Hey Dude, You've Got a Dud!

Our DearLeader, Kim Jong-Il, has detonated a "Nuclear Device".

Or has he?

It seems to depend on who you believe.

And it depends on what "yield" they believe the bomb produced.

The ice is getting a little thin here, and Gawd Forbid I would venture an Opinion. I don't really KNOW anything, and I seem to be in good company.

The Russians are convinced that it was, indeed, Nuclear. They rate it at "5,000 tons to 15,000 tons of TNT", which (if I understand this) is 5 - 15 kilotons. They are really really ("rilly") sure ("shurrrrr").

Why would our good friends, the Russians, lie to us?

But compare that yield to the atomic (uranium based) bomb that the United States dropped on Hiroshima, producing 12.5 kilotons of blast. It seems respectable.

I wonder how they rate the yield? Somebody ought to google this, then we'll all know.

The Australians ("Seismology Research Centre") rated the blast at 1,000 tons of TNT, or 1 kiloton.

Driving home from work tonite, I heard part of an interview on the Jim Bohanan radio talk show where the interviewee (sorry, I didn't catch the name) declared that the yield from the NK Nuclear Detonation Event was in the range of 200 tons, or 0.2 kilotons.

People are mad as heck about this. After all, we asked them nicely: "Please, oh please, don't detonate a nuclear device". But they went ahead and did it anyway. What ingrates. After all the work that Jimmy Carter, Madelaine Albright and Bill Clinton ("I tried, I really really tried as hard as I could, I tried harder than anybody ...") did to appease Lil' Kim, that rascal went ahead and built an atomic bomb anyway.

Well ....

There are questions about whether the bomb was Uranium Based or Plutonium Based. Apparently, Plutonium Based is ... trickier. For example, the U.S. used an Uranium Based bomb in Hiroshima, without testing it first. They were confident it would work. But the Nagasaki bomb was Plutonium Based, and they conducted a test of the Plutonium Based bomb at Alamagordo before they built the bomb they used on Japan.

Uranium or Plutonium?

Paper or Plastic?

Some people think that the North Koreans jumped to the Plutonium Based design, and it fizzled.

That's not entirely surprising, since the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists thought they (NK) had at least one, perhaps two nuclear devices as early as 2003.

The "Newspaper of Record" suggests that it was a Plutonium-based device, and either the material used was "too old" or it was inexpertly assembled. But they're pretty shurrrrrr that it was at least an attempt to detonate a nuclear device:

The officials said that their current assessment was that North Korea had in fact detonated a nuclear device, and that they were discounting some reports that North Korea had staged a hoax, trying to disguise a large conventional explosion as a nuclear blast.

“The working assumption is that this was a nuclear explosion of some kind,” one intelligence official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The conventional explosion theory doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense, even for the North Koreans.”

But that left the mystery of why the explosion appeared to be so small, less than a kiloton, or a fraction of the explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Theories ranged from the possibility that North Korea had used old, polluted plutonium to the possibility that it had manufactured imprecise nuclear triggers. But at this point, intelligence officials said, they were just taking educated guesses, and would need hard evidence, or the testimony of spies or defectors, to figure out exactly what happened. The officials agreed to speak about the classified intelligence assessments only on condition of anonymity.

There have even been some suggestions that the device in question was a "suitcase bomb", and the yield indicates a perfect test. Others say that the first bombs developed were HUGE and it requires a lot of testing and technical expertise (and experience) to create a deliverable with a small yield and physical size.

Wretchard, at The Belmont Club, explores the possiblity that the detonation was actually a "suitcase bomb" purchased from some outpost of the now-defunct Soviet Union (remember our old friends who couldn't possibly be lying to us?) He refers to Chester, whose comments I had read earlier, and decides that ... he couldn't really decide. Maybe it's possible, maybe the Russian Suitcase Nuke (if in fact that's what Lil' Kim tested) was small and relatively sophisticated, but old and relatively impotent ... old guys can relate to this ... and the recorded yield would support this theory.

All of this serves only to demonstrate that, at this time, only two things are certain:

(1) North Korea blew up something equivalent to at least 200 tons of TNT in a mining tunnel
(2) After 48 hours, with spy-planes zooming back and forth over North Korea, nobody has picked up atmospheric debris which would definately indicate the a nuclear device has been detonated.

By the time you read this, you may have been told that it definitively was, or was not, a nuclear detonation. I doubt it, but it could happen.

Here are the possibilities as I see them:

1. It was a nuclear detonation, and it went just as planned.
2. It was a nuclear detonation, and it fizzled.
3. It was an attempt to simulate a nuclear detonation, and Lil' Kim is laughing his ass off at our confusion and consternation.

If it was (1), then Kim found an old but relatively servicable ... but technically sophisticated ... device "somewhere else" and used it to create a giant hoax for the furtherance of his international swindle.

If it was (2), then Kim is trying really hard to build an atomic bomb (probably Uranium-based, but perhaps not), and mucked it up. Doesn't matter, he managed to piss off a lot of people and he'll milk it as long as he thinks he can get away with it.

If it was (3), then Kim blew up 200+ tons of conventional explosives in a mine shaft just to piss us off and make some political hay. This is supported by his subsequent aggressive statements, designed to force the United States into a one-on-one talks without the "global 6" participation which would put us back to where Clinton was in the '90s ... trying to talk Kim out of what he had already decided to do, and paying him deceiving us.

What do I think it was?

I think it was (2), and eventually we'll find some radioactive particulate matter in the atmosphere above North Korea, and get scared, and deal with him as a Nuclear Power.

But it really doesn't matter. He could have blown up a whole bunch of Industrial Dynamite along with some medical nuclear waste to contaminate the atmosphere, and even though it would be a fraud ... the rest of the world can't afford to doubt his power.

Sometime, somewhere, some National Power (probably us) will blink, and he'll get whatever he wants.

Eventually it will all come out, and we'll know the real story. At that time, the National Leader who bought into this charade will be revealed for a gullible idiot.


In the words of Mr. T ... "I Pity The Fool".

October Blogmeat

Doug Giles, one of the columnists over at TownHall.com has the second installation of his new series "Raising Girls that Pimps and Thugs Will Hate: Teach Them To Shoot Guns"

I got into this late, so I missed Part 1: Teach Them How To Fight.

We'll be going back to Townhall to see the rest of the series in the coming weeks, and you may find it instructional, too. Here is the whole list:

1. Teach Them How to Fight.
2. Teach Them How to Shoot Guns.
3. Teach Them How to Sense BS.
4. Teach Them How to Rebel.
5. Teach Them How to Be Classy (That’s mostly my wife’s job.)
6. Teach Them to Despise Anti-Intellectualism.
7. Teach Them to Be Visionaries.
8. Teach Them How to Party.
9. Teach Them the Value of Hard Work.
10. Teach Them the Importance of Traditional Convictions.

There are a lot of comments on Part II, and I've found that interesting. I'll be reading Parts III through X over the next two months. I probably won't be updating the above as a Link List, so if you're interested you'll just have to become a regular visiter to TOWNHALL.COM, or at least the Doug Giles portion of it.

Here's the core of his thesis:

Father, if your daughter is doing extra work on soft porn music videos, or posting sex pics on mySpace.com, or bearing it all for a Girls Gone Wild DVD, or inflating their chests to ocean buoy size proportions to appeal to the most appalling, pusillanimous pigs on the planet, then you have clearly not done your job as a father.

Hey sperm donor—if you bring a little girl into this world, then it is your job to make certain she’s grounded. That’s right, Pappy . . . you are the principal player in keeping your young woman from being the next Anna Nicole Smith.

