|What I Hate Intro:
I was at the range with Rob Leatham one day and we were bitching about something, and we laughingly decided that I would call my first link on my web site the "Hate Page." The name stuck.
At first I thought the word "Hate" would be offensive to some; however, since I’ve spent most of my life trying not to offend anyone, I thought it might be fun to just write exactly what I felt.
I don’t put much value in opinions, especially my own. If I really care about something, I’ll take action. Otherwise, sometimes it’s just fun to bitch – especially if you don’t have to provide a solution. Even so, just through the act of bitching, often a solution emerges. So why hate? You decide.
|The Degeneration of American Sport||Hate Topics:
|[02.07.00] Brian Enos
I’ll start out with some personal history so you know where I’m coming from.
When I began, my motivation was purely to master the art of shooting a pistol. It quickly became mastery of competition as well. My entire life was devoted to shooting. I lived and breathed it every moment of the day. After dinner, Rob Leatham and I would stand in the living room and practice mag changes for hours, racing against each other. For twenty years I’ve been practicing mag changes and I still learn each time. My family suffered as I basically came home from work and went into my gunroom and spent the rest of the night reloading ammo or working on my gun. I’m not saying any of this is good, it’s just the way it was. I think, at that time, the matches also reflected this passion. The sport was new; the only reason we were doing it was because we wanted to. We weren’t making any money and there were no sponsors. There were no classification systems at the major matches; all the big matches were heads up. As a beginner at our local club matches I entered in Master class. I didn’t want to win a "class"—I wanted to beat everyone. Rob and I would drive to the Southwest Pistol League in California to shoot a match that only had two stages, Double Trouble and Five To Go. The entire match was only 35 rounds! At that time all the matches tested shooting skills: the Bianchi Cup, the Steel Challenge and all the IPSC courses were strictly shooting skill oriented. Most clubs and organizations were run by top level competitors.
My first big out of state match was the Cota deCaza match in California in 1981. At the end of each day I rolled out my sleeping bag and slept on the ground next to my ’69 Datsun 510. The match consisted of a Steel Challenge course, a PPC course, and a weird "created especially for the match" course. I shot it with my Colt 45, the only gun I had. I finished well and won a Bar-Sto barrel. I was so excited that I actually won a Bar-Sto barrel! It was at that match that I heard about the Steel Challenge from Mike Dalton. I couldn’t believe I was hanging out with Mike Dalton. He was a God. I returned home fueled by my big prize, determined to practice and go back to the Steel Challenge and kick some butt.
Mike Henry and I practiced in the desert shooting at paper plates stapled to sticks. We only had three target stands; steel targets were out of the question. If the course we were practicing had more than three targets, we would just set up the first three targets of the stage, shoot those for awhile, and then set up the next three to practice the last part of the stage. I went back to California and shot well, finishing 5th overall.
Soon after that Mike Dillon offered to sponsor Rob and I with 1000 lead bullets per month. This number quickly turned into all the bullets we could shoot. We were in heaven. We could shoot a lot of ammo. I approached a friend at a local gunshop about sponsoring me to go to the Bianchi Cup. He helped me out with the entry fee and I was off to the Bianchi Cup – a fully sponsored shooter. I think I finished twenty-first, I can’t remember for sure. I came away with a huge bunch of experience, determined to go back the next year and win the whole thing.
During the actual match I had an incredible experience. I was shooting the Mover Event – my gun was shaking and tracking poorly; everything felt like crap. Just before I started a string I remember thinking, "maybe you’re squeezing too hard, just relax your grip a little." The gun came out and tracked perfectly, just like it did in practice. I was seeing the sights lift, feeling the trigger; I couldn’t believe it. I was so excited when I came off the line I said to the range officer, "I’m going to come back next year and win this thing." He let lose a big belly laugh and made some comment like, "Yea, right kid." That evening I remember talking to Leonard Knight over a beer, telling him about the exciting realization I just had, how it was going to change everything about how I practiced and competed.
[Rant mode on.] These days the matches have more rounds on one stage than entire matches we used to shoot. Everywhere you go you see targets stuck all over the place just to get the round count up. Nobody wants to come to the match if you’re not going to be running around spraying bullets all over the place. I’ve watched guys capable of winning big matches shoot standard exercises—they have no basic shooting skills whatsoever. But yet they can win major tournaments because the matches no longer test shooting skill. Instead they test cranking rounds all over the place on easy targets.
