I subscribe to Consumer Reports online. Of course, my wife, knowing I did that, decided to subscribe to their magazine. Only she knows why!
Today, CR sent me an online survey. It was brief, geared at improving what they do. The last question in the survey was marked as optional, then again that was rather redundant since the whole survey was optional but I digress, so let me get back to the last question. It was:
If you could do one thing to improve Consumer Reports, what would it be? (optional)
I opted to answer it. My answer was:
Have it review firearms.
I am pretty sure that they will not use my suggestion but it sure would be nice if they did so!
All the best,
Glenn B
Monday, August 27, 2012
If A Civilian Saved A Cop From An Apparent Brutal Assault By Shooting...
..the cop's assailant, after the cop screamed out for help and had already shot the guy at least once, do you think that would be worthy of national media coverage. I would think that yes it would not only be worthy of such coverage but that it should be Headline News. Instead, it seems to only be local news.
Of course, I would also think that the police department would want to commend the actions of the civilian (as in non-law enforcement officer) who came to the assistance of the police officer, maybe even acknowledge that the man saved the officer's life or at least saved him from serious bodily injury. I would be wrong again. It seems I would be wrong again as the chief of police reportedly "stopped short" of saying that Perry Stevens had saved officer Brian Harrison's life. Instead, the police chief is reported to have commented that he thought the incident unfortunate and was quoted as saying: "I think this is a tragic situation all around". On that last point, I would beg to differ with the police chief.
It was not at all tragic or unfortunate for Officer Harrison that, reportedly or apparently: Mr. Stevens was in the area, responded to the officer's calls for help, did not make the response of calling 911 and then standing-by as a good witness, played an active role in defending Officer Harrison, had in his possession his legally licensed pistol, approached the officer and his alleged assailant as he gave verbal command(s) to the alleged assailant to stop, only after giving those commands did he fire 4 times striking the alleged attacker in his abdomen with all 4 shots, (better than the accuracy of the NYPD officers at the Empire State Building a few days ago and better than the accuracy of the officer who shot the man chewing off another man's face in Florida - in both of those incidents, police not only hit the attackers but some of their bullets or bullet fragments hit others who were not the intended targets), upon seeing the attacker continue assaulting the officer he moved in closer and again gave commands for the attacker to stop, he only then finally fired the shot that stopped the attack by firing a single round into the alleged assailant's head. The alleged assailant died.
While it may be unfortunate that the alleged assailant reportedly drove into a funeral procession that Officer Harrison was escorting and while it may be unfortunate that while the officer was giving him a traffic citation, the man allegedly attacked the officer apparently overpowering him resulting in the officer shooting his alleged attacker, and while it may be unfortunate that the officer cried out for help because he required assistance and did not have other officers to help him, and while it may be unfortunate that at least 10 other civilians did not immediately rush to assist the officer as it seems did Mr. Stevens, there is nothing unfortunate about anything that Mr. Stevens did, as far as I can see.
I consider Police officer Brian Harrison to be extremely fortunate in that a person, the caliber of Mr. Stevens (no pun intended, there is nothing funny about this), was there to assist him. If indeed Mr. Stevens did not save officer Harrison from death's door, he certainly saved him from potential serious injury at the hands of his alleged attacker.That that man did not stop, until a fatal shot was fired into his head, I do not see as unfortunate, at least not for the officer and thus this was not "an tragic situation all around".
Sure, the incident is probably quite tragic for the family of the deceased or for his loved ones. The thing is though, as far as the officer was in need of help - Mr. Stevens did what no one else in the area, armed or unarmed did, he went to the aid of the fallen officer and saved him from harm. That is not tragic, that is heroic. The chief of police ought to be ashamed of himself for calling that a tragic situation all around and for not coming right out and acknowledging that Mr. Stevens saved the officer from either serious bodily injury or death! I guess he is just to darned armedciviliaphobic to do so!
Hat tip to HellInAHandbasket.
All the best,
Glenn B
Of course, I would also think that the police department would want to commend the actions of the civilian (as in non-law enforcement officer) who came to the assistance of the police officer, maybe even acknowledge that the man saved the officer's life or at least saved him from serious bodily injury. I would be wrong again. It seems I would be wrong again as the chief of police reportedly "stopped short" of saying that Perry Stevens had saved officer Brian Harrison's life. Instead, the police chief is reported to have commented that he thought the incident unfortunate and was quoted as saying: "I think this is a tragic situation all around". On that last point, I would beg to differ with the police chief.
It was not at all tragic or unfortunate for Officer Harrison that, reportedly or apparently: Mr. Stevens was in the area, responded to the officer's calls for help, did not make the response of calling 911 and then standing-by as a good witness, played an active role in defending Officer Harrison, had in his possession his legally licensed pistol, approached the officer and his alleged assailant as he gave verbal command(s) to the alleged assailant to stop, only after giving those commands did he fire 4 times striking the alleged attacker in his abdomen with all 4 shots, (better than the accuracy of the NYPD officers at the Empire State Building a few days ago and better than the accuracy of the officer who shot the man chewing off another man's face in Florida - in both of those incidents, police not only hit the attackers but some of their bullets or bullet fragments hit others who were not the intended targets), upon seeing the attacker continue assaulting the officer he moved in closer and again gave commands for the attacker to stop, he only then finally fired the shot that stopped the attack by firing a single round into the alleged assailant's head. The alleged assailant died.
While it may be unfortunate that the alleged assailant reportedly drove into a funeral procession that Officer Harrison was escorting and while it may be unfortunate that while the officer was giving him a traffic citation, the man allegedly attacked the officer apparently overpowering him resulting in the officer shooting his alleged attacker, and while it may be unfortunate that the officer cried out for help because he required assistance and did not have other officers to help him, and while it may be unfortunate that at least 10 other civilians did not immediately rush to assist the officer as it seems did Mr. Stevens, there is nothing unfortunate about anything that Mr. Stevens did, as far as I can see.
I consider Police officer Brian Harrison to be extremely fortunate in that a person, the caliber of Mr. Stevens (no pun intended, there is nothing funny about this), was there to assist him. If indeed Mr. Stevens did not save officer Harrison from death's door, he certainly saved him from potential serious injury at the hands of his alleged attacker.That that man did not stop, until a fatal shot was fired into his head, I do not see as unfortunate, at least not for the officer and thus this was not "an tragic situation all around".
Sure, the incident is probably quite tragic for the family of the deceased or for his loved ones. The thing is though, as far as the officer was in need of help - Mr. Stevens did what no one else in the area, armed or unarmed did, he went to the aid of the fallen officer and saved him from harm. That is not tragic, that is heroic. The chief of police ought to be ashamed of himself for calling that a tragic situation all around and for not coming right out and acknowledging that Mr. Stevens saved the officer from either serious bodily injury or death! I guess he is just to darned armedciviliaphobic to do so!
Hat tip to HellInAHandbasket.
All the best,
Glenn B
HUNTING LICENSES PURCHASED - DMPs SELECTED...
...and that means a scouting trip, in the near future, is expected. I have to work tomorrow but that is my only workday this week. Thus, I am hoping to get away by Thursday, late morning as I have an appointment to keep that day. After that I am free until next Tuesday. I have a couple of different places to visit, for scouting trips, so it is likely the trip will last a few days. I am hoping for good weather and will bring along a tent and sleeping bag and other camping gear (and plenty of Aleve for my aches and pains) and make a good time of it. If it rains, or badly threatens to do so, then I may opt to stay at a dirt cheap motel; I gave up sleeping outside in the rain, years ago. Motel 6 comes to mind but if I can find something less expensive, I will go for it. I have both some Priority Club points for Holiday Inns and Hilton Honors points for their chain of motels. I think I will make a couple of advance reservations in anticipation of rain, I can always cancel if it looks like the weather will hold out and then I will sleep under the stars.
Luckily, I got both of the Deer Management Permits for which I applied. Brendan was not so lucky, he only got one of two and lost a preference point on the one he did not get. Oh well, we have three of them in total and we can sign them over to one or the other of us if we want. So, if one of us gets a buck, we can assure the other will also have a chance at a doe (actually an anterless deer) with the DMP, as well as at a buck with his or my regular license. Brendan got his DMP in Wildlife Management Unit 4P, in the NW Catskills, where his girlfriend's parents own a house. He is pretty familiar with the area and is probably bound to score up that way. I hope so and I do mean score by him bagging a deer. Hopefully, I will be invited to hunt there too. The other one, he applied for, was closer to where I got my first choice but as I said he did not get selected for that one.
I got my first choice of DMPs, WMU 7S. It is west and part of it is also south of Binghamton, at least a couple to a few hours from where Brendan got his. There is a lot of public land in the area. So, there probably is a lot of scouting for me to do. The areas I truly would have preferred for my DMP did not have any available or required preference points of which I had none anyway. I can live with it even though not an area with which I am familiar. I am hoping to find a fairly remote area to hunt, yes even overpopulated NY State has some remote hunting areas. I also got a DMP in a pretty populated area WMU 3M. It is much closer to home and can be a back-up sort of area if I don't get a deer on the first few days of the hunt at the other one. It will be a place I can drive to, and return home from, all in one day for some quick later in the season hunts.
If I am really lucky, Brendan will come along with me on the scouting trip but then there is a chance he has to work in that time frame. I'll see soon enough.
All the best,
Glenn B
Luckily, I got both of the Deer Management Permits for which I applied. Brendan was not so lucky, he only got one of two and lost a preference point on the one he did not get. Oh well, we have three of them in total and we can sign them over to one or the other of us if we want. So, if one of us gets a buck, we can assure the other will also have a chance at a doe (actually an anterless deer) with the DMP, as well as at a buck with his or my regular license. Brendan got his DMP in Wildlife Management Unit 4P, in the NW Catskills, where his girlfriend's parents own a house. He is pretty familiar with the area and is probably bound to score up that way. I hope so and I do mean score by him bagging a deer. Hopefully, I will be invited to hunt there too. The other one, he applied for, was closer to where I got my first choice but as I said he did not get selected for that one.
I got my first choice of DMPs, WMU 7S. It is west and part of it is also south of Binghamton, at least a couple to a few hours from where Brendan got his. There is a lot of public land in the area. So, there probably is a lot of scouting for me to do. The areas I truly would have preferred for my DMP did not have any available or required preference points of which I had none anyway. I can live with it even though not an area with which I am familiar. I am hoping to find a fairly remote area to hunt, yes even overpopulated NY State has some remote hunting areas. I also got a DMP in a pretty populated area WMU 3M. It is much closer to home and can be a back-up sort of area if I don't get a deer on the first few days of the hunt at the other one. It will be a place I can drive to, and return home from, all in one day for some quick later in the season hunts.
If I am really lucky, Brendan will come along with me on the scouting trip but then there is a chance he has to work in that time frame. I'll see soon enough.
All the best,
Glenn B
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Video Surveillance Of Empire State Building Shootout
Now that I have seen actual video footage of the Empire State Building shootout, I am more convinced that the two officers involved made some big mistakes. I am not saying they were not justified in the use of deadly force. I am saying, in my opinion, they did not properly assess the situation because had they done so they would not have alerted the subject to their presence (which I am guessing they did by issuing commands, this is a guess because their is no audio, but it is based at least in part on the subject turning to face them as they come up from behind him) before getting behind cover which was readily available to them. Had they been behind cover, they could have shot from a supported position, would have been less likely to fire in a possible reactionary panic when the bad guy aimed and fired at them, and in all probability would have had a bit more time, even if only a split second more, to asses and think it through to take what I think would have been appropriate actions than I think they took. Again, that is merely my opinion but it is now based less on guesswork, than before, now that I have seen the surveillance video.
