How can that be?

Posted on by

The human brain is amazing. I sometimes look at the things people can do and I have difficulty believing it is possible. I even look at the things I can do and am amazed.

Here is a USPSA stage I shot in April. You have to draw from the surrender position and put 10 rounds on 8 different targets with a mandatory reload in the middle of the string of fire. How long should that take?

Here is my score:

Stage Name A B C D M NS P LS XS XH AP Time Total Points Hit Factor Stg Pts
2P Paper Poppers 7   3                 6.90 47 6.8116 50.0000

6.9 seconds. Right off that bat you can say the average was less than one second per shot. Then you start figuring in the time it takes to draw and reload the gun. Even being generous (I don’t think I am this fast) on my draw and reload by subtracting out 1.25 and 2.25 seconds yields 3.4 seconds for the remaining 8 shots or and average of 0.425 seconds per shot. How can someone even move the gun from target to target that fast? At that speed acquiring a sight picture and squeezing the trigger happens someplace far away from conscious thought.

What is even more interesting is that my score is only 68.6611% of the score by the best shooters. Assuming they get all ‘A’ zone hits (this maximizes the time) they had to do it in a total of 5.04 seconds. Subtracting out 1.0 and 1.5 seconds for the draw and reload and we have 0.3175 seconds per shot.

I didn’t know that

Posted on by

The ATF tried to make the agent who infiltrated the Branch Davidians into a scapegoat. He sued and was awarded near $2.3 million in damages. This was a surprise to me.

It appears the ATF is ethically challenged even when dealing with it’s own people and not just gun owners.

I guess that makes sense. It’s a simple extension of the adage of there being no honor among thieves.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

Suppose the gun references were replaced with Jewish symbols and organizations. What would be the future of this artist then? The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right. Politicians who advocate the infringement of that right violate their oath of office and do not deserve to hold public office. They should be prosecuted under 18 USC 242. Being kicked out of office is being far too kind and sets a poor example.

And, yes, the ejection port is on the wrong side of the pistol.

Quote of the day–Jennifer White

Posted on by

It’s logical. Greater opportunity to obtain a firearm increases risk for women. Additionally, not every abuser has a misdemeanor conviction that will prevent them from acquiring a firearm.

Jennifer White
July 15, 2010
Why Gun Control Laws Are a Feminist Issue — The recent Supreme Court decision that expanded Second Amendment rights has
left feminist groups silent, even though women are more likely to die of gun
violence at the hands of domestic abusers.
[Somehow she completely overlooks the benefits of enabling women to defend themselves with firearms. As usual, people in the comments are explaining things to the writer.

Update: Jeff has some comments too.–Joe]

Interesting search result

Posted on by

If you do a search on either Google or Bing for “no coloreds allowed” my blog post is number one on the list. It’s number eight on Yahoo!

Another step closer to GATTACA

Posted on by

Entire human genome sequencing for $100.

My estimate is that the potential for GATTACA is only another decade away.

Buy a solar energy system get a free gun

Posted on by

I’m not sure I would take the gun over the $400 cash discount but I would give them a serious consideration over their competitors for being gun friendly.

NRA versus Brady Campaign in an alternate reality

Posted on by

I have been thinking about the Brady Campaign story that the Heller and McDonald decisions are really a good thing for their side. They claim it has, “Taken the extremes in the gun debate off the table, and given us the opportunity to decide what kind of gun restrictions make sense in our communities”.


This is based on the premise, as proposed in Chapter 3 of Half-Truth Henigan book Lethal Logic (I really need to finish up that review) that freedom activists use the slippery slope threat of a complete gun ban as justification for opposing all restrictions on firearms.


Okay… lets turn this around and see if it still makes sense with the tables turned.


Let us suppose that in some alternate reality there is an evil NRA and the the good guys are the Brady Campaign. The opposite of a complete gun ban is not what the Brady Campaign claims as “any gun, anyplace, anytime”. It is mandatory gun ownership, training, and subsidies. Suppose Washington D.C. and Chicago had the evil NRA’s dream of a mandatory hour a day instruction and/or practice in firearm use from age 5 on up. All guns, ammo, and ranges for the mandatory practice are supplied at taxpayer expense. Furthermore all people were required to purchase at least one each of a shotgun, bolt gun, semi-auto rifle, semi-auto pistol, revolver, sub-machine gun, heavy machine gun, and (with subsidies for those who needed help) a mini-gun. Other political jurisdictions varied in oppression with California only requiring one hour a week of practice and citizens over the age of 21 only have to purchase one handgun and one semi-auto rifle while Vermont implemented the good Brady Campaign ideals saying, “Do what you want, just don’t hurt anyone else or their property.”


