Monday, January 24, 2005

Stage Construction and Fault Lines

This past weekend I competed in an IPSC match which was very well designed. The stages were designed to for competitors to move from one side of the bay to the other in order to even see, let alone engage, targets. This not only helped ensure that round-count per shooting position was easily kept within the 9-round limit (USPSA rule 1.2.1) but also competitors were unable to bypass shooting positions in non-compliance with USPSA rules 1.2.1.2 and 1.2.1.3.

However, the match featured one stage which required the competitor to engage some targets inconveniently placed 'around the corner' of a vision barrier. The construction team had placed a 12' two-by-four from the corner of the vision barrier extending back toward the starting box, in an apparent effort to ensure that competitors not move too far laterally to engage the targets. I'm not sure how this 'fault line' improved the stage, but it was there and was obviously intended to be observed.

The problem was that this legal fault-line was short. It was arguably advantageous for the competitor to engage this target array from an area which was not bounded by the fault line ... say, from 20 feet away from the vision barrier.

While I was serving as Range Officer, one competitor did engage these targets from this 'grey area'. The Match Director of this club match happened to be a member of this squad, and took exception to my failure to penalize the competitor for failing to observe this fault line. the competitor was, in fact, standing several feet beyond (to the "rearward") of the end of the physical fault line.

The Match Director's objections were that:
  1. Fault Lines "... are deemed to extend rearwards to infinity [2.1.2.2] and
  2. The competitor was obviously (to the observing Match Director) standing in a place where the extended fault line would not have allowed him to engage the targets.
I refused, as Range Officer, to assign a procedural penalty to the competitor; on the grounds of faulty stage construction.

My reasoning was based upon current IPSC rules:
[2.2.1] ... fault lines should be constructed of wooden boards or other suitable material and should rise at least 2 centimeters ... above ground level. This will provide both physical and visible reference to competitors to prevent inadvertent faulting.


I judged that he, the competitor, couldn't have discerned by "physical and visible reference" that he was or was not beyond the boundries of the hypothetically extended fault line.

The competitor might arguable have been able to look down and see that the board was pointing somewhere to the north of his southern-most foot, but who among us (as competitors) will allow ourselves to be distracted by this petty activity, at the cost of losing our focus and taking valuable time? Competitors have the reasonable expectation that stage designers will establish a fulat line which conforms with the definition established by the current rules. It is perhaps reasonable to assume that if the stage designer, and the stage construction team, wished to enforce this fault line ... they would have taken the time and trouble to construct a fault line which was in accordance with the guidelines defined in the rule book.

A "Fault Line" (or "Charge Line", in different circumstances) is not 'a line in the sand'. The competitor is focusing on targets. The Range Officer is focusing on the gun. The Assistant Range Officer (often the score-keeper) is usually charged with observing foot faults ... which in this specific instance did NOT happen.

(UPDATE: I am reminded by the gentleman who was score-keeper that he DID observe the 'foot fault', and he did bring it to my attention. Thanx for keeping me honest.)

The "line in the sand" concept is not in accordance with IPSC rules, and is in fact unenforceable. when there is no obvious fault line for reference, the Range Officer AND the competitor are placed in the unenviable position of having to judge foot position by subjective means.

The rule [2.2.1] is clear about the definition of a fault line. If the stage construction team fails, through lack of materials or for other reasons, to construct a legal fault line, then the competitor is not liable to penalty by virtue of THEIR lapse.

And the Range Officer is placed in the uncomfortable position of either proliferating the 'assumed' intend of the stage designer, or allowing the competitor a great degree of leeway in deciding for himself whether he is standing to the left, or to the right, of the' extended' fault line.

(There's an implied contract here. The stage designer will decide that a fault line will exist. The stage construction team will build the fault line, which will conform by rules & guidelines universally recognized within all IPSC regions. The competitor will observe a legal fault line, and the Range Officer will enforce the observance. When one member of this contract fails to abide by the implied contract, the contract is rendered invalid.)

The moral of the story is: if you are the Range Master (or, in a club match, Match Director), you are required to evaluate all stages for potential problem areas before the match begins. If a stage construction 'malfunction' causes an unexpected controversial approach to shooting the stage, then you have no recourse but to either allow 'unintended consequences', correct the problem and have everyone affected by the change reshoot it, or to throw the stage out of the match.

Folks, we (competitors and Range Officers) do the best we can with the shooting problem we're given. Match Directors and stage construction teams have MUCH more time to de-bug the stage than the competitors have to evaluate it and decide on a reasonable solution.

(Disclaimer: I realize that when you're in charge of a match and you're trying to build a half-dozen stages on match-day morning, you don't really have as much time as you would like to find all of the problems that might arise. It helps when the competitors look for these oversights and draw them to your attention during the walk-through.)


The Range Officer ... just calls 'em as he sees 'em.

(updated 1-24-05 to correct mis-statement, add the 'disclaimer', and reword some phrases)

Saturday, January 22, 2005

Winter Sux ... Part Duh!

A couple of weeks ago I was complaining that I hadn't shot an IPSC match since the day after Thanksgiving. Partly, this was because many of the clubs in the Columbia Cascade Section of Oregon just don't schedule matches which might be poorly attended due to 'family' activities during the holiday season. And it has happened that bad weather, or planned bad weather, has caused some scheduled matches to be postponed or even cancelled.

(NB: this is because the match sponsors are concerned that people will actually try to drive an hour or two over icy and/or snow-bound roads ... or that they WON'T make the drive, and not enough people will show up to make the match worth the effort to put it on. Geez! We're turning into a Nation of Wussies here! Never mind that I wouldn't have gone to the match scheduled last weekend, because we had freezing rain for two days from Corvallis to Portland. Everybody already knows I'm a wuss.)

However, I'm happy to report that the weather today was mild and balmy, no rain, some sun. Therefore, the January Match at Dundee (Chehalem Valley Sportsman's Club) was well attended with approximately 50 competitors showing up to embarass themselves before friends and family.

I'm not being facetious about this "embarrassing event" allusion. It was terrible, almost everything that COULD go wrong DID go wrong. At first, those of us in the "Usual Suspects" squad (someday I'll have to write about this collection of misfits and malcontents, of which I am a charter member) who screwed up by the numbers were shocked that we were so inept. As the day progressed ... and I don't mean to suggest that any 'progression' involved an improvement of either accuracy or gun-handling skills ... we started laughing at ourselves, then at each other, until it became almost a sport in itself to decide who had best typified mediocirty on any given stage.

It's probably a blessing that so MANY "Kodak Moments" occurred today, I can't remember all of them. You don't want to read that many paens of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and I don't want to write that much. What follows is, perhaps, merely the high-lights of the day.

The first stage, I managed to get a jam and instead of dropping the magazine to clear the gun I kept the 170mm magazine (very cumbersome) in my left hand while I tried to clear the jam. Then I put the old magazine back in, forgot to reload when I had planned, and shot the gun dry. After a very S-L-O-W reload ( including the obligatory "WTF? Moment" while I tried to figure out why the gun wasn't going "BANG!"), it turned in a 39 second run on a 19-second stage.

My advice to the guy who followed me was "Don't do what I did!", so of course he did the same thing in almost the same way.

(I have an alibi for the jam, by the way: I cleaned my gun before the match. I think the gun was in a state of shock and didn't know how to function without all that powder residue slowing down the action. I didn't bother to ask the other guy for his alibi, but I'm sure it would have been equally as creative. We usually announce our alibis before the match starts. It just saves time . This is my story, and I'm sticking to it.)

