TGZ - Boom and Bust

No, this isn't The Gun Zone, this is.

I'm a long time of The Gun Zone, which is the love-child of self-professed 'formerly famous gun writer' Dean Speir. (I got the spelling right first try that time, Dean!)

KaBOOM!
Last year I stole shamelessly from Dean's website for my infamous 'KaBOOM!' article, which remains one of the half-dozen consistently highest ranking articles on Cogito Ergo Geek (based on frequency of access ... usually by Internet Search.)

(For this and all vaguely related articles, type kaboom in the 'search' window at the top of this page.)

It's unfortunate that, due to Dean's documentation of the Glock KaBOOM! Phenomenon, Dean has been fighting an undeserved reputation as being 'anti-Glock'.

Dean is NOT 'anti-Glock', but I am. It's all the fault of the kool-aid kids anyway, so I admit I don't care.

The eminent and inimitable Mr. Speor Spier Speirs Speir, in an admirable effort to contest this cruel canard, has consequently included a cornucopia of case studies of OTHER (defined as 'non-Glock') KaBOOMs, squibs, and miscellaneous firearm failures.

A case in point is the HK USP Expert kB!, which describes the (2002) destructive malfunction to a .45 caliber HK. Since this article is sub-titled "Why not to shoot lead handloads through a barrel with polygonal rifling", it implies that there is just one more thing to remember when you move away from the perfect John Browning 1911 pistol design.

(Notice how perfectly my articles mirror my personal bias? I'm sure it's mere coincidence.)

While I'm tempted to link to ALL of the 'KaBOOM!" articles on TGZ webpages, I'll not allow myself to be guilty of distracting you from a superior website.

And that's why I won't embed TGZ's YouTube video which most caught my attention today.

You're Busted!



In the Miami Vice television series which was popular in the 1980's, one episode ("The Hitman") was noticed by competitive Practical Pistol shooters. Competitive shooter Jim Zubiena portrayed a 'hit man' who blew away a limousine load of drug dealers with a SPAS-12 shotgun, and then performed a "flawless Mozambique" (with a 1911) on the armed and alert bodyguard ... from surrender position, with a concealed carry.

To tell the truth, I can only see two shots, not three, in the embedded YouTube video. You may have better eyes than I do, but it all happens so fast it's difficult to be sure.

Go read the article, and the related links, and see the video here.

You may be interested to know that, based on Dean's commentary, I just ordered Seasons One and Two of Miama Vice here.

It's not just the Pastel-o-vision, or the music.

well, in part it's the music, but I already bought that cd last year.

Field-Expedient Weapons Maintenance

John Farnham (in his excellently contexted, but awkwardly formatted website) calls it "Exegent Gun Maintenance".

I call it exceptionally good advice.

Because it's mixed with another interesting comment ("Flat-Stock Technique"), I will include the entire text here. However, I encourage you to read the original and then go to the main webpage for more useful and interesting articles.

(The article is slightly edited for readability: the text is separated into paragraphs and a numbered-points list.)

14 Sept 07 Exigent Gun Maintenance:

There are many commercially-available solvents, lubricants, and devices made specifically for firearms maintenance, and all work well. However, in a crisis, none of that stuff is likely to be available.

What is universally available is

1. hot, soapy water
2. diesel fuel
3. transmission fluid
4. old T-shirts
5. a toothbrush

Those five items can be used to adequately clean and lubricate nearly any gun, and you'll seldom find yourself in a place where they are not readily at hand.

After soaking for a few minutes in hot, soapy water, nearly all hardened deposits of crud on gun parts will soften and can then be easily removed with a toothbrush. After a subsequent hot-water rinse, excess moisture will self-evaporate.

A light coat of diesel fuel can then be applied to prevent steel parts from rusting. Chamber and bore are particularly susceptible to rust and must be continuously coated with oil.

On any car or truck, both transmission housing and crankcase have dipsticks. Remove the dipstick from the transmission. On the tip will be several drops of transmission fluid, one of the best lubricants in existence! Half-dozen drops of transmission fluid is all that is necessary to adequately lubricate most guns. All moving parts that rub against other parts should be lubricated.

On large-caliber pistols, dipsticks can be used to drag an oily T-shirt remnant through the bore.

These is little reason, and even less excuse, to be packing poorly-maintained guns. In exigent circumstances, we may have to get creative, but sensible gun maintenance at the user level is always possible and ever necessary!

/John

RELOADING - by Kevin Baker

One of the most prolific Gun authors on The Internet (and a man who is arguably more verbose than I) is Kevin Baker at "The Smallest Minority".

He recently published an article in response to a challenge from Kim Du Tuit, describing reloading techniques on a budget for a new reloader.

This is a daunting task, requiring years of experience and hours of research to do it right. I might take a stab at it, but my results would not be as well organized or as well written, and frankly Kevin is a better writer than I am.

If the article had been an attempt at 'technical writing', it would be unreadable. Fortunately, Kevin brings such a wealth of practical experience to the task, and such attention to IMPORTANT detail, that it is eminently readable.

Unfortunately, people who are new to a task and highly motivated tend to want a quick-and-dirty approach, which is not appropriate to reloading ammunition ... Kevin describes the process as "building little bombs that can blow up your gun and disfigure you for life (or kill you if you're REALLY unlucky)", and I think that's a fair description.

If you want the Real Skinny on reloading, read the article.

Also, read the comments ... a lot of decades of experience enhance the communal lore, and you can save yourself some money and a lot of heartbreak by forcing yourself to be open to accepting wisdom from a reliable source.

Kevin's article is full of exceptional wisdom, such as RTFM (Read The F**king Manual!). Again, to quote Kevin: "Read Everything!"

It's a long read, because it's difficult to cover the complex subject adequately to maintain the necessary margin of safety while reloading. If you could sit with an experienced reloader at his bench while he talked you through it, you would perhaps find it easier to digest but you wouldn't learn a lot more than is available from the article.

This is the kind of thing that Gun Magazines might have (but probably didn't) offer 20 years ago. Thanks to the Magic of The Internet, all of this Good Stuff is available to you for free, at the click of a button.

As Doctor Laura might say: "Go, Do The Right Thing"

Gun-Control Doctors - Part Deux

Two days ago --- TWO DAYS! --- I posted an article about "Gun-Control Doctors" with what I though were appropriate warnings, which most of you ignored.

I could hear you out there, sitting in front of your computers in your wife-beater t-shirts and swilling down beer with one hand and chomping on Pork Rinds with another, muttering "It cain't happen HERE, you right-wing nutjob!"

Don't hate me because I'm prescient, but today an article about JUST THIS SORT OF THING happened to show up in [gasp!] The Main Stream Media ... The Boston Herald for crissakes.
(H/T Sondra K, "Welcome to Hillarycare")

An Op-Ed by Michael Graham titled: "Doc, what's up with snooping? (Pediatrician paranoia runs deep)" offers anecdotal evidence in support of my claims that some physicians have become so convinced of their own righteousness that they are willing to go to any length, including subterfuge and mendacity, in support of their hidden agenda.

Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dad’s “bad” behavior.
...
The paranoia over parents is so strong that the AAP encourages doctors to ignore “legal barriers and deference to parental involvement” and shake the children down for all the inside information they can get.

And that information doesn’t stay with the doctor, either.

Debbie is a mom from Uxbridge who was in the examination room when the pediatrician asked her 5-year-old, “Does Daddy own a gun?” When the little girl said yes, the doctor began grilling her and her mom about the number and type of guns, how they are stored, etc.

If the incident had ended there, it would have merely been annoying. But when a friend in law enforcement let Debbie know that her doctor had filed a report with the police about her family’s (entirely legal) gun ownership, she got mad. She also got a new doctor.

In fact, the problem of anti-gun advocacy in the examining room has become so widespread that some states are considering legislation to stop it.

As titillating as this article is, I'm still not prepared to accept The Boston Herald as a sole source for evidence of a Jekyll/Hyde symposium in the AMA. Instead, I'm going to talk to some doctors who find this kind of physician misconduct unethical, reprehensible, illegal and unhelpful to their patients. In a word, doctors who agree with me.

