USPSA firsts for me

Today I shot in an USPSA match at the Paul Bunyan Rifle and Sportsman’s Club (results are here). I’ve been shooting USPSA matches for over 20 years so one might expect there are very few, if any, things I have not seen and/or done or at least heard of in regards to stage designs. I certainly thought that before today. Sure, at the big matches they have fancy props and they do interesting things with platforms, carrying odd objects (I seem to remember a squirrel statue from many years back), and even a mining cart. But have you ever seen a stage which one only required one shot? A state which required a reload between each shot? Or a fixed time stage with no timer? Well, today I shot all of those oddities.

The stage called Quick or Slow was a single USPSA Popper at 35 yards. You started standing in a box with the gun loaded. Upon the signal you were to draw and knock down the Popper. If you missed you were required to reload between each shot until you knocked it down. I was the first shooter in our squad and I felt pretty good about dropping it on my first shot with a time of 2.21 seconds. Others did quite a bit better. The overall winning with a pistol caliber carbine dropped it in 1.17 seconds. The best pistol shooter (with an optic sight) dropped it in 1.38 seconds. I came in at 13th place in Limited class out of 26 shooters, 38th out of 97 overall, and got a whopping 2.647 points (in overall ranking) on that stage. One poor person took over 37 seconds to get 0.158 points (in overall ranking).

The stage called Murmaider had four disappearing targets which the shooter activated by stepping on a slightly raised platform. It was Virginia Count scoring so you had a maximum of eight shots. Your gun was loaded on a table directly downrange of the activator. Two targets were drop turners which presented themselves three times. The presentation time couldn’t have been more than a half second for each turn. There were two swinging targets that were pretty fast acting too. The “fixed” time was the total time the targets were visible. It was self actuated so there was no buzzer required. Hence, no timer. Here is how one shooter handled the problem:

Out of 40 points possible the overall winner got 31 (Limited class winner got 29). I got 22 points even after reflexively shooting at one of the drop turners three times when I realized I had a miss as I fired the shot. I knew I made an error and didn’t take one of the two shots I should have taken at one of the swinging targets which were much easier shots. This avoided the extra shot penalty but cost me the opportunity of another five points. The 22 points gave me a tie for 4th and 5th out of 28 shooters in Limited.

There was one other first for me today. I shot a Popper, got a clang from a hit, assumed it went down and continued with the rest of the stage without confirming that it went down. I didn’t realize it didn’t fall. I was totally surprised when the range officer asked me if I knew that I left it standing. We went over to look:

image

There was nothing wrong with my shot. I was shooting 40 S&W with a Power Factor of 170 or greater so I asked for a calibration test. I’ve never done that before. I’ve shoot low plenty of times and figured it just wasn’t worth the effort to get a calibration test and took another shot (or two) to get it to fall.

This time the range master came over, shot it with the 9mm calibration ammo almost exactly dead center in the circle portion of the target, and it slowly fell forward as it was supposed to. I got a miss. Oh well, it was a bit of bad luck.

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

This is an important case because it is testing state gun laws against Colorado’s strong right-to-keep-and-bear-arms state constitutional provision.

Our brief provides a historical examination of why the right was specifically protected by the state constitution, and applies that to today’s context.

Anti-gunners are constantly arguing that there is no historical support for protecting modern repeating firearms and our brief provides proof that repeating rifles capable of holding 15 or more cartridges were in existence long before Colorado became a state in 1876. The framers of Colorado’s constitution knew exactly what they were doing.

Alan Gottlieb
June 5, 2019
SAF JOINS IN AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTING CHALLENGE TO COLORADO GUN CONTROL
[See also BREAKING: FPC, FPF Join Challenge to Colorado Gun Magazine Ban, File Colorado Supreme Court Brief.

SAF and friends don’t win them all but they win a lot of the lawsuits against the anti-gunners. And sometimes they get the antigun city and/or state to pay for the lawsuit.