And then we have the classification system, and the competitors misuse of it. Every match you go to you hear of this or that guy who’s sandbagging on a local level so he can stay in a class lower than he should be so he can win a gun at the next area match. It’s bullshit. It’s that spirit that’s killing the sport. I’m not bitching at shooters specifically. It’s the "American Spirit" that pisses me off— the spirit of mediocrity. It ruins everything. Most sports in the US eventually become "Americanized" and lose whatever passion they had. While IPSC outside the United States is far from perfect, at least they still design courses that challenge your skill level. In the United States it’s all about how many rounds we can squeeze into a match and in what order the "classes" go to the prize table.
Today, you’re lucky if you go to a major match and find one good course of fire. IPSC, as shot in the United States, is similar to International Skeet verses American Skeet. Let’s look at what’s happened to two great sports, Skeet and Trap. In Europe you have some kick-ass shotgun sports, in the United States you have watered down versions of the original sport designed so you can sit on your couch and watch TV all day, practice the same easy targets every time you go to the range, and eventually you will shoot a perfect score. Twenty-five or one hundred straight. Who cares. At the major shotgun tournaments in the United States everyone is shooting clean scores. Why? Let’s take a sport that originally had extremely fast moving targets, started from a low gun position, and then cut the target speed in half and start the gun from the shoulder, just so it will be easier to shoot that 25 straight. Now we can watch more TV and still shoot that 25 straight. The guys who really do train shoot hundreds and hundreds straight. It’s the same in Trap, let’s cut the target speed in half, and decrease the angle of the target release to a point where it’s no longer a challenge just to hit each target, now the challenge is to not miss one out of hundreds. It’s pathetic. (If you want to try a tough shotgun sport, try wobble trap. That’s a sport even the best never master.)
At the modern day Bianchi Cup (where, unfortunately I had a hand in starting the trend) – the challenge is not to just hit the ten-ring like it was when the course was designed; but now the task, should you decide to accept it, is that you can never shoot a shot that isn’t a ten. If you do you may as well pack your bags and get on the plane. What started out as a great match twenty-five years ago with a stock gun is now a joke with the modern day "Bianchi Open Gun." Instead of the Bianchi Cup being the place to be in May, the only shooters who show up are Bianchi Specialists or old timers. It eventually kills the original intent of the Carnival Match. I’ve seen this happen to all the major matches. Bianchi Cup, Steel Challenge, The Sportsman’s Team Challenge, and The Masters. (What happened to the Masters is an even bigger bitch session; I’ll save that for another rant.) The Carnival Matches start out as a good idea, then after 5 or 6 years they deteriorate into a boring game of repetition. There are several reasons behind this. The first is that the courses of fire are never updated or changed to reflect competitor improvement in skill level. As soon as you know exactly what you have to do every time you go to the range, you can set about perfecting it. This starts the stagnation. Then we have to consider the temperament types of the competitors who are attracted to these events. Most of the Carnival Matches draw from IPSC shooters. Within IPSC shooters there are various types, some that prefer diversity and some that prefer repetition. The repetitive nature of all the Carnival Matches eventually draws shooters who excel at working out systems to effectively tackle those challenges. I am one of them. Most of my major wins were at Carnival Matches. After a few years of training by seriously motivated competitors, it’s difficult for the match to draw new blood; potential competitors are too intimidated by the evolved specialists.
The last problem is one of administration. Even if top competitors are involved in running the match, they resist change because of the "uncertainty factor." Once the match is established they are afraid the core group of shooters will stop coming if they change the course of fire. This seals the fate of the Carnival Match to the specialists.
I used to list the Steel Challenge as my favorite match, now I absolutely dread going because I know that I have to go to the range a week before the match, practice the same courses that I’ve been shooting for over 20 years, over and over until I’m so bored that I just want to go home before the match starts. Unfortunately, even in IPSC, this need to practice at the match is becoming more apparent. If you consider yourself a true IPSC shooter you should do whatever you can to encourage surprise formats and no practicing (other than a function fire range) at or near the match. The current state of affairs at the Bianchi Cup in Open class is ridiculous. Fortunately the stock gun rules are great; shoot the match with iron sights, standing. Now that’s a challenge. One that I’ve failed the last few years. It may be too late, however, to save a dying match. Today, the problem is the potential group of shooters the match draws from (IPSC) can’t shoot. The match intimidates the hell out of them. I think the same thing is happening in the United States in IPSC right now. If someone were to actually set up a good match with challenging courses of fire, nobody would come. The first thing they would want to know is—what’s the round count? Few care about the actual quality of the match, the stage design. It’s sad. I can practice an entire afternoon shooting at one single target. Does anyone know what I am talking about?
