great Society"  ... great!   As if FDR didn't do enough to encourage Socialism.    Along with his coterie of "Whiz Kids", he micro-managed the VN War right into the ground.  The first president to be a non-diagnosed victim of  Traumatic Stress Syndrome,  rather than to run for a second term he just quit.  One good thing about Lyndon; he did NOT migrate to Canada to avoid the draft ... as did thousands of young American men.  See: Jimmy Carter (Below)

Johnson was selected as Kennedy's running mate because he could bring in the votes from the Deep South.  
Lyndon was one of the most successful politicians of all time, but one of the least effective presidents.  History my prove that our current Supreme Leader may beat him out of that claim to fame .. or notoriety.

In his defense, he did push for Kennedy's Tax Cut (Kennedy having been perhaps the last American Democratic President who understood economics).  Surprisingly, he was also successful in establish Civil Rights as a societal priority.  Then he got into the "Great Society" thingie, and we may never survive THAT little bagatelle.  (See: Barak Obama, below)

Richard M. Nixon (Republican) 1969-1974

"Tricky Dick" was the first American President I got to vote against.  I turned 21 in 1966, was drafted in 1968, and voted against Mr. Milhouse as a serving member of the U.S. Army while I was in Basic Training at Fort Lewis, Washington.  I had to report my company commander and explain why I needed his signature on my absentee ballot.  The CO was not pleased ... he actually asked me who I had voted for, and when I replied "Sir, I voted against Richard M. Nixon"  (I couldn't remember the name of the doofus I had actually voted FOR!)   He asked me why, and I stated (disingenuously):  "Sir, I would never vote for a man that I wouldn't buy a used car from.  Sir!"

Strangely, I had made the right decision.  I was a Registered Democrat then, as all young people should be, and had just graduated from college and had been six days married when I reported for duty.  Young, responsible, naive.   That is a VERY dangerous combination!

Dick (were his parents channeling future MSM reporters when they named him?) was later forced to resign the presidency when it became obvious that he had instigated the (illegal) burglary of the Democratic National Party Election Headquarters by the "Watergate Plumbers).  No, I'm getting tired of doing the google searches and providing the links.  If you're interested .. you do it!.  Fearing the impending impeachment, Dick just ... bailed out.  He must have learned something about "Sell Date" from Johnson.  Later, he acted as an emmisary to China, and actually may have done some temporary good for Sino-American relations there.  It's kind of a shame: he might have been a decent Secretary of State, but he should never have gone for the Presidency.  Perhaps he was channeling Hillary Rodham Clinton?  Do you suppose she learned something from him?  (Nawwww!)  Perhaps Dick's purpose in life was to serve as a good example of a bad example?

Oh, yes;  Kennedy won the presidency in the narrowest margin in U.S. History when running against Nixon.  Perhaps there are some lessons to be learned here.
  1. Thirty years ago, the Democrat Party espoused values which the Republican Party now includes in their platform .. but the Democrat Party now pays only lip-service to .. if that.  Witness Kennedy's Economic Policies.
  2. Thirty Years ago, we first refused to elect Mr. Shifty; then we elected him; then we regretted it; then in this century, we elected another Mr. Shifty and we haven't learned a damn thing about Presidential Politics since then!  See "Obama" (Below)
Gerald R. Ford (Republican) 1974 - 1977

The best thing we can say about Jerry Ford is that he has a kewl first name.

Okay, if you're all finished laughing .... okay, go ahead.  I'll wait.

Finished?

Okay.

The purpose of Ford is that he makes Eisenhower look DYNAMIC!  Good!  S$EXY!

Hell, if I ever get elected president, he would make ME look sexy.    Don't laugh .. if Ford can get elected, I can!

Well, actually, he never did get elected.  He was Nixon's VP after Spiro Agnew  (Nixon's first VP) was indicted for income-tax evasion.

But we won't go there, okay?  Because it's far too rich for this megalo-mento blog.  Spiro deserves his own time, except to say that three are congress-critters who have done the same thing in recent years and STILL have managed to retain their seats.  I will not name names.

Anyway, Jerry was famous for playing golf even less adroitly than Eisenhower; for being a stand-in for a real president (yet to be named), and for liking to watch football on TV.  In fact, while Nixon at least officially ended the war in Viet Nam ... I think he did that just for spite, so that Jerry couldn't.  Jerry wasn't castigate as Richard "Eighteen Minute Gap" Nixon was.  In fact, he never distinguished himself at all, politically.

He was a book-end.   That's all.

Nothing to see here, folks, it's just another train wreck .. move on.
Also for being the only President of the United States (POTUS) who was NEVER elected to the office.

Even as VP. Well, Spiro having left the building ... Jerry was affable, but none to bright.    He did, however, up the ratings for  Monday Night Football.  The best thing he did was not to start a war.


Jimmy (James Earl) Carter (Democrat) 1977 -1981

Jimmy Carter was grateful to his brother, Billy Bob, because Billy made Jimmy look GOOD by comparison!

Jimmy .. author of "The Great American Electric Power Blackout", and "The Rescue Of The Iranian Embassy (not!)" was probably a great peanut farmer.

Not a good wartime president .. witness the Russian incursion in Afghanistan.  He had TWO chances (Afghanistan, Iran), and he blew them both.  As he also blew the Energy Crisis.  Remember the long lines at the gas station?  Well .. he did inherit that from Jerry.  Not that he actually FIXED anything!

Oh, did I mention that he was a one-term president?  And that he is arguably the worst president in the history of American Politics?  It's not enough that he was a "Do-Nothing" president ... Ford had that one pretty well wrapped up.  But even when he tried to do something ... he failed.  Miserable.

Famously quoted by Playboy Magazine at a doorstep-interview as saying: "I have sinned in my heart" .. he still played the Baptist Minister on TV.  My personal memory is that Carter was once the commander of a Nuclear Submarine .. and I gave him a lot of credit for that responsibility.  Unfortunately, I haven't found any supporting evidence of that.  I guess the bad things are reported more reliably than the good things.

What I DO remember was dancing in a disco club (yes, to my shame, I admit to having done that ONCE ... but the gurl was hot!) and sweating like a pig because Carter's Energy Program forbade them to run the air conditioners.  But then, this might be in the same category as his being a submarine commander.

Apparently, we ALL just .. .want ... to ... forget .. the Carter Years.

Ronald W. Reagan (Republican) 1981 - 1989

The thing about Ronnie Ray-Gun was .. Star Wars!

Yeah!  The Star Wars Initiative was going to protect America from Russian sneak missile attacks.  (This is something that 2012 military technology can still not deliver .. but they're still trying!)

Out of respect for the late president, please allow me to express this in the most gentle terms possible:

Ronnie was as dumb as a stump, and his wife Nancy was a harridan.

This didn't bode well for their public image, and it certainly was a disaster for international relations .. especially with The Soviet Union!

On the other hand, Ronnie was "The Great Communicator .. and I love to go back and watch him on YouTube.    I also liked him on Death Valley Days (Co-starring with .. well, the 'other' wife'). I wasn't so big on "Bedtime for Bonzo, and the entire franchise, where he was consistantly upstaged by a chimpanzee.

The funny thing is, though, that his economic policies revitalized America.  And he so frightened the Soviet Union that they BANKRUPTED their country trying to keep up with the measures that Ronnie established to close the "Window of Opportunity".

You see .. Ronnie had a vision.  He understood the problem, knew exactly what to do and how to do it, and then he did it.

My personal problem is that, even having read a couple of Reagan biographies (eg:  DUTCH) I still don't understand what that vision was.

It doesn't  much matter, though .. does it?  Gorbie of the gruesome forhead-raspberry capitualted (as did the entire Soviet Union) in 1991 as a consequence of Reagan's political/international relations policies .. and Military overspending!  ... and now we are all good friends of Russia (which is NO LONGER the Soviet Union, because those other folks?  Won't even talk to them nice!)

"Voodoo Economics" aside ... Reagan managed to balance domestic economic policies, international relationships, and "democratic obstructionism" counter-tactics to constitute what may be described as The American Springtime.   Nobody was trying to attack us .. certainly nobody thought it was "safe" or "A Good Idea" to blow up buildings in NYC  (Well, they were still hijacking cruise ships and airplanes, but nobody's perfect), and the American Economy experienced a resurge which had not been matched in decades.  Who says that the President can't influence the Economy?

Yup .. the guy was an ACTOR ... and at one time the head of the Screen Actors Guild.  He liked FDR. He was a Democrat until he turned 50.  ("Any man under 50 who is not a Democrat is not listening to his heart; any man who is not a Republican when he is over 50 is no listening to his head"   ... anonymous, probably misquoted in detail)

He supported a 'smaller' federal government, and the military.  For his reward, he was shot in the head by a would-be assassin in 1981.  He famously said to his doctors "I hope you are all Republicans".

In my own personal opinion, any man with so much moxie that he challenges the political bent of surgeons just before he undergoes brain surgery at their hands ... deserves the lead the most free nation in the world.

He liked FDR, he liked Goldwater.  I'm not convinced that Politics was his forte ... he just liked leaders who inspired him, so he tried to be an "Inspiring Leader".  He generally managed that, perhaps not least because of his wide experience as an actor.  No American could tell a yarn, a story, an anecdote or a quip without twirling a rope as he talked.  He was the iconic American Speaker of his time .. and he could probably have bested Mark Twain and Will Rogers as the best loved speaker of his time.

"Tax Cuts and Spending Cuts" were his theme, along with "Trickle-down Economy".  This meant that if you didn't position taxing philosophy to discourage entrepreneurs, the economy would prosper.  Critics titled this "Voodoo Economics" or "Reaganomics", although it isn't far removed from the economic policy of John Kennedy.

His VP was George Herbert Walker Bush (see below).  See also "Iran-Contra"  where he took profits from South American "Contra" fighters to support NIcaraguan Freedom Fighters during the South AmericanWars), and when his actions were investigated he famously said, frequently:  "I misremember" .. a lot.
  Well, Mr. Clinton (see below) seems to have learned a lot from Ronald Reagan about how to manage aggressive congress.

George Herbert Walker Bush (Republican) 1989-1993

AKA: BUSH 41

Vice president to Ronald Reagan (and father of George "W" Bush), this presidential candidate was famous for saying:

"Read My Lips:  No New Taxes"!

... and then turning around and imposing new taxes on the American public when he later realized that as President, his control over the economy wasn't quite as tight as he had expected.

Are we beginning to learn that "It's The Economy, Stupid!" isn't entirely a catch-phrase of the Democratic party?

"HW" is probably most frequently regarded as the father of late-20th-century-Republican Politics .. being the father of two governors ... one of which was later to be elected President of the United States (See: George W. Bush  ..... below).


That is, besides being so demonstrably unable to live up to his "no new taxes' campaign promise,.  That wasn't very popular, in the end result.

Bush tried to continue Reagan's economic policies, but wasn't very successful.  He had been Ambassador to the United Nations before Reagan selected him as his VP Co-runner.  This was probably the pinacle of the political career of GWH Bush  ("Bush 41)

William ("Bill") Jefferson Clinton (Democrat)  1993 - 2001

Bill Clinton felt our pain.

We know this, because he told us so.  Frequently.   In fact, so frequently that it soon lost its "impact" on the American Public ... except for that portion who wanted to believe any politician who wanted to tell them what the wanted to hear.

Bill successfully negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which is probably the high-light of his political career.  This agreement removed restrictions in trade between the United States, Mexico and Canada.

in other words, if Mexico or Canada can produce 'widgets' less expensively than those produced by American labor ..  these cheaper widgets may be imported to the U.S. without needing to bear the imposition of import duties or taxes.

Which means .. if America can't make quality widgets for a dollar a pound, we'll find someone who will.

Depending on whether or not you're a member of an American Labor Union, you may or may not see this as A Good Thing.

Of course, if you're an American Consumer, you may be biased in your evaluation.

W.J. Clinton had several other political and economic influences on America during his Presidency.

Among the influences (and accomplishments) are ...
  1. he survived multiple political, fiscal and sexual scandals
  2. turned a huge national deficit into a surplus
  3. stopped "Ethnic Cleansing" in Bosnia and Kosovo
  4. Presided over the greatest prosperity since  the early 1960's
Well, considering the source some readers may consider that Point #1 is the only non-controversial claim.

Especially the  part about Bosnia.  But also parts (2) and (4) .. which are also subject to interpretation.  We won't quibble here, take it as read.  He feels our pain, and we feel his ... although not all of us would have gone into the Oval Office with the same agenda as Monica Lewinski.  (Yes, I do still hold that against him, but from a safe distance.)

However, it's worth mentioning  that he attempted to sponsor "Hillary Care"  .. a national Health Care bill which would provide free medical care to ALL US Citizens regardless of almost anything, and would be paid for by a fifty-cent-per-pax Federal tax on cigarettes.  Note that at the time, cigarettes (which had  previously been selling at $1/pack) were selling at $4.00/pack  They now cost $5.50/pack because of .. you guessed it .. higher taxes, not higher costs of production OR inflation.

And Hillary Care never made it past the starting gate, because not everybody believed that National Health Care could be supported by cigarette taxes, which would be funded entirely by cigarette smokers, who (if Clinton Mania could be believed) would be all dead in the next ten years because Cigarettes are Chillers.

"Ethnic Cleansing"?  Still going on, in an increasing number of countries .. although that has famously shifted its focus south from Bosnia to Africa.

"Greatest Prosperity"?  See "Obama" (below) .. also a Democratic president.

Bill was  the second president (see "Nixon", above) to be almost-impeached for malfeasance in office, but Bill assured us that ... "I did not have sex with That Woman ...".  (Depending on what your definition of "Sex" is; Hillary was reportedly livid with Bill, and threw a lamp at him.  Not because he was catching BJs in the Oval Office, but because he handled the resultant 'bad press' so inadroitly.)

On the positive side, he defeated both George H.W. Bush (see above) and Ross Perot to win the election.  It would have been petty of me to suggest that I could have beat those two Major-League Losers as well, but then I never actually submitted my name for inclusion on the ballot.  In retrospect, I may have let my country down.

The National Budget was the next hurdle.  Congress refused to accept a budget which was not supported by either budget cuts or increased taxation.  Bill refused either alternative, and threatened to shut down the government.  Rather than accept the default of both social and military programs by facing down an intransigent President, Congress backed down and Bill called it a WIN/WIN situation.  In the Clinton Administration, this is defined by Bill saying "Nya Nya Nya .. I'm the President and you're not" and Congress allowing him to get away with it.

Also see "Whitewater",   Re: pre-election scandals; Bill enhanced the Presidential Stature by facing down Ireland, Haiti, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania and Bosnia.  Major powers, all.  He also responded to Terrorist Attacks by firing a Tomahawk missile with the net benefit of killing one camel, an aspirin factory, and two canvas tents.  Good shooting, Bill!  I bet Monica was very proud of you!

(Of course, Hillary hasn't talked to you since 1999 ... which is another benefit of a presidency well spent.  Frankly?  If I was the President, and I had to choose between Monica in my under my desk and Hillary in my bed, I would be hard pressed to choose the lesser of two evils.  But apparently these difficult decisions are the stuff that being Presidential are made of.  Thanks for showing us what it takes to being "An Effective President", Bill!)

George W. Bush (Republican) 2001 - 2009

George Walker Bush was president when the Islaamic Terrorists drove civilian passenger airplanes into the Twin Towers in NYC; the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and into an empty field in Ohio (thanks to the selfless sacrifice of passengers who knew they were going to die anyway); during those few trying days early in his presidency,  he kept his nation together and demonstrated leadership by NOT giving into the panic which was endemic across the nation during that horrific day.

For this, "W" has been labelled as indecisive, ineffective, and cowardly by his detractors ... most of which are either Democratic politicians, or members of the Main Stream Media.  (But I repeat myself.)

George W. Bush ("Bush 43", as oppose to "Bush 41" .. his father, see above) has never been accused of being an intellectual.  Intellectuals may be defined as those politicians who are similar to Al Gore (2000) and John Kerry (2004), both of whom were defeated by "W" in national elections.  Gore was defeated because he is a lying elitist ass-hat.  Kerry, on the other hand, is a smug elitist ass-hat.  Both were defeated because of (a) the supreme court rulings, which upheld the election rules which were in effect at the time (and still are!), and (b) because they are both very smart, but are still fucking idiots, and the voting public cannot ignore their idiocy.  Good for you, good for me.  Do I need to mention that all three candidates have a lot of money?  Two of them inherited it from their families.  Kerry did it 'the hard way'; he married an ugly woman.  (Clinton, to his credit, also married an ugly woman even though she didn't come from a particularly wealthy family; perhaps this had something to do with his decision to boink the fat intern?)

During his presidency, "W" accomplished the following goals:
  • he didn't bring charges against the office workers of the previous administration, who in a fit of jealous rage at losing their political office, trashed their physical office';
  • established a tax cut, with the intention of increasing net federal funding by 'growing' the economy; this worked;
  • Signed the largest (economically) education bill in the history of the country.  For this he was excoriated by Ted "Let God Sort 'Em Out" Kennedy because it wasn't as big a bill as he wanted;
  • not deliberately attempting to emulate his father's "Thousand Points Of Light", nevertheless established a national government which was EXTREMELY aware of Democratic agendas, and in fact risked offending main-stream Republicans because his policy decisions were more 'liberal' than theirs;
  • Took charge immediately after the Terrorist attack on America, inventing "on the fly" Security Measures which were hopefully designed to identify, track and apprehend individuals whose actions were obviously aimed at bringing pain and suffering to American citizens (see "Patriot Act", below)
  • Responded to reports of 'international' terrorist support, and attempted to curb the support of terrorist by "rogue nations" by publicly announcing that nations which encouraged or supported terrorist acts would be punished by America to the same degree and effect as the individual terrorsts;
  •  Effected these policies by attacking rogue regimes, and non-governmental groups (eg: "Al Queda") whenever they might be identified and found.  The results of this policy included the attack on the terrorist government of Iraq, and Taliban elements of Afghanistan;
  • Responded effectively (which is defined as "something more likely to change the behavior of terrorists than hurling a Tomahawk missile at a camel") in terrorist strongholds in other nations ... usually with the agreement of host nations such as Pakistan;
Patriot Act:
One of "W"s earliest efforts at combating terrorism in American was his definition and establishment of "The Patriot Act".  (HR3162)

This bill, later being enacted by congress, included the expansion of wiretap laws, research into personal information accesses (library searches, etc.), regulates financial transactions, allows for deportation of emigrants suspected of supporting terrorism, and enlarges the definition of "terrorism"  (including especially "Domestic Terrorism".

A highly controversial bill/act/law, this was immediately seen as either one of two effects on American freedoms:
  • curtailing the freedom of law-abiding citizens, or;
  • allowing the federal government to insure the safety and lives of law-abiding citizens
It rather depended on the individual perspective of the affected law-abiding citizens.  And yes, it did erroneously affect the freedom and liberty of some citizens, and also some non-citizen residents of America.

Ultimately, though, other than establishing means to better protect the security of America as a nation (against attacks aimed at both the citizenry and the infrastructure of the nation), the Patriot Act is secondary to the increased economic prosperity of the country.  Those effects were not as immediate as the Patriot Act .. which saw some residents arrested and later found innocent of crimes or intent to perform criminal and/or terrorist acts ... but the economic benefits were more generally wide-spread in that they established the "Trickle Down" effect.

Essentially, when "job creators" (including corporations, small businesses, and other entrepreneurial enterprises) are taxed LESS, and when businesses can be assured that the taxation and other restrictions on businesses are LESS likely to change dramatically and with little or no advance notice ... employers can make long-term plans with some assurance that their business plan will not be arbitrarily interrupted by changes in governmental regulation.  Also, tax incentives are available which encourage the growth of business, and consequently management may be inclined to hire new workers with some assurance that they will be able to maintain a larger staff to support a healthier business environment.

At the same time, he initiated the "No Child Left Behind" plan, which turned out to be a total bummer as his plan included a "standard testing" regime which left teachers teaching "the test" rather than "the material' because failure of a school's students to pass "the test" resulted in ceasement of federal funding assistance and closure of 'inadequate' schools.

Also, both his original election win and his re-election bid were perceived as 'flawed' because of inconsistencies and errors during balloting.  This led to a wide-spread feeling that the elections were being defined by (conservative) Supreme Court Members rather than by the electorate.  More, the Electoral Vote plan came under wide attack when it was seen that the majority of votes did not always agree with the Electoral votes.

The war in Iraq, in the meantime, dragged on and on and on ... first the military effort was seen as a boondogle, then as a "Quagmire" when Liberals charged that the national leadership had no "Exit Plan" ... which can only be defined as: "When will it end, and/or when will we admit that we have been defeated?"

Bush couldn't find Osama Bin Laden, who taunted America frequently by public broadcasts  of the "Nani Nani Boo Boo ... I'm still alive!" variety.

The rationale for attacking Iraq was cited as ".. British Intelligence tells us that IRAQ has Weapons of Mass Destruction, and is actively seeking materials for the construction of nuclear weapons".  When American troops searched the country, only small amounts of Chemical materials (or their precursors) were found, and no evidence of a nuclear program were found.  An 'independent' American agent went to Nigeria, talked to two people, and publically reported that Iraq had NOT been seeking nuclear materials.  The Liberal press made popular the expression "Bush Lied; People Died", which replaced the previous Liberal mantra: "No Blood for Oil!"  (Incidentally, Sadaam Hussein fired foreign Mid-eastern oil fields in '91, murdered thousands of Iraqi citizens .. mostly Kurds .. using chemical WMDs; but because no facilities or materials were found after American troops entered Iraq, those confirmed and proven actions were largely ignored by the Main Stream Media.)

Barack Husein Obama (Democrat) 2009 - Present

After "W"'s lame-duck presidency allowed him to improve the economic health of the nation, albeit accompanied by a 'security plan' which was highly controversial,  The Junior Senator from Illinois was elected President when he completely overwhelmed the Republican Senator from Arizona, John Mccain.

Although McCain was very much more experientially more qualified, Obama was seen as a refreshing change, and the hope for a new approach to politics; this was emphasized in his campaign slogan:   "Hope and Change".
The first-term senator Obama is charismatic, well-spoken (in front of a teleprompter) and most importantly NOT of the "old guard" and NOT GEORGE BUSH!  (This didn't work well for Al Gore, or John Kerry; but against McCain .. who was widely perceived as establishmentarianistic,, not well spoken, stodgy, and 'old' ... well, it's a younger country today than it was 8 years ago, and almost every one was HOPING for a CHANGE!)

During his first term in Office, Obama has accomplished:
  • Introduction of a National Health Plan bill, which the leader of a Democratic Congress has said that "We have to pass the bill before we can understand it";
  • Escalation of the National Debt by 14 TRILLION Dollars .. the largest increase during a single term of office in the history of the nation;
  • "We Got Obama!" ... referring to the killing of the leader of Al Queda, the group universally acknowledged to be responsible for the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks on America; this was accomplished by a team of Navy Seals which were part of the world-wide search for Obama which had been ongoing for over ten years and was originally initiated by ... "W";
  • Has been seen, and photographed, BOWING before foreign persons (not always national leaders) in apparent subjugation to their majesty;
  • Recently refused to renew the economic stimulus plans of "W", despite its proven benefit to the national economy;
  • Obama has been described as having "no experience in business or economics, and little experience in national politics'.  Still, he has now won TWO national elections as President of the most powerful nation in the world ... and he still doesn't look very presidential to many Americans.
_____________________________________________________

If you have read this far .. and I certainly wouldn't blame you if you haven't, since I've just spend 8 hours on research and writing the article and I know *_I_* am sick and tired of it ... you may have received the impression that I don't have hi regard for almost anyone we've elected President of the United States (POTUS) in the past 60 years.

And you would be right.

Based on their records, as War Presidents I think that FDR, TRUMAN, and W have come across looking pretty good.  On the other hand, if we win ... or we have confidence in their efforts to win ... almost any president can be a good War President.

Economically?  Reagan did swell, W did pretty good (because he used Reagan's model)

Socially?  Johnson and Kennedy and Eisenhower were in position to work on civil rights, and they did what they needed to do.  Frankly, Eisenhower started it all, and without doing much damage to the country in 'other' areas.  I've always liked Ike!

Presidents I actively don't like?  Nixon, Ford, Carter, Clinton, Obama.   Why?  They all went crazy, to one extreme or the other; either in the chase for personal power, or for ineffective leadership.  A couple of the take heavy hits in both categories.

"If God had meant for us to vote, he would have given us candidates;."
x

Saturday, October 27, 2012

I'm going to take some heat over this one

Glock Myth Laid to Rest: Uberfail Over The Beach Test - YouTube

Some of my best friends shoot Glocks.

When I was in College, there was a saying:  "Friends won't let friends vote Republican".
Forty years later, that had changed to: "Friends won't let friends vote Democrat".

Well, people change and so do their politics.

When I was riding motorcycles, it was "Friends won't let friends ride a Honda".

Okay, so maybe not everything changes.

During the past 25 years, I've tried shooting a few Glocks but I just didn't like them.  I had been spoiled by the 1911 frame and ergonomics; the Glock fits my hand no better than does a spade.  (Or a vacuum cleaner, for that matter.)

However, I do NOT subscribe to the "Friends won't let friends shoot Glocks" meme because ... hey, I'm older now and frankly, I don't much care.   You shoot what works for you; I'll shoot what works for me.

In defense of their hoplofilial choice, my Glock-shooting friends often point to the plethora of tests which show that Glocks will continue to perform under any circumstances.  Dump them in dirt, throw them in a swamp, your beloved Glock will continue to perform "no matter what".

As if your life depended on it.

(Yes, I HAVE seen the You Tube videos of Glocks being subjected to a variety of torture tests.  I have no intention of attempting to explain the differences between those videos and this one.

The video I'm featuring today seems to contend that the "no matter what" contention is as valid as "When seconds count, the police are only minutes  away".

1911


I've mentioned in earlier articles .. years ago, I have no intention of looking up the specific articles .. that the 1911 was designed by John Moses Browning  to function under "combat conditions" .. including being dumped in a mud puddle.    I don't know how true that is.  I haven't tested either my own 1911 (ca: 1918) nor The Beloved Kimber (ca: 1998) nor any of the STI 2011-style pistols I've used in competition.  At least, not under "combat conditions".

But these guys (see below) have tested a loaded Glock by (1) pouring dirt into the works via the ejection port, and then (2) dumping it into yucky water "until the bubbles stop coming up".  Then they pulled the pistol out, let it drain, and tried to fire it.  Actually, it worked fun when just dirty.  But when it got wet, it functioned for only a limited time and then experienced several failures to feed, and just plain failure to fire.  I think I did hear it go "CLICK" some times, but no joy in the "under any conditions" department when the conditions included moisture.

Full Disclosure:  When they had managed to get it to fire several times -- enough to dry it out -- it started functioning with a greater degree of reliability.

You can see the whole thing here.   Then you can draw your own conclusions. 
I'm not saying that the Glock is a POS ... but they are.

(Sorry, Embedding has been disabled by request of the contributors)

Oh, and BTW, I'm appalled by their casual attitude toward safe gunhandling.

Friends won't let friends try this at home!

Friday, October 26, 2012

I'm Gonna Getcha, Sucka!

Somebody came phishing in our pond here at Geek Central.    I received an email from someone who claimed to be from PayPal Customer Service and Support.  There was a return address on it and everything.  The email started with the salutation to "Dear PayPal Services User".

It was a long email, announcing that PayPal had rewritten "over 60" policies and replaced them with just two, which were shorter and easier to read.  They asked me to download an attached file and .. well, here's the pertinent text:

- How can I read and accept the PayPal policies ?

It's easy:
1. Download the new policies attached to this email.
2. Confirm that you're the owner of the account.
3. Read and accept the Privacy Policy and Merchant Services Agreement by clicking the "I Accept" button.

Please note:
You have to read and accept our new policies within the next 10 working days, however, if you don't comply to accept our new policies, we (PayPal Inc.) will be forced to terminate your account.
[I underlined the part that was the 'kicker' .... it was an attempt to induce me to comply using fear tactics.)

The email had an attached file, which I did NOT open!

Instead, I went to the PAYPAL website, found the page on "SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS", and forwarded the entire message including the attachment to spoof@paypal.com

Later, I received the following message from PAYPAL:

Thanks for forwarding that suspicious-looking email. You're right - it was a phishing attempt, and we're working on stopping the fraud. By reporting the problem, you've made a difference!
Identity thieves try to trick you into revealing your password or other ersonal information through phishing emails and fake websites. To learn more about online safety, click "Security Center" on any PayPal webpage.
Every email counts. When you forward suspicious-looking emails to spoof@paypal.com, you help keep yourself and others safe from identity theft.
Your account security is very important to us, so we appreciate your extra effort.
Four things alerted me to this obvious phishing expedition:
  1. The salutation ... if a vendor sends me 'official' email, they use the identity with which I had subscribed to their service.   They don't use some generic salutation.
  2. The technique; Download a file to read the policy?   And how would I confirm that I had read it?   It's just bogus ... any legitimate vendor would have a webpage on their official (and Safe/Secure) website.
  3. The threat .... no legitimate vendor would cancel a subscription because their customer didn't reply to an email.  Suspend an account, perhaps, under special circumstances.
  4. The address .... I DO have a PayPal account, but it's not related to the email account to which this email was sent.  In fact, none of my business accounts reference any of my 'public' email accounts.
So no, I didn't open the attachement.  As soon as I received the confirmation from PayPal, I permanently deleted the original email and the attachment.  They were already in limbo, because the FIRST thing I did was to mark it as S*P*A*H*M (deliberately misspelled) because the domain name was obviously bogus.

Companies like PayPal and EBay all have these kind of security concerns.   But we have to do our part, too.   If YOU ever get an email that you think may be bogus, the first thing to do is to not click on any links, and not open any attachments.  Not all email providers have protocols as safe as they should be, and Microsoft Outlook is just the most obvious example of software which may open files without instructions, if you don't have the highest level of security settings activated.

In the meantime, I'm feeling just a little smug tonite.  Instead of them getting me, I got them!


Tuesday, October 23, 2012

"You Are Not Special"

How I wish someone would have told me this 49 years ago.

Instead, I had to learn it the hard way.   Although, I probably wouldn't have listened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lfxYhtf8o4&feature=plcp

(Hat Tip to "The Hobo Brasser")

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Blog Stats

I'm still twisting in the wind, trying to (a) figure out what features of the Old Blog I want to include in the New Blog, and (b) then figure out how to make it happen.

I already tried to put the hit-counter on; as you can see by looking in the right-hand sidebar, where it says

Hits since December, 2004

... they aren't displaying.

According to my stats counter account, this blog has registered 369,000 hits so far.   Compared to Kim De Tuit for example, who use to get that many hits in a single day, that's nothing.  But for me, it's encouraging that I'm not completely ignored even if my blogging has been haphazard over the past couple of years.

Well, I've been distracted.

All I know at the moment is that for the first week of October, 2012, I had 15 unique hits.   But for the month so far, there were 800 hits.  Somehow, I think that the next 300,000 hits are going to be very slow in coming, because I have lost most of my usual readership.

Most of the hits I'm receiving are because people the world over are being directed to my website when they search GOOGLE for subjects which I have addressed in articles going back for years.  Most of them are related to IPSC/USPSA, or firearms/ammunition/reloading/competition in general.

VOLUME?
Also, I'm reminded because this blog came about after I had been 'blogging' on The Unofficial IPSC List, which now posts even less frequently than I do.  You see, I have been known to Have An Opinion, which I often expressed in great length.  My dear friend Bumstead once commented about a 3,000 word post I submitted, and a few other contributors gently suggested that I was using too much "bandwidth".  That is a misnomer, but I did get the point.

Thus I started Cogito Ergo Geek on December 4, 2004, and after almost eight years I'm still struggling to intersperse opinion articles with a few items which people might actually find interesting.

What I find interesting is that, going back to my email archive, I find I've saved 1,301 articles (this will make 1,302) and all told they consume a mere 15 MB of storage.  That includes embedded photos.

(the actual total number of articles is larger ... considerably; see below)

Oh the other hand, I've got text-versions (or html text) of 500-page books which only occupy 25kb.  I'm not sure how they compare to my Blog entry, but the html version of "Clean Your Gun Regularly" consumes 8kb.

But how many articles have I actually WRITTEN?  Including those which never made it past the "DRAFT" stage?         3,298

Published?  1,907

Over the past eight years, I've averaged about 240 published posts a year, or 20 a month.

The biggest year was 2007,  with over 400 posts.

...

Incidentally , my computer died and self-rebooted while I was writing this article  It restarted without problems, and I did send an error report to Microsoft, but I don't have any idea what happened.  Another problem is that my sidebar (which so far only consists of my archive links) doesn't always display.

One of the reasons I didn't convert to New Blogger earlier was because I was trying to avoid post-development glitches in the software.  I didn't expect them to have all been sorted out by the conversion deadline,  but I think those are two serious problems which one would HOPE that Google will manage to successfully address Real Soon Now.

While we're waiting, I wish to add that I am grateful to those die-hards amongst you who have continued to stop by with some frequency during The Lean Years.  Your very presence has encouraged me to get back into the normal routines which I had all but abandoned while Life Happened.  I promise to work harder at finding pleasure in my old once-comfortable habits.


And you think YOUR job sucks?

The scariest video you have ever watched in the name of science - YouTube



I don't know about you, but it makes my belly rumble just to watch this.

Following people who are running and gunning, shooting live ammunition? No problem!

Climbing a pole which is a quarter of a mile high (1700 feet .. okay, a third of a mile) .. uh-huh! not me!

Power Factor

Vortex cannon - PointlessSites.com

The definition of POWER FACTOR in USPSA is bullet weight, times velicity, divided by 1000. Which to say is:

MV/100 = PF

Or, to use an example, for a .45 ACP "Hardball" (military) round of ammunition:

Bullet Weight = 230 grains
Velocity = 800fps (feet per second)

So the "Power Factor" is calculated as follows:

230 grain bullet, and 800 FPS velocity:
PF = 230 x 800 / 1000
PF = 185,000 / 1000
PF = 185

That's the standard load (circa 1960) of the .45acp in a 1911 Browning-style pistol, using "BALL" ammunition.  And it falls well within the "Major Power" designation, according to the 2008 USPSA Rule Book, which requires a minimum of 165 PF to make "Major Power".

However, if you reload it with 200-grain (semi-wadcutter bullets,usually), you get a recalculated Power Factor ... assuming the same velocity:

200 grain bullet, and 800 FPS velocity:
PF = 200 x 800/100
PF = 160,000 /1000
PF = 160

Unfortunately, USPSA requires a PF of 165.00 or greater to achieve "Major Power".   You can see from this example that you need to work your reloads and then calibrate them, to determine whether you are likely (or not!) to be calibrated as Major Power at a Major Match.

I realize it's difficult to accept that one may be competing in a USPSA match with a .45 ACP cartridge, and still be shooting "Minor Power".

However, that's the way it is.
If you are chronographed as "Minor Power, your A-zone hits will still be with 5 points.  But your B/C-zone hits will be worth 3 points, not 4.

And your D-zone hits will be worth 1 point,not 2.

Well, that's just the way it is.

And of course the "Minor Power" floor is PF= 125.00

Consider a 125 grain bullet being pushed through a 9mm.  In order to achieve Minor Power, that bullet must be choreographed at 1000 fps. 

Oh, and in case you were not aware .. if your PF is under 165, you will be deemed to be shooting 'Minor Power'.

If your PF is under 125, then you are deemed to not meet the Minor Power Factor floor ... and you are shooting 'just for fun'.  Unless you DQ during the match, your scores WILL be recorded .. but they will be recorded as ZERO points for every stage in the match.

Sorry, Charley.  Fun, challenging .. but competitive?  No, hardly.

So what do you think about THESE Guys, with a Vortex Cannon?




Right. Shooting just for fun, and entirely 'not competitive'.

Second presidential debate: Assault weapons ban - CBS News Video

Second presidential debate: Assault weapons ban

In Tuesday Night's Presidential Debate, someone actually asked the question about "gun violence" ... wow!

And the incumbent president, AND his challenger .. actually addressed the issue!  Wow!


NOT!

Obama called for re-instatement of the Assault Weapon Ban; the original version of which was cancelled after the five-year 'trial period' proved that it had made NO difference in the incidents, injuries, or deaths which it had been intended to do.

You may recall that this cancellation was due to a 'sundowner' provision which had been demanded by Republican Congressmen before they would allow it to be passed.  At the time, we howled at the moon because we felt that our elected representatives had betrayed their constitutional rights ... as if that was something new!

But after 1999, when the law was repealed, we breathed a small sigh of relief because we thought:

"Wow!  It was tough, but experience has proved that this is NOT a viable approach to the problem of Gun Violence, so at least we will never have to experience this particular version of Liberal Hope-and-changeism!"

Or something like that.



Stupid stupid stupid us.

The gun-grabbers and the liberals (but I repeat myself here) will never give up.  They will NEVER stop believing in "Hope and Change" even when events prove that their efforts have no greater effect than taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.  The Crazy's and The Bad Guys will ALWAYS have guns, and will carry them anywhere ... including (and especially) into "Gun Free Zones".

Let me make this perfectly clear (to paraphrase that great Presidential wimp, George Bush the First).  You can NOT manage "gun violence" by taking weapons away from honest, decent, law-abiding citizens.  You just cannot accomplish the stated objective.  You only make the entire country one great "Gun Free Zone" and we know how well that has been working so far.   You cannot reduce Gun Violence by reducing the number of GUNS; you can only reduce Gun Violence by reducing the amount of Violence.  And in this, the country which is viewed by the rest of the world as "The Wild Wild West" .. is just not going to happen without a huge effort and an enormous amount of governmental financial resources (and intrusion) to reduce the violent tendencies of the American  (or any other nationality and/or ethnicity) Citizen.

Witness Zimbabwe, Jamaica, Sudan, El Salvador ... well, gee, I guess it's not just Americans after all, is it?  It's just "people".

But Mitt Romney, bless his heart, is not as namby-pamby and placating as Obama.  He took the bull firmly by the horns, hitched up his britches, stood in front of the American people on National Television and said ...

oh dear.  This is awful.

And then he changed the subject, never again to tread amongst area on the Political Map marked HERE THERE BE DRAGONS!

I'm sure there are lessons here, and the first among many are these two:
  1. Obama will do anything he can to re-institute gun-grabber national policies; ignore the wimpy-fisted acknowledgements of the rights of  "... hunters and .. uh .. people who just want to defend themselves ... ".   He doesn't believe in it at all, it's all just political rhetoric, and he will do whatever he can do to retain his power.
  2. Romney is afraid to even talk about the subject.   The man has no personal guidelines to ethical action as a man or as the president of the most free nation in the world.  He just wants the power.
What are the differences between the two men?  Well, for starters ... at least Obama will actually take a stand, even if it is wrong-thinking and politically motivated.

Romney, at least, is lizard-brain smart enough to recognize that Barack Hussein ("I Am The Only One...") Obama has just shot himself in the political foot, at least as far is the 2nd Amendment is concerned, and is willing to let the point ride; in the meantime, he'll merely preserve the delicate balance and do absolutely nothing to upset it

Presidential?  I think not!

Sly?  Weasel-Worded?  I would never accuse a politician of those execrable approaches to leadership!

Obama was elected to the office on the campaign platform of: "I Am Not George Bush!"

Romney is running on the campaign platform of "I Am Not Barack Obama!"

The only difference?  Romney is playing to a different audience.  Other than that, they're both mendacious, without honor, fearful of saying what they really think, and capable of debasing themselves by toadying to the Lowest Common Denominator of political thought.

In other words .. typical politicians.

What a bunch of Maroons!

In the interest of full disclosure .. both candidates discussed the value of, essentially, the "Nuclear Family" and education, as well as increased job opportunities, as important ways that the crazies can be brought into mainstream America.  I do agree that this is an important step.   It won't eliminate all of the causes of "gun violence" in America, certainly.  But if we ever do get a President who is committed to improving the quality of life of lower-earning families, it will make a difference.

The crazies, however, are still with us.  And until we recognize that FACT, we will never acknowledge that the single most effective way to reduce the death-toll from people who just want to kill other people is to get rid of the Kill Zones .. aka "Gun Free Zones".

The single greatest group of "lone killer-type" people in America, those who commit  the most atrocious mass murders by guns, are not the disaffected nor the disenfranchised; that group is comprised of the people who just want to go out and kill somebody .. anybody ... out of pure rage.

And they are Evil.

Could it be that George W. Bush had got it right?  That there ARE people out there who are so evil that they will laugh with monomaniacal glee while they conduct the slaughter of the innocents simply because enjoy it?

The only way we can protect ourselves against them, is to kill them before they kill us.

And that .. as Edith Ann has so often said .. is the truth.

Friday, October 19, 2012

Clean your gun regularly!

Or, if you don't like cleaning your gun .. buy an STI.

I've been running a little experiment for the past year.  I shoot my 10mm STI Edge twice a month .. once when I 'demonstrate' each training stage in the "Introduction to USPSA" class, and again the next weekend when I compete at my local match.

Then I take it home and don't take it out of the gun bag until next month.

Every now and then I look at the barrel ... from the outside ... by racking the slide.  I see a lot of dirty oil on the outside.  God only knows what it looks like on the inside.

Why do I look at the barrel?  I want to see if there's plenty of oil on it.  If it looks thin, I pour some more oil on it.  Usually 30 weight motor oil .. it works just fine as a lubricant.

Oh, sometimes I use a paper towel to wipe the old oil off the part of the barrel that I can see when I rack the slide, and then I pour more motor oil on it.  There's a technical name for this process.  It's called "Cleaning My Gun".

Sure, that's  not what most people would call it.  "Abuse" would be an alternative term, but I decided not to call it that, so it's not abuse.

I use to clean The Beloved Kimber by putting it in the dishwasher.  That worked fine for me, too ... although I occasionally actually ran a brass brush through the barrel.  See, I was using hard-cast lead bullets through it, and I do know the effects of leading on a barrel; reduced accuracy.  That's not generally considered to be A Good Thing.  Especially not good when you use the gun for competition (as I do).

But even when I 'cleaned' The Beloved Kimber, I always DRENCHED the wretch in oil.  Yup, motor oil.  Five bucks buys a pint of oil, and it lasts for years!

By now, you're either thinking that this is satire, or that I'm a complete idiot.  If so ... you're right.  I am an idiot, because I do know how people tell me to take care of a gun.   I just don't listen to them.  I take my own advice.

Oil it.  If a little oil is good, more oil is gooder.

I got that piece of advice from Dave Skinner, past owner and CEO of STI Guns, Inc.  He should know, since he built and sold STI pistols for years and years, all around the world.

The people who caution you not to 'over-oil' your pistol?  I think they need to define the term.  So far, I have determined that the problem with "over-oiling" your pistol is that it leaks out and makes the grip slippery.  My solution to "over oiling" is to wipe off the slippery stuff on the grip.

This isn't Rocket Science.  How much oil is in the crankcase of your car?  More than you need?  Well, it helps to have enough oil on machinery, but my EDGE doesn't have a crankcase.

My Edge works reliably, all day, every day.  The only time I have problems with it is when the ammunition I reload is "off spec".  That happened last month, when my seating die got loose and I cranked out a hundred rounds which were over-all length 1.275" instead of 1.250".  I didn't notice it until I got to the match and discovered that I could only put 15 rounds in the magazine instead of the usual 17 rounds.  I had a couple of feeding problems during the match, which was maddening.  When I got home, I reset my seating die to the correct specs, re-seated the remaining over-long rounds and cranked out a couple hundred more.  They worked just fine in the October match ... and no, I didn't clean my gun before that match, either.

I suppose I will actually clean the Edge sometime this winter, when the competition season slows down.  The days are short, the nights are long, and a Geek has to find ways to fill those idle hours.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure I'll clean it.

Not that it needs it. 



My readers are smarter than I am ... and isn't that a good thing?

A few days ago, I talked about the 'angst' of being a range officer.  (see ARGHHHH!)

The crux of the exposition was that when an RO disqualifies a shooter because of a safety-rule violation, it's often as disappointing to the RO as it is to the shooter.  (The shooter never notices or acknowledges this, because being booted out of a match is an intensely personal event, and the shooter rarely notes the responses of 'other people'.)

The thing is ... being DQ'd is like farting on the subway, only worse.  You (the person being penalized) are aware of having performed an action which is socially forbidden.  You know it, you regret it, and you wish you could just go sit in a corner and everyone would ignore your indiscretion.  But there's this Transit Cop  (called a "Range Officer") who is watching your every move, and the Dude is both remorseless and unrelenting in his drive to show you to your friends and companions in the most unflattering light.  It's as if he doesn't like you, and is gleeful about exposing your digestive indiscretions to your fellow travelers.

If you have ever competed in an IPSC match, you're aware of the Evil Range Officer.  If you have ever been DisQualified from an IPSC match, you are aware of the shame and self-loathing which accompanies being ceremoniously BOOTED from what had previously been "A Fun Day At The Range".

And if you are a Range Officer ... you don't need to read this stuff, because you already know how hateful it is to be a Transit Cop on the IPSC Subway.  The ONLY person on the range who hated a DQ more than the shooter, is the RO.  And that's the honest truth.

Okay, so much for the shared angst.

THE INTERESTING PART of blogging isn't what the writer writes.  It's what the readers contribute in their comments!   And this article is an excellent example of that premise. (Don't feel you need to click on the link .. it's the same thing you saw linked earlier here.)

I had some things to say, and most readers either got it, or didn't get it,  or kind-of got it but somehow missed the point.

The three people who commented on the article were perfect illustrations of those three variations.

He Gets It
The Hobo Brasser (Mark) is an experienced IPSC competitor and Range Officer.  We have both been 'officiating' at IPSC matches for years .. okay, Decades if you insist on details ... and have worked every level of competition from club matches to USPSA National Matches.    I don't know how many people I've DQ'd, and I doubt that he does, either.  At one time I could tell you, but I've lost count.  It's not a statistic which brings pride to a man from the doing of it.  But Mark wrote to acknowledge that kicking a fellow competitor out of a match is something done reluctantly, and I'm pretty sure that he has often given shooters the 'benefit of the doubt' even though we're not suppose to do that.

This is a man who 'gets it'.


He Sort-of Gets It, but Misses The Point
An "Anonymous" commenter (Blogger commenting isn't very insistent about requiring commenters to identify themselves) kind-of got it.  A couple of salient phrases include that I am "...too critical of newbies..:", a note that "... some stages are inherently unsafe ...",  most interestingly the following:


"... some IPSC safety violations are much worse than others.  Rather an occasional finger in the trigger guard than breaking the 180."

Yes, some stages are inherently unsafe.  Actually, ALL stages are inherently unsafe, depending upon your point of view.  For the Range Officer, that IS the point of view.  Some stage designs are more challenging than others, and  one might say that they "require a closer adherence to the safety rules".    But that would be wrong.  ALL stages require a close adherence to the safety rules.  Safety isn't a judgmental thing which can be loosened or tightened according to circumstances.  Safety is an absolute, and the most important thing.  We do NOT slack off because a stage design is simple and the Shooting Problem is easy to resolve.  Or, as Anonymous has inferred, because the stage design is complicated.  There's a basic principle of competition here, which is stated in the rule book as "no competitor may protest that a stage is too difficult".

Having your finger in the trigger guard during movement, loading or unloading, or clearing a malfunction ... is that a lesser safety issue than "breaking the 180"?  (Note: "breaking the 180" means pointing your gun at another person, either actually or potentially.)  If you accept the premise that there is a sliding scale which penalizes one violation of the safety rules more severely than the other, then you must also decide whether the person who "broke the 180" pointed his gun in a direction where another person was standing, or not.  Is that pertinent?

No, it doesn't matter.  The shooter has lost control of himself and lost focus on the safety requirements if he breaks the 180, or if he has his finger on the trigger when he is not actively engaging a target.  BOTH actions are absolutely forbidden.  BOTH have the same penalty ... we see that he is not performing safely in respect to one safety rule, so we don't let him shoot any more.

As Steve McQueen's character in "The Magnificent Seven" observed:  "We deal in lead, friend."

As for the suggestion that we are "..too critical of newbies..."?  No, we are not.  We evaluate new shooters under the exact same rules and requirements as we apply to people who have been competing in this sport for decades.  I have Disqualified Master and Grand-Master shooters for violating the safety rules, and I've witnessed (while not functioning as the RO myself) other Range Officers DQ highly experienced and exceedingly well qualified shooters for doing the EXACT same thing as "newbies" do.  Finger on the trigger.  Breaking the 180.


Good heavens, I've mentioned more than once in these chronicles that I have DQ'd my Significant Other for having her finger on the trigger during reloading.  It made for an awkward ride home after the match, but mostly it was because she knew she did wrong, and she deserved it, and she was embarassed.  It took a few days for her to admit it was the right call, but she was also a Certified Range Officer and she knew the rules as well as I did ... and she applied them with equal severity to new shooters and experienced shooters alike.

And yes, I have been DQ'd myself, a fact which I tell ALL of the people who go through my "Introduction to USPSA" seminar.

So ... no, I don't think I'm "too critical of newbies".  I think I'm helping to insure that it's safe to be on the range when people are running around with loaded guns.  I think that families can come play this sport because mean people like me watch everyone with a gun to make SURE that both rules apply:

Rule 1: don't point your gun at other people
Rule 2: even if you do, don't have your finger on the trigger

See?  Belt AND Suspenders ... you have to break at least two rules before you can begin to endanger another person, and I'm standing between you and the peanut gallery so you KNOW that I'm very aware of what you are doing with your gun and I WILL stop you.

Has anyone reading this article, and the preceding one, happened to notice that the Range Officer is the one most likely to be injured if an unsafe (proscribed violation of the Safety Rules) act went UN-punished?

He doesn't get it at all
"Rivrdog" (a retired Sheriff Deputy who is very keen on defensive pistol usage) is  a dear friend whom I haven't seen as often as I would like, and he does NOT compete in this kind of shooting sport.  As a consequence, he tends to be quite critical about all things "IPSC", and I don't really blame him at all.

I'm not quoting him completely, and I may not be quoting him entirely accurately (you can go read his comment), but essentially this is his point:

"Complex stages are a figment of a stage designers mind, and in no way resemble ... shoot/don't shoot defensive shooting....."
"Defensive shooting is simple"
"The action competition could be great training for the Defensive pistol shooter, but not because of 'The Rules' which prohibit defensive movement necessary to ... tactics and which develop deadly habits, such as waiting for a command before engaging a threat".

These comments mirror closely articles which appeared in shooting-sport magazines a decade ago, usually under the heading "IPSC Competition Can Kill You" or something similar.

Yes, forty years ago IPSC WAS "combat pistol" and the emphasis was on BOTH Defensive and Aggressive shooting against an armed aggressor.  Read the rules in Rule Book #1 ... it has you climbing walls with the use of a rope because scaling an obstacle was a useful 'combat' drill.


We don't DO that shit anymore!



Here is today's mantra:

"It's A GAME, folks!"

We're not training people to defend themselves.  If you want that stuff, go do IDPA or take a "Home Defense" class (I did the latter, don't do the IDPA thingie 'cause I'm not interested).

Yes, it is irrational to have people stand fully erect in a shooting box and, upon the signal, engage all targets as they become available.  Standing reloads.  No hiding behind barriers except as a complication at the whim of the stage designer.  Thirty-round stages.  A dozen targets which stand in one place without moving.

We are NOT training people to shoot people.  We shoot cardboard, and knock down steel targets.  We have participants in all walks of life, including psychologists, computer programmers, nurserymen, mothers, fathers, and children.

What we DO do, is we teach everyone who packs a gun to practice basic rules of safety:
  • keep your finger off the trigger until your gun is pointed at something you want to shoot
  • keep your gun pointed in a safe direction .. ALWAYS!
  • always assume your gun is loaded, but never load it except under the direct supervision of a safety officer
Gee, that's pretty much the basic rules of gun safety, isn't it?

Here's another thing to consider:  We don't teach you to defend yourself against an aggressor, but we do teach you to handle a gun safely.

You would be amazed, perhaps, to hear that the  "Introduction to USPSA" class is more focused on breaking people of bad gun-handling habits than teaching them how to compete.  That's not the original intent of the class .. .that's just the way it happens.  We start out telling them about the "Seven Deadly Sins of IPSC" (finger on the trigger, breaking the 180, sweeping,  negligent discharge, etc.) and then we talk about 'how to compete'. 

So, yes, Rivrdog is absolutely correct in his evaluation of the sport of Practical Pistol Shooting; it is anything but "practical".   It DOES teach you bad habits, if you rely on a gun to defend yourself.

But it also teaches you how to rely on yourself to handle a gun safely in a competitive environment.

Yes, it's an artificial environment.  We're lucky; our targets are not assumed to be 'shooting back at us'.  So we have all these nurserymen and computer programmers and housewives and children as young as ten years of age ... as well as sworn police officers, ex-military, and even the home-commando wanna-be's ... competing against each other in a totally benign, totally safe environment.  We may not practice defensive shooting, but we do practice and REQUIRE safe shooting.

That makes it fun for the whole freakin' family.  We want everyone who is capable of good judgement to enjoy the sport.

Let me say this once again, just to ensure that nobody misses the point.

It's a GAME, Folks!

If you want more, you can find the training in other venues.  But when you go there, you will know how to defend yourself without shooting yourself in the foot because you learned the basic rules by competing at IPSC/USPSA matches.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Interesting 'field course'

Albany Rifle and Pistol Club, October Match .. stage 3:  "Are You Fast?"

Funny little stage this weekend, involving not only awkward physical positioning but some awesomely convoluted stage design!

Picture this:  A shooting hours (more or less), flanked on the right by a Pepper Popper and three Metric Targets, and on the left by two US Poppers and two Metric Targets.

Shooting position is on a 3'x5' box, right in front of the closed door. 

Behind the door?

Two 'swinging' targets, activated by opening the door.  The door is locked, and the shooter 'unlocks' the door by knocking down the Pepper Popper on the right outside wall.  (Actually, the door activates the left inside swinger, which in turns activates the right inside swinger.    It's complicated.)

Inside the competitor also engages a static metric target on the right side of the house;  there's also another static target on the left side.  But it's positioned so that the only way to engage it is to hunker down and shoot through a 12"x10" cutout in the opened door.

Starting position?  Standing in the box and stretching to put both hands on a mark to the left side of the door.

I know, it's not obvious from this description, but essentially you can take your time and shoot the stage with a minimum of contortions.  Or, if you ARE fast .... you can shoot it with a minimum of movement as long as you are limber enough to perform a total Aerobics workout in 15 seconds or less.

The standard way?  STRETCH to reach the mark on the left side of the door, but when the buzzer goes off engage the targets on the right side of the house ... hitting the Pepper Popper last to activate the swinging door.
Then grab the two fast-moving swinging targets before they bob behind strategically placed soft-cover barrels..  The tall static target on the right side of the house is almost a 'gimmee'.  However, you have to twist left and stoop down to engage the static target on the left side of the house.

Seven shots on the right side of  they house, and eight shots inside the house.  Production and Limited 10 shooters have to reload sometime between those two arrays.  Limited and Open shooters have the luxury of engaging both arrays without losing time.

Then taking a step to the left, placing your foot carefully ON TOP of the back left corner of the shooting box (because you can't see the last target without extending beyond that point), take US Popper / cardboard / Pepper Popper / cardboard in whatever sequence suits you best.  Yes, it obviously CAN be taken in under 15 seconds.  No, not many of us did.  (Okay, THREE of the 56 shooters managed it.)

Here are three views of the stage being shot.  Apologies for the poor quality; I was so slack-jawed watching people trying to beat this mini-monster, I forgot to actually aim the camera.

Which is pretty much the same way I shot it .. yeah, I got a miss on the stage, but I'm not going to admit missing a static target;  here, or anywhere else!