Does your NAME define your life?

Statehouse Shootout: Pa. lawmaker exchanges gunfire with would-be robber | Fox News:
(H/T: Lagniappes Lair)

The two suspects were caught close to the scene of the robbery, and two more teens were later arrested as accomplices. The Inquirer reported the suspects, 17-year-old Jamani Ellison, 15-year-old Jyair Leonard, 17-year-old Derek Anderson and 15-year-old Zha-quan McGhee, were all charged as adults. The group was charged with multiple crimes, including attempted homicide, conspiracy, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Is there something about your given name which drives you to crime?

I lost my cell phone yesterday - Random Search Patterns

Stupid little black box, my cell phone hides itself in the most inconvenient places.

The worst of it it is, we take phones for granted.  When we get up to go someplace, we put it in our pocket and forget about it until we need it.

And when we need it, we really need it.

I sometimes forget how much I depend upon my stupid phone, but there comes a time when it can make all the difference.

Other Technical Issues:
This week, my COMCAST Internet connection changed on me.  Well, it's not the general theme, but my modem was deemed 'outdated' (COMCAST's definition is "end of life", but that's another story) and I had to buy a new, improved modem.  When it showed up in the mail yesterday (actually, I think it was shipped via UPS and who knows how much cost to me) I was delighted.  Every time I signed onto the Internet for the past couple of months, I had to change my "adapter settings" (whatever THAT means!) to establish the Internet connection.   So I was glad to get the new modem, which was ... one assumes .. not near "end of life".

But as soon as I installed the new modem, it quit working!  And within moment of that realization, when I tried to get to my cell phone to complain .. I realized I didn't know where it was.

Looked for the cell phone all yesterday, and most of today.  Searched all the usual places (pockets, charging stations, between my mattress and the bed frame); looked in the freezer and the refrigerator *you've never put your car keys in the fridge?  You're too young to understand.*

I even performed a "Drunkard's Walk", which computer programmers understand, but 'real people' don't.  It's often more effective than a Binary Search, in 'hectic' ir 'chaotic' situations.  When your life is chaos, your solutions are often most effective when they, too, are chaotic.  That means 'unstructured' or 'unplanned'.  Or just 'not logical'.  Logic is the curse of the Programmer, and of society.  Life is not Logical.

Finally, I performed the ultimate search pattern:  I quit looking for my cell phone.

I spent today reading, tried to forget that I was needing my cell phone.

At 8pm I started doing my dishes (oh, I didn't mention that my dishwasher is also kaput?  Bad news comes in threes --- I need new brakes on my car, too).  At 8:15 pm I decided to wash the dishes, since my dishwasher is non-working, and when I grabbed an apron to keep from getting soaked .. I found the phone in an apron pocket.

I could have sworn that it has been two days since I washed dishes, but there was the cell phone.

If I had focused on searching, I would NEVER have found the damn phone. It wasn't where I would expected it.

The Drunkard's Walk search didn't work, but the "stop looking for it" did.

Such Is Life:

You know, when you strive to force 'Life' to meet your requirements, it never happens.  Sometimes ... often ... usually, the best thing you can do to achieve success is to not TRY so damn hard!

Fortunately, I'm lazy and irresponsible.  I function best, when I TRY least to be funtional.

I'm getting really good at being incompetent.    Hey, I found my cell phone, and I got my new modem working by (Real Men will not like this) not trying, and by asking for help.

Oh, my modem?  I re-installed my old modem, got online, asked COMCAST for help, and they performed some magic which is not mentioned in the installation manual.  As it turned out, there are things that need to be done to convert to the New Generation modem which the customers can't do.

PS:

Oh, yeah .. I managed to find my phone without using Find My Iphone.

Center For Disease Control: Why NRA lobbied to stop their 'research' on "Gun Violence"

New Jovian Thunderbolt: CDC:
(October 12, 2014)

 I'm getting tired of liberals whining, "if only the Rethuglicans didn't block the funding the Centers for Disease Control could study gun violence and help put an end to it."

I'm so grateful for this opening. I've been wanting to talk about the CDC and their campaign against private firearms ownership.

---

Several years ago (1993+), the Center for Disease Control (CDC) .. a federal agency ... experienced a Rite of Passage wherein their researchers were spending an inordinate amount of their time and efforts, not to mention (public) funding, railing against Gun Violence.  They had tons (figuratively speaking) of comments about the injuries incurred upon the American Citizenry due to firearms injuries.