Brrrrr ... a chilling thought.

_________________________________________

You've got new chrome rims on your ride, and when you hear a car pull into your driveway that night you naturally step outside to see what's happening, bro?

You find a bright red car pulled up behind your truck, and two ski-masked wanna-be desperados jump out.

One of them sticks a gun up under your chin and says "Give me the keys to the truck, or I'll kill you!".

In the immortal words of Karl Malden ... what will you do, what WILL you do?

Answer: you take the gun away from the creeps and put the jackers down.

Clearly, our Florida lad isn't combat-trained, because only one of the GOOBERS dies. But he has the mind-set thingie working for him, and he knows that the only way to stop crime in the streets ... er, driveway ... is to refuse to be a victim.

I'm thinking, we hang a medal on this lad, and buy him a day-ticket to Thunder Ranch.

Let's call him a Talented Amateur.

When you go to the Sun-Sentinal link, be sure to see the video.
No, it's not gory. Geez!

_________________________________________

1984 is running a little late this year ...

You think you're not Winston Smith?

Think again.

Our English Friends are busily working to turn Great Britain into "Oceania" by using their largest Insurance Company to mandate the installation of 'trackers' into automobiles.

Ostensibly, this will allow the Insurance Company to set rates based on driving habits.

Essentially, it will allow the Bobbys to track your ass all over the island. Imagine an electronic Big Brother who never sleeps, and whose agenda is anti-Santa who "Knows When You've Been Sleeping, Knows When You're Awake".

The headline for this Daily Telegraph Story is "Insurance Car Tracker is Spy for Police", and if you think it will turn out any different, Bubba, you're nothing more than an undigested bit of gristle from last night's dinner.

The insurance company, Norwich Union, swears that

“We have to provide the data if the police request it but only if it is part of an investigation. It is only right for people who have been breaking the law and driving dangerously to be prosecuted. But we do not use the system ourselves to check speed and it is the insurer’s job to pay out on claims regardless of liability.”

Yeah, right. When is the last time that the Government had a new tool to track the movement of private citizens, and didn't abuse it.

That's correct, we're still waiting for The First Time.

Think It Can't Happen Here?

Think again.

My own native state, Oregon, is champing at the bit to track vehicular milage to determine how much they can tax an individual for automobile usage and mileage. They'll tax you a certain amount for 'normal' miles, and a higher rate for 'rush-hour' miles.

You probably use more 'road-time' in "normal time" than in "rush-hour", so it's probably fair ... right? (Wrong, if you live and commute in The City ... and who decides what is "Rush-Hour" time and what is a "Metropolitan" area? Uh huh, you got it the first guess.)

So, how happy are you about knowing that the police have EVERY mile you drive, EVERY stop you make, on their electronic records?

"I've got nothing to hide" you exclaim.

An honest man has nothing to hide, but who can know how a government which depends on tax revenue will interpret the available data.

Only a Police State keeps this close track on the movement of its citizens. They don't do it for your benefit. It's going to cost you time, trouble, money, or anything else the government can use to shaft your ass.

If I ever bought a GMC car in The States, the first thing I would do would be to take a hammer to the OnStar mechanism.

You can always have CarToys install a CD player in the resulting hole in your dashboard, but remember you have to disable the GPS POS under the hood, too.

The worst thing?

they charge you $17 to $35 a month for the "feature".

I'm a Computer Geek. When a program costs you more in penalties than it provides in Service Benefits, we try to call it "A Feature" instead of "A Bug".

Trust me, it's "A Bug".

Blog Mode ON!

Father forgive me, it has been almost two weeks since I have posted.

During that period, 1800 people have looked at the blog, and my total readership has exceeded 50,000 hits.

That's a slow day for one of the internationally famous Pajama Bloggers, but it took me almost two years to accumulate that kind of traffic. (The first 14 months, there were only 20,000 hits.)

So yes, I'm feeling a little guilty here. I always use to have something to say, but when Blogger software was in a temporary tailspin I got all huffy and said "Huh! I got better things to do than fight a slow server" and I went out and did them.

I have to tell you, for a while it was a liberating feeling. I could spend my evenings writing other things such as an article for the Front Sight which I had been dithering about since July, and catch up on a backlog of books that I had bought. (I generally go to the used bookstore and fill a bag every week or so. The last time, last week, I spent forty bucks there and the clerk finished by saying "That oughta hold you for a week!" It didn't.)

A couple of days ago, I got an email from the Hobo Brasser. It said: "Are you into withdrawal yet? It has been ten days since you wrote anything."

Huh.

Then this weekend, SWMBO was out of town and there were no IPSC matches. I got into trouble with too much free time.

I started cleaning house.

Sunday Morning, 3am, I was scouring the stove and kitchen counters. I thought to myself "What's Wrong With This Picture?" And then I knew.

Let me give you some background.

I use to be a compulsive house cleaner. It was NOTHING to me to find myself cleaning the bathtub at midnight in the middle of the week.

This was a period when I was not a happy guy ... coming off a divorce, living in a small apartment, generally depressed. I went through a couple other periods like that in the next few years and always reacted the same way. I became a compulsive cleaner.

If you've ever read "Looking For Mr. Goodbar", you know that this can come to A Bad End.

After I met SWMBO, I started to stray from this compulsion. First I left clutter on my dining room table. Then I left dishes in the sink overnight. Then ... well, I leave the details to your imagination, but essentially I found more interesting things to do than clean.

My house was cluttered, I didn't mop or vacuum as often as I should, and I was HAPPY!

Today I am entirely un-compulsive, and I owe it all to SWMBO. I spent my evenings writing, which I love to do, and as long as I could walk through my house without having to actually step OVER things, I was content.

That's why, when found myself cleaning the stove in my bathrobe, I remembered the Mr. Goodbar downside. And it frightened me.

Tonite, instead of completing the job of installing shelves in my new bookcase, or swamping out the master bathroom, I'm going to go through all those old articles that I downloaded from the Internet and go back to speaking my piece.

Gee, I feel better already.

(I sure wish I had finished the bathroom before I came to my senses, though. That floor is a mess.)

Blogger Problems

From time to time, my blog host (Blogger.com) gets trashed.

This is one of those times.

I can't publish new articles using Netscape as my browser, although this is my preferred browser, because for the last two days it has taken from 40 minutes to two hours to publish. Compare this to the usual peerformance of FIVE TO TEN SECONDS, and you begin to understand my frustration.

Tonight I resorted to using MS Internet Explorer to publish. The problem is, the sidebar doesn't display. Well, maybe it did if I let it go more than the FIVE MINUTES I gave it to load, but essentially there's nothing I can do about it.

(Note: the last time I resorted to IE as a browser to view the blog, which was over a month ago, it worked fine. This is A Recent Thing.)

Bottom line: it's not my fault, but it's my problem. I probably won't be looking for a new publishing software, if only because Blogger.com reassures us (although nobody seems to believe them more than I do, which is not at all) that this is just a temporary problem due to hackers.

So please bear with me as we, together, endure that which we cannot change.

FWIW, it's not just me. I've visited the blogger.com forum and there are hundreds of complaints about this problem. Some of your favorite blogs will be affected. I started complaining (most shamefully to GEEKWITHA45.BLOGSPOT.COM about format problems, but it's probably not his fault, either.

Islamic Fascism

I received an email today (from The Hobo Brasser) which appears to be an article from a man named Sam Harris.

