Advertisements
Home

Rep. Gohmert: If Orlando Was About Guns, Then ‘Boston Was About a Pressure Cooker’

Leave a comment

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is correct the problem is not guns or pressure cookers the problem is Islamic Terrorist.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) called it “outrageous” that House Democrats would grab microphones and prevent fellow lawmakers from conducting business in violation of House rules, all to make a point about gun control, which is really beside the point:

Source: Rep. Gohmert: If Orlando Was About Guns, Then ‘Boston Was About a Pressure Cooker’

Advertisements

The Gun-Loving Boy Scouts of the Early 20th Century

1 Comment

This is from Mental Floss.

A small history lesson.

IMAGE CREDIT: NEW YORK EVENING MAIL

In the early 20th century, a gun-toting group of uniformed teens took aim at the Boy Scouts of America. The American Boy Scouts (ABS) became known less for earning merit badges and helping old ladies cross the street than shooting off their rifles, often with deadly results. Their rise and fall reflects the militaristic fervor that took hold of the country during the World War I era, as well as a forgotten chapter in the history of U.S. gun control.

The ABS sprouted from the competitive spirit—or more likely spite—of New York Journa lpublisher William Randolph Hearst. The newspaper baron, who never liked to be outdone by another publisher, founded the group in May 1910 as an unsubtle response to Chicago publisher William Dickson Boyce, who had incorporated the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) just three months earlier. The boys in both groups went on outdoor trips, volunteered in the community, and read Boys’ Life magazine. But their practices differed in at least one significant way: Hearst’s scouts carried guns. Hearst believed boys should cultivate skill with firearms, and be prepared for service in the United States military, so rifles became standard accessories for ABS members.

Wikimedia Commons // Public Domain

They conducted drills and “sham battles”—sometimes in the middle of Manhattan—in which boys, dressed in their militaristic uniforms, shot at one another using blanks. Though ostensibly a training exercise for members, they proved effective publicity events and recruitment tools for boys who wanted to play soldier. Scouting was a new concept for most Americans at this time, but both groups enjoyed generous press coverage from their publisher-founders and a warm reception from the public, who were more used to seeing young boys as hollering newsboys or unsupervised irritants. Parents steadily enrolled their sons in the nascent organizations. By 1914, the BSA would claim more than 100,000 members (though the ABS kept few records, it claimed membership of similar volume).

Leaders and spokespeople for the two scouting groups sniped at one another, with each claiming that the other should change its name to avoid confusing the public. The American Boy Scouts boasted it had more members, while the Boy Scouts of America claimed the endorsement of Sir Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the original, English, Boy Scout organization. “[W]hile there should be a touch of the military, the movement should … prepare boys for efficient living rather than for possible war,” the BSA’s first managing secretary, John Alexander, told BSA President Colin Livingstone in 1910.

SNIPING SCOUTS

At first the two seemed evenly matched. Fueled by their publisher-founders, both groups were covered regularly in the papers of New York City and Chicago, with the Brooklyn Daily Eagle dedicating a weekly page to “With Brooklyn Boy Scouts,” providing a column to each group. But the Hearst organization lost ground. The BSA leadership solidified power on the national level, chartered new councils around the country, and standardized membership rules. The ABS kept holding its sham battles, but its leaders spent more time fundraising than building the organization, and Hearst soon lost interest. After expressing concern with how it was being run, he disowned the group. General Edwin McAlpin, the heir of a tobacco and real estate fortune, took over as Chief Scout, declaring: “I am accepting this honor and this labor without any desire for red fire.” However, he soon proved more eager for a fight than his predecessor.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle

The General believed in a strong national defense and saw scouting as an effective way to strengthen it—by teaching boys to be capable with rifles and to understand military discipline. He loved the trappings of armed combat and believed the Boy Scouts of America to be both too weak (having toned down the militarism of the original British Boy Scouts) and too religious (due to the early support the group received from the YMCA, among other things). Hesummed up his opinion of the BSA as “a bunch of religious enthusiasts—outright pacifists” and delighted in his role as general leading an army against its enemy.

But just six months into his tenure, the gun-toting militarism that so pleased McAlpin created a crisis. On March 23, 1912, 9-year-old Harry Luckhardt, his 10-year-old brother William, and their neighbor John Lightner—none of them members of either scouting group—walked home after filling up a few bottles from a spring near their uptown home. As they crossed a hill on a vacant lot at 169th Street in the Bronx, they encountered a group of five boys. One of them wore the uniform of the American Boy Scouts and carried a rifle.

The scout was 12-year-old Russell Maitland Jarvis (sometimes written as Maitland Russell Jarvis), considered the terror of the block by some in the neighborhood. He had just returned from an afternoon hike with his troop, and brought along the ABS-approved rifle. Playing police officer, Jarvis demanded the three boys put their hands in the air. William and John crouched behind a nearby wagon, but Harry dared him to shoot, making a crack about the scout uniform as he did. Jarvis pulled the trigger, shooting the nine-year-old in the stomach. Harry died soon after. His brother ran home and through gasps and tears told his mother, “Harry’s dead. A Boy Scout shot and killed him.”