The Clairmont Institute's "Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership" project (DRGO) has been headed by a California surgeon since 1984, and they have made themselves the answer to the question "Who shall Guard the Guardians?" Here's what they have to say about your doctor advising you not to have guns in your home:

Some medical organizations have urged doctors to tell their patients about the dangers of guns. We all know that misusing guns can be dangerous, but the risks of guns have been blown way out of proportion by groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Even worse is the tendency of some medical organizations to inject their political views favoring gun control into patient education. That's simply unethical.

Here are the applicable passages from the Official Policy of the AMA in regards to the Fundamental Elements of the Physician-Patient relationship:

(3) The patient has the right to courtesy, respect, dignity, responsiveness, and timely attention to his or her needs.
(4) The patient has the right to confidentiality. The physician should not reveal confidential communications or information without the consent of the patient, unless provided for by law or by the need to protect the welfare of the individual or the public interest.

(Note: if this link doesn't work directly, go to the AMA Advocacy page, click on Policy Finder, then accept the terms & conditions. On the resulting search page, click "code of medical ethics (A-07), and then click on E-10.00 Opinions on the Patient-Physician Relationship
Finally, click on E-10.01 Fundamental Elements of the Patient-Physician Relationship)

You can see from the AMA's own published policy that a family physician who indulges in a 'fishing expedition' into a family life style, unless seeking information which may explain a perceived medical condition, fails in regards to respecting the patient. Most egregiously, a lapse of confidentiality is entirely unethical and may in fact be actionable in this litigious society.

So what about the AAP, mentioned in the Clairmont quote?

I wrote about them last year. But I didn't really do a lot of detailed research. This year, I went to their home page, and clicked through ADVOCACY until I found a link to their Community Pediatrics Policy Statement. At the bottom of the policy summary I found a click to "Clinical Pediatrics", which I followed until I found a search engine, where I entered the search argument 'guns'.

There were 29 articles found, and without a subscription it's impossible to read the archived articles. However, the context of some of the article key-word/phrases suggested that it is common practice for pediatricians to question the children about 'non-clinical' situations in their home. Note that these questions are not necessarily asked in the presence of the parents, nor have the parents necessarily been given the opportunity to give their informed consent for this kind of questioning:

...Parental Attitudes Toward RB and Pellet Guns Dorothy T. Damore MD Pediatric Emergency...perceptions of the dangers of BB and pellet guns. A convenience sample of three groups...children had been injured by BB or pellet guns; the gun group, which consisted of...

... and ..

...they never used. Now, the bullies have guns. So do the psychopaths, the schizophren...campaign slogan in 1996, "It's the guns, stupid!" The U.S. has the highest...suicides and accidental injuries from guns. The presence of Clin Pediatr. 1999...

... and ...

..temperature (<120?>guns. These areas were chosen because of...detector on each floor?" ? "Are there guns in your home?" If yes, "Do you use...tap water temperature, storage of guns, and use of automobile child restraints...

... and ...

...Diego (continued) Injury prevention Gun safety Educational materials and discussion around gun trigger locks, lock boxes for guns, and overall prevention and gun safety Resident obtained AAP CATCH grant to expand work. School success Project looking at...

Sentence fragments taken out of context are not proof of intrusive questioning or gun-control advocacy, true. But some of the examples shown here make it difficult not to jump to conclusions.

One article is seemingly devoted entirely to questions about guns in the home and parental attitudes toward them. The next equates firearm ownership with 'psychopaths and schizophrenics', openly citing political campaign slogans (as if that has anything to do with child health care) and dubious statistics.

The third article appears to outline a flow-chart for grilling children about guns in the home: '" Are there guns in your home?' If yes ... ".

The fourth article focuses questions about 'gun safety' around ways to render home firearms inoperable or inaccessible in case of a home-intrusion emergency.

Nothing in the available summaries suggests the possibility that a home can be safe to children if a firearms is present. I suspect that many who read this article grew up in a home where firearms were an unremarkable fact of life, with no accidental child death to mar a bucolic childhood.

We know that we have politicians who are physicians; witness Howard Dean.

Unfortunately, there are far too many physicians in this country who fancy themselves politicians and in the process abuse their position of trust to advance their own private agenda. Worse, their professional associations not only fail to curb these excesses but encourage, aid and support them.

If that's right, when your children catch a cold, you should ask the owner of your local gun shop for medical advice. Which is not entirely facetious, because he is probably as likely to cure the cold as is the pediatrician.

Not Dead Yet

Summary:

Smith and Wesson Corporation, et al v. Town of Gary, et al
Case Number: 45A05-0612-CV-754

Summary:

The City of Gary filed a complaint against a number of manufacturers and distributors of handguns. The City alleged that the manufacturers negligently designed and distributed handguns and created a public nuisance in Gary by failing to take steps to prevent criminals from acquiring and misusing their products. The manufacturers filed a motion to dismiss the City's complaint or for judgment on the pleadings and argued that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ("PLCAA") required dismissal of the case. The trial court found that the PLCAA destroyed the City's cause of action but that the PLCAA was unconstitutional because it: violated the Due Process Clause, constituted an ex post facto law, and violated the separation of powers. On interlocutory appeal, the manufacturers argue that the PLCAA bars the City's lawsuit and that the PLCAA is constitutional. The City argues that the PLCAA does not provide a basis to dismiss this case and that the PLCAA is unconstitutional. The United States of America argues, as an intervenor, that the PLCAA is constitutional.

Click here for source, scroll down to:
"Smith & Wesson Corporation, et al v Town of Gary, et al"

(Note: requires REAL PLAYER to view the video of the arguments. Click here to download the free application, which requires that you close your browser to install.)

This Link (same as above) includes the summary which you see above, and also a (slow loading) one-hour video of the actual hearing in the Indiana Supreme Court. The legal process is fascinating. However, you may not want to spend an hour watching Judge Patricia Riley trash the appellant lawyer (hired by Smith & Wesson, Inc.) ... whose argument is that Congress has passed a law which obviates the original 1999 lawsuit, consequently this suit should be dismissed out of hand ... so I'll cut to the chase.

I was informed about this new ruling via subscription email from The Shooting Wire. Unfortunately, there is no "permalink" to Jim Shepherd's excellent summation, so although I would ordinarily provide a link to the source article, in this single case I (reluctantly) will post the entire contents of this ephemeral article here:

Gary Gun Case Points Out Legislation From The Bench

On Monday, a three-judge panel of the Indiana Appeals Court heard oral arguments in the matter of Gary, Indiana versus the firearms industry (Case #45A05-0612-CV-754). After some very direct questioning, it appears the court might actually allow Gary to go forward with its 1999 lawsuit despite the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that was approved in 2005, specifically for the purpose of shielding the industry from liability claims involving criminal misuse of firearms which were legally manufactured and operating in the manner in which they were designed.

The judges seemed to be taking the opinion that until a law had been upheld in the courts it really wasn't a law. Or as Judge Patricia Riley put it "How can they be changing the law when it hasn't been decided by the courts?"

Michael Rice, a Dallas attorney representing the firearms industry and Isaac Lidksy, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney, both disagreed with Judge Riley, arguing that Congress had decided the Gary lawsuit - and others like it - posed a "threat and burden on interstate and foreign commerce."

Lidsky also said Lake County, Indiana Judge Robert Pete was wrong last year when he became the first judge to declare the act unconstitutional. As Lidsky rightly stated, the federal government regularly preempts state common law in the case of liability issues. Further, Lidsky said, Pete wrongly asserted the federal law infringed on the duties of state courts.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence's attorney, arguing in support of Gary, said the industry's argument was based on the "statute they wish the Congress had passed" - contending the federal law only gives immunity to the firearms industry in cases where manufacturers and gun dealers did nothing wrong.

That's an important point in the Gary lawsuit. It alleges the industry - including manufacturers and gun dealers - created a public nuisance by failing to prevent criminals from illegally obtaining and misusing handguns. That questions Indiana's public nuisance statute - and its applicability in this case.

The Indiana Appellate Court judges appeared to be leaning toward, not surprisingly, Indiana state law over the new federal statute. Judge John Sharpnack went so far as to say the courts had yet to decide if the industry facilitated illegal straw-man purchases that "resulted in the city of Gary having to deal with a sea, if you will, of illegal firearms in their community."

