Feb 2009
FRIDAY SURPRISE: Desperation, the real Mother Of Invention.
Or, How I Stopped Worrying And Learned To Love The Cruise Missile!
It's late in World War II. You're Adolf Hitler. Things aren't going all that swimmingly: the Russians are using your troops as landfill, the British and Americans took out your vacation home (along with everything else) in Dresden, and your girlfriend is tired of the amount of time you spend at the office.
What's a despot to do?
That's right - you bring in whatever weapon designers you have left after your latest loyalty purge, and tell them you want to be able to precisely target those dastardly Brits - down to the very building in which Churchill buys his favorite cigars.
Lo and behold, one of those designers comes up with a human-guided bomb launched from a glider (because powerful digital computers and GPS systems are still a little ways off, and conscripts are cheaper anyway.)
That could work. Or not.
-=[ Grant ]=-
|
Risk assessment, or lack thereof.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Filed in:
Self defense, Techniques &
Training
I meet many people who possess concealed handgun licenses, but don't carry on a regular basis - let alone every day. The explanation is usually something along the lines of "I carry when I'm in a bad area" or "if I'm going into a situation where I'm more likely to need it, I'll take my gun". There are myriad variations, but the excuse always boils down to confusions between likelihood and consequence.
Likelihood (probability of attack) is variable. Yes, there are areas (and times) in which one is more likely to be attacked. This is what most people base their carry habits on: the less likely they are to be attacked (the lower the probability), the less compulsion they feel to carry a firearm.
While likelihood changes, consequence doesn't. Consequence refers to the impact on the victim of an attack; consequence is a level, a magnitude. An attack that justifies the involvement of a personally carried firearm is, by definition, of extreme magnitude and thus high consequence. For such incidents, consequence is a constant - it is the same for all times and places. Thus, the necessity of response is the same.
The problem is that most people base their carry habits not on consequence, but on likelihood. I'm not sure of the reason, but perhaps it is societal: we have a tendency to defer issues of consequence to others, because facing them is unpleasant. Dealing only with likelihood allows people to focus on the pleasant (the probability is, after all, that everything will be fine) rather than dwelling on the unpleasant.
Acknowledging the consequences of an attack is frightening to a lot of people; not only do they have to contemplate their own death or injury, they also have to consider that of their opponent. It's ultimately about mortality, and that is more than many people can handle.
You'd think that the possession of a carry license would mean that the person had considered these issues, at least minimally. My experience says otherwise. Even serious gun enthusiasts seem to only face up to the realities of consequence when they have to, which is why even they don't carry all the times that they could.
Are you basing your carry habits on likelihood or consequence? If the former, you're not as safe as you believe yourself to be.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
Monday, February 23, 2009 Filed in:
General gun
stuff, Rifles, Techniques &
Training, Self defense, Second Amendment
Sometimes it's hard to understand the mindset of gun prohibitionists, because they come from a different perspective than those of us who hold the opposite view. Unless you can relate to their perspective, you will always look at them in the same way one might look at the monkeys in the zoo.
From ManiacWorld comes this enlightening video. Watch it and learn what you're up against. (I wanted to embed it here, but couldn't find a way to do so. Sorry.)
---
Steve over at The Firearms Blog posted this superb analysis of Remington's new triangular barrels. I had thought that the tensioned upper and compressed lower ribs would serve to reduce barrel flex, but didn't have the engineering background to verify my belief. Steve's correspondent does. Great information.
---
From The Anarchangel comes this cartoon with implications for the CHL holder:
The lawfully carried firearm doesn't necessarily make you safer, folks - it simply gives you a means to resist initiated force. Without awareness and a basic understanding of the nature of violent attacks, all of your painstaking preparation can be rendered moot by a simple blow to the head.
