An Unfailingly Reliable Indicator

Then-President Jimmy Carter defending himself against a crazy rabbit (upper right)

I see former president Jimmy Carter has an op-ed in today's New York Times calling for the re-enactment of the 1994 'Assault Weapon' ban, a useless symbolic gesture and perhaps the single achievement of the Democrat House that allowed the GOP to take that chamber back after a half-century (certainly Bill Clinton believed so).

What I don't understand is why anyone is pushing for this law, a law that had absolutely no effect on crime, that was never successfully prosecuted, and that is almost certainly unconstitutional in this post-Heller world. One of Carter's claims is that American-made and legally purchased 'assault weapons' are being smuggled into Mexico and used by the cartels in their war against each other and the Mexican government... a claim which has been proven false as the cartels' main source of weapons is from other Central American countries like Panama, where real full-auto assault weapons (not the semi-auto lookalikes we can legally buy here), rocket launchers, grenades, etc., are available. Actually, I do understand. It's not about the problem in Mexico, it's about not trusting the American people.

Carter talks about his hunting guns, and then derides the NRA for "defending criminals' access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers." What he is either too stupid, or too dishonest to mention is that any centerfire deer rifle, including the ones he claims he owns and uses, will penetrate "protective clothing worn by police officers" (body armor). In fact, a criminal with a hunting rifle is far more dangerous than one with a semi-automatic AK-47. If Carter were really concerned enough about the danger to police he'd voluntarily turn in his own firearms before they can be stolen and put to criminal use. Again, the claim to be a 'hunter' is only a badly-disguised attempt to portray himself dishonestly as a 'sensible' gun owner instead of the elitist bigot that he really is. (If you're thinking I neither like or respect the man, you're thinking right.)

I for one am grateful Jimmy Carter occasionally makes a return to the world's stage. This man is the most reliable indicator of the intelligent side of a position the world has ever seen. You simply have only to determine where Jimmy Carter stands... and then you know unfailingly the opposite side is correct.

The Second Rule of Gun Fighting

The First Rule of a Gun Fight is 'Have a gun.' What is the Second Rule?

There are four possible outcomes of any gun fight:

No one gets shot (showing a gun gets compliance).

Now, this may be a 'win' and it may not be. If you point a gun at a bad guy and he goes face down on the ground until the police arrive to haul him away, score it a win. If the bad guy makes you comply, e.g., steals your wallet, rapes you, ties you up and throws you in the trunk of his car, you lose... and the scenario dictates how much you lose.

You shoot the bad guy.

He loses. You may or may not win, depending on whether shooting him was the correct thing to do.

The bad guy shoots you.

You lose.

You both get shot.

You still lose, even if the bad guy loses worse.

So, the Second Rule of a Gun Fight is 'Don't get shot!' because winning a gun fight isn't strictly a matter of shooting the bad guy, it's surviving the encounter intact. It seems obvious, but a quick perusal through the 'Lessons Learned' archives of this site alone shows that most gun fights are lost because the good guys fail to faithfully follow the Second Rule.

Let's look at the Miami Burger King shootout that happened today. The bad guy walks in complete with ski mask (thanks for the target identifier, buddy!) and holds up the place. A good guy, complete with concealed carry license, pulls his gun and confronts the bad guy. The bullets start flying, and when it's over the bad guy is dead and the good guy is seriously wounded. Ask yourself, did the good guy really win?

Let's see... he won a trip to the emergency room, several hours of emergency surgery, months of painful convalescence, and perhaps some permanent disability... if he survives. Doesn't sound like much of a win to me.

I'm not saying good guys should never fight back. Quite the contrary. What I want to emphasize here is to keep the goal in mind. The goal is not to protect Burger King's till. It is to protect your life, the lives of your loved ones, and the lives of innocents... in that order. Don't place one day's sales of a small business above your life and the well-being of a family that depends upon you.

Before getting involved in a gun fight, ask yourself is this necessary? As Clint Smith is fond of saying, life will give you plenty of chances to show your heroism, so don't volunteer unnecessarily. Sometimes, however, there are no good choices. Sometimes you will have to get involved, because the cost of not engaging is too high. If you find yourself in such a situation, then remember the Second Rule of a Gun Fight: Don't Get Shot!