To the firearms industry, such a comment may seem laughable, but in this instance, it's no laughing matter. The courts are increasingly inclined to rule on their personal opinions rather than the law - especially when it comes to firearms.

It appears - at least from my time spent watching the proceedings (Indiana's online web video system is a very good idea, incidentally), the judges will most likely allow the suit to proceed. The wildcard in the entire proceeding is Indiana's nuisance statute and the Appellate Court's seeming intent on seeing that law upheld - at least to the point that it, too, was given its day in court.

Long story short - no decision at press time - but it appears the firearms industry, despite a federal law designed to stop baseless lawsuits, will continue to be forced to defend itself against lawsuits that have very little basis in fact, relying on anti-gun hysteria and an increasingly activist judiciary where they have failed to pass anti-handgun legislation when argued on the facts.

The fact of this matter is that, in this matter, facts apparently don't matter.

We'll keep you posted.

--Jim Shepherd

The hearing took place on October 1, 2007. Although I performed an extensive internet search, so far (as of 8:30pm PST, October 3, 2007) I have been unable to find any other source which provides any reference to this hearing.

However, I did find internet sources which expand on the theme and cite background information on the lawsuit, most notably from The Munster, Indiana Times (which is 'almost' real-time, and includes some comments which were obviously written after the results of the hearing were made public ... locally.)

CONSEQUENCES:
Shepherd gave an excellent summary of the short-term consequences of this ruling. "The judges will ... allow the suit to proceed." That means that an Indiana court will hear the arguments from both sides, and decide on the merits of those arguments. If the Plaintiff wins, S&W may be obliged to pony up some significant cash ... you can expect to see this appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, at great expense to the folks whose taxes pay for these pin-head/angel-dancing discussions. My best layman's guess is that the Supreme Court will support Congress, and uphold the PLCAA. Or not, in which case we will see more rounds of "Same Stuff, Different Day."


Judicial Assumptions:
But what if The Supremes don't swing that way? The most interesting quote (so far) comes from Judge Riley: "How can they be changing the law when it hasn't been decided by the courts?"

It's not a question which most of us would have considered. But then, most of us aren't judges in a State Supreme Court, and we aren't confronted with a Federal Fiat.


Legislative vs Judicial Branch:
The context is generally assumed to be that the Legislative Branch of government makes the laws, the Judicial Branch interprets them. Here, a new piece of legislation proposes to short-circuit an existing legal motion by unilaterally declaring that such legal actions are no longer legal. Can they do that? This is the question which judge Riley seems to be asking.


State vs Federal Jurisdiction:
It may be more important that a State court is dealing with a new Federal law, which applies to a pending action at the State level. It may be likened to a question of primogeniture. The pending legal action may, if Riley's question is answered in one way, take precedent over the new law. Who came first -- the chicken or the egg?

This goes beyond the question of what was originally considered a 'frivolous suit', which Congress declared was based upon responsibility for the consequences of the illegal action of a 'gun-owner' (who may not have been in legal possession) with a firearm which was legally sold by the manufacturer.
________________________________

If you're confused, you're in good company.

And if I were a betting man (which I'm not), I'd call it six-to-five for the defendant ... the firearms manufacturers. Why? Because it seems to me that the defendant built a safe product and distributed it according to the existing ordinances. Further, the firearms industry is already held to a higher standard than any other manufacturer. This would work if the question was "Product Liability", of course, but the question raised by the court is Indiana's Public Nuisance Statute, and I have no idea how it is written (and I refuse to research THAT can of worms!)

I will reiterate Shepherd's statement:

That's an important point in the Gary lawsuit. It alleges the industry - including manufacturers and gun dealers - created a public nuisance by failing to prevent criminals from illegally obtaining and misusing handguns. That questions Indiana's public nuisance statute - and its applicability in this case.

How a manufacturer can regulate the end-user is completely beyond me, so I find myself in the same legal quandary as you doubtless find, ultimately ... confusing.

Y'AllTube

Y not?


Hell Yeah!

Gun-Control Doctors

According to NRA-ILA, only two states continue to forbid Right To Carry (RTC): Wisconsin and Illinois.

In 2005, Wisconsin legislature passed a RTC bill but it was vetoed by the governor. As recently as August, 2007, Governor Doyle is still fighting hard to " ... [force] Wisconsin’s law-abiding gun-owners to forfeit their Second Amendment rights. Not since his 2001 effort to ban the possession of all firearms other than single-shot rifles, pistols and shotguns has Doyle waged such an assault on the basic individual freedoms of the citizens of the Badger State."

It's obvious that Governor Doyle is a 'one man band', determined to pursue his own agenda. Considering the long history of conflict between the governor and the legislature, one wonders what factors may have been involved in the governor's adamant stand.

One influence may be the 2-page manifesto published in 2005 by the Medical College of Wisconsin / Firearm Injury Center.

The Guest Editorial by Stephen W. Hargarten, MD, MPH, titled "Public Health Implications of Carrying Concealed Weapons: Have We Thought This Policy Through?" was published in the Wisconsin Medical Journal - 2005 - Volume 104, Number 7.

One wonders whether Governor Doyle has read this, and whether it influenced his thinking. Keep those questions in mind while we examine the contents ... which often wrong, always agenda-driven.

The policy discussion about conceal and carry laws has been largely focused on crime, with supporters arguing that personal protection with firearms lowers the crime rate. A recent report of the National Academies of Science has concluded, however, that the available body of research does not support claims that conceal and carry laws have a measurable impact on crime.

On the contrary, there is sufficient anecdotal AND statistical evidence to the effect that states with RTC laws have experienced a lowering of Major Crime (Rape, Assault, Homicide, etc.) subsequent to the enactment of RTC laws.

A main concern about the conceal and carry legislation is the potential public health risk of injury to vulnerable populations, especially youth. Wisconsin’s youth suicide rate is 36% higher than the national rate.

It is disingenuous to relate adolescent suicide with RTC, since minors are not eligible for Concealed Carry licenses in any state in the union. There is a suggestion that minors will use the firearms owned by their parents, who usually would have owned the weapon regardless of RTC laws. Also, since 96% (48 out of 50) of the states have RTC laws in some form, it's telling that "Wisconsin’s youth suicide rate is 36% higher than the national rate." If the suggested relationship did exist, Wisconsin -- which still forbids RTC -- should have a LOWER youth suicide rate.

In the event of such legislation succeeding in this legislative session, two important issues should be considered. First, what kinds of guns should be allowed to be concealed and carried? ... [T]he safety of particular types of firearms should be studied. Design defects in firearms contribute to unintended fatalities. One such design defect, exposed hammers that rest on firing pins, is present in the Ruger Blackhawk revolver, and has been associated with over 40 deaths and numerous injuries.

Wrong, and misleading. The Ruger Blackhawk (I own two, both purchased over a decade ago) features a 'transfer-bar' system. The hammer does NOT rest on the firing pin. Unless the hammer of this single-action revolver is pulled back to full-cock, and the trigger pulled back, it is not possible for the forward momentum of the hammer to impel the firing pin against the primer.

There is no reasonable justification for this erroneous statement to be included in what purports to be a scholarly essay. It not only demonstrates the ignorance (or deliberate subterfuge) of the author, the statement is apparently included to impose a 'scare factor' upon the reader.

The design and safety characteristics of firearms should be taken into account when determining the types of weapons that may be carried concealed. This is particularly important since past legislation would have immunized firearm manufacturers and dealers from liability for design negligence. Unlike almost all other consumer products, there is no national product safety oversight of firearms. Legislators may wish to limit the availability of more dangerous firearms through safety standards such as California’s “drop safety” requirement for all new handguns sold in the state.

Wrong, and misleading. "Past legislation" is obviously referring to a Federal law prohibiting civil suits against firearms manufactures for the mis-use of their product by careless or felonious users of their firearms. Armorers are as liable for 'design negligence' as are any other manufacturer, unless the manufacturer happens to be located in China.

As for the California "Drop Test" law, that was a patently obvious (and successful) attempt to drive firearms manufacturers away from the California firearms market. Many firearms manufacturers have discontinued much of their sales from that state because the law requires them to 'donate' examples of their product for destruction-testing ... with no compensation when their pistol (for example) is return after having been repeated dropped on a concrete floor from a height of six feet.