A major aspect of the Carnival Matches that eventually leads to their degeneration is the fact that at every one of them, eventually there is a "practice range." The "practice range" is the start of the decline of the match. Eventually, after a few years, if you want to win the match you have to go a week before the match to practice. Not many can afford that luxury. In the early years, we went to the Bianchi Cup and fired 192 rounds—the exact number required to complete the event. The last few years I don’t know how many thousands of rounds I shot at the practice range at the match. This year (2000) I was so sick of it that I nearly drove back home before the match started. No wonder I shot like shit.
Being an IPSC shooter, (and being OK with that label), my original attraction to IPSC style shooting was the diversity. That’s what I still love about the game. It’s the greatest sport in the world for the individual that enjoys that type of challenge. I love the idea of never knowing exactly what you have to do until you get there. You perfect your skills as best as you can, then go to the match and see what you’ve got. Understand that I am not talking about right or wrong, or good or bad; I am just talking about what I like.
I’ll end up with the topic of fully sponsored shooters. I am familiar with this because I was fully sponsored for 10 years. When I received my first big offer I thought it was going to be the greatest thing that ever happened to me. I could accomplish things I never thought possible when I had to work for a living. Before I accepted their offer I spent weeks thinking about whether it was the best thing for the sport. I had some thoughts on this subject because the military was already paying shooters to compete full time. When a sport hits this level it eventually makes it difficult for the non-sponsored competitor to win. I was greedy and I took their money. Not long after that a shooter approached me and thanked me for writing Practical Shooting, and then, with a twinkle in his eye said, "I’m happy for you that you are being paid to do what you love, but I couldn’t do it. I love shooting too much." He knew. Sponsorship is not what you think. As soon as you are being paid to do something you love, everything changes. If you haven’t been there I know it’s hard to believe. But trust me, it’s true. I clearly remember the determination and drive I used to have. I haven’t felt that in a long time. Not since I have been paid to shoot.
|Mandated Incompetence||Hate Topics:|
|[10.22.00] Brian Enos
I hate "legislated incompetence"—laws that eliminate personal choices, while claiming we will be safer or happier. Compulsory anti-lock brakes, mandatory helmet and seat belt laws, and gun control legislation all limit individual responsibility, thereby reducing competence. In addition, subtly, almost imperceptibly, automatic headlights, school crossing zones, and smoking restrictions increase dependency. As we surrender our inherent ability to pay attention we become lazy, self-indulgent, indifferent, and ultimately, weak.
In an attempt to appear necessary and productive, politicians unite with corporate lobbyists to develop legislation that purports to make our lives safer. Backed by a potent advertising campaign, government and industry boldly exclaim that anti-lock brakes will save lives. Consequently, we conclude our safety depends on them; hence, anti-lock brakes are mandatory on new cars.
As an option, anti-lock brakes are not bad; however, freedom and proficiency evaporate as legislation and engineers determine how fast our cars stop. Furthermore, just how much does this mandated protection add to the cost of every new car?
Few discuss that anti-lock brakes actually reduce competence. They require no skill to operate; just jam the pedal to the floor without regard for ice, snow, wet or dry pavement. Now, future generations will not be able to stop a car effectively without anti-lock brakes. Let’s hope they never need to use standard brakes to save themselves or someone else.
Other forms of driving legislation solidify dependence; ridiculously low speed limits, excessive traffic controls, and gigantic brake lights instill complacency, promoting relaxed, inattentive driving. As we mindlessly wander the roads, anti-lock brakes appear necessary.
Insurance companies often dictate our dependence. They lobby for mandatory helmet and seat belt laws, claiming rates would increase without them. A solution is simple—insurance companies could offer policies requiring helmet or seat belt use and those that do not. If we choose a helmet-free policy, the insurance provider would not cover head injuries sustained in an accident. The same applies for seat belts. This would accomplish: precise premium calculation since companies could tailor individual rates to the penny; tax reduction as the millions of tax dollars wasted to enact and enforce these idiotic laws would be unnecessary, and increased competence resulting from a return of personal freedom. Assumption of responsibility would encourage prudent decisions resulting in proficient driving—seldom observed on today’s highways.