Second stage was the classifier. Simple little thing it was, so we had to be pretty creative to screw it up. Shoot one round each on 6 IPSC targets, reload, shoot another round strong-hand only.

Did I mention that there were 3 no-shoot targets interlaced among the shoot-targets?

My first shot was into the white no-shoot, so I ended up with one miss, one no-shoot penalty in 10.5* seconds.

Another guy, Norm The Ungrateful, did a great job getting all of hits in 9.90 seconds. Only thing is, after the reload he shot the second half of the stage free-style, too. Six 10-point penalties zeroed the stage for him. We had to convince him that he had forgotten to shoot the second half wrong, because he could have SWORN that he shot it strong-hand.

Another guy managed to put one shot into each of the 3 penalty targets. At least he didn't zero the stage.

Ryan, the 10-year-old son of Nick, was shooting Open with a Glock. Ryan is a pretty good shooter, but spends most of his time shooting Steel Challenge. He had some problems with the Strong-Hand portion of the stage. The gun wasn't cycling, so he had to rack the slide between each shot. After the stage was completed, Nick was unable to comment that Ryan was 'weak-wristing' the gun. Ryan responded something to the effect that "I KNOW, but ...". Exit, stage left, shutting ears against familial bickering. I'm repeating warnings, now, to the effect that it is NOT a good idea to coach your own SWMBO, or anyone in your family. Parent and Spouse cannot offer criticism within (arbitrarily selecting a time period) TEN YEARS after your loved one has embarassed himself/herself in front of others.

A few of us chose to reshoot the stage "For Classification Only", just to prove that we really COULD do better. I managed to do the same thing ... hit a no-shoot with one shot ... but I made up the shot (strong-hand) so I still got two penalties but at least I got another 5 points on my score. The thing is, it took me 11.17 seconds, which pretty much wiped out any improvement on my hit-factor for the stage.

Later, on a stage that required a quick lateral movement from one side of the bay to the other, Big-Dog John managed to get a foot tangled in the deep gravel surface and almost tripped. He was falling forward as he ran, windmilling with both hands, and in the process he waved one arm in front of the muzzle of the gun ... twice. He didn't fall down, didn't endanger anyone else, but was DQ'd (Match Disqualification) for "Sweeping" himself. Tough call. He showed his character and integrity, though, by sticking around for the rest of the match and helping us by assuming the scoring chores so we wouldn't wear ourselves out.

And fatigue was an issue. I got a pulled a thigh muscle on one stage (I was the last shooter in the squad, put too much time into RO'ing the squad on a big stage which required a lot of movement, so I was fairly over-exercised) and it took me a half-hour to work the kinks out. Boy, am I out of shape after taking NO exercise for two months!

We had a stage with a lot of steel on it. Harold the Conqueror stopped himself because a Pepper Popper didn't go down when he shot it. A calibration test with a 9mm knocked the popper down ... leaving Harold with about half of the stage un-engaged. Major penalties there.

On a similar stage (lots of steel), Norm shot a US Popper twice, missing it once and catching an edge with his second shot. He heard the hit, dropped the magazine and reloaded as he started to move to the next shooting position, and then noticed out of the corner of his eye that the steel did not fall. Shouting "I hit it, I know I did!" he reversed direction to pick-up the miss. Just as he got back into position, and raised the pistol to shoot at it ... the popper fell down! I think he spent another second or two just looking at it with his mouth open. At least, he managed not to curse. I admire his restraint. I would have been washing my mouth out with soap even now if it had been me.

On the same stage, Brent (who was shooting a single-stack .45acp) went to slide-lock and RAMMED a Chip McCormick 10-round magazine into the pistol. Immediate result: the Jam From Heck. It took him forever less ten seconds to get the gun back into working order, and then he started running to the next shooting position ... only to realize that he hadn't taken the 2nd shot at the target he had been engaging when he had to make his reload. He ran back, took one shot (strong-hand!) and then ran to finish the stage. Result: it took him 119 seconds to complete a 25-second stage. Lesson is, if you're gonna put a big-stick in a single-stack ... don't jam it in there!

On the penultimate stage, Gary T. completely forgot that one array was to be engaged 'behind the fault line' and charged 3 targets. Six procedural penalties ... advantage gained. He had completely forgotten that the fault line was there.

Getting close to the end, now. Bear with me. Remember, this is only the high-lights.

The last stage. A plate rack with six ten-inch plates, plus some cardboard targets on the right and left side. No big deal.

It took me 11 shots to knock down the six plates, at a distance of less than 50 feet!

I was counting shots for everyone else, and nobody seemed to have as much trouble as I did.

Until the last shooter.

Eleven-year-old Zac, son of Norm, tried the same thing I did (engaging the targets from too far away, essentially) and required 17 shots to knock down the six steel plates.

But Zac has been shooting IPSC more frequently, and longer, than Ryan. He knew he had just goofed up and instead added a note of levity to the otherwise-embarassing situation. On the last four-target array, instead of hosing them as the rest of us did, he calmly engaged the upper A-zone. Managed to get almost half of the A-hits, too.

I choose to believe that Zac was merely aware of my own embarassment, and deliberately missed his steel-plate shots only so that this lame old man didn't feel bad about having turned in the worse performance of the day.

Norm, I know that you had NINE jams during the match. But you're raising your son right. It's refreshing to see a young man grow up with an innate sense of respect for his elders.

Even if his elders don't really deserve it.

Here's the bottem line:
The match didn't mean a thing. It was just a chance to go shooting with your friends. We shot poorly, but everyone had a great time. It wasn't cold, it wasn't rainy, the wind wasn't blowing, everyone did his share of the work, and nobody got through the day without performing far below his own expectations.



What a great day at the range.




Thursday, January 20, 2005

More Links, Base, Taranot, Penn, etc.

MORE LINKS:

Michael Bane
I've added Michael Bane's new weblog to my link-list.

Michael is the author of several books, a motivational speaker, a marketting advisor and/or representative (most recently for NSSF) and is currently the host of the hit OUTDOOR CHANNEL show SHOOTING GALLERY.

I met him on The Unofficial IPSC list around 1997, and finally met him in person at the 1999 USPSA Area 1 Championship Tournament in Reno, Nevada. At the time, Michael was running for the USPSA presidency. (He lost, but not by very many votes.) We were squadded together with a number of other 'big names' in competitive shooting such as Cal Eldridge , Matt Burkett, Carl Carbon and Tod Jarrett. (Incidently, Carbon was shooting OPEN with a single-stack .45acp) I never knew how I had been scheduled to shoot with such an impressive group of people. But while Michael spent a lot of time talking with these people whom he had known for many years, he spent a lot of talking to me, too. We went out to dinner a couple of evenings, where he treated SWMBO and me to many stories of, for example, interviewing Dolly Parton or Shania Twain for "Rolling Stone" articles. I found him to be a gifted raconteur, and reading his weblog I see that he hasn't lost the gift.

He could also sell snow to Eskimos. Give him a read. You'll be glad you did.


WSJ's Opinion Journal

I've also added the OPINION JOURNAL to my link-list.
While the Wall Street Journal may frequently espouse liberal viewpoints, the Opinion Journal is decidedly conservative. Best of all, most of the Opinion Journal ... their 'commentary' section .. is available to non-subscribers. (You must subscribe to view much of the Opinion Journal, but the subscription is free.)

Regular features include Peggy Noonan's columns, and Best Of The Web Today, by James Taranto, an (Free Subscription Required.)