In the situation in which they placed themselves, they had to fire from a standing and moving position thus making it much harder for them to keep on target what with the immense stress they were under with this guy shooting at them. Had they first gotten behind cover, drawn a bead on the suspect and then ordered him "Police - DON'T MOVE", he probably would have turned, not immediately seen them, or only seen what he could see of them around the cover of those concrete planters, been momentarily confused instead of instantly ready, while they already would have taken aim and had a much more controlled shooting platform from which to take a more accurate set of shots at him. Doing it that way may have also given bystanders a split second more to realize what was going on and to get out of the line of fire. Instead, I am of the opinion, they took a much less tactically sound position when cover was readily available. I believe that had they gotten behind cover before alerting him, the outcome would possibly, even likely, have been much different - the police maybe firing many fewer shots to stop him and thus the potential for harm to bystanders going down markedly.
Of course, it is really easy to Monday morning quarterback but I believe you safely can bet your bottom dollar that the video will be used as a training video by law enforcement firearms instructors for years to come and one of the things their training probably will emphasize is that neither of the two officers properly and fully assessed the situation nor made use of available cover. I am not calling the officers bad guys, not saying they are guilty of a crime, not even saying most of their decisions were wrong. I do think they used somewhat poor judgment, at a critical moment, in a situation in which they had to think and act fast. I also believe that their judgment may have made the situation worse than it otherwise would have been had they opted to take cover. The split second more it would have taken to get behind cover, get sighted in on the suspect from a strong supported shooting stance, and then give their commands, possibly could have made a huge difference. It would have certainly only been a split second more, they were only a couple to few steps away from it before the bad guy was apparently alerted to their presence.
It is a shame, in their obvious willingness to face danger, while doing their duty to stop the guy, they did not take cover first or even after the bad guy knew the police were after him. That is especially so since it appears they could have done so even after the bad guy drew his weapon. I truly believe the outcome would have been much better had they done so immediately before the bad guy was alerted. Thus they might have made it a one or two shot stop of the bad guy with no bystanders injured. Instead one cop has the other cop in, what appears to me to be, a near or actual crossfire situation for a moment. Both are firing while moving trying to avoid being shot. The cop, to our left in the video, while apparently using a two hand, is seemingly left handed and ultimately winds up moving to his off side, making it a more difficult to aim at the suspect. The officer, to our right in the video, is also moving to his off side, he probably realized he had the other cop in, or close to being in, a crossfire and thus making it harder to aim his shots toward his strong side where the bad guy was located. He also seems to be holding his pistol in only his right hand while probably using his left for balance or to avoid running into something as he moves and keeps his eyes on the suspect. The bad guy was indeed stopped after a total of 16 shots were fired by the officers, but 9 bystanders were injured, (corrected to remove that I thought 1 bystander had been killed) and it is suspected that police bullets or bullet fragments hit all 9 of the bystanders and were responsible for their injuries. I think the officers taking cover would have made a world of difference.
That is all just my opinion of the shootout and how things may have turned out differently had, what I think would have been, a sounder tactical assessment been applied. Bear in mind, this is only my opinion and that may change if and when more information and evidence is released for public review. For now, I can only base my opinion on what I have seen and heard reported to date and on my experience and training.
All the best,
Glenn B.
In the situation in which they placed themselves, they had to fire from a standing and moving position thus making it much harder for them to keep on target what with the immense stress they were under with this guy shooting at them. Had they first gotten behind cover, drawn a bead on the suspect and then ordered him "Police - DON'T MOVE", he probably would have turned, not immediately seen them, or only seen what he could see of them around the cover of those concrete planters, been momentarily confused instead of instantly ready, while they already would have taken aim and had a much more controlled shooting platform from which to take a more accurate set of shots at him. Doing it that way may have also given bystanders a split second more to realize what was going on and to get out of the line of fire. Instead, I am of the opinion, they took a much less tactically sound position when cover was readily available. I believe that had they gotten behind cover before alerting him, the outcome would possibly, even likely, have been much different - the police maybe firing many fewer shots to stop him and thus the potential for harm to bystanders going down markedly.
Of course, it is really easy to Monday morning quarterback but I believe you safely can bet your bottom dollar that the video will be used as a training video by law enforcement firearms instructors for years to come and one of the things their training probably will emphasize is that neither of the two officers properly and fully assessed the situation nor made use of available cover. I am not calling the officers bad guys, not saying they are guilty of a crime, not even saying most of their decisions were wrong. I do think they used somewhat poor judgment, at a critical moment, in a situation in which they had to think and act fast. I also believe that their judgment may have made the situation worse than it otherwise would have been had they opted to take cover. The split second more it would have taken to get behind cover, get sighted in on the suspect from a strong supported shooting stance, and then give their commands, possibly could have made a huge difference. It would have certainly only been a split second more, they were only a couple to few steps away from it before the bad guy was apparently alerted to their presence.
It is a shame, in their obvious willingness to face danger, while doing their duty to stop the guy, they did not take cover first or even after the bad guy knew the police were after him. That is especially so since it appears they could have done so even after the bad guy drew his weapon. I truly believe the outcome would have been much better had they done so immediately before the bad guy was alerted. Thus they might have made it a one or two shot stop of the bad guy with no bystanders injured. Instead one cop has the other cop in, what appears to me to be, a near or actual crossfire situation for a moment. Both are firing while moving trying to avoid being shot. The cop, to our left in the video, while apparently using a two hand, is seemingly left handed and ultimately winds up moving to his off side, making it a more difficult to aim at the suspect. The officer, to our right in the video, is also moving to his off side, he probably realized he had the other cop in, or close to being in, a crossfire and thus making it harder to aim his shots toward his strong side where the bad guy was located. He also seems to be holding his pistol in only his right hand while probably using his left for balance or to avoid running into something as he moves and keeps his eyes on the suspect. The bad guy was indeed stopped after a total of 16 shots were fired by the officers, but 9 bystanders were injured, (corrected to remove that I thought 1 bystander had been killed) and it is suspected that police bullets or bullet fragments hit all 9 of the bystanders and were responsible for their injuries. I think the officers taking cover would have made a world of difference.
That is all just my opinion of the shootout and how things may have turned out differently had, what I think would have been, a sounder tactical assessment been applied. Bear in mind, this is only my opinion and that may change if and when more information and evidence is released for public review. For now, I can only base my opinion on what I have seen and heard reported to date and on my experience and training.
All the best,
Glenn B.
Discussion About Deer Management Permits - I Did Something Right When Raising My Son
I sent a text message to my son a couple of nights ago to ask him in which wildlife management unit he wanted to apply for deer management permits, that way I could apply for other areas as I like to have a lot of possibilities open to us. He told me in the unit where his girlfriend's parents had a house in upstate NY, in the NW Catskills. The rest of our back and forth, relative to my having asked where the house was located, follows:
Son: In the town of --------. (He named the village.)
Son: I'll just shoot them without a permit anyway. So it doesn't matter.
Me: No you won't. Say no more.
Son: Haaha, if I got the AK I can't miss! Lol, just kidding, I'd never poach.
Me: There is a low chance of getting a DMP there as first choice only and you can also choose another place as second choice.
Son: ...honestly I'll just go without a permit and keep everything up there.
Me: Stop sending messages like that. All your text messages are kept by phone comp 4ever just like emails. (I really do not know if the phone company keeps texts like emails but suspect they do.)
Son: I'm just kidding. I'm not going to poach animals. Shit is fucked up, if I can get a permit I will hunt there, if not then I will not hunt there. I was not taught about hunting by an asshole.
Me: Good to know whoever taught u bout huntn is not an a-hole.
Son: Haha, well sometimes he is, but on average he isn't ;)
The text messaging went on a little bit longer but all the important stuff, for this post, was over and done with. Sure made me feel good to know that I did at least a few things right in his upbringing, such as what I taught him about hunting, and to know that he does not consider me to be an asshole. Well - at least not for most of the time!
All the best,
Glenn B
Son: In the town of --------. (He named the village.)
Son: I'll just shoot them without a permit anyway. So it doesn't matter.
Me: No you won't. Say no more.
Son: Haaha, if I got the AK I can't miss! Lol, just kidding, I'd never poach.
Me: There is a low chance of getting a DMP there as first choice only and you can also choose another place as second choice.
Son: ...honestly I'll just go without a permit and keep everything up there.
Me: Stop sending messages like that. All your text messages are kept by phone comp 4ever just like emails. (I really do not know if the phone company keeps texts like emails but suspect they do.)
Son: I'm just kidding. I'm not going to poach animals. Shit is fucked up, if I can get a permit I will hunt there, if not then I will not hunt there. I was not taught about hunting by an asshole.
Me: Good to know whoever taught u bout huntn is not an a-hole.
Son: Haha, well sometimes he is, but on average he isn't ;)
The text messaging went on a little bit longer but all the important stuff, for this post, was over and done with. Sure made me feel good to know that I did at least a few things right in his upbringing, such as what I taught him about hunting, and to know that he does not consider me to be an asshole. Well - at least not for most of the time!
All the best,
Glenn B
Some Thoughts On The Police Shooting of 9 Bystanders In NYC
So, it has been reported that NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has stated that all 9 bystanders, who were injured by gunfire, near the Empire State Building during a police shoot out with an armed man, were injured by police bullets or bullet fragments. (Source: just heard it on Fox News as I was writing this and have read it in various online news agency articles and blogs). These are just some of my thoughts on it all (bear in mind I do not know all of the facts and I am surmising on some of this based upon what I do know about the incident and about law enforcement firearms training):
It has been reported that 9 bystanders were wounded by police gunfire, none by shots from the bad guy. Many other bloggers and folks are saying that the officers missed with 9 shots. They probably did not miss nine times if I got the math right. They reportedly fired a total of 16 shots. The bad guy was reportedly hit 10 times. That means they likely missed with 6 shots.
Working on those reported facts, either the facts are wrong or these things happened:
A bullet or bullets (or bullet fragment[s]) passed through the perpetrator and hit bystander(s).
Likewise a bullet or bullets could have grazed or gone through one bystander and hit another.
A bullet or bullets hit something and ricocheted, maybe fragmenting, and hit bystander(s).
Other bullets may have also hit bystanders directly. (I removed statement that one bystander was deceased, brain fart on my part to have said so).
The police should indeed have drawn their weapons, there is no doubt about it.
A law enforcement officer does not respond to an armed felon who just reportedly shot another man in cold blood with his her pistol holstered unless the officers are the hands on officers with ample back-up who have their weapons drawn at the ready.
The two police officers, involved in the shooting, quite possibly did not act properly once first informed of the info about the bad guy.
Given the location, the time, the crowds, I believe they should have assessed, drawn their weapons and immediately taken cover while ordering bad guy to comply with their first command to not move. Of course that depends on whether or not cover was available. For all I know, maybe they did do that but it does not sound as if they took cover, I believe I read they approached the suspect.
As to whether or not the police or any LEO should ever shoot when there is a possibility of injuring an innocent, the police would likely not be able to shoot in about 90% of the shooting situations in which they may find themselves; that is especially so in a crowded urban area like NYC. Please do not quote the 4 rules of Jeff Cooper, especially the one about knowing your target and what is beyond, if you reply. In many cases, there virtually is no way to know what is beyond your target, within range of a bullet you fire, within the confines of Manhattan - yet, shooting at a bad guy is often appropriate in those instances. The absolute rules, as given by Cooper, are for absolutists and in real life the only absolute we know, of with absoluteness, is death.