Statistically, mandatory safety statutes reduce death and injury; yet, simultaneously they weaken us by diminishing our competency. Thus, this vicious cycle of legislation seems our only refuge.
I hate breathing cigarette smoke; nevertheless, additional legislation targeting private business is not the answer. Smoking restrictions strip freedom of choice from private business, smokers, and non-smokers as well. For example, as non-smokers, if the establishment will not provide a smoke free area, we can leave; alternatively, we could ask the close-quarters smokers if they would smoke outside. If this fails, we still have several options, each providing an opportunity for personal growth: we can leave, deal with it, or cram the cigarette down the smoker’s throat, so he may fully savor the flavor. What we should not do is complain—unless, of course, we want more legislation.
As children, we are conditioned to accept the civil legislation we embrace as adults. I noticed while traveling in the Philippines that children and pets play in and around the street while traffic, totally unregulated, speeds by within inches of the children. It’s quite a contrast to the scene here; on their way to school the children are carefully herded across the street while talking or listening to their Walkman. No need to pay attention; the school provides their security. Too much protection subtly exchanges responsibility for complacency.
Recently, I was driving past Baltimore, Maryland, listening to a talk radio host critique the latest local gun control program. He stated that citizens were encouraged to report anyone believed to be participating in "illegal" firearm activity, meaning, anyone with a firearm. If the accused were convicted, the one reporting him would receive a $200 reward! The newsman was ecstatic—he deemed the program a success because on the first day, 28 people ratted out their neighbors. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing; it sounded totally Orwellian. Anyone who endorses gun control legislation is surrendering his right to protect himself, while somehow believing the government can provide his personal security—it’s insane.
I have never met a shooter who supports gun control. Every gun control advocate I have met admits to little or no familiarity with firearms. They were taught that guns are evil; their only knowledge is from what they have heard. Usually, civil rights crusaders have no experience in the activities they endeavor to regulate—not all "do-gooders" are politicians.
Civil legislation assaults self-sufficiency. In another effort to reduce individual responsibility, trigger locks and safe gun storage may soon be mandatory. These laws would be unnecessary if gun-owning parents embraced the responsibility of educating their children about firearm safety.
At an early age, I witnessed what a bullet would do to a plastic jug of water, a rabbit, or a 1000-pound steer. I was taught that every gun was always loaded, and guns could destroy as well as save life. This education replaced ignorance with knowledge, removing the natural curiosity children often possess about firearms.
Similarly, neither did my daughter want to, nor would she let her curious friends play with guns. Keeping guns a secret from children is not a solution; it is the problem. A combination of curiosity and ignorance is the reason children accidentally shoot themselves or their friends when adults are not around. Make it your responsibility to educate not only your children, but also everyone you possibly can about firearm safety.
As a social issue, gun control legislation is identical to all forms of civil legislation. By having a specific agenda, firearm restrictions appear only to attack a certain group of individuals—perpetuating the ruse of civil legislation. Employing myriad emotional issues, the government and special interest groups effectively divide the population. While each group is busy defending its entrenched position, we are blind to our urgent reality—our inherent rights as human beings are slowly, systematically, vanishing.
The business of government should not be to increase our dependency on government; the role of government should generally go unnoticed unless hostile forces threaten our borders. Furthermore, if you believe you can make a difference by voting, you are participating in the most powerful myth ever propagated by government. The unquestioned power of this fiction ensures everything will remain exactly as it is. Of course, by electing politicians sympathetic with our causes, we may keep specific rights for a few more years. I am not saying don’t vote; think about it—if we could change government by voting, why is the bureaucratic system in its present pathetic condition? Vote for someone who embraces your values and see yourself as the foundation of government. When we care to live morally and attentively, accepting responsibility for our entire behavior—from turning off the headlights when we exit our car, to the decisions we make about the direction of our life—the reflection we call government will change. Then, we will vote with passion.
Increasingly, we can "buy back" our freedom in the form of an additional law, known as a license. We’re all familiar with these; now gun owners can buy a concealed carry permit to defend themselves. What’s next, will we need to buy a license to have children? It could happen! Politicians don’t just appear from outer space; they emerge from the population. Because of this, we are not separate from our government; we are the government. The question is; what can we do? Look around—everywhere, mankind is blaming, complaining, and unfeeling; incompetent individuals are demanding more laws, greedy corporations are destroying the earth. This is a fact. Look closer— as adults it’s painfully evident that we continue in conditioned dependence—on friends, machines, beliefs, and government. When we know without doubt that dependence is the denial of freedom—we will act. Don’t wait until all your rights are gone and then wonder what happened. Begin a passionate inquiry now—why do we persist in this self-destructive behavior? Only when we see what we have created, will what we create change.