Now suppose Alan Gura, still working for the Cato Institute, takes D.C. and Chicago to court and gets the mandatory purchase requirements for eight different firearms thrown out as violating the Constitution. The justices also say “This narrow ruling should not be interpreted as saying all mandated training or purchases of firearms is unconstitutional”.


Would the evil NRA be justified in saying this furthers their goals? Would it be reasonable to claim, “This has taken the extremes off the table and has given us the opportunity to decide what kind of mandatory gun ownership and training laws make sense in our communities”?


The answer is no. The U.S. Constitution is about limiting government. It gives enumerated powers to government and guarantees specific enumerated inalienable rights. In pushing the D.C. and Chicago government as far as they did the evil NRA was able to violate the rights of the people in those jurisdictions. Those governments had clearly gone beyond their constitutionally granted powers and was oppressing the people. What the ruling does is throw into question all requirements of firearm ownership and training because those requirements were a violation of constitutionally guaranteed freedom.


And, back in our reality, the Brady Campaign supported complete ban on firearms in D.C. was a violation of a guaranteed freedom. When that was overthrown it put into question all similar restrictions on freedom. It does not enable everything short of a complete ban.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

You say that like it was a bad thing.

This is the last of the series on the NRA proposal to open a theme store in Times Square. At least it is the last one I have in my current collection.
I have a total 52 cartoons left in my collection but that doesn’t mean
I will be done in that many days. Three weeks ago another blogger asked
how many more I had because they wanted to link to the entire set. At that time I had 50 left. It seems each time I go looking there are lots more I hadn’t seen. If I get a chance I will go looking for more tonight with the specific intent to find all that are related to the NRA theme store proposal.

Quote of the day–Fred

Posted on by

The Brady Campaign tends to act like a rather dumb terrier and grabs on to whatever scrap they can and not let go until they get their way, regardless of how stupid and pointless it is.

Fred
March 27, 2010
Comment to Guns ‘N Coffee
[After failing with Starbucks it appears the latest scrap they are grabbing on to (again) is the “gun show loophole”.–Joe]

A right delayed

Posted on by

A right delayed is a right denied. Chicago does delaying. This makes their alignment with other bigots extremely clear.

H/T to Say Uncle.

Agenda

Posted on by

It’s as if the NY Times had a conclusion, tried to find evidence to support it, failed, but published it anyway:

Beyond Guns: N.R.A. Expands Agenda

The N.R.A., long a powerful lobby on gun rights issues, has in recent months
also weighed in on such varied issues as health care, campaign finance, credit
card regulations and Supreme
Court nominees

In the health care debate this year, for instance, the N.R.A.’s lobbyists
worked with the Senate majority leader, Harry
Reid, to include a little-noticed provision banning insurance companies from
charging higher premiums for people with guns in their homes.

The N.R.A. worked out a deal last month exempting itself from a proposal
requiring groups active in political spending to disclose their financial
donors. Its push this spring for greater gun rights in the District of Columbia
served to effectively kill a measure — once seemingly assured of passage — to
give the district a voting seat in Congress.

With a push from the N.R.A., a popular bill last year restricting credit card
lenders came with an odd add-on: It also allowed people to carry loaded guns in
national parks. And the gun lobby put potential supporters of the Supreme Court
nominee Elena
Kagan on notice this month that a vote for her would be remembered at the
ballot boxes in November.

The N.R.A.’s expanding portfolio is an outgrowth of its success in the
courts, Congressional officials and political analysts said. With the Supreme
Court ruling last month for the second time since 2008 that the Second Amendment
guarantees an individual the right to have a gun, the N.R.A. now finds that its
defining battle is a matter of settled law, and it has the resources to expand
into other areas.

The NRA had success in the courts? What national level gun rights cases has the NRA won recently? Neither Heller nor McDonald were NRA cases. I suggest you ask the lead attorney for both those cases, Alan Gura, what he thinks of the NRA getting credit for those wins–I would advise that you be prepared to treat your ears for blisters afterward. The NRA certainly supported the decisions (as far as they went). But the organizations that deserve the credit in those cases are the Cato Institute and the Second Amendment Foundation.

The NRA’s defining battle is settled law? The right to keep a handgun in your home for self-defense was the defining battle for the NRA? Not even the GOA sell the NRA that short.

Would it be considered “expanding their agenda” if the NAACP or the ADL pushed through laws that prohibited their members from being discriminated by insurance companies, enabled them to visit National Parks, opposed Supreme Court nominees hostile to them, and fought laws that inhibited their lobbying?

The reporter claims the NRA is expanding their agenda but only supplies facts that support the conclusion they are pursuing their agenda–protecting the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. As we all know, being a bigot means the facts don’t matter when they conflict with your agenda. And here the NY Times clear shows they have an agenda and they are bigots.

Update: Sebastian has similar thoughts.

And your point is?

