Saturday, January 27, 2007
Learn to Shoot
It may come as a surprise to my regular readers, but I have a confession to make. The truth is, despite being very much in favour of more liberal gun laws, to paraphrase from a quote from Kim du Toit's site: "Gun control should mean use both hands". The fact is I don't own any kind of gun, nor could I shoot for toffee.
Needless to say this isn't a state of affairs to be proud of, and have determined to change the same. Deciding that actually learning some shooting skills would be a step in the right direction, I repaired to a local air gun club and have for the last few weeks been shooting 10-meter air rifle.
You can shoot air pistol as well, but I'm inclined to try to get halfway decent on one before trying the other.
I need to try to be clear here for people unfamiliar with the discipline as indeed I was not so long ago.
Basically you shoot at a target slightly larger than a two pound coin, from a distance of 10 meters, the rifle is equipped with "dioptre sights" these are very accurate, but have no magnification, so what you're shooting at is a small dot in the distance.
The rifle shoots .177" calibre air rifle pellets, the .177" refers to the size of the pellet measured in inches. .22" are also available, but are not used in this discipline. Obviously a smaller pellet means greater accuracy is required, no doubt being why they're used for this sport.
The rifle is a highly accurate one, it is I believe heavier than a standard "sporting" air rifle, as a result a specific stance must be adopted, which seems quite contrived at first, but after a while, you soon get used to it.
You shoot at the aiming mark from a standing position, which is the hardest position, and you have nothing to rest on or are allowed any form support, other than clothing. There is specialist-clothing available, but I have none of that so am making do with an old leather jacket, the clothing certainly helps steady your aim a lot.
Air pistol, again uses a special accurate pistol, it only has iron sights, you aim over 10 meters again, but the aiming mark is quite a lot larger than that for air rifle. You shoot with you arm extended, using only one hand and you're not allowed any supporting clothing - obviously you're allowed normal clothing.
So how am I doing?
Well I don't think they'll be calling me up for the Olympics, but you can see the results of last nights range visit.
The two pound coin, is shown for size detail, on the bottom left, you can just make out the black edge protruding from the side to the coin.
So there were 125 shots, 11 didn't hit the black area (obviously at this stage, I'm just wanting to hit the black), which I calculate to be an accuracy of 91.2%. It's much better than when I first started, and hopefully soon I'll be able to put them all in the black. Obviously when you start to get any good, you want to get them all within the sevens or eights, and some people manage even better.
It'll be while before I'm that accurate, but (pardon the pun) it certainly gives you something to aim for.
Needless to say this isn't a state of affairs to be proud of, and have determined to change the same. Deciding that actually learning some shooting skills would be a step in the right direction, I repaired to a local air gun club and have for the last few weeks been shooting 10-meter air rifle.
You can shoot air pistol as well, but I'm inclined to try to get halfway decent on one before trying the other.
I need to try to be clear here for people unfamiliar with the discipline as indeed I was not so long ago.
Basically you shoot at a target slightly larger than a two pound coin, from a distance of 10 meters, the rifle is equipped with "dioptre sights" these are very accurate, but have no magnification, so what you're shooting at is a small dot in the distance.
The rifle shoots .177" calibre air rifle pellets, the .177" refers to the size of the pellet measured in inches. .22" are also available, but are not used in this discipline. Obviously a smaller pellet means greater accuracy is required, no doubt being why they're used for this sport.
The rifle is a highly accurate one, it is I believe heavier than a standard "sporting" air rifle, as a result a specific stance must be adopted, which seems quite contrived at first, but after a while, you soon get used to it.
You shoot at the aiming mark from a standing position, which is the hardest position, and you have nothing to rest on or are allowed any form support, other than clothing. There is specialist-clothing available, but I have none of that so am making do with an old leather jacket, the clothing certainly helps steady your aim a lot.
Air pistol, again uses a special accurate pistol, it only has iron sights, you aim over 10 meters again, but the aiming mark is quite a lot larger than that for air rifle. You shoot with you arm extended, using only one hand and you're not allowed any supporting clothing - obviously you're allowed normal clothing.
So how am I doing?
