It's nice to be appreciated.

From Comments on my last post:

(yes, it's a sexist term, but it's hundreds of years old, and what's a person to do?)

I see what you did there, and it amuses me.

Carry on.

I try, Jason. :)

Since when is learning to use a tool a bad thing?

I don't know much about the Appleseed project, beyond what I've read on Breda's site, and a couple of comments elsewhere. I gather, through remarks made in (and out of) context, that there seems to be some sort of criticism of the project.

I'm a bit confused about all of this. The concept, so far as I can see, is to teach rifle-owners the basics of riflery, so that they may present themselves as competent, able riflemen. (yes, it's a sexist term, but it's hundreds of years old, and what's a person to do?)

I had a fair amount of luck-- my father was taught riflery, and insisted that I know about it. When I asked about slings on rifles in my Boy Scout trips to the range a quarter-century ago, I was smirked at: "Why do you need some device to hold the rifle for you?" Even at 11 years of age, I already knew that those "instructors" had missed something valuable.

When I went to U.T. Austin, I joined the rifle team mostly as an opportunity to get to shoot on campus, with all the .22 ammo I wanted to burn for a measly $20 a semester. I ended up shooting one match against Texas A&M, where I got my arse handed to me. When Dad came down for my birthday, he presented me with a copy of the military guide to riflery.

I've got a long way to go yet, to consider myself a true master rifleman. I've also gotten to a stage in my life where I feel my muscles, nerves, and eyesight declining. If I want to stake my prowess at a high point, I'd better get busy learning, and practicing. I realize that I'll never make Olympic class (give up coffee? Are you frickin' kidding me?!?), but I'd like to know that a breadbox at 500 yards is within my abilities to hit while standing. (Think you can do it? Have you actually tried it?)

One of the features of being a good rifleman that I have found is the ability to give up one's ego, and assess honestly what one's capabilities are. Don Gwinn can do it, but he's an exceptional person. As a hunter, I know what I can and can't do, and have turned down surprisingly short shots because the light, sights, and movement of the game simply didn't synch up to provide me with a sure hit at that range. As a cop, I've found myself looking through the sights of my rifle and knowing that I "owned" a doorway 80 yards distant, behind which a felon held a hostage. Knowing that I had the skills to absolutely guarantee a head shot at that distance gave me a lot of peace, which would have (had things gone badly) reduced the stress and allowed me to shoot to my potential. That comes from more than just qualification, or "famfire;" it comes from honest self-assessment. If I'd been forty yards further out, with that light and those sights, I would have probably disqualified myself as being capable of consistently being able to make a head shot. (As it was, things went well, with no further harm to human life.)

What I do know is that we learn by repetition, and that committing one's self to a weekend-long seminar on shooting a rifle will absolutely burn in some skills, if they are taught correctly. If the training is done correctly, it will teach students how to practice on their own, to improve themselves on their own.

How could anyone criticize such a project? Look, even if you're a hopeless hoplophobe, wouldn't you want those scary gun-owners to understand how to shoot safely, and competently? That's a whole lot better than the alternative, don'tcha think?

Just thinking out loud, here.

A comment on marriage that I'll listen to.

Online pal Sabra posted a comment that's too damned profound to be lost in the comments section of my last blog post:

I think most of the "we grew apart" divorces could be prevented, if the people want to.I agree with love and respect, but I have to point out that both genders want both things.

In hindsight, a LOT of what went wrong in my marriage boiled down to: I was so hurt and so lonely that I ignored my husband's pain and loneliness in favor of my own, as he ignored mine in favor of his. Which came first? Doesn't really matter in the long run. But if we'd been as nice to each other during our marriage as we learned to be during our separation, things probably would've been different.

Overwhelmingly, the response is that readers update edits.

That's really good to know. I was worried that some of my dunderheaded typos were making it to every one of your readers, and that you thought of me as a plain fool, and had documentation to back up your conclusions.

Ha. I can cover my tracks.

...Sort of. Zeeke42 gave the single most* helpful comment, saying:

"I get the fixed version on Bloglines. At the top of the post, it says: "UPDATED 5 hr 42 min ago POSTED 5 hr 59 min ago"

Aha!

