Monday, July 17, 2017

Cracked: Why yes Allen Crum is a badass

So....  Cracked decided to do an article about regular people who did bad-ass things.

And in fiarness their #2 is Allen Crum.

Who is Mr. Crum you may ask?  Well, when Charles Whitman started killing people he's one of the regular folks who armed themselves to help the police take on the murderer.

Specifically Crum asked a cop for a rifle, was given it, and went up the tower with the police.



Something to mind if Cracked ever tut tuts about the idea of armed regular-joes being able to help stop a mass shooting.

Cracked: Gun Control's about rich people disarming commoners.

So today Cracked has 5 Annoying Modern Debates That Have Been Around Forever
(Url title  5-surprisingly-ancient-political-debates-that-wont-go-away)

And #2 is about gun control.

So point in favor it does talk about how "We've Been Fighting About Weapons Bans As Long As We've Had Weapons"

But the writer dives right into the "Well of course it's okay for rural people to have guns, but not people in urban areas."

Which it's funny how that racist dog whistle is okay.

And yes the article contorts the term "stand your ground" to mean any generic castle doctrine or basic self defense:
Later, Roman lawmakers enshrined their own "Stand Your Ground" law, making it perfectly legal to kill someone who attacked you on the road or wandered onto your farm in search of "plunder."

But the more important bit is at the end:

The issue got more complicated as weapons got more elaborate. In the 12th century, the Church, the emperor of Germany, and other rulers tried to ban crossbows for being "un-Christian." The issue came down to literal class warfare -- crossbows were deadly and required little skill to operate, meaning any yokel armed with one could kill a knight or nobleman. (Richard the Lionheart was killed by a potshot from some random dude defending a castle he was besieging.)

Centuries later, nobles had the same concerns about guns. Henry VIII banned anyone who made less than 100 pounds from owning a firearm, and France soon followed suit. So governments have always kept weapons out of the hands of the masses because they feared giving the people power, but it was also often done to uphold order and save lives. That double-sided issue has been a problem for millennia, so it's unlikely the next Facebook argument you see is going to solve it.


The issue got "more complicated". What a nice euphemism there.

So....  the rich and powerful were afraid of commoners having weapons, so they worked to disarm them even using religion to push their way.

At least cracked admits the "literal class warfare".

But don't worry, sure the state has always wanted to disarm the masses, but it was for their own good!
And yes that is literally Cracked's angle.


Well, given this was all about how old these "debates" are you can give Cracked some leeway about not mentioning how racist early US gun control is.

Wait... you mean the next point is literally: #1. The U.S. Government Has Always Treated Some Minorities Like Terrorists.

Huh....  so... remember that whole No Fly No Buy demand to ban gun ownership to people on some secret goverment watch-list?

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Cracked Takes on Old NRA ads....


So... this Cracked article on crazy ads.

You may guess that it's related to gun control.  Something Cracked talks about... a fair bit.

So of course some NRA ads  are part of the list.  But they only get in at #6.    And in fairness they really are some pretty crazy advertisements.

(Sure Cracked being Cracked starts off with "The NRA famously advocates for gun manufacturers",  and then tries to be even handed with the issue."   Cracked also acts as if these are typical advertisements, though the link, to Mother Jones no less!  Shows a mess of far tamer ads.  But on the gripping hand the article doesn't really talk about how bad guns are or how great gun control is.)

And this late 80's  Washington Post article seems to confirm that the NRA really did engage in this, frankly, baffling advertising strategy.   Baffling not for the content of the ads so much as the way they're framed.

Still, it's somewhat noteworthy that Cracked put it so low on the list.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

It's no retrospective...

In fact it's another Cracked piece. This time Cracked goes back to their wheelhouse (used complementary in this case). Of interviewing a person with a unique experience.


Speifically someone who served on a grand jury on anofficer involved shooting. It's an interesting read as it covers issues of emotions, timing, information restriction while the trial is occurring, ignorance in media reporting, use of force procedures, and even a bit on the aftermath of someone who has been "cleared" in a shooting.