Well .. they're doctors,  They can't help but be outraged (even though they are not Emergency Room First Responders, or whatever the terminology is) by the number of people who appear in hospitals all across America with Gunshot Wounds.  You can't blame them for their societal concerns.  Only for the way in which they misused their office to effect their personal goals.

You would have to be a callous person .. perhaps even an NRA member .. not to be appalled by the injuries which gun violence performs on Americans every single day. Of course .. firearms violence is no more driven by guns and inexpert firearm owners than crappy music is by guitars and singers with nasal blockages.

Gun Violence is to Violence as as Country Music is to Music ...Horrible.  A bad influence, perhaps, but not the single driving cause of Badness.

And for those who really LIKE Country Music, I offer my apology;  I think it sucks, but I'm not blogging against Buck Owens singing "I've Got A Tiger Tail It's Plain To See .. although I think somebody should.  But that's just me.

Perhaps that's a better model than it seems.  Just because you don't like Country Music, that doesn't necessarily mean that all music is bad.

And just because Gun Violence is horrible, that doesn't necessarily  mean that Guns .. and the people who own them .. are also bad.

Somewhere, CDC got all confused about the cause, and the effects.  They assumed that Guns were the progenitor of Violence.

Just as I think Country Music is the progenitor of Discord.

Maybe we were both wrong?

Well, I've learned to enjoy listening to Patsy Cline.  And just because I cannot abide Buck Owens is no reason to tar all Country Music with the same brush.

But the CDC's attitude toward firearms is another story.

For one thing ... perhaps The Most Important Thing ... they are a Public Trust.  That is, we pay them to protect us from Disease.  You know?  Like .. Ebola?  We don't pay them to decide that a social situation that is also a Civil Right should be treated as if it were a disease.

The word "Disease" has a clear, well established definition: and that no more includes the free exercise of a Civil Right (eg: ownership of a firearm) than it does to exercise of a Privilege (eg: ownership of an automobile). .. both of which lead to thousands of deaths, annually.  These deaths occur because of abuse, not because of the inherent utility of the right or the privilege, but because of the inherent lethality of both mechanisms.

[Liberals like to say that a firearm has only one purpose: to kill people.  Based on the statistics, one would be inclined to say the same about automobiles.  People say that automobiles have "a useful purpose": transportation.  Realists might counter by saying that firearms have an even more 'useful purpose':  Freedom.  But that's a subject for another discussion.]

Getting back to the CDC:

These fine, well-educated, well intentioned folks took it upon themselves a few years (a couple of decades) ago to provide cherry-picked statistical 'facts' which proved (to their own satisfaction) that firearms were a blight upon society.

The provided reams of statistics which proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that firearms murdered thousands of people every year.

And their statics were correct ... thousands of people ARE murdered every year by firearms!

However, in their zeal, they neglected to document (as a famous New Reporter once considered important) :"The Rest Of The Story".

They forgot to consider the number of lives which were SAVED by firearms.

Not in the hands of the police, but in the hands of individual civilians.

So .. what about " ...  if The Rethuglicans didn't block the funding the Centers for Disease Control"?

Set the WayBack machine to 2011: from the New York Times:

The reality is that even these ...  basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there is a reason for that. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.
“We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions,” said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research.

From 2013:

Research on the prevention of firearm-related injury, supported by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and coordinated within CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), has come under attack from Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee initially rejected Rep. Dickey's attempt to eliminate the $2.6 million dedicated to CDC firearm-injury research. However, Mr. Dickey prevailed in the full Appropriations Committee. The Dickey amendment would transfer the $2.6 million to regional health education centers. This research has attracted a powerful and wealthy opponent — the NRA. The NRA has taken the position that firearm-related injury research at the CDC amounts to 'antigun' political advocacy and has also attacked the quality of this research. However, research proposals submitted to CDC are subject to a peer review process that follows standard practices. APA's Public Policy Office (PPO) has distributed accurate information to Congress on the nature of CDC-supported firearm-injury research and is advocating against the Dickey amendment.