Well I don't think they'll be calling me up for the Olympics, but you can see the results of last nights range visit.
The two pound coin, is shown for size detail, on the bottom left, you can just make out the black edge protruding from the side to the coin.
So there were 125 shots, 11 didn't hit the black area (obviously at this stage, I'm just wanting to hit the black), which I calculate to be an accuracy of 91.2%. It's much better than when I first started, and hopefully soon I'll be able to put them all in the black. Obviously when you start to get any good, you want to get them all within the sevens or eights, and some people manage even better.
It'll be while before I'm that accurate, but (pardon the pun) it certainly gives you something to aim for.
Labels: guns
Friday, January 26, 2007
More gun crime
The Times give us some Home Office figures on gun crime. It's comforting to know that with the present state of the Home Office, these figures must be wrong. Everyone knows that handguns (the criminals favourite) have been banned in the UK for quite some time now, and given they've been banned, how can criminals get them? That would be illegal! Oh wait that's what criminals do, didn't seem to occur to anyone when they wanted to ban guns though did it?
More related news from the Telegraph h/t to An Englishman's Castle; here the police no doubt upset at charges being dropped against a 74 year old pensioner who shot a 22 year old burglar in the leg.
"Police chiefs have urged householders not to confront intruders, but to call 999 and lock themselves in safely until help arrives." Oh what great advice, the police can't bear the thought of people actually defending themselves and standing up to crime. After all if they can't do it, why should anyone else?
I always used to support the idea and concept of the police, but that isn't what we've got anymore. What we have is a great turkey army called the police, the only reason they're called officers is because they sit in an office all day. You could probably abolish the police and the majority of people wouldn't notice, except of course crime would go down as without the police to interfere and arrest and charge householders defending their property, the risk to the criminal would be ever so much greater.
The only ray of light in the Telegraph article comes from the judge: The judge said that he had "sensibly" armed himself with a shotgun and no one could criticise him for what he did. "It is only a pity that charges were considered against him," he added.
Compare them with the police: "If the intruder steals some of your property, that's far better than someone getting killed. Ring police and secure yourself and your family..." Just remember, if the police don't turn up or fail, they're not liable and you could be dead.
The British Police; another once great institution ruined by socialism. Is there anything that can escape unscathed?
More related news from the Telegraph h/t to An Englishman's Castle; here the police no doubt upset at charges being dropped against a 74 year old pensioner who shot a 22 year old burglar in the leg.
"Police chiefs have urged householders not to confront intruders, but to call 999 and lock themselves in safely until help arrives." Oh what great advice, the police can't bear the thought of people actually defending themselves and standing up to crime. After all if they can't do it, why should anyone else?
I always used to support the idea and concept of the police, but that isn't what we've got anymore. What we have is a great turkey army called the police, the only reason they're called officers is because they sit in an office all day. You could probably abolish the police and the majority of people wouldn't notice, except of course crime would go down as without the police to interfere and arrest and charge householders defending their property, the risk to the criminal would be ever so much greater.
The only ray of light in the Telegraph article comes from the judge: The judge said that he had "sensibly" armed himself with a shotgun and no one could criticise him for what he did. "It is only a pity that charges were considered against him," he added.
Compare them with the police: "If the intruder steals some of your property, that's far better than someone getting killed. Ring police and secure yourself and your family..." Just remember, if the police don't turn up or fail, they're not liable and you could be dead.
The British Police; another once great institution ruined by socialism. Is there anything that can escape unscathed?
Tags: law and order, police, self-defence, guns
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: guns, law and order, police, self-defence
Friday, January 05, 2007
The state will protect you or 124D v Luger
The Times tells us of the death of Ms Clare Bernal and the inquest into the same.
Ms Bernal had the misfortune of a violent ex-boyfriend who then went on to kill her. Were there any indications that this might happen? "The former Slovakian soldier had vowed to kill his former girlfriend..."
Aside from the fact that he shot her, even though guns are illegal, thus making them accessible to him (the criminal), but denying them for defence (to the victim). The gun was purchased by the criminal, who whilst on bail managed to travel to Slovakia and smuggle it back into the UK.
