Friday, May 27, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Now He Can Be Impeached
Per abc NEWS, Pres. Obama has used the War Powers Resolution as justification for US military involvement in Libya;
With his letter to Congress yesterday rejecting Congress's authority for continuation of his military activities in (or only over) Libya, Mr. Obama treads blithely beyond the Constitution on the flimsiest of pretensions.
"Intermittent warfare" is still war, Mr. President, and war isn't defined by the number of troops your side loses. Drones and aeriel bombardment are fulltime implements of war whenever they are used on another country's real estate and people. Ask Congress for a war authorisation Pres. Obama (or better yet, declare "victory" and re-deploy the military assets elsewhere), or spend the rest of your life fleeing from the questions posed by the relatives of those lost to your own Vietnam when this debacle-in-the-building inevitably grows to a scale that rivals that failure of US leadership.
From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21.
With his letter to Congress yesterday rejecting Congress's authority for continuation of his military activities in (or only over) Libya, Mr. Obama treads blithely beyond the Constitution on the flimsiest of pretensions.
"Intermittent warfare" is still war, Mr. President, and war isn't defined by the number of troops your side loses. Drones and aeriel bombardment are fulltime implements of war whenever they are used on another country's real estate and people. Ask Congress for a war authorisation Pres. Obama (or better yet, declare "victory" and re-deploy the military assets elsewhere), or spend the rest of your life fleeing from the questions posed by the relatives of those lost to your own Vietnam when this debacle-in-the-building inevitably grows to a scale that rivals that failure of US leadership.
Friday, May 20, 2011
The Other Option
Uncle says he plans to slow-cook a pork roast for the scheduled Rapture tomorrow. Personally, I'm relieved that FedEx managed to deliver my latest order from Cheaper Than Dirt in time. That 500 round brick of Super Colibri LRN may be just the ticket should the post-Rapture disappointment be too widespread and energetic.
Other's disappointment, you understand. As long as the ammo will cycle the Buckmark, I'm good.
Other's disappointment, you understand. As long as the ammo will cycle the Buckmark, I'm good.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
It's Here!
Well, not here, here; at the gun store.
Finally.
Got the call too late to go get it and have time to shoot it too, so no O/T for me tonight and up early enough tomorrow morning to do all that then.
Note to self: remember to buy a de-mooner and more moon clips.
Update 5/18/11: Got it! Shoots well and shows no tendency to spontaneously dis-assemble. :)
Further note to self: remember in future to check the package to see if moon clips are included. Don't know as I'll need all 12 of them any time soon, but I'm well equiped now, that's certain.
Proper-ish range report w/ pics to follow. Any day real soon now. :)
Finally.
Got the call too late to go get it and have time to shoot it too, so no O/T for me tonight and up early enough tomorrow morning to do all that then.
Note to self: remember to buy a de-mooner and more moon clips.
Update 5/18/11: Got it! Shoots well and shows no tendency to spontaneously dis-assemble. :)
Further note to self: remember in future to check the package to see if moon clips are included. Don't know as I'll need all 12 of them any time soon, but I'm well equiped now, that's certain.
Proper-ish range report w/ pics to follow. Any day real soon now. :)
Monday, May 16, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Not-Fisking Phil Bowermaster
Phil Bowermaster is the (co- ?) creator of The Speculist blog, co-host of Fast Forward Radio and now the on-line "voice" of the Zapoint company. I have been a long-time commenter on The Speculist as have Phil and his blog-partner Stephen on my blog; Phil has even gotten desperate for interview guests had me as a guest on Fast Forward Radio. He and I have a shared context, so I'm confident he won't be offended by my adopting the utility of the more normally offensive form this post's structure has admittedly been drawn from.
In his Transparency Revolutionary persona, Phil posted a complex viewpoint on secrecy and transparency that made reference to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Before getting into Phil's post, let me take this opportunity to make clear that I personally regard Mr. Assange as being repulsive, self-aggrandising scum deserving the worst treatment humanly possible for his abusive betrayal of other's safety merely to stroke his own ego and financially better himself. As he has operated it to-date, Wikileaks and all who participate in that great betrayal deserve the professional attentions of Seal Team Six at their next opportunity.
I'm widely known to be an easy-going guy though, so perhaps I understate my feelings.
Phil wrote:
Right you are Phil; it's nonsense on stilts! Facebook is an accumulation of unsourced data points that might by correlated to indicate potential (and extremely tentative) conclusions to anyone willing to put forth the time and work necessary to structure the data to some unintended (by Facebook and it's users) purpose.