PUBLIC OUTCRY

After some questioning from detectives, Jarvis admitted to the killing and was taken into custody. The scout patrol paid a visit to the Luckhardt family to express their condolences. The shooting caused an outcry demanding that rifles, even unloaded ones, be banned from the organization. Technically the boys were only supposed to use blanks unless they were target shooting (Jarvis claimed that he meant to fire a blank), but since each member carried a fully operational rifle and had access to ammo through their troop, it was relatively easy for a Scout to turn lethal.

Though children were not allowed to carry handguns, the rules were looser about “long guns” typically used for hunting and target practice. Luckhardt’s father expressed fury at the law, which he said could forbid a man to carry a revolver but “allows a boy to carry a dangerous weapon about with him.”

“The shooting of a little boy by another trained to use a rifle is the logical and natural thing,”observed the editors of Quaker magazine The Friend. “Train a boy to kill, put the instrument in his hand, and why should he not kill?” The writer worried that if the “Army enthusiasts” in New York and California who at the time were urging that rifle practice be offered in public schools as a similar sort of military preparation got their way, “killing will become promiscuous in America.”

New York Call

The Boy Scouts of America expressed some of the loudest criticism about the rules, taking the opportunity to shame McAlpin and his scouts.

“These imitation organizations have been devoting themselves to one line of work, such as military drill and target shooting,” James E. West, the chief scout executive for the BSA, toldBoys’ Life in May 1912. “When boys wish to become a Boy Scout, parents said, ‘All right,’ not knowing there are different organizations. That was the way with Mrs. Jarvis, mother of the boy who did the shooting.” West declared that members of the BSA would not be allowed to carry firearms and troops would take no part in military drills. The same issue of Boys’ Lifeincluded news of more than 1300 members of the American Boy Scouts troop in Los Angeles filing a petition to join the Boy Scouts of America. To do so, they were told to stop carrying firearms and drop their military training. They happily agreed.

Despite the bad press, the American Boy Scouts solidified its militaristic stance in July 1913 when an Arms Selection Committee chose the .22 caliber Remington No. 4S rifle as “the Official Arm of the American Boy Scouts.” The single-shot, military-style rifle, complete with leather sling strap and bayonet, cost the scout $8 and would be known as the “American Boy Scout Rifle” from that point on.

But before the year was up, another Scout would kill. An American Boy Scouts patrol of 15 members went camping on Christmas Day in a woody area of Peekskill, New York. A few of the boys had gotten a campfire going and began preparations for a rustic Christmas feast.

Monroe Kniskern, 13-year-old son of Episcopal Reverend E.M. Kniskern, lost interest in the proceedings when he spotted a rifle leaning against a nearby tree. It belonged to Wilbur Wright, a fellow scout, who had gotten it as an early Christmas present and brought it on the outing to show off to the other boys. Kniskern’s curiosity got the best of him and he began to play with the weapon. Few paid any attention to him. Then the gun went off in his hands.

The rifle report was followed by a scream and the other scouts looked up to see 14-year-old Edward Webb face down on the ground. The pastor’s son had accidentally shot him in the back of the head. A doctor rushed to the scene, but he was soon followed by the coroner. The Christmas entertainment that the nearby Peekskill Church had planned was canceled in light of the tragedy.

The continued bad press led parents to pull their children from the group and many of the leaders to abandon the organization. Rather than changing the group’s rules, though, McAlpin changed its name to “United States Boy Scout.” This rebranding, along with increased interest in training young men for the military following the outbreak of World War I, helped keep the rival Scouts relevant for several more years, even if its membership dwindled to a fraction of the fast-growing BSA.

But it would not be the disorganization of the group’s leaders—or the boys killed by the group’s members—that would undo the U.S. Boy Scout. What would eventually take the USBS down was the tenacity of the Boy Scouts of America.

BOY SCOUTS ON THE OFFENSE

While a few passionate leaders like McAlpin stuck around, most of the USBS’s leaders left by the time the U.S. entered WWI in 1917, replaced by professional solicitors focused solely on how to wring out as many fundraising dollars as possible for the group. Their strategies devolved into simply misleading parents and donors into thinking they were contributing to the BSA, not its gun-toting rival. The USBS set up offices in the same building as the BSA and claimed the support of prominent people who thought they had endorsed the more respected group. Even when checks written explicitly to “Boy Scouts of America” were sent to the USBS’s address, the solicitors pocketed the funds for themselves.

The BSA’s leaders struggled to expose its rival’s deceptions and make clear that it was distinct from these armed scouts, as they had going back to the shooting of Harry Luckhardt. After years of trying to coexist with this dangerous doppelgänger, BSA Chief Scout James E. West recognized that his only option was to destroy USBS.

