Posse Incitatus

Flip-Phone Fandango

Anyone who knows me will attest that I can be a tightwad and set in my ways, and am not afraid to go totally against the grain. For example, I have never purchased a new car, and never will. The 25 percent depreciation in the first year of ownership appalls me. Let someone else take the hit, and I'll buy used, giving up 20-25K on the odometer to save $6-8K.

When I was a student at Michigan State, I used to check class textbooks out of the library and keep renewing them every 2 or 3 weeks, rather than pay the outrageous price the bookstore charged for even used books. Back in those days, MSU was on a quarterly system of 10-week sessions, rather than today's 15-week semesters. So it wasn't hard to milk the library resources.

In more recent years, I have resisted the temptation to purchase the latest and greatest laptop, tablet or smart phone. My current MacBook Pro is a 2010 model. And until just the past week or so, I have been one of the few "flip-phone" holdouts. Since I obtained my Motorola cellphone in 2008 and my family cut off our landline forever, I have been content with a phone that can send/receive text messages, take pictures, and that's about it.  

In recent months I started a job that requires me to be out on the road a lot. Google maps, GPS and a compass are vital tools. It's also great to be able to check email, phone numbers and addresses whenever I want, rather than have to find a business with wireless Internet and lug my laptop inside to log on.

The iPhone is every bit as versatile and powerful as I imagined, and then some. As a lover of music and talk radio, I can listen to great tunes via the miracle of mp3, and enjoy talk shows sans commercials by downloading podcasts.

But there is quite a learning curve, and my 22-year-old son, a veteran of all things Apple & Mac, quickly loses patience with showing me how to do things. He loves to make disparaging remarks about Baby Boomers too often being technologically challenged and slow learners. I pointed out to him that his generation has a huge advantage, having grown up with computers, the Internet, cellphones, and eventually smart phones. He seemed not too impressed with that argument.

But I recall an incisive quote by Alvin Toffler, author of the 1970 book "Future Shock." Perhaps in a prescient warning about one of the many pitfalls of apathy and laziness, Toffler stated, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. ” 

Fortunately for those of us who grew up using typewriters and suffered through the dark days of WordStar/Wordperfect/MS DOS, 80MB hard drives, floppy discs and 14.4-baud dial-up modems, Apple makes user-friendly, intuitive products. Play around with it a bit, and you'll usually catch on in a hurry. That's what I intend to do. But NEVER while driving, of course!

All About Guns: Sex and Firearms

How's that for a provocative title?

No, this post isn't about gaming search engines for traffic (not that I'm averse to such a thing...).

The purpose of this post is to address some of the psycho-sexual ideas that seem to have attached themselves to firearms.

We must begin our discussion by noting that firearms are nothing more than tools.  The choice of which firearm to use for a given task is no more fraught with erotic tension than selecting the appropriate socket for your wrench or the correct type of screwdriver for the job at hand.

People who use firearms understand this.  They know that someone who owns a long-barreled handgun isn't trying to "compensate" for anything other than the longer range at which they expect to engage their target.

All weapons carry about them a mystique.  Swords in particular have a lengthy catalog of stories about them, whether one is speaking of Excalibur, Anduril, or the real-life Sword of Stalingrad.

The reason for this is quite easy to understand:  Weapons are powerful instruments that carry with them the ability to take away life.  A warrior is only as good as his weapon.  Should his weapon break during the heat of battle, his death would surely follow.

Still, we live in a secular age, and gun control supporters (being overwhelmingly leftists) are also overwhelmingly secular.  They can't really wrap their heads around firearms as sacred objects of defense, so they turn them into pseudo-Freudian sex objects.

If there is a sexual side to firearms, it is in the sense of power they provide to physically weak or small-framed shooters.  Before any lurking gun-control partisans raise their voices in triumph I will spell this out for them:  I am talking about women.

Anyone who has ever introduced a woman to the shooting sports will confirm what I am writing.  Once a woman has received the proper training (so that she feels comfortable) and is using a weapon appropriate for her experience and stature (a .22 is perfect for this) she will in every case express exhilaration and profound satisfaction at the power now under her control.

I wish to be clear:  This phenomenon does generally not attach to girls from rural areas where shooting is a way of life and something that the whole family does.  No, I am speaking of women (that is, adults) who have been sheltered or perhaps fearful of firearms.  They may even support gun control in their ignorance.

And then they feel the power.

People who have been following polls on support for gun control know that this is not mere anecdotal data.  Women are buying firearms and learning to use them like never before.  There are women-only shooting associations and "girls nights" at firearms ranges.  The firearms industry has responded with an array of products to appeal to this growing market - weapons designed to be more ergonomically comfortable as well as aesthetically pleasing. 