A spy searches out data that has been deliberately obscured. In the Facebook example, a spy would spend extensive resources searching for the data concealed by the self-posted data available to anyone who logged on to the site. I am confident this is not what Mr. Assange refers to, so "spy" is entirely misleading as is his description of the nature of the data made available by Facebook's users.
Actually, as it's structured Facebook is at best a collection of data that could have intelligence value in an extremely precise application by any party willing to search out those statistically few data points of relative value to the express purpose. Uncle Sugar may very well have access to every piece of information it could possibly want about you and in all likelihood wouldn't ever know it did unless the .gov was already looking at you beforehand and knew to search for data specific to you. Otherwise, we're all securely lost in the daticular sea of confusion that is Facebook.
Other than the potential for data search convenience once a specific data sequence has been identified, Facebook is a nightmare of data overload.
And here we come to the point of contention.
Just in passing (and I am far from the first to make this observation), I notice Herr Assange - and Wikileaks more generally - seem to have the decidedly Circumstantialist policy of not revealing the secrets of those who have the reputation of actually killing those who do so. {cough}Putin{cough}
That out of the way, the US government is, at least in design, an extension of the citizens of that country. Even if only to the degree that can still be said to be true, the secrets he/they brute about are mine! The US federal government is a deliberately crafted construct intended to permit the greatest opportunity for expression of all the citizenry's interests in all of their often gloriously contradictory intent. If Mr. Assange wishes to take active part in adjusting that construct, he should take out citizenship, otherwise I am in danger of agreeing with Vice-President Biden and the psychic shock of that occurance isn't to be contemplated.
In his view, government (and particularly intelligence agencies) represent a class of universal, indiscriminate exploiters of information. Yes. Yes they are. In fact, I would go so far as to say that is one of the deliberate and designed-in purposes of the US federal government expressly for the benefit of the US citizenry at large. True "whistle-blowers" work to make sure the data exploitation doesn't get directed against the citizens by their own government - who, it should be acknowledged, is expected to exploit everybody else (secretly, of course). Working to defeat this function is one of the actions taken by an active enemy of said country and it's citizens.
Just sayin'.
exposing corruption to the light of day is a good and necessary thing. Disagree on principle. Exposing corruption may well be a just and necessary thing, but "good" can only be derived from the context within which an action takes place. Exposing someone for stealing to feed his/her family (receiving food stamps fraudulently, say) would be Just, but precious little Good would come of it.
"Justice" and "Goodness" are synonyms only to those who impose judgement upon others, which is not the same thing as judging something for one's self. This may seem a pedantic point of distinction, but it remains an important distinction nonetheless, I submit. Without a fixed meaning applied to concepts like language, human civilisation fails.
Wikileaks "power" is the direct result of the degree of use others make of it, not some factor inherent to the structural model. If, as has been charged, some soldier hadn't violated his oath of service, Wikileaks wouldn't have access to the data it has cooperated in betraying, ergo Wikileaks would have nothing to leak on it's own. Wikileaks' only "power" is it's promise of betrayal. Betrayal of those who confide in it. Betrayal of the trust of those who's data is stolen.
Let me conclude by stating that I hold Julian Assange in such low regard not due to my love of government intrusion or fondness for data classification protocols, but rather due to his unrepentant and deliberate disregard for the impact his actions have on those who's lives are part and parcel of the data he exposes so indiscriminately. Not so much for the individual actors, those who are knowingly participants in that which Assange reveals (though they are equally deserving of having their trust respected), but more for those associated with them, their families and other associates. All these and more are actively endangered just so Julian Assange can have me typing his name onto my computer screen (among other claims to infamy). Perhaps even more than all of that though, Julian Assange deserves contempt for his desecration of the human condition expressed in the word "trust". In my view, people everywhere are more suspicious of each other, and less generous of forgiveness, as a direct result of Assange's Wikileaks debasement of trust, and for this most of all I despise him and all his works.
The reality is that every decision to disclose or withhold information involves a trade-off of risks and benefits. This.
Colored by the realisation that all people (as individuals or in organised fashion) work to achieve advantage for themselves, the gains realised through transparency will always need to be balanced by the advantage gained from closely held knowledge as well.
Which is just another way of saying what Phil said in closing.
UPDATE: The one time I don't check Instapundit first, he has this bit of Facebook relevance on offer. Talk about your "spy machine". ;-)
In his Transparency Revolutionary persona, Phil posted a complex viewpoint on secrecy and transparency that made reference to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Before getting into Phil's post, let me take this opportunity to make clear that I personally regard Mr. Assange as being repulsive, self-aggrandising scum deserving the worst treatment humanly possible for his abusive betrayal of other's safety merely to stroke his own ego and financially better himself. As he has operated it to-date, Wikileaks and all who participate in that great betrayal deserve the professional attentions of Seal Team Six at their next opportunity.
