Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Take this - and call me when you're better

I recently had opportunity to recommend the Neti pot to TamaraK as a low impact method for her to alleviate her sinus problems (you'll have to scroll well down the comments). Despite her subsequent confession of sissytude (a condition shared by a surprising - to me - number of others) regarding the general sanctity of nasal passages, I can't help wondering how effective such a device might be as a delivery mechanism for nano-scale medicines?

Granted, only a certain amount of any individual dose would remain inside the sinus cavity (the rest being flushed out along with everything else), but this should allow for a more gradual introduction of the material into the system via absorption through the sinus tissues. Should a more rapid introduction be desired, then an inhaler or direct transfusion would still be viable - if more invasive - options.

Regarding the still-mythical respirocytes hypothesised by Ray Kurzweil, and unlike Phil Bowermaster apparently, I certainly do want the capabilities he mentions whether or not I have any particular "need" for them. I regard such choices as being analogous to the choice provided to US citizens by our constitution's 2nd amendment. The decision to exercise the right isn't predicated on any degree of need; any effort now or in future to restrict such medical options as Kurzweil's respirocytes ought to be as strongly resisted as are infringements on our right to firearms. We are each free to elect not to exercise the right, but no-one should have the blanket authority to impose when or if we may make such a choice for ourselves.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Good Enough

Kevin Baker laments his lack of speed in firing "controlled doubles" at a recent shooting match he attended. In his post, Kevin links to a classic Chris Byrne post that thoroughly explains and illustrates precisely the what and why of the issue. I should also note that I've met Chris and seen him shoot (at the NoR Fest/Conf last year); not only does he clearly understand the difference between a controlled double and a doubletap, he can demonstrate same with depressing regularity and accuracy.

With a brand new, straight-out-of-the-box, never before fired by him 10 mm no less.


All that said, I'm going to argue the position that, outside the bounds of formal competitions like IDPA/IPSC and the like, the standards of performance Chris and Kevin seek to achieve are not entirely realistic for actual pistol gunfights (says the man who is loudly grateful never to have actually had to engage in one).

Lemme 'splain.

Hold your hand in front of you, palm toward you, fingers extended and touching each other. Then make a fist with the thumb resting outside the closed fingers. I should point out that attempting to punch someone with your fist in this configuration will almost certainly result in more damage to your fist then to another's face; also, the area demarcated by your fist (base of the palm to the closed fingers x the thumb knuckle joint to the blade-edge of the palm) is a reasonably accurate simulacrum of the size of your heart. Place your closed fist over the mid-point of your chest and you will have a clear illustration of the target area involved. Now, center the last joint of your little finger on your upper lip and take note of the portion of your face your fist covers.

As part of your next trip to the range, make this same fist but this time extend your arm towards the target you just shot. If the X-round (6, 7, 8, 17?) string you just shot is covered by your extended fist, I'm going to suggest that you did indeed "got him" and that that's more than good enough.

Which is the point underlying this post; just how much and, at least as critically, how fast is "good enough" when your target is another human trying to shoot you and not just a steel plate or piece of paper?

My belief is that one shot "within the fist" on a consistent basis is of greater importance then almost any number of shots placed adjacent to the critical location. Keep in mind the dimensions of an "A" shot as described in Chris' post. The area of my own extended fist is ~ 2.5 inches wide by 4 inches high, considerably smaller then the 6" x 10" area permitted in competition. In a defensive handgun fight, a potentially lethal wound will almost certainly limit the number of return shots you will have time to deliver - which is still really bad news for your opponent.

Especially if we reverse the scenario and you are the opponent.

I contend that, while the averaging effect achieved in IDPA-type competition is an excellent test of a shooter's overall skills, the value of a single well-placed first shot is of overriding importance. Furthermore, if you are capable of consistently placing a shot within the fist on a human chest, you are equally capable of doing so to a human head. Should that be the case (talk about your critical self-analysis!), then for the purposes of a defensive gun fight, if both target areas are equally clear* the head shot ought to be the primary choice. Remember, this is handguns, not rifles, and at a probable distance between shooters of 7 to 10 yards maximum (anything much beyond that range starts to call into question the whole "defensive" aspect of the thing, don'tcha agree? You're gonna get sued anyway, why make it easy for them?).

I choose to carry a 1911 pattern .45 acp semi-auto as my primary weapon, with a S&W 431 PD in .32 H&R Magnum as a pocket/back-up weapon. If you also choose to fire a bullet of lessor mass than a .45/357/44 mag (9 mm or .38 for example) you too will be more likely to find a second shot necessary. I do agree that delivering a follow-up round to the same fist-size area as the first shot within one second of firing that first shot is a realistic objective. You aren't likely to be given more time then that by the other shooter in any case, so the impetus behind Kevin's desire isn't simply confined to seeking competitive advantage in a formal match setting. Now that he too is (will be soon?) carrying concealed, the ramifications of doing so need to be considered as well.

Shooting competitions, practical or otherwise, are structured to emphasise the competitive relationship between the shooters pretty much as a requirement of their design, whatever the practical/defensive intent might also be. If you're going to carry a gun off the range as well as on, I believe you should regularly train to use your weapon to an off-range requirement on a regular basis, in addition to training for any other shooting setting that attracts your interest. Just keep clearly in mind the differing circumstances of your varied interests, that's all, and be careful not to practice one to the exclusion of some other.

*A "clear" target is one that is unobstructed, both in front and behind, along the likely trajectory of the fired bullet.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

What an ass

Finally got in to see the ass doctor yesterday - mine, not him.

The good news is that my prostate isn't enlarged nor otherwise apparently out of the ordinary and, other than having "a few" polips removed via laser, all else seems to be in reasonably good rectal order, if inordinately breezy still. Great delight was taken from informing me that "this too shall pass".

So, no ass cancer and my general state of health also seems to be much improved. Hard to complain about any of that. I'm still adjusting to the dietary implications of being diabetic, but there's a surprising amount of food goods available for carbohydrate-restricted diets. Weirdly, after not smoking for 14 months now I'm experiencing the urge to smoke. Not to worry, I'm much too cheap to take up the habit again at current prices.

Let's see if I can find something of a more general degree of interest to write about in future. Certainly, some topic that has less to do with the state of my rectal region or other attendant body parts.