It appears there were errors by the police, you might think a failure to provide armed officers or protection or some other activity, no indeed it was a failure to fill in the paperwork specifically a 124D form. In evidence to the inquest the CPS said: "that Pech was charged correctly with harassment and would have been given a community service order rather than a jail sentence.
He said that if police had taken further statements from Ms Bernal it was possible that she would have given evidence to persuade the CPS to charge Pech with making threats to kill her. However, if he was convicted of that offence he would have been jailed only for two or three months, ..."
This is a devious platitude, because it makes it sound that had the procedures been followed, he might have been in jail, but remember he was out on bail, so even though charged, he hadn't been convicted. My view is the chances are he still would have been on bail anyway.
In any sensible analysis, if someone is out to kill you, and they are armed, you will need to be armed yourself or at least have an armed bodyguard. I favour the first option as it is cheaper. A 124D won't be of much use against a Luger.
Still no need to worry as there's plenty more platitudes in the article:
"PC Shah said that she had done everything she could to protect Ms Bernal"
"Georgina Kent, a barrister for the police, [said] there was “nothing to suggest that the case would end so unfortunately”. "
"Nataliya Sarapionova, Ms Bernal’s friend and flatmate, said that Ms Bernal was “extremely naive” and, despite the level of violence used by Pech, did not realise the seriousness of the situation." Good job the state and the police had it under control then.
The only fly in the ointment comes from: "Harvey Nichols’s security manager said that he became “deeply concerned” about Pech and advised Ms Bernal to call police. He then began his own investigation, interviewing Ms Bernal’s friends and scanning any text messages sent to her by Pech. He said that police did not take the evidence the store had gathered."
Like yesterday there's no mention that there might be something wrong with the system. Not even the glimmer of criticising that the state should be the sole provider of our protection, no mention of liability attaching to the state when it falls down on the job. It is irrelevant whether Ms Bernal realised the seriousness of the situation, what she probably thought was that the police would protect her; if perhaps she'd thought they wouldn't she may have taken effective steps to ensure her safety.
There's a double scandal here, firstly the state removes the legal capability for the law abiding citizen to defend themselves and usurps that role for itself; secondly despite taking (with the sanction of the law) the money from the defenceless citizen, when it fails to fulfil its end of the bargain it's no liability and platitudes all round.
Ms Bernal had the misfortune of a violent ex-boyfriend who then went on to kill her. Were there any indications that this might happen? "The former Slovakian soldier had vowed to kill his former girlfriend..."
Aside from the fact that he shot her, even though guns are illegal, thus making them accessible to him (the criminal), but denying them for defence (to the victim). The gun was purchased by the criminal, who whilst on bail managed to travel to Slovakia and smuggle it back into the UK.
It appears there were errors by the police, you might think a failure to provide armed officers or protection or some other activity, no indeed it was a failure to fill in the paperwork specifically a 124D form. In evidence to the inquest the CPS said: "that Pech was charged correctly with harassment and would have been given a community service order rather than a jail sentence.
He said that if police had taken further statements from Ms Bernal it was possible that she would have given evidence to persuade the CPS to charge Pech with making threats to kill her. However, if he was convicted of that offence he would have been jailed only for two or three months, ..."
This is a devious platitude, because it makes it sound that had the procedures been followed, he might have been in jail, but remember he was out on bail, so even though charged, he hadn't been convicted. My view is the chances are he still would have been on bail anyway.
In any sensible analysis, if someone is out to kill you, and they are armed, you will need to be armed yourself or at least have an armed bodyguard. I favour the first option as it is cheaper. A 124D won't be of much use against a Luger.
Still no need to worry as there's plenty more platitudes in the article:
"PC Shah said that she had done everything she could to protect Ms Bernal"
"Georgina Kent, a barrister for the police, [said] there was “nothing to suggest that the case would end so unfortunately”. "
"Nataliya Sarapionova, Ms Bernal’s friend and flatmate, said that Ms Bernal was “extremely naive” and, despite the level of violence used by Pech, did not realise the seriousness of the situation." Good job the state and the police had it under control then.