For the longest time firearms were limited to blued/black and stainless/nickel finishes.  Stocks and grips were black or natural wood.

Now there is a dizzying array of options - not just pink but also purple, blue, yellow and so on.

Another segment of the shooting population are urban young men - hipster types who are finally coming to understand that the police will not always be there to protect them (particularly since the federal government seems to want to demagogue every police shooting).

With all of these facts, the whole "guns are men trying to compensate for sexual inadequacy" argument falls apart.

Of course it never really worked in the first place.  If a man with a 7.5-inch .44 magnum was compensating for his small penis, what did it say about the other men who were afraid of his gun and wanted it outlawed?  I have several times heard people arguing in support of gun control because they personally weren't sure they could control themselves with that kind of power.

Thus if one wants to get psycho-sexual about firearms, gun control supporters were projecting their own sense of inadequacy on others.

The irony is also rich when one considers that the Dirty Harry image was the creation of Hollywood, one of the most sexually twisted places on earth where perversion and pederasty is rampant.  The People's Republic of California may be one of the most regulated states in the country, but only recently got around to preventing sex offenders from working with child actors. 

No normal person uses a long-barreled .44 as a carry gun.  The thing is awkward to draw and heavy to lug around.  The biggest firearm I've seen someone carry is a Colt 1911 - venerable weapon and the standard sidearm for the US armed forces for 70 years.  In other words hardly something extraordinary in terms of power.  I've also met more than a few shooters who started out carrying a full-sized pistol and downsized to something lighter.

At this point, the gun control psychologists may ask:  So given the issues with having a hand cannon (like the mighty .500 magnum) why would anyone purchase one?

The answer is that they are tools optimized for a specific kind of shooting.  Long-barreled, high-caliber handguns are primarily used to hunt medium to large game - deer, bears and similar sized animals - in an environment where sight distances are small.  These guns are also good at stopping large predators - such as bears - when one is out in the wilderness.

This is particularly the case in Alaska, where bears can wander into town.  Alaska has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country and I am told that large-caliber pistols are often worn openly because of the bear population.

In states like Michigan, there are certain areas where hunting with rifles is prohibited due to the population density.  This means hunters have two options:  Shotguns firing slugs or handguns.

Handguns are a popular option because they are lighter to carry and one can practice at an indoor range where long weapons are often prohibited. 

Just to be sure I've made the point, those long barrels aren't phallic symbols, they add extra velocity and range to the bullet that comes out of them.  They also add weight, which helps absorb recoil. 

In yet another case of irony, gun control supporters have the idea exactly wrong:  Shooters would love to have a pocket-sized firearm that has the power and range of a .500 magnum with an 8-inch barrel.  Physics, not some psycho-sexual need to compensate, is the reason these weapons have their considerable size and weight.

I will conclude by noting that a great many men are attracted to women who are comfortable around firearms.  The reason for this is painfully simple:  They want to associate with someone who shares their interest and won't be pressing them to give up their hobby.

Shooting is a fun and very social activity.  In my opinion, going to the range and then having dinner afterwards is a much better date night than watching some crappy movie in a theater.  Certainly the post-date activities were better.

It also promotes domestic tranquility.  The stereotype of a anti-gun wife who constantly complains about having guns in the house and who uses the gun collection as leverage in a divorce has, alas, a strong basis in reality.  I've known too many men who have been compelled to give up an enjoyable hobby by firearm-phobic harpies who ended up leaving them anyway.

Those that didn't ditch the collection during the marriage often find it split up as a marital asset, with the wife selling it off at rock-bottom prices - not for the money, just out of spite. 

At a local gun store some time ago I found a Smith and Wesson 629 in excellent shape being sold for an absurdly low price on consignment.  I asked the saleswoman behind the counter about it and she sighed:   "A woman brought it in here.   She got it in the divorce settlement.  She didn't know what is, didn't care and wanted it priced to sell immediately." 

Having shooting in common may not guarantee marital bliss, but it does at least remove and often problematic point of friction. 

Since we are focusing on the psycho-sexual aspects of gun ownership, these anti-gun harridans are, from the pseudo-Freudian perspective, castrating their husbands. 

Because humans are still animals, we can sexualize just about anything.  Because of the power they possess, firearms can also carry some of the same mystique that has attached to other weapons.

The fact remains, however, that guns are just tools.  People can purchase things for many reasons, but experienced shooters look at what the tool is designed to do when making their decision. 

Yes, sometimes shooters will purchase collector's pieces of historical and cultural interest.  Han Solo's blaster in Star Wars is a modified Mauser C/96 "Broomhandle" and many people want a Walther PPK because it is the gun used by James Bond.