Saturday, March 25, 2017

A retrospective....

As Erin mentioned on my last post.... pictures could have been nice.

So I'm thinking of doing a retrospective of my past carry pieces and holsters.  Also could be a fun bit down memory lane.  As I realize I'm nearing ten years of CCW...   Geeze.

With a few bits of lessons learned along the way.   I make no great claims of knowledge, but at least some people can learn from my mistakes  (first,  just don't buy Kimbers.  Even used, even if you get one that works well, they're not worth the price.  And I say this as someone currently using STI and Sig)

Friday, March 24, 2017

Condensing

It's interesting.   I used to be one of those bigger bullet is best bullet.  So I carried a 45. And it was a 1911 because well...  that's what my father had and it seemed good enough for me.

And when it came time for a bug (backup gun)  I went "well I gotta have another 45". But I needed a jogging gun.  And that was a pocket 380 acp.


So that was two calibers for carry.

But then I decided... wait why have 8 rounds when I can have more.

And went to....  a 9mm (It was still a 1911 but doublestack!)

So... for those of you keeping score I was up to three calibers for a defensive use to keep track of.

But...  then I started looking at pocket nines.   Turns out a good one will be almost as small as a pocket 380.  But will have real sights, be 9mm and have more pleasant recoil.

Well... at least the Sig 938 does.   Which nicely replaced my pocket 45 and pocket 380.

Especially since for jogging I got a proper kydex holster for the Sig.

But yes... that brought me from 3 calibers down to 1.

And....  both were 9mm 1911's.


I don't exactly... recommend this journey on carry guns.  But it was interesting.

Friday, March 3, 2017

Smooth, Fast, Slow, What's the difference?

My friend Oddball has a post about the recent brouhaha of people not liking the idea "Slow is Smooth, Smooth is Fast."

Oddball brings an interesting perspective to the discussion. 

While I’m not an IDPA grandmaster, ever even been in an IPSC match, or some high speed low drag firearms instructor, I am a martial arts instructor.  As such, I’ve used the term, and I’ve heard many other instructor state similar.

The real message behind the that mantra is to focus on technique.  When we try to go as fast as we possibly can, our technique tends to go out the window.  I’ve seen folks jump straight into trying kicks or hand techniques at full speed, and their technique was generously described as “flailing.”  Lots of movement that doesn’t do anything but waste energy and throws them off balance, no force actually landing on target, and, while their limbs my be going at high speed, the entire action is slow.

The solution to this is to slow down and focus on what you’re actually doing.  If you’re doing something in the middle of your action that doesn’t directly help that action, why?  There might be a good reason (like keeping your hands up), at which point, keep doing that.  If there’s not, maybe you shouldn’t.  Slowing down allows you and your instructor to make sure you’re not only moving efficiently, but that the maximum amount of the energy you’re expending ends up on target.  Once a student’s technique is good, then we move to actually speeding things up.

Now, I’ve only taken a few classes on firearms but it does seem that most of the critique of “slow is smooth, and smooth is fast” that is the jab “slow is smooth, and smooth is still slow”...

Well they ignore the importance of smooth.
Being fast isn’t worth diddly if your stance is all buggered and you have a lousy grip, no sight picture and, most importantly, you drop rounds into the dirt. Heck, as a matter of training and learning… which makes seems like the better way to improve?


Getting the technique down first, making sure your motions are good and resulting in hits, and then trimming down the time to go faster.

Or focusing on doing whatever it takes to be as quick on the buzzer as possible, and then trying to reduce “flailing”, all /without/ slowing down. ( Because if you have to slow down to get your technique sharpened before you go back to being faster… congrats that’s Slow is Smooth, Smooth is Fast).


And yes, it is correct that starting slow *can* impart bad habits that will be a detriment later on. But so can starting fast and building habits when one doesn’t have the fundamentals down. Heck one should make sure that one can shoot a tight group, stationary, standing, at like 5-7 yards with a pistol, with careful fire as a bottom basement requirement. Then start worrying about adding drawstrokes, speed, and motion.