If you carry, but aren't truly aware of your surroundings, you aren't as safe as you think you are. The bad guy can still come out of your blind side and achieve the same result. I've met lots of gunnies who profess to always be in "condition yellow", yet stare straight ahead while crossing a parking lot to their car. When was the last time you looked under your car as you approached, or flashed a light in the back seat before unlocking the door? Do you understand why you should never take a parking space you have to back out of? Do you know the difference between "looking" and "seeing"?
Just as having the most expensive kitchen won't magically turn you into Wolfgang Puck, carrying the currently fashionable handgun in your guru's favorite caliber won't automatically make you safe. (I've often thought about teaching a class on self defense from the basis of situational awareness, but sadly the topic isn't sexy enough to sell.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: Gone fission.
Friday, February 20, 2009 Filed in:
Friday
Surprise!, Completely
irrelevant
Way back in the mid-70s I was a geeky high school student whose career dreams were split between playing trumpet in the Stan Kenton band, or designing optical systems for spy satellites. Kenton died in 1979, which quashed my first ambition, and a dismal showing in differential calculus (don't ask) convinced me that engineering wasn't my forte, either.
(What happened between then and now is a long story...)
Anyhow, back to high school. Our science teacher was an ex-JPL scientist who'd taken early retirement and ended up in our small Oregon town. This was a major score for a backward mountain community, and he was a wealth of information. I took every advanced physics and chemistry course our little school offered.
One day, he presented to the class what was then a very recent scientific find: the existence of a natural nuclear fission reactor. That's right, a nuclear reactor where atoms were split without human design or interference, and long before humans walked the earth. At the time, despite learning all the details, I found it hard to believe that such a thing had happened. I understood that it was theoretically possible, but it seemed fantastic that just the right physical conditions necessary to sustain natural fission had occurred anywhere.
But they had - more than once - in the tiny nation of Gabon in west Africa. Here's a great story about the reactors were discovered (warning: science content)
Here's a Wikipedia synopsis of what happened.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Is that gun loaded, and do I really care?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 Filed in:
Techniques &
Training, General gun
stuff
In the comments to last week's post regarding safety rules, someone asked why checking the condition of a firearm is never listed in any rules. It seems logical enough - why not check the condition of a gun when you pick it up?
I'd like you to think about that for a minute - really think: why are you checking it?
If you plan to shoot it immediately, I can understand wanting to make certain that it was loaded. If you were going to disassemble it for cleaning, or do dryfire, or some other specific task that would require it to be sans ammunition, I understand why you'd want to verify that it was unloaded. But checking just to be checking? I'm not sure that it keeps anyone safer.
Other than those obvious examples, I can't come up with a good reason for someone to obsess about the load condition of a gun - unless it's because, consciously or unconsciously, they want or plan to do something unsafe.
Look at it this way: why are you verifying the condition if you're just going to pretend it's loaded anyhow? The answer seems to be quite obvious: because you're not really going to treat it as though it's loaded, and the reason you're not going to is because, deep down, you want to do something that you know isn't all that safe.
When I'm handed a gun, unless I'm going to do something that requires a particular state, I don't feel a need to immediate check it. Why? Because I treat all guns to the same standard:
I'm not going to point that gun at anything I'm not willing to shoot, regardless of whether it's loaded; I'm not going to have my finger on the trigger, either, loaded or not. I don't make exceptions, because the Three Commandments neither contain nor allow exceptions. That is why they are superior to any form of the existing "Four Rules."1. Never point a gun - any gun, loaded or unloaded - at anything you are not willing to shoot.
2. Always make sure of your target, and of where your bullets will land.
3. Keep your finger out of the trigger guard until your sights are on target, and you are in the act of firing the shot.
There's yet another dynamic at work, which I've observed over the years with a wide variety of people. Those who do the habitual check often display an absolutely frightening tendency: after they've checked the gun, they relax. Visibly. You can see the changes in their body language and facial expressions, showing that they are now at ease - and less vigilant - with that firearm.