I think that I'm going to sign up with Bloglines. Why not Google? Because I have two logins with them, and that could get messy.
_________________________________
*Everyone's comment was helpful, and I thank you all for posting them.

I should have thought this was rather self-apparent.

Huh. It had not occurred to me to think that this would even be a question.

The .32 acp (7.65 X 17mm Browning) is a .312 caliber bullet, traditionally of 72 grains, at about 905 f.p.s. for a whopping 129 foot-pounds of energy.

The .380 acp/9mm Kurz / 9 X 17mm / 9mm Corto / 9mm Short is a .355 caliber bullet, traditionally of 95 grains, at about 955 f.p.s., for a more considerable 190 ft/lbs of energy.

Let's see: Bigger bullet? Check. Heavier bullet? Check. Faster bullet? Natch.

But what really seals the deal in favor of the .380 acp as a better round is the absence of the completely befuddling semi-rim on the base of the .32 acp. While the .380 has a "rimless" style cartridge case that does not project any rim beyond the line of the case walls, the .32 acp has a very tiny rim protruding out beyond the case walls-- on the order of .0105" beyond. This surely was to aid in headspacing and extracting, but also can interfere in functioning, causing rim lock, occasionally, when not loaded carefully.

The .32 is available in some amazingly tiny pistols, and that's really its greatest claim. It is quite a bit more powerful than the anemic .25 acp, but despite the popularity of the James Bond flicks, the .32 is no powerhouse.

The thing that makes me scratch my head is: how the HELL could anyone consider the .32 acp as a better cartridge?

Maybe they were thinking .32 H&R Magnum?

Tips on Concealed Carry

Hi Matt G--
...I've been reading your blog for a
while and I was hoping you could help me out with something. I recently bought my first handgun, took the concealed carry class, and now have my permit. Problem is, I really don't think I know what I'm doing when it comes to carrying a firearm for self-defense. The concealed carry class was very vague on that topic, and I caught some serious errors on topics they weren't vague on (for example, they told me that I SHOULDN'T notify an officer that I had a firearm until asked. The back of my carry permit says, in big letters, that I should). So I don't really trust them any more, and have no other good resource. Any advice?

I'm probably going to give you a lot more than you wanted, here, and a lot less.

First: What state are you in?

Second: I am not a lawyer, nor a professional trainer. I am a man who carries a gun for a living and for personal protection. I've made a study of firearms, and am more than a little bit interested in them. But you get what you pay for in this world, so take the following with a grain of salt:

I could quote you chapter an verse about Texas law on concealed carry, but I don't know if that's where you live. For example, if you are detained or asked for your identification by a peace officer in Texas and you are armed, you must present your Concealed Handgun License.

Packing Dot Org used to be the gold standard for good handgun law information, but it seems to be down right now. So go to HandgunLaw Dot US and try to find out everything you can about your requirements under the law. Really, you should read the black letter law of the statutes, codes, ordinances, etc that pertain to your carry and the application of use of force in your state. Do you have a duty to present your CHL? Do you have a duty to retreat before using deadly force? Do you have a requirement to keep it concealed, or can it be visible? What is "brandishing"? Are there ammunition requirements, loading requirements, requirements for holsters, cases, type of firearm, number of firearms, etc? Does your state have laws that supersede local ordinances forbidding carry? What are the places where carry is prohibited even with a CHL, if any?

These are damned important questions. You need to have the letter of the law printed out and available to you, preferably in your car or luggage. As you've seen, there are many misinformed people, and they can include instructors and cops.

For good tips on carrying concealed, I really would recommend that you go read this thread at THR. Specifically pay attention to the concept of wearing the stiffest, heaviest belt that you can fit in your holster and pants. (hint: The first month of putting it on, you'll think you got one that was too stiff.)

Don't let anyone tell you that the gun you favor the most is wrong-- handguns are intensely personal issues. But at the same time, don't assume that someone else's choice is wrong just because yours works for you-- realize that there are many ways to skin a cat. For concealed carry, you need to realize that you're going to sacrifice shootability for carryability. Sure, you can circumcise a gnat at 40 paces with your 8 3/8" heavy barrel Super BlackHawk in .480 Ruger, and it will reliably put down a bull sperm whale, but what of it? You're not going to have it tucked in your Sparks Summer Special when you drop in the convenience store for a Slushy.
_ _ _
1.The most important issue for a concealed carry pistol is: reliability. If it doesn't go Bang every time, then what's the point? Why risk the potential liability of carrying a deadly weapon?

