New shooter report

Almost exactly a year ago Vic brought me a new shooter and I taught him to shoot a handgun and did some coaching for Vic. Then last Friday Vic brought his wife and two daughters to the range so I could teach them to shoot. Four shooters is more than I really wanted because with the range reserved for only two hours there wouldn’t be enough time to get them all through the usual material.

But, I did my best and got them through the basics with a .22 pistol (both suppressed and unsuppressed), .22 revolver (both single and double action), and we had just enough time left for each to take make a single shot with the .40 S&W.

The wife and two daughters had never shot a real gun before. One of the daughters had shot a pellet gun once.

I did the usual explanation of grip, stance, sight alignment, and sight picture,  then had them dryfire until things looked solid. I added live ammo and they started punching holes in the paper from 10 feet away.

They all did well after some minor adjustments. The primary adjustment was in which hand to shoot with. All are right handed but Vic’s wife and one daughter are cross eyed dominate. They tried shooting both right handed and left handed and ended up sticking with left handed shooting. I’ve found that when new shooters are cross eyed dominate the majority end up shooting with their weak hand.

Here are the new shooters smiles:

20190823_173018

20190823_165544

20190823_170135

Continue reading

Ingenious trick!

Original tweet:

Johannes Köpl @JohannesKoepl

Mit diesem genialen Trick kann man leicht einen Schokoriegel in ein US-amerikanisches Kino schmuggeln!

MovieCandyBarTrick

Translated:

With this ingenious trick you can easily smuggle a chocolate bar into a US cinema!

That’s very clever! I might try that sometime. However, I’d leave a round in the chamber and have a spare magazine on my belt for a quick conversion to full functionality.

Quote of the day—Jennifer Rubin

It’s not only that Trump has to lose, but that all his enablers have to lose. We have to collectively, in essence, burn down the Republican Party. Um, we have to level them because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again.

Jennifer Rubin
August 26, 2019
Washington Post Columnist Calls For Anti-GOP Violence: ‘Burn Down The Republican Party’
[This is what they think of you. They don’t want any survivors.

This could be said of all Socialist and Marxist politicians with a lot more justification than Republicans.—Joe]

Hide the Decline

Nicely done:

Via a message from Anthony Pacheco.

Here is what is called “The Sequel” but is more of slightly different version of the first:

Also, via Rolf, is this serious report from just this year:

In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.

The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago.

UscrnTemperatureGraph

Since 2005 there have been several new weather stations added. There now exist stations in Alaska (22), Hawaii (2), and Canada (1).

And if you want to really mock those claiming global warming refer them to the signs saying the Glacier National Park will be glacier free by 2020. The signs have been removed in the last two or three years. See also this video:

Quote of the day—Kurt Schlichter

We’ll get lots of the “Orange man bad, orange man not nominate a judge because he bad” babble from the libs and their gimp media. Maddow will cry, Don Lemon will pound an umbrella drink and Tater Stelter will sweat profusely as he reads off the teleprompter about how Trump is literally Hitler. The Fredocons will weigh in with their patented brand of sissy submission to their elite tops. We’ll be informed how taking back the Supreme Court like the geebos of Conservative, Inc., promised for three decades is actually not who we are and how we’re better than that and how oh well I never. Can you imagine Jeb! or Mitt in this situation? They would eagerly, whole-heartedly buy into the compromise unity candidate ploy to stick some moderate muggle on the bench in order to “repair the heart of our country” and “build bridges” of bipartisan love.

Trump builds victories, and he’s going to blow up that bridge.

Kurt Schlichter
August 26, 2019
Get Ready For Apocalypse Ruth
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Le Fameux Biz @HommedePaix1

Big gun, small dick

Le Fameux Biz @HommedePaix1
Tweeted on August 5, 2019
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

H/T to The Original SPQR in 3D @SPQRzilla.

We have SCOTUS decisions. They have childish insults.—Joe]

The end of the climate change hoax?

Via Thomas Lifson.

TL;DR version:

Michael Mann, the guy who claimed a graph of global temperature rise in the late 1990s resembled a hockey stick, sued a skeptic, Dr. Tim Ball, who publicly said Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State”. The libel lawsuit has now been dismissed because Mann refused to show the court the data and math by which he produced the graph. The lawsuit took six years, cost millions of (Canadian) dollars, and Mann has been told to pay the legal fees.

It is becoming more and more clear that a criminal conspiracy case against Mann and others regarding the climate change hoax is valid.