Also from 2013: CDC Ban on Gun Research Caused Lasting Damage

April 9, 2013
President Obama may have ended the 17-year ban on gun violence research at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but even if Congress restores research funds, experts say the damage runs deeper than funding cuts.
Since the 1996 ban, many of the leading researchers of the 1980s and 1990s have moved on to other specialties, and some said they've even discouraged students from specializing in gun violence research because the work doesn't pay. The ban also helped make gun-related questions controversial even for studies not funded by the government, and it will take years to restore available data to what it once was.
"Good research was being done by Art [Kellermann] and by us and by others on what the risk factors were for firearm violence, and how it might be prevented and so forth," said Dr. Garen Wintemute, an emergency room physician and leader on gun violence research at the University of California at Davis. "I won't say it halted, but it decreased substantially in scale."

From 2012:  "The ugly campaign by the NRA to shut down studies at the CDC."

In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year.

(BTW, nobody stopped the CDC from researching "Gun Control" issues .. we just stopped giving them our hard-earned tax dollars to pay them to undermine the Second Amendment.  Whoo-- EEE!  You can't believe how quickly they shifted their attention to issues which did NOT undermine the constitution!)

(You may wish to search information on "kellerman", who famously announced that if you had a gun in your home, you were "43 times more likely" to be a victim.  Here is one analysis of that decision.)

The Face of War

The War Photo No One Would Publish - The Atlantic:

" .... war is ugly. It’s hideous."

We need to be reminded of that, from time to time.

“If we’re big enough to fight a war, we should be big enough to look at it.”

Lest we forget.

Rolling Stone interview with "Sonny Crockett"

Don Johnson on 30 Years of 'Miami Vice' | Rolling Stone:

The stubbled star talks about being showered with women's underwear and why the Reagan-era series is ready for a reboot

No, really!  He thinks he's going to do it all over again.

Background checks on gun transfers ARE a hidden "Gun Registration" measure

Last year I was at an IPSC/USPSA match in Oregon when a friend searched me out.

His pistol had fallen out out of his skeleton holster and hit the ground, and by the rules of Practical Pistol competition he was forbidden to touch it without the supervision of a Range Officer.  So I obliged him, of course, and I (safely) picked up his $3,000 race gun and handed it to him.

Then he went looking for someone else who had a similar pistol that he could use to complete the match.

He found another competitor who had a spare similar pistol, and safely completed the match.

He needed it: his C-More sight had taken the brunt of the impact on the hard-packed ground, and was broken.  Eventually, it cost him several hundred dollars to replace the broken electronic-dot sight, but at least he didn't have to drop out of the match.

Under the "Universal Background Check" rules, he would not have been able to rely on the largesse of his friends.


Bloomberg-Gates background check ploy first step to registration, confiscation - National gun rights | Examiner.com:

The first point is, a background check bill is impossible without creating registration data. That was admitted by no less an authority than Greg Ridgeway, Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice, who wrote a summary report on gun violence prevention strategies in which he concluded “Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration.

Now, let's look at the same scenario under the "Universal Background Check" rules:

Universal Background Checks (may) apply even to temporary "loaning" of a gun at a range, except under certain narrowly defined circumstances.  See below.

The popular understanding is that this applies only to the transfer of ownership of firearms.   That's not necessarily true.

Breaking: Oregon Retro-Gov Kitzhaber PWND by Illegal Alien and his fiance

Oregon ‘first lady’ cops to green-card ‘marriage of convenience’ in exchange for $5G | Fox News:

 Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber got one hell of an October surprise, as his fiance tearfully admitted Thursday to having a green-card marriage to an 18-year-old Ethiopian immigrant. The stunning admission comes after an alternative newspaper first reported that Cylvia Hayes – who despite being engaged goes by the title “first lady” in the state – had been married, and divorced, three times before. Two of those were known. But the Democratic governor to whom she’s engaged, and the public, apparently didn’t know about the third.

This comes as absolutely no surprise to Conservative Oregonians (both of us!).   Doctor John has been making "bad choices" during his entire political career.

Five Grand?  He should be flattered; his probably-no-longer-to-be wife can honestly claim that she is worth more than he is.

The Real "Gun Show Loophole"?

What happens when Liberals get control of a county?

Several years ago (and this is a true story, children.. well, mostly ... but the names have been changed to protect the innocent) in a small North-Western town which we will call "Corn Valley",   which was the County Seat, The County took control of The People.

One day, the County Commissioners (we'll call the county ""Benjamin"),  decided that gun shows would no longer be permitted at the Benjamin County Fair Grounds.

Now, there had been no complaints registered about the Benjamin County Gun Shows, which had been an annual event for decades.  The Citizens of Corn Valley, or of Benjamin County, had not objected to a "Free Market" in firearms.   There was no external reason for the Benjamin County Commissioners to establish a restriction on County Fairgrounds events. In fact, it was a money-making event for both the county and the fairgrounds.