We could debate a few reasons for the dishonesty in government, for example: the devastating gap between politicians and the working class individual, the incredible increase in population in only one hundred years, or the exaggerated sense of power and self-importance fostered by the climate of education on today’s campuses. But what would be the use? All this stupidity results from the conditioning produced within our immediate environment. We are educated to believe that war, dishonesty, political and national division is justifiable. Look into it—these delusions will destroy us.
Our individual conditioning breeds division—this is the problem. Throughout history, as man divides himself into tribal, national, political, or religious groups, this inevitably breeds self-destructive behaviors—from emotional conflicts to war.
As adults, it is difficult to shed our conditioning. If we are educated to value integrity, we will respect honor; if raised to lie and steal, we live accordingly. All our conditional education—parents, schools, and universities, are failing miserably. Seldom do we hear that what we learn is not as important as how we think, or who we are. As children, we depend on our environment with little choice; as adults, indeed, all we possess is the ability to choose responsibly.
Observe your existence carefully. Personal power—the ability to change—increases from the simple act of paying attention to your immediate environment. Investigate where you are relinquishing accountability and act—change, and pass it on. The world’s situation begins with each of us; as we change, the world must change—individual revolution is the only answer.
|Pepper Popper Target Design||Hate Topics:
I hate US Poppers in their current calibration configuration. Actually, I hate the entire concept of calibrated poppers. All they do is cause problems, while actually accomplishing little if anything beneficial. I’ve seen inconsistently set Poppers, especially US Poppers, burn MANY shooters. One problem is that a 3/4 bullet diameter edge hit on a US Popper, which may or may not knock the popper down, makes the exact same sound as a center hit, which, hopefully, would knock it over. It leaves the shooter with no choice but to wait in a position or visually look at the Poppers to see if they fell. It’s a ridiculous situation to force on the shooter because no one’s felt the need to re-evaluate whether or not a 20 year-old target design is still valid or beneficial today. This may have been useful when we had "Peter the Power Meter," but today it is outdated. Especially with what is left of the "power factor."
There is a good analogy in pocket billiards. If you are playing by "Bar" rules, you have to declare EXACTLY how the object ball will make its way into the pocket. The following example shows how idiotic that rule is. Imagine the 8-ball on any rail, one foot from the corner pocket. Between the 8-ball and the pocket there is an opponent’s ball, positioned one-thousandth of an inch farther away from the rail than the diameter of the 8 ball. (Ignoring the fact that on most bar tables the 8 ball is actually bigger than the rest of the balls.) Now your job, as the Bar-rules player, is to say (call) whether the 8-ball will contact the opponents ball on the way to the called pocket. Even the best players in the world couldn’t make that call. That’s why "League" or professional rules have no such (ridiculous) requirement. All you have to do is to make the called ball into the called pocket. It doesn’t nor should it matter if it brushes another ball on the way to the pocket. The nit-picky rules of the clueless Bar rules only complicate the game. My point is – a steel target should simply fall if struck with any reasonable hit.
While it’s true that scoring problems will arise on any target, there is no need to complicate that process with an extremely inconsistent calibration procedure. At least a full size Popper usually makes a different sound when hit on the edge, potentially alerting the shooter, but not always. The original intent of the calibrated popper was for power factoring. When the Pepper Popper was introduced all we had was "Peter the Power Meter" as our calibration tool. (For latecomers to IPSC, it was pretty much a joke.) Now we have the chronograph for calibration. Ammo can be pulled and checked at any time, which takes care of power factoring.
The solution is to make all regular size Poppers fall forward, (eliminating the wind-calibration-factor-problem), like many do now, and get rid of the leverage hinge on US Poppers and set them so they fall with any reasonable hit. The only loss (and I’m not sure if the word "loss" applies) is there would not be an "advantage" for shooting major verses minor caliber for borderline or low hits on steel. This slight loss would be offset by the huge gain in fairness to each competitor; the stages would run smoother faster and they would be MUCH easier to administer. As a stage or match designer, think of how nice your life would be if you didn’t have to worry about Popper calibration. (Or I don’t know, maybe some like to worry about it.)