It is estimated that as many as 30,000 applications for permits will be made in the first year of conceal and carry and that as many as 100,000 permits will be issued over a 5-year period. The public health implications of tens of thousands of individuals carrying handguns with a spectrum of potential safety defects have not been adequately discussed

A spectrum of potential safety defects?

That's fairly vague. Okay, let's discuss that.

Product Liability laws apply to firearms as thoroughly as they apply to Mack Trucks. Defective products are a sure road to dissolution of a manufacturer, who will probably be obliged to sell everything he owns to pay to civil lawsuit to which he is subject. Enlightened self-interest. Enough said. End of discussion. Turn the page.

Emerging technologies, such as personalized handguns that would be inoperable to unauthorized users, should be critically examined. There has also been no evaluation of the risk that a legitimate conceal and carry permit holder could have his or her handgun forcibly taken away and used for criminal purposes. One study of law enforcement fatalities has found that 21% of officers killed with handguns while on duty were killed with their own service weapons.

• The "emerging technologies ... inoperable to unauthorized users" thing still doesn't work, and even if it does it is usually not reasonable in a self-defense context.
• Anyone who is attacked by a highly motivated predator will either be injured/killed by the predator by whatever means, or have the means to defend against said Goblin. I'm thinking, I'm more likely to be killed because I was unable to defend myself, than if I attempted to defend myself against an unarmed Goblin and failed.
• When a police officer is killed with his own weapon, it's because he or she screwed up. It certainly isn't because he or she was in possession of a weapon.
  
• What has this last bogus statistic to do with civilian Right To Carry laws?

how are we going to know if this policy has had a positive or negative effect? The National Academies of Science report recommends that more comprehensive data and analysis are essential to the development and evaluation of policies and programs that involve firearms. Currently, states like Wisconsin are unable to fully evaluate the effects of conceal and carry legislation.

How are you to know, unless you try it? Oh, wait ... could you maybe observe the results of RTC laws in the 48 states which permit their citizens to defend themselves?

Whose fault is it that "... states like Wisconsin are unable to fully evaluate the effects of conceal and carry legislation."

Could it be ... Wisconsin's fault?

Conclusion:

Failure to address the public health implications of conceal and carry policies and practices may have unintended consequences for the health of the public. Do we really need this policy implemented to address crime and homicide? Do we want loaded, defective, or poorly-designed guns in our environment? Do we have the funds and infrastructure to accurately evaluate this policy?

Answer:









Recommended reading

Guest: ARPC Single-Stack and Glock Matches

In response to my plea for someone who actually competed in these two matches, WhiteFish gave permission for me to post part of an email he sent me on the day after the match.

... Shot both the single stack and Glock matches over the weekend. The results from the single stack were best left there, however, I did have some good stages and bright spots.

You would have enjoyed watching Bob H*****, the god of steel, bang away with 8 shots on a mini-popper and then 6 shots at a regular popper on the next stage - only to discover the screw in the rear sight had come out and it was sliding from side to side with each shot. It was something to behold! H***** proving that he is actually human! I let Bob shoot my Kimber on our last stage which had some difficult long shots with no-shoots attached (and two low ports with swingers).

Al Austen won a Springfield .45 at the post-match drawing, as did Bruce Bennett. Scott Springer won the single stack match.

The weather at the Glock match was miserable. I was drenched (and eventually cold) even with a Goretex raincoat. I shot the new Glock 35 in 40 S&W - only about a hundred rounds through it prior to the match. It proved to be a "shooter". Finished 25th overall out of 55 shooters with a overall % of 64.5%, 3rd C Limited, and 6th of 14 Limited shooters overall with a Limited match % of 85% - not far behind Bob Scheussler, who is now in B Limited. That effort earned me a plaque that will be coming from Emanuel Bragg. Lots of shooters were bunched very close together, so I wasn't far out of the top 20 overall.

I shot with Bruce Bennett and Bill Mayne, essentially a squad of WA shooters except for me. BTW - Trevor Ott is nothing short of amazing. Trevor beat, shooting Production, 6 open Glock shooters, including Bill Marrs, while shooting a borrowed stock 9mm Glock belonging to his father!

My calves ache today, but otherwise I survived the weekend.

Note that the weather in the Albany, Oregon, area was threatening on Saturday, but the Single-Stack match was conducted under semi-dry conditions. For Oregon at the end of September, that's as good as we can expect.

The Glock Match started out on a wet, cold, breezy Sunday morning. The rain was minor drizzle all morning and intermittent rain the rest of the day.

You've heard that the Eskimos supposedly have a hundred words for snow? That may not be true, but the fact is that all languages have built-up words (such as German) based on a root word, and many phrases or expressions which are variations on the theme. In Oregon, we tend to be more discerning about the way we describe rain. For example: mist, 'light rain', shower(s), 'intermittent rain', rain, 'slanting rain' (rain and wind combined), 'heavy rain', "hard rain', downpour and 'gully-washer' might be considered a descriptive progression of precipitation.

As a Native Oregonian, I carry boots, gloves, umbrella and rain-gear in my car from Labor Day to Independence Day. When we go to matches during this period, SWMBO and I typically don boots and rain pants before we leave the house. Sometimes we find we don't need this much protection, but I can state with confidence that we wear raincoats and rain-pants at 90% of the matches during the 9-month "rainy season" in Oregon.

I'm surprised to see WhiteFish commenting on the weather here. I've seen him shoot all day wearing no more protection than a wool shirt over the same clothing he wears all year. When he says he "... was drenched (and eventually cold) " is remarkable. I was amazed to learn that he even owns a Goretex raincoat.

In the ten years we've been shooting together, I've never seen it.

Forget "Global Warming". It appears that Oregon has entered a "mini-ice age", folks.

I've also received email from other competitors, commenting on the experience of back-to-back eight stage matches. Gary G-Man had invited us over for a BBQ after the Saturday Single-Stack match, which we regretfully declined because SWMBO is still recuperating from Surgery. He writes:

Last weekend would not have been the best time to have a get-to-gather anyway. I always forget how tiring it is to shoot 8 stages in a day, let alone shooting another 8 stages the following day. My ol body rebels when my mind says it can do it.

Yeah. Well, at least you stepped up to the line and did it. The closest I came to the match was when I went to the 7-11 to buy the Sunday Papers, so we could do the crossword puzzles.

I've also heard that these two matches will again be presented back-to-back next year ... but in the summer. Sounds like a good idea.

UPDATE: 06-OCT-2007 - Match Results
2007 Single Stack Match
2007 Glock Match

Of Arms and the Law: ATF from the inside

Of Arms and the Law: ATF from the inside

The First Monday in October ... the date when the Supreme Court of the United States begins its deliberations for the year ... is an appropriate date for this subject. (click on the link above for the article.)

Of Arms and the Law offers this discussion about the director nominee (and current Acting Director) for the BATFE, Michael Sullivan. Word is, he may not be the best choice for ATF Storm-master.

Toto, we're not in Kansas any more.

OA&TL writer David Hardy also offers this link to a Times Online article decrying "Replica Guns", bought in Germany and smuggled into England. The Brits are 'up in arms' (you should excuse the expression) about these replicas, legally sold over the counter without restriction in Germany, which are converted into firing/lethal weapons in England. You can guess the purpose.

I'm reminded of Jeff Goldblum's line in Jurassic Park: "Life will find a way."

The point being, of course, that ...

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

It seems silly that we feel obliged to constantly remind The Brits of this Law of Nature, especially since they just ... don't ... listen.

Silly Buggers.

ARPC Single Stack & ARPC Glock Match

As I mentioned a week ago, I hadn't intended to shoot the two 'special' matches at the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club this weekend. However, I expected to attend at least one, perhaps both matches.

The weather was not cooperative, and I was more concerned with attending SWMBO as she recuperated from surgery than leaving her alone for part of the day to watch Practical Pistol matches, so I missed both range days.

I had hoped that I could at least give you the match results, but they aren't available online at this date (Sunday, September 30, 2007). However, I'm sure they will soon appear here.

If any of you who did attend can provide a description of the match(es), or photos, or both, I hope you will write to me at the email address found at the bottom of this page. I will be happy to host your contribution.

For those of you who are concerned, SWMBO is recuperating quite nicely.