In addition, sometimes police will be faced with the decision 'Is it better to take a shot or shots, even when bystander safety is at high risk, from law enforcement fire, or not take the shot(s)'. Sometimes the answer could be yes, it is better to take the shot(s) but I do not believe this was the case here, at least not for all of the shots they took. If you can not imagine when, then you ought to give it some long and serious thought because sometimes the risk to bystanders from LE bullets is outweighed by other risks to the bystanders. Such could be immediate risks posed by bad guy randomly shooting into a crowd or the imminent risk of a bad guy chewing off another man's face. Should they take a shot, if it poses a risk to a bystander but less of a risk than that caused by the bad guy? Maybe yes, under some circumstances. (I don't believe it the case here but it may have been so as I am unaware of all the facts.)
There are a lot of factors that could have caused the officers to miss that many times. Six out of 16 shots is a high percentage of misses and I am making no excuses for the misses just giving reasons as to why they may have been misses (note I said may have
Through all of this though, it was up to the officers to shoot or not shoot. The decision was theirs for each and every shot they fired. They are responsible for each shot they took. Those statements are based on 32 years of firearms training I received as a LEO and on 14 years of instructing other LEO in firearms training. Yet, to anyone who says they sprayed and prayed, while it may well have been the case, I am not all that sure such was the case. It seems that it took 10 rounds to stop the bad guy. There were many possible reasons for their missing with 6 shots. We do not know which shots missed. They could have been the first 6. The officers' assessment, that more shots needed to be fired, could well have been correct or it could have been a case of spray and pray. I think it less likely a case of spray and pray because neither officer likely fired all the rounds in his pistol. They most probably were carrying semi-automatic pistols with at least a 15 round capacity and possibly were carrying MP-5 submachine
The officers, in my estimation, or at least one of the officers made a poor assessment of when it was okay to shoot and one or both were ill prepared mentally (at least at the moment) to face such a situation. (Bear in mind, one of them may have hit the bad guy with every shot he fired and the other may have missed almost every time he fired - one fired 9 shots the other 7 shots, thus the reason I say ' officers or at least one of them.) Being somewhat ill prepared mentally, to face a life threatening situation, in which you may have to take some one's life in order to survive, is not a fault of the officers. In fact, it is probably a sign of their morality. No matter how much we think we would be able to do it if called upon, it goes against the grain of us to do so (unless we are psychos or unless we have been taught, since childhood, that killing is very acceptable). There is no way to train yourself as to absolutely prepare you to be fully ready for such a situation, to train you how you will react and then act in such a situation. Of course, training does help prepare you, it is just not an absolute guarantee of how you will act. These officers probably had a lot of tactical training, at least they should have had such training being assigned, as they were, to an anti-terrorist detail. Again, these are not excuses, just being objective based on my training and my limited knowledge of the facts as presented to the public on this incident.
As I said above, I believe the officers were, or at least one of the officers was, at fault for hitting civilians because I do not think they approached handling the situation from the best way it could have been handled from the beginning. I do not think they assessed the situation properly. I think there were other ways to have handled it that would have been much less likely to have resulted in injury to bystanders by gunshots. Then again, I do not know all the facts and it is easy to criticize when not wearing the shoes of the person being criticized. I would love to be able to review all the reports, witness statements, ballistic evidence reports, possible video of the shooting (it may be out there, lot of people make videos at the Empire State Building) and so on. Then I could make a truly informed decision. So, when it comes right down to it, as I have done in the past for LEOs as well as for accused dirtbags and everyone in between, I will not condemn them without much of or all of the evidence before me (if you know me at all, from this blog or from firearms forums, you know that despite being a retired LEO, I will readily condemn law enforcement when I have become convinced they have screwed up badly and that is not necessarily an uncommon thing for me to do). For now though, I will leave that to the investigators and to the courts because you can bet your bottom dollar this will wind up investigated to the max and will wind up at least in civil courts. These officers are almost sure to face tort claims filed by the wounded bystanders and may face criminal and or will face departmental charges too before all is said and done. They may also be praised as heroes.
I will go as far as to express my opinion, for what it is worth or not, based on my training and experience, on what evidence I have seen or heard reported, and will say that my guess is that these two officers, or at least one of them, screwed up pretty badly at least with regard to 9 non-life threatening to the bystanders. Although, as I have pointed out, there could have been some reasons for the stray bullets that might vindicate the officers of any wrong doing.
I hope you understand, what I just tried to do was give an objective outlook of the incident as opposed to an emotional or biased one. If you are going to leave a comment, please be respectful, be objective, don't get all sorts of emotional or show any obvious bias.
All the best,
Glenn B
It has been reported that 9 bystanders were wounded by police gunfire, none by shots from the bad guy. Many other bloggers and folks are saying that the officers missed with 9 shots. They probably did not miss nine times if I got the math right. They reportedly fired a total of 16 shots. The bad guy was reportedly hit 10 times. That means they likely missed with 6 shots.
Working on those reported facts, either the facts are wrong or these things happened:
A bullet or bullets (or bullet fragment[s]) passed through the perpetrator and hit bystander(s).
Likewise a bullet or bullets could have grazed or gone through one bystander and hit another.
A bullet or bullets hit something and ricocheted, maybe fragmenting, and hit bystander(s).
Other bullets may have also hit bystanders directly. (I removed statement that one bystander was deceased, brain fart on my part to have said so).
The police should indeed have drawn their weapons, there is no doubt about it.
A law enforcement officer does not respond to an armed felon who just reportedly shot another man in cold blood with his her pistol holstered unless the officers are the hands on officers with ample back-up who have their weapons drawn at the ready.
The two police officers, involved in the shooting, quite possibly did not act properly once first informed of the info about the bad guy.
Given the location, the time, the crowds, I believe they should have assessed, drawn their weapons and immediately taken cover while ordering bad guy to comply with their first command to not move. Of course that depends on whether or not cover was available. For all I know, maybe they did do that but it does not sound as if they took cover, I believe I read they approached the suspect.
As to whether or not the police or any LEO should ever shoot when there is a possibility of injuring an innocent, the police would likely not be able to shoot in about 90% of the shooting situations in which they may find themselves; that is especially so in a crowded urban area like NYC. Please do not quote the 4 rules of Jeff Cooper, especially the one about knowing your target and what is beyond, if you reply. In many cases, there virtually is no way to know what is beyond your target, within range of a bullet you fire, within the confines of Manhattan - yet, shooting at a bad guy is often appropriate in those instances. The absolute rules, as given by Cooper, are for absolutists and in real life the only absolute we know, of with absoluteness, is death.
In addition, sometimes police will be faced with the decision 'Is it better to take a shot or shots, even when bystander safety is at high risk, from law enforcement fire, or not take the shot(s)'. Sometimes the answer could be yes, it is better to take the shot(s) but I do not believe this was the case here, at least not for all of the shots they took. If you can not imagine when, then you ought to give it some long and serious thought because sometimes the risk to bystanders from LE bullets is outweighed by other risks to the bystanders. Such could be immediate risks posed by bad guy randomly shooting into a crowd or the imminent risk of a bad guy chewing off another man's face. Should they take a shot, if it poses a risk to a bystander but less of a risk than that caused by the bad guy? Maybe yes, under some circumstances. (I don't believe it the case here but it may have been so as I am unaware of all the facts.)
There are a lot of factors that could have caused the officers to miss that many times. Six out of 16 shots is a high percentage of misses and I am making no excuses for the misses just giving reasons as to why they may have been misses (note I said may have
Through all of this though, it was up to the officers to shoot or not shoot. The decision was theirs for each and every shot they fired. They are responsible for each shot they took. Those statements are based on 32 years of firearms training I received as a LEO and on 14 years of instructing other LEO in firearms training. Yet, to anyone who says they sprayed and prayed, while it may well have been the case, I am not all that sure such was the case. It seems that it took 10 rounds to stop the bad guy. There were many possible reasons for their missing with 6 shots. We do not know which shots missed. They could have been the first 6. The officers' assessment, that more shots needed to be fired, could well have been correct or it could have been a case of spray and pray. I think it less likely a case of spray and pray because neither officer likely fired all the rounds in his pistol. They most probably were carrying semi-automatic pistols with at least a 15 round capacity and possibly were carrying MP-5 submachine
The officers, in my estimation, or at least one of the officers made a poor assessment of when it was okay to shoot and one or both were ill prepared mentally (at least at the moment) to face such a situation. (Bear in mind, one of them may have hit the bad guy with every shot he fired and the other may have missed almost every time he fired - one fired 9 shots the other 7 shots, thus the reason I say ' officers or at least one of them.) Being somewhat ill prepared mentally, to face a life threatening situation, in which you may have to take some one's life in order to survive, is not a fault of the officers. In fact, it is probably a sign of their morality. No matter how much we think we would be able to do it if called upon, it goes against the grain of us to do so (unless we are psychos or unless we have been taught, since childhood, that killing is very acceptable). There is no way to train yourself as to absolutely prepare you to be fully ready for such a situation, to train you how you will react and then act in such a situation. Of course, training does help prepare you, it is just not an absolute guarantee of how you will act. These officers probably had a lot of tactical training, at least they should have had such training being assigned, as they were, to an anti-terrorist detail. Again, these are not excuses, just being objective based on my training and my limited knowledge of the facts as presented to the public on this incident.
As I said above, I believe the officers were, or at least one of the officers was, at fault for hitting civilians because I do not think they approached handling the situation from the best way it could have been handled from the beginning. I do not think they assessed the situation properly. I think there were other ways to have handled it that would have been much less likely to have resulted in injury to bystanders by gunshots. Then again, I do not know all the facts and it is easy to criticize when not wearing the shoes of the person being criticized. I would love to be able to review all the reports, witness statements, ballistic evidence reports, possible video of the shooting (it may be out there, lot of people make videos at the Empire State Building) and so on. Then I could make a truly informed decision. So, when it comes right down to it, as I have done in the past for LEOs as well as for accused dirtbags and everyone in between, I will not condemn them without much of or all of the evidence before me (if you know me at all, from this blog or from firearms forums, you know that despite being a retired LEO, I will readily condemn law enforcement when I have become convinced they have screwed up badly and that is not necessarily an uncommon thing for me to do). For now though, I will leave that to the investigators and to the courts because you can bet your bottom dollar this will wind up investigated to the max and will wind up at least in civil courts. These officers are almost sure to face tort claims filed by the wounded bystanders and may face criminal and or will face departmental charges too before all is said and done. They may also be praised as heroes.
I will go as far as to express my opinion, for what it is worth or not, based on my training and experience, on what evidence I have seen or heard reported, and will say that my guess is that these two officers, or at least one of them, screwed up pretty badly at least with regard to 9 non-life threatening to the bystanders. Although, as I have pointed out, there could have been some reasons for the stray bullets that might vindicate the officers of any wrong doing.
I hope you understand, what I just tried to do was give an objective outlook of the incident as opposed to an emotional or biased one. If you are going to leave a comment, please be respectful, be objective, don't get all sorts of emotional or show any obvious bias.
All the best,
Glenn B
Saturday, August 25, 2012
NY FIREARMS FORUM LINK REMOVED FROM MY BLOG
A moderator there told me, tonight, that he had removed a post from a for sale thread I had there because he or she believed my lowering a price of a shotgun I had for sale was considered a "bump" to my thread. Then I posted a pointless post two days later with the intention of bumping it and he said bumps must be three days apart and he had to delete mine because the dropping the selling price post was a bump. I have never heard anything as ridiculous on a forum concerning bumps. Adding a new selling price or expanding the area of the sale, both things I did, would not be considered a bump by definition of the word bump, nor by other moderators on other forums I use. When I protested and sent in the definition of a bump to that moderator, I was in essence called a name that was a slightly veiled profanity. He or she told me I was being a "smartazz" (did not even have the balls to call me a smartass, probably because the site's filters would not have allowed it but I guess it is okay to call someone profanities as long as they are in code on that forum). Somewhere in his or her private messages to me I was also told that I was being harsh. I was not harsh, not sarcastic, not nasty, not offensive, just straight forward and truthful and gave the definition of bump to him or her: "To bump a thread on an Internet forum is to post a reply to it purely in order to raise the thread's profile." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_(Internet).