Stages should not be designed to easily penalize the shooter; the shooter will take care of that himself.
|Compulsive, Habitual Wasting|
This has been bugging me for years. Today, I was having a fish taco for lunch, and there it was again. Why do people have to grab a handful of napkins to eat one meal? I can see it if you’re pigging out on some ribs, but for Christ’s sake, do you really need 10 napkins just to get through lunch? If you need more than one napkin, maybe you should re-evaluate your eating habits. In the process, you might loose a few pounds as well. And I don’t know how many times I’ve seen handfuls of unused napkins mindlessly carried to the trash. Are you with me? It’s not just napkins… We’re all in this together, right?
|Child Abuse||Hate Topics:|
| Brian C. Miller
My Dad started beating me with his fist when I was two years old. He nearly knocked me out of the high chair with one blow. My Mom attempted my murder with poison when I was 10. Yeah, literally, I survived my childhood.
You want to produce warped people? Abuse them. Make them duck when you raise your hand to wave at them. Watch and gloat as they meekly wave back. Claim that abuse is just "teasing," that they made you do it, it’s for their own good, whatever lie sounds good. Drive them into psychosis. Use every gimmick in psychology to warp their minds, to make them defenseless, to leave them open to your brutality. Make it stick with them for the rest of their lives.
Governments are also abusive. The grossest abuses are not by individuals, they are by large groups, shielded from any consequence by the bloody badge of authority. Pick a barbaric act. What atrocious act has not been committed by a government run amuck?
Does it matter if a government is a "daddy" or "mommy" government? Either can be brutally abusive. The problem stems from the conception that the government needs to be our parents.
Even when we are children, we are sovereign individuals. As adults, we can assert that sovereign individuality. As children, we do what we can to survive.
Parents are supposed to raise their children to survive, be fruitful and productive in a potentially hostile environment. They are not supposed to use their children as a source to fulfill their wicked cravings. Children are not supposed to have memories of physical and psychological pain.
A government which takes on any identity as a parent has gone too far already. How can a government "raise" adults? Isn’t the adult already fully formed? The only "tool" the government has is the cudgel, and this "tool" has been wielded throughout history, to horrific effect.
What the abusive parent and the abusive government have in common is hatred. Both hate their charges, hate them for simply existing. Both think they have sovereign right over the lives they are supposed to protect. They live to suck the life energy from those who trust them.
We don’t need to be beaten or poisoned. "We don’t need no thought control."
We don’t need abuse.
|250,000 Reasons not to live in California||Hate Topics:|
As everyone knows, as far as guns and politics are concerned, California belongs in the old Soviet Union. Why do I live here? Well, I’ve been here for 55 years and kind of got used to the weather, for one. When I was a kid, you could actually own a gun and nobody seemed to mind. When I was a kid, I got a great public education, and the sales tax was 3%. Now the sales tax is 7 +%, and the state income tax is 9.6%, and you have to send your kids to a private school to get a decent education.
It started out that they just wanted your money. Now, they want your guns, too. And soon, I fear, you’ll have to register your balls with the state.
The weather’s nice, though.
Definition of a conservative: Someone who wants to spend their hard earned money wisely.
Definition of a liberal: Someone who wants to spend your hard earned money on themselves.
So, I was talking with someone at Smith and Wesson the other day. (Incidentally, in California it’s illegal to say "Smith and Wesson" in a public place.) He informed me about our great new handgun law that is going to end crime in the state. For starters, you can’t buy a handgun in CA unless it’s on the approved list. To get on the approved list the handgun has to pass a drop test and you have to get Charlie Manson’s approval. The drop test was designed to eliminate the so called cheap "Saturday Night Specials", because we don’t want the Crips to be arming themselves with guns that don’t work. That wouldn’t be cool. Guess what? All the cheap guns passed the drop test. So, now the Crips can carry Lorcins as well as Smiths. It’s great how these laws stop crime dead in its tracks.
So, what does Smith and Wesson have to do to sell their guns in CA? First they have to submit 3 samples of every gun that they want to sell to the famous drop test panel, along with a check for $3000. For each barrel length, you have to send 3 samples and $3000. So, if you want to sell Model 66’s in 3 barrel lengths, that will be 9 guns and $9000, please. So far Smith and Wesson has 84 approved guns on the approved list. That, folks, has cost them 250 guns and $250,000. Oh yeah, there’s some paperwork to fill out, too. Why is it so expensive? Principally, because no one educated in California can understand the paperwork, and we have to hire out of state PHd’s to process the paperwork. (I conjecture.)