I got a kick out of Taranto's BOTWT for January 20. It included the following:

Terrible Unswift Shields
Here's a brilliant little post by blogger Second Lt. Lance Frizzell, a Tennessee National Guardsman serving in Iraq:

Back in January '03, you may remember a group of Western liberals who volunteered to go to Iraq as human shields in case the US enforced UN resolutions that Saddam violated. Key graf:

". . . they are willing to put themselves in the firing line should US and British forces bomb Iraq. They plan to identify potential bombing targets such as power stations and bridges and act as human shields to protect them."

Well, I think I have just the job for these globe-travelers: Iraq Election Poll Worker. They are familiar with the terrain and people, they have a self-professed desire to help and they seem very articulate. However, their biggest asset is bravery. If they are willing to hunker down between Coalition Forces and a bridge, standing between a foreign terrorist and a polling precinct should be no big deal. Any takers?

Keep us posted, Lt. Frizzell.




Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Get your SWMBO involved in shooting sports

* SWMBO ... She Who Must Be Obeyed: An acronym for your Significant Other, be she wife, girlfriend, or other Most Important Person In Your Life.

cf: H. Ryder Haggard: "SHE"
cf: John Mortimer, "Rumpole of the Old Bailey"

Recently I've been corresponding from a fellow from PNG (Papui/New Guinea?) He says he has found his True Love who is willing to accept his involvement in Shooting Sports, but she personally isn't at all interested.

That's not at all unusual, but it does mean that they miss out on a lot of time which they might be sharing.

I found myself in a similar situation a few years ago, and found my own way of dealing with. The following is a highly edited summary of my experience, as I offered it to him.

As long as she's not against your shooting, that's the main thing. Several of the guys I shoot with find themselves in the same situation .... their wives never cared for shooting either, so she found other things to do while he was on the range. Come to think it, most of the people I shoot with found this to be so.

I don't believe this situation is beyond redemption. Here is my own experience:

[W]hen I first met SWMBO* she didn't like guns. While she was growing up, there were never guns in her parents' house. Her family's philosophy was that there is no rational reason to Have A Gun. But she was willing to endure being around guns; she wasn't completely averse to the idea that someone else might have a legitimate reason to own firearms. She just never considered that SHE might have a reason to have one.

When she moved into an apartment in a not-so-good part of town, I told her that I wanted her to have better protection than she currently had (she kept a baseball bat for "home protection"), if only for my own piece of mind. I gave her my Taurus Model 65 (.357 in 4" length) and took her to a local range to learn how to shoot it. She actually thought it was kind of fun, so now and then we would go the range and practice to keep her skills current.

Eventually, she tired of standing in the door waving bye-bye to me as I headed out to a match on early Saturday morning ... almost every weekend. Every time I left, I said "well, I'm off. You know you're invited, don't you?" We're not married, and we live 40 miles apart, which meant that we typically only saw each other on weekends, and I was at an IPSC match on either Saturday or Sunday. One day, she decided to go along with me because it was the only way we were going to spend much time with each other during the limited amount of time each week we were together.

She went to IPSC matches with me for THREE YEARS, without participating. The learned the routine of competitive shooting, and discovered that the people at matches weren't a bunch of over-competitiive, hairy-eared ruffians who braged about wanting an excuse to go shoot somebody as they sat on the tailgates drinking beer. Oh, I won't say that a few of those folks don't show from time to time (sans the beer, which is not allowed on the range), but they rarely stay long. In fact, she found that she actually LIKED most of the people. She discovered that, while we were a fairly competitive group, we weren't so anal-retentitive about it that we would let it ruin our whole day if we didn't do well at a match. And everybody liked her, and were willing to show it. It didn't hurt that she would chip in on the range chores, helping to pick up brass. She quickly learned to identify the different calibers, the guns they went with, and the people who shot which gun.

Finally she said "Enough of this. Get me a gun, I'm tired of picking up everyone else's brass. I want to go shoot. Those guys owe me four years of brass-picking, and I intend to collect!" (Or words to that effect.)

She has won several trophies in D-class ... in Limited, Limited-10 and Open. Now that she's in C-Open she wins fewer trophies but it doesn't really matter much to her. She's having fun.

Further comments:

It seems to me that the problem with getting your own SWMBO* out to the range may have several parts:
  • She thinks you're a bunch of yahoos, and chooses not to associate with this type.
  • It's boring
  • She will probably be the only woman there
  • Men will be impatient with her if she participates and is slow
  • Men will laugh at her because she 'isn't very good' at shooting
  • It's a "New Thing", and she generally feels uncomfortable trying "New Things"
  • She doesn't have the equipment, and isn't equipment-oriented anyway
  • "We" can't afford the extra expense of her attempt to participate, which probably won't work out anyway
  • She isn't a 'competitive person'
  • The guns are too powerful, she doesn't like recoil
  • She doesn't know what to wear, how to act, what the rules are ....
  • It's "a guy thing", and she's not a guy
  • She doesn't want to impose herself on the guys
  • "You're having fun as it is; don't embarass yourself by looking like a wuss when you show up with me"
  • She doesn't really LIKE guns, feels uncomfortable around them, and can see no reason why she should do this gun thingie
  • It's cold/wet/hot/dry/DIRTY out there!
  • "You guys stand up for THREE HOURS STRAIGHT. I should do this ... why?"
  • Nobody will like me. Uh, no ... your friends will resent me!


Fifty percent of these objections will be negated if she only goes to the range and gets to know the people she meets there.
Twenty percent of these objections will be negated if she has some private range time to play with the equipment, learn the rules, and become comfortable with them.
Another twenty percent will become a 'non-issue' if here are other women competing at the matches, and you make sure that you are squadded with them at matches.
The final ten percent of these objections will be overcome if you get yourself out of the 'learning experiance' equation and let someone else handle the training.

I really think that this last 10% is under-rated. The best thing you can do is to find someone she trusts and likes to work with her at the range, and just get the heck out of the way. This other person can tell her things she needs to know (safety, techniques, etc.) that she just won't listen to when it comes from you, but if it comes from someone with whom she doesn't have "a relationship" (and whom she respects) she WILL listen to them and will learn from them. The best thing you can do for her, in a training situation, is to find the right person and then arrange for yourself to not even be where you can see her while she goes though the exercises. Do NOT coach your SWMBO! Later ... maybe.

As part of this, it helps very much if you can find a female competitor who is willing to take the time needed to coach a new female shooter, and you can squad with couples during matches.

Note that when you finally get your SWMBO shooting, and go to matches, there will come a moment when she runs into problems with a comptitive situation. She may approach you and say "Why didn't YOU tell me not to do that!" Your reply must always be "I'm sorry, it's my fault." Because it is, after all, your fault. There may be no reason to expect that if you had offered advice it would be accepted, but that's not important. What IS important is that you must train yourself even more rigorously to learn when advice may be useful, and NEVER offer advice unless it is vital.

Ummm ... reading back I see that the preceding may seem to single out training techniques for women. Not all of these observations are applicable only to one group. Whomever you are introducing to a new shooting sport will be uncomfortable, regardless of gender or age-group or level of experience. Remember that you want this person to learn that shooting sports are fun. Don't muck it up by being critical.

When I started shooting pistols competitively, I was fortunate in that I didn't have anyone trying to teach me. I learned as I went along, from match to match. The people who offered me advice didn't have a 'relationship' with me, so I didn't resent their suggestions nor did I consider them to be condescending. You cannot indulge in this luxury.if you are trying to encourage a new shooter who feels uncomfortable because of any combination of the aforesaid reasons.

