Random Thought

So some idiot sparked a debate on twitter.  The best part is, it is obvious I backed him into a corner with no way out.  He has been continuing to dance around the point once I illustrated the problem with his argument.

He absolutely refused to answer the following question and would dance around it.

Answer my question. Would you disarm the law abiding in attempt to quell crime. Yes or no?

He would give a response dancing around the question to which I would reply something along the lines of well why do police carry guns then?  He would dance right around it.

Now this individual wouldn’t admit that he wanted to disarm everyone.  His solution to self-defense? Martial Arts.  Evidently the thought never crossed his mind that his solution wouldn’t work for everyone.

This little jewel though actually made me laugh.

Now why would I laugh?  Well honestly because I’m quite happy in fact that the women in my life that I care about, for the most part, all carry concealed weapons.  From bloggers who I consider friends, to my wife, to local friends I hang out with.  The close women in my life who don’t currently are the in-laws and I’m working on that problem.  At least the father-in-law does.

There’s a running joke between my wife and I.  I’m not a big fan of nuts in my chocolate cookies.  So when someone asks, “I like my women like I like cookies, without nuts.”  I guess I need to abridge that to also state, “I like my women to be packing steel in their pants.”

SSCC #471-#473: Barren County

Sheriff Eaton and two deputies are also accused of using excessive force during an arrest in 2010, then falsifying documents and lying to the FBI about it.

Details are thin and sketchy.  Seriously that’s 1/5 of the article I found initially.  More information found elsewhere lends serious credibility to these allegations.  A fourth LEO involved in the investigation took a plea deal.  Of note though is the following count levied against Eaton:

According to count 12 in the newest indictment, Eaton allegedly assaulted Stinnett “by striking him in the area of his groin,” thereby depriving him of his right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by one acting under the color of law.

Again it comes back around to knowing how to control your monster.  The sheriff in this case seems to be the most egregious violator in this particular case.

State Sponsored Criminal #471: Sheriff Chris Eaton
#472: Aaron Bennett
#473: Eric Guffey

Because while the common citizen is expected to restrain himself to just the force necessary to protect life and property, law enforcement has no such need for self control.

Today’s Word of the Day – Ineptocracy

Ineptocracy,  (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy), noun

  1.  a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Sample Usage:

With more and more people being reliant on social programs, ineptocracy is taking hold and will not let go.

Honestly I was both laughing and crying as I discovered that and read the definition.  Sadly that word is quite accurate at describing the current state of affairs in the country.

Seventy One Years Ago

In case you don’t immediately understand I will let someone who has a much better way with words than myself explain it.

And then you see her on the port quarter, what little there is to see of her above the water from an acute angle: The number 3 barbette of the USS Arizona, the watery graveyard of 1100 men and a mute testament both to perfidy and unpreparedness. Sixty-odd years after she went down, little rainbow pools of oil still bubble to the surface from within trapped spaces and voids, footless passageways embracing the mouldering bones of sailors whose names are known but to God. The old salts say that these are her tears of rage and anguish, her tears of loss and bereavement. They say that she is weeping. They say that she is weeping still.

Go read the whole thing, it’s definitely worth the time.

Acceptance and an Ugly Truth

Let me lead off on a quote from A Girl:

The reasons are many and complicated and are not the same for everyone, but to some extent I think for most it is simply because it is what we want to believe. Many of us are conditioned and many of us are naive, but there is more to it. I believe we accept these ineffective ways to keep us safe because they are what we want to be true. We want to believe that the world is basically a rosy place where bad things don’t happen to good people and when they do they are so rare, we need not worry about it. AND we want what is easy.

If you haven’t read her post, “I Believe, I Believe. It Is Silly, But I Believe,” it’s worth the time.  I point to her post because it, mainly that quote, is honestly what inspired the following train of thoughts through my head.

People naturally tend to rationalize away things they do not like, things they do not want to hear, or things that would otherwise bring them discomfort.  While every last one of those points are valid and extremely important it misses probably the most critical one of all. 

What could she have missed?  She has that bad exists in the world, some are naïve, and that ultimately we want those simple things to be true.  So what critical item do I think was left out?