Thank you for the flowers, Lori. They were delivered Saturday afternoon. If you write, I'm sure SWMBO will send you the photo she took of the arrangement. It was beautiful, and brightened her home and her mood.

UPDATE:
Information on the match available in Comments section. I'll have a brief "I Wuz There" Guest article up shortly. And I corrected the link to the ARPC Match Scores webpage in this article.

UPDATE: 06-OCT-2007 - Match Results
2007 Single Stack Match
2007 Glock Match

Texas Star ... There Will Be Trouble

Almost everyone discovers that the Texas Star can be difficult to shoot clean, especially when presented in a stage which offers a challenging mix of IPSC targets, Pepper Poppers, Plates and The Texas Star.

Each target design offers unique problems for you to solve, and the results are often frustrating.

In the video below, you see four or five individual shooters as they address these challenges. The first shooter does fine on the plates and the star, and only misses one shot at a Pepper Popper toward the end because he rushes a shot. Everybody else in this video misses multiple shots.

When you're shooting a pistol with a 10-round magazine and the stage is set up with three 7-shot arrays, you may be excused for expecting that you can clear each array with no more than 10 shots. Sadly, this is often not the case.

Even Open-gun competitors can find themselves "behind the stage", needing to make an unplanned reload even though they have four or five extra shots to complete this 21-round stage. (I know I did, and I'm happy that nobody was filming my performance!)



You can view higher definition videos of this stage at Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery.

Please pay special attention to the large file sizes ... the first (HPIM4356.MPG) and the last (7a9star.wmv) videos are 15MB downloads, while the 2nd video ("Mike Wilson's Near-Perfect run on the Texas Star Stage) is a 6MB download.

PS: You'll notice that the last competitor, Norm, has a few misses even though he turned in an excellent time. Some people just miss faster.

Incidentally, you can see the match results here. This was Stage 4: Can You Say "Steel" Norm was 2nd overall for the stage, Mike W. beat my time by 5 seconds.

Very Nice Job, Mike!

Cox & Forkum: Final Bow

Cox & Forkum: Final Bow



If you were as curious as I was about the October 1, 2007, cartoon by Cris Muir, it was probably because of the following panel:



Cox and Forkum have announced that they are discontinuing their political cartoons as a collaborative effort.

Click on the opening link to read their explanation.

I'll continue to feature their website on my sidebar under "Places I Recommend", for my own convenience. I've watched their efforts with amusement and occasional discomfort, and about their 'retirement' I can only say:

Damn!

Cops Writing Cops

Thanks to LawDog for the heads-up on this ugly little website.

Cops Writing Cops is a private website where Cops write to complain that they were cited for violating traffic rules (including "Speeding" ... you know, when you drive faster than is safe).

These yahoos gentlemen seem to think they are above the law, and that just because they possess a "Friends Of Police" card they should be exempt from traffic safety laws.

I haven't read all of the posts there, but I've read enough to understand that the website is positioned as a place where LEOs can vent their displeasure at being given a ticket for breaking the law.

I have, however, read the comments. I'm glad to see that many of these comments say, in more or less words: "This site makes me sick". These comments are presumably posted by LEOs, which makes me happy because I would say the same thing if I could figure out how to sign on to the website ... which I can't, because I don't have the LEO credentials.

Here are some of the lame excuses ... and similarly outrageous comments ... provided in a shabby effort to whitewash the excesses of a bunch of Elitist Enforcers.

This LEO was caught doing 85.* in a 65mps zone:

I really didn't mind the ticket once I knew I was getting one. I've written thousands and is it really that bad?? The thing that bothers me is 1) she showed no respect for me. All the years I have worked, the different units I've been on, the shitheads that I have arrested didn't mean squat to her. I've given breaks before for people doing 19 miles over the limit. I have even let one go for doing 150+ on LSD.

Oh really? You allowed a "shithead" to drive 150mph while on hallucinogenic drugs? That speaks well for your judgement. Was this "shithead" by chance a LEO? I would feel much safer driving in your state, knowing that your priorities include allowing a drugged-out driver to continue driving on the same road with my family.

Here's another:

My name is Chris F. I am currently an NYPD officer for 17 years. I would like to add Trooper DS Payne of the North Carolina State Police to the DICK of the month.
On April 5,2007 I was traveling from NY to NC to see my family. I was on US 220 in Asheboro when I was stopped by Trooper Payne. I stopped immediately and turned on all interior lights and shut off the TV my kids were watching. Trooper Payne approached the veh. and asked me what my hurray was. I told him I was driving for 12 hours with my wife and 3 children and we were almost at our destination. I apologized for my speeding, then he asked me if I knew what the speed limit was, I said I thought it was 65mph. he asked me for my license and registartion. I handed him my drivers license, my NYPD photo ID card, and since I am also the state trustee for my FOP lodge, I gave him my NYS FOP photo ID card. After looking at the cards, Trooper Payne then tossed both cards in my lap and said "I ASKED FOR YOUR VEH. REGISTRATION". I then gave him my registration and insurance card and both my id cards and asked if the cards would help me and he gave them back to me and said " I didn't ask for them, don't want to see them, and I don't care."

After about 5-10 minutes Trooper Payne returned to my veh. with a speeding summons for 70 mph in a 55 mph zone. I signed the ticket and said to him " Thank You for the courtesy you showed me", he said " you don't see me speeding up & down the highways of NY do you?". I then said I had the opportunity to extend the professional courtesy to 2 NC Troopers on 2 separate occasions to which he replied "now that's enough out of you". I then rolled up the window and drove away.

Yes I was speeding, and I will pay my fine, but I think every police officer out there should know that the day I got my speeding summons, 2 Charlotte Police officers were killed in the line of duty, and their funerals were that weekend. If Trooper Payne stops another police officer who is on his way to pay respects to 2 fallen brothers, is he going to write them also.

Emphasis on being with your family ... swell, so you risked the lives of your family by driving 12 hours straight, and driving too fast, and you think it justifies ignoring your unsafe driving habits because you were doing it 'for the children'?. Did you ever consider that the trooper who stopped and ticketed you had more concern for your children than you demonstrated?

Then you got all outraged about the ticket and brought in the honorable death of a brother officer in some lame effort to inject 'perspective' to the situation. Your children must be very proud of you, that you are such a wuss that you can't even take a simple speeding ticket without whining.

Let's look at one more silly-ass attempt to justify obviously illegal activities:

... WHILE OFFICER JOHNSON WAS ON PATROL HE STOPED A PICK UP FOR SPEEDING.HE APPROACHED THE VEHICLE AND MADE CONTACT WITH THE DRIVER.WHO FOR OFFICER SAFETY EXPLANED HE HAD A WEAPON IN THE TRUCK.OFFICER JOHNSON ASKED FOR A CDW LICENSE .THE DRIVER REPLIED I AM A DEPUTY SHERIFF,OFFICER JOHNSON ASKED FOR DRIVERS LICENSE AND REGESTRATION .AND PROCEDED BACK TO HIS CRUISER .WHILE WRITING THE CITATION A STATE TROOPER WHO KNEW THE DEPUTYS VEHICLE PULLED ALONG SIDE OF OFFICER JOHNSON AND ASKED IF HE COULD HELP OUT AND CUT THE DEPUTY A BREAK. THAT HE PERSONALEY KNEW THE DEPUTY AND HAD WORKED ALONG SIDE HIM FOR YEARS .OFFICE JOHNSON REPLIED HE DID NOT CARE WHO THE INDIVIDUAL WORKED FOR OR WHO HE WAS NOR DID HE GIVE A SHIT THAT THE TROOPER WAS ASKING FOR A FAVOR HE WAS GOING TO WRITE THE DEPUTY A SPEEDING TICKET. JUST IN CASE OFFICER JOHNSON BREAKS DOWN ONE NIGHT .HE WORKS FOR KENTUCKY VEHICLE ENFORCEMENT POST 7 (LONDON KY) AND LIVES IN HARLAN KY

I am NOT going to address the illiteracy of the author, except that if this was a LEO he certainly does not look (here) like someone who is accustomed to writing reports.