2.The next most important issue is carryability. If it's not something you'll find comfortable to carry, you'll almost never carry it. Carrying a pistol is inconvenient. It takes time. You have to dress accordingly. You will find yourself carrying that pistol a lot more if it's:
(A): Lightweight (read: under two pounds, and preferably in the 16 ounce or less range), and
(B): Thin.
Barrel length is only moderately important, and is actually far outweighed by butt profile. A short round butt on a gun with a long barrel is far easier to conceal than a big square butt on a short-barreled gun.

3. The next most important issue is shootability. Can you draw the gun and hit the center of a man-sized target twice at three paces reliably and quickly? Don't laugh: that's a serious question, and one that more people should ask themselves.

4. Finally, and least important (yet still important) is: is the gun powerful enough? If you pop someone with a .22 or a .25, and they find out about it, they might become annoyed with you. (Apologies to the late Jeff Cooper.) Find a pistol that fires as powerful a caliber as you can reliably shoot well, taking into account the above limitations. This is where intermediate calibers shine. 9mm, .38 Special, and even .380 acp are very good calibers to consider is small carry guns. I have heard people that I respect speak highly of the .32 H&R Magnum as a contender. Don't discount less common rounds like the .41 Long Colt, .44 Special, .45 Schofield, .38 S&W/.380-2Z, .32-20, the 9X18, etc.

Life is a trade-off. You may well want to reduce your power level to increase carriability. This is why a BUNCH of Baby Brownings have been sold and carried over the decades, and why for the last decade so many KelTec P32s have been sold.
_ _ _

--Get a good holster. If you carry your pistol in your pocket, get a good pocket holster. It not only makes it safer and makes the gun easier to deploy when needed, but it also protects the gun in your pocket.

--Wipe your gun off every day. Even if it's stainless.

--Don't get complacent about safety. The Four Rules are always (ALWAYS) in effect. When you get home, put the gun up properly-- don't just kick it in the corner with your pants (if that's how you roll when you get home.). I don't care how long you've been around guns. I don't care how safe a gun you've got. I don't care that "you've checked it, and it's safe." You're one careless mistake away from a tragedy, and if you can't remember that, then don't carry. In fact, just leave the guns alone.

--Decide ahead of time what is the absolute point where you have to act. Don't wait until the situation arises, because while you're deciding, it's too late.

--If you're going to carry, carry every day. I don't have a crystal ball, and I can't predict when I'm going to get into a gunfight. If I'm wearing pants, I'm wearing a gun. This principle applies to seat belts. If I'm driving, I'm buckled in, because I can't know when I'm going to be hit by someone. Think of the gun as underwear.

--Go read Marko's short riff on the responsibility of carrying-- he's got some good outlooks on it.

--Don't show your ass while carrying.

In short: Be responsible, and think ahead of time.

I know. It's a lot.

But you don't have to carry. If you choose not to, that's okay.

Frustrating.

I've got to admit that it feels like a kick in the gut to have people (in comments) think that I"m a part of the jackbooted thuggery. I'm loudly decried in graduate criminal justice classes on terrorism and criminal procedure as being a "damned liberal" for people's rights. I'll bear that badge. But to be told that I don't understand the Constitution or understand the spirit of the amendments to it?

Got to admit-- that's an insult that upsets me.

So Mark said, "I'll have my people call your people," and...

At midnight, between Thursday, 5 July 2007, and Friday, 6 July 2007, I'm to appear on BlogTalkRadio's internet radio news show. (Go there now to check it out.)

You will, of course, all be so kind as to tune in and ask ridiculous questions to assist me in making a fool of myself, yes?

C'mon. He'p a brutha out, please?

(Sigh.) Okay. Here goes:

If I get a good response on Friday morning/Thursday night, I will finally post the AD/Babs/MG collaboration this weekend. Okay?

But I need some input. IN. PUT.

I just now noticed...