A very ugly truth that not everyone can handle or accept.  That truth is this:

In the defense of my family or myself I may have to strike another human being.  Not only may I have to strike that person, but I may be forced to take their life in defense of my family or myself in order to stop the attack.

Many people cannot handle this.  We are brought up in a society where doing such a thing is viewed with great disdain and shunned, and rightfully so when life is taken for the wrong reasons.  Many people group all killing into that single group.  For them there is no acceptable reason to kill another human being.  Not even to kill them to prevent them from killing you.

Not only as a society is this shunned, but many people lock up at even contemplating the fact they may be force to take the life of another human being.  It is not entirely their fault either.  We are wired genetically to not want to kill each other.

There can be no doubt that this resistance to killing one’s fellow man is there and that it exists as a result of a powerful combination of instinctive, rational, environmental, hereditary, cultural, and social factors.  It is there, it is strong, and it gives us cause to believe that there may just be hope for mankind after all.1

No person really likes the idea that they may end up having to kill another, honestly most will do what they can to prevent it.  Many of us who do finally accept this ugly truth have spent hours agonizing over and finally understanding that the circumstances that lead to that situation are ultimately out of our control.  While yes we can do things to mitigate our chances of an encounter, ultimately the decision to start the conflict does not ride with us.  We know, understand, and accept this.  Not everyone is so willing to accept the reality of this fact.

Many will constantly rationalize that somehow they can avoid any conflict that might befall them.  They will falsely rationalize to themselves that if the aggressor gets what they want it will go no further.  They ignore and disregard the idea that some people don’t want anything other than to see someone in pain and die.  They do not understand how the other side ultimately views this situation.  They cannot comprehend the following so eloquently put by Malcolm Reynolds.

“I didn’t kill him, he killed himself. I just carried the bullet for a while.”

Yes, I make the decision to defend myself, and yes I make the decision on the level of force necessary to apply.  The most critical decision though in that whole chain though was the person who decided to victimize my family or me.  If he had not have chosen to attack, invade, or otherwise do something against my family or myself, I would have never needed to make either of those two decisions.  The second decision ultimately is also based on the aggressors decisions as well.  Ultimately though the first decision must be made in advance and the gravity and reality of the potential consequences of the second decision accepted.  Many people cannot do that, they cannot accept that, they cannot comprehend why contemplation would even be necessary.  Many of us look at the story of A Girl, or the excerpt in her post from “Armed and Female” and a roll of realization and acceptance flow through us.

Many who read this have already accepted the harsh realities A Girl points out in her quote, but we’ve also accepted the consequences of that truth.  It is those consequences I believe most people have a serious problem with whether they’re willing to admit it or not.  Without accepting those consequences there is not much left in the toolbox for survival.  The natural response then is to rationalize and attempt to hide the problem.

I have touched before on why I carry a gun, and some have argued and told me that people carry a gun out of fear and being afraid.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m afraid of criminals.  I don’t carry a gun because I think someone is out to get me.  I carry a gun because if and when the devil arrives at my door I have one mission and one mission alone: Assure that my wife and myself arrive home in one piece, no worse for wear.  The condition I leave the devil in is entirely up to him.  He may end up hospitalized, he may end up just scratched and bruised, he may even end up dead.  My decisions though center around my mission and I will do what I feel is necessary to guarantee that outcome.  If you don’t like it, don’t try and attack my family or me, it is honestly that simple.  However I have realized and accepted this ugly truth an the potential consequences that go with it.

1-Grossman, Dave. On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Boston: Little, Brown, 1995. 39. Print.

SSCC #470–US Marshals Office

U.S. Deputy Marshal Lucio Osbaldo Moya is accused of showing a photocopy of the unidentified agent’s driver’s license to colleagues last fall and, upon learning it belonged to an undercover investigator, sending a warning text to his father, who has served prison time for various drug charges.

You would think that when the Marshals service did an investigation at hiring they would have noted the following the history of the father.  While not everyone is very close with their immediate family, it would have probably been prudent to conceal information that might be associate with is father in one form or another.

State Sponsored Criminal #470: Lucio Osbaldo Moya

Because the government doesn’t need to investigate who they hire, just everyone else.