Harris presents himself here as a Liberal with a well-established Bush Hatred complex, but he writes to describe his current disenchantment with Liberal Politics (or Philosophy, if you care to put a kindly slant to it.)

The title of the article is "Losing Our Way in a World of Religious Extremism".

Actually, the email I received is only an abridged version of "Head-In-The-Sand Liberals", an article published September 18, 2006, in that great Liberal Fishwrapper the L.A. Times. It's not an important detail, I just mention it because in the first draft of this article I said I didn't care enough to waste the time researching it. After I finished writing the article, I decided you deserved to at least read the original, if you cared enough to read the commentary.

However, there were a few statements that I do care about, for perverse reasons of my own, and I choose to fisk them if only for the exercise.

Here's a selection:

Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists; but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals.

Here's my first quibble, the quote (I added the emphasis) that "Islamists are not technically fascists".

That may be so; Lord knows we have been searching for a phrase which distinguishes the people who cut off head in front of a video camera, fly airplanes into skyscrapers, and force journelists to convert to 'their' religion at gunpoint from those of the same religion who don't do these things.

The problem is, it must be "politically correct".

No, the problem is that it is impossible to be both descriptive and politically correct.

But in recent history (since old age and arrests have gentled Sein Fein and the IRA, the Red Army, the Baader-Meinhof Gang and the Basque Separatists), we have a few basic rules which pretty well define Terrorists:

1. Not all muslims are Terrorists.
2. All Terrorists are muslims.
3. There is no third point. That pretty well sums it up.

So let's give some credit to the Bush administration for at least making a good effort to name the bunch of muslim terrorsts in a way that doesn't offend the muslims who are NOT terrorists.

Harris seems to reject the term "Islamic Fascism" because Fascism isn't a precise description. Let's look at that, using Dictionary.com definitions:

fas•cism

Pronunciation: (fash'iz-um), [key]
—n.
1. (sometimes cap.) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes cap.) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (cap.) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.

My guess is that Harris objects to the usage of the term "fascism" because definition number one refers to "a governmental system lead by a dictator". The objection is that (a) the movement is not confined to a single nation-state, and (b) there is no single obvious dictator involved.

This is mere quibbling. The situation is not really new in history, given the muslim conquests of European cities and states in past centuries, but there doesn't really exist a term which applies to religions rather than "governments" (read: nation/states).

And the fact that no single "dictator" is currently leading the attacks is yet more quibbling.
What is important is not the clearly defined source of the attacks, but the goals and means of the movement.

"... forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

I think we can all agree that this well describes the movement, with the possible subsitution of the word "religion" for "nationalism".

In the final analysis, the Islamic Fascists deliberately and consciously, themselves, consider theism above nationalism and racism.

Hmmm ... this must appeal to Liberals, with their philosophic emphasis on "inclusiveness". All nations and all races are welcome, as long as you embrace the muslim religion. Yes, I'm being facetious here, but it's still a valid point.

Speaking of Liberals, here's anothe quote from the emailed article:

Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.

There are a lot of "loaded" words here, too.
Words that add emotional overtones beyond the obvious surface meanings.

That angers me, and I don't like it when someone manipulates me like that.
You probably don't like it, either.

Words like "religious lunatics", mainly because the quote equates Islamic extremists with Christian fundamentalists. That's just wrong. How many videos are circulating of Christian Fundamentalists beheading innocent civilians, stoning their own women, or forcing religious conversion at the point of a gun? How many skyscrapers have they destroyed?

Harris, an avowed athiest, is perhaps disingenuous when he attacks "religious lunatics". He isn't just against Christian Fundamentalists. In a recent article, he took great pains to rail against the sins of "Religious Moderates", as well. One may be correct in understanding that he considers any religious belief system to be a fatal character flaw.

But there are words which ring true to me, too

"Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't."

There is some truth there. Words can describe the world as it really is, rather than as we would wish it to be. Words that disavow "moral relativity", and recognize absolutes.

Absolutes, such as cultural, religious and national survival.

The American people ... generally a Christian Nation (see note below)... don't hate muslims. But they fear the extremism that they see in this decade, and they are generally prepared to to defend themselves from a people who seem (judging from what we see in the media) determined to force us to accept their values and their lifestyle even against our will.

We read that America is the most religious nation in the world. I don't know about that. I'm not religious, and so I don't know a lot of people who are predominatly religious. But we all know that we live our lives as we see fit, and are likely to object when someone tries to tell us how to live our lives.

I don't cleave to liberal philosophy. I think some ways of living are right, and some ways are wrong. But I won't tell any man how to live his live, and I won't let any man tell me how to live my life.

This is perhaps why President Bush's challenge to "Bring It On!" was so appealing to me.


This is the thing about a free people. We'll argue with anyone about anything, but we won't allow them to force our conversion to a belief system that we don't really believe in, at the point of a sword or the muzzle of a gun. (What hypocracy on both sides!) You can kill us, but you can't beat us.

The situation is remotely analgous the the 1948 John Wayne movie "Red River". Here, the main character "Dunson" is so driven by his personal priorities, he forgets his own loves and his own humanity.

This is how I see the Islamic Fascists (tm).

They think that they have a corner on the market of culture, religion and life-style.

We think they have nothing, and despite their acknowledged earlier contributions in mathematics and astronomy, we have to ask:
"What have you done lately?''

Murder, mutilation and rhetoric don't count.

Note:
(Ironically Harris just published a book named "Letter to a Christian Nation")

2006 Croc Match: Revolver Division

Thanks to the generosity of Jerry Vanderwerth, I have just come into the possession of videos which show all FOUR (4) of the Revolver shooters shooting the same stage at the Croc Match.

The videos you see will feature Jon, Teddi, Jerry and Roger shooting the same stage. I can't find my Croc Match Shooter Book, so I'm not absolutely certain about the name of the stage. But according to the Croc Match results, and my memory, I'm pretty sure it's Stage No: 1 CROC BARREL BLUES.

(The match was themed "Still Crazy after All These Years". Each stage was designed and named according to the theme from a previous year. I don't know what theme this stage is emulating, but it's clear that it was suggested by the requirement to shoot at blue-painted plates through a blue barrel prop. Was there a year when the theme was "colors"? Check the comments, I'm sure that either Bill Marrs or Paul Meiers, the driving force behind this stellar match, will read and comment on this point eventually.)

JON
The first thing you will notice, as you watch these videos, is that ... for Revolver shooters, every stage is a memory stage.

You have six rounds in the gun, and OVER 25 targets to engage. That is, there are 8 steel plates, so you have 22 IPSC targets and 8 plates. If you miss, it's going to enirely screw up your shooting plan -- which is to make as few reloads as possible.

That means that instead of starting at the beginning (as Winnie the Poo might have said), going all the way to the end, and stopping, you have to engage targets somethat out of order, sometimes. And always ALWAYS allow yourself to screw up without letting it ruin your stage.





TEDDI
The second Revolver competitor is Teddi, also from California. (She and her husband Roger car-pooled to the Oregon match with Jon. There they were squadded with our 'local Revolver Nut" Jerry, who kindly introduced me to them before the match and provided these lovely pictures and videos for our enjoyment.

You will note that Teddi's game plan is a little different from Jon's. She engages different "Bonus Targets" to finish off a cylinder of ammunition. The difference in Bonus Target selection may save some time later in the stage, by virtue of saving steps OR by allowing the competitor to shoot an entire 3-target array without reload.




Jerry
The third shooter is Local Hero Jerry. His approach is similar to Teddi's, with minor variance in the way he chooses to shoot the 8-round plate array through the barrel. This was the stage bottleneck, for both Revolver and Pistol shooters, and a competitors score on this stage was often determined by the ability to navigate the rocks and shoals of the barrel.