I think this is the best bet, short of changing our culture, which I’m also working on, to reduce and perhaps eventually stop the infringement upon our rights. My employer and I donate thousands of dollars to SAF and FPF each year.—Joe]

License speech

Via a tweet from 2ANow ❌‏ @2ANow:

LicenseSpeech

It’s a humorous thought, but even with those conditions, and actually, especially with those conditions present I would not license my guns.

Quote of the day—Robyn Thomas‏ @RobynGLC

Don’t be fooled: the so called “hearing Protection Act” does nothing to protect hearing. It makes it easier for active shooters to inflict serious harm on our communities without being detected by trained law enforcement professions.

SilencersDontWorkDoWork

Robyn Thomas‏ @RobynGLC
Executive Director, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Tweeted March 13, 2017
[It sometimes amazes me how brazen they are in their lies. In this case we see two obviously contradicting sentences immediately adjacent to one other.

One should not be surprised at their lies. Deception and outright lies are an institutionalized and essential part of the anti-gun culture. It has been that way for over 30 years.

They are at war with us and they know it. Many on our side don’t quite understand that.  Give our enemies the “respect” they deserve.—Joe]

No surprises here

New evidence confirms what gun rights advocates have said for a long time about crime:

In the study, led by epidemiologist Anthony Fabio of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health, researchers partnered with the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police to trace the origins of all 893 firearms that police recovered from crime scenes in the year 2008.

They found that in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else. The researchers were primarily interested in how these guns made their way from a legal purchase — at a firearm dealer or via a private sale — to the scene of the crime.

More than 30 percent of the guns that ended up at crime scenes had been stolen, according to Fabio’s research.

We have a complete and nationwide ban on most recreational drugs. Yet, the average high school dropout can get whatever recreational drug they want 24×7 365 days a year. What sort of law do they imagine will prevent criminals from getting whatever gun they want?

If someone is of such poor character that they can’t be trusted to possess a gun then they can’t be trusted to be unsupervised in public.

Pencil control

Via a retweet by SAF (@2AFDN on Twitter) we have this from @SandraSentinel:

PencilBadGrades

It’s logically consistent. Therefore, if you are in support of banning guns to stop violent crime you must also be in support of banning pencils to stop people from getting bad grades. You may have already observed this but they do not follow this course of action.

One must therefore conclude that the reason for their desire for banning guns has nothing to do with the stated goal of reducing violent crime. It must be something else such as a desire to control people.

Another alternative which has legitimate application in many cases is that anti-gun people do not confine themselves to logical thought processes. One Marxist professor I talked with even express pride of being able to break free of such constraints.

Quote of the day—PBinLostAngeles

The right to keep and bear arms was not enshrined in the 2nd Amendment because the founders were concerned about crime. The right to keep and bear arms was intended to protect the ability of the governed to resist tyrannical government. The gun control question should not be “How does the presence of guns in civilian hands affect crime?” but “How does the presence of guns in civilian hands affect/preserve freedom from tyranny?”

PBinLostAngeles
June 4, 2019
Comment to Why Gun Ownership Rates Tell Us Little About Homicide Trends in America
[Closely related is the question of how gun control affects the probability of genocide. Read to get a clue.—Joe]

USPSA Area 1 Championship

For the first time in over 20 years I’m attending a level III USPSA match. In two weeks I’m going to Bend Oregon to participate in the Area 1 Championship. This consists of 17 stages shot over the course of three days. At this level match you get to shoot some interesting/different/challenging stages.

Some of the stages have a western theme such as Wild West, Showdown, and Outhouse Slider:

image

image

image

But there is one stage of particular note. This will be the most interesting/different/challenging stage I have ever shot:

image

Quote of the day—Cliff Maloney

Therein lies the lesson for U.S. policymakers. The consequences of gun control run far deeper than either side of America’s gun debate cares to admit. We all need to learn from Venezuela’s example and shape our public policy accordingly.

Gun control legislation might seem like an easy answer when tragedies force us to passionately look to politicians to do something, but history repeats itself time and time again.

Venezuela’s disarmament reminds us of a key American principle: An armed citizenry is the greatest defense against a tyrannical government.