These purchases do not make up the bulk of the market.  The Walther PPK is an outstanding weapon in its own right (which is why real-life covert agents use them) and the Mauser Broomhandle is an excellent weapon that counted Winston Churchill among its users.

People who want to find sexual messages in everyday life will never be disappointed because they are projecting their own obsessions.  Freud may never have said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," but the statement remains true.

All About Guns: Kinetic Energy Poisoning

One of the most misunderstood things about firearms is how they actually inflict harm.  There is a lot of gun enthusiast jargon that purports to describe what bullets do when they hit something, but most are in fact just so much blather.

Sad to say, I personally used many of these pseudo-scientific terms, some on this site.

The fact of the matter is, no one is 100 percent sure exactly how ballistics work.  There have been many, many studies on trauma and the findings are still in dispute.  The big reason is that there are simply so many variables, particularly in combat situations.  Some academics try to mimic this by firing shots into gelatin blocks or even using life (soon to be eaten) animals, but the problem here is that none of this tells you how a person will react, particularly if there is a surge of adrenaline (as would happen in combat).

This article therefore focuses on stuff we know, the absolute no-kidding basics about what bullets do.  There are theories (usually pushed by ammunition manufacturers trying to sell their wares) but that is open to dispute.

As anyone who has ever seen a bullet strike a tin can or bottle of water knows, bullets strike with considerable force and this often inflicts severe damage on the target.

In terms of doing harm to animal life, this damage does two things:

1.  It destroys the immediate impact area, which can lead to near-instant death if it is a critical area like the brain.

2.  It causes blood loss, which also can lead to death.

That's really all guns can do.  They don't fling people backwards, propel people into the air, you can't snap your wrist and make the bullet curve around a wall and generally you're not going to cause a car to explode by firing a handgun at it.

In fact, we can get even more simple:  Bullets make holes in things they can penetrate and bounce off of thing they can't (though sometimes they will just lodge in it).

Now if you go and read up on guns (particularly for combat or self-defense use) you will get all kinds of nonsense about "knock-down" or "stopping power" or "over-penetration."

Only the latter phrase even has any actual meaning.  The other two are just cool-sounding nonsense.

Let's deal with knock-down first.

The idea behind this phrase is that a bullet will hit so hard it will actually knock someone down.  I believe the concept is that in combat, sometimes people who are hit by bullets fall down right away.  (Sometimes they don't.  Read some Medal of Honor citations for a number of amazing exceptions to this belief.)

Of course it is perfectly natural for people who are being shot at to duck down to the ground or otherwise take cover.  Some do so while being unaware they were hit.  The notion that someone can take even a large firearm and physically blast someone backwards, knocking them to the ground is pure Hollywood.

The closest thing that could happen is that at extreme close range the muzzle blast (say from a shotgun) might cause someone to flinch backwards and stumble, but there is simply not enough energy in a hand-portable firearm to physically hurl a 200-pound man through the air, much less cause one running at you to be blown backwards by the impact. 

Can a cannon do that?  Absolutely.

A hand gun?  No.

But it does look cool in the movies so we buy into it.

A close cousin of "knock-down" is "stopping power."  It's basically the same concept:  the cartridge in the gun is so powerful it stops an attacker dead in his tracks.   It even has its own wikipedia entry.

Yes, it is true that people may stop abruptly when the see a gun pointed at them and they may stop even more abruptly when it fires (particularly if it close to them), but this has more to do with their reaction to the flash, smoke and noise than the impact of the actual bullet. 

Going back to what I wrote above, remember that bullets can have only a limited effect, even if they are big and coming very fast (say a .44 magnum).

They can injure and even kill because if they hit a vital area, they can destroy that vital area and without it, a person will die (hence the term "vital").  We are talking primarily about the brain and upper spinal column.  If either of these areas are struck, there is an instant usually lethal effect.

The heart and major arteries are also vital, but it may take a few seconds for the effect to be felt.  I witnessed a deer hunter score a direct hit on a buck, effectively obliterating the animal's heart.  The animal was still able to run 20 yards before it expired.

Hits to organs can also be lethal, but they take much longer.  Before the development of modern surgery, hits to the abdomen were feared because they usually caused a slow, painful death.

There are actually lots of places where one can be shot without significant injury (though obviously it still hurts).  This is why the number of wounded almost always outnumber the killed in combat.  People can survive quite nasty gunshot wounds and even fully recover.

If you happen to have clicked that link, you will note that it uses other jargon like "man-stopper" and offers various completely made-up definitions.  That's exactly the kind of thing I am talking about.  It is the worst kind of caliber fetish.

