Robert Peel on Policing

Saw reference to this on Smallest Minority’s site. And since I am hurting for blog fodder, I wanted to look into it and share 'founding father' quality police philosophy. Robert Peel:


1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.



2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.





3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.





4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.





5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.





6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.





7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.





8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.





9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Sometimes it feels like the Law Enforcement community has lost sight of these tenets, and adopted a bit of a siege mentality. The Blue Versus the 'Civilians'. But they ARE Civilians. Just like the rest of us.

I REALLY want to go squirrel hunting

If only to realize my lifelong dream of bagging and mounting one of these over the couch:

PETA Person: "Why shoot poor defenseless animals, you barbarian!"

T-Bolt: "Defenseless?! I had a .22, and he had an .30-03 Lee-Enfield!!! He had the advantage, madam."

Coffee

I think I know where the zombies will come from.

I work in a room where it is impossible to have a coffee maker on my desk.

The light sleeting we got has played fresh hell on the sweet little old ladies in the cafetorium here at the offices for the Acme Salt Mine.

So the normally plentiful tun of java is empty and locked in a darkened room. I have no life-fortifying Joe.

I may be working. I can't tell. It's all sort of a blurry fog. I shuffle about. Unable to focus my eyes. There is a slight note of bitterness, frustration, and anger under the empty and vacant facial expressions of the office co-drones.

Urge to kill? Rising.

~ grooooooooooooooooooooooan... ~

‘Better Shooting Through Science’

Gun Nuts Radio last night was ostensibly about shooting epiphanies. Something a shooter does, figures out, tries, and there is break. The time, before the epiphany, and the time after when you were markedly better.

I don’t have an epiphany. Not a big one. Lots of little epiphanies with marginal improvements.

Squeeze 20% harder. Start with a firm grip, then squeeze 20% harder. I had a bad show of it squeezing VERY hard to start. So it took a while before I believed, because harder didn’t work. The harder, initially, was, “squeeze so hard you start to shake, then back off.” That didn’t work at all. But starting with a ‘normal’ regular grip, and improving it by squeezing 20% harder, and, if necessary, a bit later squeezing THAT 20% harder…

One epiphany I had is lining the pistol up where the sights are in line with my elbow. This required a slight rotation in my grip. Once done the pistol then points wherever I am looking, and I don’t have to hunt around for the front sight. It’s just there, in my field of view.

The conventional wisdom is to focus on the front sight. This was never an issue with me. It seems I naturally want to focus on the front sight. It may impact my accuracy as the target is ALWAYS blurry to me. I shoot at a big blob instead of a dime sized spot on a target. Hard to aim-small/miss-small when the smallest I can aim is the size of a dessert plate. Always hitting a dessert plate isn’t a bad thing, as long as it’s ‘always.’

A new one I learned at conceal-carry training that I haven’t fully applied and realized the most benefit from… yet… Is how much interference the base of the trigger finger is causing. What am I talking about? Hold you ‘invisible pistol’ in one hand. Touch the spot on your hand where the finger meets the meat of your palm. Now squeeze the invisible trigger a few times in quick succession. Feel all that movement?! That can’t be good if that part of your hand is touching your grips!

Seeing the effects of a true surprise break is an epiphany. Achieving that surprise in consistent application is the hard work. It may be why I shoot Double Action better than Single Action. I like the 1911 trigger, but I know when it’s going to let go. So anticipation flinches happen. With a revolver, heck, with that much travel I really can’t get a feel for the exact breaking point. Same with the DA only SIG of mine. I like all three pistols, though. A lot. Good pistols all 3. P229, Springer 1911, S&W 686. Add the Colt Pocket Hammerless, and man… I really have to be careful and not get some marginal pistol and sully that exceptional record on pistol acquisition.

Natural point of aim is a neat little epiphany. It, like my others, help a bit, but not an order of magnitude improvement. I notice better results with the rifle than the pistol. In case you are unfamiliar with the term: Assume your position or stance and aim at the target. Relax, close your eyes for a few seconds, and aim again, blind. Open your eyes to see if you’ve drifted off bulls eye. Reposition and try again until you are pointing at the bull when you open your eyes. The position you are in then is your natural point of aim for that target. The firearm ‘wants’ to be aligned properly for that situation. VITAL for target shooting.

Slow is smooth, smooth is fast is another not-yet-universally-applied-but-has-great-potential epiphany.