I'm widely known to be an easy-going guy though, so perhaps I understate my feelings.
Phil wrote:
The Spy Machine and Absolutes
Posted on May 3, 2011 by Phil
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is known for having strong opinions about things, e.g.:
Wikileaks Founder: Facebook is the most appalling spy machine that has ever been invented
Here we have the world’s most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations, their communications with each other, and their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US Intelligence.”
I don’t think that’s just hyperbole.
Right you are Phil; it's nonsense on stilts! Facebook is an accumulation of unsourced data points that might by correlated to indicate potential (and extremely tentative) conclusions to anyone willing to put forth the time and work necessary to structure the data to some unintended (by Facebook and it's users) purpose.
A spy searches out data that has been deliberately obscured. In the Facebook example, a spy would spend extensive resources searching for the data concealed by the self-posted data available to anyone who logged on to the site. I am confident this is not what Mr. Assange refers to, so "spy" is entirely misleading as is his description of the nature of the data made available by Facebook's users.
Putting aside the question of whether the US government has unhindered or even special express access to the Facebook database, such a collection of data is a tremendous intelligence tool and is bound to be used as such. Before Facebook, Google was the most appalling spy machine ever built. A decade or so ago, AOL was. Before that it was email. A century ago, it might well have been claimed that the telephone directory was.
Actually, as it's structured Facebook is at best a collection of data that could have intelligence value in an extremely precise application by any party willing to search out those statistically few data points of relative value to the express purpose. Uncle Sugar may very well have access to every piece of information it could possibly want about you and in all likelihood wouldn't ever know it did unless the .gov was already looking at you beforehand and knew to search for data specific to you. Otherwise, we're all securely lost in the daticular sea of confusion that is Facebook.
Other than the potential for data search convenience once a specific data sequence has been identified, Facebook is a nightmare of data overload.
Assange is something of an absolutist when it comes to transparency. The defining principal behind Wikileaks is that any information that has been deemed restricted and that can be published…should be published. Assange is the universal, indiscriminate whistle-blower. In his view, government (and particularly intelligence agencies) represent a class of universal, indiscriminate exploiters of information.
And here we come to the point of contention.
Just in passing (and I am far from the first to make this observation), I notice Herr Assange - and Wikileaks more generally - seem to have the decidedly Circumstantialist policy of not revealing the secrets of those who have the reputation of actually killing those who do so. {cough}Putin{cough}
That out of the way, the US government is, at least in design, an extension of the citizens of that country. Even if only to the degree that can still be said to be true, the secrets he/they brute about are mine! The US federal government is a deliberately crafted construct intended to permit the greatest opportunity for expression of all the citizenry's interests in all of their often gloriously contradictory intent. If Mr. Assange wishes to take active part in adjusting that construct, he should take out citizenship, otherwise I am in danger of agreeing with Vice-President Biden and the psychic shock of that occurance isn't to be contemplated.
In his view, government (and particularly intelligence agencies) represent a class of universal, indiscriminate exploiters of information. Yes. Yes they are. In fact, I would go so far as to say that is one of the deliberate and designed-in purposes of the US federal government expressly for the benefit of the US citizenry at large. True "whistle-blowers" work to make sure the data exploitation doesn't get directed against the citizens by their own government - who, it should be acknowledged, is expected to exploit everybody else (secretly, of course). Working to defeat this function is one of the actions taken by an active enemy of said country and it's citizens.
Just sayin'.
For those of us who aren’t transparency absolutists, the world looks a little murkier. I agree with Assange that exposing corruption to the light of day is a good and necessary thing. I also agree that the government’s rather covetous attitude towards our rapidly diminishing private information is a cause for concern–if not alarm.
exposing corruption to the light of day is a good and necessary thing. Disagree on principle. Exposing corruption may well be a just and necessary thing, but "good" can only be derived from the context within which an action takes place. Exposing someone for stealing to feed his/her family (receiving food stamps fraudulently, say) would be Just, but precious little Good would come of it.
"Justice" and "Goodness" are synonyms only to those who impose judgement upon others, which is not the same thing as judging something for one's self. This may seem a pedantic point of distinction, but it remains an important distinction nonetheless, I submit. Without a fixed meaning applied to concepts like language, human civilisation fails.
When I look at Facebook, I see a lot of things, but I don’t know that a “spy machine” is among them. Nor can a look at Wikileaks and see an unmitigated good. (I don’t doubt that Wikileaks is powerful, however, and likely to become more so.)