Here's the bottom line:
  1. Let it be fun
  2. Get out of the way, and let it happen
  3. Be an enabler ... don't be a critic
  4. Remember, the only way she's going to join you is if SHE finds reasons which don't involve you
  5. There is nothing you can do to make #4 happen. Don't try; you'll only muck it up
(edited 20-JAN-2005 for typos, formatting errors)

Gonzales Backs U.S. Assault Weapons Ban

"WASHINGTON - Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales told the Senate on Tuesday that he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban."
Well, this is a far cry from the last AG's stand on the subject.

Congress let the 10-year-old assault weapons ban expire in September. The measure outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons, banned certain features on firearms such as bayonet mounts, and limited ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

Gonzales pointed out that his brother Tony is a SWAT officer in Houston.

"I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street," Gonzales said. "The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."

Antigun groups criticized Bush during the presidential campaign for failing to press for an extension of the ban.
Somebody needs to define the term "assault weapon" to Gonzales. For that matter, perhaps the president needs to understand the term better than he does as well.

I don't blame him (the Attorney General nominee) for worrying about his brother. Houston is a tough town. But it seems to me that Gonzales is thinking emotionally, not logically, and hasn't researched the subject.

In fact, I've been a fan of the Houston Chronicle for a couple of years, and while I'm aware that the folks in Houston have their share of police-killed-on-the-job murders, their problem isn't as much one of weapons types as it is of a general atmosphere of violence among both police and citizens. See here and here for reports of recent incidents.


And of course, the violence in Houston sometimes goes the other way. Also see here.

I'm not saying that Gonzales' brother is part of the problem, just that the problems in Houston may be so extensive that the "Assault Weapons" may also not be "part of the problem."

And there are other problems with which the Houston Police Department (HPD) must deal. See here , here and here . And, for that matter, here.

Most important, in regards to the general subject of 'shooting incidents within the Houston Police Department', see this special report from the Houston Chronicle, concerning shootings BY police in HPD:
Experts recommend better ways of monitoring officers and more independent reviews of the actions of officers who shoot citizens. Possible reforms include: •Improve tracking of potential problem officers.
Several local departments have so-called early warning systems to monitor officers who face multiple internal affairs investigations or other allegations. These may include computer programs that identify officers and recommend action such as counseling or training.
But the scope of these systems is limited. Officers from several agencies have been involved in multiple shootings but show no evidence of being tracked by such a system in the public portion of their personnel files. For example, one Houston Police Department officer has killed or wounded six people but apparently was never monitored.

(Emphasis added)

If Alberto Gonzales is concerned about the safety of his brother, perhaps his energies could be better utilized by getting his brother OUT of Houston ... or else, focusing on the societal problems which contribute to so many LEO/Citizen confrontations, and less on the Assault Weapons Ban.

For myself, if I were a citizen of Houston, I would at least as concerned about being shot by a HPD officer as I would be about being shot by an "evil assault weapon" in the hands of a civilian.

But maybe I just don't understand the problem.



Saturday, January 15, 2005

Gold Medal Gunslingers

When I added Geek Links here, I included one for the Violence Policy Center (VPC) "... to provide some balance between 'Pro Gun Control' ... and 'Anti-Gun Control'". In the entry where I explained my choices, I mentioned that my dislike of VPC was based not only on philosophical differences, but also because they had singled out the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) and The Unofficial IPSC List for special attention.

... several years ago, when they were just getting started, they were desperate for content. Accordingly, considering their singular sense of honor, the surruptitiously subscribed to The Unofficial IPSC List (of which I was then, and remain, a subscriber) and spent a month downloading references to IPSC/USPSSA-related information, which they then anthologized into a piece the called "Gold Medal Gunslingers".
I promised to expand on this theme, and since I'm stuck in the house this weekend (winter in Oregon = freezing rain!) this is probably a good time to get with it.

The article and a companion news release were dated 07/22/99 ... actually four years AFTER they started their website.

The article (authored by Philip Alpers and Josh Sugarmann) was subtitled "Combat Shooting Targets the Olympic Games", and it discusses the request of IPSC to the International Olympic Committee to consider adding IPSC as a 'demonstration sport'. That is, it wouldn't be a 'medal sport', it would only be one of the Olympic activites and winners wouldn't be awarded medals.

Of course, that's not exactly the way VPC portrayed the effort:

Now, the peaceful intent of the Olympic Movement is being challenged. The gun lobby—eager to expand the perception of "sporting" activities involving firearms—has launched an international effort to make combat shooting an Olympic sport. Boosters of combat shooting hope that association with the Olympics, under the euphemistic name of "practical" shooting, will legitimize and popularize both their competitions and the increasingly lethal weapons they use.

(Emphasis added)

Peaceful Intent ... including several shooting competitions, archery, javelin, and long-distance running in a fashion reminiscent of the Battle of Marathon. All of these sports are based on "military" skills.

The gun lobby ... no, it was only IPSC, an amateur organization which employs no lobbiests.

[T]he increasingly lethal weapons they use ... a purely gratuitous comment added to prejudice the reader against the organization.

Of course, as with any good lie, there is an element of truth in it. Certainly the goal of IPSC was to "legitimize and popularize their competitions". The Gun Control crowd (VPC, HCI, etc.) have always been willing to attack the legitimacy of ANY user of firearms.

But I degress. It wasn't my purpose to fisk the article.

The article has several sections, and the one which I found most egregious is Section 4: A Combat Heritage.

It's not just that I don't agree with their point of view, although I don't. My objection is to the way they documented their article.

Not only did they gather quotes from several public sources, they also quoted from private sources.

First, they quoted from The IPSC Newsletter, a internal emailed newsletter from the IPSC president to IPSC members. They also quoted the USPSA In Touch Newsletter.

(This last is no longer in publication, but was a quarterly newsletter sent from the USPSA president to USPSA members.)

Since these are sent only to members, VPC would have had to join USPSA. Obviously, this anti-gun organization had no intent to participate in shooting competition, which implies they 'went undercover' only to gather quotes which they could use (frequently out of context) to further their own agenda.

A generous man would have to concede that this is not an unusual technique for an 'investigative reporter' (he said, leaning over backwards), although in this case it wasn't a journalistic endeaver in the sense of contributing to a newspaper - unless you define their self-promoting politically motivated 'news releases' in that light. And after all, how many newspapers, magazines and television networks can resist the temptation to flavor their 'news' with their own opinions?

Nope, that's not my biggest complaint. After all, VPC was going after both national and international organizations, and they have every right to quote their official documents.

But what about The Unofficial IPSC List?

This is an email newsletter which has NO official connection to either organization. It's not administered by IPSC, it's not funded by IPSC, and it's not moderated ... by IPSC or anyone else. It was started several years ago independently by a man who just happens to enjoy IPSC competition, and the only quasi-official connection is that one of the official websites provides a link for the convenience of those members who would like to subscribe to it. The link includes the following disclaimer:

This 'IPSC' mailing list or digest is not associated with, subsidized, nor endorsed by the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC), or any of its regions. It is a completely independent, internet address designed for individuals interested in the IPSC sport. The "IPSC digest" is intended to be viewed for informational purposes only. If you wish to communicate with officials of IPSC or any of its regions, please visit the IPSC home page at http://www.ipsc.org for regional e-mail and internet addresses.
Who publishes this mailing list? The subscribers do. It's nothing more than an open forum where subscribers can exchange emails discussing any topic that suits their fancy. They send their emails to a central address, where it is redistributed to all subscribers.

VPC accessed this mailing list (archives are available for viewing online via Yahoo) and quoted parts of several emails ... again, out of context ... dated as far back as 1997.

What they ended up with was a selection of 'sound bytes' that they interpreted by implication in the most damning ways. Then they identified the authors by name, often including their nation of residency and in one case by city and state!