Read various quotes and get the links to the entire story below.

Continue reading

Quote of the day—herbn

At what point does “they are saying I am by definition worse than Hitler and need to be in a camp” cross over from “a stupid narrative they believe” to a “clear and present danger to me and mine I must actively respond to.” I’m already passively preparing, but at some point I have to choose, and choose wisely, to move to active interference.

That is what worries me. Both the need to make that call and making it wrong.

herbn
August 8, 2019
Comment to But Then That Must Mean
[Many years ago John Clifford., the owner of a gun range I frequented, told me, “When you draw your gun is far more important than how fast you draw your gun.” It took a while for me to really understand what he was saying. See this post for elaboration on that point.

herbn’s dilemma captures the essence of what John was telling me.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sarah A. Hoyt

If you find yourself reading the other person’s mind. As in, thinking “I love American” means “white America” realize you’re not psychic. Those thoughts in your head? they’re yours. Examine why you want to believe this, and what purpose it’s serving FOR YOU. Because your mind is the only one you can read.

Sarah A. Hoyt
August 7, 2019
But Then That Must Mean
[H/T to Harvey.

You may think this is just some abstract or exaggerated “thing”. No. It is not. This strongly resonated with me because of personal experiences with people like this.

I have a true story to illustrate. There are many similar true stories but this is the one I tell most frequently:

Several years ago I received a phone call which went like this:

Caller: Can you pick up Sister 1 at the airport?

[Because of the circumstances it was conceivable it could be any one of five different airports. I needed to know a critical piece of information before answering.]

Joe: Which airport?

Caller: I think she is coming in this afternoon.

Joe: Which airport?

Caller: She usually flies on Delta.

[Yay! This actually eliminates one of the airports! Only three more to go. We are making progress.]

Joe: Which airport?

Caller: Can you bring her to the motel we are staying at?

Joe: Which airport?

Caller: She has done a lot of things for you, can’t you do this for her?

[I’m getting frustrated. I would be glad to do this if I can physically make it happen. I just need to determine some critical pieces of information. I almost yelled at my caller.]

Joe: Which airport?!!!

Caller to Sister 2 as she is terminating the call: We should find someone else to pick up Sister 1 because Joe can’t do it.

I’m now infuriated. Not only they wouldn’t answer my question, they are now telling Sister 2 I refused to help them out. I called back, eventually got the information, and agreed to pick up Sister 1 at a local airport.

I met Sister 1 at baggage claim. Wondering if I should get a cart for her bags I asked, “How many bags do you have?”

Sister 2: They’re green.

How does this relate to mind reading? It is because in further talks it came out my words were interpreted as meaning something completely different from what I said. In some cases when this would happen I would ask them to repeat my question back to me. They were completely unable to do it. I could repeat the question and even coach the words out of them, one by one, and five seconds later they would be unable to repeat a simple question such as the one above. Their brains were wired in some weird way that plain and simple words mapped into some completely different concept, perhaps completely unrelated to the speaker’s words and/or actions and the original words would be completely lost.

The original words could even be written down and they would be mapped into something different. In once written case I had them read the words out loud to me. They were able to do so. I asked, “How did you get from those words to your interpretation?” They agreed they were wrong. I hadn’t said what they thought I had said. They looked away from the words and, literally, in less than five seconds they were back to insisting their original interpretation was correct. We repeated the reading of the words and them agreeing I was correct. Again, within a few seconds, they reverted to their original, incorrect, interpretation. I gave up in extreme frustration after about three tries.

It turns out that the entire family did this. They would literally believe they knew you meant something completely different from what you said, no matter how many times and how many ways you said what you really meant. They would insist they “knew” what you really meant. They also believed I was the borderline crazy person because I didn’t know what they really meant when they presented me with highly ambiguous information. In their minds, I was somehow handicapped.

I grew to avoid participating in their family conversations because it was so bizarre. I made it a game to just listen and attempt to disambiguate the meanings of what they said. It was extremely challenging. When confronted with an ambiguity I would form one or more branches of the conversation in my mind and wait for more information to come in. As the additional information came in I could determine which one of the branches was the correct one. Or, at least, trim a branch or two off if it had many branches. And, of course, the branches grew branches. Usually some new bit of data would come in and “Poof!” all the extraneous branches would fall away and I would be caught up on the conversation again.