Since that seemed harsh, and apparently made it look as if I was being a "smartazz", I decided to remove my offer of the shotgun I was selling there. I can easily sell it elsewhere.
I think it was when I said I would do that when the mod threatened to report me to the administrators (ooh how I trembled) and I guess he or she thought that would be the ticket to get me to comply with someone who did not know about which he or she was speaking. Heck, I had already told him or her I would comply because the rules were made by the people who run the forum, I also sent him or her the definition of bump and I guess that meant, to the mod, that I had overstepped the bounds of Bizarro World. I told him or her I would remove the offer and simply edited my thread to show it no loner available.
Then I also replied and asked to be removed from the forums completely, to have all my threads removed and all my personal info removed and to have my registration removed. Think they would do so. Heck no, Heaven forbid they lose stats for users. Instead, they banned me until September sometime or another. For all I know, or care, it could be next month or ten years from next month.
Allow me to now become disrespectful in turn to them because what goes around comes around and because I truly believe that we should do unto others as we would have done onto ourselves. If I treat anyone with such disrespect then I would expect them to be disrespectful to me in turn. So, let me give it right back to them.
FUCK THEM, they can not even get it right when a forum user asks to be removed from their site. I cannot abide by they whom I believe are assholes and disrespectful ones at that and that is exactly what I believe is that moderator.
This may seem petty to you but dealing with pompous assholes always makes me feel miserable and getting it off of my chest like this sure makes me feel better.
All the best,
Glenn B
Since that seemed harsh, and apparently made it look as if I was being a "smartazz", I decided to remove my offer of the shotgun I was selling there. I can easily sell it elsewhere.
I think it was when I said I would do that when the mod threatened to report me to the administrators (ooh how I trembled) and I guess he or she thought that would be the ticket to get me to comply with someone who did not know about which he or she was speaking. Heck, I had already told him or her I would comply because the rules were made by the people who run the forum, I also sent him or her the definition of bump and I guess that meant, to the mod, that I had overstepped the bounds of Bizarro World. I told him or her I would remove the offer and simply edited my thread to show it no loner available.
Then I also replied and asked to be removed from the forums completely, to have all my threads removed and all my personal info removed and to have my registration removed. Think they would do so. Heck no, Heaven forbid they lose stats for users. Instead, they banned me until September sometime or another. For all I know, or care, it could be next month or ten years from next month.
Allow me to now become disrespectful in turn to them because what goes around comes around and because I truly believe that we should do unto others as we would have done onto ourselves. If I treat anyone with such disrespect then I would expect them to be disrespectful to me in turn. So, let me give it right back to them.
FUCK THEM, they can not even get it right when a forum user asks to be removed from their site. I cannot abide by they whom I believe are assholes and disrespectful ones at that and that is exactly what I believe is that moderator.
This may seem petty to you but dealing with pompous assholes always makes me feel miserable and getting it off of my chest like this sure makes me feel better.
All the best,
Glenn B
Seem To Have A Bug In My Computer...
...and it has been driving me bonkers. So, I have been trying to make up my mind on how best to get rid of it. Maybe I should use Norton Anti-Virus but it does not appear to be the right type of computer bug, certainly not a virus or malware. Maybe Raid Flying Insect Killer, then again I have not seen it take flight. Maybe I should just bring out the heavy artillery, the Remington 870, with a round or two of 00 Buckshot. Since I am none to sure I want to destroy the borrowed laptop, that I have been using, right along with the pesky little vermin - maybe the shotgun would be overkill. If I thought they could get at it, I'd let my Crested Geckos have a shot. Oh decisions, decisions - life seems to be full of tough decisions!
All the best,
GB
A True Hero Gone - Neil Armstrong August 5, 1930 - August 25, 2012
When I was a youngster, and I mean pretty young from about age 5 to age 15 or so, I had a few different real life heroes that I worshipped. One was Buffalo Bill Cody, another was Wild Bill Hickok, another was Daniel Boone and another was much more modern than the other three. He was John Glenn. John Glenn was one of the first U.S. Astronauts to orbit the globe, he was also a pilot of the X-15, the aircraft that holds the all time air speed record. In fact, if an inanimate object could be a hero, then the X-15 was one for me and John Glenn was its master. John Glenn held a place in my imagination and in my heart, I esteemed him above almost anyone else in those youthful days of yesteryear.
I never heard much of the others who flew the X-15, there were about 7 other test pilots who flew it with some regularity. They were all either brave or foolish or both. One of them, a man who was not one to take to the spotlight often, and who reportedly considered himself a geek or a nerd, also wound up being one of the biggest media stars ever. In fact, news casts of him and his co-astronaut, during a single event lasting just around 3 hours, was and remains the most viewed television event of all times having had over 600,000,000 (yes, six hundred million) viewers as it happened live. That event was mankind's first landing on a world other than our own, with Neil Armstrong being the first man to set foot on the Moon. Before even being close to exiting the lunar module though, Neil Armstrong contacted earth and uttered some words that likely would have been remembered as one of the most famous quotes ever had those words not soon been overshadowed by other words he would speak once out of the capsule. The first words, from Armstrong to Mission Control were:
"Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed."
With those first words, the Lunar Landing gave the United States of America a victory in the Space Race segment of the Cold War over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (commonly known as the USSR or now called Russia). Yet, not long after saying those words, Armstrong would say something that no other man will be in the position of saying ever again, at least not with the same meaning and authority and originality, because that second famous set of words came at the moment he was the first human to set foot on a world not our own. He said:
"That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind."
(The word "a" is in parenthesis because it was inaudible in the transmissions to earth and while he meant to say it, and for years believed he had said it, Armstrong later admitted he somehow may have left it out in all the excitement of the lunar landing. There is still controversy over whether he said "a man" or simply "man" and a computer programmer from Australia, who digitally analyzed the audio in recent years, claims that Armstrong did in fact say "a man". Armstrong has been reported as hoping that history would overlook it if he had slipped and said "man" instead of "a man". He was that sort of a guy.)
As I said, he was not one to stand in the spot lights, not a glory seeker, not one to beat his chest and say I was the first man ever to set foot on another world. Yet, he was quite proud of his accomplishments but still considered himself a nerd:
"I am, and ever will be, a white socks, pocket protector, nerdy engineer," he said in February 2000 in one of his rare public appearances. "And I take a substantial amount of pride in the accomplishments of my profession."
Armstrong was also a patriot who believed strongly that lunar and other space exploration would benefit the USA and mankind. He did not agree at all with the new policies on privatizing space exploration set in place by President Barack H. Obama and despite his very private and retiring personality in 2010 he spoke out against those policies.
Many might think of the space race as just another of mans' wars. Indeed it was often part of the Cold War and was championed by the U.S. President John F. Kennedy during the height of the Cold War when he set forth this challenge for America:
"I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before the decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth," Kennedy had said. "No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important to the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish."
Armstrong felt differently about the Space Race, not thinking it so much part of a war as something else:
"the ultimate peaceful competition: USA versus U.S.S.R. It did allow both sides to take the high road, with the objectives of science and learning and exploration".
Armstrong had a lot of help along the way, it was a massive team effort, yet he was the one to actually accomplish being the first to set foot on the Moon. That was on July 21, 1969, just shy of the deadline at the end of the decade, as had been set by President Kennedy!
That he was a patriot and a hero, there is no doubt. That he was a reserved, quiet and private man, there is also no doubt. That he was and remains and American icon, a man of merit even among all those in the world, a man of whose accomplisments
"To this day, he's the one person on Earth, I'm truly, truly envious of."
Neil Armstrong, you will, as long as there are those who dream of traveling among the stars, live forever. Godspeed across the Universe Divide, I hope you do reach the other side, then rest your spirit if you can, before you come back to us again and again and again.
All the best,
Glenn B
I never heard much of the others who flew the X-15, there were about 7 other test pilots who flew it with some regularity. They were all either brave or foolish or both. One of them, a man who was not one to take to the spotlight often, and who reportedly considered himself a geek or a nerd, also wound up being one of the biggest media stars ever. In fact, news casts of him and his co-astronaut, during a single event lasting just around 3 hours, was and remains the most viewed television event of all times having had over 600,000,000 (yes, six hundred million) viewers as it happened live. That event was mankind's first landing on a world other than our own, with Neil Armstrong being the first man to set foot on the Moon. Before even being close to exiting the lunar module though, Neil Armstrong contacted earth and uttered some words that likely would have been remembered as one of the most famous quotes ever had those words not soon been overshadowed by other words he would speak once out of the capsule. The first words, from Armstrong to Mission Control were:
"Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed."
With those first words, the Lunar Landing gave the United States of America a victory in the Space Race segment of the Cold War over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (commonly known as the USSR or now called Russia). Yet, not long after saying those words, Armstrong would say something that no other man will be in the position of saying ever again, at least not with the same meaning and authority and originality, because that second famous set of words came at the moment he was the first human to set foot on a world not our own. He said:
"That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind."
(The word "a" is in parenthesis because it was inaudible in the transmissions to earth and while he meant to say it, and for years believed he had said it, Armstrong later admitted he somehow may have left it out in all the excitement of the lunar landing. There is still controversy over whether he said "a man" or simply "man" and a computer programmer from Australia, who digitally analyzed the audio in recent years, claims that Armstrong did in fact say "a man". Armstrong has been reported as hoping that history would overlook it if he had slipped and said "man" instead of "a man". He was that sort of a guy.)
As I said, he was not one to stand in the spot lights, not a glory seeker, not one to beat his chest and say I was the first man ever to set foot on another world. Yet, he was quite proud of his accomplishments but still considered himself a nerd:
"I am, and ever will be, a white socks, pocket protector, nerdy engineer," he said in February 2000 in one of his rare public appearances. "And I take a substantial amount of pride in the accomplishments of my profession."
Armstrong was also a patriot who believed strongly that lunar and other space exploration would benefit the USA and mankind. He did not agree at all with the new policies on privatizing space exploration set in place by President Barack H. Obama and despite his very private and retiring personality in 2010 he spoke out against those policies.
Many might think of the space race as just another of mans' wars. Indeed it was often part of the Cold War and was championed by the U.S. President John F. Kennedy during the height of the Cold War when he set forth this challenge for America:
"I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before the decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth," Kennedy had said. "No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important to the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish."
Armstrong felt differently about the Space Race, not thinking it so much part of a war as something else:
"the ultimate peaceful competition: USA versus U.S.S.R. It did allow both sides to take the high road, with the objectives of science and learning and exploration".
Armstrong had a lot of help along the way, it was a massive team effort, yet he was the one to actually accomplish being the first to set foot on the Moon. That was on July 21, 1969, just shy of the deadline at the end of the decade, as had been set by President Kennedy!
That he was a patriot and a hero, there is no doubt. That he was a reserved, quiet and private man, there is also no doubt. That he was and remains and American icon, a man of merit even among all those in the world, a man of whose accomplisments
"To this day, he's the one person on Earth, I'm truly, truly envious of."
Neil Armstrong, you will, as long as there are those who dream of traveling among the stars, live forever. Godspeed across the Universe Divide, I hope you do reach the other side, then rest your spirit if you can, before you come back to us again and again and again.