With the aid of a powerful legal team led by Charles Evan Hughes, former governor of New York and associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, the BSA launched a New York Supreme Court lawsuit against the USBS. The aggressive campaign heaped legal and public relations pressure on the USBS, shining a spotlight on the group’s double dealings that outshone even the bad headlines about dead boys. As legal expenses and negative publicity mounted, the USBS’s fundraisers recognized they had few other options but to settle. In March 1919, the court handed down its decision, ordering that the USBS could not use any version of “Scout” or “Scouting” in its name, effectively ending the group, or at least its ability to fundraise off the BSA’s name.

“It is with great satisfaction that I am able to definitely inform the National Council, and through the National Council the whole constituency, that the suit of the Boy Scouts of America against the United States Boy Scout has concluded,” West gloated in his organization’s annual report for 1919. West could not hide his pleasure at having finally undone the United States Boy Scout. By vanquishing his rival, West solidified his ownership over the very concept of scouting and the proper way to instill ideals into America’s young men. Under his leadership, the Boy Scouts of America would grow into a vast operation, with millions of members. It no longer has serious competitors, armed or otherwise—and continues to forbid firearms on any outings not specifically designated for target shooting.

 

Gov. Christie Pardons Shaneen Allen

Leave a comment

This is from Bearing Arms.

Chris Crispy Creme Christie thinks this pardon will make gun owners flock to him during his run for the GOP nomination.

No matter what Crispy Creme thinks we know his true feelings about guns and gun owners.

 

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie announced his 2016 presidential campaign pardoned Pennsylvania mother Shaneen Allen today in a ceremony that served to highlight the hysterical and oppressive nature of New Jersey’s extremist gun control laws.

Gov. Chris Christie has granted a pardon to Shaneen Allen, the Pennsylvania mother and gun owner who was arrested in October 2013 for carrying a concealed weapon into New Jersey.

Allen, a single mother of two, was stopped by a New Jersey state trooper in Hamilton Township near Atlantic City for performing an unsafe lane change. During the stop, Allen had informed the officer that she was a resident of Pennsylvania and that her home state had issued her a permit to carry a concealed handgun, which she had with her in her car that day.

But New Jersey’s strict gun laws require weapons to be stored unloaded and locked in the trunk, and so Allen was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and spent 40 days in jail before making bail.

New Jersey is one of the least free states in the United States due to a strong Democrat voter base which values government handouts and control far more than they do individual liberty.

Allen had faced a mandatory three-year prison sentence for the unspeakable crimes of driving over a bridge from Pennsylvania to New Jersey  and being honest with a law enforcement officer.

Sadly, there was a very good chance that Allen would have gone to jail if public backlash against New Jersey Superior Court Judge Michael Donio and New Jersey District Attorney Jim McClain hadn’t been so strong. Donio and McClain came under intense fire for the way they were treating Allen as a serious criminal, after it was revealed that they put NFL star Ray Rice in a diversion program after he knocked his fiancee out and dragged her unconscious body down a casino hallway.

Sadly, Allen’s pardon is not going to inspire New Jersey Democrats to revisit their anti-gun tendencies, and it is only a matter of time before we will find another good person victimized by New Jersey’s obscene laws.

The Top 10 Best Gun Quotes to Fire at Liberals

Leave a comment

This is from The Right To Bear Arms.

 

Even in light of the facts that prove gun ownership reduces crime, not everybody supports the right to bear arms. So when facts don’t work to persuade somebody of the value of guns, you might try a little social proof by sharing some of the quotes below.

With that in mind, here are the top 10 best gun quotes around that you can fire off at liberals…

1. “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”
~Richard Henry Lee

2. “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
~George Washington

3. “A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders.”
~Larry Elder

4. “One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”
~Thomas Jefferson

5. “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
~Alexander Hamilton

6. “The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.”
~James Earl Jones

7. “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
~Benjamin Franklin

8. “Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”
~Unknown

9. “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
~Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

10. “I have a very strict gun control policy: if there’s a gun around, I want to be in control of it.”
~Clint Eastwood

[Video] BREAKING: Piers Morgan Officially Off the Air, Uses Last Show to Preach Gun Control

4 Comments

This is from Guns Save Lives.

 

Piers I saw a movie about a world like you want where only the police and the military had guns it was called “Schindler’s List.”

 

 

 

As you probably know, Piers Morgan’s CNN show has been canceled. He used his final sign off to attack the NRA, gun owners and preach for more gun control in America. Transcript below.

I’d also like to thank you all for watching. Even those who implacably disagreed with me, or just found my funny accent annoying. Regular viewers will know that the issue of gun control has been a consistent and often very controversial part of this show.

And I want to say something more about that before I bow out.

I have lived and worked in America for much of the past decade, and it is a magnificent country. A land of true opportunity that affords anyone, even British chancers like me, the opportunity to live the American dream. The vast majority of Americans I have met are decent, hard-working, thoroughly dependable people. As my brother, a British Army colonel, says, “You’d always want an American next to you in a trench when the going gets tough.”