...that Gay Cynic listed me as a recipient of his "Thinking Blogger Award." Thankyee, kind sir. But the compliment sounds a little backhanded, I think:

Better & Better is another blog I follow...common sense, humor, and practical advice appeal to me - what can I say? On the other hand, if I had to read a blog on fashion, I think I'd go slowly mad.

What's that supposed to mean?!?

Is it the green? Or the writing style? Or my sexy outfits?

Heh.

_ _ _

Edit: Looking at it some more, I think what Gay Cynic means, is that my blog is the antithesis of a fashion blog, and is thus appealing to him for its substance. Which is one of the nicer compliments I've gotten, if I'm reading it correctly.

Oh, you think *that's* bad?!?

Tamara made an amusing rant about how the local Knoxville rag felt the need to post on the front page an ongoing story about teens at a party having alcohol. Some jeering might have occured.

The editor got wind of it, and responded that this is what the people are interested in.

And it's true that this time of year is a rather pertinent time to discuss teen drinking. If you've not seen any yet, brace yourselves for the late-May/early-June series of stories that will follow the seemingly inevitable, unfortunately ubiquitous, alcohol-related teen fatalities, most of which feature the Salt Of The Earth kids who Had Their Whole Lives Ahead Of Them, and who Had A Real Bright Future. Shoot, talk about your "Sun Rises!" headline. But they'll be there, and they'll be legitimate news, too. I've bought papers just to read such stories.

But my wife cautioned me to stop yelling at the television lest I wake up the children one night, as I was getting ready for work. I want to say it was our local Fox affiliate (but I may be wrong) which ran, toward the end of its regular news broadcast, a segment, which ran for every bit of two minutes, on "Neuticles."

These are artificial testicles for neutered dogs and cats and bulls and horses. Why make them? Why, because they give the poor boy back his confidence, and make him feel better about himself after he's been physically altered by being neutered. The story featured a relatively legthy interview/voiceover with an owner, while showing footage of his bull terrier. . . complete with zoom-in footage of the canine's scrotum.

My hand to Gawd, I'm telling the truth.

I'm not talking about one of those quick, almost subliminal flashes of a view; I'm talking lingering, changing perspective views, to give the viewer a look at the surgical scar, as well. Talk about your "well I really hadn't expected to see that over my evening coffee" moments.

Apparently, the war in Iraq wasn't worth spending time on. Nobody saved anyone's life. There were no life-saving medical discoveries. No insights into the war on terror. Nothing else that could pre-empt a story on the amazing efficacy of ovoid chunks of variously firm silicone in restoring Fido's life vigor. That two minutes was NEWS, by golly! If a 30 minute broadcast only gets 24 minutes of content due to commercials, we were watching 8.5% of it drain sickeningly down the drain, as this schlock. I will spare you the photos or the direct video.

Mom was a journalist with a large regional newspaper, and apparently her questions about the difference between the definition of what's "news" and what's "entertainment" were passed on to me, somewhat.

Just because people are interested doesn't make it newsworthy.

News hound.

Head in the sand...

I just this morning heard of the shooting in Henderson County. I noticed several guys wearing mourning bands on their badges, but was too embarassed to ask. I've been off for a coupla days.

After reading a couple of accounts of it, I found myself composing a nice closing argument for the D.A. I'm certain that the D.A. doesn't need my help. But at some point, I hope that the prosecuting attorney says something to the extent of the following:

"Mr. Mays has been defended ably by a good attorney, who has attempted to
convince you not to find his client guilty of Capital Murder through some
creative methods. And I'm glad of that. I'm glad that Mr. Mays was represented
by a capable attorney, because it will mean that your finding of 'Guilty' will
mean that much more, and be that much harder to overturn during the automatic
appeal that will be lodged.