Wikileaks "power" is the direct result of the degree of use others make of it, not some factor inherent to the structural model. If, as has been charged, some soldier hadn't violated his oath of service, Wikileaks wouldn't have access to the data it has cooperated in betraying, ergo Wikileaks would have nothing to leak on it's own. Wikileaks' only "power" is it's promise of betrayal. Betrayal of those who confide in it. Betrayal of the trust of those who's data is stolen.
I can see the appeal of the absolutist mindset. Everything is so tidy; there are no difficult choices to make. The government should never conceal any information, and any that is concealed should be revealed. Any government interest in personal information is, by definition, not legitimate and to be opposed. And, of course, any large collection of personal information is nothing more than an opportunity for exploitation.
Those ideas are close enough to the truth to be appealing, but far enough from it to be dangerous. The reality is that every decision to disclose or withhold information involves a trade-off of risks and benefits. There is frequently ambiguity around who owns any given piece of information, who is entitled to know it, and who benefits either from its concealment or disclosure.
The absolutist approach leads ultimately not to transparency but to a kind of information anarchy. The element of trust is what’s missing both from closed organizations and societies and from the worldview of the transparency absolutists. Real transparency is all about leveraging the power of openness and authenticity within a complex and often ambiguous framework that we know as “the real world.” A transparent society or organization is self-aware, self-directed, and self-optimizing in a way that a low-trust society or organization never could be.
Let me conclude by stating that I hold Julian Assange in such low regard not due to my love of government intrusion or fondness for data classification protocols, but rather due to his unrepentant and deliberate disregard for the impact his actions have on those who's lives are part and parcel of the data he exposes so indiscriminately. Not so much for the individual actors, those who are knowingly participants in that which Assange reveals (though they are equally deserving of having their trust respected), but more for those associated with them, their families and other associates. All these and more are actively endangered just so Julian Assange can have me typing his name onto my computer screen (among other claims to infamy). Perhaps even more than all of that though, Julian Assange deserves contempt for his desecration of the human condition expressed in the word "trust". In my view, people everywhere are more suspicious of each other, and less generous of forgiveness, as a direct result of Assange's Wikileaks debasement of trust, and for this most of all I despise him and all his works.
The reality is that every decision to disclose or withhold information involves a trade-off of risks and benefits. This.
Colored by the realisation that all people (as individuals or in organised fashion) work to achieve advantage for themselves, the gains realised through transparency will always need to be balanced by the advantage gained from closely held knowledge as well.
Which is just another way of saying what Phil said in closing.
UPDATE: The one time I don't check Instapundit first, he has this bit of Facebook relevance on offer. Talk about your "spy machine". ;-)
Monday, May 2, 2011
Osama (Officially) Bin Dead
If ABC and Yahoo both report it then it must be true. Not that I doubt the truth of the report really, it's the willingness to report the result with no supporting detail that bothers me.
One obvious point of uncertainty is who is going to be bilked out of the $25 million?
Osama Bin Ladin's remains should be formally interred beneath the lowest sub-foundation of the World Trade Center site and new construction begin atop his grave immediately after as conclusion of the ceremony.
One obvious point of uncertainty is who is going to be bilked out of the $25 million?
Osama Bin Ladin's remains should be formally interred beneath the lowest sub-foundation of the World Trade Center site and new construction begin atop his grave immediately after as conclusion of the ceremony.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Happy Birthday To Him
Just back from the Grandson's first birthday party. He's not too sure about the big guy with the mustache yet, but the goodies are ok. :)
Boy's already got damn near as many guns as I do (in my gun locker, where they'll stay 'till Mom and Dad say he's old/responsible enough). I may have to get a bigger place to hold it all at the rate I've been going though. I keep having to shove his ammo around to get to mine.
Boy's already got damn near as many guns as I do (in my gun locker, where they'll stay 'till Mom and Dad say he's old/responsible enough). I may have to get a bigger place to hold it all at the rate I've been going though. I keep having to shove his ammo around to get to mine.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Picking Your Target
(This began as a comment I wrote at Tam's)
Here's something I've not seen mentioned yet.
Obama just publicly identified who he wants the Republicans to nominate to run against him.
Remember how McCain was the media's darling prior to the '08 Republican nomination convention? Let's see if the same tactic gets recycled. Push The Donald as the "obvious" "best" "choice" for the Republicans, then savage him afterwards to Obama's comparative advantage.
By declaring his intention to run for re-election as early as he has, Obama pre-empts any serious challenge from within his own party (something that was beginning to get MSM notice only a few weeks ago). Now he's demonstrated the "effectiveness" of his potential opponent by apparently being bested by him on a long-standing issue.
Palin let herself be marginalized in '08; who's going to fall on his/her sword to give Trump some apparent political expertise in '12?