They just decided this was The Right Thing To Do .. and the decision was passed seven-to-one by the Board.

The people of Corn Valley and Benjamin County objected to this arbitrary decision, and so a hearing was held one Tuesday evening at the fairgrounds.

Kroger: "If you don't trust me, I wouldn't trust you

(H/T: "Sharp As A Marble")

Last month, when the MOMS started harassing Kroger, I found a convenient place on their (Kroger) website to enter a comment.  (Look it up for yourself.)

I gave them my name, address and phone number.  I told them that I had been shopping for 'almost everything' at my local Kroger store (in Corvallis, that's "Fred Meyers' Store") for over 20 years, and I wanted to tell them how much I appreciated that they did not cave into the anti-gunners' exploitative pressure for the chain to kowtow to their nonsense.

I told them that the reasons I shopped there were many:  Convenient location, competitive prices, great selection of quality foods and other goods.  I get my prescriptions filled there.  Friendly people .. the clerks always ask if I found everything I wanted, and if I didn't ... I mention it.  Next time, or the time after that when I visit the store, they have stocked it again.

Also, I told them that I "may or may not carry" on their premises, but they won't know because if I did, it would be concealed in accordance to local law, and I'm not inclined to frighten other shoppers.  Most of them are my neighbors.

Finally, I told them that I never, ever, enter a store with a "No Guns" sign on their door.  I'm there to spend money: they're there to make money. I don't look for opportunities to be insulted, or make trouble.  I just want to go home with a full shopping cart.

Besides, a "NO GUNS" sign on the door is an incitement to violence.

Yay!

Durham Clerk of Court Shreds Gun Registry - YouTube:
 Published on Oct 6, 2014

In its 2013 session, the General Assembly repealed a 1935 law that had required Durham residents to register their firearms with the Durham County Clerk of Court. The State of North Carolina granted Archie Smith, Clerk of Court, permission to destroy the records. Sheriff Andrews was on hand this morning to observe and assist with the destruction.

(H/T: "The War On Guns")

Take A Liberal To A Gun Range Day

Liberals Try Shooting Guns For The First Time - Buzzfeed - The Scene:
August 18, 2014

As you might expect, they weren't that into it.

Baloney!   Many of them loved it.  (Follow the link to see the short video.)

Quotes from various participants:

"... You don't realize (I didn't realize) when you shoot a gun, just firing one?   That took a lot out of me.  I was ... it was like I fired once and then I wanted to take a nap." 

"My hands are sweating ..."

"Oh my God, I can't .. my heart is like racing so fast right now"

"You can feel it throughout your whole body, and I'm not as scared as I was.   But (unintelligible) gonna buy a gun, definitely."   (big smile)

"Never in my life did I think I would shoot a shotgun!"

"I felt kinda bad***, when I was cocking the shotgun.   Yeah, that's a "bad***" gesture right there ..." (simulates cocking a pump-action shotgun, with the smallest secret smile the Universe has ever seen)

"No, I don't want to do it anymore."

"It was kinda like ... enjoyable? But then I was getting sickened about me feeling enjoyable about it." 

"Shooting a gun did not change my mind about Gun Control ...."  (this from the guy who called pumping a shotgun a "bad*** thing")

"... this is a 'fun thing', but not every 'fun thing' is legal". 

"You know it's a rush, it's a Adrenalin rush, and you get all ****** up, and I feel confused and conflicted about it all. I would probably come back and [nods] do it again."

When "true" and "inane" overlap

Last March 11 (2014) I wrote an article titled California Scheming which discussed resistance of Sunnyvale and San Francisco to turn in magazines which are capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

The gist of the story was "Passive Resistance":  AKA: "Rampant Non-Compliance".   A quote:

The Oakland Tribune (http://tinyurl.com/lvtufr3 ) reported Saturday that since Sunnyvale's ban went into effect midnight Thursday, not one of the now-illegal magazines has been turned in. San Francisco police report that they have no system to track whether any magazines have been turned in for destruction under the new ordinance. San Francisco residents must surrender their high-capacity magazines to police by April 7.

It's a terrible thing, I know, for "common people" to oppose the will of The Government. [Smarm Alert!]   On the other hand, that is the National Character.