All the best,
Glenn B
7 Year Old Shoots Garbage Man - I Think That Maybe There Is Much More To This Story
So, the report says that a 7 year old has shot, and wounded, a local garbage man inside of a home, they did not specify to whom the home belonged. They did say the gun belonged to the trash man. They quote the local mayor as saying: "He is loved by everyone in town," - referring to, Mr. Delucia, the shot sanitation worker. The guy is in stable condition. They expect no charges to be filed.
I think there is a possibility that charges should and may well yet be filed. Why do I think so?
First of all, one has to wonder why the reporting on this incident is so scanty when coming out of the state of CT - a state well known for its anti-gun sentiments. You would think the press would be all over such a shooting but maybe the police have withheld information due to an ongoing investigation. Second, I have to wonder, even surmise, that this likely took place inside of Mr. Delucia's home. I say that because the gun has been reported as being legally registered to Mr. Delucia. I kind of doubt it likely would have been available to the 7 year old boy, who shot him with it, in another home. That is unless Mr. Delucia were in another home and Mr. Delucia made the pistol available to the child which seems less than likely. Then again, it seems he must have somehow allowed the child access to it whether intentionally or not. That begs the question of charges of child endangerment and it suggests to me that the gun was possibly left unattended and forgotten where the child found it somewhere in Mr. Delucia's home. Again, just guesswork.
Of course, there is also the question of why was the 7 year old child, who apparently was not his child (the boy was reported to be his neighbor) in a home with Mr. Delucia in the first place? Was the child there along with one or both of his parents or with a guardian or was the child there with Mr. Delucia alone or with other children and Mr. Delucia? Was it Mr. Delucia's home, the child's home a neighbors home. As I said above, I would guess it to have been Mr. Delucia's home.
Finally, I wonder, was it actually an accidental shooting (yes one due to negligence) or was it a purposeful shooting? Could the boy have been defending himself?
The article is just so meager as to the amount of fact upon which it has reported that it leaves me to beg answers to these questions, if not directly, then simply by more full reporting of what took place and how and why it happened.
Hopefully there is nothing nefarious involved here. Sadly, at the least, it seems this shooting possibly was due to a failure of the owner to secure his pistol from children. Folks, as gun owners, gun safety is our responsibility. Try to bear in mind that the life you save may be your own.
All the best,
Glenn B
I think there is a possibility that charges should and may well yet be filed. Why do I think so?
First of all, one has to wonder why the reporting on this incident is so scanty when coming out of the state of CT - a state well known for its anti-gun sentiments. You would think the press would be all over such a shooting but maybe the police have withheld information due to an ongoing investigation. Second, I have to wonder, even surmise, that this likely took place inside of Mr. Delucia's home. I say that because the gun has been reported as being legally registered to Mr. Delucia. I kind of doubt it likely would have been available to the 7 year old boy, who shot him with it, in another home. That is unless Mr. Delucia were in another home and Mr. Delucia made the pistol available to the child which seems less than likely. Then again, it seems he must have somehow allowed the child access to it whether intentionally or not. That begs the question of charges of child endangerment and it suggests to me that the gun was possibly left unattended and forgotten where the child found it somewhere in Mr. Delucia's home. Again, just guesswork.
Of course, there is also the question of why was the 7 year old child, who apparently was not his child (the boy was reported to be his neighbor) in a home with Mr. Delucia in the first place? Was the child there along with one or both of his parents or with a guardian or was the child there with Mr. Delucia alone or with other children and Mr. Delucia? Was it Mr. Delucia's home, the child's home a neighbors home. As I said above, I would guess it to have been Mr. Delucia's home.
Finally, I wonder, was it actually an accidental shooting (yes one due to negligence) or was it a purposeful shooting? Could the boy have been defending himself?
The article is just so meager as to the amount of fact upon which it has reported that it leaves me to beg answers to these questions, if not directly, then simply by more full reporting of what took place and how and why it happened.
Hopefully there is nothing nefarious involved here. Sadly, at the least, it seems this shooting possibly was due to a failure of the owner to secure his pistol from children. Folks, as gun owners, gun safety is our responsibility. Try to bear in mind that the life you save may be your own.
All the best,
Glenn B
Friday, August 24, 2012
A Little Blog Roll Updating
I added a new category to my blog rolls, thus have a new blog roll titled: Bloggers Whom I Have Met. Those listed in that particular blog roll may also be listed in one of the other ones such as in GRUMPS, GEEKS, GUN FOLKS AND GENIUSES - All Nice Enough To Give Me A Courtesy Link (just also changed the name on that one a bit) or in one of the other two blog rolls I have on the right side of my blog in The Blue Zone.
Speaking of a blogger whom I have met and who just happens to be someone who placed my blog in his blog roll, allow me to welcome Doubletrouble to my blog roll. His blog is RattailBastard. It is now listed under both BLOGGERS WHOM I HAVE MET and under GRUMPS, GEEKS, GUN FOLKS AND GENIUSES - All Nice Enough To Give Me A Courtesy Link. While I have not had the opportunity to read up on many of his posts yet, I will do so soon as possible. Regardless, I can tell you that, based upon my having met him and his wife, I can say he and his lady are good people and I think his blog should be well worth the read.
All the best,
Glenn B
Speaking of a blogger whom I have met and who just happens to be someone who placed my blog in his blog roll, allow me to welcome Doubletrouble to my blog roll. His blog is RattailBastard. It is now listed under both BLOGGERS WHOM I HAVE MET and under GRUMPS, GEEKS, GUN FOLKS AND GENIUSES - All Nice Enough To Give Me A Courtesy Link. While I have not had the opportunity to read up on many of his posts yet, I will do so soon as possible. Regardless, I can tell you that, based upon my having met him and his wife, I can say he and his lady are good people and I think his blog should be well worth the read.
All the best,
Glenn B
WIN DINNER WITH BARACK
I just entered a contest to win "Dinner With Barack". How many Barack's do you know, yes I mean with President Obama. There were a few ways to enter, two or three by way of making a contribution to his reelection campaign and another that did not require a contribution. Of course, I did not give even a penny.
Even though I find myself in almost total disagreement with the man's policies, and I am certain I will not vote for him, it certainly would have the potential to be an interesting dinner.
Want to give it a try, go here:
https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/om-dinner-with-barack-sept-alt
All the best,
Glenn B
Even though I find myself in almost total disagreement with the man's policies, and I am certain I will not vote for him, it certainly would have the potential to be an interesting dinner.
Want to give it a try, go here:
https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/om-dinner-with-barack-sept-alt
All the best,
Glenn B
Police May Have Shot 8 Bystanders In Shootout Near Empire State Building...
...as reported by NBC: "Eight bystanders were grazed or shot -- all of them, apparently, by police bullets, sources said.", see: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/24/13455394-2-killed-8-injured-in-shooting-near-empire-state-building?lite/.
In addition, according to a radio report I heard on a local radio station, 1010 WINS (CBS News) this morning at about 1130 or so, the reporter claimed Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, while answering the questions of a mob of reporters, said his officers had no other option. He reportedly said, in sum and substance, that his officers had been fired upon and had to shoot back and something to the effect that things like this just happen! If, I heard that right and if the reporter got it right, and that is in essence what Commissioner Kelly blurted out, it is an outrage and Kelly should be walking the streets looking for a new job as a peanut salesman or similar work for the brain dead. Of course, he will not be fired because his mouth is firmly planted on Mayor Bloomberg's ass when he is not making such statements that show his apparent disregard for the public safety. Guns in the hands of law enforcement only is the policy Ray Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg would like to see - and now Kelly apparently has said it is somehow okay or to be expected for the police to mow down innocent bystanders to protect themselves!
I was a law enforcement firearms instructor for 14 years. I was a law enforcement officer for 32 years. I was taught, and taught others, time and time again, that as LEOs, we are responsible for every bullet that comes out of our guns. I distinctly got the idea that if it was an overwhelming danger, to the public, for me to be shooting at a bad guy, I should either yell for people to take cover and get down, take cover myself, and shoot only when it was unlikely I would hit innocents. I was also well trained to shoot and hit my target. As far as misses go during such confrontations, I can understand it because of such things like adrenalin, being very scared and the pucker factor all contributing to misses. All the more reason not to shoot toward a crowd of innocents and the officers should have known it. It is a touch call to make and I am not about to condemn them, I was not in their shows. I do, however, condemn the alleged statements of Kelly. Folks, if Kelly's supposed statement is not a wake up call about the leftist side's view of the value of the lives of We The People, then nothing is such.
A hat tip to the construction worker who followed the bad guy, and reported him to police. It is now reported that the bad guy shot his ex-coworker on 33rd Street due to a dispute probably associated with him having been fired last year. The construction worker witnessed that shooting, then followed the bad guy, saw the police near the Empire State Building and reported the bad guy to the cops. According to mayor Bloomberg, the construction worker was not a hero, he did what he was supposed to have done, reported the shooter to the professionals and that was that. Un fucking believable, Bloomberg is a royal asshole in my opinion. No one else did what that construction worker did, only he was brave enough to follow the guy until he found police officer to whom he could report the initial shooting. If not for him, the guy might have gone on to kill others. The construction had brass balls and all I can say about what he did is that we owe him thanks, not the pooh-poohing of Mayor Bloomberg. Listen to the mayor at 6m 27sec of this video http://video.msnbc.msn.com/jansing-and-co/48779578#48779578. Bloomberg, once again, has proven himself a pompous ass in my opinion.
All the best,
Glenn B
In addition, according to a radio report I heard on a local radio station, 1010 WINS (CBS News) this morning at about 1130 or so, the reporter claimed Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, while answering the questions of a mob of reporters, said his officers had no other option. He reportedly said, in sum and substance, that his officers had been fired upon and had to shoot back and something to the effect that things like this just happen! If, I heard that right and if the reporter got it right, and that is in essence what Commissioner Kelly blurted out, it is an outrage and Kelly should be walking the streets looking for a new job as a peanut salesman or similar work for the brain dead. Of course, he will not be fired because his mouth is firmly planted on Mayor Bloomberg's ass when he is not making such statements that show his apparent disregard for the public safety. Guns in the hands of law enforcement only is the policy Ray Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg would like to see - and now Kelly apparently has said it is somehow okay or to be expected for the police to mow down innocent bystanders to protect themselves!
I was a law enforcement firearms instructor for 14 years. I was a law enforcement officer for 32 years. I was taught, and taught others, time and time again, that as LEOs, we are responsible for every bullet that comes out of our guns. I distinctly got the idea that if it was an overwhelming danger, to the public, for me to be shooting at a bad guy, I should either yell for people to take cover and get down, take cover myself, and shoot only when it was unlikely I would hit innocents. I was also well trained to shoot and hit my target. As far as misses go during such confrontations, I can understand it because of such things like adrenalin, being very scared and the pucker factor all contributing to misses. All the more reason not to shoot toward a crowd of innocents and the officers should have known it. It is a touch call to make and I am not about to condemn them, I was not in their shows. I do, however, condemn the alleged statements of Kelly. Folks, if Kelly's supposed statement is not a wake up call about the leftist side's view of the value of the lives of We The People, then nothing is such.
A hat tip to the construction worker who followed the bad guy, and reported him to police. It is now reported that the bad guy shot his ex-coworker on 33rd Street due to a dispute probably associated with him having been fired last year. The construction worker witnessed that shooting, then followed the bad guy, saw the police near the Empire State Building and reported the bad guy to the cops. According to mayor Bloomberg, the construction worker was not a hero, he did what he was supposed to have done, reported the shooter to the professionals and that was that. Un fucking believable, Bloomberg is a royal asshole in my opinion. No one else did what that construction worker did, only he was brave enough to follow the guy until he found police officer to whom he could report the initial shooting. If not for him, the guy might have gone on to kill others. The construction had brass balls and all I can say about what he did is that we owe him thanks, not the pooh-poohing of Mayor Bloomberg. Listen to the mayor at 6m 27sec of this video http://video.msnbc.msn.com/jansing-and-co/48779578#48779578. Bloomberg, once again, has proven himself a pompous ass in my opinion.