One of the big questions in terms of a wound being lethal is whether it causes a lot of blood loss.  Without blood, animals die.  One way to ensure that the animal loses a lot of blood is to make the largest possible hole.

To do this you need a lot of energy and a large bullet. 

One thing about bullets is that the shape matters.  More than a century ago firearms experts came to realize that a flat or hollow-pointed bullet would make a bigger hole than a pointed one.  Bigger holes of course mean more damage, either further wrecking a vital area or causing blood loss.

This brings us to the third widely-abused term:  Over-penetration.  Any time a shot goes through a target, it has over-penetrated.  This is generally not much of a problem unless there is something behind the target that you didn't want damaged (hence the gun safety rule about knowing what is behind your target).

There is a school of thought that the energy imparted into the target should transfer as completely as possible - any extra energy caused by the bullet passing through is wasted.  Thus, over-penetration is a really bad thing.

In my youth I bought into this until I realized that the bigger the hole, the better.  Period.  A bullet that lodges halfway in an animal by definition isn't doing as much damage as one that cuts completely through.  All other things being equal, you want that bullet to come out the other side as it offers more opportunity for blood to lead out (and can hit more vital organs).

This is not to say that all firearms are equal because they clearly are not.  Nor am I going to argue that a .380 has the same lethality as a .500 magnum, because it doesn't.

What I am saying is that shot placement is more important that what you use.  Missing with a .500 magnum is a lot less effective than hitting the target with a .380.

Closely related to that is the fact that lighter calibers are a lot easier to control, making you more likely to hit what you are aiming at.

I will also anticipate some comments by pointing out that I know a lot of military people and the controversy over whether the army should keep the 9mm pistol or go back to .45 is a valid one.  Particularly in a combat situation with adversaries who might we bearing some sort of armor (or lots of gear that functions like armor) it is entirely reasonable to bring the biggest gun you can carry to the fight.

However, most of our readers are not probably not military procurement officials.  They may own a firearm or want own one and are concerned about making an appropriate purchase.  Or perhaps they are wondering if they should get something else because their current firearm seems a bit much to handle.

Hopefully this article has helped clarify things.  I will close by pointing out that while lighter calibers are often derided, I have seen far too many articles on self-defense news sites where these supposedly inadequate weapons stopped an attack.

All About Guns: Gun Safety vs "Gun Safety"

It is an established truth that guns can't do anything by themselves.  They were mere object and left alone will sit there, passive, inert.

In order for a gun to inflict harm, it must be acted upon.

Because they carry so much danger, guns must be treated with respect.  Happily, years of experience have given us three basic rules for gun safety:

1. Treat all firearms as if they are loaded.

2. Always point them in a safe direction.

3. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.

These are the Big Three.  But there subsets of each of these.

For example, before someone hands you a gun, ask them to show you it is unloaded.  Never trust them on this.  Look with your own eyes and confirm the chamber is empty. 

For experienced, safety-minded shooters this desire becomes something akin to a nervous tic.  You will see them open a firearm, close it, and then open it again each time they reference it.  It is a good habit to have.

Similarly, keeping the firearm pointed in a safe direction can also become an obsession.  Sometimes called "muzzle awareness," it is of paramount importance on the firing range, but is a good habit to develop.  When not at a range, "down" is generally a safer direction than "up."

The ergonomic design of guns can make the last prohibition difficult.  The trigger is placed in a position to be comfortable and natural.  It is entirely reflexive for your finger to rest on the trigger.

That is why training is essential.  The finger should rest elsewhere, usually along the frame above the trigger.  Alternatively, the grip might be altered so that the finger lies below the trigger guard.  In fact, one will often see experience shooters moving firearms holding them by the bottom of the grip or (in the cast of revolvers) with their hand through the open cylinder.

These carries are there to purposefully keep the weapon safe by using an non-intuitive carry.

There are some additional rules of safety that also apply.  Know your target and what is behind and around it.  What happens if you miss?  What happens if the bullet passes through the target and hits something behind it?

When cleaning and maintaining a firearm, unload it and put the ammunition away.  Remember the first rule:  ensure it is unloaded by checking it personally.  Only then can you proceed with your work.

Whenever there is an accidental shooting, it is always a result of unsafe behavior.  These rules are redundant, so one usually has to violate multiple rules to get a disastrous result.

Consider an idiot who has no sense of muzzle awareness.  He casually points a handgun at his friend.  This is stupid behavior and in many social circles he might expect a harsh word or physical pain for his foolishness.

Even so, if the other rules were followed, no harm can come (other than to his reputation and friendship).  If the firearm was loaded, at least he kept his finger off the trigger.

Similarly, a moron who can't keep his finger off the trigger will mitigate his stupidity by at least practicing muzzle awareness.