Cliff Maloney
May 22, 2019
Cliff Maloney: Venezuela is a poster child for gun control gone wrong
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—All Angels Are Gay It’s Canon @Jenny_Trout

If you are a MAGA or a 2A enthusiast, I legitimately do not care about your life/well-being or the lives/well-being of your family. I don’t care if you can’t defend yourselves against intruders or whatever. I just don’t care if you live or die.

️‍Good Omens = All Angels Are Gay It’s Canon @Jenny_Trout
Tweeted on April 3, 2018
[This is what they think of you.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Via a tweet by SAF:

SoftTarget

Stay away from such places. You will be safer elsewhere and you will not be spending your money in businesses which are hostile to the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Interesting history on standard of review

Dave Hardy contributed to an Amicus brief in NYSRPA v. NYC. In it they give us a history lesson in how rational basis, intermediate review, and strict scrutiny of the constitutionality of laws came about. I found it fascinating.

This is the core of the lesson:

The use of multiple standards of review to evaluate the same statute is an import from First Amendment challenges to election laws, specifically ballot-access laws. See, e.g., Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Timmons v. Twin Cities New Party, 520 U.S. 351 358 (1997); Norman v. Reed, 502 U. S. 279, 288-89 (1992).

It is important to note that these election law cases address an unusual, indeed unique, constitutional problem.

On the one hand, elections involve the very core of First Amendment rights. “Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S, 1, 17 (1964). “[V]oting is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.” Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 (1979). Thus, the ordinary application of the First Amendment would use strict scrutiny to evaluate virtually all regulation of elections.

On the other hand, extensive government regulation is necessary merely to make elections possible, let alone fair. “[A]s a practical matter, there must be substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974). “To achieve these necessary objectives, States have enacted comprehensive and sometimes complex elections codes,” each part of which “inevitably affects – at least to some degree – the individual’s right to vote….” Anderson v. Celebreeze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983).

It is hard to envision another First Amendment right that can only be exercised on a day and at a place dictated by the government, with expression restricted to making government-designated choices by checking boxes on a government-provided form.

They go on to explain that because the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms does not depend upon the existence of government regulation to be exercised in a meaningful way firearms laws should be reviewed using the “strict scrutiny” standard:

The dual standard of review used by the Second Circuit, and other courts, is thus taken from the unique setting of ballot-access laws. It is inappropriately
applied to the Second Amendment, a setting where the considerations that underlie ballot access regulations are inapplicable.

And in conclusion urges SCOTUS:

This Court should reverse the ruling below, reject its use of a dual standard of review.

My translation:

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

Quote of the day—Tam

Only when these yahoos are getting reliably smoke-checked by their intended victims is this attention-seeking behavior going to stop.

This got stopped by good guys with guns, but people got killed waiting for them to show up.

Anybody who mandates you be disarmed in a country full of guns does not have your best interests at heart.

Tam
June 3, 2019
Overheard In Front Of The Television…
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—sheral howe‏ @sheralan

Gun nuts= small penis complex

sheral howe‏ @sheralan
Tweeted on May 21, 2019
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

H/T to less fat Dave‏ @BigFatDave.—Joe]

New shooter report

Yesterday Dana and Chris from Barb’s Book Club went to the Bellevue Gun Club with Barb and I. Neither had even touched a gun before.

It went well. As usual I taught them how to shoot a pistol since it’s an indoor range with only 25 yards available. I did the usual stuff regarding safety, then stance, grip, sight alignment, sight picture, dry fire, and finally had them take their first shots with a suppressed .22 from 10 feet away from the target.

The following three pictures are by Barb. Yes, there is something wrong with the stance and grip in each of the pictures. They were still working on getting everything correct at the same time. It got better latter on before it deteriorate as they got tired at the end.

20190601_161629_1559437718932

20190601_153608_1559437791533_1559441906701

20190601_155807_1559437697739_1559441872973

I also talked them a little about ammunition. The bullet, the shell casing, powder, and primers. After I showed them rimfire and center cartridges Barb spoke up, “I didn’t know that! So that’s what you meant by that all this time.” Whoops! I thought she knew.