Keep in mind I doing this for each of two, three, or even four people when sometimes no two of them were on the same branch. It was tough work, but at least my brain was getting practice with logic puzzles. Most of the time the parties to the conversation were essentially in synch with each other. But perhaps a quarter of the time they would actually diverge and never resynchronize on their own. One of them could be talking about their dog making a mess on the kitchen floor and another other believed they were talking about a husband instead of a dog (true story). For a while I thought it was funny and didn’t bother to correct the mistakes. It just didn’t matter that much and I would get in a little bit of trouble for being so nitpicky about details. So, why bother?

Sometimes a day or so later I would hear a mention of the previous conversation with a serious misunderstanding and consequences of what was said. I would inform them that they misunderstood what the other person said. I would explain that I too momentarily went down that same branch but then realized that wasn’t what they really meant. Frequently, I wouldn’t be believed. They KNEW what the other person meant. If the truth was important I insisted they call and verify their understanding of the original conversation. I was always right and the person who “KNEW” couldn’t really understand how I really knew.

Once, in extreme frustration at being repeatedly misunderstood on an important point I demanded and received an answer which explained this bizarre behavior. After being told they KNEW what I really meant despite my repeated attempts to explain I meant something completely different from what they clearly believed I asked one of them, “How do you determine truth from falsity?” The answer was like a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and gasoline vaper onto a lite match, “It depends on how I feel.”

I blew up. How is it even possible to have a conversation with someone like this? We live in almost completely disjoint realities.

It gets worse.

One time there were three of them talking and I was doing my usual branching and pruning when a new bit of information came in that caused all the branches to disappear in great ball of fire in my head. No one else seemed to notice. I had to interrupt.

“Wait, wait, wait! I don’t understand. A little bit ago you said, ‘[data point A]’. Just now you said, ‘[data point B]’. Both can’t be true and nothing you have been saying makes sense.”

The answer was, “Oh Joe, it doesn’t matter. We are just talking.”

I went slack jawed and the other two family members laughed. They then all continued as if nothing of significance had occurred.

In the span of a minute or less the same person said two things which were completely and totally, contradictory. Not only did they brush it off as irrelevant, they and other parties to the conversation thought it was obvious that I was just being silly for trying to make sense of it. I slunk off into a corner and took a nap. There was nothing further of value to be gained from listening to these people make sounds at each other.

Years later, reading about personality disorders, I discovered that it is characteristic of certain disorders for people to believe they can read other people’s minds.

They might not explicitly say it because they know it will not be well received. They may not believe they can determine the explicit thoughts. But they will “know” the gist of what the other person thinks regardless of what the other person says and does. They can create an entire, frequently conspiratory, narrative which “explains” the contradictory evidence such that what they “know” to be true is not shown to be false. Paranoid people are perhaps the best known example although they are far from the only ones.

This is also particularly easy to see with many of the present day claims of racism. A statement with no mention of race will be claimed as clear and convincing evidence of racism. The political left will go absolutely bonkers about the white supremist, etc. when there is no evidence to support these claims. And, frequently, there is contradictory evidence. These people have mental problems and should be treated as such.

I think a good case can be made that, as many others have said in one way or another, “Liberalism is a mental disorder.”—Joe]

Think about it

Via Elisabeth Diamond @diamactive2001:

ForefathersVsTyrantsAnyQs

At first I thought this was awesome. It’s not just old white guys supporting the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from a slave rebellion. Gandhi in this category might be a surprise to some, but it’s true (see also here). Martin Luther King Jr. is another which might also surprise people, but again, it’s true.

But after more thought I realized the tyrants listed are actually admired leaders to some. For example, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong each murdered 10s of millions of their own citizens after disarming them. But yet, there are still people today that not only advocate for the political philosophy of these tyrants but admire the tyrant for their accomplishments.

Hence, freedom lovers, as well as hard core Marxists, can both look at this image and find it supporting their world view. When you think about it, that’s kind of weird and messed up.

Quote of the day—Tirno

Let me boil down the position of an anti-CCW advocate: “When I get what I want, my political enemies in this matter will be subjected to assault, rape and murder that they used to be able to stop. One-hundred-thousand to one-and-a-half-million people that disagree with me, per year, according to official government estimates, will suffer bodily harm if I get what I want, and I’m OK with that, if not actually gleeful.”

Tirno
August 22, 2019
Comment to Quote of the day—Brian Malte
[Excellent point.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian Malte

We used to fall into this trap as advocates when reporters would ask, ‘What would have stopped this shooting?’ We’d be trying our very best to say, ‘This policy would have.’ And that was the wrong answer because it’s not true. There’s no one policy that’s going to stop any shooting—it takes a multitude of solutions. Many times our movement would play into the NRA’s defeatist…attitude.