"You may not like cops. Some people don't, especially when we've been written a citation, or an officer took other official action that we didn't agree with. But peace officers --and that's what these two men in their 60's were-- Peace Officers-- should be able to go about their duties without being murdered, same as anyone else. Let's pretend that the Texas Penal Code didn't have that line in section 19.03 about it being a capital murder to murder a peace officer or fireman.
Let's pretend that these guys weren't peace officers, and were just guys doing their jobs. Well, I guess we'd have to throw out subsection two (2), which refers to murder committed during the course of committing assault, arson,
obstruction or retaliation, or terroristic threat, too, sense ordinary citizens
normally wouldn't be doing the job that they were doing. But what about
subsection sevem (7), in which the Penal Code says that it's Capital Murder to
murder more than one person "during the same criminal transaction?" See, that
law covers you and me and the juror beside you. Oh, the judge over there, he's
got his own subsection. And victims under 6 years of age get their own
subsection. But subsection seven-- that's for you and me and your family
members. Anyone who murders multiple people commits Capital Murder.

"Forget, if you wish, that he's decided to fire upon men who wear the
badge and are sworn to uphold the trust of our society, and are as such symbols
of what is just and right. Just focus, if you'd rather, on this fact: He
murdered two, and would have murdered a third, if that third heroic wounded
deputy hadn't stopped him. How many more citizens would he have killed with
malice in his heart? Thank God we'll never know. End this right now. Cast your
ballot. Tell the world that this is wrong. This is Capital Murder. And
Mr. Mays is guilty of it, several times over."

I know, I know. It's a silly little Clarence Darrow-type closing statement (never mind that Darrow was a defense attorney-- work with me, here) that bubbled up while I was driving through Gravel Drive and turning onto Pothole Circle. But I can hear it, with the right inflection, clear as day. Figure he'll go to trial in 18 months, and will sit on Death Row for 9 years... I reckon he'll take his last nap in 2018, or thereabouts.

Blood spatter practical excercises

For my blood spatter class, my lab partner Eric and I decided that no practical exercise would be complete without some gunplay. Others smeared, splashed, and stamped blood; we decided to create high velocity impact spatter (HVIS). HVIS is very distinctive: it looks like it was sprayed from an aerosol. It is composed of droplets under 1mm in diameter. (A millimeter is about the thickness of a dime.) The issue was, how to make this? Answer: sponges.

Eric did the real shopping, because I was majorly busy, and because he's a superior lab partner. Seriously-- this guy's thorough. He didn't just buy a sponge-- he bought 4 big (4"X8"X2") Ocello sponges, and a pint of fake blood. He bought a sheet of paneling, and some boards. He then reinforced the panel with the furring strips he bought, and transported said paneling, boards, sponges, blood, and some cinder blocks from home to meet me at my private range. Well, it's actually a friend's cow pasture, but for my purposes, it's my private range.

Eric also brought in his SUV a metal rack and some duct tape, along with a lot of brown paper that we had taken from the criminology lab for this purpose. We coated the panel with the brown paper, and I stood it up against the door. Then we took an old rusty range table that's been out there for about 25 years, and stood it about three and a half feet from the wall that we had erected. (HVIS is said to travel not more than four feet.) We wanted to see marginal HVIS. We then suspended the sponge from a board bridging two pairs of stacked cinderblocks, by wrapping one end tightly with duct tape, and hanging the sponge so that it would swing by the duct tape from the board. We took it back down, and saturated the sponge with the fake blood. We put on rubber gloves and poured plenty of the stuff onto the sponge, all the while squeezing it. When it would accept no more "blood," we hung it between the cinderblock stacks, and used an eight-foot piece of wood to measure off our shooting location from the sponge.

I shot the sponge first, using my old S&W M37 Chief's Special Airweight 2", firing a Federal Nyclad 158g hollow point semi-wadcutter +P load into the middle of the sponge.

I was shocked. First: No HVIS. Some bits of sponge had blown out the back and onto the paper, but no HVIS. The heavy bullet load in the minute 2" barrel just doesn't run that hot. Also surprising was that the bullet keyholed. No lie-- take a look. In three and a half feet, the sponge soaked in fake blood took a bullet of serious sectional density and turned it about sideways.

We moved the table closer to the wall, so that the sponge was about as close as it could get without swinging into the wall from the blast-- something over a foot. The bullet again keyholed slightly, but this time we got some HVIS. Not a lot, but some. This is what we were after.