As strategy go, Obama offers an interesting example. Deliberately make yourself a figure of mystery and target of extremist interest so as to control much of your opposition's efforts to defeat your active efforts.
UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh posits (about 42 minutes into the first hour) on his radio show today that the timing of this data release is more in response to a recent poll showing only 38% of voters think Obama "definately was born in the USA". I don't think the two theories are mutually exclusive. Trump is a very beatable political opponent (when compared to any of several potential alternatives within the Republican party), and scotching this non-citizen idea now offering more advantage than continuing the charade, are both viable considerations in Obama's re-election program. Either or both could have influenced the timing on this.
Here's something I've not seen mentioned yet.
Obama just publicly identified who he wants the Republicans to nominate to run against him.
Remember how McCain was the media's darling prior to the '08 Republican nomination convention? Let's see if the same tactic gets recycled. Push The Donald as the "obvious" "best" "choice" for the Republicans, then savage him afterwards to Obama's comparative advantage.
By declaring his intention to run for re-election as early as he has, Obama pre-empts any serious challenge from within his own party (something that was beginning to get MSM notice only a few weeks ago). Now he's demonstrated the "effectiveness" of his potential opponent by apparently being bested by him on a long-standing issue.
Palin let herself be marginalized in '08; who's going to fall on his/her sword to give Trump some apparent political expertise in '12?
As strategy go, Obama offers an interesting example. Deliberately make yourself a figure of mystery and target of extremist interest so as to control much of your opposition's efforts to defeat your active efforts.
UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh posits (about 42 minutes into the first hour) on his radio show today that the timing of this data release is more in response to a recent poll showing only 38% of voters think Obama "definately was born in the USA". I don't think the two theories are mutually exclusive. Trump is a very beatable political opponent (when compared to any of several potential alternatives within the Republican party), and scotching this non-citizen idea now offering more advantage than continuing the charade, are both viable considerations in Obama's re-election program. Either or both could have influenced the timing on this.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Gunning For Self Defense
"Don't the Israelis all do it in Condition-3, and they have real issues...", DirtCrashr in comments here.
I don't actually think of myself as a "gunblogger". I don't have any special expertise about guns in general or any caliber or model in particular. On the other hand, I do own several examples, am licensed in Texas to carry concealed and (as the law allows) do so. I have some depth of experience with the guns I have owned upon which to draw, but that hardly makes me any one's idea of an expert.
I am, and have been off and on for several decades now (sadly more off than on), a student of self defense. I got into the general topic by way of my reading Sun Tzu and contemplating how and by what mechanism his writings might be applied to my personal life in the 20th Cent. (and Beyond!) Following the traditional process of trial and error (further regarding which the deponent sayeth nought), I finally settled on Krav Maga as being the most broadly applicable and most logically structured course of instruction. Of particular relevance to me was that even the most basic student received modern weapons (handguns and knives to be specific) defense training as a routine part of the curricula.
Since starting this blog in August of 2007, I'vebeen as inconsistent as a 9 year old written on a variety of topics, with my gun ownership and the more general topic of shooting numbered amongst them. I see now I should have made a better effort at distinguishing between gun carrying/shooting and etc. and self defense.
In comments to this post of mine, TamaraK chimed in, as did others. Much of what follows is based upon that comment thread.
As Tam commented in response to DirtCrashr's observation, "Pretty much all militaries teach Condition 3 for people who aren't actually currently shooting at the enemy." And I will confess that my initial introduction to shooting came from a retired US Marine who was my town's local NRA Small Bore shooting club instructor/range master (he also was involved with the local Big Bore shooting team too) in the mid- to late-1960's. My quirks and kinks are many and deeply rooted, you see.
Part of my response to Tam was, "... my initial (and unchanged) belief that Condition 3 carry is more consistent with both the considered doctrine of professional self-defense and military instruction .." has it's genesis from my first military instructor in 1965 (I was 11 that summer). The balance of my response stems from my later reading, "... as well as being in greater accord with the philosophical underpinnings of personal self defense as that is commonly understood here in the United States (your rights end where my rights reach)."
There is, I think, a tendency to talk past one another in discussions of this type. The unexamined assumptions we all allow into our writing is a big contributor to that happening, so I'm going to go on a bit about what I regard as the distinctions between guns and self defense.
Since I began this discourse with a disclaimer of my gun expertise, I'm going to stipulate that anyone who's made it this far has at least as much direct knowledge as I do about firearms, their history and operation and all the rest of the minutia an actual gunblogger brings to any discussion about guns. Except to ask, how much of your self-defense preparation involves your gun?
Self defense begins with personal recognition of your capabilities and their limitations. When you Look, do you See? When you Hear, do you Listen? How much of a fight involves moving your feet rather than your fists? What constitutes winning for the defender? Does your obligation to some "other" take precedence over your liberty?