All the best,
Glenn B
Shootings At Empire State Building
I was just about to start typing up this post, while watching Fox News on the tube (yes it is an old TV) as Fox was interviewing an eye witness to the shootings at the Empire State Building, when the witness described the shooter (at least whom she thought was the shooter). She said: "A young boy, a white boy, uh, uh, and he was dead".
Fox has reported that anywhere from 5 to 8 people were indiscriminately shot outside of the Empire State Building, at 34th Street and 5th Avenue, in the heart of NY City, at 9AM this work day morning. They think it was a possible robbery attempt (seems unlikely to me that this would have been a robbery but that is just a guess on my part). They also reported that the same shooter apparently also had shot someone on 33rd Street. The facts beings reported on have been pretty sketchy and keep changing. They have not said who shot the gunman.
They are now saying, at this moment, that the shooter was an employee who had worked in the Empire State Building until he was fired yesterday (also have said he was fired today, left work and returned with gun). So, they believe it a retaliatory shooting because he had been fired.
In addition, Fox has reported that two NYPD police officers from the 42nd Precinct, who were on an anti-terrorism detail, shot the bad guy.
The NYPD is now confirming 10 people injured (not certain how many shot). Fox is reporting at least3 dead 2 dead (now they are saying maybe only the shooter is dead, keeps changing).
The Empire State Building reportedly has already been reopened to employees of it and the businesses located within. It has not been reopened to tourists yet. Manhattan must be a madhouse as far as traffic goes.
This is all breaking news that keeps changing by the moment.
All the best,
Glenn B
Fox has reported that anywhere from 5 to 8 people were indiscriminately shot outside of the Empire State Building, at 34th Street and 5th Avenue, in the heart of NY City, at 9AM this work day morning. They think it was a possible robbery attempt (seems unlikely to me that this would have been a robbery but that is just a guess on my part). They also reported that the same shooter apparently also had shot someone on 33rd Street. The facts beings reported on have been pretty sketchy and keep changing. They have not said who shot the gunman.
They are now saying, at this moment, that the shooter was an employee who had worked in the Empire State Building until he was fired yesterday (also have said he was fired today, left work and returned with gun). So, they believe it a retaliatory shooting because he had been fired.
In addition, Fox has reported that two NYPD police officers from the 42nd Precinct, who were on an anti-terrorism detail, shot the bad guy.
The NYPD is now confirming 10 people injured (not certain how many shot). Fox is reporting at least
The Empire State Building reportedly has already been reopened to employees of it and the businesses located within. It has not been reopened to tourists yet. Manhattan must be a madhouse as far as traffic goes.
This is all breaking news that keeps changing by the moment.
All the best,
Glenn B
Thursday, August 23, 2012
If You're Brown Bagging It Around The Political Conventions Don't Pack Any Hard Boiled Eggs
If you attend either the Republican or Democrat political conventions, or even if you will be in the area when either is held, and you brown bag it - don't bring along any hard boiled eggs or you may wind up detained for investigation. I jest you not. It seems that the latest news flash, from what probably are paranoid cautious government law enforcement agencies, is that anarchists may try to disrupt the conventions by tossing acid filled eggs (among other things).
I can just imagine some poor slob, sitting down in a public area near the convention, who pulls a couple of hard boiled ones out of his day pack only to be swarmed by SWAT. Even worse would be the outcome for anyone found to be entering one of the conventions with a couple or few eggs in their bag. I can just imagine him or her being pounced upon, detained, questioned, and embarrassed. I can also see the eggs being seized and examined, x-rayed, sniffed by bomb sniffing dogs, and finally wolfed down by some blob from event security. Perhaps this will transfer to TSA as well and hard boiled eggs will become verboten on airline flights (if not so already).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/22/feds-warn-anarchists-could-blockade-roads-use-acid-filled-eggs-to-protest/
All the best,
Glenn B
I can just imagine some poor slob, sitting down in a public area near the convention, who pulls a couple of hard boiled ones out of his day pack only to be swarmed by SWAT. Even worse would be the outcome for anyone found to be entering one of the conventions with a couple or few eggs in their bag. I can just imagine him or her being pounced upon, detained, questioned, and embarrassed. I can also see the eggs being seized and examined, x-rayed, sniffed by bomb sniffing dogs, and finally wolfed down by some blob from event security. Perhaps this will transfer to TSA as well and hard boiled eggs will become verboten on airline flights (if not so already).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/22/feds-warn-anarchists-could-blockade-roads-use-acid-filled-eggs-to-protest/
All the best,
Glenn B
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Our President Not Forgetting Wounded Warriors
Well, really it was our previous president.Would you expect President Obama to ever do something like this?
All the best,
GB
All the best,
GB
THE FACE OF OUR NATION ('s LEADER)
His face hidden behind a teleprompter so he does not screw up once again while making a speech on the campaign trail. His sleeves rolled up to make believe that he built up America. Folks, if you think we need this guy again for the next 4 years of the presidency, then go ahead and vote for him but remember, once you are standing in a soup line, that you voted for him. Then again, how you voted for him the first time was almost understandable, though made no sense, to me. How you could even consider voting for him a second time truly befuddles me. If you do consider voting for him, please bear in mind that, it was not George W. Bush who was responsible for the worst deficit in the history of our once great nation.
Me, I am looking forward with some real hope that we will get truly meaningful change for the betterment of the United States of America. In other words, I foresee a nation without Barack H. Obama as president and with President Mitt Romney leading us to recovery.
All the best,
Glenn B
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
They Say "A Man Works From Sun To Sun But...
...A Woman's Work Is Never Done." Well, if that is true then just start calling me Mrs. instead of Mister. Man, have I been busy with dishes, laundry, vacuuming, dusting, cleaning up toilets, letting the dogs out (thus more cleaning up toilets) mowing the lawn, tending the vegetable garden, vacuuming, prepping and gun cleaning. Now really, while I do all those things, I have not been all that busy. I tend to be the lazy type but I have been cleaning guns a lot lately. With me having to work three days this week, I guess it is making gun cleaning seem like more of a chore than usual because it is harder to fit it in.
For instance, I cleaned my Ruger Mark II and my Romanian WASR AK-47 today. The Ruger took all of 8 to 10 minutes. I actually remembered how to take it down and put it back together without looking at the manual, probably for the first time ever. Perhaps me having made a couple of videos, in the past couple of days, on how to disassemble and reassemble it finally had it sink into my little gray cells. Te AK probably took me about 45 minutes. I gave it a thorough cleaning except for the trigger group which I do not always remove for cleaning. When I got the AK reassembled, I did a function check, rested it on my lap a second and what seemed like a flow of puppy pee came out of it. I actually took it apart to see if somehow I had left a cleaning patch soaked in Gunziilla inside the gas tube or not. nope, nothing in there, I must have just soaked it too much, did not think I had done so, but got wet enough to convince me that is just what I had done.
Just my luck, that meant more cleaning. I had to throw those pants and my shirt into the washer, need the pants tomnorrow for work, so I grabbed whatever other colored wash was lying around in the hamper, and on the floor in my son's room, and threw it all in the washer. Seems the wash day is never done and if I figured it out right I have been working more than sun to sun. Did I happen to mention, you can just start calling me Mrs. instead of Mister! Gotta go, I have to feed the puppy and then let the dogs out before I head to work.
All the best,
Glenn B
For instance, I cleaned my Ruger Mark II and my Romanian WASR AK-47 today. The Ruger took all of 8 to 10 minutes. I actually remembered how to take it down and put it back together without looking at the manual, probably for the first time ever. Perhaps me having made a couple of videos, in the past couple of days, on how to disassemble and reassemble it finally had it sink into my little gray cells. Te AK probably took me about 45 minutes. I gave it a thorough cleaning except for the trigger group which I do not always remove for cleaning. When I got the AK reassembled, I did a function check, rested it on my lap a second and what seemed like a flow of puppy pee came out of it. I actually took it apart to see if somehow I had left a cleaning patch soaked in Gunziilla inside the gas tube or not. nope, nothing in there, I must have just soaked it too much, did not think I had done so, but got wet enough to convince me that is just what I had done.
Just my luck, that meant more cleaning. I had to throw those pants and my shirt into the washer, need the pants tomnorrow for work, so I grabbed whatever other colored wash was lying around in the hamper, and on the floor in my son's room, and threw it all in the washer. Seems the wash day is never done and if I figured it out right I have been working more than sun to sun. Did I happen to mention, you can just start calling me Mrs. instead of Mister! Gotta go, I have to feed the puppy and then let the dogs out before I head to work.
All the best,
Glenn B
Why Does The Media Insist On Ruining Good Video?
For the life of me I do not understand why the media, at least major media news reporting, insists on ruing great video by placing banners across the bottom of the screen?
For example, watch the accompanying video, supposedly of a shark feeding frenzy. Most, or at least much, of which takes place on the lower part of the shot, the same part the view of which is obstructed by a media implanted banner.
Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29
If you watch closely though, you will see at least one shark that leaps completely out of the water chasing what I expect are bluefish.
All the best,
Glenn B
For example, watch the accompanying video, supposedly of a shark feeding frenzy. Most, or at least much, of which takes place on the lower part of the shot, the same part the view of which is obstructed by a media implanted banner.
Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29
If you watch closely though, you will see at least one shark that leaps completely out of the water chasing what I expect are bluefish.
All the best,
Glenn B
Hey Politicians - Want To Stay Out Of Trouble - Just Answer The Question
We have all heard it. A politician is asked a question, maybe in a debate by another politician, maybe a question from a constituent, maybe one from a reporter - then he or she goes off on a tangent an gives an answer that covers everything but the question that was asked. I am sick of it, I hate it when they do it, it is a product of bureaucracy and society and I suppose we have to live with it. So it is nice, at least for me, to see politicians, who repeatedly resort to both doubletalk and doublespeak, wind up with egg on their faces when they do it. This goes across all political lines for me. For instance, I have been rather gleeful watching the latest mouthpiece as he struggles to overcome the mistake he made when he decided to go off on a bit of a tangent and not give a direct answer to a question asked of him on the subject of abortion. I am, of course, referring to Missouri Republican Senatorial candidate Todd Akin.
He was being interviewed by a news show host, about his stand on abortion. Apparently, he opposes it, and he was asked a pretty simple and straightforward question, in essence what did he think about using abortion to end pregnancies caused by rape. Instead of having integrity and courage relative to his convictions, instead of giving a direct and truthful answer and saying something like: 'I don't believe that abortion should be used to terminate any pregnancy because I believe that life is sacred and believe that a fetus is a life', he starts blabbing about what he says doctors say. That was something along the lines that a woman's body can sort of shut down to prevent a pregnancy during cases of "legitimate rape". Not only did he not answer the question directly - by not immediately giving his stance outright but instead he told us what doctors supposedly say. In his answer, he also wound up using a totally inappropriate word to describe a rape when he said the words "legitimate rape". Tell me, when in Hades did rape ever become legitimized? I am pretty sure he meant in real cases of rape, as opposed to a woman falsely claiming rape but why bring any of that up when it had absolutely nothing to do with giving a direct answer to the question that was asked.
All the had to do to stay out of trouble was to actually stand up for and express what he truly believed about abortion being wrong (I think that is his belief but it is kind of hard to tell listening to him explain it). Had he done so, he probably would have remained in the lead in his election race. Now, other politicians in his own party are asking him to step down and get out of the race. I think the only person who wants him to remain in the race is his opponent. Who can blame her, she is running against a dimwit and is bound to win if he opens his mouth again about how he feels on the issues.