Roger
The fourth and final shooter is Roger, Teddi's husband, from Washington.

When you watch this video, pay attention to the quick movement between shooting position and the sense of urgency. Roger obviously understands that they place to save time (assuming that reload times are approximately the same over the course of several reloads .. on this stage, idealy, seven reloads) is in movement.

Also, if you're a revolver shooter, the primary focus is on accuracy. If you miss ONE shot, you will probably find yourself making an extra reload. Miss two shots, add another reload. The accuracy of the shooter is most obviously paramount when shooting the 8 plates through the barrel. You will notice that Roger made NO make-up shots, especially through the barrel. He then shot a cylindar at the next three targets, reloaded while moving, and shot the last target with two rounds of the six available.

He had to slow down a few hundredths of a second on each tight target (read: plates) to make sure he got his hits. But through the entire course of fire, he shot exactly 50 rounds on this 50-round stage. The result was that he made more points, in less time, than his nearest competitor (Jerry, who earned 93+ stage points as compared to Roger's 101+ stage points.)


Roger placed first in Revolver Division for the match, and judging from this one-stage demonstration it was probably because he tended to speed up when shooting easy targets and moving, but slowed WAY down when accuracy was needed.





I wasn't able to watch this squad (which included another 11 shooters, but they were all using auto-pistols) shoot, so I'm grateful for Jerry's generosity in making these videos available.
For those of you who want to see the full video in better definition, you can find them at Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery.

The B-Team

You've seen the best, now watch the rest.

The Croc Match set the stage for the Master and Grand Master pistoleros to strut their stuff. But what did ordinary, fallible B/C/D Class shooters look like?

Well, we looked not too bad, really. Not as fast as the Masters, of course, and our foibles were magnified in comparison.

If you really want to know, we made a lot of mistakes. We overlooked and/or just ran by targets without shooting at them. Our guns jammed, sometimes the target activators didn't work or the targets didn't get reset correctly when it was our turn to shoot.

But dang it, we looked pretty good on film, and sometimes we even sounded good.

RIP Cooper's Commentaries -- without comment

Announcement

Final blog

Background

Thank you for informing us, Michael Bane Blog

Broken Safety

I interviewed Bobby Wright today (Mister "Reactive Targets" of R&R Racing) for a future Front Sight article. As we talked, he made a statement that hit very close to home.

He was discussing the reasons why he preferred to compete in Limited Division rather than Open Division. Here's a reasonably close quote:

"Race guns are too easy. Anybody can shoot a race gun well. Limited guns are not as easy, but they are often easy to tune so that they are almost as easy to shoot as a race gun. Production guns are HARD to shoot!

...

But besides that, race guns break. Guns are like race cars, they break a lot. The car that you drive to work every day will give you 200,000 miles if you maintain it. But a drag racer, you get three or four runs out of it, and you have to replace the engine. You just put more stress on a race gun or a race car than you do a regular gun or car."

I would ordinarily be inclined to take that as an alegorical statement, except that I have immediate, empirical personal proof of the statement.

Wednesday night I took the STI Competitor out of its gun rug to clean it, and the left hand side of the ambidextrous safety fell off into my hand as I started to field strip it. I hadn't put any pressure on it, I just touched it as I racked the slide with my left hand to pull the slide back so I could lock it in position. I've done this literally thousands of times with no problems.

I first thought that it had become detached from the right side because the dove-tail connection (I'm not mechanically competent, so I may not be using the right terminology, but I'm confident that some helpful reader will provide the correct term) and the left-side just became temporarily detached from the right side. After a few fumbling attempts to just jam the two parts together, I took a closer look and saw that the metal had snapped just at the pivot pin at the rear of the safety. That pin is the part with the erroneously named dove-tail connection.

I've shot this pistol for two years since the thumb safety broke (in almost exactly the same way, and in exactly the same place) and had been replaced. I know that small parts on an Open gun ("Race Gun") should be considered "consumables", in the same sense that paper clips, erasers, pens and pencils are "consumables" in an office. That is to say, they're going to be used up until they don't work any more for one reason or another, or until they are lost, and then you need to replace them.

I keep a number of small parts for this pistol, including a extractor, an ejector, a slide lock, firing pin and firing pin spring and firing pin block, recoil spring and sear spring. But I just have never considered that I should keep a spare ambidextrous safety.

In the first place, they're not cheap. In the second place, they're not a simple drop-in replacement. Sure, if you're mechanically inclined (which I ain't) it's possible to replace an ambidextrous safety under 'field conditions'. But often they require a little work to make them fit. Different pistols may use the same safety, but they don't have the same profile. That is to say, there may be a little metal sticking past the grip safety which would be painful and possibly injurious if you plan to shoot the pistol a lot before you get to where you can take a grinder to it to perfect the rear contour.

Also, the right-hand side of the safety fits into a flange on the frame which is suppose to keep it from falling off in case the two halves of the ambidextrous safety become detached, as I had originally supposed mine had. (Note that this is not a common occurrence ... it was merely wishful thinking on my part.)

Finally, the fit between the two halves (again, the "dove-tail" fit) may not be easy to accomplish under field conditions.

All of these are good excuses reasons for not stocking a spare ambidextrous thumb safety for your race gun, and I've lived by them.

I very much wanted to shoot the club match on Saturday, so I packed up my Limited Gun (STI Edge in 10mm ... which I have not shot in three years, but that's another story) for the match and took the Competitor race-gun along with me.

When I got to the range on Saturday, I hailed the local gunsmith-guru Rob Shepherd of MajorNyneGuns and asked him if he would please see to replacing my safety. He very generously agreed to do so, if I would just give it to him before he left at the end of the match.

Then we all went shooting in our various squads, I with full confidence that I would have a race gun too shoot within a couple of weeks (and armed with my reading glasses because the reason I shoot a race gun is because I can't see iron sights any more ... but that's another story), and Rob doubtless with the satisfaction that he has a nice, easy job of work to build his business with another easily satisfied customer.

Sounds like a problem identified and easily solved, doesn't it?

But wait, there's more!

My SWMBO (She ... Who Must Be Obeyed) was shooting with me, as usual, and I was acting as Range Officer on the fourth stage when I happened to look CLOSELY at the STI Tru-Bore she was using during the Load-And-Make-Ready preparation of the stage.

I said: "Excuse me, but please look at the right side of your pistol."

She did, then looked at me and said: "Okay, I have looked at the right side of my pistol. What?"

I said: "Are you aware that the right half of your ambidextrous safety is missing?"

She said: "Uh huh."

I said: "Ummmm ... how long has it been missing?"

"Since this morning."

"I see. Can you be a little more specific?"

"Well, when I took it out of the bag this morning, it wasn't there."

"So you've shot half the match with half of your thumb safety missing, right?"

"That's right."


Perhaps my verbiage wasn't exactly so calm and organized, but that was the general gist of it.

I am defeated. I have no idea what to do next. In the absence of higher authority, and with the evidence that she has been shooting a completely safe gun all day, I merely asked her to keep track of the left side of her ambidextrous thumb safety and please let the Range Officer know if it comes loose or otherwise seems not to be adequately performing its assigned function.


For those who may be interested in the minutiae of the story, she completed the match with no safety problems and her scores soundly trounced mine for the rest of the match.
____________________________________________________________

After the match I met with Rob at the central Safety table with not one, but TWO thumb-safety deprived pistols.

He looked at mine, with the broken part laid by its side, and said "Well, at least we can see that you are keeping your thumb on the safety while you shoot!" as if that were a good thing.