There ought to be a formal 'philosophy of self defense' in the US if only because of the enshrined position weapons ownership has in our national structure. We make do with an ad hoc arrangement of (often contradictory) legislative mandate and social convention instead. Still and all, I think an important part of any such philosophy would include critical examination of a hierarchy of response to provocation as well as a consideration of the distinctions between actions taken in defense in a variety of circumstances, if only to help clarify when (and possibly to what degree) a proactive action might be consistent with "defense"?
It is here, I think, we begin to get into the question of when a gun is the appropriate defense tool.
As I stated in my earlier post comments,
Though not directly in response to the above, Tam challenged: "... name one US law enforcement department or serious firearms instructor who teaches empty-chamber carry."
To which I respond that the first example is a false dichotomy in that it demands equal treatment of disparate circumstance, and the second requires a dissertation on market analysis.
Police do not practice personal self defense within the established meaning attached to the phrase as it is applied to that portion of US society not actively in military arms. The police are armed for the express purpose of imposing their will (as impartial officers of the court, of course) upon the rest of the populace. The common ruck are expressly prohibited from doing the same (on their own recognisance at least), and carry the additional burden of a more restrictive legal definition of "self defense" as well.
This is a false comparison of disparate society positions.
"serious firearms instructor" is equally mis-leading. By what standard or metric? Simple participation in the instruction market generally? Employment by a stipulated organisation for it's other personnel? Is consideration of market demand by said professional instructor an acceptable criteria? You of all people are aware of the answer to the perennial question, "What's it for?" Care to apply that to your "serious firearms instructor"'s business plan?
I wonder Tam, if you would you be willing to stipulate any of these fellows as meeting the standard of seriousness, or perhaps this one possibly? I've personally taken classes from all three of the first group and the other certifies instructors in this very course of instruction (for civlian, police and .mil customers) all over the USA and Europe.
You areTam is comparing instruction in firing your gun wellcompetently with self defense. We agree the former is a critical component of the latter. The disagreement seems to me to be the extent of that importance within the entirety of the latterself defense preparatory process for non-police in a non-military spontaneous combat setting.
Another commenter, seeker_two, subsequently asked: Have you considered Condition Two carry?
I replied as follows:
I think this a good point in this discourse to acknowledge that Tam has a distinctly different focus of gun interest than I do. She writes often about revolvers and I assume has far more experience of carrying them as a defense weapon than I do. I bring this up because (as should be obvious with only a little thought) DA revolvers in particular can't be carried in Condition 3, they're either in Condition 1/2 (depending upon the design of the gun) or Condition 4 (a SAO revolver w/o a round under the hammer might arguably qualify as C-3; I put the question to the commentariat for a ruling on that point). Consistency of carry condition is a valid consideration in arriving at any conclusion on this topic, and one I'm going to have to give further thought to once S&W finally poops out my replacement wheelgun.
Heretofore, the only revolver I've carried as a defense weapon has been my S&W 431PD. As it is a conveniently sized pocket pistol with an exposed hammer, I train to draw it from it's in-pocket holster with the end of my thumb up against the end of the hammer spur. This facilitates firing the first shot SA for better first-shot accuracy and also makes it less likely I'll catch the hammer on my pants pocket material when extracting the gun. As the gun comes clear of my pocket and settles fully into my grip, the thumb naturally slides over the top of the hammer and draws it back to full cock as the gun rises above the height of my waist.
Drawing an N-framed pistol from a waist holster is going to require very different mechanics from that, though I intend to investigate the possibilities of the gun as a pocket-carried weapon too. Without a gun to practice with, I'm unsure just how different drawing from the waist will be from the mechanics used to draw an auto pistol, but I don't foresee too much difficulty. I believe my already established practice of firing revolvers SA on the first shot will work to my advantage though.
Carrying a gun for self defense ought not be different in principle from training to fight without a gun in self defense. In one sense it shouldn't matter whether you do or you don't carry as far as the philosophy of the activity is concerned. The fact remains that most other routinely available modern weapons don't much exceed the users immediate reach, and guns are expressly designed to do exactly that. This being true, self defense training needs to specifically teach fighting with and without a gun against variably armed attackers in dynamic situations that prepare the student to keep the defense to themselves and not over-reach so as to involve bystanders.
I'll close with a question in return for Tam; name one "serious firearms instructor" who teaches as a routine part of his/her course of instruction any other activity of defense that doesn't rely entirely on a gun. [no fair throwing my own examples back at me :)] [no, "call the cops" doesn't count either :)] If we're going to use "self defense" as justification for carrying a gun, maybe we ought to give some thought to what defense with a modern firearm entails in modern society.