True gun safety is not difficult and it is why there are so few accidents involving firearms today.

There is of course another kind of "gun safety."  This is the kind preached by people who believe in banning firearms but are too ashamed to admit it.  They know that theirs is a losing cause and that "gun control" is overwhelmingly rejected by the American public.

So they changed the name of their organization and utter platitudes about making guns safe.

What is interesting to me about these people is that they take no practical action to improve safety other than advocating gun prohibition.

I've never yet seen these people hand out flyers on fundamentals of gun safety, nor do they provide instruction to children on what to do if they find an unattended gun. 

By contrast, the gun rights organizations and sporting clubs - supposedly bloody-minded killers - do all of that.

I've blogged about this quite a bit over the years, but it bears repeating:  some of the worst gun safety violations I have ever seen came from gun prohibitionists waving around scary-looking firearms at news conferences.  They have no muzzle awareness, their fingers are wrapped carelessly around the trigger and they are too ignorant to know if they are loaded or not.

Imagine an advocate for automotive safety who has never driven a car, who has no idea how to start the vehicle and can't even tell the difference between the gear selector and the windshield wiper control.

Whenever I encounter one of these fools, I engage them on whether they support gun safety education in the schools.  "Shouldn't children be taught the fundamentals of gun safety?" I ask.

They are horrified and mutter something about teaching them to stay away from guns.  My go-to response:  "Ah, so you think ignorance will protect them.  I assume your organization is opposed to sex education as well?"

(Long-time readers will recall a favorite quip of mine to gun control supporters from years ago:  "If we treated teen pregnancy the same way you treat gun violence, we'd have banned condoms years ago.")

Gun safety is something that all gun rights supporters fervently believe in.  Children need to be educated in the safe care and use of firearms.  At first they need to know that guns are not toys and what to do if they find one:  Stop.  Don't Touch.  Leave the Area.  Tell an Adult.

At the same time we as adults need to demystify firearms.  When the Younger Posse Members are curious about what is in the vault, I show them and demonstrate safety.  When children understand that guns aren't magical and are just tools, the desire for them to have illicit access fades.

 

 

2015 college football predictions

It is now time for my annual college football predictions.  I like doing this nice and early as it allows me to focus not on the specific players but on the overall direction of the programs. 

CAN THE SPARTANS WIN IT ALL?  The Posse was part of the 48,000 that strolled into Spartan Stadium to watch the annual spring practice game.

The low score has been the subject of some amusement by the Skunk Bear faithful, but beyond cheap rhetorical points, there really is no comparison between the two programs.

Michigan State has had a dominant defense and next fall looks like it will in some ways become even better.  The two losses last season came because both Oregon and Ohio State were able to target the Spartan secondary.  Baylor did this as well, but by then, MSU was willing to adjust its defensive scheme and compensate.

A similar dynamic explains the score of the spring game.  The defensive unit has clearly been working at improving penetration of the opposing offensive line.  It is now clear that MSU cannot count on having the best corner backs in the nation and that is unfortunately what former Defensive Coordinator Pat Narduzzi's scheme required to work against top-notch opponents.

Of course spring games are also a time to experiment, testing trick plays and alternate assignments (even letting linemen carry the ball). 

The Spartans have a daunting schedule next year with a crucial road game in Columbus and another at Nebraska.  The game against Oregon on Sept. 12 is perhaps why coach Mark Dantonio is placing such an emphasis on being 'game ready' this spring.

Like last year, the Oregon and Ohio State games will be decisive - victories in both would give MSU a clear shot at playing for the national title. 

I've long stressed the fact that MSU fans should not be greedy.  It was not that long ago that even making a bowl game was a successful season and winning the bowl was a towering achievement for the program.

At the same time, one cannot deny that the Spartans are breathing rarer air than of old.  Not since the era of Duffy Daugherty have we posted back-to-back top five finishes.  This is the new golden age of Spartan football and fans should both accept that fact and understand that it cannot go on forever. 

Given the level of talent, anything less than a conference championship would have to be a profound disappointment.  A 10-2 season would arguably be a serious defeat.  At the very least, the Spartans need to beat Oregon and come into the OSU game ready to play for the division title.

These are lofty goals, but I think that the Spartan players and staff are now becoming used to the pressure and gaining confidence.   Last year they faced the two best teams in the nation and held leads over them.  I think the team is mentally ready to move to the next level.

Prediction:  National champions.

MEANWHILE AT THE SHRINE OF ST. HARBAUGH:  While it is true that Jim Harbaugh has achieved success in the past, his outsized personality and need to shoot his mouth off may play well with the Blue-Ade drinkers but I doubt his bosses are enjoying it.