So I was surprised, as I was searching comments on past articles I had (for reasons not germane here) to find the following comment:

Anonymous said...
unfortunately you ignore laws, especially local laws, at your own great peril. 

Huh?

Biden Blinks ... PWND by Turkey

Biden apologizes to Turkish President Erdogan for saying Turkey allowed foreign fighters into Syria | Fox News:

Vice President Biden on Saturday apologized to Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for saying the Turkish leader admitted his country made mistakes by allowing foreign fighters to cross into Syria.

Mark Twain once said that: "Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to."

This is Blowhard Joe in a nutshell.   He is the worst Democrat to ever occupy an Executive position.

He was an embarrassment to our country as a Senator; as Vice President he is a walking disaster.

Colin Powell refused to run for the Presidency because he was concerned that the American People were not ready for a Black Man in the Oval Office.  He was dissuaded by the possibility of assassination in office.   The rumor is that Obama chose him for a running-mate as protection; surely, nobody would assassinate Obama knowing that Biden would step into the Top Slot.

Big-Mouth Joe is even worse than John "Unfit For Command" Kerry.
Worse than "... This Health Care Plan Will By Financed by Cigarette Taxes" Hillary (The Unofficial POTUS)
Worse than Al "I Invented The Internet" Gore
Worse than Bill "Big Willy" Clinton
Worse than  Jimmy "Abort The Mission" Carter (and that's saying something!)
Worse than ... but why go on?  You know The Usual Suspects.

The point is, he's even worse than B.H. Obama.

Vice President Biden is as lame, and almost as much a burden on America as ObabaCare.  
And that says it all.


I love the First Amendment

UPDATE: Sunday, October 05, 2014
But wait ... there's more!

Chicago Wins .. America Wins!

Court Sides With SAF On Key Points In Challenge Of Chicago Gun... -- BELLEVUE, Wa., Sept. 30, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
: BELLEVUE, Wa., Sept. 30, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

Chicago loses some of its unconstitutional Gun Laws ..America Reasserts it Constitutional Rights.
(H/T: "Say Uncle")

A federal judge has sided with the Second Amendment Foundation on key points of an on-going legal action against the City of Chicago that challenges the city's municipal code regarding gun ranges inside the city. 

 --

"Every day on which Chicago loses some of its unconstitutional laws," observed attorney Alan Gura, who represents SAF in this litigation, "is a better day than the one before. This latest decision brings Chicago that much closer to the rest of America, where responsible, law-abiding people can practically access gun ranges for safety training and recreation. We are studying our options for improving this positive outcome." 

 In her ruling, Judge Kendall noted that Chicago police officials "admitted that they had no data or empirical evidence that any criminal impact would occur due to the presence of a firing range, or that it would be lessened by placing ranges in manufacturing districts." Indeed, plaintiff's expert Lorin Kramer "testified that he was unaware of any location throughout the country where crime increased as a result of a gun range in that location." 

This is A Good Day for America.

While the "gun violence" daily exercised by drug gangs in Chicago has been a serious problem , the continued efforts of the Chicago mayor R.E. to restrict access to self-defensive firearms has undermined the ability of law-abiding citizens to take control of their streets.

Today, they  have full access to close-by, local shooting ranges where they can practice their control of entirely legal firearms.

This may give them an advantage of over gang-bangers who notoriously practice "Prey & Spray"  (sic) tactics during street-level gun-fights, often resulting in the unintended accidental deaths of nearby innocents.  Casualties for which the drug dealers seemingly hold no remorse.

It is too soon to tell whether the determination of local legal firearms owners to protect their neighborhoods will be successful, but one thing is clear:

With access to a place to hone their shooting skills, the "neighborhood" has just increased its ability to enhance accuracy with their newly acquired firearms.  Very likely it's a metaphorical "Take Back Your Neighborhood" effort which will yield mixed results; be prepared for the likelihood that the Hood's population will drop real soon.

The Lambs will become Sheep-dogs.  Some of this "bad business" is coming home to roost.

It's their neighborhood, and they WILL take it back!

"Off Roster": California Gun Laws .. go figure!

California is updating their anti-gun laws as fast as they can, in hopes that they can outpace otherwise-legal gun-purchasers' ability to keep track.  The sad fact is that they can .. and they are prosecuting the slow "subjects" (not 'citizens') of their state --- and they are prosecuting offenders.  Even Law Enforcement Officers who they see as "Offenders".