I had to admit that, sadly, I have a terrible grip and am unable to learn to shoot a pistol in the "High Grip" manner. I never touch the safety after I've switched it /OFF. Rob was a little perplexed, and admitted that he breaks thumb safeties frequently because "When I shoot, I tend to put a lot of down-pressure on the thumb safety."

Boy, I sure wish I had such a good excuse. But I don't.

Do you recall that I have mentioned in a previous post about the Croc Match that the combination of high-round count and accumulated heat often causes a high rate of breakage?

(No, I can't find the link.)

Well it does. But it didn't happen for us.

Still we shot the Croc Match last month, and since then we've shot two club matches of about 150+ rounds each. I do recall mentioning that the pistol was so hot at the end of the day that it was painful to hold. This isn't a phenomenon which only I experienced, several competitors remarked on it.

I just wonder if that didn't have something to do with it, in terms of metal fatigue and over-tempering.

But what do I know? I'm just a Geek with a gun.

A-Team Video

A few days ago I provided a link to Norm the Ungrateful's video, a composit of several videos he shot during the Croc Match.

Norm was kind enough to provide me with the YouTube code to host the video directly.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

"Shall Issue" in Minnesota

Last Saturday (September 16, 2006, "It's news, but it's not NEW news!") I talked about the Minnesota Concealled Carry Laws as reported in the New York Times.

Since it was an 'archived article', the NYT was holding the article for ransom; they wanted me to give them $4.50 to read the darned thing. Heck, the same article is lining bird cages and wrapping dead fish all over the country for a whole lot less than that.

Fortunately, reader P.G. sent me the copy of the article which HE had downloaded.

I can do no less but to return the favor to you in this private email (not for reprint or publishing):

New York Times - September 5, 2006
Editorial Observer
Once a Progressive State, Minnesota Is Now a Fief of the N.R.A.
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG

Correction Appended

A couple of weeks ago, I checked into a hotel in Bloomington, a Minneapolis suburb framed by the airport and the Mall of America. On the hotel door was a sign: "Firearms Banned on These Premises." The next day I drove to St. Joseph, an hour west of the Twin Cities, where I saw the same sign. Slowly the logical conclusion sank in. If firearms are banned on these premises, then they must not be banned in other places.

Sure enough, a year ago the State Legislature passed a "concealed carry" law, which means that it's legal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit. So that no one misses the point, the Legislature has also turned Minnesota into what is called a "shall require" state. If you apply for a concealed-weapon permit, the local authorities must grant it to you.

I asked one of the state coalitions opposed to these laws whether it would attack them in the Legislature this year. The answer was no. It is too busy trying to defeat a "shoot first" bill, which would give gun owners the right to fire away instead of trying to avoid a confrontation. The way I see it, Minnesota is only one step away from requiring every citizen to carry a gun and use it when provoked.

There are some other twists to these laws. A person carrying a concealed weapon cannot be banned from a public building, even if it's a library full of kids. Churches have succeeded in keeping guns out of the pews, but they're having to fight another court battle to keep them out of the parking lot. The application for a concealed-weapon permit appears to have been created by people who believe the real threat in carrying a gun is the loss of privacy entailed in filling out the form. Yet it isn't possible for a member of the public to find out who has received a permit and may, in fact, be packing heat.

This is what I'd expect of Florida, which recently passed a "shoot first" -- also called a "shoot the Avon lady" -- bill. I'd expect it of Texas too. But Minnesota? I grew up thinking of Minnesota as a socially progressive state. After all, it was home of the D.F.L. -- the Democratic Farmer Labor Party -- and a place where local control and common sense had strong roots. Like my family in Iowa, Minnesotans were gun owners because they hunted pheasants and rabbits and deer. But then I'm thinking of a time when the leadership of the National Rifle Association resembled a band of merry sportsmen and not the paranoid cabal it is today. Whether this was also a time when a legislator could vote his conscience, and not his gun lobbyist's orders, I was too young to know.

I grew up hunting and shooting, and I still own two rifles (a .22 and a .270) and two shotguns (a 20-gauge and a 12-gauge, to be specific). When I was young, I expected that I would own guns when I grew up because I enjoyed hunting and I liked the good hunters I knew -- as I still do.

But to me, owning guns and knowing how to use them properly was part of a civic bargain. I would leave the police work to the police, and they would leave the squirrel hunting to me. The notion that 38 states would have "concealed carry" laws in 2006 would have seemed insane, a regression to a more primitive idea of who we are.

The N.R.A. would argue that society has changed since those innocent days. But society hasn't changed nearly as much as the N.R.A. has -- or our ideas about the balance of individual and collective rights.

Every concealed weapon, with very few exceptions, is a blow against the public safety. The new gun laws in Minnesota take away local discretion over concealed-weapon permits, and they cost the local authorities plenty too.

But there's a bigger problem. By focusing so obsessively on an individual's rights -- in this case, the purported individual right to bear arms in the library -- all other rights are shoved aside. Police departments are forced to grant concealed-weapon permits to individuals who have almost none of the training and certainly none of the restrictions that police officers have.

What's worse, by granting this right to individuals, the law strips the public of its right to occupy public spaces without the threat of being shot. The police are trained to handle guns. The criminals know they're not supposed to have them but find them easy to get, thanks to the N.R.A. Let them fight it out. No one is safer if gun-carrying civilians believe their rights entitle them to pretend they're cops.

Sometimes I think the N.R.A. isn't really about guns at all. It's about making certain that the public -- our political and civil society, in other words -- has no ability to limit the rights of an individual. That is really what the logic of the "concealed carry" and "shall require" and "shoot first" laws says.

Guns make a perfect test case, because the end result is an armed cohort that is very prickly about its personal rights. The N.R.A. has armed the thousands of Minnesotans who applied for a permit once the "concealed carry" law passed. But it has disarmed the public by making sure that legislators will no longer vote for gun laws that protect the rest of us.

Correction: September 9, 2006

In an Editorial Observer article on Tuesday about Minnesota's gun laws: The law requires that local authorities "shall issue" concealed weapons permits when properly applied for. The article used the incorrect phrase "shall require" to describe this policy.

About the "correction" which NYT issued after the original publication (and obviously after they had received a lot of mail from outraged 2nd Amendment folks who knew what they were talking about.)

Yes, they noted that the correct term is "shall issue" rather than "shall require". That's nice.

But they missed one other unfortunate choice of words, here:

If you apply for a concealed-weapon permit, the local authorities must
grant it to you.

The problem is with the word "grant", as you may gather from the fact that I have italicized the word in the quote.


Here's what the word "grant" means, according to the InfoPlease online dictionary:
grant

Pronunciation: (grant, gränt), [key]
—v.t.
1. to bestow or confer, esp. by a formal act: to grant a charter.
2. to give or accord: to grant permission.
3. to agree or accede to: to grant a request.
4. to admit or concede; accept for the sake of argument: I grant that point.
5. to transfer or convey, esp. by deed or writing: to grant property.
6. take for granted,
a. to accept without question or objection; assume: Your loyalty to the cause is taken for granted.
b. to use, accept, or treat in a careless or indifferent manner: A marriage can be headed for trouble if either spouse begins to take the other for granted.

—n.
1. something granted, as a privilege or right, a sum of money, or a tract of land: Several major foundations made large grants to fund the research project.
2. the act of granting.
3. Law.a transfer of property.
4. a geographical unit in Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire, originally a grant of land to a person or group of people.