Guys like this loose lipped linguist (you saw/heard that first here) could easily stay out of trouble by answering the question asked instead of trying to sidestep it with doubletalk and doublespeak and I really wish they would just start using straight talk and give direct clear and concise answers to the questions asked of them. Then again, politics would be nowhere nearly as entertaining if not for twits like him.
All the best,
Glenn B
He was being interviewed by a news show host, about his stand on abortion. Apparently, he opposes it, and he was asked a pretty simple and straightforward question, in essence what did he think about using abortion to end pregnancies caused by rape. Instead of having integrity and courage relative to his convictions, instead of giving a direct and truthful answer and saying something like: 'I don't believe that abortion should be used to terminate any pregnancy because I believe that life is sacred and believe that a fetus is a life', he starts blabbing about what he says doctors say. That was something along the lines that a woman's body can sort of shut down to prevent a pregnancy during cases of "legitimate rape". Not only did he not answer the question directly - by not immediately giving his stance outright but instead he told us what doctors supposedly say. In his answer, he also wound up using a totally inappropriate word to describe a rape when he said the words "legitimate rape". Tell me, when in Hades did rape ever become legitimized? I am pretty sure he meant in real cases of rape, as opposed to a woman falsely claiming rape but why bring any of that up when it had absolutely nothing to do with giving a direct answer to the question that was asked.
All the had to do to stay out of trouble was to actually stand up for and express what he truly believed about abortion being wrong (I think that is his belief but it is kind of hard to tell listening to him explain it). Had he done so, he probably would have remained in the lead in his election race. Now, other politicians in his own party are asking him to step down and get out of the race. I think the only person who wants him to remain in the race is his opponent. Who can blame her, she is running against a dimwit and is bound to win if he opens his mouth again about how he feels on the issues.
Guys like this loose lipped linguist (you saw/heard that first here) could easily stay out of trouble by answering the question asked instead of trying to sidestep it with doubletalk and doublespeak and I really wish they would just start using straight talk and give direct clear and concise answers to the questions asked of them. Then again, politics would be nowhere nearly as entertaining if not for twits like him.
All the best,
Glenn B
SHE WAS AS FUNNY AS FUNNY GETS
Phyllis Diller (pictured with Bob Hope probably in Vietnam circa 1966), gone at age 95. Heck, I always thought she was old, probably because when I started watching her on television, I was about 7 or 8 and she was in her mid 40s (the forties are ancient to kids that young). She was a comedy icon. She really was the funniest woman I have ever seen and she will be missed. I grew up with her. I don't remember all the shows I saw her in but there were many, including: The Phyllis Diller Show, The Red Skelton Hour, The Merv Griffin Show, The Ed Sullivan Show, The Tonight Show (with Jack Parr), The Tonight Show (with Johnny Carson), The Jackie Gleason Show, I've Got A Secret, The Art Linkletter Show, What's My Line, The Mark Douglas Show, The Dean Martin Comedy Hour, Hollywood Squares, The Bob Hope Show, Rowan and Martin's Laugh In, The David Frost Show, Love American Style, The Flip Wilson Show, and one and on and on. Those were just in the 1960's through the early 70's and include the many more shows referred to when I said "and on and on" all also in that time frame. Her film credits are humongous, they go from the 1950s through the current decade, in fact up until 2011. Her television series/show filmography can be seen here. She also starred in some movies such as Boy Did I Get A Wrong Number and Eight On The Lam, both with Bob Hope. She made me laugh many, many, many times and for that I will always be grateful to her.http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/08/20/comedian-phyllis-diller-dies-in-los-angeles-at-5/
All the best,
Glenn B
Monday, August 20, 2012
Six Years Of Crawling Along At Blogging
What do they call it - a blogiversary? Well, I guess that means today is mine. I have been at it for 6 years. Apparently, I am not very good at it, or at least not that popular, judging by the scant visits and pages views I have gotten in all that time. (Edited to add: Scant only as compared to others, I am still surprised that so many people have read my blog.) Maybe there is a trick in getting a blog more widespread and thus better viewed than mine but I do not know it. I always sort of thought my content was as good as some other blogs that have at least as many visits and page views in one year as my blog has had in all six years but that is just my opinion.
To date, according to SiteMeter.com, I have about 193,516 visitors (or 192,230 depending on where I look on SiteMeter for the info). I also have somewhat more than 288,000 page views. Those stats are for all six years. I wonder if that is right though because Blogger shows me as having 211,825 page views since only May 2008; I think that is when they started taking stats. It also says I had 9,530 page views last month but a chart they have shows me as having 10,902 page views last month! Go figure because I can't.
None of that matters very much. What matters are my readers. I hope those of you who do read my stuff find it informative and useful when it is meant to be such and just enjoy whatever else I write the rest of the time. Any respectful and reasonable suggestions on things you might like to see me write about, in my blog, would be appreciated.
All the best,
Glenn B
To date, according to SiteMeter.com, I have about 193,516 visitors (or 192,230 depending on where I look on SiteMeter for the info). I also have somewhat more than 288,000 page views. Those stats are for all six years. I wonder if that is right though because Blogger shows me as having 211,825 page views since only May 2008; I think that is when they started taking stats. It also says I had 9,530 page views last month but a chart they have shows me as having 10,902 page views last month! Go figure because I can't.
None of that matters very much. What matters are my readers. I hope those of you who do read my stuff find it informative and useful when it is meant to be such and just enjoy whatever else I write the rest of the time. Any respectful and reasonable suggestions on things you might like to see me write about, in my blog, would be appreciated.
All the best,
Glenn B
Sunday, August 19, 2012
RUGER MARK II SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL - DISASSEMBLY AND REASSEMBLY VIDEOS
Here are parts 1 and 2 of a two part video series on Dissasembly and Reassembly of the Ruger Mark II, semi-automatic, target pistol. Part one is a video showing how I disassemble it and part two shows reassembly. Both the disassembly and reassembly are somewhat complex, not anything like taking down, and putting back together, a Glock 19 or Beretta 92FS. Yet, truth be told, if you know the steps to follow, it is not as terrible as some people make it out to be. I know the steps only by way of the manual. I strongly recommend getting yourself a Ruger Mark II manual before trying this. My guess would be that Ruger may still have them and if not you probably could find a copy for sale at GunBroker.com or a similar website oir maybe even for free on the Internet.
Note, I pretty much read the appropriate parts of the gun's manual each time I take my Ruger Mark II apart and each time I put it back together again. I do that even though I have owned said pistol for 20 to 25 years now. In recent years, I probably only have shot it about 4 to 5 times a year. Over its lifetime, probably on average only 10 times per year at most. I disassemble it maybe 2 or 3 to 4 times a year for a good cleaning; ar other times, it gets a quick cleaning without disassembly. While I can disassemble and reassemble other firearms that I shoot as seldom as I do the Ruger MK II, such as my Beretta 70S, without assistance of a manual, I would never get it right until about the 4th or 5th try, with the Mark II, if I was not using the manual. Some people still find it difficult even when assisted by the manual but it really is not too difficult to get right for anyone who can follow instructions well, at least not with a fairly well fired gun. Newer, less fired and less broken in, Ruger Mark IIs can be difficult but still not too bad.
The first video is pretty brief, well at least for a video that I have made. It lasts somewhat over 6 minutes. I also made the second one this evening but it came out much longer, well over 15 minutes. I redid it several times and the shortest I could get it, and get it right, was just under 13 minutes. It may be a long video on how to reassemble this pistol but please bear in mind that reassembly is usually the more problematic of the two operations. I think some folks will benefit from the detail I go into. I may try to shorten it, that is to redo making the video but this time to to have it come out a couple to few minutes shorter in duration without losing any of the details of the proper reassembly. For now though, you are stuck with the almost 13 minute longer version of the reassembly video.
For those of you who may think the video one is too long, at almost 13 minutes, all I can say in my defense is that this video will be helpful to others who maybe have more patience than you. They would be those who have had a hard time fiddling with their Ruger Mark II's in their attempts to take 'em down for cleaning and then struggle even more trying to get 'em slapped back together. I don't think 12 minutes and 52 seconds will be too long for them on the reassembly side.
Why on earth Sturm - Ruger ever manufactured a pistol that was and remains so much fun to shoot but can be such a pain in the butt, for some folks to maintain, is beyond me!
All the best,
Glenn B
Note, I pretty much read the appropriate parts of the gun's manual each time I take my Ruger Mark II apart and each time I put it back together again. I do that even though I have owned said pistol for 20 to 25 years now. In recent years, I probably only have shot it about 4 to 5 times a year. Over its lifetime, probably on average only 10 times per year at most. I disassemble it maybe 2 or 3 to 4 times a year for a good cleaning; ar other times, it gets a quick cleaning without disassembly. While I can disassemble and reassemble other firearms that I shoot as seldom as I do the Ruger MK II, such as my Beretta 70S, without assistance of a manual, I would never get it right until about the 4th or 5th try, with the Mark II, if I was not using the manual. Some people still find it difficult even when assisted by the manual but it really is not too difficult to get right for anyone who can follow instructions well, at least not with a fairly well fired gun. Newer, less fired and less broken in, Ruger Mark IIs can be difficult but still not too bad.
The first video is pretty brief, well at least for a video that I have made. It lasts somewhat over 6 minutes. I also made the second one this evening but it came out much longer, well over 15 minutes. I redid it several times and the shortest I could get it, and get it right, was just under 13 minutes. It may be a long video on how to reassemble this pistol but please bear in mind that reassembly is usually the more problematic of the two operations. I think some folks will benefit from the detail I go into. I may try to shorten it, that is to redo making the video but this time to to have it come out a couple to few minutes shorter in duration without losing any of the details of the proper reassembly. For now though, you are stuck with the almost 13 minute longer version of the reassembly video.
For those of you who may think the video one is too long, at almost 13 minutes, all I can say in my defense is that this video will be helpful to others who maybe have more patience than you. They would be those who have had a hard time fiddling with their Ruger Mark II's in their attempts to take 'em down for cleaning and then struggle even more trying to get 'em slapped back together. I don't think 12 minutes and 52 seconds will be too long for them on the reassembly side.
Why on earth Sturm - Ruger ever manufactured a pistol that was and remains so much fun to shoot but can be such a pain in the butt, for some folks to maintain, is beyond me!
All the best,
Glenn B
Friday, August 17, 2012
23 YEARS SINCE I HAD A SMOKE...
...AND LAST YEAR, I GOT TONSILAR AND LYMPH NODE CANCER ANYWAY. GO FUCKING FIGURE!
LIFE IS SWEET WHILE YOU CAN ENJOY IT OR ARE EVEN WELL ENOUGH TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. JUST BELIEVE ME ON THAT, AND START ENJOYING IT MORE NOW BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT IS IN STORE FOR YOU.
(I found out I had cancer on August 10th, 2011, if I remember right, but the date really does not matter, believe me on that too.)
All the best,
Glenn B
LIFE IS SWEET WHILE YOU CAN ENJOY IT OR ARE EVEN WELL ENOUGH TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. JUST BELIEVE ME ON THAT, AND START ENJOYING IT MORE NOW BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT IS IN STORE FOR YOU.
(I found out I had cancer on August 10th, 2011, if I remember right, but the date really does not matter, believe me on that too.)
All the best,
Glenn B
New Additions To The Blog List
This young lady, Cher, and her husband (unbeknownst to me at the time that they were a couple) were both at the Fifth Annual Northeast Bloggershoot. She took some awesome video and photos and shot guns pretty damned good too. Besides that, as can be seen from her two (2) blogs, she enjoys beers and ales among other things! If only I could get my frau to do likewise!