Here at the Posse, we focus on the 'operational level' of football when making predictions.  Individual players count, but more important is the overall direction of the program, its players and - most importantly - its leadership.

St. Harbaugh is a loose cannon in every sense.  He shoots his mouth off, challenges the decisions of his employer on twitter, and seems to enjoy sticking his fingers in the eyes of everyone involved in the college scene. 

How else can one make sense of his strange embrace of Jameis Winston and Baylor's Bryce Petty?  The official line is that he is advising these future NFL quarterbacks based on his own extensive knowledge, yet U-M's quarterback situation is abysmal. 

Similarly, the Prodigal Michigan Man has announced satellite recruiting camps (dubbed 'mini-combines' by no less than Nick Saban) as well as a coaching camp (!?) yet he also canceled the charity and alumni games in Ann Arbor.

None of this bodes well for a program that has endured seven years of erratic behavior and constant leadership turnover.  I find it telling that fifth-year seniors are choosing to transfer out or leave the game entirely rather than play for this maniac.

All of this goes to say that I don't have a lot of confidence in the Skunk Bears at this point.  The head coach seems more interested in winning the Twitter war than playing the game. 

Looking at the schedule, this is one of the harder ones the Skunk Bears have faced, with a season opener on the road at Utah followed by hosting Oregon State, UNLV and Brigham Young.  Then it is on the road to Maryland before a home stand against Northwestern and my beloved Spartans.

Road games include surging Minnesota as well as rising Penn State before facing the Buckeye beat-down in the Big House.  

At this point, I think the best case for the Skunk Bears is 6-6, but 4-8 or is possible.  The problem is figuring out exactly how St. Harbaugh will coach.  He has a reputation as a turnaround artist, but he is also not the same man and circumstances have changed.  The raging Skunk Bear faithful demand immediate results and it is easy to imagine an ill-considered Tweet or flippant remark that leave the program in chaos.

In addition, there is the off-field drama, which shows no signs of going away.

Prediction:  5-7 and at least one epic post-game rant about obnoxious fans.

Memorial Day 2015

I think it is easier to mourn for the dead when their legacy stands secure.  It is far more difficult to accept the sacrifice of a loved one when it appears to be in vain.

Generally the pain of loss fades with time, but I find that the collapse of our position in Iraq is having the opposite effect.

The Posse has long taken this day to remember our old friend, Capt. Sean Grimes who was killed in Iraq in 2005.

His death was a great loss for he was a good man.  I sometimes find myself wondering what the world would be like with him still alive and helping others.

It was easy back then to look at our might in arms and moral strength contrasted with the depravity and cowardice of our enemies and predict victory. 

But our leaders have no moral strength and their weakness is eroding our military power.  The chattering classes are less concerned with the result of failure than figuring out a way to assign responsibility for it to people they don't like.

Still, it is too early yet to know what will ultimately happen.  What we do know is that a good man gave his life in the service of others and all we can do is honor and respect that.

Remembering the Fallen...EVERY Day

Our nation is a troubled place on Memorial Day 2015, and it seems the entire world is aflame.

But we must not let cynicism, depression, anger or apathy impede our gratitude for the suffering and sacrifices of those in our armed forces who have fought for our freedom and protected our way of life for centuries. We rightfully remember the fallen who made the ultimate sacrifice, and the grieving loved ones they left behind.

Paradoxically, it is the very freedom these men and women died for that enables us to screw up our society, our economy and our lives with poor choices and a tendency to indulge in crass materialism and narcissistic self-gratification. What's the adage, with freedom comes responsibility?

Parades, flag displays, church services and cemetery memorials are all fine and appropriate. But one of the greatest ways to honor, thank and appreciate those who suffered and died on our behalf is to maintain an attitude of gratitude throughout the year, and use our freedom responsibly. To be engaged, informed, productive, and charitable toward those less fortunate.

I believe in an afterlife, and that each of us will one day be held accountable for our actions on this earth. But I don't know what it's like for those who have passed over. Can they observe what's going on in the temporal world? Do they ever, figuratively speaking, shake their heads in disgust, smile at positive developments, or feel anger or frustration when "earthlings" fail to learn from their mistakes? I don't have a clue.

But common decency lends great support to the benefits and morality of having a grateful heart; of never forgetting your blessings; and of living up to your potential through exercise of the free choice originally bestowed by the Creator, but since denied by man throughout the ages and occasionally won back by the valor and courage (literally, blood, sweat and tears) of soldiers.

President Abraham Lincoln said it eloquently in the Gettysburg Address: "....That from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

A sincere thank you to all who served and serve for our nation -- especially the fallen. Despite my own concerns about the direction in which our nation is headed, I feel deep down that none of you died in vain. God Bless America!