Looking at the Verb Transitive form of the word, it implies that the issuing authority will "grant" a license out of the goodness of their collective bureaucratic hearts. You know and I know that this is hardly the case. You know and I know that bureaucrats have no hearts. They do what they are required by law to do, and not one step further.

(Pay not attention to the Noun form of the word, which is not applicable as it is obviously not intended in the context of the sentence. I only include it to make the following point.)

The bureaucrats won't "grant" you the right to own a weapon. God granted that right, as is made clear in the Constitution of the United States and enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Especially it is defined in the Declaration of Independence.

Read these words in the Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ...

These words are the reason why the Constitution was created, and especially they are the reason why the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution are called "The Bill Of Rights".

Soap Box Mode /ON

Bureaucrats don't "Grant" you a license. They "Issue" it. And they only do so because they have no choice. Some large group of private citizens have recently devoted their time and effort to ensure that they are obliged to issue that license to carry a concealed weapon; a RIGHT that should not have been necessary after we (or rather our forefathers, who are probably not related to most of us but we are lucky enough to be citizens of the country which they founded) fought and too often died for.

Soap box mode /OFF

The upshot of it is, when this newspaper article says that " ... the local authorities must grant it to you ...", the author is demonstrating an abysmal ignorance of the primary documents justifying this radical form of government.

This is no reflection on that author; to paraphrase someone else, we hear the same stuff from The Supremes, people who go to work wearing black bathrobes.

And they accuse bloggers of going to work in their pajamas, as if that's A Bad Thing.

(Dirgression Alert: they have no idea how many of us don't bother with the bathrobe, but that's another subject.)

I long to fisk this article. The author shows such contempt for individual rights, and is so arrogant in his (?) assurance that he knows better than you what personal danger is represented in your environment, that nearly every paragraph outrages irritates me.

The use of loaded phrases ("bear arms in the library" and "shoot the Avon lady") and placing quotes around previously defined phrases ("concealed carry" and "shall require") are yellow journalism at its best. Or at its worse, depending on your level of journalistic venality.

Yes, I realize it's an "editorial", and as such is assumed to be an opinion article -- which doesn't subject the author to the same constraints as a straight news article.

But consider this statement:

"Police departments are forced to grant concealed-weapon permits to individuals who have almost none of the training and certainly none of the restrictions that police officers have."

It presupposes that all police officers are better trained than any owners of a concealed carry license, and implies that police officers must abide by restrictions which are not imposed by private citizens who are licensed to carry. These are not necessarily universally applicable, which fact is cheerily ignored by the author.

In point of fact, police officers have fewer restrictions upon arms-bearing, and if they are obliged by circumstances to use those arms in the defense of self or others, they have a built-in defense superstructure in the form of the P.A.L. and the patina of assumed authority.

"Civilians" (an egregious term often used by police officers, which supposes an "us versus them" relationship with respect to non-police officers) have no support mechanism in place. If non-police officers use a firearm in defense, they bear the entire expense of defending themselves in court. Rather than being placed "off duty with pay, pending review" they are likely to find themselves in the hoosegow waiting for their turn at the public phone, where they can call their lawyer while fending off the advances of semi-permanent hoosegow denizens.

Nobody who has worked and paid for the 'grant' to exercise his rights to carry a firearm, and who has exercised that right, will do so unless the most extreme pressures of the moment demand it.

This article is written from a single, extreme point of view by a person who has an agenda to promote.

But then, you already knew that.

PS:

Remember this?

Soap box mode /OFF

Apparently, I was premature in my declaration.

Sorry about that.

2006 Croc Match: The A-team

I didn't get as many really HOT videos of the 2006 Croc Match as I had wanted, so I've been pretty low-key about presenting pictures and videos of the excellent, hi-round-count match as I should.

That is, until I received a link to this YouTube Video from Norm the Ungrateful.

Production values and resolution on this 5:07 minute video are extremely good. I only received the link from Norm an hour ago, and in the meantime I've written this paen to his excellence both as a competitor and as a video editor, plus I've watched the video at least a dozen times.

I'll watch it a dozen times again, and in absolute awe.

I've not seen many videos which so perfectly demonstrate the fast-shooting, target rich environment nature of of this exceptional match as this.

When I get the code for this hot-music, hot-shooting video from Norm, I'll include it here so you can click-and-watch the action.

Until then, you'lll just have to content yourself with double-clicking what I consider to be one of the premier videos in IPSC competition to date.

Participants include Norm, Zac, Chuck, Yong Lee and Glenn.

"427 rounds in 2 days". You only have to see the followers-on about1:40 into the film to realize how awesome these performances really are. The video is a great demonstration of how FAST you have to shoot to win at this level of competition. The music is perfectly choreographed to support the action. Don't be fooled by the slow start; it sets up the viewer to truly appreciate the movement/very quick target engagement. To be able to shoot this fast, and still get hits ... that is the epitome of IPSC competition.

Fasssst action, perfect reload after perfect reload, and an implict understanding on the part of the competitors that speed wins. These are the components of a excellent IPSC video, and Norm has it all.

If you never watch another IPSC video this year, you have GOT to see this one.

If you have never shot the Banzaii Ballistic ("You Got Bullets?") Croc Match before, you have to be saying to yourself:

"Next Year in Dundee!"

Proud Grandfather

You'll have to bear with me for a bit here.

I've just become a grandfather for the fifth time.

My daughter, Jennifer, just gave birth to her second child, Jack.

(Son Ben has three children: Lizzie, Connor and Jacob.)

I don't yet have pictures of the new grandchild, and maybe I can resist the impulse to display them here ... newborns yield photos which are only of interest to the immediate family.

But I do have pictures of Jennifer, and her 'little brother' Ben.


Jennifier and Benjamin were born on the same day (July 30), two years apart. So, for her second birthday, Jennifer received a brother.

She wasn't sure what to do about that, at first.


Eventually, she figured it out.

They've been each other's "Best Friend" ever since.


When they each found someone to marry, they have provided me with a steady stream of grandchildren.

This is ALWAYS a reason to celebrate, so please join me now as I welcome little Jack.

Now we can only hope that his Big Sister, Samantha, appreciates him as much as her mother did HER brother.

Sunday Night Funnies

The Urban Acrobatics videos are becoming daily more prevelant. Some of them are excellent. This one has a "theme" .... The Chase, from Bore Me dot Com.

Here's one without the theme. Note: background lyrics not 'work friendly'.

Think deoderants are boring?

In case there is any computer-owner in the Western Hemisphere who hasn't yet seen the Diet Coke and Mentos Experiments .....

More leaping tall buildings in a single bound. I've seen this guy before. (lousy video quality, but still impressive.)

But if you don't know what you're doing, don't try this at home!

Of course, you can still get hurt just driving down the street, minding your own business. Watch the big red truck with the white, too-long trailer. Don't worry, we've got a fix for excess trailer length.

But remember, whether you enjoy the ride or not ... don't expect any sympathy from your mother.

It was technical service response calls like this that caused me to switch from AOL to ... almost anybody.

For those masochists among us, here is a 32 minute film featuring the 9/11 conspiracy theorist barking moonbat David Ray Griffin (9-24-2005).

Should you watch it? The moderator is Representative Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. Use your own judgement. (No, I couldn't get through it either.)

By the way, here is the Popular Mechanics refutation of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

UPDATE: Omigawd! Somebody has a 1:21:50 video on the "9/11 Cover UP". (Also referenced as "Loose Change", for whatever reason.) I tried to watch it, but the video quality is to low to read the documents it purports to reference. (H/T Les Jones)

Colt CCO has some comments and reference to further refutations. In case it's necessary.