Former deputy, alleged accomplices go on trial for weapons charges Monday - Crime - Sacto 911 - The Sacramento Bee:   (October 2, 2014)

(the vendor) ....  is accused of purchasing handguns that cannot be bought directly from a dealer by members of the general public and selling them to civilians at a healthy markup
...
In an unsuccessful motion to dismiss the charges against Snellings, his lawyer maintained there was no law preventing the sale of a so-called “off roster” firearm from a sworn officer to a non-sworn private party, so long as both parties go through a licensed dealer. ---
...
 According to court papers, Kjellberg, 43, transferred at least five such weapons “to individuals who could not otherwise legally purchase” them.

(Emphasis Added)

Among the charges were those against one principle "for providing a large-capacity ammunition clip to an undercover agent".

Can anyone provide us with a definition of "large-capacity ammunition clip"?  Or cite current law which makes this .. provision, whatever it is .. a felony?

Hat TIP: Of Arms And The Law
(There are questions as to whether this was a "Straw Purchase",  If so, it would be good to be to whom, from whom, and for what purpose .. and who was the intended final owner?)

Gun Sense and Idiocy in the ballot poll

How can one gun-control\group be so wrong in so many ways?

A gun-control group calling itself gunsensevoter.org has presented a "poll", intended to be sent to legislators, asking them to explain their political opinions on "Gun Control".  While obviously biased, it's worthwhile to examine the questions they are asking.

From this article, here are the questions they are asking (some questions are edited for brevity .. go to the original article for details):

(1) (General statement on Gun Control)   "Do you agree: we can both do more to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and protect the rights of responsible, law-abiding people?"

[Wow!  What an all-encompassing question! Wonder what the author intends to achieve this goal? What's this "we" word? And by the way, what are you doing to protect the rights of responsible, law-abiding people?  It sounds as you want to take guns out of their hands, too.]

(2)  (Gun Show Loophole)  Background Checks ; Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Dangerous People
(Questions whether firearms transfers should not ALL be subject to background checks)

[No definition of terms. "ALL"? Would impose draconian solutions, and registration would be necessary to enforce]

(3) (Restraining orders) Federal law prohibits anyone from having firearms if they have been convicted of abusing their spouses, or if they are the subjects of active restraining orders taken out by their spouses, but not if they have been convicted of stalking or have been convicted of abusing their dating partners. The share of intimate partner violence that occurs in dating relationships has been steadily growing—and as of 2008, more domestic violence homicides were committed by dating partners than by spouses.
 Do you support a law that would prohibit gun possession by  by convicted stalkers and people convicted of—or, who after due process, are actively restrained from— abusing a dating partner?

[The problem is that restraining orders can be filed without a court order.  There is no opportunity for the  'abuser' to protest the court order,or to present the 'other side' of the argument.   This is just another excuse to exercuze your gun-control agenda.]

(4) (Online websites which sell guns without background checks): Do you support legislation that would level the playing field by treating sites like Armslist as licensed gun brokers, and require a
background check every time someone buys a gun through one of these sites?

[I don't know the rules here, but I know that responsible owners generally tend to check out their buyers before the complete a deal.  Not a question without  merit.  However, it considers all transfers as equivalent,]

(5) Background checks; keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. (NICS doesn't have all records of mental patients)  Do you support an increase in congressional funding for the federal grant programs that help states submit their records?

[Again, not a question entirely without merit.  Except .. who will guard the guardians?  How are we to know that the people who are charged with diagnosing their patients are not giving in to their private "gun control at all costs" agenda?  Even the Center for Disease Control has been  found 'guilty' of advancing a private agenda, and were prohibited from examining the question for decades because their bias was so great that they were professionally unable to omit their bias from their conclusions. ]

(6) (Gun trafficking,  straw purchases and stolen guns)  People listed on the federal government’s terror watch lists are prohibited from boarding airplanes—but current federal law does
not bar them from buying guns or explosives.   Indeed, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office, people on terror watch lists bought firearms or explosives from licensed dealers 1,321 times between 2004 and 2010.  Do you support legislation --- drafted by the George W Bush Administration --- that would close this “terror gap” by giving the FBI the discretion to block these people from buying guns?

[Is this an issue?  I thought you had to present identification and undergo a background check before buying explosives.  Is this equivalent to purchasing a firearm?  What happened to NICS?]