Brian Malte
August 21, 2019
Trump Thinks Background Checks Won’t Stop Shootings. He’s Wrong.
[Although isn’t not in the form of a direct quote Malte is also credited with:

For their part, gun control activists have learned that it’s better to steer clear of the debate over what caused a particularly horrific shooting, explains Brian Malte, who was a senior official at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence—now known as Brady United—in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre.

What I conclude from this article is significantly different from what the author and those interviewed conclude.

What I conclude is that they admit to knowing that the “solutions” they push in response to a mass shooting could not possibly have prevented those deaths. They push for them anyway.

They are admitting they are not stupid. They are admitting they are not ignorant. They are admitting that it is a deliberate infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms with no possibility of reducing the harm they claim to be so concerned about. They are admitting they are evil.

This can and should be used at their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ammo.com

There was, predictably, very little meaningful blowback on the United States Marshals Service or any other parts of the federal government. The Ruby Ridge Task Force delivered a highly redacted 542-page report. And the six marshals involved in the initial shootout were given the highest commendations awarded by the United States Marshal Service.

Ammo.com
August, 2019
Siege at Ruby Ridge
[A similar thing happened with the Waco massacre. The ATF agents who attacked and killed innocent people were given medals and a memorial was created for the agents who died when their victims fought back.

I would like to suggest justice would have been better served if their estates, including their viable organs, had been auctioned off, the proceeds given to the survivors of the Branch Davidians, and then their heads mounted on pikes in front of ATF headquarters for a few months.—Joe]

Tueller Drill target

If I were formally teaching self defense with firearms I would consider getting this target for my students:

It teaches the importance of getting off the line of attack as well as the importance of when to deploy your firearm. It could be a part of any number of pretty cool USPSA stages too.

He should have asked Kim Rhode

Randall of xkcd.com ponders an interesting question and misses the, to me, obvious answer:

A wedding-photography drone is buzzing around above you. You don’t know what it’s doing there and you want it to stop.

Let’s suppose you have a garage full of sports equipment— baseballs, tennis rackets, lawn darts, you name it. Which sport’s projectiles would work best for hitting a drone? And who would make the best anti-drone guard? A baseball pitcher? A basketball player? A tennis player? A golfer? Someone else?

If I could have any sports professional to clear the skies around my property of private drones I would engage Kim Rhode. Some number 7-1/2 shot, launched at a fairly high angle, wouldn’t be much of a risk to neighbors or their property but it would permanently neutralize small drones.

Quote of the day—The Babylon Bee

An exhaustive new study from the CDC reveals that the leading cause of gun violence in America is your political opponents. Researchers looked at a number of potential causes of gun violence such as mental health, family situation, cultural shifts, gun laws, rap music, videogames, sugar consumption, and the actual gunman, but by and large, the most prominent cause of gun violence was what most already suspected. The fault lies with those who you disagree with politically.

TheBabylonBeeGunViolenceCauses

The Babylon Bee
August 5, 2019
Study Shows Leading Cause Of Gun Violence Is Those You Disagree With Politically
[Yes, it’s satire. Still, a disinterested observer could listen to both sides of the issue and arrive at the above conclusion.—Joe]

Probably not a hunting license

H.R.5087 was introduced February 26, 2018 but I just now got around to looking at it and discussing it with some people.

It has some “interesting” provisions:

This Act may be cited as the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2018”.

The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

“(i) A pistol grip.

“(ii) A forward grip.

“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.

“(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.

“(v) A barrel shroud.

“(vi) A threaded barrel.

“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

“(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

“(i) A threaded barrel.

“(ii) A second pistol grip.

“(iii) A barrel shroud.

“(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

“(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

“(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

“(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any one of the following:

“(i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.

“(ii) A pistol grip.

“(iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.

“(iv) The ability to accept a detachable magazine.

“(v) A forward grip.

“(vi) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.

“(G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

“(H) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:

“(K) All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms, including TNW M2HB and FN M2495.

“(L) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K) can be assembled.

“(M) The frame or receiver of a rifle or shotgun described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (F), (G), (H), (J), or (K).

“(K) All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms, including TNW M2HB and FN M2495.

“(L) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K) can be assembled.

“(M) The frame or receiver of a rifle or shotgun described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (F), (G), (H), (J), or (K).