Quote of the Day–Matthew Bracken (12/6/2012)

If you’re too slow on that first mag change, you might not need a second magazine.


Matthew Bracken – In Praise of Duplexed AR-15 Magazines

[I can totally grok this comment.  He explains a method for duplexing two 30 round mags I will give a try and see how they work.  There are a few serious advantages I see to duplexing this way, especially when needing to get into the fight fast and flat footed. I’ll do a write up and let you all know how it goes.  –B]

On That “DQ” Issue.

So we bounced back and forth a couple emails.  I sent the last one Monday night asking for additional clarification regarding the issue previously brought up here.   Mainly because I had an issue with trying to use section 10.5 to attempt to DQ a competitor.

If you’re wondering why I wanted to get to the bottom of this, its’ because I don’t want to see someone else do something like I did and have it turn into me ruining their day at the match.  I knew how easy it was and even other RO’s at the time didn’t really think of it either.  That said the rules exist for safety first and foremost.  So I want a clear and concise reason and I want to have my facts straight if I have to drop the hammer.

So let me start at the beginning of my major issues.  Rule 10.5.1 states:

Handling a firearm at any time except when in a designated safety area or when under the supervision of, and in response to a direct command issued by, a Range Officer.

And is prefaced with:

Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to:

Which my main issue was that the Rule Book clearly defines what is and is not handling:

(As in “handling a firearm”) The act of manipulating, holding, or gripping a firearm while the trigger is functionally accessible.

The other RO did bring up a valid issue with casing, uncasing, and holstering of firearms.  2.4.1 states the following:

Competitors are permitted to use the Safety Areas for the activities stated below provided they remain within the boundaries of the Safety Area and the firearm is pointed in a safe direction. Violations are subject to match disqualification (see Rules 10.5.1 & 10.5.12).

Which he then pointed out that 2.4 specifies activites that are permitted at the safety table, not that you must be at the safety table.  Which makes sense because you could uncase when when you step into the shooters box.

So the problem comes in that the case was opened, but no one actually touched the firearm.  How can it be a DQ?  Turns out it wasn’t.  There are two things worthy of note from the email:

This sort of thing is just asking for a DQ.  Might as well pass around a plate of chocolate chip cookies and tell people to look, don’t touch.

I can agree with that and sympathize whole heartily.  Yeah all things considered, probably not a good idea since everyone will be staring at it going “Oooohhhh Shiny.”  However it does open you to a potential DQ under 10.6.

One RM suggested that if someone had handled they would be DQ’d and the person displaying would get a DQ under 10.6.  It’s a bit of a stretch but I can see that.

For those unaware, 10.6 is the section pertaining to unsportsmanlike conduct.  As said above, it’s like tempting people with a plate of cookies, probably not the smartest idea.  Like Kevin, it’s a stretch but I can see it.

So, in closing, not a good idea, expect a talking to, and if you see someone else do it, give them a gentle nudge that it isn’t a good idea and use the cookie example.  Yes new toys are fun to show off, just walk over to the safety table just in case the monkey brain goes, “Shiny” and tries to pick it up.  Then your bases are covered.

The following bit from the authority on this one is worthy of remembrance as well:

Remember, the basis of our rules is safety.  You can game the non-safety related rules all you want but there is a very, very low tolerance for gaming the safety rules.

That is why I wouldn’t have an issue with it being brought up or a nudge.  Show and tell is creating a situation that can lead handling.  From a safety stand point, that’s bad, mmmkay.

This decision and justification does however solve another issue I had.  New shooters may show up with said case and open it to put on mags and holster while in a more comfortable area away from the safety table which is usually quite busy at the start of a match.  They key is they can not touch the gun.  Once the holsters are on they need to go to the safety table to remove the gun from the case and holster.

Personally I advise putting the gun in a separate case and calling it good.  The only reason I hadn’t yet was because I hadn’t had a chance to rearrange my range bag yet.  I still want my other XD, mags, and ammo as a backup so I need to do some rearranging.  However I can see new shooters showing up with that case, it as everything they need but eyes, ears, and ammo.