Do You See Grooming?

This entry will begin with a short exercise. 

What's the first thing that comes to mind when you look at the three photos below? 

If you reacted with words such as "grooming" or "child abuse" for any or all of the three, congratulations, you're a moron.

Let's begin with the first two pictures.  I'll start by clearing up a potential misconception about children shooting guns.  In a safe home environment, all guns are locked up in a manner that prevents kids or any other unauthorized parties from accessing them.  This was the case in my home, growing up and later, when I had (step) kids of my own.  If you're picturing kids running amok with loaded guns, you're a bit off.

Logically, it's those on the left who take issue with the first two pictures, making accusations of you guessed it, grooming and/or child abuse.  When challenged on what exactly the children in these pictures are being groomed for, the majority don't really have an answer.  Some will say they're being groomed to be school shooters or "they're being groomed to think guns are normal".  I receive the same nebulous answer when I ask why such activities are child abuse. 

Here's a news flash for you:  In many homes across the country, particularly in rural areas, guns are normal.  

Teaching kids to shoot helps them learn helps them learn things like discipline and patience, along with gun safety and most importantly, the destructive power they hold in their hand.  I've previously written about my own childhood where my grandfather owned guns and taught me gun safety and how to shoot, once I got old enough (around 10, as I recall).  Most of my friends' dads owned guns and they taught their kids to shoot as well.  This sort of activity has been going on for as long as the US has existed.  Shooting guns is a family bonding activity.

I'm sure there are some readers who've lost their minds over my comment about shooting being a family activity.  Here's some news for you; you're allowed to be uncomfortable with anything you want, but you're not allowed to condemn something you don't understand.  That would put you on the same plane as the hard right.  

Here's another news flash - Based upon my research, kids who grow up with guns are much less likely to commit mass murder.  More accurately, most mass shooters and mass murderers don't have a long history with firearms, based upon the data I've compiled.  On the murder side, one simply needs to look at some of the recent events where it was reported the shooter purchased their weapon within weeks or months before.  That's one of the reasons they choose AR-15's; they're easy to use.  Obviously, this wasn't the case in Maine, but that guy is a severe outlier, both in experience and age.  

A final thought to close that topic.  True shooters don't pose with their guns for family Christmas cards.  There are only three occasions you'll find a shooter and his unholstered gun in the same picture.  First is if the shooter is actively firing the gun; the only picture of me holding a gun is when I was shooting a stage, when won the USPSA PA State Championship.  The second is if the shooter just achieved a truly noteworthy feat with their gun (this is mostly confined to rifle shooters who've broken a distance record).  The final exception is if the shooter won the gun off a prize table or from a raffle, and then it's only used for publicity by the sponsor.  Beyond that, the shooting community views these sorts of photos as seriously cringeworthy, so none of us takes them.  Ultimately, the douche canoes that take pics of their entire family holding sometimes garbage quality AR's are only guilty of grooming their kids to be the next generation of douche canoes.  

Moving on to the third picture, there are those who are convinced the LGTBQ community consists of pedophiles who want to groom children to be gay.  This belief is the result of two factors.  The first is their inherent bigotry and hatred of those they consider deviant, based on their perverse religious beliefs or plain ignorance.  This is exacerbated by the second factor, which is right wing media validating and amplifying these prejudices.  

With respect to harming children, these people seemingly don't care about facts or logic.  I encounter them on the shooting message boards and they consider pedophilia to be inherent with the LGBTQ community; essentially, every one of them is a pedophile.  Those who aren't terribly bright, may find it to be shocking that LGTBQ people have been around since the dawn of time (they've had to remain closeted for fear of persecution).  If they were inherently child harmers, there would be mounds of incontrovertible data confirming that to be the case.  But there isn't.  What does exist is a massive amount of data that clergy and religious right wingers have an extremely high predilection for touching children.  To be clear, preying on children is reprehensible and offenders should be subject to stoning, regardless of their sexual orientation or political affiliations.  

The flaw in what I'll pretend is logic by these hateful people is not understanding how the brain works.   You can't groom someone into being gay; it's just not how the brain works.  By in large, those on either end of the sexual orientation spectrum they've always known what their orientation was.  Sure, kids can be malleable by suggestion and a significant portion of the population has done some experimenting, but ultimately no one can convince you to be something you're not wired to be, gay, straight, or somewhere in the middle.  

Finally, I'll address the other point the hard right throws at me, which is why do drag queens desperately want access to children?  First, since they're not harming kids, why the fuck not?  Second, put the right wing propaganda down, because it's amplifying shit that sparks fear and outrage.  I'd be willing to bet that every drag queen story hour "exposed" by that stochastic terrorist bitch Chaya Raichik is literally every one that's ever taken place, which is to say very few for a country our size.  Seriously, you're being played.

The takeaway for both of these cases of accused grooming is don't condemn things you're too fucking stupid to understand.

Gun Homicides: The Numbers

Preface:  I'm a shooting enthusiast and competitor who recognizes we have some issues related to them in our country.  As a professional marketing exec, I'm very data driven and make decisions based on facts.  Finally, I'm a marginally talented blogger with some shit to say.  So, digging in to gun related data and writing about guns in general is a natural extension for my blog.  I write about things that interest me and do so for my own enjoyment.  So, I don't have the first clue how to monetize what I've written and have no interest in doing so.  My only goal is those who read my blog feel as though their time was well spent or at least not wasted. 

A word on suicides:  In my opinion, suicides are completely different animals than homicides, because they're self-inflicted.  The motivation for taking your own life is dramatically different from that of taking another's, so I don't include them in my numbers.  

Gun Homicides:  The Numbers
Like most other folks, I hear about the gun violence problem in the media and have become concerned.  We're bombarded by the message that thousands of people are being gunned down in mass shootings every day.  I wanted to understand if this was true or bullshit, so I spent a lot of time slicing, dicing, and validating gun related homicide numbers.  Some of my results can be found in several previous entries, but it's become so spread out, I have difficulty remembering where or if I shared a certain tidbit.  I've decided the stats deserve their own entry that can be referred to as needed and updated as I receive new data.  

I'll begin with some basic data, followed by info on mass events, and finish up with semiautomatic rifles.  I've tried to be light on commentary and heavy on charts and graphs; it's still long.
Sources and methodology are cited at the end to avoid cluttering the thing up.  I apologize that some of the visuals may run large; there's a lot of info.  Also, while I may have a certain position on guns, data doesn't lie.  The material below hasn't been massaged to affect a desired outcome; I've been willing to let it take me wherever the truth lie.  

Chart 1 shows gun related homicides by year, from 1988 through 2021, represented in both absolute numbers as well as per 100k.  You can see the murder rate was much higher in the early 90's, then dropped precipitously until it settled at its lowest between 2009-2014.  From that point onward, it's been on an upward climb.

Chart 1

Chart 2 represents gun ownership versus gun homicides per 100k during the same period.  Gun ownership has only varied by about 24% whereas homicides per 100k has swung more than 50%.  Since 2017, the murder rate has increased 27%, whereas gun ownership is unchanged, save the small dip in 2019.  

Chart 2

Gun Related Homicides by Firearm Type
Table 1 shows gun related homicides by year from 2012 through 2021.  The raw data that came from the FBI included a significant number of "Firearm Not Specified".  This spreadsheet shows how I allocated that chunk across the Handguns, Rifles, and Shotguns (complete methodology at the end).  The FBI has indicated the 2021 figures were understated; apparently, they changed reporting methods and not all LE organizations were signed up yet.  

Table 1

Chart 3 is a visual representation of the data.  NOTE:  Rifles means ALL rifles; assault rifles will be a subset of that number and addressed below. 

Chart 3

Table 1.5 is a clean version of the calculations in Table 1, with the addition of homicides committed by all other weapons, for context.  Apologies if it's a bit of an eye chart.

Table 1.5

Mass Murders / Mass Homicides and Mass Shootings

The figures below use the FBI's definition for mass homicides and the generally accepted definition of mass shooting.  I previously devoted an entry to the topic which you can find HERE.    As you'll see, the number of fatalities from mass events is a pretty small chunk of the total.  They fluctuate between 1.6 - 4.2% of total gun related homicides.  Mass murders run between 0% and 0.7% of gun related homicides.  

Table 2 shows the stack up of mass shootings, mass murders, and others by year.  Chart 4 shows the same data in, you guessed it, in a graphical format.    

I must admit to being surprised, when I put this data together for the first time.  We've been conditioned to believe a false reality.

Table 2

Chart 4

AR-15's

Everyone wants to see the data on AR-15's because it's the evil black rifle and kills a small town every week.  I have a feeling some are in for a bit of disappointment.  The data for mass murders is known, whereas the percentage of the whole has been calculated, using the best logic I could conjure while on the throne.  I outline the methodology below.

NOTE:  For mass homicides, I've lumped all semiautomatic rifles together in the AR-15 bucket.  This  consolidates a bit of a spread out category, so I'm not forced to break out AK47's, SKS's, AR-10's, etc.  Also, it would be intellectually dishonest not to do so.  For reference, the number of incidents since 2000 would have dropped from 35 to 25, with the number of fatalities going from 413 to 295. 

Since we're talking about mass events, I'll start there.  

Graph A shows the breakdown of fatalities in mass murders by use of AR's versus other guns.  The AR number is much smaller than many think it is.  Note that it didn't become popular until very recently; many believe its use began to spike immediately following the Assault Weapons Ban's sunset.  You can clearly see the impact of the Pulse Nightclub in 2016.  In 2017, the numbers were particularly high as well, due to the Vegas Strip and Texas First Baptist killings.    

Table A provides the detail, except I limited it to the last ten years.  

Graph A

Table A

School Mass Homicides using AR-15's, while horrifying, aren't as common as some would lead you to believe.  There have been five of them.

1989    Stockton Schoolyard Shooting                    6 fatalities

2012    Sandy Hook Elementary                              27 fatalities  
2018    Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School    17 fatalities
2022    Robb Elementary, Uvalde                            21 fatalities

2023    Nashville Covenant School                          6 fatalities

There have been 15 school mass homicides where an AR-15 (or similar) wasn't used, with a total of 126 fatalities.

(updated 3/27/23)  

AR-15:  Overall Impact

Finally, let's circle back to where we started and revisit the overall numbers.  Table B below has the same data as Table 1.5, except I've broken the rifle numbers into AR and non-AR homicides.  The breakout numbers are calculated; methodology at the bottom.  The numbers are inflated, in my opinion, but I wanted to avoid claims I was working an agenda.  Graph B is the visual representation of the chart.  Note how other homicide methods compare to the AR-15.  More people are killed with knives and blunt objects per year than semiautomatic rifles.  On a positive note, fewer people are being strangled to death every year. Again, apologies for the eyechart.

 

Table B

Graph B

One omission some may identify in these numbers is the category of school shootings.  While I think school shootings are particularly heinous, there's no solid data on them, beyond the mass murders I mention above.  The listings of school shootings I've reviewed are rather broad in their definition of what a school shooting is, perhaps to boost the numbers in support of a particular narrative.  To me, a school shooting is when an outsider or student enters the school with the intent of killing others.  Someone being shot in a school parking lot at midnight or a student accidentally firing the gun in their backpack are not school shootings.  Unless a solid data source comes my way, I prefer to avoid the topic altogether, from an analysis perspective.  

Sources:
Chart 1 & 2:  CDC data, Violence Policy Center: Gun Ownership in America, November 2022

Table 1 & 1.5 and Chart 3:  Homicide data - FBI

Table 2 and Chart 4:  CDC, Gun Violence Archive, Mother Jones mass murder database

If you pick through the various FBI pages, you can find the old spreadsheets, such as the one I used as my base.  However, a few years ago, they migrated to a crime explorer that sucks, because you can't mass download data.  https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/home

My data is a combination of spreadsheets I'd downloaded as well as hand copying data from the explorer.

Mass murder data - Mother Jones Database

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

Note: MJ includes mass events with 3 fatalities to be a mass murder versus the FBI's definition of 4 fatalities.  My version of the database has been scrubbed accordingly.  

Mass shooting data - Gun Violence Archive

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Methodology:

Table 1 - You can see where I tried to integrate what was in the "Firearms, type not stated" bucket, which represented a not insignificant number.  For example, it was 3,300 in 2019.  The logic I used was if handguns represent X percent of the grand total, then I'll consider handguns to be X percent of the Not Stated as well.  I did the same with rifles and shotguns.  There are still a lot of "other" guns unaccounted for, but I didn't want to run the risk of skewing the data in such a way to make it not meaningful, if my logic was wrong. 

Table 1.5 includes my numbers calculated in Table 1, along with a pure extract of straight FBI data.

Graph 2 - CDC data

Table 2 - Because GVA's mass shooting number includes the MJ mass homicide number:
Total homicides - mass shootings = non mass events (other)

Mass shootings (GVA) - mass homicides (MJ) = true mass shootings

Chart 4 - data came directly from Mother Jones Mass Shooting database.  

Table B - AR-15 related fatalities were calculated in the following manner:

        AR Fatalities = 

        Total Rifle fatalities - 100 to account for hunting accidents; AR's are rarely used in hunting

        Subtotal x .7 (which I think is being incredibly generous)

        + Fatalities from mass murders where AR-15 was present

    

4/23/23 Update

A note on datasets:  I've been relying exclusively on data from the FBI for overall numbers as well as breakdowns by weapon type.  However, they freely admit to screwing the pooch on implementation of a new reporting platform in 2021, noting the numbers for that year are understated.  Furthermore, they don't make their historical data available.  The dataset that everyone uses for their analysis comes from the CDC, but their numbers are 25% higher than the FBI's, until 2019.  Seriously, CDC's top line is exactly 25% higher than the FBI's from 2012 through 2018.  In 2018, the gap jumps to 29%, increasing to 33% in 2020.  A gap pegged at 25% says to me that one of the sources is bullshit and fudged upward or downward, but neither shares their methodology, so identifying the bullshit source is beyond my capabilities.  Therefore, going forward, I'll be using CDC data for top line numbers and FBI stats for their breakout of gun type and consider both to be bullshit, but they're what's available, kids.  

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  As an instructor, he taught courses in gun safety and competition.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal dog, Sadie.

The AR-15

I've written about the AR-15 multiple times, but always dribs and drabs within an entries of greater scope.  In the interest of consolidation, I've decided to pull everything together into one entry that'll be easier to find.    

Garden Variety AR-15 with 16" Barrel

Some History

Eugene Stoner designed the AR-15 back in the late fifties as a military rifle.  It went nowhere until the early 60's, when a derivative, the M-15, was finally adopted by the US armed forces.   The main difference between the two were the firing mechanisms.  The M-16 was a select fire weapon, meaning it could fire in semiautomatic mode (one shot per trigger pull) or fully automatic mode (the gun would continue to fire as long as the user kept the trigger pressed).  Yet another derivative of the platform remains as the standard rifle for our current armed forces, the M-4.  Again, the main difference lies in the fire control mechanism.  Full auto is hard to shoot accurately and sucks for trying to hit multiple baddies.  So, the M-4 removed that capability in favor of a three round burst; basically full auto but only three rounds at a time.  

The AR-15 was designed to fire the .223 cartridge, although that was updated to the 5.56 x 45 (bullet diameter and case length in mm), which operates at a slightly higher pressure.  Going forward, I'll refer to this cartridge simply as the 556.  The 556 was adopted by NATO as their standard rifle cartridge.  The AR-15 can also fire the 300 Blackout cartridge, which was developed for special forces specifically to be suppressed.  All it takes is a barrel change.  

Even though the AR originally stood for Armalite Rifle (named for the company Stoner developed it with), the patents ran out in the 1970's, allowing others to build the guns.  However, even as late as 2000, there were still only three manufacturers building the gun in any quantity.  There wasn't sufficient civilian demand (prior to the AWB) for any others to tool it up.  In other words, no one wanted them.  On a side note, a gun isn't an "AR Style" rifle; it's either an AR or not.  Same as a four door sedan automobile; it is or it isn't.  

Having been adopted by NATO, military use alone has made the AR-15 the most popular rifle in history, but it's also become incredibly popular with the civilian market, post AWB.  

There is also an AR-10 platform, which looks identical to the AR-15, but was designed for accommodate the much larger 7.62 x 51 (mm) cartridge.  It's a beefier rifle, but there are still a number of common parts between the two sisters.  

Stripped AR-15 Lower Receivers; these are considered firearms

Why is the AR-15 platform popular in the civilian market?  

Here's my own list of factors:

- The AR-15 platform is very user friendly with a high level of reliability.  

- It's fun to shoot - I've shared this before, but I dated three women (one became my now ex-wife) who were vehemently against the evil AR-15 being on the civilian market.  (I tend to date left leaning women; they're smarter and more attractive)  I told each one they weren't allowed to have an opinion on the rifle until they shot one.  I loaded each one up and took them to my club (after providing them with safety instructions, of course), where I allowed them to shoot my AR as much as they wanted.  After shooting the gun, each one asked, "when can we go again?'

- Low cost of entry and feeding - You can buy a complete AR-15 rifle for $550 as of March 2023.  You won't find another semiautomatic rifle for less, except perhaps a garbage surplus SKS.  You can buy a 9mm semiautomatic pistol for less ($300 and up), but a 45 ACP gun will cost at least as much as an AR.  On the ammunition side, according to Ammoseek.com, 556 ammo can be purchased for as low as $.30 per round, at the moment.  Before the pandemic, it was closer to $.20.  For comparison, 9mm is around $.20 / round, 45 ACP is $.31, and 7.62x51 (the next most popular rifle cartridge) is $.65 per round.  Worth noting is these are rock bottom prices and apply to lower quality ammo you wouldn't want to put through my guns.  Much of the ammo's low cost can be attributed to the 556's NATO standardization, meaning it's the caliber that's used by almost all NATO militaries and many others.  Therefore, there's a LOT of it being manufactured, which drives down costs.  I've become fond of the ammo that comes out of Israel, because of its quality and accuracy. 

-The 556 NATO round is inherently accurate; with a quality barrel and ammo, it'll put 5 rounds in a group the size of a quarter at 100 yards.  In fact, the round is good out to 600 yards and beyond.  I have an AR-15 built specifically for bench rest shooting and with the scope, weighs enough you'd never be able to use it as a battle rifle. 

Benchrest Competition AR-15

- Light recoil.  Properly tuned, the gun barely pushes back when you pull the trigger.  In other words, it's easily used by all shapes and sizes of shooters.

- High capacity - while the standard mags hold 30 rounds, there are also some that hold 100 rounds.

- Joe Biden's Assault Weapons Ban -  Nothing makes people want something quite as much as telling them they can't have it.   

- Interest in military weapons and equipment

- Infinite customization makes the platform incredibly versatile - With an AR, you have options galore.  Barrel lengths from 7-20", different handguards, multiple types of triggers to choose from, numerous sighting options, from basic iron sights to holographic to a regular rifle scope. As an example, a quick check of an AR specialist online retailer shows approximately 480 different available hand guard options (!).  Because the parts are all built to one basic specification, building a rifle is pretty easy for anyone with some basic gunsmithing tools and a technical aptitude.  It can also be a lower cost option.  I built all of my own AR's.  

The danger of this configurability is the AR-15 is essentially Lego for grownups, and you can find yourself in a never ending cycle of upgrades.  Because individual upgrades aren't insanely expensive ($550 for an Eotech sight on the high side), it's easy to invest a large sum of money without realizing it.  A personal example would be the AR I built for $600.  I began upgrading and now have close to $5k into the gun, not including tax stamps; there are only two parts from the original are still on the gun.  I built another gun with the spares.     

Top tip:  Never total up what you spend on these guns; you don't want to know.

AR-15 "Backpack Gun" with folding stock

Why does anyone need an AR-15?

First off, I hate that question, because it's dumb.  No one needs an AR-15 any more than they need a Porsche.  However, these guns are particularly suited to certain purposes, just like Porsches, so that's the question I'll answer.

Again, here's my own list of applications where the AR-15 excels:  

- Certain types of hunting, such as for feral hogs.  These are an invasive species and do a great deal of damage to crops, livestock, etc. so killing them is encouraged wherever they exist.  In some parts of the country (i.e. Texas), they've reached infestation levels, which means if you find one, there are frequently several more in the bush ready to charge you, which they frequently do.  Plenty of videos on Youtube on the subject.  A semiautomatic rifle with high capacity helps the hog hunter take the animal as well as protect themselves from its friends.  

- Home defense - Some may think an AR-15 is overkill for home defense, but it's a solid option for a few reasons.  First, the 556 round is less prone to overpenetration of walls than most pistol cartridges.  In other words, it's safer; you're less likely to have rounds leaving the room / house, should you miss your intended target.  Second, if you hear someone busting down your door at 4 a.m. it's better to stay put and defend your bedroom, versus try to clear your house.  There's no better solution for a "last stand" gun than one that offers 30 rounds (or more) of serious stopping power.*  Of course, that's because it's difficult to buy a Howitzer as a civilian. 

- Competition - If you shoot sports such as 3 Gun (where pistols, rifles, and shotguns are used throughout the matches), without an AR, you're just participating and not competing.    

- General range use - As noted, it's one of the lowest cost rifles to buy and feed, plus it's fun to shoot.  Buying a different rifle or even handgun would cost you more and not be as fun, so why would you do such a thing? 

Example Application

It's true that AR-15's aren't the only option for some of these tasks, but it's frequently the best one.  

I'll use home defense as an example.  Aside from the AR, there are three options for this purpose.   

Handgun - The only handguns with sufficient stopping power to make an aggressor cease RIGHT NOW are those that shoot magnum rounds (i.e. 44 magnum), which have a lot more recoil, lower capacity (most are 6 shot revolvers), and are harder to shoot accurately under stress.  These guns are not easily used by all shooters.  Also, reloading a revolver takes a lot of time, versus a gun with a box magazine.  You could choose a less brutal caliber, such as 9mm with a box magazine, but stopping power would be significantly compromised.  All of these options easily pass through walls.

Another rifle - Because there aren't many rifle caliber options with lower power than a 556, a larger caliber would be required.  The most common are 7.62x39 or 7.62x55, which would have amazing stopping power.  However, trust me that you don't want to fire one of these guns indoors; it would feel like a Norse god was seeking vengeance.  Also, the gun itself would be much heavier, with significantly more recoil, blinding muzzle blast, and lower capacity.  Like the handguns, these rounds easily pass through walls.  There is the option to go with 300 Blackout, which is less powerful, yet still offers solid stopping power; but you're still shooting an AR-15.  FWIW, my home defense gun is an AR chambered in 300 Blackout, with a suppressor.

Shotgun - The old saying goes that nothing stops a home invader in their tracks like the sound of a shotgun being racked.  Regardless, a shotgun holds fewer rounds, takes a long time to reload, has much greater recoil (12 gauge), and is loud as hell.  This is another option that's not so user friendly to novice shooters.  Also, your home defense gun should always have a round chambered, which means you won't make the cool noise in the first place.  

Any of these three will likely prevent an attacker from harming you, but the AR-15 is the best option. Some may think this to be overkill; that the likelihood of experiencing a home invasion is infinitesimally small.  The truth is it isn't overkill and the likelihood of you being a victim of a home invasion isn't zero.  The only home defense activity the AR falls short on is maneuverability and concealability, just like shotguns and other rifles.  Only experts can navigate through a house with a rifle.  Check that, only experts should try to clear their house, regardless.  The concealment comes into play when someone rings your doorbell at 3 a.m.  At that hour, there's a much higher potential the person isn't a welcome guest.  But you don't want to freak friendlies out with a rifle slung across chest.  So, I bring along a handgun.  One night, my neighbor was close to shitting himself when he saw the pistol I had hidden behind my back.  

I encourage you to read my blog about shot placement and cartridge stopping power here for additional context.  

How Evil Is The AR-15?

...and how many people has the platform killed?  The rifles haven't killed anyone, so I'll focus on how many homicides in which they were used as the murder weapon.  

Starting with mass murders, since 1990, AR's were used in 34 incidents through 2022, resulting in 402 fatalities.  There were 74 incidents where an AR wasn't used, resulting in 542 fatalities.  The tide has turned since 2018, with AR's used in 17 incidents resulting in 151 fatalities, versus 14 incidents where other guns were used, resulting in 95 fatalities.  Since 1989 (when the database began tracking mass murders), AR-15's were used in incidents resulting in a total of 417 fatalities.  Again, mass murder data.   

Rather than continue to vomit numbers, I suggest you check out my entry that's devoted to charts, graphs, with a bit of analysis.   Gun Homicides:  The Numbers.  You'll see that AR's are used for X% of all homicides.

So, for those who remain unconvinced the AR isn't the mass murderer it isn't, I'll finish up with some thoughts on how many lives would be saved, were the AR banned.  Should it magically disappear, a large portion of the shootings where it's used would take place, except with different guns.  For the sake of argument, I'll go with a 45% reduction in deaths.  That brings the number of lives saved to 1,094 again, for the past DECADE.  

It may seem cavalier to minimize a thousand lives saved, but it really is a drop in the bucket, when viewed within the context of overall gun related homicide, which accounted for one hundred THOUSAND deaths over the same decade.  

This brings us back to those whose absolute focus is to ban the platform.  They clearly don't care about decreasing gun violence, because doing so wouldn't make a dent, not to mention, banning would flat out not happen, as I wrote about HERE.  

Oh, the rifle isn't evil, just scary to some. 

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  As an instructor, he taught courses in gun safety and competition.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal dog, Sadie.

Stopping Power, Shot Placement, and Other Basics

 When discussing defensive gun use, there are a number of crucial factors that can't be covered in a tweet.  This entry will touch on the ones I find important, with the intent of providing practical knowledge to the non-shooter (and novice shooters).  This entry is a companion piece to the others in my gun series, particularly as it applies to the AR-15.  What it isn't is legal advice.  Always practice proper gun safety and know the laws in your area regarding protecting yourself with a firearm.  

It's 3:30 a.m. and you're fast asleep in your bed with your model wife, when you're awakened by what's definitely the sound of your front door being crashed in.  You're walking back to your car, after an amazing dinner out with your model wife, when you're confronted by three men, one holding a gun.  In both instances, you've made your attackers aware you have a gun, and they haven't run off.  Frequently, that's all it takes to stop an attacker, but not in these cases.  You're being forced to use your firearm for defensive use.  What are some of the things you need to consider?

Shot Placement
Where are you going to aim your gun, when you pull the trigger?  Maybe you want to avoid killing your attacker, so you'll aim for their leg.  Or you want to end the confrontation by putting a bullet in your attacker's head.  Before you answer, let me tell you what your body's doing in the moment before you pull the trigger.  Under such a life or death situation, your body is pumping a shitload of adrenalin into your system.  Adrenaline is an amazing substance and assists with energy, rapid decision making, and other critical activities during a life or death situation.  At this moment, your fine motor skills are completely destroyed and you have tunnel vision.  Unless you're in Delta, the right answer to the question you'll aim for center mass.  Attempting to hit a specific part of your attacker will result in missing it, so you aim for the largest portion of your attacker's body, the torso.  

Stopping Power - It's All About Trauma
You've fired a controlled pair of rounds into the attacker's chest, but it hasn't phased them.  They're continuing their attack and now, you're panicking.  Two more rounds haven't had any more impact on the bad guy than the first two.  This scenario isn't uncommon, believe it or not.  When a bad guy is shot by a handgun in the movies, they mostly drop dead on the spot.  However that rarely happens in real life.  Remember the adrenaline pumping through your body?  It's happening to the bad guy too and acting to suppress the pain from being shot; there may be additional substances coursing through their body further assisting in that action.  There have been studies of shooting victims, where a large portion reported not even being aware they were shot until someone pointed it out.  

In order to stop an attacker with your gun, one of three things must happen.  Sufficient trauma must be done to their body to make it stop working.  The "electrics" or "hydraulics" must be rendered inoperable.  This of course, assumes the attacker didn't run away when the bullets began to fly his way.  

"Electrics" refer to the brain sending signals to the rest of the body.  A successful head shot will stop those signals and end the fight immediately.  "Hydraulics" refer to blood being pumped by the heart and a direct hit will also end the fight rather quickly.  Again, very difficult shots to make under pressure.

That leaves us with trauma.  How much trauma is required and where?  How does a bullet create trauma?  As I mentioned, my example of the bad guy continuing their attack even after being hit by four rounds is real.  There have been numerous documented (and recorded) instances of people being killed by attackers full of 9mm hollow point ammo in their chest.  The attackers mostly died, after the fact, but in the fight, their body didn't tell them they were dead.  

I'll start with how a bullet creates trauma.  When a bullet hits a human, it creates a permanent wound channel similar in size to the bullet's diameter.  However, there's also a shock wave created by the bullet which results in a temporary wound channel.  The size of this trauma depends on bullet type and energy delivered.  Ammunition manufacturers develop their defense products to maximize both of these via a bullet design with a hollow point, which mushrooms as it travels within the target.  Under ideal circumstances, a hollow point bullet can expand to twice its diameter.  Their goal is to put as much of the round's muzzle energy to use creating trauma as possible and penetrate 12" in ballistic gelatin.  

Hollow point bullets after expansion

In the case of rifle ammunition, these wound channels are more dependent on muzzle energy bullet design.  Some rounds, such as 556 NATO will tumble through the body, creating a massive wound channel.  You may notice rifle ammo utilizing hollow point bullets, but that's solely for improved accuracy; they don't expand. 

Firing rounds into ballistic gelatin is a standard practice of measuring these cavities.

Simulated wound cavities with various handgun rounds

Simulated wound cavity with 556 NATO ammo

With exceptions of head shots or a lucky kneecap shot, most handgun rounds don't create sufficient trauma to guarantee an immediate cessation of an attack.  However, by virtue of the energy it delivers, a single rifle round will literally destroy the part of the body where it hits, often rendering the attacker's body inoperable.  The picture above illustrates this perfectly.  In some cases, the lack of power of something like a 9mm can be overcome with the sheer volume of fire from modern pistols, which can hold 19 rounds or more.  

Ballistic Performance Data for Various Cartridges

Cartridge and Gun Choice

Returning to your situation, did you choose wisely, when you bought your carry gun?  When deciding on what cartridge and gun combination to rest your life on, always choose the most powerful (creates the most trauma) option that fits within the form factor as dictated by your circumstances.  Your choice during the summer, when concealing a large gun is almost impossible, will be different than what you choose for winter, when almost any gun will disappear under a heavy coat.  Obviously, concealment isn't relevant for home defense use.  

There are also other consideration that come into play with specific cartridges.  For example, going down the list, we can immediately cross off 7.62x51 and 44 Magnum as viable defensive cartridges.  They're so brutal and you'd regret using either as a home defense gun due to how loud they are as well as the muzzle flash.  Certain cartridges were optimized for specific minimum barrel lengths.  556 NATO requires at least a 12" barrel in order to stabilize the bullet, but its performance suffers in anything under 14.5", so you're stuck with a long gun (for home defense, obviously).   It's also particularly loud, so a suppressor is almost mandatory, making the gun even longer.  I own a 556 gun with a 10" barrel and it's a certified fire breather, sounding like the god of thunder when I shoot it.  However, 300 Blackout was designed to be shot through an 8" barrel, which makes for a smaller package as a home defense gun.  

Let's not forget safety.  Even the weakest handgun rounds will over penetrate through walls like they weren't even there, which can endanger others in the home or even the neighbors.  The most extreme example happened with a friend who was shot with a 22 Long Rifle (100 ft. lbs.) through a two inch thick oak door!  Bullets from 556 and 300 Blackout aren't very good at penetrating sheetrock (walls) and tend to stay in the room they're fired in.

Ultimately, the 556 NATO definitely represents the most potent, safest home defense round, when packaged in an AR-15.  The same can be said if you carry a gun in your vehicle for emergencies.  It will end any bad guy or mob's aggression in a hurry.

My own choices are 38 Super for personal defense and 300 Blackout as a home defense round. My logic is what I lose in performance versus the 556, I gain in the smaller form factor and not blowing out my hearing (even with a silencer, 556 is still loud indoors).  

By no means are my choices the best for everyone.  There are any number of combinations and calibers that will do the job.  There are many that have a 9mm pistol for everything and that's fine. 

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  As an instructor, he taught courses in gun safety and competition.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal dog, Sadie.

Epstein and Justice For Dummies

Whenever the GQP is on the back foot over allegations of wrongdoing, there seems to be a renewed interest in the Epstein case by the right wing looneys.  The motivation is obvious, because the alleged list includes many influential democrats.  The looneys scream for justice because no one's been arrested except for Jeff and Ghislaine.  More accurately, they get themselves all lathered up over putting some democrats in jail.  I've decided to explain the reality of the situation, best I can, once and for all.

First, the list is bullshit.  You can tell this by how it grows each time it reappears; hell, I think the latest one has Franklin Roosevelt on it.  Also, there's literally no base evidence from which to compile it; it lacks any sort of provenance.  Again, bullshit.  

Second, even if we enter the right wing looney fantasy world and consider the list real, it literally proves nothing beyond these people visited the island.  

It would require one to be a complete fucking moron to think charges would be filed, much less a court convicting someone based on their name appearing on a fucking list of visitors.

What would be required is actual evidence of wrongdoing.  This means eyewitness accounts, victim testimony, video evidence, etc.  Even better to have testimony from the victims themselves, that the defendant hurt them while they were underage.  But this apparently doesn't exist.  Beyond the pedo pair, only perp I'm aware of the victim testifying against them is Prince Andrew.  Again, NO FUCKING EVIDENCE of a crime occurring.  Perhaps some exists, but it hasn't been revealed and I refuse to speculate.  

The best part about the right wing looney fantasy is they're all for punishing the shit out of someone whose name is on a list, but vehemently deny their Cheeto Face Idol was involved, despite the numerous photos of him with Epstein.  If there was a person who'd want to visit the island, it's Trump. Considering his obsession with his daughter, it wouldn't surprise me if Epstein had an Ivanka lookalike just for the bastard.  If the list represents flight manifests, Trump wouldn't show up, because he'd insist on flying his jet powered whore house.  

Others who'd fly their private jets would be Bill Gates and Oprah; they're much nicer than Epstein's.  I'm sure there are others on the list who own jets as well, but I'm not inclined to go through it again.  None of these would appear on the bullshit manifest list, either.   

In summary, those who think the list they've seen is real are gullible fucking morons.  Likewise, those angry no charges have been filed are again, total fucking morons.  Use your brains, idiots.  

Thanks for reading!

Giggle Switches - The Real Gun Problem No One's Talking About

In the shooting community, the term "giggle switch" refers to the select fire lever that takes a gun from semiautomatic to full auto fire.  Shooting full auto makes most grown 12 year old men practically giggle, hence the name.  A 1986 amendment to the Gun Control Act banned any further manufacture of full auto weapons not for military use. Therefore, there are a finite number of machine guns and that makes them expensive.  A garden variety Uzi will set you back 40k$!!!  Even a garbage machine gun, like an M11, will set you back $10-15k.  Also, legally obtaining a machine gun requires a lengthy and costly background check.  Owning an automatic weapon without the proper tax stamp is a felony and carries a lengthy prison sentence. 

Of course, not everyone wants to go through that hassle and some semiautomatic guns are super easy to convert to full auto.  The traditional gun for conversion was the AR-15, but it's been eclipsed by Glock pistols, which is even easier to convert.   