In keeping with the 'shooting sports' theme of this blog, here is the redoubtable Beer Cannon.
(More Beer Cannon videos are available at the same You Tube webpage.)

And a guy letting someone shoot the bottle off his head --- Shades of William Tell ( William Tell Overture not included.)

Here is a video of a guy who took a photograph of himself every day -- for six years.

How about Street Magic? You like Criss Angel? Here's his Half A Woman illusion, where he has two women pull another woman into two parts on a park bench. Pretty scarey.

Here is a 21-minute video on Criss Angel illusions. An excellent showman. Once.

Sure wish I could play pool like this kid.

Videos are a blast, aren't they?

USPSA: Mike McCarter for President!

At a club match last weekend (September 8, 2006), Michael "Mac" McCarter announced his intention to run for the position of USPSA President in the next election.

Through the years which represent the lifespan of this blog, I have often lauded the merits of Mike "Mac" McCarter.

Mac is currently the Section Coordinator of the Columbia Cascade Section, is the past president of my home club (Albany Rifle and Pistol Club ... ARPC), and is currently the "IPSC Coordinator" of ARPC.

While holding these and other local offices, he has:

• Dragged ARPC from the muck-and-mire of the least-regarded club in the section to what is arguably the best club in the section;
• Improved ARPC's physical assets to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars of improvements for competitive pistol shooting, without taking one thin dime from the other disciplines at the club;
• Established standards of competition which have served, by example, to benefit the entire section;
• Brought two USPSA National Matches and two Area 1 matches to the Section within the past four years of his tenure (this in a section which had NEVER BEFORE hosted a level-III competition;
• Started an aggressive USPSA Junior program, finding sponsors and recruiting participants, so that today Juniors may participate in Level-III National Competitions at little or no cost to their families, thus helping to ensure the continuation of IPSC competition in USPSA to the next generation;
  
• Been the subject, or a proment person, in many USPSA Front Sight articles (I know, I wrote one or two of them);
• Made the Columbia Cascade Section one of the most active, vibrant and productive Sections of USPSA.

For the past year, I have suggested to, and encouraged Mac to run for the office of USPSA President. He has had little comment since then, and in fact seemed embarassed by the suggestion.

No more. He has announced his candidacy, and to my way of thinking this is an encouraging sign that USPSA is still a viable competitive entity.

USPSA has elected 'place-holders' for most of its existance. Ever since Colonel Jeff Cooper left office, our leadership has been adequate, competent, almost appropriate ... but not charismatic.

No more. We NEED a Leader.

Mike McCarter is definately a Leader.

For the past ten years, USPSA has struggled to retain the level of membership it had when new preidents came into office. Presidential leadership has evinced the priority of NOT losing more members than it attracted. Only in the past year ... of an eight-year presidency ... has membership increased to the point where USPSA was willing to boast of increased membership.

In the meantime, membership in the Columbia Cascade Section has increased such that it represents a significant portion of the USPSA membership. From year to year, some sections increawse membership while others lose membership. On the average, CCS has not only maintained its average number of members, but has increased it. More, these new members are juniors and their families, which suggests that the new members are more likely (especially in view of the available sponsorship) to be retained.

I submit that Mac McCarter is the most viable USPSA Presidential Candidate that we have seen for the effective life of this organization.

And when the ballots are sent out, in a year or two, I encourage all USPSA members to remember that Mac represents the hope of us all that USPSA will endure for the benefit of our sons and daughters in Competitive Shooting Sports for the future.

It's news, but it's not NEW news!

Today we present a special issue of Cogito Ergo Geek. We once called it "BlogMeat", but we over-used tha termt. For this single occasion, representing "The Night When The Geek Woke Up In The Middle Of The Night And Couldn't Get Back To Sleep, And Looked Up Old Blog Entries Out Of Sheer Boredom", we'll take a look at Gun Blog entries going back in time.

As an added bonus, this allows me to renew links to some of my favorite firearms-related websites, as reflected on my sidebar.

First, let's look at a Tucker Carlson interview with a Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence (formerly Handgun Contro, Inc.) lawyer discussing Indiana's revision to Concealed Carry laws. Indiana voted to issue Concealed Carry licences "for life" rather than require renewal every four years. The Brady Bunch objected, and Carlson called the Brady representative "unprepared" when she couldn't cite statistics on the number of Indiana CCW licensees who have been arrested for violent gun crimes. Read the show transcript here; search for "Brady" to find the applicable segment. (Show date July 6, 2006. H/T Packing.Org)


NEXT:

From Xavier Thoughts, a July 19, 2006 segment showing a male teenager who seems to break every rule of gunhandling safety while sitting at his kitchen table . The big Accidental Discharge sounds bogus to me ... and to others. Also, while he (the "Idiot With Guns #41") racks the slide of what looks like a very old Colt 1911, the hammer doesn't appear (to me) to have actually remained cocked. In short, while it illustrates the violation of basic safety rules, the entire filmstrip appears contrived. But don't take my word for it, go see for yourself.
H/T The Ninth Stage. (The link is at the bottom of the page, as of this writing.)

NEXT:

As long as I'm mentioning The Brady Bunch, allow me to gloat one more time in referencing their premature announcement on August 24, 2006,that the California state senate passed the egregious AB 352.

As I wrote on September 07, 2006, this impossible dream collapsed with the surprisingly realistic appreciation that enforcement of this law would be hugely expensive, completely ineffective, and was ultimately nothing more than the imposition of economic burdens on legitimate firearms owners in a thinly disguised end-run around the Second Amendment to establish ipso facto gun control. So ... Stamp THIS!, Brady!

FINALLY:

Here's a difficult subject, based on a September 5, 2006 editorial in the New York Times.

(This link may not work for you, unless you are an on-line subscriber to the NYT. It didn't really work for me, even though I signed up for the free subscription. After the day when it appears, an article is archived by the NYT and you can't see the full text of the article without buying it. I'm not inclined to pay $4.95 to read a single article in the NYT, or even to read the whole thing 365 days a year. If you are willing to buy the article, please send it to me and I will include it where it can be read for free by others.)

The article is entitled:

Editorial Observer; Once a Progressive State, Minnesota Is Now a Fief of the N.R.A.

It concerns the "Shall Issue" Concealed Carry law that Minnesota passed last year. Basically, the author ("VERLYN KLINKENBORG") is against it.

Gun-Pro Progressive, a Maryland gun-blogger, fisked the article in NYT Editorial–How Out of Touch Can You Be?, and I was entirely impressed by the logical approach to these falacious anti-gun arguments. (Click here to read his justifacation for being a pro-gun progressive ... a fascinating read.)

If you don't care to read the whole article, here are a few of the comments. Maybe they will convince you that it's worth your time:

But to me, owning guns and knowing how to use them properly was part of a civic bargain. I would leave the police work to the police, and they would leave the squirrel hunting to me. The notion that 38 states would have “concealed carry” laws in 2006 would have seemed insane, a regression to a more primitive idea of who we are.

Being able to defend yourself is not taking police work away from the police. It is NOT the police department’s job to provide for your safety as you go about your daily business. That’s well established caselaw, something Verlyn seems to have missed. See Castle Rock, CO. vs Gonzales.

Seems he’s missed that actually 40+ states allow private citizens to carry. You’d think if allowing CCW permits led to bedlam and mayhem and a “regression to a more primitive” state of affairs, you’d have heard about it by now. It’s amazing to me people like Verlyn can look at a map of the United States, and see state after state where the passage of Shall Issue laws has been a complete non-event (no blood in the streets, no anarchy, no OK-Corral-On-Every-Corner scenarios), and not realize that they’re barking up the wrong tree. It’s as though they’re thinking “well it didn’t cause hell on earth in the first thirty-odd states that went Shall Issue…but it’s going to happen soon! Really!”