But that’s where guns belong — on a military battlefield, in the hands of highly trained men and women fighting for democracy and freedom. Not in the hands of civilians. The scourge of gun violence is a disease that now infects every aspect of American life.
Each day, on average, 35 people in this country are murdered with guns, another 50 kill themselves with guns, and 200 more are shot but survive. That’s 100,000 people a year hit by gunfire in America.

 

Now, I assumed that after 70 people were shot in a movie theater, and then, just a few months later, 20 first-graders were murdered with an assault rifle in an elementary school, the absurd gun laws in this country would change. But nothing has happened. The gun lobby in America, led by the NRA, has bullied this nation’s politicians into cowardly, supine silence. Even when 20 young children are blown away in their classrooms.

This is a shameful situation that has made me very angry. So angry, in fact, that some people have criticized me for being too loud, opinionated, even rude when I have debated the issue of guns. But I make no apologies for that.

As Sir Winston Churchill said: “If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time — a tremendous whack.”

My point is simple: more guns doesn’t mean less crime as the NRA repeatedly says. It means more gun violence, death and profits for the gun manufacturers. And to those who claim my gun control campaigning has been “anti-American”, the reverse is true. I am so pro-American that I want more of you to stay alive.

But I’ve made my point. I’ve given it a tremendous whack. Now it’s down to you. It’s your country; these are your gun laws. And the senseless slaughter will only end when enough Americans stand together and cry: Enough!

I look forward to that day. And I look forward to seeing you all again soon. Goodnight, thank you, and God bless America. Oh, and while I’m at it, God bless Great Britain too.’

California Forcing Guns Off the Market

1 Comment

This is from The Buckeye Firearms Association.

I have asked this question before here it is again “Will the last sane person leaving Kalifornia turn out the lights and bring the flag!”

So the people left in Kalifornia will be unarmed liberals and the gang bangers.

 

California has long been on a sickening, spiral path toward flushing all individual rights down the toilet. Few states have such a powerful and overreaching state government and nowhere is that overreach more apparent than in the state’s gun laws.

Back in 2000, California legislators instituted a system supposedly intended to protect the state’s citizens from cheap, poorly made, unreliable handguns – you know, the kind poor people can afford and that you would prefer criminals to have as opposed to accurate and reliable ones.

They called them “junk guns” and said they should be banned because they were disproportionately being used in crime. Instead of trying to make a list of “evil features” like they’ve done with “assault weapons,” the legislature went the opposite route, creating a roster of approved, “safe” handguns, and banning as “unsafe” any handgun that is not listed on the roster.

In order for a gun to be included on the roster, it must be submitted to a panel of “experts” who test and evaluate it in accordance with a long, convoluted list of criteria. Gun companies are charged for this “service,” and must pay thousands of dollars for evaluation of each model and variation they wish to sell in the state.

Even cosmetic features such as a gun’s color and finish are included in this requirement, resulting in idiotic situations where one gun is declared “safe” while an identical gun of the same make and model is listed as unsafe simply because it has a nitride, rather than a blued finish and the manufacturer didn’t pay to have the nitride version evaluated.

In the real world this would be called extortion. In 2003, legislators passed a law adding requirements for a loaded chamber indicator and a magazine disconnect. They followed those requirements with a new edict in 2008 mandating that semi-auto handguns include Microstamping technology to transfer identification marks to shell casing when fired.

This provision was only supposed to go into effect after at least 2 companies were offering the technology without patent or licensing issues, but California Attorney General Kamala Harris activated the provision last year.

No major handgun manufacturers currently use Microstamping in their handguns – none. Furthermore, Ruger, Glock, and Smith & Wesson have all declared that they have no intention of adding the expensive technology. Handgun models currently on the roster can continue to be sold in the state as long as the company makes no changes to the design or features, and continues to pay the annual recertification fees.

But any gun that is changed in any way, and any new models that come out, will be illegal for commercial sale in California. Gun companies have already incurred significant expense developing and producing “California compliant” versions of their guns, and they say Microstamping could cost an additional $100 to $200 per gun.

On top of that, no one knows what would be required to get Microstamping functional in a full-production factory setting; it has only ever been applied in a laboratory environment. Last year, there were almost 820 different models and variations of semi-auto handguns on the California Roster of Safe Handguns.

The Calguns Foundation estimates that number will go down by approximately 125 guns per year as manufacturers make routine changes to their existing models, and it becomes impractical to continue manufacture of older, obsolete versions. At that rate, it is expected that virtually all semi-auto handguns could be illegal for commercial sale in the state within the next ten years.

And that decline rate could be accelerated precipitously if the California legislature decides to require some change to existing models – forcing them to be reevaluated for the roster. Currently no mainstream gun manufacturer could comply, nor is any likely to be able to within the next decade.

The Calguns Foundation, along with the Second Amendment Foundation, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging California’s Safe Gun Roster. That case is pending a ruling on summary judgment in Federal District Court and, regardless of the outcome, is expected to continue through the 9thCourt of Appeals and possibly the Supreme Court.