Her blogs can be seen at the following links and are now on my blog roll (or will be once I am not overly imbibed):
http://cher-homespun.blogspot.com/
http://stuffbycher.blogspot.com/
All the best,
Glenn B
Her blogs can be seen at the following links and are now on my blog roll (or will be once I am not overly imbibed):
http://cher-homespun.blogspot.com/
http://stuffbycher.blogspot.com/
All the best,
Glenn B
Thursday, August 16, 2012
THE ONLY ONES
Every time I hear it out loud, or read printed words, calling a law enforcement officer (LEO) one of THE ONLY ONES if he or she has an accidental discharge, whether or not due to negligence, I get a little fired up. You see, to compare every LEO to the DEA agent who shot himself after saying in essence 'I am the only one, I know of, qualified in this room to handle a firearm' is ludicrous. As a matter of fact, they way the whole ONLY ONES thing is often stated, it makes it appear as if that DEA agent, and every other law enforcement officer in the United States of America, made the statement that only LEOs are qualified to carry firearms. That was not the meaning of the DEA agent's statement at all, listen to the video, you have to be a raving anti-law enforcement person to arrive at such a conclusion. The DEA agent was in effect just telling the children in the class that they should not handle firearms if not in some way qualified or instructed in how to do so, his meaning was pretty obvious or should have been even to a moron. All that aside, yeah, he did something very stupid in how he shot himself, I would bet he never does it again because pain can make you smarter.
All that I just said though does not explain why it gets me miffed when I hear references to THE ONLY ONES in that sarcastic or outright friggin nasty manner in which term is usually conveyed. Nope, it is not even that anyone says it with sarcasm or with anger or nastiness that gets me fired up. What gets me fired up is that the same disrespectful shitheads who group all LEOs together as some anti-gun rights group of ONLY ONES, never for a moment even consider that those same officers are truly, just about (and I said just about because there are some rare folks who are not LEOS that would do this) face the danger every day of being run over, attacked by animals (both two legged and 4 legged), beaten, tabbed, gunned down just because they are law enforcement officers in protecting you and yours. No this is not a debate so please do not start one and don't tell me how you should be free to own guns to protect yourself. If you know me at all, you know I think we should be free to own Abrams tanks to overthrow a tyrannical government if need be; I truly believe that was the intent of the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights - to assure the people kept the power over the government and not the other way around as it almost seems now.
No, this is about something else. It is about a class of people, not the bad apples, but the 90% or more who are truly good guys in law enforcement. A class of people who rush to shooting, stabbings, muggings, 9/11 catastrophes, to help those in need and possibly to face life threatening situations. And it is about they to whom it seemingly does not matter that they indiscriminately use the term the ONLY ONES to insult and demean LEOs who quite frankly may not, for even a second, deserve that term applied to them, in a negative manner, no matter what the incident in which they are involved. To those name callers, it does not matter if the LEOs are liberals, conservatives, libertarians, gun haters, gun lovers, lifetime NRA members, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters - they just know that if a cop, or other LEO, fucks up with a gun - he must be an ONLY ONE. How immature and how sad that such a view point exists in light of incidents like this:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/16/13315235-two-louisiana-deputies-killed-in-ambush-shootings?lite
You know, when I think of these apparent ambush style cop shootings, and when I think of officers who died in events like the destruction at the World Trade center on 9/11/2001, and when I think of cops delivering babies, or pulling people out of car wrecks, or federal agents risking their lives to try to stem the flow of illegal aliens and narcotics at our borders, or an undercover federal agent setting up terrorists for the fall, or a cop climbing a tree to rescue a darned cat, or any other number of things that most other folks would not do in a million years, because they think it is an LEOs job to put themselves in Harm's Way, well then that is when I think that yes indeed - law enforcement officers do deserve the title of THE ONLY ONES. Yeah sure, cops enforce the law but nowhere in any job description I have ever seen for an LEO does it say they have to put themselves in danger to save any one's sorry butt. Yet they do it all the time, and while some gun bloggers acknowledge this, I never have heard certain so called hard core pro-gun bloggers give these cops a nod of approval. They sure do slam them if ever they have a chance and an accidental discharge of a firearms seems all they need whether they know the facts surrounding it or not. All without knowing the officers stance on gun control at that.
As a matter of fact, the person from whose mouth I most recently heard the words THE ONLY ONES used in a somewhat negative manner against LEOs also had recently mentioned that he, in essence, quite possibly would not act like a cop in a situation where others (besides himself or his family) were being harmed by an evil doer. He would protect his family and himself and leave the rest to the cops. I am not saying I blame him, it takes a certain type of individual to guard the flock beyond your own immediate family. (By the way, no names, this is no attack on the person who said that, it is just a reiteration of something to give an example of what I am saying from real life. Please, no one take any offense to me using that example.) Nope, most people, even those who are 100% pro right to keep and bear arms, those who carry every day, those who consider themselves ready for action against bad guys, quite possibly would not help other citizens in dire need in such cases. Yet, LEOs are expected to go out of their way to do so each and every day. In fact, LEOs do that each and every day. Still, they are only considered THE ONLY ONES if they screw up. What a joke but not a funny one.
Yep, they truly are THE ONLY ONES but in a very different context than what most folks mean by it when they say it. When I say it I mean it in a very positive light.
Sure, there are LEOs whose heads are so far up their asses they are truly beyond hope - probably should not be cops just because of bad attitude but my bet is that copy is not going to ask you if you are pro-gun or anti-gun if he is saving your life from drowning, pulling you out of wreck, giving you a ride to the hospital, getting an attacker off of you, helping your wife have a baby, or whatever.Try to remember, please, they are citizens too and they do have the right to their political opinions and their own convictions, and they certainly do not have to be the same as yours or mine. There are also bad LEOs. Let's face it, some could probably have done quite well as members of any hate group of which you can think and some are outright criminals.
The truth is though that the great majority of LEOs are good guys and gals and they do not deserve being slammed in a discriminatory manner without knowing anything about them other than maybe one had an accidental and maybe even a negligent firearms discharge. Why not also give them their due and honor those who serve so well, to protect us, to help us, to uphold the law (remember we vote in the jerks that legislate those laws, the LEOs just enforce them) and who face serious an sometimes even life threatening danger on an all too frequent basis. Why not stop using such a derogatory term as THE ONLY ONES in reference to any LEO whom you pretty much know nothing about. If he is a rabid anti-gun person and truly believes that only cops are qualified to own guns, fine - fire away. But again, why is it I so rarely hear praise for the good things LEOs do from the same folks the likes of whom so frequently slam the police at every chance they get.
All the best,
Glenn B
All that I just said though does not explain why it gets me miffed when I hear references to THE ONLY ONES in that sarcastic or outright friggin nasty manner in which term is usually conveyed. Nope, it is not even that anyone says it with sarcasm or with anger or nastiness that gets me fired up. What gets me fired up is that the same disrespectful shitheads who group all LEOs together as some anti-gun rights group of ONLY ONES, never for a moment even consider that those same officers are truly, just about (and I said just about because there are some rare folks who are not LEOS that would do this) face the danger every day of being run over, attacked by animals (both two legged and 4 legged), beaten, tabbed, gunned down just because they are law enforcement officers in protecting you and yours. No this is not a debate so please do not start one and don't tell me how you should be free to own guns to protect yourself. If you know me at all, you know I think we should be free to own Abrams tanks to overthrow a tyrannical government if need be; I truly believe that was the intent of the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights - to assure the people kept the power over the government and not the other way around as it almost seems now.
No, this is about something else. It is about a class of people, not the bad apples, but the 90% or more who are truly good guys in law enforcement. A class of people who rush to shooting, stabbings, muggings, 9/11 catastrophes, to help those in need and possibly to face life threatening situations. And it is about they to whom it seemingly does not matter that they indiscriminately use the term the ONLY ONES to insult and demean LEOs who quite frankly may not, for even a second, deserve that term applied to them, in a negative manner, no matter what the incident in which they are involved. To those name callers, it does not matter if the LEOs are liberals, conservatives, libertarians, gun haters, gun lovers, lifetime NRA members, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters - they just know that if a cop, or other LEO, fucks up with a gun - he must be an ONLY ONE. How immature and how sad that such a view point exists in light of incidents like this:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/16/13315235-two-louisiana-deputies-killed-in-ambush-shootings?lite
You know, when I think of these apparent ambush style cop shootings, and when I think of officers who died in events like the destruction at the World Trade center on 9/11/2001, and when I think of cops delivering babies, or pulling people out of car wrecks, or federal agents risking their lives to try to stem the flow of illegal aliens and narcotics at our borders, or an undercover federal agent setting up terrorists for the fall, or a cop climbing a tree to rescue a darned cat, or any other number of things that most other folks would not do in a million years, because they think it is an LEOs job to put themselves in Harm's Way, well then that is when I think that yes indeed - law enforcement officers do deserve the title of THE ONLY ONES. Yeah sure, cops enforce the law but nowhere in any job description I have ever seen for an LEO does it say they have to put themselves in danger to save any one's sorry butt. Yet they do it all the time, and while some gun bloggers acknowledge this, I never have heard certain so called hard core pro-gun bloggers give these cops a nod of approval. They sure do slam them if ever they have a chance and an accidental discharge of a firearms seems all they need whether they know the facts surrounding it or not. All without knowing the officers stance on gun control at that.
As a matter of fact, the person from whose mouth I most recently heard the words THE ONLY ONES used in a somewhat negative manner against LEOs also had recently mentioned that he, in essence, quite possibly would not act like a cop in a situation where others (besides himself or his family) were being harmed by an evil doer. He would protect his family and himself and leave the rest to the cops. I am not saying I blame him, it takes a certain type of individual to guard the flock beyond your own immediate family. (By the way, no names, this is no attack on the person who said that, it is just a reiteration of something to give an example of what I am saying from real life. Please, no one take any offense to me using that example.) Nope, most people, even those who are 100% pro right to keep and bear arms, those who carry every day, those who consider themselves ready for action against bad guys, quite possibly would not help other citizens in dire need in such cases. Yet, LEOs are expected to go out of their way to do so each and every day. In fact, LEOs do that each and every day. Still, they are only considered THE ONLY ONES if they screw up. What a joke but not a funny one.
Yep, they truly are THE ONLY ONES but in a very different context than what most folks mean by it when they say it. When I say it I mean it in a very positive light.
Sure, there are LEOs whose heads are so far up their asses they are truly beyond hope - probably should not be cops just because of bad attitude but my bet is that copy is not going to ask you if you are pro-gun or anti-gun if he is saving your life from drowning, pulling you out of wreck, giving you a ride to the hospital, getting an attacker off of you, helping your wife have a baby, or whatever.Try to remember, please, they are citizens too and they do have the right to their political opinions and their own convictions, and they certainly do not have to be the same as yours or mine. There are also bad LEOs. Let's face it, some could probably have done quite well as members of any hate group of which you can think and some are outright criminals.
The truth is though that the great majority of LEOs are good guys and gals and they do not deserve being slammed in a discriminatory manner without knowing anything about them other than maybe one had an accidental and maybe even a negligent firearms discharge. Why not also give them their due and honor those who serve so well, to protect us, to help us, to uphold the law (remember we vote in the jerks that legislate those laws, the LEOs just enforce them) and who face serious an sometimes even life threatening danger on an all too frequent basis. Why not stop using such a derogatory term as THE ONLY ONES in reference to any LEO whom you pretty much know nothing about. If he is a rabid anti-gun person and truly believes that only cops are qualified to own guns, fine - fire away. But again, why is it I so rarely hear praise for the good things LEOs do from the same folks the likes of whom so frequently slam the police at every chance they get.
All the best,
Glenn B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)