The important points here are that (a) the citing officer refused to 'cut a break' for a speeding LEO, even when the LEO affiliation was emphasized by a brother office; (b) the coy reference to a (concealed weapon) was an obvious ploy to insert the "I'm a cop, leave me alone" gambit (which did not work here), and (c) the "just in case, Officer Johnson works (here) comments are an obvious encouragement to deny "officer Johnson" support in a future situation where the officer needs back-up.

I think this last is the most egregious demonstration of a Closed Society.

It's bad enough that these fools should expect preferential treatment for the simple fact that they are charged with enforcing the very laws they flout;

It's worse that they seem to feel justified in holding up for ridicule the officers who enforce the same laws for everyone ... even other Law Enforcement Officers;

The worst is that when these honest LEOs fail to live up to their unreasonable expectations, they seem to consider it only just that the honest LEOs are subject to craven undermining of the simple rules of engagement which all LEOs depend on for their personal safety ... for the most petty reasons.

I know many Law Enforcement Officers here in Oregon, and to a man they are honest, loyal, courageous and just representatives of their Departments.

The departments which are the homes of these contributors to Cops Writing Cops should, in my private opinion, make a special effort to identify the authors of these despicable diatribes, and cast them out of the force. These losers are representative of the dregs of humanity, a source of humiliation to their departments, and a shame to their community.

In case you are not yet convinced, allow me to leave you with just one more example of the LEOs which they claim to represent:

From The Desk of A "Remove Me"

nobody around here with a badage agrees with your site....I've tried to log into the site and post on the forum but it doesn't let me for some reason. please take me off the mailing list and I don't want to be associated with it......

respect perhaps...but if I deserve a ticket then I'll take a ticket....but my girlfriend, friend, wives....whanna !...what a bunch of babies who think their badage (sic ... badge?) should mean more than it does, that's not what it's for....

pavlovsdawg@hotmail.com

I applaud this brave Officer. He has the courage to speak up when the audience is apparently all of a mind to contradict him, and more importantly to allow bodily harm upon he who disagrees with their selfish opinion.

We need more Law Enforcement Officers like him, and fewer ... much fewer ... of The Other Kind.

Thanks for the head-up, LawDog.





.

Uncle Jay Explains The News

I've been a big fan of Uncle Jay Explains The News for ... oh, I don't know; probably about 15 minutes. Ever since Gentle Reader (I stole that term from LawDog) "The Hobo Brasser" sent me a link to "Uncle Jay Explains Congressional Recess". (Note: not on the original Uncle Jay Explains" website.)

Checking out Uncle Jay's Website, I note that on September 24, 2007, Uncle Jay explains BLOGS.
Essentially, there are two kinds of writing on the Internet:

1. Amateur Blogs that are biased and undependable, and
2. Solid, professional JOURNALISM that's biased and undependable.

I have to admit, Uncle Jay has Amateur Blogs down, dead right.

Did I mention that I don't get paid for being biased and undependable? That's right, I need to get a PayPal link up on my website right away!

Or, I can continue to submit the occasional article or photo essay to USPSA's 'House Magazine", The Front Sight. It's possible that with just one submittal a year I can make something like 10,000% MORE annually than by relying on PayPal contributions.

Hmmm ... tough choice.

So you can help me here. Can I see a show of hands? How many Gentle Readers are willing to send me a token contribution of $50 a month if I continue blogging?

Anybody?

Okay, how many would contribute the same amount if I close Cogito Ergo Geek? Would pay me NOT to Blog?

Huh? Hey, wait a minute!

Okay, never mind. I'll forget the PayPal, we'll just continue the way it is: I'll write, you won't like it.

If I'm not offending anybody, what fun is it?

A Personal Note

SWMBO is scheduled for surgery this week, and I'll be spending much of my time for the next week with her welfare uppermost in my mind. In fact, I'll be her honored handmaiden ... er, hand-geek ... for the days immediately following the operation. She won't be moving around much for a while.

It's not a matter of great worry; the prognosis is good and it's not a life-saving or experimental procedure. But she will be unable to work for four to six weeks and, as is common with surgery, she will will be confined to home even after she feels like getting up and moving.


As a consequence, we won't be around much for a while.

Whether this will adversely affect my blogging in the immediate future (post-Wednesday), it's too early to tell. Chances are I'll have little to do while she's imitating a couch potato, which may result in more time to write.

However, if the blogging drops off for a while ... well, you'll know.

We've already received the best wishes from many of our friends, and I'm sure those of you who know SWMBO understand that she is indomitable.

SWMBO is the strongest person I know, man or woman, and I have every confidence that she'll be back on her feet in record time.

I can't wait until I again see her RO-ing a stage and calling to the squad:

Hey, you guys! Get off your ass, get out here and tape some targets, will ya?

Why do you think we call her She -- Who Must Be Obeyed?

UPDATE: 26-SEP-2007:
I'm finally back from the hospital, having left SWMBO half-dozing after a dinner of Raspberry Jello, water and Percocet. Her surgeon was pleased with the results of the operation; SWMBO is less pleased, uncomfortable, and receiving close and gracious attention from her nurse Jean and CNA Lalala ... who check on her every 15 minutes to make sure she's as comfortable as they can make her. I stuck around for five hours holding her hand, wiping her brow, receiving a lovely bouquet sent by her younger sister, phoning everyone in her family (and the people at her office) to let them all know that she is okay.

Last night I took her out to dinner, where she was unable to finish her Salmon salad. She had the waitress bring her a box so she could take the more-than-half of the salad home. I hope she feels like finishing it tomorrow, when I bring her home. I doubt it; we'll probably end up throwing it all out. I'll take her back in a few weeks and see if she has a better appetite when she isn't facing surgery the following day.

Me? I'm perhaps almost as glad as she is that the operation is over with. There are still weeks of recuperation to get through, and I'm aware that this extended period of inactivity will grate on her nearly as much as did the surgery.

We are grateful for the good wishes of her friends who have kept her in their thoughts and their prayers. We give thanks to God for his beneficence, and for the medical system which renders major surgery no more traumatic than much worry, some physical discomfort, and a quiet period of recuperation.

It wasn't that long ago when this would have been a life-threatening situation. In some places, it still is.

NRA Leadership: Guest Blog

The Hobo Brasser has been a stalwart advocate of the National Rifle Association for as long as I have known him (and certainly for many years before that), and I value his opinion on more subjects than the best makes of Irish Whiskey and Race Guns.

When I took the NRA to task earlier this week, he added his own comment to the article. Today, he sent me a thoughtful extended comment which he as graciously permitted me to include as a separate point/counter-point perspective.

I have lived all over the country. During the early 70’s in Colorado the state legislature came within a few votes of outlawing the ownership of handguns. Who was the strongest voice against this, yep the NRA. Here in Oregon when some idiot legislature tried to get a law passed that you could not possess a gun within 1000 feet of a school (which would have made criminals out of many of us myself included since the high school is in my back yard) it was the NRA who mobilized us to write and help defeat this bill. Today I get notices weekly about what is going on in our state legislature and in the nation’s capitol that keeps me informed as to what stupidity and down right sneakiness our elected "representatives" are up to.

There are more examples, but everyone, besides you, I think gets why we should all belong to the NRA. As I have said before there are other pro-gun lobbyists, but none as effective as the NRA. The NRA lobbyist here is Oregon is known by all the members of our state legislature. He has been an effective voice for our gun rights. In fact, the liberals who are anti-gun consider him and the NRA to be their worst enemy.

To address your "strikes": I concede that so called "zero tolerance" policies are idiotic or lead to such idiocy as the kid being lead from school in cuffs. However, it is the enforcement of the policy by gun fearing liberals who take all things to an extreme -- like political correctness. How many conservative school teachers do you know? Had a sane policy been in effect what would have happened at Virginia Tech?

You negated strike two yourself.

From time to time people - who know better - in front of a camera, say things they shouldn’t. Look at Jim Zumbo. Yes, Heston said no one should own an AK-47. He regreted it as well.

I know this will not change your mind, but I hope you will put it up as a guest blog to counter your rant against the NRA.

He signed his note: (Life Member)

__________________

THB noted that I had 'negated strike two' myself, and I'm glad he recognized the change in pace. In fact, when I first read the original NRA release I found several statements to which I was initially opposed, until I re-read them more carefully and discovered that the statements were similar to Gun Control positions except for the insertion of a single word.