The legal team includes Donald Kilmer, Jason Davis, and Alan Gura, who was the lead attorney in both of the landmark Heller and McDonald cases before the Supreme Court. A separate suit has been filed on behalf of manufacturers by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute.

As always with gun control laws, the laws in California are having no effect on their disproportionately high crime rates – representing 68% of all “gun murders” in the nation – but are seriously impacting the ability of honest citizens to acquire the firearms of their choice.

California’s insane laws have already driven up handgun prices in addition to limiting consumers’ options and availability. Now they are resulting in more and more guns being completely removed from the marketplace – but not from criminals.

©2014 The Firearms Coalition, all rights reserved. Reprinting, posting, and distributing permitted with inclusion of this copyright statement.

www.FirearmsCoalition.org. –

See more at: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/california-forcing-guns-market#sthash.88hjT0EW.dpuf

Blacks “Knock Out” Jews & Whites, No Hate Crime? 5 Jewish Women “Knocked Out” In Brooklyn

Leave a comment

Hat Tip to David Ben Moshe @Mad Jewess.

Blacks “Knock Out” Jews & Whites, No Hate Crime? 5 Jewish Women “Knocked Out” In Brooklyn

Fellow Jews still walking around with no guns in Brooklyn?  Why??

Every Jew, a 22.  Rabbi Meir Kahane

Click- Knockout’ thug assaults 5 Jewish women, but no ‘hate crime’ charge

It's NOT Racist When We Do It

The Seven Deadly Sins of Handgun Shooting: Doin’ the Bernie

Leave a comment

This is from The OutDoorHub.

I have never of Doing The Bernie.

With all of the metal I have in my body it would be

impossible for me to stand that way.

I have heard of limp wristing.

7 Deadly Sins of Handgun Shooting - Doin The Bernie

Here’s our model shooter doin’ the Bernie. Or facing a hurricane–we’re not sure which.

The ’80s movie Weekend at Bernie’s was a pop icon film that exemplified heart-wrenching and soulful acting, panoramic cinematography, and helpful tips on how to party with a dead guy. Why it was shunned from Academy Award consideration remains a mystery, although industry insiders have long suspected a voter fraud scheme by Morgan Freeman and the producers of Driving Miss Daisy.

Weekend at Bernie’s is not only a golden example of the silver screen art form, it demonstrates dozens of important practical life tips. For example, if you ever find yourself dead as a result of forced heroin overdose by Mafia hit men, you can still party for days on end simply by wearing sunglasses.

You can also inspire short-lived fads like popular YouTube dances. In this case, it’s called the “Bernie,” or in some circles, “moving like Bernie.” If you watch someone doin’ the Bernie, you’ll notice the essence of the dance is a severe and painful backwards lean.

Which brings us to this weeks installment of the Seven Deadly Sins of Handgun Shooting: doin’ the Bernie.

We’ve all seen it, and most of us have done it. Men, women, kids, competitive Steel Challenge Llamas. It doesn’t matter. Doin’ the Bernie is a universal new shooter offense.

What exactly is doin’ the Bernie?

It simply refers to leaning backwards from the waist, so your shoulders are behind your belt line. Your head also leans back, like you’re trying to stop a nose bleed. It looks like you’re trying to shoot into a Category 5 Hurricane headwind.

Why do perfectly respectable people do the Bernie?

Perhaps they’re afraid that the gun will turn around and start chasing them. Or maybe it’s a subconscious move to show other nearby shooters just how relaxed they are shooting this huge, powerful pistol. Sort of gansta in a way.

More likely it’s an instinctive protective reaction to get as far away as possible from the big explosion about to happen in front of their face.

Whatever the reason, doin’ the Bernie really hurts your ability to shoot well.

First of all, you’ve given the gun a huge head start in the battle against recoil. If you’re already about to fall over backwards, it doesn’t take much more of a push to send you off balance. That gun is going to shove you around and make you its bit…never mind that, let’s move on.

Second, the general weakness of this stance increases the odds that your gun will malfunction. If you’re shooting a semiautomatic handgun, that gun requires forward force in order to cycle correctly. If you’re not pushing forward against the gun with enough force, it won’t cycle correctly and is likely to jam. If this happens at the range, you’re only embarrassed. If it happens in a real-life self-defense situation, the consequences are far worse.

Third, it just looks kind of ridiculous. And isn’t that the most important thing?

If you don’t know if you do the Bernie, just munch on some brown sugar and cinnamon Pop Tarts while you shoot. If the crumbs fall on your belly, then you might be doin’ the Bernie.

So how do you shoot without doin’ the Bernie?

7 Deadly Sins of Handgun Shooting - Proper Stance

Now here’s a handgun stance. Shoulders are just in front of the belt. Knees flexed. She’s controlling that gun, not the other way around.

Well, that where things get confusing. You see, there are a few commonly taught handgun shooting stances.

The Weaver Stance: Place your support side foot forward of your shooting side foot. Put your shooting side arm straight out. Use your support hand to pull back on the gun, keeping your elbow bent, to create some isometric tension.