Remember also that weapons are merely tools that we use to accomplish a task. Strategy and tactics are really what ensures success with the tool at hand. Have a plan, and develop the skills necessary to carry your plan out to a successful conclusion. In the case of the Miami Burger King shootout, the good guy had the initiative, and he had a gun. But did he have a sound strategy, a plan that would ensure success? No.

From reading the news reports, it appears that the good guy pulled his gun and confronted the armed robber. At this point, the good guy has thrown away every advantage he has, and given the advantage to the bad guy! The lesson here: don't confront armed bad guys, shoot them... or don't get involved! If I was in a similar life-threatening situation where deadly force was warranted and felt I had to intervene in order to save my life or the life of others, rather than confront the bad guy I'd get behind cover if at all possible... something that would have a good chance to stop a bullet, like a counter or a booth partition. However, once I made the decision to shoot, I'd pull my gun out and aim it at the bad guy, and then I'd shoot him until I was absolutely positively sure he no longer posed a valid threat. No challenge, no "Drop your weapon!" or "Freeze!" I am not going to give any bad guy a chance to shoot me if I can help it.

I understand that sometimes you can't seek cover, because there isn't time. Sometimes all the choices stink. Sometimes you have to resign yourself to the very real possibility that you will get shot, but the alternative of doing nothing and getting shot, raped, or killed is much worse. Your strategy doesn't change. Once you've made the decision that deadly force is warranted, then don't hesitate. Draw and shoot, and keep shooting until there is no longer a threat. Putting the bad guy down, now, is your best chance of minimizing harm to yourself and other innocents. It may be your only chance for survival. At the Burger King today, the first shot from the good guy could have ended it all. Make that first shot on your time, with all deliberate speed ("take your time, fast" as Bill Jordan wrote), and make it count because it may be the only shot you get.

He who hesitates is lost. Don't hesitate. Make your decision, and then carry out your plan vigorously.

The Perils of Shooting Your Mouth Off

Jim Zumbo
c/o Outdoor Life

Dear Jim:

I've met you at sportsmen's shows and at the SHOT Show. I've read your work for a couple of decades now. I'm really pretty disappointed in you, because I don't think you get why people are so upset.

I've hunted for almost 40 years, and owned guns for the same amount of time. I've been in the military. I've shot competitively. And, I've owned a gun shop and shooting range.

People could care less if you do, or don't, hunt with an AR-15, or Mini-14, or AK-47, or SKS, or whatever. That's your business. When you start denigrating people over their choice of hunting firearms, then it becomes a problem. When you call them "terrorists" and call for banning their weapon of choice, then it really becomes a problem. And, in today's political climate, where those who work to ban all firearms look for any and every opportunity to divide the gun owner community on the basis of cosmetics so they can gradually ban all guns by banning this type and then that type, you just handed anti-gunners some potent information. "Why not ban AR-15s from hunting?" they'll say. "After all, noted hunting authority Jim Zumbo says that they are unsporting and don't belong in the woods!"

Jim, the problem isn't that you didn't realize people hunt with AR-15s. It's that both your original post and your apology demonstrate you truly do not believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and that it extends to beyond what type of firearms may be suitable for a week-long elk hunt in the Rockies.

So, going on a hunt with Ted Nugent and using AR-15s isn't going to fix the problem. How about writing an article on how people who don't hunt also have a right to own firearms, including AR-15s, and maybe then following up with another article specifically for non-hunters who own semiautomatic rifles derived from military weapons, directed at how to get them to start hunting with those weapons. After all, we need more hunters!

Hunting as an activity is decreasing in popularity. I'd venture to say that, unlike when I was a boy, the majority of gun owners are not hunters. If you, as a recognized authority on hunting (certainly not guns), dismiss these people for their taste in firearms, then in a few years don't be surprised when hunting as a legitimate sporting activity is ended. After all, we don't need to hunt to feed ourselves, and we can farm elk and deer if we like the taste of venison. It's just a cruel blood sport, isn't it, and no one needs to kill a poor cute defenseless prairie dog or a clever and handsome coyote.

Gun owners and Americans in general are pretty forgiving, if they think you're sincere and if they see that you've changed. But the burden is on you, and not on them. If your apology really is sincere and you really don't think these guns should be banned from hunting, then you need to start writing... and soon.

Sincerely,

John Clifford

ht: Instapundit

On Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight

This article was inspired by a fellow blogger's post about her latest present.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert on knife fighting (far from it). But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

In all the hoopla about the utility of guns, particularly handguns, for self-defense, many seem to forget about knives.

We've all heard the old saw about "bringing a knife to a gunfight" as a warning about being outgunned, as it were. However, knives do have a place in one's defensive armory, and every professional man-at-arms that I know carries a knife at all times. Especially when they can't carry a gun.

Knives have many characteristics that make them as good, or perhaps even better, than a gun for close-range self-defense. These include:

• A knife never runs out of ammo
• A knife never jams (especially a fixed-blade knife)
• A knife is quiet
• A knife is scary, because everyone has been cut and we all know it hurts
• A knife is seen by many as not as dangerous as it truly is, making its possession less threatening to the general public

Knives has some disadvantages, as well:

• You must be within arm's reach to strike your opponent
• Using a knife effectively requires a modicum of training (as much as a basic handgun course)
• Most people find that stabbing or cutting an attacker to be much harder from a psychological viewpoint than shooting an attacker, because knife fighting is up close, personal, and brutal
• You will get bloody, even if you don't get injured
• If the other person also has a knife, you both will be cut; the winner just gets cut less.

In other words, if you intend to use a knife as one element of your self-defense plan, then you need to be tactically and psychologically prepared to have a reasonable chance of success.

While the use of the sword reached its peak in Renaissance-era Spain, the development of knife fighting techniques and tactics reached its zenith in the Phillipines during the first part of this century when, in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War and the subsequent suppression of the Moro Rebellion, practitioners of Escrima, the Filipino martial art of armed and unarmed combat, traveled, interacted, and competed thus exposing each subgroup's unique techniques to examination and adaptation by all. During four centuries of Spanish rule, the open practice and instruction of Escrima was punishable by death. As a result, Escrima practitioners trained with sticks of varying lengths, first as a substitute to knives and swords and later in addition to them as the utility and effectiveness of stick fighting became apparent. The real beauty of the style is its superficial simplicity and adaptability of the techniques to swords, knives, and the empty hand; a true Escrima master is always armed.

Escrima spread to the Hawaiian Islands and then to the US West Coast via Filipino workers, where it was generally only taught to persons of Filipino descent. Eventually, the style was learned by dedicated Western martial artists.

An Escrima master is someone that you certainly don't want to anger. The speed and skill of a true master is extremely scary, and very effective. Take, for instance, the elderly Filipino man who was accosted by a gang of youths who attempted to rob him a few years ago. When the police arrived, they found one innocuous-looking unharmed old man with a bloody pocket knife, and a half-dozen bleeding youths, each bearing numerous assorted painful yet superficial knife wounds. The old man was arrested and charged, but was found not guilty at his trial by a judge who couldn't fathom how a slight aged senior citizen could defeat several juvenile delinquents with extensive violent criminal records. Before letting the old man go, the judge asked for, and received, a short demonstration of Escrima from the old man in open court, and acquitted him after realizing that the master could have easily killed all of his attackers if he so chose.

So, bringing a knife to a gunfight isn't always a losing strategy... especially if your opponent doesn't realize that you have a knife, and you can lure him close enough to eliminate the advantages of a gun. Tactics, not weapons, win fights.

Famous Last Words...

“I’m the only one in this room, that I know of, professional enough to carry this Glock .40.”

Those are the words of DEA agent Lee Paige immediately before shooting himself in the foot in front of a classroom full of at-risk youth during a drug education presentation. The video is here.

Mr. Paine is suing his employer, the DEA, and by extension the U.S. government, for “emotional and mental pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of reputation, loss of opportunity, loss of money, embarrassment, humiliation and anxiety.” From the video, it seems apparent that the only person to blame for Mr. Paine’s humiliation, embarrassment, etc., is himself.

My first question, after watching the video, was “What in the Hell was a trained law enforcement agent doing handling a loaded firearm in a classroom full of children??!!” My second question was “Why on Earth was this clown ever tasked with talking to children about drugs and guns?”

I watched Mr. Paige clear his gun. He walks off stage after he racks the slide, but I never see him withdraw the magazine. Obviously, all racking the slide is going to do is eject the chambered round, and when Mr. Paige closes the slide in front of the class he chambers the next round from the still-loaded magazine. Mr. Paige doesn’t visually or tactilely verify that the chamber is empty and the magazine is removed, nor does he bother to check the chamber again before pulling the trigger on his ‘assumed-to-be-unloaded’ Glock. Thank God he had enough sense to point it away from the children before he pulled the trigger, but I guess he didn’t care enough about his own personal safety to refrain from pointing the gun at his body.

Pride goeth before a fall; we’ve all done things that we wish we hadn’t. However, Mr. Paige did many things that he definitely shouldn’t, most likely because he was feeling a little too full of himself. We all know people like this, but when it comes to gun safety don’t be “that guy.”

Remember the Four Rules of Gun Safety:

• All guns are always loaded.

No one ever got shot with an unloaded gun, but many people have been shot with a gun that was assumed to be unloaded... including Mr. Paige. Treat every gun as if it’s loaded regardless of whether you just cleared it and you know there’s no way on Earth it could be loaded. The life, or foot, or embarrassment you save may be your own.

• Never point a gun at anything you aren’t willing to see destroyed.

If you value your TV set, or your friend, or your foot, then don’t point a gun at them. You can’t call a bullet back, and while you can replace a TV set and, perhaps, heal from a bullet wound, you can’t bring back life either, or recover from a crippling wound. Especially when dry-firing, or decocking an unloaded gun, remember Mr. Paige, and point that gun at something that doesn’t matter if it gets hit by a bullet, and that will capture that bullet.

• Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.

Guns are like computers, in that they do what we tell them to do instead of what we want them to do. Pulling the trigger tells a gun to fire; touching the trigger is confusing to a gun... do you want it to fire, or not? Don’t confuse the gun, or yourself. Don’t touch the trigger unless you are sure that activating the firing mechanism is okay and the gun is pointed at an appropriate target (backstop, target, bad guy) so if it discharges no harm is done.

• Be sure of your target, and what is behind and beyond your target.

Is that a bad guy you’re getting ready to shoot, or your teenage son who stayed out a little late and had a few beers? Is your hunting partner on the other side of that bush the pheasant is flying past? Where will that bullet end up if you miss your target, or if you hit your target and the bullet penetrates? Know where your bullet will end up before pulling the trigger... or don’t pull the trigger.

All of these rules are simple, the simple distillation of six centuries of bitter experience. Break any one of them and you’re likely to inadvertently discharge your firearm. Break more than one and you’re likely to kill someone, or yourself, when you inadvertently discharge your firearm.

Accidents are the result of a chain of events that end at the incident. Break the chain and you prevent the incident. Mr. Paige broke two of these rules and ended up with a battered ego and a painful injury. He was lucky. Don’t count on luck.

If I were Mr. Paine, I’d quietly abandon my lawsuit, and work within the Law Enforcement community as an evangelist for gun safety. I’d use my misfortune as a learning experience so others wouldn’t make the same mistake. Mr. Paine was a high school and college football player, deputy sheriff and DEA agent, a physically big man... and he needs to be a bigger man and accept the responsibility for his problems.

They Mean To Govern Well...

It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions, real or pretended.... There are men in all ages who mean to exercise power usefully—but who mean to exercise it. They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern; they promise to be kind masters, but they mean to be masters. – Daniel Webster (ht: Jim Leth)

There was considerable outrage last week when Mayor Nagin directed the remnants of the New Orleans Police Department to confiscate legally-owned firearms from law-abiding residents of New Orleans. Nagin justified the move as a means of re-establishing control over the city and avoiding resistance to his policy of forcibly evacuating city residents. In order to carry out the Mayor's policy, the NOPD, assisted by federal marshals and military police, have forcibly entered private households without probable cause or a warrant and seized lawfully-owned private property.

The uproar over this policy was immediate and widespread. DavidKopel, a noted constitutional attorney, quickly pointed out that the Mayor's order was illegal on both procedurally and constitutionally. The NRA got into the act a few days later:

"The NRA will not stand idly by while guns are confiscated from law-abiding people who’re trying to defend themselves," he [Chris Cox, NRA-ILA director] said.

"We’re exploring every legal option available to protect the rights of lawful people in New Orleans," Cox said, "and we’re taking steps to overturn such laws in every state where they exist."

Here we are, a week later, and after considerable furor, it seems that the confiscation policy has been effectively, if not explicitly, rescinded. No more confiscations are occurring, and the federal government announced that it would not allow its military or civilian personnel to assist the city forcibly evacuate non-willing residents. Hopefully, they have also been told to refrain from any other type of constitutionally dubious actions. Of course, under Louisiana state law the Mayor would have to repeatedly re-issue his order (there is considerable doubt whether he legally issued the order in the first place) every five days. Thank God the state legislature realized that one way to reign in out-of-control officials who enacted idiotic policies during emergencies was to give those policies a very short lifetime.

What's next?

This is America! Time for a lawsuit! A massive lawsuit against the Mayor, the City of New Orleans, and any federal agency that was involved in this clearly unconstitutional policy is the proper, legitimate means of discouraging future acts of stupidity by panicked, incompetent officials. Contact everyone who suffered under this odious policy and make it a class-action suit.

Oh, and something else needs to happen: gun owners in New Orleans should organize a petition drive to recall the Mayor and call for new mayoral elections. Set up a website to contact evacuees, and get this ball rolling ASAP.

What's that, you say? The mayor was trying to do what he thought was best for the city? Doesn't cut it; the mayor has legal advisors that should have been consulted and that should have strongly advised him against such a policy. Incompetence, ignorance, or capriciousness... none are a valid excuse.

Here in America the ends don't justify the means. New Orleans is a beautiful city with a unique and vibrant culture that has been woefully mismanaged for decades. Many areas are effectively lawless, and the police literally will not go into certain neighborhoods unless they move in with overwhelming force to handle a specific complaint. These neighborhoods are effectively ceded to the control of the thugs who terrorize innocent residents, and the city's murder rate makes it the Homicide Capital of America for two years in a row. Yet we don't solve the problem by cordoning these areas off and napalming them. To any reasonably-informed and thinking American (which, it seems, excludes Mayor Nagin), kicking people's doors in, lining them up against the wall at gunpoint, searching the household for guns, and taking the guns without probable cause is obviously unconstititutional and equally repugnant. Mayor Nagin's approach seems to be "So much for the rule of law if it gets in the way of what I think is a good idea."

America is what it is because it was the first nation-state in the history of the world to govern itself by the rule of law, and to declare individual rights as inviolable: all men are created equal under the law and are guaranteed certain rights, among them the right of freedom of speech and thought, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right against self-incrimination, the right to due process, and lastly the right to keep and bear arms. The anarchy following the complete disintegration of civil authority in New Orleans after Katrina is a prime example of why, in order to protect their right to life and property, law-abiding residents needed to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

The stories coming out of the city about how people were able to protect themselves and drive off looters speaks volumes for the relevance of the Second Amendment and the wisdom of our country's founders. Sadly, the story of police-state tactics and the trampling of fundamental rights speaks volumes, too... and it's all bad.

I grew up in small-town south Louisiana and spent several years living in New Orleans and Baton Rouge during and after college, so I think it's fair to say I have a reasonably good idea of what's wrong with the state, and how to fix it. To my friends in New Orleans and throughout Louisiana, I say this: you deserve better! Fix the problem. Get rid of the idiots and quit electing them! And hold the current idiots responsible for all of their lapses, constitutional and otherwise!

Update (19 Sept 05): Michelle Malkin has some comments on the subject that are worth reading (read the referenced articles, also). And, it looks like the idea of holding leaders responsible is gaining popularity. But don't forget about Nagin! (ht: Instapundit)

Q & A: Whither ball for the .32 ACP?

Q: What do you consider the best defensive ammo for the .32 ACP? I have a Beretta Tomcat and was wondering if I should carry ball or hollow-points? Which one will have better stopping power?

A: Do not carry ball ammo for self-defense!

The .32 ACP belongs to the class of what I call the "eye, ear, nose, and throat" guns... because those are your preferred aiming points. Seriously, the .32 ACP earned its anemic reputation as a poor self-defense round because shooting someone with ball ammo is akin to stabbing them with a .32" diameter Phillips head screwdriver. It hurts, it very well may kill them... eventually, from sepsis... but it isn't going to stop them unless you stab them in the right place. Carrying ball ammo in your Tomcat is an attempt to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse... and it ain't gonna work. Use Winchester Silvertips instead; they do expand because the lighter bullet goes fast enough, and they penetrate enough to let the expansion actually do some good.

If you're bound and determined to carry ball in this caliber because you want penetration, you're fooling yourself and you're probably going to end up dead if you are forced to resort to using your gun and ammo in a defensive situation. If you really need penetration, because of winter and people are wearing thick clothes, etc., then choose another caliber--like the 9mm.

There are two components to "stopping power", the physical and the psychological. Physical stopping power (absolute stopping power) is caused by turning the brain off by destroying enough vital tissue that the attacker can no longer function. Hit someone in the brain, the aorta, the carotid artery or jugular vein, the spinal column, or some other area where even a relatively minor injury will cause an immediately life-threatening or -ending injury, and they're going to be stopped.

Psychological stopping power is the more uncertain of the two, and it occurs when the person who's attacking you becomes more worried about their own survival than in continuing the attack against you... whether or not your hit was life-threatening or whether or not you even have to shoot (that's why pointing a gun at the bad guy discourages many of them). For instance, hit someone in the shin with a bullet and it's going to hurt. Shoot them in the jaw and shoot out a few teeth on the way in, and it's going to hurt. Of course, for pyschological stopping power to have an effect, the person you have shot must have the mental wherewithal to realize that he has indeed been shot and to consider the potentially deleterious ramifications thereof.

I have talked to police officers who are dealing with people on crystal meth, or PCP, on a regular basis. People under the influence of these drugs can become fairly numb to pain, and can also be in a psychotic state where reality won't intrude. My LE friends have told me of being attacked by a naked PCP freak (seems a recurrent theme is for PCP addicts to end up naked because the drug makes them think they're really hot... even in the winter), and breaking this person's arm with a restraining hold yet the attacker still kept trying to attack because he felt no pain and didn't realize his arm was broken. That's when you see a bunch of cops clubbing an attacker with their batons, pepper-spraying them (they don't feel pain, but swollen membranes make it hard for them to breathe), etc. Shades of Rodney King (who I believe was "dusted").

If you are attacked by someone on PCP, or crystal meth, or some other substance that deadens pain and reduces the user to an animal, raging state once the adrenaline starts flowing, then chances are you are going to have to physically destroy enough of their body to eliminate their capability to continue the attack because they aren't going to respond to psychological stopping power. These criminals are the reason we have .223s and 12ga shotguns loaded with double-ought buck. Like the Moro juramentados in the Phillipine Insurrection who withstood multiple hits from the .38 Special and kept on coming (some of those guys were shot repeatedly with .30-40 Krags and kept on coming), and like a charging grizzly, you're going to have to shoot for bone and break them down.

The .32 ACP is really too anemic to be a primary self-defense handgun. I know, they're nice to carry (I have a Seecamp), but they're really the gun you carry when you can't carry anything bigger... and you need to realize you are basically shooting a .32" drill. My strategy when I'm carrying the .32 has always been to load it with Silvertips, act like a complete wuss if someone confronts me with a deadly weapon, sucker them into complacency, and then ambush them as I go to draw my 'wallet' and empty the gun into their upper chest and neck... and then running like hell.

Quite frankly, a S&W Airlight weighs less than a Seecamp or Guardian (and not much more than a P32), hits a lot harder, penetrates a lot better, is more reliable than any semiautomatic, isn't that much harder to conceal... can you see why I seldom carry my Seecamp anymore? Also, despite the rudimentary sights, I have no problem keeping them all on a B27 or IPSC target at 25 yards, and head shots within 10 yards rapid fire are also easy (all it takes is proper instruction and practice).

So, in summation my advice is:

• carry Silvertips
• practice shooting at close range until you can empty the gun quickly into your target without missing
• be prepared to run
• carry a larger caliber if at all possible

That answer your questions?

NB: Other gun-related articles, in my 'Lessons Learned' series that describes gun fights and what we can learn from them, can be found here and here.

And Now For Something Completely Different

It's time for a change. I'm (hopefully) getting over a series of sinus and ear infections. It looks like the Supreme Court has refused to hear the Schiavo case, so for her it's most likely the end of the line. Requiescat in pace. Enough depressing subjects, enough about crazy nuke-armed mullahs, stupid self-serving politicians, and the other folly that passes for modern life. Life goes on. Spring is here! Carpe diem!

Spring, my second favorite time of the year. It brings sunlight to my back yard, robins to my lawn, chickadees and flickers to my bird feeders... and starlings.


Click on the picture to get more information on starlings

I hate starlings. I hate them because often, especially in cities, the beautiful songs of native American bird species have been replaced by the groaning leafspring-like call of the interloper. I hate them because the aggressive little illegal immigrants have managed to greatly diminish the populations of home-grown species like the bluebird and many other hole-nesting species. I hate them because they are ugly, churlish, and have few redeeming qualities. Starlings truly live up to their Latin name, sturnus vulgaris. They are avian rats (English Sparrows are avian mice, and don't ask what I think of crows) and reducing the starling population helps native birds. Starlings were placed on this earth for just one purpose... they make great targets. What other species abounds that can legally be killed, year-round, without limit, in all 50 states?

I have shot starlings with a twelve gauge shotgun... overkill, yet somehow quite satisfying. I have stalked them with air rifles, a truly challenging sport second only to the stalking of the wary English Sparrow (now that is a sport that only an expert rifleman in every sense of the word can master, and if you have never tried it, don't knock it). I have sniped them with super-accurate .22 rifles. And I have ambushed them in the manner of tiger hunting from machans in colonial India, crouching behind an improvised hide as the unsuspecting quarry alighted in the bread-filled kill zone, easing my weapon up, trembling in anticipation as I slowly drew a bead on my nonchalant victim. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, feathered rat; it tolls for thee. Even now, as I sit at my dining room table writing this, I have an old favorite air rifle by my side, and my bay window is open to provide a line of fire to the suet block hanging yonder in fevered anticipation that yet another foolish starling will make the fatal mistake of alighting after frightening a favored flicker away. Oh, hope springs eternal in the human breast!

I have been dreaming lately of the perfect gun for small game and varmints. How about a four-barrel set, with .17 HMR, .17 Mach II, .22 LR Match, and .22 WMR? Use the .22 barrel for squirrels and other small game within 50 yards. The Mach II is a great starling gun out to 100 yards. The HMR works great on small varmints out to 200 yards, and the WMR works for turkey (where legal) and small predators out to 150 yards. Yes, I know about the new Sako Quad. If it's anything like other Sako products I'm sure it's brutally effective. But it has a synthetic stock, a matte blue finish, and in my opinion, no personality. It's a tool... a very fine tool, but just a tool. I don't want a stock designed by the same people who design race cars, and made out of the same materials. Real guns that a man can bond with must have wood.

Start with a single shot rifle action. Pick a series of chamberings that will allow the use of the same extractor. Modify the action, if needed, so that barrels can be easily interchanged, in the field. Hmmm... I've got a takedown BSA Martini Cadet action. Or, what about my High Wall Winder Takedown Musket? Perhaps based on a T/C Contender?

Nope, to all of those. Instead, I'm going to build it on a new USRAC/Miroku Winchester Low Wall rimfire action. Modern metallurgy, lots of 'em around, won't offend any collector's sensibilities... and just much more aesthetically pleasing than the butt-heavy, hard-to-open Contender. Smooth the action so it cycles like ice sliding over ice. Tune the trigger to a crisp 2.5 lbs. Lighten the hammer and stiffen the mainspring to decrease lock time. A beautiful feather crotch walnut stock and forend, half-octagon barrels, and a Leupold 6.5x20 EFR scope to top it off. Then, it must be decorated with the appropriate talismans. A starling peering into a nesting box. A squirrel scrunched up in the crook of a tree branch. A perched cawing crow. Each vignette surrounded by oak leaf scroll. I had better stop now before I am completely overtaken by lust.

Forget the 72 virgins, Mohammed. My paradise would be twenty acres in the country (east Texas, or northern Louisiana or Mississippi or Alabama), with a fishing pond loaded with bream and bass, and an upstairs library/office with a high ceiling and ceiling fan, and a balcony facing north where the shooting light is always good, overlooking oaks or pecans and a safe backstop, where the starlings and crows would alight unsuspectingly. It needs to be near state or federal land for more hunting opportunities, and put a small airport within 10 miles, so I could fly my plane to and from the big city as necessary.

And I'd have the perfect rifle. Hey, a man can dream, can't he?

Note: This is my entry in the current Carnival of Cordite. Check the Carnival for more gun-related articles from other bloggers.