Posted on by

The following is from Chicago so in some respects it’s understandable:

What is missing in the court’s decision and all the glee among its supporters is
recognition that this ruling accentuates and legitimizes and further establishes
our violent character as a nation. Its premise is that violence is best met with
and countered by violence, that the best way to fend off a violent attack is to
practice violence in turn, including lethal violence. It clearly supposes that
the way to reduce violence is to increase the capacity and means to inflict it.
Moreover, it authorizes the privatization of state-sanctioned violence; each can
now be given the requisite permission to own and carry—and in certain
circumstances, use—a firearm to injure or take the life of another.

Are there any facts from anywhere, anytime, on this planet that counter the claim “violence is best met with
and countered by violence, that the best way to fend off a violent attack is to
practice violence in turn, including lethal violence”?

As far as I can determine this has been an immutable law of nature for about a billion years. For this guy to assume, without any supporting data whatsoever, something different and to expect everyone else to just nod their heads in agreement is arrogance or ignorance on a scale that is seldom seen outside of government.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

Imagine the effect on the career of the artist that made a similar cartoon targeting the NAACP or the ADL using negative stereotypes of them.

Quote of the day–Barbara Griffith-Wilson

Posted on by

It’s going to be bang, bang, shoot ‘em up on the streets of Flint. In the end, mothers will not be able to do a thing except bury their children.


Barbara Griffith-Wilson
July 12, 2010
Flint City Council postpones gun control ordinance change
[Ahhh yes… The blood in the streets argument. Another person, A.C. Dumas (appropriate name) has this to say, “It’s going to get bad in the city of Flint as you’ve never seen it before. We’re going to open a can of worms that’s never been opened before.”


I’m reminded of something on a t-shirt, “The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.”


They are fully aware the rest of their state allows open carry yet they apparently believe the facts from outside their city limits do not apply to the people that live inside their city limits. This is mind boggling stupid.–Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

For some reason I find this funny even though I find it an offensive statement about gun ownership.

I suppose it might be because it appeals to my appreciation for understated and sick jokes (my collection is here).

Quote of the day–Lee Harris

Posted on by

The same thing is happening today — and that is our true enemy. The poison of the radical Islamic fantasy ideology is being spread all over the Muslim world through schools and through the media, through mosques and through the demagoguery of the Arab street. In fact, there is no better way to grasp the full horror of the poison than to listen as a Palestinian mother offers her four-year-old son up to be yet another victim of this ghastly fantasy.

Once we understand this, many of our current perplexities will find themselves resolved. Pseudo-issues such as debates over the legitimacy of “racial profiling” would disappear: Does anyone in his right mind object to screening someone entering his country for signs of plague? Or quarantining those who have contracted it? Or closely monitoring precisely those populations within his country that are most at risk?

Let there be no doubt about it. The fantasy ideologies of the twentieth century were plagues, killing millions and millions of innocent men, women, and children. The only difference was that the victims and targets of such fantasy ideologies so frequently refused to see them for what they were, interpreting them as something quite different — as normal politics, as reasonable aspirations, as merely variations on the well-known theme of realpolitik, behaving — tragically enough — no differently from Montezuma when he attempted to decipher the inexplicable enigma posed by the appearance of the Spanish conquistadors. Nor did the fact that his response was entirely human make his fate any less terrible.

Lee Harris
Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology
[It is a bit long (Kevin Baker excepted) if you think of it as a blog post but as Tamara said it is fascinating.

It can be applied to so many things–gun control, government run health care (probably government run almost anything!), “global warming”, recycling, and probably a thousand other things.–Joe]

Update: The broken link has been fixed.

Middle of Nowhere

Posted on by

Early next month wife Barbara, her sister Susan, and I are going to Sullivan County Missouri. We had ancestors who emigrated west to Idaho from there in the 19th Century. Barb and her sister will be doing some genealogical research. I probably will help them a little bit but I plan to spend quite a bit of time at Middle of Nowhere with my pistol and perhaps a rifle. I wish they had a 1000 (or 1500!) yard range but a couple of plate racks and 100 yard range will keep me busy for a while.

Anyone else in the area with the time and ammo (I plan on shooting up at least 1000 perhaps as much as 2000 rounds) to spend practicing?

Burning books

Posted on by

Imagine the outrage if the U.S. State Department announced moral and monetary support for the United Nations burning books or supporting apartheid. That’s what I feel toward International Small Arms Destruction Day.

That’s our tax money being used to deny others an inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

H/T to NRA-ILA.

Appropriate comparison

Posted on by

Chicago Mayor Daley is compared to former Alabama Governor George Wallace:

Then, as now, a seasoned politician felt his opinion superseded the rights of
citizens and was willing to use the power of their office to deny those rights
to citizens they deemed ‘unworthy.‘

Nice!