The Isosceles Stance: As the Sword of Damocles was made obsolete by guns, the Handgun Stance of Isosceles became cool. Keep both feet parallel to the target, shoulder width apart. Now shove both arms forward to form a triangle. That’s where the “isosceles” part of Isosceles Stance comes from. Clever huh?

So which of these is right for you if you’re going to ban the Bernie from your shooting? It doesn’t make a darn bit of difference, because you can obtain a proper shooting stance with either of those methods–or some other.

You see, when it comes to killing Bernie (yet again) most of the battle is getting your body weight forward. The nuances of arms and feet positions are secondary to that.

Getting proper weight balance is pretty simple.

  1. Place your feet about shoulder width apart.
  2. If you like to put your weak side foot a little forward, great, do that.
  3. If you prefer to keep your feet side by side, great, do that.
  4. Flex your knees a bit. That makes the next step easier and gives you a better shock-absorbing platform. It also facilitates movement. Crazy things those knees!
  5. Here’s the important part. Bend a little forward at the waist. Your collarbone should be in front of your belt buckle. If you’re not wearing a belt, pretend you are.
  6. Roll your shoulders inward and down just a touch. That’ll help control recoil even more.
  7. Assume your Weaver, Isosceles, or Iron Lotus position. It doesn’t matter.
  8. Make sure those shoulders stay in front of your waist.

That’s it!

You’ll be amazed at how little your handgun recoils when you get your weight forward of your belt. You’ll make that gun your bit…never mind. Let’s just say you will be controlling your handgun–not the other way around.

This article is the second part in a series on the Seven Deadly Sins of Handgun Shooting. To learn more about how not to shoot, check out last week’s article on the cup and saucer grip here.

The Seven Deadly Sins of Handgun Shooting: The Cup and Saucer Grip

Leave a comment

This is from The OutDoorHub.

I am guilty of using this method when I first shot a semiautomatic.

I was also limp wristing and got a jam and a lecture.

I was shooting with a former Navy man.

While the lecture was not harsh it stuck with me through the years.

 

Cup and saucer handgun grip

Using a cup and saucer handgun grip is just about this effective.

We’re starting a new weekly column here at OutdoorHub.com and we’ll be covering a variety of shooting-related topics including how-tos, industry observations, and some occasional commentary about shooting and Second Amendment issues. I thought it might be fun to start with a how-to series on what I consider the Seven Deadly Sins of Handgun Shooting.

One of my very favorite things is to take new shooters to the range. My second favorite thing is simply seeing new shooters at the range. My least favorite thing is to see folks launch into their shooting career without any instruction, thereby developing a bunch of bad, and sometimes unsafe, habits. To help them along, I’ve put together some tips that will help improve anyone’s handgun shooting skills. After all, it’s much cooler to look like a pro on the range, even when you’re brand new to the sport.

I have scientific proof that the “cup and saucer” handgun grip is bad and bordering on evil. Check this out. If you rearrange the letters in “cup and saucer” you get the following secret phrases:

Arcane Cud Pus

Uncaused Crap

Rude Caca Puns

Freaky isn’t it? Who knew that “cup and saucer” was some type of satanic code?

Now that we can agree that a cup and saucer grip is bad form and just plain spooky, what exactly is it? More importantly, how does one go about exorcising that demon?

Cup and saucer golf club grip

Here’s a cup and saucer grip being used for golf. Don’t see this much on the PGA tour do you?

The cup and saucer grip

The cup and saucer grip simply refers to a handgun grip style where your support hand acts more like a tea set saucer than a support. The butt of your handgun simply rests on top of your open support hand palm.

Let’s face it, if you’re having tea with Prince Harry, you’ve got a tea cup on one hand and a saucer in the other. The cup holds the tea, so what purpose does the saucer underneath serve? Obviously it drives up the stock price for Royal Doulton China and adds complexity to the job description of footmen. Other than that, the saucer only serves to catch things that spill. It’s a waste of a perfectly good hand that could be used to eat scones.

It’s exactly the same with shooting. While your dominant shooting hand will be a little stronger, why waste all those nearly-as-strong muscles in the non-dominant hand? If you’re simply resting your dominant hand and gun on top of a wimpy-looking hand-saucer, you’re not getting any benefit from the support hand, are you?

Other sports figured this out a long time ago. Ever see a golfer use a cup and saucer grip? Or a designated hitter in Major League Baseball? Even fishermen figured out the value of using two hands. Apparently we shooters can be a little slow on the uptake.

Performing the exorcism

Well, for starters, we can blame the guy who invented the term “handgun.” After all, if the best way to shoot them is with two hands, so shouldn’t they be called “hands-guns?” If the name were more intuitive, that would certainly help people think about using both hands effectively. Just saying.

Since that’s not likely to happen, let’s focus on some things we can do. Here’s how to achieve a solid and proper handgun grip.

Proper handgun grip

With your primary shooting hand, open your thumb and index finger. Push the web of your hand as high as it will comfortably go on the handgun grip, making sure that the barrel of the gun lines up with the bones in your forearm. Wrap your fingers around the front of the grip, making sure to keep your index finger out of the trigger.