I don't actually think of myself as a "gunblogger". I don't have any special expertise about guns in general or any caliber or model in particular. On the other hand, I do own several examples, am licensed in Texas to carry concealed and (as the law allows) do so. I have some depth of experience with the guns I have owned upon which to draw, but that hardly makes me any one's idea of an expert.
I am, and have been off and on for several decades now (sadly more off than on), a student of self defense. I got into the general topic by way of my reading Sun Tzu and contemplating how and by what mechanism his writings might be applied to my personal life in the 20th Cent. (and Beyond!) Following the traditional process of trial and error (further regarding which the deponent sayeth nought), I finally settled on Krav Maga as being the most broadly applicable and most logically structured course of instruction. Of particular relevance to me was that even the most basic student received modern weapons (handguns and knives to be specific) defense training as a routine part of the curricula.
Since starting this blog in August of 2007, I've
In comments to this post of mine, TamaraK chimed in, as did others. Much of what follows is based upon that comment thread.
As Tam commented in response to DirtCrashr's observation, "Pretty much all militaries teach Condition 3 for people who aren't actually currently shooting at the enemy." And I will confess that my initial introduction to shooting came from a retired US Marine who was my town's local NRA Small Bore shooting club instructor/range master (he also was involved with the local Big Bore shooting team too) in the mid- to late-1960's. My quirks and kinks are many and deeply rooted, you see.
Part of my response to Tam was, "... my initial (and unchanged) belief that Condition 3 carry is more consistent with both the considered doctrine of professional self-defense and military instruction .." has it's genesis from my first military instructor in 1965 (I was 11 that summer). The balance of my response stems from my later reading, "... as well as being in greater accord with the philosophical underpinnings of personal self defense as that is commonly understood here in the United States (your rights end where my rights reach)."
There is, I think, a tendency to talk past one another in discussions of this type. The unexamined assumptions we all allow into our writing is a big contributor to that happening, so I'm going to go on a bit about what I regard as the distinctions between guns and self defense.
Since I began this discourse with a disclaimer of my gun expertise, I'm going to stipulate that anyone who's made it this far has at least as much direct knowledge as I do about firearms, their history and operation and all the rest of the minutia an actual gunblogger brings to any discussion about guns. Except to ask, how much of your self-defense preparation involves your gun?
Self defense begins with personal recognition of your capabilities and their limitations. When you Look, do you See? When you Hear, do you Listen? How much of a fight involves moving your feet rather than your fists? What constitutes winning for the defender? Does your obligation to some "other" take precedence over your liberty?
There ought to be a formal 'philosophy of self defense' in the US if only because of the enshrined position weapons ownership has in our national structure. We make do with an ad hoc arrangement of (often contradictory) legislative mandate and social convention instead. Still and all, I think an important part of any such philosophy would include critical examination of a hierarchy of response to provocation as well as a consideration of the distinctions between actions taken in defense in a variety of circumstances, if only to help clarify when (and possibly to what degree) a proactive action might be consistent with "defense"?
It is here, I think, we begin to get into the question of when a gun is the appropriate defense tool.
As I stated in my earlier post comments,
"The original argument (to the extent it can fairly be called such) is whether or not proficiency with your hand cannon is sufficient for an adequate self defense. I contend it is not and offer my - limited - experience with Krav Maga (and specifically as that relates to gun defense) in support of that assertion.
Unless your self-defense training deliberately incorporates defense against weaponed and empty-handed assault, both with and against a modern weapon, your self-defense capabilities are woefully inadequate. Indeed, I'm tempted to argue that the time you spend training only with your gun, beyond the level of basic handling and firing competency, detracts from your overall self defense capability. Ideally, we should each train to fight with our weapon and without it, against both an armed and unarmed attacker(s). Krav Maga is the only structured system of instruction available to civilians in the USA that does all that to my knowledge, but learn some method of physical combat that doesn't entirely rely on Samuel Colt's PC self-defense crutch (or derivative).
Though not directly in response to the above, Tam challenged: "... name one US law enforcement department or serious firearms instructor who teaches empty-chamber carry."
To which I respond that the first example is a false dichotomy in that it demands equal treatment of disparate circumstance, and the second requires a dissertation on market analysis.
Police do not practice personal self defense within the established meaning attached to the phrase as it is applied to that portion of US society not actively in military arms. The police are armed for the express purpose of imposing their will (as impartial officers of the court, of course) upon the rest of the populace. The common ruck are expressly prohibited from doing the same (on their own recognisance at least), and carry the additional burden of a more restrictive legal definition of "self defense" as well.
This is a false comparison of disparate society positions.
"serious firearms instructor" is equally mis-leading. By what standard or metric? Simple participation in the instruction market generally? Employment by a stipulated organisation for it's other personnel? Is consideration of market demand by said professional instructor an acceptable criteria? You of all people are aware of the answer to the perennial question, "What's it for?" Care to apply that to your "serious firearms instructor"'s business plan?
I wonder Tam, if you would you be willing to stipulate any of these fellows as meeting the standard of seriousness, or perhaps this one possibly? I've personally taken classes from all three of the first group and the other certifies instructors in this very course of instruction (for civlian, police and .mil customers) all over the USA and Europe.
Another commenter, seeker_two, subsequently asked: Have you considered Condition Two carry?
I replied as follows:
I have.
I'm trying to put together a somewhat more cogent post about all this, but to expand on your question, seeker_two, in a physical assault situation your gun is a priority point of attack (as is your attackers weapon from your own perspective keep in mind). As such, routinely keeping the gun in a condition of one-handed readiness empowers you both equally; whoever can best control the muzzle's direction determines who gets the bullet hole.
An apparently little considered factoid on the gun blogs (as far as my limited reading can determine). Whether a semi-auto is SA or DA, once the first round has been fired, a reasonably firm grip on the slide will prevent it from cycling the next round into battery and you're in Condition 3 no matter what. It's not quite as certain an eventuality, but the same effect occurs with a revolver too. If the assailants grip on the cylinder area of the frame is sufficient to contest your hold on the gun, it's likely the cylinder won't rotate by trigger pressure alone as well.
Ask me how I know.
Basically (and to bring this back to a more generalised construction), my contention is that Cond. 3 carry for a semi-auto pistol offers greater all around safety than any other condition as a basic self-defense posture. There are exceptions and special circumstances to consider also, but this discussion was (before Weer'd sensibly went on to other topics :)) about that distinction.
I would consider Cond. 2 to be the re-set position following a Cond. 0 confrontation for example (until the PD showed up and it's "prone'd out, arms and legs spread wide"). My objection to Cond. 2 is that it offers an attacker at least as much advantage as it potentially does me. Carrying a gun is an important part of self defense, but it's at best only 20% or so of a good self-defense posture IMO.
I think this a good point in this discourse to acknowledge that Tam has a distinctly different focus of gun interest than I do. She writes often about revolvers and I assume has far more experience of carrying them as a defense weapon than I do. I bring this up because (as should be obvious with only a little thought) DA revolvers in particular can't be carried in Condition 3, they're either in Condition 1/2 (depending upon the design of the gun) or Condition 4 (a SAO revolver w/o a round under the hammer might arguably qualify as C-3; I put the question to the commentariat for a ruling on that point). Consistency of carry condition is a valid consideration in arriving at any conclusion on this topic, and one I'm going to have to give further thought to once S&W finally poops out my replacement wheelgun.
Heretofore, the only revolver I've carried as a defense weapon has been my S&W 431PD. As it is a conveniently sized pocket pistol with an exposed hammer, I train to draw it from it's in-pocket holster with the end of my thumb up against the end of the hammer spur. This facilitates firing the first shot SA for better first-shot accuracy and also makes it less likely I'll catch the hammer on my pants pocket material when extracting the gun. As the gun comes clear of my pocket and settles fully into my grip, the thumb naturally slides over the top of the hammer and draws it back to full cock as the gun rises above the height of my waist.
Drawing an N-framed pistol from a waist holster is going to require very different mechanics from that, though I intend to investigate the possibilities of the gun as a pocket-carried weapon too. Without a gun to practice with, I'm unsure just how different drawing from the waist will be from the mechanics used to draw an auto pistol, but I don't foresee too much difficulty. I believe my already established practice of firing revolvers SA on the first shot will work to my advantage though.
Carrying a gun for self defense ought not be different in principle from training to fight without a gun in self defense. In one sense it shouldn't matter whether you do or you don't carry as far as the philosophy of the activity is concerned. The fact remains that most other routinely available modern weapons don't much exceed the users immediate reach, and guns are expressly designed to do exactly that. This being true, self defense training needs to specifically teach fighting with and without a gun against variably armed attackers in dynamic situations that prepare the student to keep the defense to themselves and not over-reach so as to involve bystanders.
I'll close with a question in return for Tam; name one "serious firearms instructor" who teaches as a routine part of his/her course of instruction any other activity of defense that doesn't rely entirely on a gun. [no fair throwing my own examples back at me :)] [no, "call the cops" doesn't count either :)] If we're going to use "self defense" as justification for carrying a gun, maybe we ought to give some thought to what defense with a modern firearm entails in modern society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