I’m still waiting for the ‘A-HA!’ moment. It’ll come. With practice. I imagine it’ll be when my groups tighten and center up one day, away from my current loose and low and right shooting. You know you’ll hear about it the second I achieve that plateau.

What did I tell you?

You didn't listen to me, and now it is too late.

Even the Department of Transportation is more ready than I.

Radicals

Saul Alinsky was a leftist community organizer (THE community organizer as he started the concept) seeking to overthrow 'The System' and thus allow the 'right people' to finally remake the country in their naive vision, instituting a Utopian system. Like Utopia can exist on Earth. His last work was Rules for Radicals. And it has been a blot on the country ever since.

What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.

Rule 11 of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:


"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."



Target: Private ownership of firearms. Firearm owners can't be ruled, only governed with their consent.



Freeze it: Define it on generally accepted terms. Nail down a description of firearm owners. Firearms owners are a varied bunch and already individualistic and cantankerous, so this is easy enough.



Personalize it: THIS groups of sportsmen are reasonable. THAT group are crazed with suppressed violence bubbling just under the surface. This coach of that football team [name here] is ok, but Ted Nugent is crazed and Dylon Klebold is a murderer. Be like coach, not like the murderers on the other side



Polarize it: THIS group is ok and harmless, THAT group is dangerous, and a subset of THAT group are criminals and domestic terrorists, so... they are either criminals or future criminals. It's not an individual right, it's a hunter-sportsman's privilege. And if it WAS an individual right, that was way back in Olden Thymes, and it's not relevant to today's world. Pay no attention to the Supreme Court's latest ruling.



And this you get a subset of firearms owners turning against other firearms owner, and you get the sympathy of non-firearms owners through inspired fear for their safety.



Resist the radicals. Don't let them drive a wedge between us. Don't look extreme and radical to non-firearms owners, look reasonable. Highlight the good that firearms owners do for the community by highlighting self-defense shootings. When offensive firearms incident occur suggest the 'Book' should be thrown at the miscreant goblin, and opine that if only ALL goblins were given full term jail sentences for crimes calling for 10 year stints instead of being let out in 3 months. Make non-firearms owner interested in the fun and home-defense aspects of shooting and thus become firearms-owners.

~~~~~~~

Other rules:

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Unlike the Brady's, we actually HAVE a grassroots membership on our side. The NRA is not a front for a powerful gun industry. That industry is tiny compared to other industries. It has 4 million individual members, and 30 million people that think or say they are members. Regular people that happen to own guns and want the government to leave their guns alone, as they aren't hurting anyone with them.

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

This is where penis jokes come at us from. That the gun is over-compensation for a personal shortcoming. How mature. So Junior High School. When they have anti-gun strategy sessions does their parents have to come around in the family mini-van after to take them home? And what of the explosion of women taking to firearms in the last 20 years? Are they 'compensating' for piece of male anatomy they don't have somehow?


Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

The Anti-Gun types have this problem now. Nothing new has come out of their strategy sessions in some time, and their old stuff has been definitively addressed and debunked as fraudulent. Our side only needs to keep promulgating this info to counter their lies.

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.

Threatening armed revolution is NOT the way to go about this. That scares the people on the sidelines and is too unsubtle. I do wish the 3%ers would tone down the rhetoric a hair as it seems, to me, to be counter productive. That's not to say I want them to be silent... A clandestine rational 3%er is more effective than a loud, all-talk, 3%er. It's not like the other side isn't aware of their existence. And it goes toward rule 1. If the other side thinks 3%ers are more like 11%ers... 28%ers... And THAT requires non-3%ers to be clandestine on where they fall on the spectrum.

Empty holster protests would be more effective, I think. If the protests are BIG.

Jane Austen

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Muse

My Muse done left me. I got nuthin'.

Ok, how bout this. Anyone recommend a quality Inside the Waistband Holster for a SIG P229 DAK? One I could buy today and not wait 8 months...

Squirrel Menace

Buddy the Gun Enthusiast keeps threatening to take me on a squirrel hunt… I wish that would come off. He has a relative with a pest problem and would like to thin out the little buggers. And I’d like some .22 practice outside a range environment.

~~~~~~~~~~

Some British lady got attacked by a horde of squirrels

In rating the attack, after, on a sliding scale from insignificant to catastrophic she described it as a moderate level attack. I wonder what, in her mind, she considers a catastrophic one. And I’d like to see that as a video on YouTube, at any rate. I'd pay good money to witness it, in fact.