Dana had some problems at first. The shots were going all over the place. Chris’s first two shots were several inches high but close to each other. I asked if the top of the front and rear sights were level with each other and without a word put the next several shots into the bulls-eye. Okay, that’s an acceptable answer.

Dana shot again and after asking a few questions all of a sudden many of her shots started going into the bulls-eye. She had only been using the front sight. Once she used the rear sight in combination with the front sight things worked much better. Imagine that.

I had them shoot a .22 revolver in single action mode. Then had them dry fire in double action mode and advised them that in general they would probably be happier shooting semi-auto handguns.

20190601_161811

Near the end of our reserved time we put up two USPSA targets and I talked to them about self defense shooting. This included where to shoot, what to expect in terms of the threat response to hits in various locations, and when it was legal to shoot.

After a couple of magazines through the Ruger 22/45 Mark IIIs I had them start from a close ready position and then push out to fire first one shot at a time then two shots at a time. They did very well with all shots in the lower A-Zone (except the two Chris tried in the upper A-zone). I was very pleased with all the progress they had made and they thanked me multiple times.

20190601_164514

At the end of the month another new shooter from the book club is scheduled to go to the range with us.

See also the QOTD.

It’s in the genes

Infidelity Lurks in Your Genes

We have long known that men have a genetic, evolutionary impulse to cheat, because that increases the odds of having more of their offspring in the world.

But now there is intriguing new research showing that some women, too, are biologically inclined to wander, although not for clear evolutionary benefits. Women who carry certain variants of the vasopressin receptor gene are much more likely to engage in “extra pair bonding,” the scientific euphemism for sexual infidelity.

I’m not surprised. My informal interviews with women indicates a bimodal distribution. Either women 50 years and older have had a relatively small number of sexual partners, less than 10 or else dozens or, sometimes, many hundreds.

See also my post here.

Posted in Sex

Quote of the day—Dana

Of the top five things people would never expect me to do, learn to shoot a gun is one of them.

This is exciting!

Dana
June 1, 2019
[I’ll have a full “new shooter report” later today.

20190601_164514

In the picture above Dana is the woman on the left. Chris is on the right. By their own request, they are getting a sample of what self defense shooting is about.—Joe]

Social justice warrior charged with felony

It looks like a social justice warrior is getting more justice than she bargained for:

Rachel Dolezal hit with felony theft charge in welfare fraud case

Rachel Dolezal, the former NAACP chapter leader who resigned after her parents revealed she’s not African-American, is facing a felony theft charge in Washington state after she allegedly made false statements to secure nearly $9,000 in food and childcare assistance.

The charges against Dolezal, who changed her name to Nkechi Diallo in October 2016, were first reported by KHQ-TV.

According to court documents, investigators with Washington state’s Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) started looking into Dolezal’s finances in March 2017 after the publication of her autobiography, “In Full Color: Finding My Place in a Black and White World.”

DSHS investigator Kyle Bunge said Dolezal had claimed that “her only source of income was $300.00 per month in gifts from friends.” However, the department found that she had deposited nearly $84,000 in her bank account between August 2015 and September 2017 without reporting it.

According to the investigation, the money came from sales of Dolezal’s autobiography as well as “the sale of her art, soaps, and handmade dolls.”

Authorities say Dolezal illegally received $8,747 in food assistance and $100 in child care assistance from August 2015 through November 2017.

See also my previous posts about her:

Gun cartoon of the day

Via email from Brian Keith:

TheKingNRA

This is what they think of you. An old, fat, disheveled beggar.

Predictions of gun owners disability to lobby and affect elections have been greatly exaggerated.

Quote of the day—Barack Obama

Some of you may be aware our gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon, any time. Without much, if any, regulation, they can buy it over the Internet, they can buy machine guns.

Barack Obama
Former U.S. President
May 30, 2019
SHAMELESS! Obama Heads to Brazil, Lies REPEATEDLY About American Gun Laws
[Lying. That is what gun grabbers do. The truth is toxic to them and their agenda. Lying and deception has been a essential part of their culture for over 25 years.—Joe]