For example, my "Strike 2" was aimed at this statement:

We support and encourage the distribution, development and use of safety locks, trigger locks, gun safes, or any voluntary means necessary and appropriate to keep firearms away from, or inoperable by, those who shouldn't have them.

The key word here was voluntary. The Gun Control position is to propose mandatory methods (mandatory trigger locks, mandatory gun safes, mandatory dismantling of firearms, etc.), which smacks again of 'zero tolerance' and other mindless draconian measures which fail to take into account the circumstances.

Another quote which initially struck my eye was:

So we believe in zero tolerance for anyone illegally buying guns for juveniles.

I am so attuned to hearing the Gun Control wing-nuts argue against the concept that children can be taught to treat firearms with respect, that juveniles can learn safe gun-handling skills, that on first read I completely missed the key word illegally. When I read the statement again, I realized that I agreed with it completely even though the phrase included the killer key words 'zero tolerance'.

There are other examples in the NRA speech which tripped my personal hot-buttons, and every one of them turned out to be much better considered phraseology than my guarded mind-set was able to recognize at first glance.

That's why I ended my article with a grudging admission that maybe the NRA wasn't a complete sell-out.

Because I recognized that I have issues to deal with in regards to the NRA, and that they are largely of my making (not the fault of the NRA), it occurred to me that perhaps I'm not the only one who instinctively and unfairly am guilty of under-estimating the integrity of the NRA.

I had left the article in its original form, to show that even a curmudgeon can learn to see the value of this organization.

If you were disappointed that I seemed to yield on my basic premise ... that the NRA is largely without value for firearms owners in America ... then perhaps you may find yourself willing to give them another chance.

Some mules just naturally require a bigger stick.

WiFi - is GOOD!

Several weeks ago I bought a laptop computer for no better reason that I wanted one.

There are some work-related reasons involved, but mainly I wanted the option to upload photos from my digital camera to a computer while I was still at the range.

I enjoy taking pictures at matches, and sometimes I take more pictures than my available memory can hold. (That's over 3GB, which is about two hours. Don't laugh, I have exceeded this limit a few times at two-day matches, and I regretted having to decide whether to film match performances late in the match. Some of the most interesting situations take place near the end of a large match.)

I've had people ask me to give them copies if the pictures I took of them, and sometimes of the whole match. It was disappointing that I couldn't do so, because I had no way of creating a transportable media to hand them at the end of the day.

No more! Now I can burn a CD at the match, and give it to someone who has suffered through an awkward stage (or a very well-run stage) before they go home.

The problem was when I wanted to transfer the files to my desktop computer. I have so far relied on the CTAM (Chevy Truck Access Method), which in this case involves using a 4GB thumb drive to copy the folders I created from the SanDisk memory chips out of the camera, move them to the desktop, and then do the editing and cutting.

My best solution was to set up a Wireless Local-Area Network (WiFi, essentially) at home so I edit them on the laptom and transfer them directly to the Internet.

---

The problem was, I didn't know anything about Wireless networking and I was reluctant to invest money in a system which I may or may not be sufficiently technically competent to install.

So it came as a happy surprise when, last week, my landlord (I live in a Town-house Duplex) approached me as I was watering my garden, with the question "Jerry, you have a Cable Modem don't you? What would it take for me to hook into your modem for high-speed Internet access?"

My answer was immediate: "No problem, just buy me a WiFi router. I'll hook it up and give you access to the encryption key."

He decided that was acceptable, and wandered off. Saturday, after no more encouragement from my landlord, I wandered over to my local Computer Store after completing the Dundee September Club Match and bought a 54 MBPS (Mega Bits Per Second) WiFi router for $50.

I bought this from a computer store rather than from an online vendor such as Tiger Direct because this is the merchant who built my new desktop computer, and I like to support local merchants. As it happens, I got a decent price on the router even when compared to similar products available from in-town big stores such as Staples and Office Max.

Today, after spending most of the day with SWMBO (we had to do some shopping at COSTCO and remove the air-conditioner from her window), I took my new router home. I loaded the CD into the desktop and painfully followed the step-by-step instructions provided there.

It took me about an hour to install the router, because of my Y-Chromosonal tendencies to avoid RTFM (... uh, not reading the manual) I missed some obvious requirements. One of these requirements was to read the specifications on the bottom of the hardware, which provided userid and password which is needed to complete the firmware installation. Sure, I'm a Geek. But I'm a Guy first, and therefore only marginally competent to understand the need to know what I should respect during the installation process.

The other Guy-Thing that slowed me down was a tendency to fiddle with the blinking lights just to see "what happens when I push this switch?"

In this case, I pushed a switch on my laptop ... which killed my WiFi connection that I had already established. Took me an hour to decide I should reboot the laptop to refresh the connection and the "Authentication Key" (read: password) so that the internet address I was usint to test the connection were actually available.

So in case you're thinking about installing a WiFi router in your home, here are a few suggestions to make your day less frustrating:

1. RTFM! (Read the Install Manual before you start installing)
   
2. When they say to pull the power plug on your Cable modem or Router and wait for x-number of minutes ... pull the plug and light up a smoke. That stuff needs to reset!
   
3. Don't push buttons on your client computers while you're trying to establish an Internet connection.
4. When all else fails ... reboot.

It's actually not difficult to install a WiFi router, if you don't allow yourself to get distracted.

One other comment: The cables provided by the manufacturers of WiFi routers are too small to place the router in the best possible places (away from electronic devices, toward the center of the structure, and in a 'high' place ... especially when it must be connected directly to your computer and your computer sits on the floor.) Fortunately, most routers are able to communicate at least 100 feet from where-ever you put them as long as the walls the signal needs to penetrate aren't brick or steel or some other dense material. So positioning might not be a major factor.

Heck, if I can do it ANYBODY can hook up a WiFi Router so your laptop can piggy-back on your hi-speed modem.

NRA Leadership

I've often stated, both in public and in private, that I gave up my NRA membership several years ago and that I intend to never re-instate it.

No matter what I say, I always receive comments such as:

"Yeah, all, that, but the NRA is our most powerful and best political weapon against confiscatory and other unconstitutional gun laws."

Okay, it's never stated exactly thus, but the point remains that when people get elected to a leadership position in the NRA, they turn into instant wusses.

I object to that, because it inevitably seems as if the NRA leadership is conceding that the second amendment is based upon hunters being able to keep their favorite goose gun. I've never believed that. I always thought that the 2nd Amendment was about the inalienable right for civilians to own firearms, period.

Now, and for several years past (at least for a decade, which is proven by citations exhibited below), the official spokesmen for the NRA have consciously and deliberately espoused "assault weapon" and "Zero Tolerance" limitations on this right.

Both of these terms are anathema to me, because they have been so easily tolerated by leaders in the NRA.

Why do these supposed supporters of the 2nd Amendment say these things? Are they becoming "politically correct" in order to demonstrate that they are not so radical that they are beyond compromise?

Or is it that they really don't believe in the 2nd Amendment, in its literal interpretation?

I think it's a combination of the two, and the only question is whether they're going more Number One or Number Two.

Let's look at quotes from two Elected Leaders of the NRA, and see which is which.


Number One: Zero Tolerance
The following is thanks to a link from The War on Guns, under "Wayne Says No" Speech by Wayne Lapierre (NRA National Meeting of Members; Denver, Colorado; May 1, 1999)

So I would like to take this opportunity to clearly state our positions in a comprehensive way.

More than anything, I want to frame my remarks as part of a constructive, respectfully-conducted discourse that will surely follow in the weeks to come.

I wouldn't stand before you today if I didn't believe, and I couldn't prove, that our common-sense policies can have a more immediate impact on violence, and make more citizens safer, than anything that anyone else is proposing.

So I'd like to speak in response to the President's recent press conferences and news appearances. And please, listen not just for what we've done, but for what more we can all do.

First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

(Emphasis added)


Strike 1: "Zero - Tolerance" policies are the C.Y.A. guidelines which allow incompetent education-plebe bureaucrats to suspend a middle-school boy for drawing a picture of a gun at school.

Or "In late October 2003, a 9-year-old boy was arrested at gunpoint and handcuffed for waving a toy gun over his head while seated on a bench in downtown Lorain as his mother was getting her hair done at the Northern Institute of Cosmetology on Broadway. ... A police officer pointed his gun at the boy's head, ordered him down on the ground and handcuffed him, according to the report.