I've seen this with new gun owners, and I've seen it with the most experienced instructors. I've seen it with combat vets and with gunsmiths, with gunstore jockeys and seasoned competitive shooters. People check the gun, see that it's empty, and drop their guard. The situation is obvious to anyone who has the courage to look for the signs. You can almost hear them thinking: "don't worry, it's not loaded!"
(Of course, not every single person does this - but you'd be surprised, when you start looking, how large the percentage is and how it cuts across all levels of experience.)
When people are handling firearms, I want to see them completely engaged. Dropping one's guard because the gun has been verified as empty is the genesis of negligent discharges. Never become complacent - the consequences are simply too great.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Living with your choices.
Monday, February 16, 2009 Filed in:
General gun
stuff, Personal
opinions
One-liners, sound bites, and witty retorts are often used to convince others to unthinkingly follow a certain path or belief. When the subject matter is of little import, they are simply amusing. When subjects turn more serious, they impede the flow of vital information necessary to make good decisions.
Such is the latest, a hearty "guns break!" when faced with evidence that one's choice in safety/rescue equipment might not have been ideal. Yes, guns are mechanical contrivances and do suffer failures; it is important, though, to understand the nature of failure before making such proclamations.
Any mechanical device - be it a gun or an automobile - is subject to failure from several causes:
- design flaw
- inferior materials
- construction irregularities
- improper maintenance
- suitability mismatch
Of these, only the last two are within our control - the others are beyond our control. That doesn't mean we're at the mercy of the fates, however; the end result can still be affected by the choices that we make.
In order to avoid failure, one would choose a perfect design, made with the best possible materials and showing the highest workmanship. Of course, that can only happen in La-La Land (or the internet!)
In the real world we have to make compromises at all of those points, and it is necessary that we understand those compromises going in. Nothing's perfect, that's a fact. From 'imperfect' to 'near perfect', though, is a continuum: we have bad choices, better choices, and - if we're lucky - superb choices.
Simply put, there will always be better choices than others for any given criteria. For instance, let's say that you were looking for a car to get you reliably back and forth to work - day in, day out, with as little down time as is possible. You might succumb to glitzy marketing and pick a Land Rover or a BMW, or perhaps something more pedestrian like a Toyota or a Honda.
Were you to look at reliability rankings for those brands over at Consumer Reports, you'd find the Rover and the Beemer were the least reliable over a large sample, while the Toyota and Honda are rated as the most reliable. (One example from each may be at the far end of the bell curve, but the probability of getting that one is not with you. A sample of one is just that: one.)
Of course, there are other aspects to the choice: comfort, amenities, performance, and (admit it) status which also might figure into the decision. Understand, though, that those cannot be transmuted to the primary criteria: reliability.
In this example, were you to pick one of the first two brands, the likelihood of a failure leaving you stuck on the side of the road increases dramatically. You might be able to fool yourself, but the data says that the Euro-rides will suffer more frequent failures than their Asian counterparts. That is a fact you just can't sound-bite your way around.
If your co-workers happen to point out that your fashionable wagon breaks down more often than their less ostentatious wheels, how intelligent would it be for you to yell "cars break!" at them? Yes, they know cars break, which is why they chose examples which break less often. Getting mad at them won't make your car's repair record any better.
The same is true for firearms and their attendant equipment. Like it or not, there are products which, over time, have proven to fail less often than others. If reliability and/or longevity is your primary concern in a gun-related purchase, you should understand that there is in fact a range from most to least, and make your choice accordingly.
Pretending that there is no difference between the alternatives because they all fail at some point is ignoring reality. As someone once told me: you either acknowledge reality and use it to your advantage, or it will automatically work against you.
Georges Rahbani, 'The Best Rifle Instructor You've Never Heard Of', has a great way of putting this in perspective: if you're buying a gun for fun (plinking, target shooting, hunting, competition, etc.), you can be far less demanding about reliability/longevity. A failure in those applications is of minor consequence, and thus you have leeway to factor other criteria into your decision.
If, however, your firearm is a serious tool upon which your life may depend, you need a relentlessly critical attitude toward your choice. Don't make it on the basis of one-liners heard at the gunshop.
-=[ Grant ]=-
I feel your pain, Sisyphus.
First, please read this sad story over at Xavier's place. When you're done, come back and we'll talk about it a bit.
I wasn't going to comment on the tragedy, but I simply can't ignore it. I'm so tired of reading this kind of story, and I'm even more tired of the shooting community failing - in many cases, simply refusing - to do anything about the situation.
(For some background, please read my article "On Safety." It lays out my arguments, which I will be referencing in these comments.)
Note that Joshua had in fact completed a gun safety course. I can almost guarantee you that his instructor taught him not just Traditional Rule #1, but the very worst, most ignorant, most negligent version of that rule: "all guns are always loaded, until you've verified that they aren't."
What leads me to that conclusion? Simple - I've demonstrated that people feel free to do stupid things with guns that they think are unloaded. The caption to one of Joshua and Alaina's pictures, according to Xavier, said "We triple checked to make sure ALL of the guns were unloaded!"
There, ladies and gentlemen, lies the proof. They did just what their instructor had told them: they checked to make sure that their guns were unloaded, and once that was accomplished they were completely at ease doing (and chronicling) stupid things with them. Monumentally stupid things. That caption says, in effect, "it's OK - we're doing just as we were told."
As a result, a beautiful young woman lies in the cold, hard ground.
In my view, Traditional Rule #1 is more than partly responsible for her death, because it set up the circumstances under which it could happen. It created a mindset that wasn't devoted to safety, but in fact evasive of it. It gave Joshua a mental "out": "I thought it was unloaded!"
Understand this: I think Xavier is a great blogger, a fellow with whom I agree on so many topics. He deserves kudos for putting this story together, but this time his conclusion is dead wrong. He posits that had Joshua and Alaina just followed the rules more closely, this tragedy wouldn't have happened.
My rejoinder is that they did just as they were taught; it's not that they had any lack of adherence. They followed the rules, starting with Traditional Rule #1, just like they were supposed to. If you've read the article I referenced earlier, you know why I believe Traditional Rule #1 abrogates all of the other rules, setting up situations just like this one. It did not prevent this tragedy, any more than it has prevented any of the others I've written about.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. Simply repeating Traditional Rule #1, in a progressively louder voice, isn't working. It can't. Isn't it time we did something better?
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
One of the most popular items on the Mall Ninja Shopping List has been the Magpul magazine for the AR-15. The polymer (yes, plastic) Magpul has been said to be far superior to the aluminum model that has served for going on 45 years.
Turns out they may not be all they're cracked up to be. Literally. From The Firearm Blog.
---
If pandas were armed, they wouldn't be an endangered species.
Well, that - and if they actually, you know, liked sex. Remember: celibacy is not hereditary.
---
Xavier brings us this funny-yet-sad story from the Land Where Great Britain Used To Be.
---
In response to my recent rant, someone sent me this link to the mike-istan blog. Some of the comments are...interesting.
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: Glub. Glub-glub.
Friday, February 06, 2009 Filed in:
Friday
Surprise!, Completely
irrelevant
When I say "underwater photography", you probably think pictures of colorful fish or grotesque mollusks. Jacque Cousteau, that kind of thing. I know this, because that's what I think of.
Think again.
Many more of these unique images at this link.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Yes, I'm repeating myself.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009 Filed in:
Revolvers, Techniques &
Training, Shooting
industry, General gun
stuff
I've written about this before, but it's getting worse. All across this country are people standing behind gun counters who need to be taught that women are people, too.
I've lost track of the number of times I've run into a woman who was sold (as opposed to deciding to buy) a revolver for self defense. Now it should be pretty clear to even the densest web denizen that this is a revolver-friendly blog, so it should not come as a shock that I think revolvers are a great tool.
They are not necessarily, however, the right tool. As I mentioned last week, the revolver is the easiest gun in the world to shoot, but the most difficult gun to shoot well. That long, heavy (in stock configuration) trigger requires a certain amount of hand strength, without which the gun cannot be fired.
Herein lies the problem: the female of the species, in general, tends to have less strength in her digits than does the male. It's not unusual, therefore, to find a woman saddled with a brand-new revolver on which she cannot manipulate the trigger. I've seen countless numbers of women who actually have to use two fingers to get the trigger moving!
It's not so much a matter of gun fit (though that enters into the equation far too often), but simply the trigger offering more resistance than a slim finger is capable of overcoming. In reality most women would really be better served with the shorter, lighter trigger action of an autoloading pistol, but the wisdom of the gunstore commando is that autoloaders are just "too complicated for the little lady."
Hey, Bubba, I've got news for you: women actually drive cars these days! Yes, automobiles, with their myriad switches and levers and pedals and buttons. Women have no problem figuring those things out, yet you think they can't handle the concept of a slide stop lever?
The usual rejoinder is that women don't have the upper body strength to manipulate the slide of an autoloader. This is fact turned on it's side to bolster a flawed assumption; yes, women tend not to have our arm strength, but that deficiency can be rendered immaterial through proper technique. It's a simple matter, and nearly any female (and a more enlightened male) firearms instructor can teach it inside of thirty seconds.
This whole issue wouldn't bother me so much - and I wouldn't be writing about it again - but the inferiority attitude is so pervasive that some women are themselves buying into the notion that they're not "capable" of handling an autoloader. I've actually had students to whom I've taught the autoloader manipulation techniques (and who've shot very well with one) go out and end up with a revolver. Not because they wanted one, mind you, but because some dolt behind a counter convinced her that it was all she could handle.
Mind you, I'm not some new-age "sensitive man". I'm as big a neanderthal as the next guy; I believe that women and men are different, and you can thank your favorite deity for the difference! I'm just tired of people assuming that my wife, sisters, nieces, and mother are so stupid that they can't handle a simple mechanical device. I'm annoyed that they are doing their level best to indoctrinate women to this nonsensical point of view, and I'm appalled that it actually seems to be gaining some traction among women themselves!
I don't have a prescription for this problem, other than to continue to educate every person - man or woman - I run across. If that means I repeat myself every so often, I'm willing to do so. I hope you'll forgive me!
Yes, revolvers are wonderful, but they're not for everyone. We need to help people to make intelligent decisions, and if that means they choose a self-shucker, so be it. Heretical? No, just realistic.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
I wrote last week (one of the lost posts, sadly) about a shooting that happened just north of me in Portland. One of the local stations ran some aspect of that story as their lead every day for a solid week, referring to it as a "shooting rampage."
It's not surprising, though. This is the same television station that was the corporate sponsor of a gun "buyback" event last November, and even did a live remote during their morning news show.
Jerks. I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course.
---
A buddy and I have had an email exchange regarding the engine failures on the Airbus which ditched in the Hudson River. As I told him: "I've never flown on an Airbus, and never will. I've owned a French automobile, and the thought of traveling above the earth in a device built by a committee containing engineers from Peugeot (let alone Citroen) scares me to death!"
---
Thanks for all who expressed concern over the data loss I experienced last week. I have recovered the lost posts, and as I get time will be formatting (links, pics, etc.) and reposting them.
---
Last Friday, Uncle brought us the story of a protest against ROTC arms training. The group's web page reveals a startling fear of inanimate objects, including what they refer to as "high powered pellet" rifles.
I wonder what it's like to travel through life being scared of everything around you...
---
Coming up in the next few weeks...I'll have some thoughts on CNC machining, women & guns, facing demons, and more. Stay tuned!
-=[ Grant ]=-