 

 

 

 

Proper handgun grip (1)

 

Do you see some free space on the inside grip panel of your handgun? Good, that’s where the bottom part of your support hand palm is going to go. Smack it on there and don’t worry if there’s not enough room to get your whole palm on the inside grip panel. There won’t be and that’s OK.

 

 

 

 

Proper handgun grip (3)

 

Now wrap your support hand fingers around the front of your dominant hand fingers. Your support hand fingers should be high–to the point of pressing against the bottom of the trigger guard.

You’ll know you’ve got it right if both of your thumbs are somewhere near parallel to each other and touching.

Next time you shoot, notice how much less your muzzle jumps. Your support hand can do wonders to help control recoil when you actually put it to work! Plus, a proper handgun grip looks really cool–you’ll be a hit at the range. And those forward-facing thumbs? They naturally help you aim. Things tend to go where you point.

If you have trouble shaking the cup and saucer grip habit, try these emergency counter measures:

  • Bag the tea and drink coffee.
  • Next time you go fishing with a buddy, use a cup and saucer grip with your fishing rod. The tsunami of taunting and hazing will break your cup and saucer habit almost instantly.
  • Smear a dab of crazy glue on the bottom of your handgun butt. You’ll only make the cup and saucer mistake once! On second thought, using Crazy Glue may not be the wisest idea. Perhaps some lard?

Happy (and safe) shooting folks! See you next week!

Images by Tom McHale

 

Six Common Reloading Myths

Leave a comment

This is from Guns.com.

I have heard several of these myths.

I had some doubts about some of these myths.

Yet being a novice reloader I was not sure if I was correct.

One thing is certain — reloaders are a particular sort, with benches chock full of the tools of the trade.  The art of reloading is one that must be treated with discretion and a mind to safety.  However, do we reloaders hold true some incorrect ideas of our craft, or have we been right-on all along?  Lets take a look at some of the topic handloaders like to debate.

reloading-myths-2

1. Smokeless powder does not perform as well in the cold: At least, partly true

We can qualify this statement to say with certainty that “certain” powders do not handle frigid conditions as well as others.  While I can’t make the argument for metallic cartridges, I can say that my trap loads do not shoot as well when forgotten in a freezing vehicle. My winter trap team went so far as to leave a box of Green Dot loads in the truck for several sub-zero days before running them through the chrono and on the patterning board.  While the results were neither startlingly low nor blown, they were nonetheless negatively skewed from the baseline tests taken with the same recipe in summer.  The decrease in performance should not be enough to cause a loss of birds, though it sounds like a viable excuse (I admit to enjoying good excuses for lost birds).  It would stand to rise, nonetheless, that velocities achieved with most powders would be at least somewhat lower in the naturally more dense winter air.  If a powder creates less pressure in the cold, lower velocity is the general result.  Whether the decrease in velocity is due to the bullet or shot’s physical reaction to dense air remains for debate.

It’s also important to note that modern powders, as opposed to old timers like cordite, are much more stable at a range of temperatures, both significantly high and low. The fact remains that all loads will react differently under different circumstances, not to mention the myriad of other factors to consider involving the firearm itself.  If concerns remain about a certain powder’s capabilities in extreme conditions, do what meticulous reloaders do best — brave the weather with some fresh loads and head out to the range with a chrono.

2. Factory ammo is more reliable and more accurate than reloads:False, with exceptions

“Factory will outshoot reloads every time. Handloads are not reliable.”  I’ve heard statements like this from many folks over the years, usually defensively and always from non-reloaders.  It is very true that factory ammo has improved drastically over the years, and today’s factory ammo is far superior in both accuracy and reliability to that available 40+ years ago, especially the match grade varieties.  Still, in my reloader’s brain, the majority of factory ammo is no match for meticulous handloads — especially when custom tailored.  Factory tolerances are naturally greater than those of a meticulous handloader, not to mention that handloaders have the unmatchable benefit of being able to tune loads to specific guns with a mind to headspace, rifling and all things affecting accuracy.

reloading-myths-3While the bottom line remains that reloaded ammo is only as reliable and accurate as the individual reloader, it’s safe to say that all good reloaders are meticulous about their business.  See how many (read, few) factory ammo brands are on the benches of non-sponsored competitive and long-range shooters.  At the Grand American trap shoot, competitors must use new factory ammo for all handicap shooting to negate any (dis)advantages.

Don’t get me wrong.  Factory ammo has its place, and I have plenty of my favorite brands on hand.  However, the same make and model of gun will oftentimes favor different flavors of ammo, and this simply cannot be afforded for by the ammunition companies.