New Gun Acquisitor on a Budget (sorta)

There are plenty of bare minimums set-ups out there for folks that want to be covered in the gun department, but don’t want to get a safe-full.

And there is always the possibility that you may be transported back through time with just your arms and ammo some night and need to survive with just what you have with you; in 18th Century Ohio, or somesuch.

Well the conventional wisdom, that I pretty much agree with, is that you’d have a 4-gun system: A rifle and pistol to defend yourself primarily, a shotgun for hunting primarily, and some kind of .22 for practice and light work. Of course all weapons can double in other roles to some extent. Lots of ammo is a given.

So what do you get? There are more opinions on that than there are guns in this country. Yes. There are exaclt 453,055,419 opinions on which 4 guns to have when the balloon goes up.

Here is one idea that I toy with (Cuz I like playing around up there, in my head. Ya gotta daydream about SUMTHIN in bad meetings. This is one of the things I can daydream about. Plenty of other stuff to ponder, sure. I am multi-talented. But this is a gunblog, so you get the gun related daydreams.)

Assumptions, you are on a bit of a budget, but aren’t dirt poor. It’s probably a good idea to spend a similar amount of money that you spent on the guns on the same quantity of ammo in this case, too.

For dirt poor you get a single shot, pawnshop .22 rifle, a single barrel Sear shotgun, a Mosin, and a .38 special revolver.

But for the purpose of THIS entry, I’m thinking a bit better.

An M1 Carbine. Good for defense. Fine against zombies, or Indian war parties if you get stuck back in time. It’s no sniper. Heck it’s not ideal for longer than 100 yard ranges. But it’s still very sound. Not a first choice for a deer gun, it may or may not meet power regulations in some state Dept of Natural Resources, but a shotgun can fill the deer gun role.





A Taurus Raging 30. It’s a revolver that shoots .30 Carbine ammo, so your ammo selection and inventorying is simplified. And I’ve always leaned toward as simple an ammo inventory as practical, with only a few noted exceptions in my personal firearms. As a rifle round the .30 carbine isn’t bad. As revolver ammo, it’s screaming. I’d guess it’s probably on par with .357, but a ballistics enthusiast would have to be here to confirm my suspicions. It’s a revolver, so a bit more reliable due to simplicity.

[Ok, ok, Taurus are hard to find, being discontinued. And right now there are NONE on gunbroker. A fella can dream, can't he? Get the Ruger, it's less than $600.]

Wait, I may have overlooked something. Do you need easily-lost moon clips for this revolver? Moon clips are small cylinder of metal that have cut out you press rimless ammo into so they will stay put in the cylinder and also load fast. If you do need them, that is a major headache that could kibosh the whole thing if you are counting on time warp or post-apocalypsical disasters. Dang. Let’s proceed as if that’s not an issue. Let’s pretend that this revolver has little tabs that hold the rimless cartridge in place. It’s a day dream after all. And it’s only a BIT of a hardship to get a gross of the little metal dealies for regular-Joe shooty prep.

Let me check the specifics on the Taurus website. Be right back…

…Yup, you need moon clips for the Taurus. Get a bunch. But there is a plus. The cylinder holds 8 rounds. Very good. Dunno how you use a moon clip on a gated revolver like the Ruger Blackhawk types...

Other companies may make a .30 revolver, but I know of the Taurus. Ruger made/makes one, currently, too. Either way. This gun may be the most expensive of the 4 whichever model you choose. M1 Carbines aren’t as cheap as they were, but they are still not TOO hard on your wallet.

I got this idea for this pair, a M1 and a .30 revolver, quite a bit ago from Kim Du Toit. Heck, even this blog entry is a take off of similar entries Kim has done back when he blogged.

What else? A double barrel shotgun. Specific model? I dunno. Something with a choke on one barrel so you can tighten a pattern up for birding, and no choke in the other for buckshot and an inducer of good manners for closer angry assailants. Would a pump action Reminton 870 be good? Yes, but we’re going minimalist, and fewest parts here. A military rifle is durable, more so than a cheaper, comparable action, hunting rifle. A revolver is simple and durable. A double barrel is more durable than a pump gun. And since the primary purpose of the shotty, here, is hunting a wide variety of game, more than 2 shells is a bit superfluous. Two is adequate. One probably would be, but then it might be a good idea to be able to swap out the chokes, and that adds another part and tool to deal with, and we already got more complicated with that whole moon clip fiasco earlier. Stick to double barrel.

Finally. A .22. Whatever. Really. A 10/22 might be overly mechanically complicated. A pump .22 like my Taurus model 62 would be fine. Whichever length. A single shot Steven .22 would be fine. As would the ubiquitous and simple bolt action .22. Even a revolver would be fine. Not a snub nose. You need to pot game with this as well as practice. Decent accuracy is a good idea. It’s hard to go TOO wrong with a selection of a simple .22.

~~~~~~~~~~

Other foursomes, maybe for other entries? With a theme.

WWII themed: A Garand, a Colt .45, a mil-surp combat shotgun, and a .22 conversion kit for a 1911.

Cheap Russian: Mosin bolt action rifle, Mosin Revolver, a modern Russian import of a Coach Gun, and a .22 import.

English: Lee Enfield, Webley revolver, an over-under game gun, and some .22

Modern Simplified Italian: Berretta CX4 and PX4 with mag commonality, a Benelli (because the name SOUNDS Italian) and a .22

Nouveau Cowboy: Marlin 1894C, .357 revolver, double barrel coach gun, Stevens single shot .22.

It get’s MORE complicated if you inherited some rifle from Granddad, and you want to build around this unselected item, still trying to keep it simple, inexpensive, and limiting your eventual total to just 4. What if Granddad was crazy? Or what if he brought back some obscure set of Japanese weapons from WWII? The ammo situation alone is challenging in that last case.

Ruger LCR

Man does it offend my sensibilities. I like steel, as you know. And polymer? On a REVOLVER?! I may have the vapors just thinking about it.

But there are reasons to consider it.

Accounts from SHOT indicate that the trigger feels good, out of the box.

It's an ounce heavier than the most featherweight Titanium or Scandium revolvers, but it's price is almost HALF. That ounce isn't much, either way. $350 is.

And it's polymer frame and hogue grips are indicative that it may absorb recoil better. In theory. Lightweight snubbies are well know for having a punishing recoil.

Damn it's ugly.

Good thing I wasn't leaning toward a featherweight. If I was, this plastic snubbie might have vied for the top of my want-list for snubbies. I haven't valued lightweight pistols at this point in my shooting life adventure. So my decision is easier. Stick with a steel S&W.

Stuff

There is so much STUFF that goes along with shooting. A co-worker just opted for his first personal gun. He has experience shooting but never had one of his own. So, drop about $600 for a Springfield XD with the tax and, that’s it? Well, no.

The gun comes with a small belt holster, 2 magazines, a nylon cleaning brush, and 2 magazines. All in a carrying case with a place to put a padlock.

What else do you need?

• Ear and eye protection. Though these can be rented at the range. $2 for the once a month you go to the range to practice.


• Targets. The range sells these. $3 a month


• Bullets. The range also sells these. $25 a month, plus $20 range fee.
  

So, the original case is all you really NEED? Right?

Well, it’s pretty Spartan. About the only thing missing is cleaning fluid and some sort of bore patch system. A rag and a dowel can work. A pencil and an old toothbrush. Can of fluid adds maybe $15 for the year?

Now, you’ve more than doubled the amount of money you spent on firearms, over and above the original purchase price. And you did NOTHING fancy at all besides practice.

But my work buddy needs a few more things.

• A real cleaning kit. A boresnake is fine. $20


• He wants the pistol for home defense and has a kid. Locking the case is a non starter because of the amount of time needed to get it out. Leaving a loaded gun in a toddle-height drawer is unthinkable. He is going to get a GunVault pistol safe for secure but easy access. $125


• Defense ammo to keep at home, plus 100 rounds of FMJ. $90


• A couple of spare magazines. $60

So another $300, $900 total. 150% over the price to just GET the midrange-priced pistol.

With a little more interest you tack on a host of other costs: training, range bags, spare parts, holsters, eyes and ears.

Add a rifle to that and it goes up again: more spare parts, optics, carrying cases.

A little more interest and you add personal touches like: custom grips, NICE holsters, butt cuffs, spare optics or optics that do different things, ammo inventories, reloading equipment and supplies, shooting jackets, target stands.

Even without those tertiary, optional, stuff, it is an expensive operation with a lot equipment.

For a prospective one-gun homeowner that comes to me for advice on firearm selection, I’ll have to remember to tell them to budget twice the cost of the firearm for accessories and incidental for the first year. After that they’ll have their feet under them, be practiced and proficient, and their firearm will be secure when not directly at hand, yet ready for any contingency.

Whitehouse Agenda

So the Whitehouse website lists their limited reasonable gun control proposals.

Boiled down, it's 3 things. Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, close the gunshow loophole, and repass the Assault Weapons Ban.

The justifications for these 3 items is all lies. They are based on deceptions, and they KNOW they are untrue, and maintain the lie anyway.

The only way they can pass anti-civil right legislation is to lie about it.

The Tiahrt amendment is supposed to need repealing so police can trace crime guns. But police can already trace firearms, for crime and otherwise. Even the ATF, no friends to gun enthusiasts, admits that police can already readily do gun traces. So they lied. Repeal of Tiahrt will allow the local paper to access gun trace data. None of their business, as gun traces aren't necessarily crime guns. But your local Media masters can go ahead and print your firearm information and your address in the paper. Lovely. So the purpose of repeal makes crime investigations harder and endangers legitimate gun owners? Good. Why would more crime and more wary gun owners be in the interest of anti-gun types? Please.

Gunshow loopholes? Because guns are are sold without NICS checks from FFL dealers at gunshows? Well, no. They're not. FFL dealers have to account for all their guns and all run NICS checks at gun shows. Ban private sales at guns shows? Yes, they'd have to include that language. But not even a sizable portion of private sales happens at gun shows, so you'd have to ban them all. If grandad wanted to give you his old gun he couldn't without getting permission from. It's not about gun shows its about accounting and registration of all guns. They lied. Once guns are registered, confiscation, historically, follows right along. The true purpose. Will it make straw purchases illegal? They are already illegal. Will it make felons not be able to buy guns? Like felons are going to follow this law when there are more pertinent laws they won't follow? Ha.

Assault Weapons Ban? Assault Weapons were already effectively regulated in 1934. Oh? But that was a machine gun law? Right. Assault Weapons are machine guns. Select fire, intermediate sized cartridge carbines. Not one has been legally made and sold to the public since 1986. Hughes Amendment made sure of that. There are guns that LOOK like assault weapons. And these guns are the most popular sporting rifles in the country. But their function is no different from many hunting rifles. Often they are less capable than many hunting rifles. And these look-alike rifles that are so popular are used in a tiny percentage of crimes. Like 3%. The other side know this. There are lying about what Assault Weapons are.

Accountants are civilians. Soldiers are soldiers. Police are civilians. Civilians should have access to the same arms. But I'll concede cops can have select fire, REAL Assault Rifles. Machine guns. And non-Law Enforcement can settle for semi-auto.

Or not.

But the Whitehouse website is lying about gun control. I hope our new President calls these capricious website people on the carpet, and corrects their lies. He, after all, promised not to go down the gun-control path. I'm sure when he realizes these lies are being propagated in his name that he will be angry and want to make it right. I'm sure he will be as shocked as I am.

(update: Dangit, folks all over are independently posting similarly themed screeds as me. Just written better.)

How Many

Have you ever been asked, “How many guns do you own?”

Breda mentioned some hoplophobic hysterics where one sheep complained about a possible RNC chairman named Blackwell when the GOP leader-hopeful mentioned he had 7. She takes cowardly leftist to task, naturally, for such a pants-soiling whinefest. (Blackwell may or may not make a good chairman, but that’s beyond the scope for this blog entry.)


I like Fred Thompson’s response during the campaign at a candidate debate when asked a similar question. Essentially, “I own a couple, but I’m not gonna tell you what they are or where they are.”

Two types of people ask me that question. People that like guns ask it as a preface to, “COOL! Let’s see ‘em. I’ve never handled a Thunderblurfl and was half thinking of getting one for myself! Do you like it? How bout that one? How does it shoot?” etc.

And people that hate guns ask me as a presage to castigate me, insinuating I am insecure, or mentally unstable, or what have you. Especially idiotic, hypocritical, leftist associates, and they know who they are.

To avoid the second type, I have a stock answer. “I own one of each. And a spare.” That works fine after you get a 4-gun system: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, .22. If pressed, I say, “I have enough to teach you how to shoot. Do you want me to take you to the range tomorrow?” If pressed again, I lie about the number, outlandishly, “Hundreds! It may be over a thousand by now! Don’t surprise me! The police let me take home the pile after a big Gun Buyback program! Some have probably been used in crimes! I’m a member of the NRA and they send us free samples all the time.”