Actually, it's 48 states, as I mentioned last March.

The editorial writer mentions several other issues which are central to the gun-control frantic efforts to obfuscate the issue:

"The application for a concealed-weapon permit appears to have been created by people who believe the real threat in carrying a gun is the loss of privacy entailed in filling out the form. Yet it isn’t possible for a member of the public to find out who has received a permit and may, in fact, be packing heat."

This isn't just a "privacy Issue" as Pro-Gun Progressive argues. It's also a safety issue.
A few years ago I wrote (not on this forum) about a lady friend of mine who lives and works in Portland, Oregon. She lives in the suburbs, so she drives her car to a light-rail nexus and takes the train to work. While waiting for her morning train one cold winter morning, she was approached by a group of yobs who started their typical aggressive intimidating cant about how she should give up her purse because they needed the money in her purse more than she did. Cold and frightened, she put her hands in the pockets of her overcoat.

The yobs were immediately intimidated. The "Shall Issue" bill had recently been passed in Oregon, and the yobs knew that she could legally carry a firearms in self-defense. They accused her of having a firearm in her hand, and cursed her vigorously. But they retreated, and never threatened her again.

She had been 'tagged', in their mind, as a person who was a 'non-victim'.

The great value of "shall issue" laws is not that it allows people to carry concealed firearms, but that the yobs of the world don't know who is a non-victim. Perhaps this is an unintended consequence of these acknowledgements of an individual's right to self defense, but it is one that may act to the benefit of even those who falaciously believe that police are their first line of defense against criminal aggression.

But there’s a bigger problem. By focusing so obsessively on an individual’s rights — in this case, the purported individual right to bear arms in the library — all other rights are shoved aside. Police departments are forced to grant concealed-weapon permits to individuals who have almost none of the training and certainly none of the restrictions that police officers have.

Heaven forfend we be a little concerned about individual rights (this is why an old lefty like me hates anti-gunner nonsense so much–rightfully so, we make a lot of hay about George Bush’s NSA program invading our privacy and ignoring our individual rights, we want invidual choice when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, religion, free speech, you name it…but not when it comes to protecting your own life). What rights are being shoved aside? You don’t have a right to insist that I can’t protect myself.

And he uses the old canard, that we’re not trained properly.

Training.

What is it good for?

It's good for a lot, if you're going to use a firearm ... let alone carry one.

The idea that police officers are poorly trained, underpaid bureaucrats who spend their on-duty hours eating donuts and harrassing hookers has been with us for far too long. I personally know a number of LEOs who work hard at gun-handling skills and are some of the most daunting IPSC competitors in the area. (I also know some whose gun-handling skills are nearly non-existant, and who frighten me whenever I share a range with them, and a few of them are members of what passes for S.W.A.T. teams locally.)

There are two points here:

One is that the police are not obligated to protect you from aggressive criminals. You're on your own, Pal, and if you don't want to be mugged, raped and murdered it behooves you to learn how to protect yourself in the best way that seems possible.

The other is that not ALL police officers, perhaps not even the majority, are incompetent when it comes to shooting. As long as a significent number of LEOs consider firearms profeciency to be, for whatever reason (self-defense, job competence or even casual firearms competition), a priority ... all those who know that competent shooters are on The Force may serve to dissuade the yobs from challenging them in the field. This is A Good Thing for civilization.

I think that local police agencies are making a big mistake by not publicizing the competitive accomplishments of their LEOs, and it seems a likely subject for a future post. If everyone knew that Officer Krupki was a Grand Master shooter, the yobs would be praying that the next time they mug a person ... the responding officer would not be Officer Krupski.

UPDATE: September 21, 2006
I've been given a copy of the original NYT article, and I've posted it for your consideration here.

Colonel Cooper

I don't know if there are any other blogs which are devoted almost entirely to IPSC/USPSA competition, so I feel an obligation to inform you of the most current news regarding Colonel Jeff Cooper.

He is currently suffering from a severe physical infirmity, a problem with his back, which has precluded almost all physical activity, including the addition of more Cooper Commentaries.

We hope that he will recover and continue guiding us in, among other subjects, The Way A Man Should Live.

We (not the 'Editorial We', but you and I) join Xavier Thoughts in wishing The Colonel a speedy recovery, but I must warn you that it doesn't look good. When a man of such seniority is confined to his bed, it requires a strong constitution for medical assistance to offer relief.

You can find the latest report on the Cooper's Commentaries page.

This makes me particularly grateful to Dillon Precision, which provided reprints Cooper's two-volume set of the Gargantuan Gunsight Gossip, of which I have spoken in previous articles and which I am still reading; slowly, and carefully.

No, I still don't agree with everything he says. But I still admire the way in which he says it.

Colonel Cooper is the Father of IPSC, in every sense of the term.

Whew!

Here's a big "Whew!" for terrorists, and those who fight them.

ABC News "The Blotter" has an article about testing which is being conducted to determine the effectiveness of anti-carbomb barriers and anti-penetration materials for buildings.

You really need to read the article to understand what you're seeing, and it has links to all of the short crash-dummy tests. But they have ALL of the tests on a single film, which you can see here. (2:29 minutes. Ignore the short commercial film at the beginning.)

Also;

From my friend Bob H., I received a film which demonstrates the awesome power of the .50 BMG in the hands of an American sniper.

Here's the text which Bob sent to explain it:

These are some examples of the fight in Afghanistan.. These video shots are not made through the shooter's telescopic sight... they are made looking through the spotter's scope. The spotter lies right next to the sniper and helps the sniper to find and home in on the target.

The sniper is using a 50 caliber rifle. A 50 cal. round is about 7-8 inches long and the casing is about an inch in diameter. The bullet itself is one-half inch in diameter and roughly one and one-half inches long. Pay close attention to the beginning of the video. A Taliban is laying on top of the peak in front of you... when you hear the! shot fired... watch what happens.

The sniper is also about a half mile away... or more. It is not known if the sniper team is Marine or Army.

You can download the film here (2.32 mb WMV-format movie).

A broadband connection is recommended to watch any of these videos.

A strong stomach is recommended to watch the sniper video.
You won't believe the "Hang Time".

Crazy Croc Match Results

You didn't win.

http://www.columbia-cascade.org/Special%20Events/ccs_championships.htm

Read "The Ten Ring"

I've been reading "The Ten Ring" for some time now, because it's a well-written Gun Blog and because it often presents articles which are of interest to me.

I usually go to it from Michael Bane's Shooting Gallery, because I spend a lot of time there both writing and reading the other folks Michael has linked to.

Tonite I was reading an especially fascinating Ten Ring article about 'Another Hysterical "Gun Owner"', and it occured to me that as often as I read this blog .... maybe you don't!


Sure, the blog frequently includes articles that don't interest me.

I'm pretty sure that Denise and Sam don't get much out of my IPSC-related articles, either. They don't shoot the sport, and my articles on The Croc Match (for example) probably don't float their boat.

But they spend a lot of time on RKBA subjects, and that does interest me.

You may not spend much time on the Bane Shooting Gallery website (though you'd be a damn fool not to), so I've not only written this article to draw your attention to the, I've also added them to my sidebar under "Places I Recommend".

I strongly encourage you to go check them out.

Heck, they may even add ME to THEIR sidebar!