3. Reloaders storing powder are creating a fire and explosive hazard in their homes: False

The key here is drawing the line between smokeless and black powders.  Because of its more volatile and explosive tendencies, many cities limit the storage of black powder to certain light poundages.  The majority of reloaders, however, are much more apt to stockpile smokeless powder.  When kept in its approved containers, smokeless powder is surprisingly stable.  No matter what nonbelievers argue, smokeless powder does not explode.  However, it does burn very rapidly, producing gasses and pressures in tightly confined spaces, ala a rifle cartridge inside a barrel.  While smokeless powder is not some villain that will jump up and independently ignite a house blaze, it can noticeably accelerate a fire if too much powder is stockpiled in one location.  Hoarders beware.  Average reloaders with a little common sense will be fine.  If nothing else, this myth is a reminder that all prudent reloaders keep a fire extinguisher near the loading bench for any emergencies that hopefully never arise.

4. The higher the shotshell load velocity, the better the load: False

First, we should qualify that “the better load” means faster loads hitting with more velocity and thus theoretically smash targets with more authority.  While this myth is true to a point, it becomes incorrect quickly as overloaded rounds can very noticeably distort shot patterns.  If you don’t believe me, pump up your favorite load — within safe parameters of course — and head out to the patterning board.  Just as metallic cartridge loaders may tinker with rounds for a particular gun, I have a sweet load that my trap gun loves and patterns best with the chokes I prefer.  While that load only clocks around 1,275 fps, it is plenty fast to bust birds.  The ones I miss have nothing to do with the load, and everything to do with operator error.  Yet, I shoot with plenty of fellows who believe that by juicing up their loads to say 1,450-1,500 fps, they’ll get on the target faster, with more power, and won’t have to account for lead.  While that is true to a point, for the most part the shooter must deal with increased pressure and recoil as a substitute to utilizing proper shooting mechanics on moving targets.  If you feel the need for speed, realize that just because it’s a safe load does not mean it will be a productive load.  Sure, you want your hunting charges to be as deadly — and fast — as possible, but make sure the pattern is not skewed by performance.

Round pellets by nature are just not that aerodynamic, though sometimes an overly fast load will hold together better at closer range — say skeet distances — while it will scatter at longer.  True to the reloader’s creed of testing and re-testing on the range, this one dictates the same.  Jack up your load, but be sure to test it at the board with the choke you will use and at the distance you will shoot.  And realize that every gain comes with a trade-off.  Is the increase in recoil worth the speed?  Once the pattern blows, the point is moot.

5. Vaccuum cleaners don’t belong in reloading rooms: Mostly true

Sometimes myths are true, and for the cautious among us, this is no exception.  Many tales circulate the reloading community involving vacuum cleaners exploding while sucking up spilled powder or wayward primers.  Can this really cause damage, or worse, personal injury?  The answer is usually no, but there’s enough truth to this myth that I prefer not to vacuum around my loading bench.  While primers and powder react differently to mistreatment, it’s better to err on the side of gentle caution.

Though I did not witness these events first hand, one friend blew the bag off his old-fashioned cleaner and another gun-shop owner had a similar event with a few unknowingly spilled primers from the shelf.  Granted, no serious damage was done other than a sudden dust storm and pale-faced men.  I’ve never encountered a primer detonating during the reloading process, and I would rather not have one go off during cleanup.

reloading-myths-1

As for loose powder, I’ve neither tried — nor heard of — any accidents with the vacuum.  One group did a test to see if a static spark would ignite a very small amount black powder with surprisingly unremarkable results.  That aside, I’d rather not gamble whether a spark from the Hoover would cause a smokeless powder reaction.

The simplest solution is avoiding shaggy carpet around a loading bench because things get lost in the knap — including small pistol primers.  On a side note, vacuums make quite a racket and do not enjoy digesting shot pellets. There are enough things to treat with caution in the loading process that I just don’t want to add “cleanup” to the list of potential hazards.

6. Reloading saves money: The debate continues

This is a double-edged sword.  Like many, I got into reloading because I convinced myself it would save money in the long run.  That may still be true, but the “run” is getting longer, not because reloading isn’t cost-efficient, but because I keep buying new components and toys for the loading bench.  Once the initial investment of accumulation is over, a high-volume shooter will certainly come out ahead in the numbers game, especially those who stashed metal casings and the like before they became more valuable than gold bouillon.  When pricing actual components per box of ammo loaded (especially for spent-brass/hull scroungers like myself) it is very possible to load for half, or sometime less than half, the cost of factory ammo.

Some reload because they like to shoot a lot, whereas others shoot a lot because they reload.  The funniest part of this myth is that the most avid reloaders — myself included — shoot more with all the load testing because they do reload.  It’s a vicious hamster-in-the-wheel trick, but we reloaders are passionate about it and become better shooters in the process.

Separating old wives tales from explosive truth

Sometimes the amount of B.S. floating around reloading circles is astonishing.  For instance, I’ve come to realize that I will most likely not die a sudden death of lead poisoning from handling cast bullets.  Just as shooters reload for as many reasons as there are types of reloading devices, some myths are true and others are old wives (or old reloaders) tales. No matter.  Just ensure that safety always takes priority at the loading bench.  Load often, use common sense, and enjoy a great hobby that makes better, more attentive shooters of us all.

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: