Precision and Accuracy

Currently trained as an engineer, I have had the distinction between precision and accuracy driven into me. But I've noticed that in the shooting community that the usage of one is neglected or that they are used interchangeably.

Picture from http://www.carolina.com/teacher-resources/Interactive/accuracy-versus-precision-beanbag-toss/tr10646.tr

This is unfortunate, since the distinction is important, even in shooting.
Precision is a function of the rifle's build qualities and the ability of the shooter. Precision is the ability to fire bullets within a certain distance of each each other (normally a good benchmark is 1 MOA see below). This is normally referred to as "a grouping".

Accuracy is something quite different. An accurate rifle setup will deliver bullets with the center of the shots being the intended target. An inaccurate rifle setup is the result of the sights or optics not being aligned with the barrel. Accuracy has more to do with whether the bullet struck close to the target or not ("closer" being subjective), where precision involves whether the rifle is able to deliver a bullet to very close to the same location again and again.

Often an "accurate" rifle is actually precise. The user adjusts the optic/sights to make the setup accurate by definition, but the gun is capable of shooting bullets nearly on top of each other. Obviously the goal of any shooter is to be precise and accurate, even though most would just say accuracy is the goal.

Precision and accuracy together produce repeatability. Th ability to hit small targets consistently and reliably is the object of almost all shooters.

With this post, I wanted to bring up these definitions, no matter how trifling they are. I find it odd that the two distinctions aren't used more often in the shooting world, given the fascination with precision rifles.

***
Roughly speaking a 1 MOA rifle means it can reliably hit 1" at 100 yards, 2" at 200 yards, and 5" at 500 yards.
A 3 MOA rifle would hit 3" at 100, 9" at 300, and so on.
A sub-MOA rifle would hit smaller that an inch at 100 and smaller than 4" at 400 yards.

One MOA is considered by many to be a fine rifle and sub-MOA rifles are considered superb.

The Beginning and End of the Constitution: Boston

We're all aware of the events in Boston. It is national news that a large portion of Boston was in lockdown and that searches by thousands of law enforcement officers were underway. When Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was eventually caught, the people of  Boston came out and applauded the work of their public officials. And rightly so. After a chase which resulted in one MIT campus officer dead and a transportation officer severely wounded, the officers that exhibited extraordinary bravery and courage against heavily armed suspects should be applauded.

But now, what about the massive civil liberties infractions against the residents of Boston? What about the paramilitary SWAT and FBI teams that ,without warrant or justified cause, unlawfully invaded people's homes and privacy?

It doesn't even matter that if those people complied or agreed or not. There were direct violations of the 1st and 4th Amendments.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

People were told to stay in their houses and to not use cell phones or social media in case the suspect was using cell-phone activated explosives or social media for information. So people (citizens) were told to not communicate or speak with others or their neighbors and to stay in their homes. A direct and onerous violation of the 1st Amendment since it attempted to restrict free assembly and free speech.

Perhaps even more disgusting were the house-to-house raids of entire streets. A video of which I have included below.

 I'm not trying to steal the video. I just wanted it to originate from somewhere besides YouTube in case it is pulled down. The original video was uploaded by YouTube user rambone5 and can be found in higher quality here. (Blogger restricts videos to under 100 Mb.)

No warrants were served, but unreasonable searches were. What a horrific violation of people's right to stay in their own home unmolested by the State! This is almost un-fathomable to think that 2013 America allows this bullshit to occur. Maybe it is because this happened in New England, where the populace is accustomed to their rights being played with. I have a feeling this wouldn't fly in certain regions of the Midwest. They wouldn't try it, and if they did, there would be significant resistance, possibly even armed, from the populace. One terrorist running rampant does not eliminate my rights. The only thing that eliminates my rights is my death.

At which point does law enforcement no longer become justified and their actions no longer within the law. I would say when they start directly violating the Constitution. Citizens have to follow rules and laws respecting others. So does law enforcement. 

I'm sorry officer. From my warm live hands. Get off my porch.

The video above struck a huge nerve in me. The poster was just a dude in his house when the paramilitaries came down and descended upon his street. Change the houses and the uniforms and what difference is there between that scene and Nazi troopers searching houses for Jews in 1942?

Now that it has been done once, expect it again and again. Each time the boundary will be pushed farther in order to "protect the people". Larger areas will be searched and anyone who resists will be dealt with faster.

Gradually, as more of these disgusting searches are done, there will be less resistance from the media or from independent viewpoints. It will become normal and people will expect it. For my part, I'm not coming out of my house and you sure aren't coming in mine without a fight. I'll probably lose and be labeled a domestic terrorist but at least I will have tried to protect my rights.

That may sound like bluster, but it is going to come to that for some of us within my lifetime and it isn't going to be pretty.

The forces of evil won two victories this week. They killed 4 people in Boston and injured hundreds. They also successfully caused the invasion of the homes of hundreds (maybe thousands) of people, resulting in countless unreasonable searches. It was bullshit like this that caused the original Americans to rebel against redcoats invading their homes and searching them. If some of the original patriots had heard this and seen the storm coming, I think they would have said this too: Keep your powder dry , America.


Note: Here's some light humor to end this very serious post. Maybe there's hope if this is what is interfering with our rights:

Scolder in Chief Uses the Common Sense Assault

The chief neo-liberal is scolding like a mother hen again. I'm not going to go into much of what he actually said (you can see the whole speech below), but I will make some general comments.

First off, Obama likes to throw around the now infamous "90% of Americans approve of increased background checks" like its the ultimate showstopper. But even if we overlook the dubious statistics polls that he is using (an excellent response from Colion Noir here), we must remember that what a majority thinks  on this subject does not matter. If a majority of Americans believed women should not vote, we would have to repeal the 19th Amendment, instead of ignoring it with unlawful legislation. If the majority of Americans wanted the US government to discriminate based upon religion, the 1st Amendment would need to be repealed first, instead of ignoring it with unlawful legislation. Now these things are obviously not popular, but the principle holds true. The Bill of Rights exists to oppose the whimsy and social waves of the masses. It exists, including the 2A, to recognize and protect rights we possess as humans. So even if the numbers Obama likes to throw around ad nauseam are true, which I personally doubt, it wouldn't matter. The opinion of the populace do not remove natural rights from the minority. That is a slippery slope to oppression.

I've heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced.  "A prop," somebody called them.  “Emotional blackmail,” some outlet said.  Are they serious?  Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue?  Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?

To answer the questions posed: Yes, they have a right to weigh in, like all other Americans with 1st Amendment rights. They have a right to speak about their opinion and their emotion and their pain. But you do not have the right to use that pain for your own and your party's agenda. Nor is their loss irrelevant. It just has no place on a podium next to you, Mr. President, when your party is attempting to circumvent the Constitution. You cannot equate their presence beside you to their right to speak out.

This tragedy and the parents' grief has been used to pull the heartstrings of America. This is an attempt to use emotion as the catalyst for politics. When we dally in the business of regulating rights, no one needs cloudy eyes. We should be clear headed and logical when writing off rights. This use of emotionally charged images is dirty politics and very dishonest and disrespectful way to address the American people.

While we are talking about disrespecting the people he is supposed to serve, let us talk about Obama's righteous indignation and scolding.

So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington. 

 I'd say it was quite a good day in DC, Mr. President. A large minority of Senators, including four Democrats decided to listen to their constituency and regard the Bill of Rights by voting down onerous regulations of arms. Nor do you, Mr. President, have any superiority to scold those people that are defending the Constitution you are supposed to defend.

 But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand -- if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try. 

Denying millions of Americans the right to their chosen method of  defense and resistance to Statist oppression is not worth it. We could also save lives by denying alcohol to the general populace (didn't work out to well in the 20s), restricting motorcycle use , or requiring everyone to drive 30 mph everywhere. But we don't. Those types of legislation are asinine and arbitrary. They are also restrictive and overreaching, and would create a massive political backlash, just like this attempt of gun control did. You and your party's attempt at control failed for a reason, Mr. President.

The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe. 

This is one of the examples of what I call the "common sense assault". The common sense assault is an Orwellian thought manipulation technique. It implies guilt upon anyone who disagrees with what the speaker deems common sense. After all, sane people have common sense right? Adding the adjective common sense before an objective apparently adds a halo around the objective. Opponents now oppose "common sense" instead of opposing un-Constitutional and ineffective legislation. Don't fall for it. Here is where knowing some data comes in handy. This handy link demonstrates that rifles account for a tiny minority of murders committed with firearms. Also, a universal background check would not have stopped Lanza, Holmes, or many other mass murderers from acquiring their weapons. Now Obama's common sense doesn't make any sense anymore.

I believe we’re going to be able to get this done.  Sooner or later, we are going to get this right.  The memories of these children demand it.  And so do the American people. 

This is a threat and it serves as a warning to everyone who wishes to protect our natural rights. All the Statists need is another excuse to try. This will come sooner or later when another coward, pumped up by the attention given to Holmes and Lanza, wishes to write his name in history. Then there will new stern words from Obama and more families and token un-elected police chiefs paraded before the MSM cameras. This fight is not over, nor will it ever be.

Stay alert America.

The transcript to this speech can be found here:
 http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/04/17/president-obama-speaks-common-sense-measures-reduce-gun-violence#transcript

April in Modern America: Martial Law

It's been many hours now since the Tsarnaev brothers started their second rampage in Boston. One dead LEO, one severely injured LEO, one dead suspect, explosive ridden streets, and several gun battles later, the search for the remaining bomber is still not over.

Despite the display of power and force shown by local, state, and federal agencies (including FBI, DHS, and the National Guard), the 19-yr old terrorist is still at large. There even exists the possibility he has escaped the parts of Boston currently under lockdown.

A military vehicle of the Boston police. Is this what America is coming to? Armored policemen in armored vehicles patrolling our streets?

So, by Protectionist logic, the more that we the people are protected by the bureaucracy and police state the safer we will be. However, this is being shown to be false. While all these resources are being spent and the the police force in this country has been growing, these people have been plotting. Despite the existence of the onerous Patriot Act and the activities of the DHS and the NSA, these terrorists still were able to kill 4 and wound more than 150. The State has failed you and always will. They do not have your best interests at heart.

What can we learn from this? The government can only offer you limited protection, if any at all. The government was unable to intercept these seemingly independent operators. The government was unable to detect the devices, even though there were apparently warnings of this (since they already had bomb dogs and warnings out the day of the bombing). The government was unable to corral the rampage after their pictures were published, resulting in one LEO death and one LEO injured. The map below shows how these two brothers have traveled across Boston with that expensive police machine one step behind.

Picture from BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22212946

In addition, there's been further craziness across the nation this week. Today is the anniversary of both the Murrah Building bombing and the siege of Waco. Although it seems the Boston attacks were not related to any Patriot movement (Chechnyans aren't normally defenders of the Constitution), there was an oddly-timed explosion at a fertilizer factory in Waco, TX. Yes, a fertilizer factory ,which makes the same ingredient that McVeigh used in the Murrah building bombing (a protest against the Waco siege). Very odd is what I say.

This has been an amazing week (and not in a good way). Two bombs that killed 3, a mysterious explosion that kills 15 (so far), two very sad and emotional anniversaries, and a continuing chase that has explosives littering the roads of Boston. Furthermore, because of some of those events, Boston is in a state of unparalleled state of martial law.

If were in that neighborhood, I would have a sign on my doors:

Anyone that comes through this door unannounced will be shot on site. Police please announce yourselves. Terrorists go to hell.

If there was ever a time to own a firearm for defense, it is now.

If there was ever a time to speak out against an affront of civil liberty, it is now. While under the guise of their own safety, people were forcefully ejected from their own home for no crime or even suspicion of crime. These people did nothing wrong but they will be removed from their property by force "for their own safety", as judged by a nameless bureaucrat.They are not given a choice of protecting themselves or their property. It looks similar to the Katrina forced evacuation, except, this time, it is because of one person, not a massive act of nature. The State is giving these people no choice.

Now that the groundwork has been laid and the people of America have allowed this lockdown to happen, we can expect more of these State actions of force in the future. The pictures will be the same, but the reasons will be different and increasingly varied.

The thing that makes it so much worse is that, despite these Draconian measures and after almost 8 hours of martial, they still haven't found the lone suspect!

Welcome the new America!

Keep your powder dry and your firearm close. Safety is an illusion.

Let's Stop With This Stupid "Ban Pressure Cookers" Analogy

Listen up, gun community. I've noticed a "joke" going around the internet among the community lately. In short, let's stop doing it. It makes us look petty and childish. The argument, even if jokingly applied, is about as ridiculous as the nuclear weapon argument used by anti-2A people.

Even Rush Limbaugh gets in on the act with a caller. Enjoy the tripe:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/04/16/ban_pressure_cookers_and_ball_bearings

.....And again here on Arfcom (AR15.com for anyone wondering)...

We all know that pressure cookers and cars are not explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights. A parallel cannot be drawn between arms, which are protected, and cars or pressure cookers.

I completely expect to hear this droll and un-imaginative "argument" for the next year, just as we are continually assaulted with the following "argument" from the new left:

NeoLiberal: "So what stops a person from having a nuclear bomb or an F16 for defense? The Second Amendment must have its limits!"

(An excellent response to which can be seen here by Colion Noir.)

We (the gun community) need to step up and stop putting all this BS out on the Internet, even among our own community since this content is public. We know why they are going after our firearms, and, more importantly, we know why we have the right to bear arms. We don't need to make up cute little asinine arguments to support our rights. We have firearms and the Constitution for that.

We have no right to drive cars or use pressure cookers. Let's just stop with this useless mouth finger diarrhea.

/Rant Over

A few thoughts on the tragedy in Boston

Note: Future additions from text written Monday night will be in different colors according to day:
4/16/13
4/17/13

By now, the world is aware of the tragedy in Boston during the famous marathon there. There is much uncertainty regarding perpetrators, motives, means, or any meaningful details really.

But one thing we do know is that evil men are bound to do evil things to good people. The innocents were going about their business when two bombs ripped through their bodies. Lives will be changed forever as, of 9 CMT 4/15/13, 3 have died and many more have been maimed or dismembered.

Scene of one of the bomb sites. A bomb technician assesses what I assume is the ignition location while the blood of innocents lies on the pavement.

Evil exists in the world, and we often cannot be protected from it by the government, family, or a firearm. Incidents like this remind us how ignorantly blissful we are in our daily lives. We don't have targets on our backs, we aren't law enforcement, celebrities, politicians, or public figures. We are average Joe and Jane; we don't expect some mad men to load up a pipe with black powder and ball bearings and blow it up in the middle of a crowd. (Note: it only speculation that the bomb was a black powder/ball bearing pipe-bomb.)

Let's check out the perspective though. Today, 30 people died in bombings around Iraq. These attacks happen weekly, if not daily in Iraq and other shitholes around the world. But we barely take notice of them. We are secure and safe in our green castle that has been built for us. We think rarely of danger in our streets, our leaders want us to believe it is safe here. But it isn't. Our country is increasingly becoming the target of Islamic extremists, and the fundamentals want nothing but to spread their filth to our streets.

But this stuff happens now here at home, although it is a tragic part of life around the world. Now I'll stop with the philosophical stuff and get into some more speculation.

Perpetrator(s):

From the lines above, you might have gotten the idea that I think this is the product of a Muslim extremist terrorist. While I think that the most likely suspects are religious fundamentals of the Islamic variety, there is also the possibility this was a crazy Unabomber-esque pyschopath or some sort of unhinged McVeigh-like American claiming allegiance to a patriot movement. No patriots ever willfully killed innocents, so damn them if they claim allegiance to liberty and the preservation of rights.

My bet (that's a figure of speech, I'm not really gambling on any of this) is that this is the product of a small cell or lone wolf that was Islamicly-motivated by some jihad or fatwa or other nonsense.

Still very little word on any suspects, even though, with the camera coverage, there is bound to be many opportunities to find one. There are several amateur analyses like this one here from Infowars (and yes I threw up a bit in my mouth for actually linking that).

Why are they holding back? No one knows, but if this turns out anything like the Newtown shooting, any real answers (if they are real) will come out very far down the line. I'm still holding on to my independent Jihadist small cell or lone wolf theory of perpetrators. Organized terrorist networks would have done much more damage.

Method:

After talking a bit with a friend of mine who has some experience with explosive substances, it appears that the explosion might have been caused by a "dirty" burning powder, like black or smokeless (commonly used in ammunition) or other related substance. Given the lack of a defined and strong shock-wave (like that with high-speed and high-pressure explosives) and the amount of white smoke, a high explosive, like what most networks use, is unlikely.

The second explosion looks very similar to a tannerite or powder explosion.

It also seems likely that bomb contained anti-personnel shrapnel like nails or ball bearings to inflict maximum damage without needing a fast explosion velocity or fatal shock wave. Officials are now saying the bomb was placed in a pressure cooker inside a backpack. They have also confirmed that the explosive was a "low" (or slow) explosive. This does not rule out, but seems to support the theory that the bomb was black, smokeless or cordite powder. It also seems certain now that the bombs were surrounded with shotgun pellets, nails, and ball bearings for maximum effect on people. This is the work of a coward, a worthless piece of humanity.

Expect a news conference within days saying the ingredients were bought from a reloading supply company, and that reloading powder will now be regulated. Hopefully I'm wrong.

So far, there haven't been any federal confirmations of the explosive used, but there has been speculation among the MSMs regarding the possible use of gunpowder. Hopefully I was dead wrong above.

U.S. Rep. Mike McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said "most likely gun powder" was used in the devices.

Unfortunate incidents like these are often used by our supposed masters to enact new regulations to protect us. As horrible as this attack was, I am very concerned about the consequences down the line.
Do you prefer a safe prison, or a dangerous freedom?