The ISIS Vortex

Who makes up the heart of ISIS? Is it really a lot of leftover Republican Guard and other soldiers from former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, as talk show host Michael Savage maintains? Or is it an amalgamation of fanatics from various nations, ethnic groups and regions?

I initially doubted Savage's analysis, but now I am not so sure. Viciousness and ruthlessness are traits Saddam needed from his soldiers --- interspersed with strong loyalty, of course. No doubt, ISIS has viciousness, ruthlessness and heartlessness in spades. I doubt Saddam cared whether his security forces and soldiers believed in a harsh version of Islam as long as their overriding objective was to keep him safe and in power, keep the nation's myriad extremists in check, and prevent acts of terrorism from destabilizing Iraq and the Saddam Hussein regime.

And for their part, if they received decent pay and were treated well by the regime, the soldiers expediently did Saddam's bidding even if his Islamic bona fides were seen to be lacking. It should be noted that there were assassination attempts on Saddam over the years, so there were undoubtedly cracks in the loyalty. But I digress.

Say what  you will about the late Butcher of Baghdad, but he did not advocate radical Islam and would not brook extremist groups. Indeed, many of those who languished in his hellish prisons were religious zealots who posed a threat to Saddam's secular regime. But even though Saddam favored Sunnis over Shias, he permitted Shias (as well as Christians and others) to practice their faith inside Iraq. Ironically, his right-hand man, Foreign Minister Tariq Azziz, was a Christian.  

Perhaps ISIS is composed primarily of former Saddam loyalists and a collection of Sunni groups who, although they initially didn't subscribe to ISIS' extremist ways, decided going that route was better than facing a future living in Shia-dominated Iraq, with untold Shia militias out for blood. But ISIS is not parochial. The group has recruited aggressively in other nations and regions of the world, including in the United States. It makes frequent use of Twitter and posts bloody videos on the Web.

Although the majority of terrorist Muslims seem to emanate from the Middle East, they also hail from north Africa, southeast Asia, North America and elsewhere. Savage-like behavior and brutal ruthlessness cut across languages, race and cultures when it comes to extremist Islam.

I am not even close to being a military expert, psychologist or terrorism analyst. But I am a very curious person. I often wonder how ISIS melds people together from different cultures who speak various languages and whose outlooks are colored by their own backgrounds and life experiences.

It takes a certain amount of uniformity, self-discipline and regimentation to be successful in military endeavors. Keeping morale up is vital, too -- in no small part by ensuring things like finances, logistics, food and shelter are in place.  As much as we despise and are appalled by ISIS, perhaps they deserve some credit for their successes. (Can't believe I just typed that!) Don't get me wrong. I am not defending them or praising them; they are the scourge of the earth and deserve to be exterminated like cockroaches. But how is it that they rose up so quickly and effectively? Ask yourself that question.

The sad truth is, that while the world watches helplessly and scores of people suffer grievously, ISIS continues to carve up the Levant. A few days ago, the major Iraqi city of Ramadi fell into ISIS hands; ISIS also decimated the Syrian city of Palmyra, leaving decapitated victims in its wake.

The Obama administration's pretzel-like foreign policy has us supporting Iraqi Shia militias and Iranian soldiers (also Shia) against Sunni-dominated ISIS, while at the same time seeking the overthrow of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad (an Alawite Shia) and also backing the Sunni campaign against Iran’s shia proxies in Yemen. Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry plays nicey-nice with Iran, kissing ass in hopes of sealing a nuclear deal that would make Neville Chamberlain blush.

There seems to be an utter lack of outrage by the administration -- and decent people everywhere -- that Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations are not aggressively combatting ISIS. What Roosevelt and Churchill did vs. Hitler, and George H.W. Bush did against Saddam in 1990-91, is what the civilized Arab Muslim nations must do against the hellish ISIS. But the listless response and seeming lack of urgency are highly concerning. The Obama administration, which couldn't lead its way out of a paper bag, continues to bungle with its colossal incompetence.

It is a long time until the next U.S. presidential election. I deeply dread how much irreparable damage will be done to the Middle East and world stability between now and then.

 

 

 

All About Guns: Calibers

One of the most confusing things about guns are how they are classified. 

I'm not even getting into "assault weapons" and nonsense like that, I'm referring how you describe the type of bullet they shoot and what that means in practical terms.

Part of the reason for this is that firearms - particularly handguns - are limited in terms of what is practical to use.  No one wants to haul around a wheeled carriage just for a sidearm.

Put another way, human anatomy puts a limit on about what diameter of barrel you want to use.