This is how we do it in California. I call it the "Make the Streets Safe for the Crips Gun Law" If you have a better idea, please contact Gov. Gray Davis. Don’t expect an instant reply, because he’s busy trying to figure out why our power bill went up $53 Billion this year.
|The Wussification of America||Hate Topics:|
The World War II Memorial is long overdue. We owe our rich life in America today to the victory achieved by the men and women of that generation. My parents came from the World War I generation. They lived through the depression, and were the hardest working people I’ve ever met. There were no jobs during the depression years. Twenty-five of the male population was unemployed. Remember this was an era when women, by and large, didn’t work.
The life that we have today is a product of the sacrifices made by the many previous generations of Americans, our ancestors. I am deeply disappointed by some of the trends that I see in today’s society. I will enemuerate them below:
1) The Lottery and Lawsuit Mentality: Spill a cup of coffee in your lap, and you have a lawsuit. Bet a buck and win $80 million. The Losers want to get rich quick. Why not get rich the old fashioned way through your own efforts and hard work? That’s how Grandpa and Grandma did it. They worked their asses off for many years, and saved the money.
2) The Victim Mentality: I live in California, near San Francisco, the city of one million victims. I occasionally listen to San Francisco based talk radio. I’ve never heard so much whining in my life. The problems in my life are everybody’s fault but mine. Basically, everyone who’s rich should share their money with me. Attention liberals: It didn’t work in Russia, and it won’t work here. Need more money? Get a second job.
The people of earlier generations would be shocked to see how soft and government dependent our current generation has become. Compared to previous generations, we are a nation of wusses.
3) The Anti-Gun Thing: In 1900 people were not afraid of guns. They were not that far removed from the days when it was a necessity to hunt for your food. In World War II people were not afraid of guns. It was with the help of guns that we won the war. People today are afraid guns. They think that the world would be a better place without them. That may or may not be true. But, get a clue folks, the cat’s long out of the bag. Once you discover nuclear weapons, you can’t somehow undiscover them. If the Crips want to get guns, they’ll get them. If Saddam wants the bomb, he’ll do his darndest to get the bomb. It’s the nature of bad guys.
4) The Execution of Timothy McVeigh: I was deeply disturbed the day that they executed Tomothy McVeigh. Here’s why: The suffering that McVeigh caused was horrible. The effect of killing 168 innocent people and injuring and maiming many others is almost beyond description. Yet, McVeigh showed no remorse. A true psychopath. And yet, 300 people marched outside his prison to protest the death penalty. Death penalty protesters, wake up, look at the TV, see the suffering of the victims of McVeigh’s horrid act, and show some compassion. Do not chose this man as the object of your protest. Chose another day for your protest out of respect for the suffering of the victims.
Further, when Bush arrived in Europe, they gave him shit about the execution. Once again, European protestors: turn on your TV, see the suffering, and show some compasssion to the victims, not to the perpetrator. You are basically insensitive idiots. It’s obvious to me, that although we’ve become a nation of wusses, the Euro’s are worse. And that surprises me, because WW II was fought on their soil, and you’d think that the memories would be more profound.
The Saving Grace:
Freedom and Entrepreneurship are still valued in America by some, at least. The hard workers will continue to be the winners, as they have since Thor started trading with Ivan. The strong will dominate. The wusses will rollover and play dead, watch their own demise on the TV, wonder what happened, and complain about being victimized.
Choose to be a Winner, not a Loser.
|I Hate the word "Tactical"|
If ever there was a most misused term, it must be tactical. I rate it above even "Ultimate", as in Ultimate 1911, Ultimate pocket gun, or Ultimate race gun. Moving tactical, tactical weapons, tactical cloths, and the worst—tactical knives. Just what is a "tactical knife"?
I can picture the great swordsman, Miyamoto Mushashi, having to pick between a tactical boat oar and a "non-tactical" boat oar to fight with (and fight he did).
I guess it all goes back to commando gear. If you don’t have it, you must be a newbie. Just like when one sees shooters with their clip on knives in their pants, one must be tactical to be anything. And, of course, if you do have the newest tactical gear, you are one street smart savvy shooter.
While I do know the importance of good equipment, and I appreciate what top equipment can do to help bring out the best in oneself, still, words like tactical are used so much they loose their true meaning.