This intrusion was not only a violation of personal privacy, but when subscribers to the email service learned that they had been so quoted, they realized that they no longer could safely engage in a frank and open discussion of their personal views.

These subscribers are not public persons. They spoke for no one but themselves. But their private opinions were used by self-avowed enemies of their chosen sport against that sport.


Yellow journalism at its best.








Friday, January 14, 2005

Geek Links

For the last couple of days, I've made a conscious effort to maintain this effort by adding links to the website.

If you'll look over on the right-hand side, and scroll down a little, you'll see the GEEK LINKS section.

For your convenience, I've organized the links section by subject, area of interest, or some other criteria. Most important, of course, is the first: "Bloggers Who Link To Me". Well, this is a survival situation. I'm obviously going to be concerned about those who will activelyl promote traffic to this website.

Of second importance is "Websites That I Visit Every Day". These are the folks that I .... truly ... visit daily. (I didn't include SCRAPPLEFACE. That was an oversight which I'll correct immediately .. probably by the time you see this.) You'll notice that they usually have some RKBA content. "Places I visit 'frequently'" is also important. These websites are even more important to me than my own website. Sure, this is a vanity project, but these folks have information that I invariably consider important AND interesting. Besides, they're well-written.

Then, in only some general order I have "Other RKBA websites", "News and Commentary", "Reference Sources", "Forums and IPSC-related website" and "Gun Control".

These are all reference websites. Most of them are well-written, or contain information which I personally consider important, or both. Would I encourage you to visit a website which doesn't demonstrate these vital criteria?

The Forums and IPSC-related websites are those to which I have subscribed, or in which I otherwise have a personal interest.

The lone bastard (s0 to speak) is the "Gun Control" list. I found these by means of a Google search, and most of them I have encountered before.

However, a few of them intrigued me by the provocative nature of their main-page content, even though I may never have encountered them before. I assure you that, after I have taken the time to read them more thoroughly, if they prove to be generally uninteristing I will remove them from the GEEK LINKS. I've attempted to provide some balance between "Pro Gun Control" (eg: VPC) and "Anti-Gun Control (eg: NRA). Generally, they will be "PRO" websites, because I think it is important that those of us who think that gun control is not the best way to reduce "gun violence" in the world need to understand the thinking of those who think that making it illegal to own firearms will convince criminals that they shouldn't carry guns.

Okay, so I've given myself away here. It is probably obvious that I think making it illegal to own guns will dissuade violent criminals from having guns. You may say:
"Geek, why won't controlling the legal possession of firearms make the world a safer place to live?"
I would have to say:
"Because the people who use guns to commit crimes are already criminals, and generally tend to ignore gun-control laws. You Bozo!"
But that would be rude, so I won't say it.

BTW, speaking of the Violence Policy Center ... several years ago, when they were just getting started, they were desperate for content. Accordingly, considering their singular sense of honor, the surruptitiously subscribed to The Unofficial IPSC List (of which I was then, and remain, a subscriber) and spent a month downloading references to IPSC/USPSSA-related information, which they then anthologized into a piece the called "Gold Medal Gunslingers" (available here toward the bottom of the list.) They have since translated into a PDF still available on their website. (I warn you, this PDF file does NOT download efficiently, perhaps due to the file being 'broken' or to their low-budget server ... I don't know which.) I've archived that file, and if it seems necessary I'll see what I can do to make it available on a more efficient server.

This VPC piece is about 5 years old, and when I go back and review the content it still irks me that these people can start with a pure sporting activity and make it sound vicious. I'll be commenting on their interpretation soon, if only because I think it is reasonable to show how vituperitive these people are.


Wednesday, January 12, 2005

STI IPSC 30th Anniversary Edition



On December 24, 2004, Dave Skinner of STI International, Inc. announced the STI IPSC 30th Anniversary Edition.

The website doesn't say what calibers it is available in, but I'm pretty sure you can get it in .40S&W. Makes a darned nice USPSA Limited pistol, and IPSC Limited certification is probably he same as any other STI EDGE, which means .40S&W, 10mm, .45acp and 9mm.

Here's a quote from the website:

IPSC 30th Anniversary Commemorative Pistol

Celebrate 30 years of IPSC.

Based on the legendary IPSC Standard/Limited STI Edge/Executive pistol format, this special edition includes a custom serial number prefixed by DVC containing a maximum of 9 other characters.

MSRP: $2775.10 (I have no idea where the ten cents comes from)

And here are the specs:

Hard chromed slide and all other exposed upper components.
Hard chromed "fit in the box" magwell.
Slide is color inlaid in contrasting color, both sides.
Slide is Tri-topped.
Slide is serrated at 20 lpi on top surface.
Custom IPSC engraving on both sides of slide.
STI custom shop "saber tooth" serrations.
Ramped, fully supported barrel.
Decorative frame cuts.
Pre-contoured grip to match magwell.
Dawson fiber optic front sight.
STI adjustable rear sight.
Square hammer.
S-7 tool steel sear.
Titanium strut.
Ambi thumb safety, hard chromed.
High-rise, knuckle relieved grip safety, hard chromed.
RecoilMaster.
Two magazines, hard chromed, w/ Dawson "fit in the box" base pads.
STI Team shirt.
STI Team jacket.
STI sew on logo patches. (2X)
Lockable aluminum presentation and storage case.
Lifetime warrantee.
When Skinner says "Lifetime Warrantee" he means that if it goes toes-up, you can send it back to him and he'll fix it. Your cost: shipping it to him. Dillon has a "No BS" guarantee, and Skinner's guarantee is just as good.

A couple of years ago, I squadded with Dave in the "Shirley Skinner" match in Waco, Texas. At the end of the match I walked up to him and wiggled the front sight AND the rear sight on my 10mm STI Edge. They wiggled back. "Dave, is it suppose to do this?" I asked.

Dave sighs deep, and says "No. Give it to me, I'll take it into the shop tomorrow. I have a dentist appointment in the morning, but I'll get it to you before you fly home".

Eleven am the next day, he walked in the door with my Edge in the case. New sights, front and rear ... and it was sighted in. No charge, AND he drove me to the airport in Austin for the flight back to Oregon.

Since then, I've had no problems with the sights even though I was using some very potent 10mm loads in a gun which was, after all, originally designed for the .40S&W load.





Heston, "Winning The Cultural War"

Harvard Law School
Forum February 16, 1999

I remember my son when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living. 'My Daddy,' he said, 'pretends to be people.' There have been quite a few of them. Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo. If you want the ceiling re-painted I'll do my best. There always seem to be a lot of different fellows up here. I'm never sure which one of them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I'm the guy.

As I pondered our visit tonight it struck me: if my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to re-connect you with your own sense of liberty … your own freedom of thought ... your own compass for what is right.

Dedicating the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, 'We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.'

Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your heart. I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you ... the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.

Let me back up. About a year ago I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve ... I serve as a moving target for the media who've called me everything from 'ridiculous' and 'duped' to a 'brain-injured, senile, crazy old man'. I know ... I'm pretty old ... but I sure thank the Lord ain't senile.

As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issue. No, it's much, much bigger than that. I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.

For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 -– long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist.

I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.

I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.

Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.

From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, 'Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language not authorized for public consumption!'

But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys-subjects bound to the British crown.

In his book, 'The End of Sanity,' Martin Gross writes that 'blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction. Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something, without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it.'

Let me read a few examples. At Antioch college in Ohio, young men seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process from kissing to petting to final copulation ... all clearly spelled out in a printed college directive.

In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDS -- the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not ... need not ... tell their patients that they are infected.