I only do that to highlight their unreasonable question. It’s none of their business, or anyone’s really, and I wouldn’t do it if there were any chance I could convince them of necessity for the respect owed to the Bill of Rights. They are lost causes, and would vote for Breznhev over Reagan if the opportunity came up.

So, tip for politicians that are proponents of the Second Amendment and own at least 3 guns: When asked about it, say, “Guns? I have one of each. And a spare,” and leave it at that. If you have one or two just say you have a gun and stop there.

Histrionics

For all the post-Heller histrionics erupting with the ascension of a anti-gun President and his anti-2nd Amendment appointments and anti-civil rights laws queuing up to vex the American people, one important angle is not considered.

To secure our rights now and for all time we NEED the opposition forces to unify, mount and pass a strong attack on the Constitution, and then that attack needs to be smacked down, and smacked down HARD and decisively, tarring their position for all time and re-cementing the 2nd into the fabric of America again, as secure thereafter as the 1st or 3rd is, currently. Where after it is unthinkable to infringe on the right by ANY political faction. Where a return of an Assault Weapons Bad is as unthinkable and resurrecting alcohol Prohibition.

Fore Grip

If I ever got some sort of after market rail system for my M14 it would be to be able to mount more optics in more configurations. Secondarily it would be for a foregrip. Foregrips offer other more than something to hang your off-hand on. I like the Grip-Pod concept, to double as a bipod, but grips also can be hollow to allow for battery storage. And Crimson Trace has come out with a flashlight/laser combo, too. Shown at the SHOT show.

It’s all self-contained, with no wires from stick-on switches to separate illumination units to hang up on obstructions and such. Great, now ANOTHER option to ponder and dissemble over. Do I want storage, prone-shooting stability, or a good light? I’ll be paralyzed with indecision from the plethora of option. But it’s a GOOD paralysis. Capitalism is grand.

Taurus

Taurus has entered into the .380 pocket gun market that is starting to get crowded. I think I like this one best. It’s called a TCP. Taurus Compact Pistol. There is even a Titanium slide option, making it very light. No pictures up on their website yet.

Why? It’s magazine is extended. This is good, NOT because it gives you an extra bullet, but because it gives my littlest finger a bit more purchase compared to other offerings. I’ll have to handle one to confirm. It’s this or the Bersa Thunder on my list. Ruger LCP brings up the rear over the original Kel Tec slim .380s.

Maybe the others sell extended mags? I’ll have to check THAT too.

Dangerous

Hecate brought this up, and I figure wider dissemination of the Smallest Minority's essays is a good thing. I probably even linked to it, specifically, before. Repetition is good for retention of information, so you get it again. Check out Hecate, then check the links she linkifies.

"It's most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can."

Accuracy Illumination

So I shoot pistols at center mass size target areas at 25 feet most frequently. Fine for self defense. I’ve done some practice at interview distance and you don’t need to squint to see the holes. But what if I need to shoot out a street light with a pistol. A light 75 feet away.

Oh great. 75 feet? And when I miss, I don’t know WHERE I missed. Too high? Too low? It goes to the whole, “I really should have groups that center on the BULL, and not consistently hit a little off.”

At least you know when you DO hit the street light.

Why would I need to take out rogue streetlights? Are they a danger to me? What is the tactical consideration?

Well, maybe Zombies need light for their target acquisition. I’m not supposed to give away too many details, according to RoMERO. I never understood the need for that security measure. Ostensibly it’s supposed to quell panic. That level of detail makes the Zombies more REAL in the public’s mind and adds to their general consternation. I am of the opinion that people are mature enough to be better prepared for the Zed Menace. Here’s a detail: SOME Shamblors DO need light to see. Not all, of course.

And what if I need to shoot out the neighbors porchlight? I mean come ON! Who needs a 350 watt bulb to light his walk? I’d rather have the sun streaming in my window. Bastage.

That said, I SHOULD be able to hit a target the size of a street light 75 feet away with a pistol pretty reliably, dontcha think. Better add that range to the training regimen when I get better at 25 feet..

Practice for Every Contingency

For those that are in total denial about the coming zombie threat, and think some OTHER disaster is looming in the futue, however misguide that thought may be, there ARE targets to help prepare you for the bleak struggle you think may come.

h/t boingboing.com