I Hate hearing the word "Tactics" used in Competition
I’m a LEO and I shoot in competitions. I hate hearing how I will suck at tactics and maybe even get myself killed just because I like to test my skills in competition. The most frequent comment I hear is, "Your tactics are sound, for now, but if you keep shooting in these competitions your tactical skills will decline". That is just one area I get grief about, even though I always ace any "tactical" shoot house or building clearing training drills. Lets not even get me started about the constant, "You’ll never be able to reach your full shooting potential if you keep shooting that weird looking Isosceles, its not even a true Isosceles, your elbows are bent." Than after I shoot they always qualify their remarks with "Well if you would shoot a proper Weaver think of how good you would be." Dude, whatever. I really love the "gamesman shoot isosceles, warriors shoot weaver," Mmmmkay, If I’m sucking pavement up my ass while trying to shoot around cover in the middle of a firefight…, I don’t think any stance will be relevant, but that’s just the opinion of a lowly gamesman, based on my observations of human behavior during simunitions training. Or how about this, "Why did you not do a tac load there son? We do not do speed loads here, that is "tactically" unsound." I’m sorry, I thought tactically unsound would be not having a topped off gun, topped off as quickly as possible I might add. This isn’t a battlefield or theatre of war, a tac load is useless in the middle of a gun fight. Why do I need to pocket a mag with 1,2 or 3 rounds left in it? Rip that sucker out of there and stuff another one in. Did I mention I completed the "Combat Challenge" course of fire, at this LEO tactical training center where all the above conversations occurred, in record time with one of the best scores ever? Guess that doesn’t count since I didn’t do tac loads or shoot "The Weaver." Alright, I’m going to go meditate and chill. Boy do I feel better.
|Top of Page|
What I Hate is shooters who feel they have to put down the other guy’s sport. I’ve shot IPSC, IDPA and Cowboy Action Shooting. I like ’em all. In IDPA, putting down IPSC is practically their main pastime. When the competitors aren’t shooting it seems like they’re ranking on IPSC. The one constant here, of course, is that none of them have ever fired IPSC, thus to actually know what they’re talking about. I wonder if, being basically the bastard child of IPSC, there’s a certain inferiority complex being compensated for, here. Believe it or not, in Cowboy Action Shooting I’ve also heard people criticizing IPSC. No actual experience with the sport for those folks, either. The one place, strangely enough, I have never heard anyone criticizing other shooting sports is at an IPSC match. Maybe I’ve just led a sheltered life, but it seems to me that IPSC shooters are content to shoot IPSC and let the other folks go their own way.
I have been rolling that one around in my head for quite some time now—years actually. You hear it everywhere you go. Shotgun ranges, rifle ranges, motorcycle tracks…
And on the same topic, more Hate from Michael Hollar [02.06.06]
I would like to add something to Duane’s “I hate hearing shooters putting down other shooting sports.”
I started shooting F-class rifle matches several years ago at Camp Butner NC. I was able to enter the match with only having a heavy barreled 308. Of course I wasn’t competitive but because this type of competition existed I was able to play. I immediately notice that the Match Rifle shooters (shooting with a sling) didn’t like the F-Class. They didn’t think they were real shooters.
Last year I shot my first pistol match. It was an IDPA match. I found some local matches near me on the internet. I immediately noticed shooters talking about IPSC in a negative manner. I knew what IPSC was and thought it looked fun so I didn’t understand the animosity. After several months of shooting IDPA I shot my first IPSC match and loved it. I shot about twice as many rounds as a typical IDPA match. It was a blast. I just didn’t understand why the IDPA guys talked about it. I even noticed the IDPA slogan was “The real Practical Shooting Sport”. I don’t even know what that means……but it sounds like a jab at IPSC.
My main point is this. Shooting sports in general, hunters, even just everyday citizens concerned about their 2nd amendment rights have enough enemies in the world. There are tons of people out there trying to put us all out of business. Why would one group of shooters want to add to this attack by assaulting another shooting discipline? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Do Match Rifle shooters think there can be a world were only their sport survived? Or does IDPA think that their sport will flourish if IPSC dies. If someone tries your shooting sport and it’s not really for them encourage them to try another. In fact, encourage them to be involved in several different disciplines. The more people we can get involved in shooting sports (of any kind) the more likely it is that shooting sports will survive. If we can’t even be allies to each other we will surely not survive as group who loves to shot.