(7) (More about gun trafficking, straw purchases, and stolen guns)   Under current law, it is difficult to prosecute and convict people suspected of of trafficking illegal guns because the penalties for trafficking are small and difficult to prove.   In fact, the current penalty for gun trafficking is the same as for trafficking chickens across state lines.  Do you support legislation that would create a strong federal gun trafficking statute with serious penalties? 

[This sounds like hyperbole bullshit..  I don't believe it.]

(8) (High Capacity Magazines) In many mass shootings, including the 2011 shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, AZ, bystanders have been able to subdue perpetrators of mass shootings when the shooters stop to reload. Research from Virginia showed that the federal limit on high-capacity magazines in effect from 1994 to 2004 led to a 50% reduction in criminals being armed with high-capacity magazines— and when the law expired, the share of crime guns with such magazines doubled.   Several states have enacted limits on the size of ammunition magazines. Do you support limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines?

[They lulled us into slumber with their soft-ball questions, and now they're throwing the fast-ball questions at us.  Do you support limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines?"  Why should anyone?  Anyone who knows anything about guns knows that (a) a reload is only a minor inconvenience, and (b) magazine capacity has never been an issue in the kind of 'mass shootings' which this article purports to address.  It's just an attack on legal firearms owners.]

(9) (Child Safety) Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have child access prevention laws, which allow criminal charges for adult gun owners who fail to store their guns safely and keep them out of the reach of children. Do you support laws that allow a prosecutor to bring charges if a gun owner stores a firearm negligently, a minor accesses the gun, and harm results?

[One wonders who is a responsible gun owner.  Most of us are responsible.  Adding felony penalties when your child foxes your gun safe after he has killed you  (Adam Lanza) seems unproductive.] 

(10) (National Concealed Carry Mandate)   Some in Congress have proposed “national concealed carry reciprocity” legislation, which would create a new federal mandate forcing every state to recognize concealed carry permits from every other state, no matter how lax a state’s laws are. Do you oppose national concealed carry reciprocity, which would overturn state public safety laws and replace them with a lowest-common denominator standard?

[This is reminiscent of the Shalleen Allen situation, where a legal gun in one state is a felony just across the border.  It has recently been reconciled with no serious penalties to the 'perpetrator', because (in this case) New Jersey was embarrassed by their draconian "no credit for being an honest person" gun laws.  The question about "Lax gun Laws" is hyperbole at best]

"HANDS": An update on dermatology *Grenz Ray Therapy*

If you're not interested in the pansy-ass whining of a guy who has suffered from Psiorisis for years, move along.  We won't think any the less of you.  For those few remaining, you know may be aware that skin disease is a painful and sometimes a debilitating disease.

Okay, so it's not on a par with a stroke, or Lung Cancer. I began trying to deal with scaling, skin peeling away leaving bloody sub-dermis and large flaps of skin dangling from my hands in 2008 when my beloved SWMBO-lady was diagnosed with Phase 4 Lung cancer.  I was too embarrassed to mewl about my petty problems while she was dying, and so while I did mention it from time to time,  I tried to shut up except here in the privacy of my own personal "Selfie".

Police are the true "Coalition To Stop Gun Violence"

Why do we, as Civilians, feel obliged to carry guns?   Don't we trust the Police to protect us?

Generally speaking, no.   We do not.  We expect to be the only innocent armed person at the scene for a significant period of time.  The saying (and I've used it myself) is "When Seconds Count, The Police Are Just Minutes Away".

Yes, that's true if they are not at the scene when "gun violence" begins.   Travel time accounts for most of  the "Response Time" which allows gun violence to continue ... and for the individual which the police refer to as an ACTIVE SHOOTER to claim more victims.

But consider the best case scenario: what if they ARE at the scene?   Then it may take them more minutes to engage the shooter.  Why?

Remember Columbine?

History of IPSC/USPSA: The Divisions

According to the 2014 USPSA Handgun Rule Book (February, 2014), there are 6 Divisions in USPSA competition, which are defined by the characteristics.  These divisions are extremely varied in their permissions and their limitations.  The following is a summary of the six divisions, which may be useful to people who are interested in competing in USPSA matches but are not familiar with the Division definitions:

*(I'm posting this because I often teach New Shooters who are not familiar with the choices available to them when the register in a mach in a specific division.  The problem is that they have often been advised to compete in "Production Division" even though they might be self-imposing a competitive handicap by their choice.  Also, it seems that some 'experienced' competitors in USPSA are not completely aware of the consequences of their choice.
Not that I care,  As long as they are showing up for matches, they are enjoying themselves.   Sometimes, though, if I am NOT informing them of the competitive consequences of their choices, I am not fulfilling my obligation to inform them.)