No, I'm not in favor of "Zero-Tolerance" rules. God forbid that they become laws. But Wayne LaPierre is in favor of them.

Strike 2: Mandatory "Safe Storage" of firearms

That's why, for over a century, we've written the book on safe storage of firearms. We support and encourage the distribution, development and use of safety locks, trigger locks, gun safes, or any voluntary means necessary and appropriate to keep firearms away from, or inoperable by, those who shouldn't have them. We have always condemned anything less.

So why does the NRA-ILA publish a "Fact Sheet" opposed to Mandatory Storage/Trigger-Lock Legislation?

Everyone knows that firearms must be stored safely, but most Americans feel that it is not the government`s business to dictate how people store things in their homes. There is no compelling need for such invasions of privacy ..."

<>Uh ... wait a minute.
LaPierre says: "We support ... voluntary means necessary and appropriate to keep firearms away from, or inoperable by, those who shouldn't have them." The NRA-ILA is against "mandatory storage/trigger-lock legislation"

Okay, never mind.

Strike 3:
Okay, I don't have a "Strike 3."

Yet.

...


Let's move on to Charlton Heston's "There is no reason for anyone to own an AK47" statements.

On May 6, 1997, in a KGO-TV (San Francisco) 'drive-time' interview with Ted Wygant of KGO, newly elected President of NRA Charlton Heston made the following comments:

(Transcript courtesy of WYLDONE on "The Firing Line", December 01, 2001)

The following transcript is verbatim, without alteration, and includes misspellings.

VMS TRANSCRIPTVideo Monitoring Services of America, L.P.720 Harrison Street, Suite 320San Francisco, CA 94107(415)543-3361 (415)543-6148 DATE May 6, 1997 TIME 8:00 - 9:00 AM (PT) STATION KGO-AM (ABC)LOCATION San Francisco PROGRAM Morning Drive Time

Ted Wygant, anchor: Well this is very appropriate to talk with Moses as we talk about it, at least. Now let's say good morning to the man who played it so well, Charleton Heston. Good morning, sir!

Charleton Heston (Actor/NRA Board Member): And good morning to you, Mister Wygant.

Wygant: Well, we're delighted to have you with us, and we appreciate your time because you have taken on a task that I think a lot of folks might have backed away with because a lot of concern about the National Rifle Association.

Heston: Our country belongs to Hercules, doesn't it?

Wygant: Yeah, right. What made you do it? How come you want to get in the middle of this?

Heston: Well, I've, of course, been- found myself in the arena, if you will, on a number of public sector causes. I suppose starting back when I started demonstrating for civil rights back in 1961. Long before it got fashionable in Hollywood. And then the Screen Actors Guild, and the National Endowment For The Arts, and the Separate Theater Group, and so on- and then the Presidential Task force, and the Arts and Humanities. And I've been a member of- of the National Rifle Association for, oh, twenty years or more. When I was a kid in Michigan, in the Depression, I lived in a little hamlet in Northern Michigan with about, oh, a hundred houses which contained easily two hundred and fifty, three hundred fire arms of various kinds. Mostly being used for hunting, of course- food for the table. But I was asked, as is true with all of the jobs I've done. Somebody asked me.

Wygant: Well, you've got quite a task. And- and you've been named first vice president. You- you're a member of the board at-at one point, and gee, you just zipped right up.

Heston: I just was elected to the board on Saturday.

Wygant: Yeah.

Heston: It's the primary defender of the second amendment of the Bill Of Rights, which is, of course, a core document. The Bill Of Rights is right at the basis of the American idea, those wise old dead white guys that made up the country knew what they were about. And you- it is a mainstream issue. Most Americans, in fact, support the second amendment's right to bear and carry arms, and there are, as you suggest, a few extremists, and some of them are- are on the board. And we have, however, we- they elected- or re-elected in the case of Wayne LaPierre, and elected in my case and Cain Robinson's case- police chief Cain Robinson is now second vice president. We re-elected Marion Hammer as president.

Wygant: Mister Heston, could I ask you to stand by here for just a moment? We have to get to traffic, but I- I do want to continue talking with you. Could you hang in for a minute?

Heston: Yeah.

Wygant: Okay, good. Thanks. ****************

Wygant: Okay, right now let's get back to Charleton Heston talking to us from his home in Southern California. Let me ask you, you mentioned that there are some right wing folks- far right wing, still around the NRA. Are you going to try to get them off the board and out of the picture?

Heston: That- that's certainly the intention, and I think it's highly doable. Wayne LaPierre is- is a superb leader, Marion Hammer's a strong president. And I think Cain Robinson and I can provide some useful support there.

Wygant: Now the image of- of the NRA has been an organization that supports the right of people to buy any legal firearms, and, of course, you go to any- any gun store- gun shop and you see things there that are big, and brutal, and deadly, and far more than you need for- for hunting or home protection. Do you stand by- I mean, the image is...

Heston: AK-47's are inappropriate for private ownership, of course.

Wygant: Yeah, but the image is that they're- the fire power of these weapons is far more than a hunter or a homeowner would need. Why is it necessary to have those guns available anyway?

Heston: I just got through telling you. The possession- private possession of AK-47's is entirely inappropriate.

Wygant: Right, but AK-47's one thing, but I've been in a gun shop- I've been in gun shops, and there's fire power there that doest's seem necessary and that people worry about being out there in- in the hands of, you know, potential criminals.

Heston: I'm not certain what you're point is- that there are guns available in gun stores?

Wygant: No, guns that go beyond what a hunter would need. In other words, why does the NRA support guns that have overkill? Let's put it that way. Shouldn't there be some sort of limit?

Heston: Well, for any certain time, AK-47"s are entirely inappropriate for private ownership, and the- the problem, of course, is not guns held by private citizens, but guns held by criminals. And where we have failed, where the government has failed is with entirely cosmetic actions like the Brady Bill, which is meaningless. I'm not even- don't even think it should be repealed because it doesn't do anything. and it's been in- on the books for more than two years. In the course of that time, I think it is, nineteen people have been arrested, and two have been imprisoned felons with felony records for trying to purchase a firearm.

Wygant: Well, we've- we gotta- I really appreciate talking with us. It'll be interesting to see- interesting to see how you handle the public image of the National Rifle Association and those in the far right in the group. And if you don't mind, we'd like to talk to you again.

Heston: I hope we can do that.

Wygant: Alright, thanks very much.

Heston: Mister Wygant.

Wygant: Thank you. Charleton Heston from his home in Southern California, and the KGO Radio News time is 8:23. # # #

(NB: Boldface emphasis from the source)

I saw this interview on television, and I think it's telling that the original video is not available now, nor was it available within a few days of the original interview. Unfortunately, at the time I first saw it I made no effort to capture the film clip. Well, I was a lot less "geeky" then.

I was then incensed, as I am still, that Charlton Heston stated "AK-47"s (sic) are entirely inappropriate for private ownership..." and "... entirely cosmetic actions like the Brady Bill, which is meaningless. I'm not even- don't even think it should be repealed..." (this last part is speaking of The Brady Bill and not necessarily addressing "AK-47-type firearms.)

But upon reflection, and with the perspective of a decade's though: the interview occurred with mere hours of Heston's assumption of NRA office, and while he may be big on flintlock rifles he may have had personal opinions which were not entirely representative of the National Rifle Association.

In fact, it may even be significant that he never again made public statements to the effect that private ownership this sort of firearm was "... entirely inappropriate ..."

...

I'm not saying I'm going to run right out and join the NRA. In fact, I'm adamant in my opposition to some of the NRA position AND people.

I still object to the NRA's attempts to force me to subscribe to a magazine which is only marginally interesting ... or well-written ... as part of my membership dues.

And the "Zero-Tolerance" thing still gives me cold chills.

But I am willing to admit that some of the issues which I have long held dear may not be grounded in fact. I guess I have to think on this some more. I still don't LIKE the NRA, in part because I've never thought of the President (Wayne) as being very much of a leader.

Still, they may not be as 'all bad' as I had originally thought.


This may be a good time for The Hobo Brasser to tell me how much he likes "Wayne's World."

I need more ammunition!