At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school team 'The Tribe' because it was supposedly insulting to local Indians, only to learn that authentic Virginia chiefs truly like the name.

In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery.

In New York City, kids who don't speak a word of Spanish have been placed in bilingual classes to learn their three R's in Spanish solely because their last names sound Hispanic.

At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at Gettysburg opposing slavery, the president of that college officially set up segregated dormitory space for black students.

Yeah, I know ... that's out of bounds now. Dr. King said 'Negroes.' Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said 'black.' But it's a no-no now.

For me, hyphenated identities are awkward ... particularly 'Native-American.' I'm a Native American, for God's sake. I also happen to be a blood-initiated brother of the Miniconjou Sioux. On my wife's side, my grandson is a thirteenth generation Native American ... with a capital letter on 'American.'

Finally, just last month ... David Howard, head of the Washington D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word 'niggardly' while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, 'niggardly' means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign.

As columnist Tony Snow wrote: 'David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who (a) didn't know the meaning of niggardly,' (b) didn't know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and (c) actually demanded that he apologize for their ignorance.'

What does all of this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can't be far behind. Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why do you continue to tolerate it? Why do you, who're supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression?

Let's be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe? It scares me to death, and should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.

You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your
counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge.

And as long as you validate that ... and abide it ... you are-by your grandfathers' standards-cowards. Here's another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they'll lose their jobs. Why? Because their research findings would undermine big-city mayor's pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers.

I don't care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Who will defend the core value of academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, 'Don't shoot me.'

If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you a sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.

Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism. But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation?

The answer's been here all along. I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people.

You simply ... disobey. Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely. But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom.

I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King ... who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other great man who led those in the right against those with the might.

Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that Disobedient spirit that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that protested a war in Viet Nam.

In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous law that weaken personal freedom.

But be careful ... it hurts. Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies. You must be willing to be humiliated ... to endure the modern-day equivalent of
the police dogs at Montgomery and the water Cannons at Selma. You must be willing to experience discomfort. I'm not Complaining, but my own decades of social activism have taken their toll on me. Let me tell you a story.

A few years back I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD called 'Cop Killer' celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world. Police across the country were outraged. Rightfully so-at least one had been murdered. But Time/Warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black. I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time, so I decided to attend.

What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues. I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of 'Cop Killer'-every vicious, vulgar, instructional word.

I GOT MY 12 GAUGE SAWED OFF I GOT MY HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF I'm ABOUT TO BUST SOME SHOTS OFF I'm ABOUT TO DUST SOME COPS OFF...

It got worse, a lot worse. I won't read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that. Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces Of Al and Tipper Gore. SHE PUSHED HER BUTT AGAINST MY ....'

Well, I won't do to you here what I did to them. Let's just say I left the room in echoing silence. When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said 'We can't print that.' 'I know,' I replied, 'but Time/Warner ís selling it.'

Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T's contract. I'll never be offered another film by Warners, or get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you must be willing to act, not just talk.

When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself ... jam the switchboard of the district attorney's office. When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80% of the students graduate with honors ... choke the halls of the board of regents. When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl's cheek on the playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment ... march on that school and block its doorways. When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you ... petition them, oust them, banish them. When Time magazine's cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, crazy Christians holding a cross as it did last month ... boycott their magazine and the products it advertises.

So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country.

If Dr. King were here, I think he would agree.

Thank you.

Heston, "On Gun Control"

Charlton Heston
February 11, 1997

National Press Club
February 11, 1997



Today I want to talk to you about guns: Why we have them, why the Bill of Rights guarantees that we can have them, and why my right to have a gun is more important than your right to rail against it in the press.

I believe every good journalist needs to know why the Second Amendment must be considered more essential than the First Amendment. This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the right to keep and bear arms is not archaic. It's not an outdated, dusty idea some old dead white guys dreamed up in fear of the Redcoats. No, it is just as essential to liberty today as it was in 1776. These words may not play well at the Press Club, but it's still the gospel down at the corner bar and grill.

And your efforts to undermine the Second Amendment, to deride it and degrade it, to readily accept diluting it and eagerly promote redefining it, threaten not only the physical well-being of millions of Americans but also the core concept of individual liberty our founding fathers struggled to perfect and protect.

So now you know what doubtless does not surprise you. I believe strongly in the right of every law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms, for what I think are good reasons.

The original amendments we refer to as the Bill of Rights contain 10 of what the constitutional framers termed unalienable rights. These rights are ranked in random order and are linked by their essential equality. The Bill of Rights came to us with blinders on. It doesn't recognize color, or class or wealth. It protects not just the rights of actors, or editors, or reporters, but extends even to those we love to hate. That's why the most heinous criminals have rights until they are convicted of a crime.

The beauty of the Constitution can be found in the way it takes human nature into consideration. We are not a docile species capable of co-existing within a perfect society under everlasting benevolent rule.

We are what we are. Egotistical, corruptible, vengeful, sometimes even a bit power-mad. The Bill of Rights recognizes this and builds the barricades that need to be in place to protect the individual.

You, of course, remain zealous in your belief that a free nation must have a free press and free speech to battle injustice, unmask corruption and provide a voice for those in need of a fair and impartial forum.

I agree wholeheartedly -- a free press is vital to a free society. But I wonder: How many of you will agree with me that the right to keep and bear arms is not just equally vital, but the most vital to protect all the other rights we enjoy?

I say that the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America's First Freedom, the one right that protects all the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows 'rights' to exist at all.

Either you believe that, or you don't, and you must decide.

Because there is no such thing as a free nation where police and military are allowed the force of arms but individual citizens are not. That's a 'big brother knows best' theater of the absurd that has never bode well for the peasant class, the working class or even for reporters.

Yes, our Constitution provides the doorway for your news and commentary to pass through free and unfettered. But that doorway to freedom is framed by the muskets that stood between a vision of liberty and absolute anarchy at a place called Concord Bridge. Our revolution began when the British sent Redcoats door to door to confiscate the people's guns. They didn't succeed: The muskets went out the back door with their owners.

Emerson said it best:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.

King George called us "rabble in arms." But with God's grace, George Washington and many brave men gave us our country. Soon after, God's grace and a few great men gave us our Constitution. It's been said that the creation of the United States is the greatest political act in history. I'll sign that.

In the next two centuries, though, freedom did not flourish. The next revolution, the French, collapsed in bloody Terror, then Napoleon's tyranny. There's been no shortage of dictators since, in many countries. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot. All these monsters began by confiscating private arms, then literally soaking the earth with the blood of ten and tens of millions of their people. Ah, the joys of gun control.

Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder. Yet in essence that is what you have asked our loved ones to do, through the ill-contrived and totally naive campaign against the Second Amendment.

Besides, how can we entrust to you the Second Amendment when you are so stingy with your own First Amendment?

I say this because of the way, in recent days, you have treated your own -- those journalists you consider the least among you. How quick you've been to finger the paparazzi with blame and to eye the tabloids with disdain. How eager you've been to draw a line where there is none, to demand some distinction within the First Amendment that sneers 'they are not one of us.' How readily you let your lesser brethren
take the fall, as if their rights were not as worthy, and their purpose not as pure, and their freedom not as sacred as yours.

So now, as politicians consider new laws to shackle and gag paprazzi, who among you will speak up? Who here will stand and defend them? If you won't, I will. Because you do not define the First Amendment. It defines you. And it is bigger than you -- big enough to embrace all of you, plus all those you would exclude. That's how freedom works.