We moved the stack a little more to the left in front of some clean paper, and Eric fired his HK USP compact .40 into the sponge, which we had re-saturated. Using 155g Federal HydroShocks, we didn't expect what happened. First off-- we should have backed the table up to about 4 feet again. What a mess! Take a bullet that weighs 3 grains less but is .043" wider, traveling a good deal faster, with the excellent Hydroshock design, and... well, all hell breaks loose. We had no idea that the Hydroshock would actually expand on the sponge, but it did, and with stability, too! It didn't keyhole at all, passing through the wall with its petals clearly peeled back. The mess was impressive. The back of the sponge was blown out pretty well, too.

We took down our paper, dried it, and folded it carefully, to tape it up and present a practical simulation of a drive-by with two shooters firing three shots total at a person standing in front of a wall.

Then Eric had to shoot the sponge with 00 Buckshot, against the wall, with predictable results.

Predictable, but not enough for Eric. He hung the sponge so that it was edge-on to him, and shot it from about 10 feet, blowing the wad through the paneling this time, as well.

To quote the boys at the Box of Truth: "Shooting stuff is fun."

And we did all this in the name of science.

Hee hee hee...!

Whooo, boy! Did this poor Indian (red dot) fella ever find the wrong place!



Does he have a clue what I do?!?

And if I ever did come up with a model for making money, I can promise you (and my old undergraduate Pre-Calc instructor[s] would confirm to you that)-- it wouldn't be described as a "mathematical approach."

A good shoot, with odd reaction. . .

News has gotten out about yet another U.S. Border Patrol shooting.
-
"Another one?" you may ask.
-
Well, yes. There's no change-- even back when I went through academy in the early '90's, it was known that the branch of law enforcement with the highest rate of shootings was the U.S. Border Patrol. It's just that nowadays, it gets more attention. Some of the new attention has to do with the furor over illegal imigration, and some of it has to do with new accountability of officers for shootings. For many years, shootings occured that nobody much talked about or did anything about, down on the border. That's changing.
-
So anyway, without the benefit of any backstory, I present this video of a Border Patrol officer stopping a rock thrower (Ramiro Gamez Acosta, a 20 year old Mexican man) who is in full wind-up, only a few feet away, when the agent put a single round from his patrol rifle through the rock-thrower's chest.
-
Some have questioned if the rock thrower was really going to throw at the agent, or if he was going to throw at the vehicle. Well, if you look at the windup and stretch of any pitcher, it can be kind of hard to tell where he's about to throw. Where, exactly, is this guy about to throw to? If he were cursing you and ran up to within 10 feet of you with a fist-sized rock, would you want to bet that it wasn't at you?
-
There's the question of whether a thrown rock merits deadly force. While I suppose that the size of the rock changes it a little, consider that even a very small rock thrown hard at the face can blind one eye for life, and a rock as small as a golf ball can easily be fatal if it hits the head or neck. In terms of historical context, it seems that it would take a pretty meticulous Bible scholar to find all the stonings just in that book, alone. (Some versions report that it was with a stone that Cain slew Abel-- supposedly the first ever murder.). What would it take to incapacitate the officer long enough to take his weapons?
-
Fortunately, the US Border Patrol and I apparently have basically the same feelings on the subject-- the officer involved was returned to duty after a mere 3 days of administrative leave.
-
The Border Patrol is furious, reportedly, that someone leaked the video to the news media. While it shows poor discipline among the staff that it got out, one has to wonder if there's ANY reason why they wouldn't want this video out there, to at least shut up the B.P.'s detractors this once.
-
The Border Patrol have a very tough job. I frankly wouldn't want it. While we should hold them to a high standard, let's give them what they need to do their job, including our support where it's merited. Like now, for instance.

To answer your question....

No, Austin, it is NOT illegal, as a matter of state law, to carry pepper spray here in Texas. [I'm not an attorney, just a cop with a decent grasp of the Penal Code.]

It's similarly not against state law to carry a Taser.

But if you wield these items against another person without a solid self-defense purpose, you may be charged with Assault, Assualt Causing Bodily Injury, Aggravated Assault, or, in the instance of the victim's death, Manslaughter or Murder. If you simply spray pepper spray in a public area, you may be charged with Disorderly Conduct.

Be aware, however, that local ordinances and regulations may differ from the law, and you have to use the stricter standard.