It also defines “high capacity feeding devices” as devices capable of holding, or being easily modified to hold, more than 10 rounds.

“(w) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

It does provide for grandfathering existing firearms and accessories.

Minor off topic question, does such as thing as a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine even exist?

Discussions at the range concluded that you didn’t need to squint very hard to read it as something other than the intended “Assault Weapons Ban”. If the courts were to rule the law constitutional then it would also double as a license to hunt politicians.

I could see that being the outcome, but I expect there are other sparks more likely to ignite the tinder before this bill runs it’s course. I’m thinking letting Antifa run wild is likely to “flip the switch” before the enactment of gun bans and the multi-year court delays does the trick.

USPSA stage first for me

Yesterday I participated in a USPSA match at the Marysville Rifle Club. One of the stages was a first for me in a couple ways. The first part of the stage was fairly ordinary. You started in a shooting box and upon the start signal you drew your gun and shot three targets partially hidden behind a picket fence. From there you had to go maybe 75 feet forward and around a corner where a second set of targets became visible.

This was the most interesting portion of the stage:

20190818_132112

There were two targets in the open, one on the extreme left of the picture above and the edge of one almost visible on the extreme right of the picture above. There were two targets visible behind the green door (no relation to the movie), and two targets visible from underneath the barricade to the left. Still nothing particularly unusual.

The interesting part of the stage are the targets in the distance on the right. There are three paper targets behind a sheet of black plastic (soft cover). In front of two of the targets are Mini-Poppers*. These targets are about 25 yards away. You can’t see most of the paper targets because of the soft cover, you have to shoot the steel targets down to get good access to the paper targets, and you have to shoot these fairly distant targets from below a barricade. Going prone left you with the problem of shooting the two targets to the left at almost a 90o angle and while prone I was unable to get enough elevation to hit the distant targets and still be stable. I, and many others, squatted or kneeled to shoot below the barricade. Being a tall person this pushed my aging flexibility to the limit and a little beyond. My back felt a little odd for the rest of the day but is almost normal now.

I have never shot a stage where soft cover was the only way to get good hits on a target. I have never shot a stage where my flexibility was a limiting factor. Also unusual was that I was also the only person, out of 70 shooters, to get all 26 A-Zone hits.

My time of 29.98 seconds put me at 6th place out of 20 shooters in my division and 33rd out of 70 shooters overall.

Here is how the stage (and match) winner shot it in Open division in 19.30 seconds:


* See here for a picture of one. Official dimension are as below:

image

Quote of the day—CO Independent @COIndependent1

YOU NEED TO GROW A PAIR AND STOP GETTING YOUR LACK OF MANHOOD FROM A FIREARM. ITS A PIECE OF METAL, IT DOESN’T DEFINE YOU

CO Independent @COIndependent1
Tweeted on August 5, 2019
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

H/T to less fat Dave @BigFatDave.

We have SCOTUS decisions. They have childish insults.—Joe]

New shooter introduction advice

I recently received an email from Robert Z. asking three questions:

I have a couple of coworkers interested in shooting and I wanted to get your advice:

1) I have an orange gun – do you teach them the basics (grip, stance, 4 rules) before going to the range or you do it there?

2) most of the time you seem to have a private bay, is this something for VIPs only or any regular Robert can reserve? I live in Redmond, too, and I think it is well worth the money as you may end up with someone shooting some cannon next to you and the new shooter will start flinching from that.

3) how do you select what firearms you start with?

Here are my answers:

1) If I have the chance I teach them with my blue gun before going to the range. But most of the time I don’t have that opportunity.

2) I have an early Platinum membership which allows me to reserve Bay 3 at West Coast Armory (Bellevue) a couple times a month at no charge. The present day Platinum memberships don’t have that benefit. I think, with some membership types, you can still reserve it for a price. I think it’s something like $80 for two hours. Call to find out for certain.

3) I always start them out with a .22 pistol (when available, suppressed). I do this even with people that have some firearm experience. It makes it easier for the student as well as the instructor. You both have a much better chance of seeing the shooter jerk the trigger and other common beginner mistakes. And with new shooters they can concentrate on the stance, grip, sight alignment, and trigger pull without the recoil. The recoil will dominate their attention instead of the other things. Once they have the fundamentals working fairly well let them have a few shots with a centerfire to experience the recoil. Handling recoil is its own topic and should only be worked on after the student has the fundamentals as almost second nature. They can get there with dry fire or they can shoot a similar number of rounds (a few hundred) with a .22.