The diameter of the barrel dictates the size of the bullet.   This hollow space inside is called "the bore," (as in they took a solid metal pipe and "bored through it" to make a gun barrel).

The measurement of this space is what is called the caliber.  For example, the bore on a .38 caliber weapon is .38 inches.

I chose that example for a reason, because that wonderful measurement is hugely popular with gun designers. 

The picture below is of three .38 caliber bullets.  All of them are exactly the same width.  No two of them can be used in the same firearm.

They are (from left to right) .380, 9mm and .38 Special.

Just for added fun, that .380 is also known as (9mm Short).

Confused yet?

As I noted above, the width of the tube is pretty much the same for all three of these calibers.  The difference is in the amount of powder (which means energy) used to propel them.

Look at that tiny .380.  It is nice and small, and that means when you shoot it, there will be less energy expended.

The plus side of that is that the pistol that fires it won't jump around very much.  In all honesty, none of these cartridges is particularly punishing.  Even the .38 Special is considered fairly easy to shoot.

My point here is that caliber not only describes the width (and thus size) of the bullet, but also the power behind it.

All three of these cartridges are fired through handguns of moderate size.  By way of contrast, the photo below includes two rifle cartridges.

Pretty big difference!

I want to draw your attention to the second cartridge from the right.  That is a 5.56mm round for an AR-15.  (Just to keep things confusing, it is also known as .223.)

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the dreaded and all-powerful M-16.  Yes, the dreaded Assault Weapon!!!

How many times do you see AR-15 described as "high-powered, military-grade assault weapons?"

The picture above should give you some perspective.

Towering over the 5.56mm round is a .303 British cartridge.  That rifle was invented more than 100 years ago and was the standard British Army weapon for World War I and World War II.

It was not unique - all the armies used a bullet that was almost identical in hitting power and range.

There are thousands of those kinds of rifles in private hands.  In fact, they are quite inexpensive - much less expensive than an AR-15, for example.

The problem with them as that all the power takes a lot more practice to control.  That was one reason why the US Army (and just about everybody else) switched to a smaller cartridge.  Another reason was that smaller bullets meant you could carry more of them, making it less likely for you to run out of ammunition.

Look at the picture again and this time focus not on the size of the overall cartridge, but on the bullet sitting on top.  If you look carefully, you will notice that while the rifle cartridges are longer, they are actually narrower.

Think about it:  That .303 British cartridge is (by definition) .303 inches in diameter.  That makes it smaller than the three handgun rounds.

Yet it is unquestionably more powerful.  Again, this is because the powder behind it is so much greater.

It is very easy for novices to get confused by all the calibers, particularly because experienced shooter often develop very strong attachments to certain calibers.

There is a substantial community out there that insists that any pistol that doesn't have a caliber starting with a "4" is useless.

By this they mean that if you shoot someone with it, it won't prove lethal (or even incapacitating).

This is nonsense.

No one likes getting shot.  Even a tiny .22 caliber bullet can kill instantly if it hits the right place.

Once I was somewhat sympathetic to the caliber fetishists, but I've since mellowed quite a bit.  Basically it comes down to this:  The power of the bullet is unimportant if you can't hit anything with it.

Smaller caliber firearms (both long rifles and handguns) are easier to shoot.  They make less noise and have less recoil.  That not only makes them less distracting but also encourages practice, which is essential.

For people with smaller hands and less physical strength, smaller caliber handguns make a great option.

They are also lighter to carry and easier to conceal.  I know several people who initially used a beefy .45 or even .44 magnum as a carry weapon before getting tired of the weight and awkwardness of the thing.  It is easy to look down one's nose at a .380 or .25 auto as a "mouse gun" but given the choice between having a 'purse pistol' and nothing at all, the purse pistol wins.

 

All About Guns: Introduction

For years I've been blogging about firearms.  Sometimes I talk about laws and poke holes in gun control's feeble arguments.  I've also done a few gun reviews from time to time.

Looking back on that, I've decided something is missing - a comprehensive look at all aspects of firearms ownership. 

This is an attempt to remedy that.  Thus the Posse is proud to present a new feature:  All About Guns, which has its own category and will focus on topics of interest to novice and expert alike (or so I hope).

Part of my inspiration is the fact that the Younger Posse Members are now getting old enough to begin shooting.  Gone are the days of "Stop.  Don't Touch.  Leave the Area.  Get an Adult."

As I teach them, I find myself re-thinking some of what I have written here as well, so there may be some conflict with my earlier opinions.  With age sometimes comes wisdom, so we will see where this takes us.

Note that I'm not going to try to number these or write them in sequence.  My intent is rather a series of stand-alone pieces on various topics.  We'll see how it goes.