Why IPSC can't use METRIC targets in Europe

The Goofy and Cool Shooting Targets Used by the World's Armies | WIRED:
(By Margaret Rhodes - August 04, 2014)

Years ago, on a cold, dark morning outside of Munich, Herlinde Koelbl noticed a shooting target that had been battered with bullet holes. “In a way, you could see death and aggression and power in it,” she remembers. But Koelbl, a professional photographer, couldn’t help but notice the eerily beautiful way the early morning sun filtered through the punctures. She snapped a photograph.
 That image was never published, but it stayed in the back of Koelbl’s mind. Eventually, it inspired her new series and recent book Targets. Over the course of six years, Koelbl traveled to 30 countries and took thousands of photographs of shooting targets used during military training. Seen as a series, the images are a fascinating and somewhat unsettling window into how militaries around the world use visuals to groom their soldiers for battle.

One of the most INTERESTING things about IPSC is the way a couple of years ago (okay, more than that), when the sport of Practical Pistol Shooting became a worldwide interest, it sort of ... morphed.

The thing is, as soon as this became an International Sport, European (and other) countries began to complain the they couldn't practice it in their home countries.

The fact is: some countries had laws which prevented people from shooting at "humanoid" or "Human Shaped" targets.  And that was that.

There was also the expected national rules which prohibited their subjects from owning "powerful semi-automatic firearms with high-capacity magazines", but there were work-arounds for that.

Examples: Japanese participants practice with paint-guns and air-soft guns; Canadians practice with diminished-capacity guns; British practiced with God-Knows What, but these and other subjects had one thing in common ... they stored their REAL "competition" guns in neighboring, more enlightened countries, and only used them in those countries where the national gun regulations permitted more freedom.

But one thing was universally clear:  "IPSC teaches people how to kill people!"

So they couldn't use the classic .. now called the "Metric" target.  Instead they now use the stop-sign ... now called the "Classic" target.

The first (Metric) target is roughly rectangular (about 3' tall x 2' wide), with a 4" x 4" tab centered on the top, which critics have chose  to call "A Human Head", which makes the target "Humanoid" in nature.


Hence the accusation that "IPSC is teaching people to kill people".  Which is clearly an evaluation which is in the mind of the beholder.  We're shooting Cardboard, folks.  And .. okay .... sometimes we shoot at steel targets, too.

However, people in Europe go right on shooting targets which are not only 'reminiscent' of humans, but are clear depictions of humans.

At this time, no recent Internet searches complain about targets which are obviously intended to teach people how to kill people.

"People Targets", Shooting, and the Olympics:
However, it is worth considering that the singular issue of "humanoid targets", which has caused a schism in the noble sport of Practical Pistol Shooting, has proliferated.  People continue to want to shoot at targets that look like people, and although this issue has been the reason why IPSC competition was rejected as the candidate for International Olympics several years ago, (2005)  with some comments from shooters, which seemed to go nowhere, it seems odd that .. well, people will be people.  And that they want to shoot at targets that look like people even though the International Olympics Commission considers this to be .. TERRIBLE!

Never mind the facts: We Deal In Feelings, Friend! 
Ignore that fact that there are several shooting sports gladly accepted by the IOC:  Skiing and Shooting; Small-bore target shooting (both pistol and rifle) are accepted without comment.  Trap and Skeet (shotgun shooting at flying targets)?  No problem.  Air Rifle?  The same skill sets, except using 'reduced power ammunition"?  Fine! Javelin?  Teaching people to throw spears at people?  No problem.

So why not IPSC competition?

Because it is teaching people to shoot people.  Bad.  So the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) introduce a new target, which they call the CLASSIC target:



Notice it doesn't look anything at ALL like a person.

Well, but yes it does. If you use your imagination ...  it MAY define the human torso, with the A-zone in the approximate area of the heart/lungs/spine, the "C-zone" as the lungs and other semi-vital organs, and the D-zone as "non-fatal but otherwise sometimes debilitating and painful hits, maybe".

The good news is there is not "Upper A/B-Zone" area, which would define a brain/spine hit on a human.

And so, the IOC is unlikely to accept this target, either even if IPSC is willing to accept a minimal position as a "Demonstrations Sport" at the Olympics.