It also demands you do your homework. Again and again I hear gun owners say, how can we believe anything that anti-gun media says when they cannot even get the facts right? For too long you have swallowed manufactured statistics and fabricated technical support from anti-gun organizations that wouldn't know a semi-auto from a sharp stick. And it shows. You fall for it every time.

Thats why you have very little credibility among 70 million gun owners and 20 million hunters and millions of veterans who learned the hard way which end the bullet comes out. And while you attacked the amendment that defends your homes and protects your spouses and children, you have denied those of us who defend all the Bill of Rights a fair hearing or the courtesy of an honest debate.

If the NRA attempts to challenge your assertions, we are ignored. And if we try to buy advertising time or space to answer your charges, more often than not we are denied. How's that for First Amendment freedom?

Clearly, too many have used freedom of the press as a weapon not only to strangle our free speech, but to erode and ultimately destroy the right to keep and bear arms as well. In doing so you promoted your profession to that of constitutional judge and jury, more powerful even than our Supreme Court, more prejudiced than the Inquisition's tribunals. It is a frightening misuse of constitutional right, and I pray that you will come to your senses and see that these abuses are curbed.

As a veteran of World War II, as a freedom marcher who stood with Dr. Martin Luther King long before it was fashionable, and as a grandfather who wants the coming century to be free and full of promise for my grandchildren, I am troubled.

The right to keep and bear arms is threatened by political theatrics, piecemeal lawmaking, talk-show psychology, extreme bad taste in the entertainment industry, an ever-widening educational chasm in our schools and a conniving media, that all add up to cultural warfare against the idea that guns ever had, or should now have, an honorable and proud place in our society.

But all our rights must be delivered into the 21st century as pure and complete as they came to us at the beginning of this century. Traditionally the passing of that torch is from a gnarled old hand down to an eager young one. So now, at 72, I offer my gnarled old hand.

I have accepted a call from the National Rifle Association of America to help protect the Second Amendment. I feel it is my duty to do that. My mission and vision can be summarized in three simple parts.

First, before we enter the next century, I expect to see a pro-Second Amendment president in the White House.

Secondly, I expect to build an NRA with the political muscle and clout to keep a pro-Second Amendment congress in place.

Third is a promise to the next generation of free Americans. I hope to help raise a hundred million dollars for NRA programs and education before the year 2000. At least half of that sum will go to teach American kids what the right to keep and bear arms really means to their culture and country.

We have raised a generation of young people who think that the Bill of Rights comes with their cable TV. Leave them to their channel surfing and they'll remain oblivious to history and heritage that truly matter.

Think about it -- what else must young Americans think when the White House proclaims, as it did, that 'a firearm in the hands of youth is a crime or an accident waiting to happen'? No -- it is time they learned that firearm ownership is constitutional, not criminal. In fact, few pursuits can teach a young person more about responsibility, safety, conservation, their history and their heritage, all at once.

It is time they found out that the politically correct doctrine of today has misled them. And that when they reach legal age, if they do not break our laws, they have a right to choose to own a gun -- a handgun, a long gun, a small gun, a large gun, a black gun, a purple gun, a pretty gun, an ugly gun -- and to use that gun to defend themselves and their loved ones or to engage in any lawful purpose they desire without apology or explanation to anyone, ever.

This is their first freedom. If you say it's outdated, then you haven't read your own headlines. If you say guns create only carnage, I would answer that you know better. Declining morals, disintegrating families, vacillation political leadership, an eroding criminal justice system and social morals that blur right and wrong are more to blame -- certainly more than any legally owned firearm.

I want to rescue the Second Amendment from an opportunistic president, and from a press that apparently can't comprehend that attacks on the Second Amendment set the stage for assaults on the First.

I want to save the Second Amendment from all these nitpicking little wars af attrition -- fights over alleged Saturday night specials, plastic guns, cop killer bullets and so many other made-for-prime-time non-issues invented by some press agent over at gun control headquarters -- that you guys buy time and again.

I simply cannot stand by and watch a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States come under attack from those who either can't understand it, don't like the sound of it or find themselves too philosophically squeamish to see why it remains the first among equals: Because it is the right we turn to when all else fails.

That's why the Second Amendment is America's first freedom.

Please, go forth and tell the truth. There can be no free speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom to protest, no freedom to worship you god, no freedom to speak your mind, no freedom from fear, no freedom for your children and for theirs, for anybody, anywhere without the Second Amendment freedom to fight for it.

If you don't believe me, just turn on the news tonight. Civilizations veneer is wearing thinner all the time.

Thank you.

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

The General

His name was Michael Robert Jones.

Most folks just called him "Mike", but some of us called him "The General".

Maybe it was his bearing, or his military manner. Maybe it was because he was a Marine, and damn proud of it. It may have been his immaculate "David Niven" pencil-thin moustache, but probably it was a combination of all that plus the fact that he NEVER showed up on the range without his neatly starched USMC "Cover".

The General attended exactly one IPSC match every month, at the Tri-County Gun Club in Sherwood, Oregon. There were many other matches available within a short driving range from his home, but he had a special affection for this range.

You see, he was the man who introduced IPSC competition to Oregon.

In 1978, along with a few friends, he organized the first Practical Pistol in the state. They called it "Combat Pistol" at the time, but it didn't make much difference what it was called; it was an excuse to go shooting with his friends.

I first met him in 1983, when I shot my first IPSC match. The sport was much better organized by then. USPSA and IPSC had published their first edition of the rule books, and Col. Jeff Cooper was still The Father of IPSC.

But The General was The Father of IPSC in Oregon.

In recent years, he stepped aside and left the match administration chores to younger men. He never attended more than one IPSC pistol match per month, but he rarely missed a "Practical Rifle" match even after that sport became "3-gun".

After SWMBO started coming to matches with me, and even before she started shooting, she met The General and soon learned that this was a very precise man. She mentioned to him once that she needed to 'load some more bullets in this magazine". He looked at her for a moment, then carefully explained that:
"These are not bullets, these are ammunition. One is called a Round or a Cartridge. A 'bullet' is the pointy part that comes out of the barrel."


A few years ago, when he was 70, he had open-heart surgery. Three weekes after the operation, The General showed up at the next IPSC match. He didn't stay for the whole match, and he always had to husband his strength to get through a match after that, but he would NOT miss a match ... unless his grandchildren were visiting that weekend, in which case his priorities were to be with his family.

Although he enjoyed IPSC, he never worried much about his place of finish. He shot Limited Division with his Colt Gold Cup; he didn't compete in Limited 10 because ... well, because that's not what he wanted to do, I guess.

In later years he enjoyed the company and the cameraderie more than the actual shooting. But his club had one long, narrow bay where they often placed stages featuring a line of targets to be engaged as you moved past them. He revelled in this bay. He would walk down the line of targets engaging them one-handed, just to show that he could. Because of his flair, his experience, his contributions, his soft-spoken manners and his obvious joy at just being there, we treated him with respect as if he were everyone's father. He wasn't competitive, he was just there because this was one of the things that he loved to do. He was a gentleman, and we loved him.

He wasn't inclined to load his own pistol ammunition, so he graciously allowed me to reload for him. In November, 2004, he showed up at the monthly pistol match with 1000 rounds of .45acp brass to be reloaded. He said: "This is the last loading you will ever have to do for me, but I need it now, anyway."

I delivered his reloaded ammunition at the end of November.

The General passed away on January 5, 2005, at the age of 75.

As far as I know, he had never shot a single round of the latest batch I had loaded for him.

But he had it, if he needed it.