The only fly in the ointment comes from: "Harvey Nichols’s security manager said that he became “deeply concerned” about Pech and advised Ms Bernal to call police. He then began his own investigation, interviewing Ms Bernal’s friends and scanning any text messages sent to her by Pech. He said that police did not take the evidence the store had gathered."
Like yesterday there's no mention that there might be something wrong with the system. Not even the glimmer of criticising that the state should be the sole provider of our protection, no mention of liability attaching to the state when it falls down on the job. It is irrelevant whether Ms Bernal realised the seriousness of the situation, what she probably thought was that the police would protect her; if perhaps she'd thought they wouldn't she may have taken effective steps to ensure her safety.
There's a double scandal here, firstly the state removes the legal capability for the law abiding citizen to defend themselves and usurps that role for itself; secondly despite taking (with the sanction of the law) the money from the defenceless citizen, when it fails to fulfil its end of the bargain it's no liability and platitudes all round.
Tags: guns, self defence, statism
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: guns, self-defence, statism
Friday, December 29, 2006
"Where getting more like America every day"
The above quote comes from a section of comments about an armed robbery in York. I can't believe it myself as apparently a handgun was used in the attack, but haven't these been banned by the benevolent government? You know: "... if it saves the life of one child it'll be worth it ..." ad nauseam.
Anyway clearly no one told the criminals about the handgun ban and now they've used one to commit a crime. Back to the (in the main) appalling comments if the person is referring to spelling and grammar then they might be correct as I suspect they actually want to say: "we're" as opposed to "where". Never mind, just another product of our "envy of the world" education system.
One commentator gives some information missing from the story: "Police turned up in response to panic alarm at 8pm, were more interested in two youths on a moped and left again leaving staff locked inside with robbers! Obviously they left these details out of the press release." Thus summing up the effectiveness of the modern British police. To return to the original comment, the person has missed one very significant difference in that in America, the shopkeeper might well be legally armed, in which case they'll be in a far better position to defend themselves and their property, leaving the police free to deal with important issues such as mopeds.
Another commentator has the right idea, but seems rather short on practicality: "Arm shopkeepers and let them shoot robbers provided it is all on CCTV showing an honest shot!" Yes all very well and good, but what if the CCTV happens to be pointing elsewhere, or is obscured at the time of shooting? You can hardly ask the robber to kindly step into focus "just so I can have a legal shot for the camera sir". So I say allow the shopkeepers (and householders) to arm themseleves and protect them legally with a "castle doctrine". "If it saves the life or property of just one shopkeeper or householder it'll be worth it"
So no I'm afraid we're not getting more like America every day, but I live in hope, with proper application and determination, we might one day get there.
Anyway clearly no one told the criminals about the handgun ban and now they've used one to commit a crime. Back to the (in the main) appalling comments if the person is referring to spelling and grammar then they might be correct as I suspect they actually want to say: "we're" as opposed to "where". Never mind, just another product of our "envy of the world" education system.
One commentator gives some information missing from the story: "Police turned up in response to panic alarm at 8pm, were more interested in two youths on a moped and left again leaving staff locked inside with robbers! Obviously they left these details out of the press release." Thus summing up the effectiveness of the modern British police. To return to the original comment, the person has missed one very significant difference in that in America, the shopkeeper might well be legally armed, in which case they'll be in a far better position to defend themselves and their property, leaving the police free to deal with important issues such as mopeds.
Another commentator has the right idea, but seems rather short on practicality: "Arm shopkeepers and let them shoot robbers provided it is all on CCTV showing an honest shot!" Yes all very well and good, but what if the CCTV happens to be pointing elsewhere, or is obscured at the time of shooting? You can hardly ask the robber to kindly step into focus "just so I can have a legal shot for the camera sir". So I say allow the shopkeepers (and householders) to arm themseleves and protect them legally with a "castle doctrine". "If it saves the life or property of just one shopkeeper or householder it'll be worth it"
So no I'm afraid we're not getting more like America every day, but I live in hope, with proper application and determination, we might one day get there.
Tags: guns, armed citizenry, crime
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: armed citizenry, Crime, guns