(Photo courtesy of Randy Schleininig)

Monday, January 10, 2005

STI Special Edition

Dave Skinner, who is the CEO of STI International, Inc. (Georgetown, Texas) and assuredly the most charming firearms manufacturer in the known world, is presenting a Special Edition of what appears to be an STI "Edge" ... finished in 24 carat gold plate!

He'll have this imagery, plus some music, available on this corporate website in the next day or two. In the meantime, he has generously provided the image to The Unofficial IPSC list.

I don't think it's going to steal his thunder to provide a convenient preview here.





STI Special Edition ... Left Side



STI Special Edition ... Right Side

Beautiful, aren't they?

I want one of these. Now! I'll have to set up a PayPal account for donations. I figure it should take me ... oh, say about FIFTY YEARS ... to talk someone into contributing to my account. That is, after everyone else has already bought theirs.

Note the serial number on the Right Side

It says "STI CEO 03"

Clever Dave.

Sunday, January 09, 2005

Amazing Stories

I don't have Television.

Oh, yeah, I have A television. It's just not hooked up to a cable, dish, antenna or any other source of outside signals. I have a VCR and a DVD player, but that's it. As a consequence, I don't see a lot of commercials on my TV.

This weekend, though, I was watching cable with SWMBO on her television and I saw some commercials which absolutely blew my mind. I was so impressed, I just had to comment.

Here are the four most "interesting" television commercials I saw:

"GoldKit"
Ths commercial advertisement exhorts you to send in your "old gold, just laying around collecting dust". (Actual quote.) The deal is, you send them your dirty old jewelry, gold fillings, or other 'scrap gold'. [Or 'scrap platinum', if that's what you have. Nice of them to include this kind of 'junk'.]

In return, they will send you "top cash prices" for whatever you send in, after you have received their 'gold kit' ... apparently a list of instructions for you to follow when you send in your 'scrap'.

Sound too good to be true? Well, they offer this guarantee. They don't actually call it a 'guarantee' but:

Customer's Statement of Total Satisfaction

If for any reason you feel that any of your items have not been fairly evaluated by Lippincott, simply return our check within ten (10) days of the day on the check. Lippincott will promptly return your items without any charge to you.
I'm thinking ... my mother's wedding ring. Yeah, I can get a better price through GoldKit than I could from a local jeweler. Now, if I can just figure how to get my mother's wedding ring off her finger, I could be a rich man within 24 hours ....


"FREE MEDICINE"

surprisingly, there is more than one program on the Internet making this offer. A NetScape search on the phrase "Free Medicine" results in THREE PAGES of compasionate and generous companies who are willing to give of their time and efforts to get free medicine to you. I don't know which one is sponsoring the commercial, but I do know they include they include the incredible (literally) comment: "Sound too good to be true?"

My dear mother, before I stole her wedding ring, use to say "If it sounds too good to be true ... it is!"

However, I note that their website does have links to some interesting discussions of medical interest.


"Ionizing Filter-less Air Purifiers"
A company called "Sharper Image" is offering you an air purifier that doesn't even have filters to replace ... just wipe off the "ionizing surfaces" from time to time, and it removes smoke residue, dust, dandruff, pollen, other alergens etc. from the air which your family breathes every day.

Consumer Report comments (subscription required ... $26/year or $4.95/month) that the $399.95 version of this

Ionic Breeze Quadra Silent Air Purifier

... doesn't clean your air as well as you may expect for the price:

The champion of air-cleaner marketing is The Sharper Image. In four years, its Ionic Breeze line, led by the midpriced $350 Quadra, has soared from less than 1 percent of the market to about 25 percent. Sharper Image is now the leading brand, with a growing list of imitators, including Honeywell and Hoover.

Air cleaners like these are a type of electrostatic precipitator: They impart an electrical charge to particles that stick to oppositely charged collectors. Sharper Image, Honeywell, and Hoover precipitators are quiet and cost little to run. However, our tests show that they are not effective.

(Emphasis added.)
I bought the Consumer's Report annual subsciption. Consumer's Report's conclusion; it doesn't work.

Randy C. from The True Sella Awards (link or text to follow) notes that Sharper Image sued C.S. and this has not yet resulted in a satisfactory *(to Sharper Image)* change in the report.
But you can still buy the filterless air purifier.
Unfortunately for Sharper Image, their suit didn't go very far. In fact, the judge threw it out of court.

(Hat-tip to OverLawyered.com)


"Buy Your Own Computer for $35 a week"

This last one ... I have no idea where to search for such a deal.

Let me see. $35/week at 52 weeks a year equals something like $1770 for a new computer.

The television ad doesn't provide technical specifications on the "new computer" that you can expect to receive. However, I note that the television advertisement doesn't mention a monitor, keyboard, mouse, sound system, printer or any details about HD, memory or modem.

Given that minimum of "options", you should be aware that Yahoo offers a 'barebones competer at under $185, RefurbDepot offers a
AMD Athlon XP 3200+ 2.2GHz, 512MB DDRAM, 160GB Hard Drive, DVD+/-RW combo drive, 10/100 NIC, 56K Modem, NVIDIA GeForce4 , 8-in-1 reader, Windows® XP
Tiger Direct offers for $299.99 a

Asus A8V Deluxe Socket 939 Barebone Kit / AMD Athlon 64 3400+ / CPU Fan / Mid-Tower Case / Keyboard / Mouse / Speakers

Last month I bought a much more powerful 'puter, with speakers, mouse and keyboard Plus XP for the home, for $549 less $75 rebate. I'm not unhappy with it, although (of course) I didn't understand the terms of the rebate and didn't get my form in on time.

Bottom line:
  • you can get a lot of computer for under $550 if you don't need a monitor.
  • Monitors don't have to be that expensive, either.
  • if you just buy "a computer", with no more technical specifications, you may end up with jsut the CPU.
  • buying at "$X/week" with no more information may sound attractive to people who have no experience buying computers, but you may end up with a $1700+ obligation and still not have a computer that you can acutally USE!

You can't help but wonder who would find himself a prey to this kind of snake-oil salesmen, but sure as hell somebody will drop the penny and find out they've paid too much ... or received too little ... for a bargain that they could have earned a LT more for their investement if they only knew a little bit more about the market.

None of these television advertisements really offer anything of value, but still the FCC and the FTC doesn't protect them against their perhaps-fraudelent solicititations.

I wonder how these people stay in business? Or is it that, like the sagee claims or the Cortisol and Cortislim claims there is so much dreck being promulgated on the media that it's almost impssible for federal commissions to deal with them all in a timely manner.

It's just so much snake oil to us.

Oh ... a note on Cortislim:

OK, let's get to the bottom line...

Cortislim may indeed be able to reduce levels of the stress hormone cortisol through the effects of Magnolia bark contained in its formulation. However, that's a far cry from saying you're actually going to lose weight with this stuff.

Huh?
So why are you buying this stuff?

You're buying this stuff because the ads USE to say "you can lose weight with this stuff". But since the FTC objected (finally!) they can't say that any more. So now the makers say their product, combined with exercise etc will help you to reduce stress, and that may help you to lose weight. Listen to their advertisements ... they've changed a LOT. But you haven't. You're still overweight unhappy, and willing to spend your hard-earned bucks on ANYTHING that suggests it will be a magic weight-loss pill. Or hair restoration pill.

Listen, if there was a magic pill that would help you to lose weight or regain your hair or whatever, you would read about it in the newspapers under NOBEL PRIZE AWARDED FOR MAGIC PILL

Until then, and until the television tells you exactly what you're getting for your hard-earned bucks, and it sounds like a better deal than you're likely to get from, say the front page (not to mention the "WANT TO SELL" ads in the classified section) of the newspapers ...

.... don't go there. Okay?

Okay.