The part that instantly turns a semi auto into a full auto is an auto sear and the Glock version is becoming way too popular.  In fact, getting a Glock auto sear is a piece of cake.  If you have a 3D printer, there are plans on the web for you to print them.  If you don't, they're made by the thousands in China and shipped here.  Because they're small and frequently not identified by customs, they slip through without issue.  

The video below shows what an auto sear is and how easy it is to install.  

Here's a better picture of one hanging off the back of a Glock pistol.  

Full auto Glocks are extremely dangerous in two different ways.  First, in close quarters, they concentrate a lot of rounds into a tight space, which has been deadly for law enforcement attempting to gain entry into homes or when attempting to arrest a suspect.  The bad guy can literally spray bullets at their target; statistics say one will hit an area not protected by body armor.  

The greater danger comes from lack of control.  Because a long time friend is a gun dealer in Pennsylvania, I've had the opportunity to shoot a few full auto guns, including an M11, AK47, and M16.  On full auto, these guns were impossible to control beyond the first few rounds.  Keep in mind the last two were rifles, which can be held by both hands.  For that reason, today's battle rifle, the M4 (an M16 variant) has no full auto option; only three round bursts.    

Now, imagine the recoil forces in a pistol, where you don't have two hand holds.  The dork in the video below provides a perfect illustration - watch the gun jump around in his hands.

The inability to keep the gun on target, while dumping a 50 round mag, dramatically increases the risk of standers by being hit with an errant round.  And let's be honest, the individuals who use these guns aren't at the shooting range, honing their skills.  They've always been the type to spray rounds, which was already deadly to bystanders with semiauto guns, but with full auto, it's become even more perilous to be nearby when they decide to shoot someone.

My typical entry concludes with my thoughts on a path forward, but I don't see one with these devices.  They're cheap, easily obtained or made, deadly, and way too easy to get ahold of.  

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.

The Missing J6 Footage

I'll begin this post with a universal truth.  Under no circumstances is it ever legal or morally right to storm / enter the United States Capitol by force, short of Red Dawn happening.

The right wing was so proud of themselves on January 6th, 2021.  They'd shown the world they weren't going to stand for an election being stolen from their idol, Donald Trump.  Thousands of photos were posted to social media by those who stormed the Capitol by those who declared themselves to be patriots.  Then, they realized maybe not that they'd done something wrong, but that the majority of the country despised them for their actions.  The social media posts came down and the participants couldn't account for themselves on J6.  I don't for a moment think any were shameful about what they'd done; they just didn't want to go to jail.  

Under no circumstances is it ever legal or morally right to storm / enter the United States Capitol by force, short of Red Dawn happening.

Once they regrouped, the search began for mitigating factors.  In other words, they were looking for scapegoats to blame for their actions.  First, there was Ray Epps.  Why they chose him, I have no idea.  But he supposedly ushered the insurrectionists inside and was an FBI plant.  There were dozens of undercover FBI agents leading the charge, they said.  We weren't there; it was Antifa, they claimed.   That's my favorite one.  Clamoring all over these scapegoats is an implicit admission by the right wing looneys they don't think for themselves.  

Unfortunately for the insurrectionists, none of these lame diversions have stuck, so they're down to their last excuse, which is the tens of thousands of hours of security footage from that day.  They claim there's a reason that footage has been kept under wraps and that reason will absolve them of their blame.  

Under no circumstances is it ever legal or morally right to storm / enter the United States Capitol by force.  

There are two logical explanations why the footage hasn't been released.  First, beyond the hours of the siege, there's a whole lot of nothingness on the video.  Only an idiot would fight for the release of 10 hours of footage of the door to the ladies room that no one uses.  The second, and most important reason, is that there are most certainly cameras that show the routes to the safe rooms used by the members that day.  In other words, it would provide valuable information for their next try.    

The bottom line is this:  Unless there were signs posted at an entrance saying "Welcome Rioters", along with a tray of cookies, no valid excuse will ever exist for storming the United States Capitol.  

It doesn't matter if Jesus himself was in the building, spurring people on; it's still illegal.

Finally, it's dangerously close to treason in anyone's book to take over a chamber of Congress, smear shit on the walls, erect a noose and scream to hang the Vice President, or perform a B&E into Nancy Pelosi's office and trash it.  Any reasonable person knows doing so is flat out wrong and illegal.  

While we're on Pelosi, if you think she orchestrated it, congratulations, you're a fucking moron.  Trump held the rally, the speakers got the monkeys fired up, then Trump told everyone to converge on the Capitol.  Now, tell me again how Pelosi's to blame.  

Right wingers stormed the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow a free and fair election.  But it seems the party of personal accountability has become that of whining and blaming others for their horrible actions.  

The Impact of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban

TLDR: The 1994 Crime Bill accomplished absolutely nothing because it did almost nothing.  Mass homicides remained at the same level and AR-15's were actually used in more of them during the time it was in effect.  

 Many folks I interact with point to the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) as an example of a successful measure in reducing gun related homicides and mass shootings.  They posit that similar success would be a reasonable expectation with a repeat of the legislation.  I thought it might be a good time to explore the bill's accomplishments, from a data perspective.  Having begun shooting competitively during the ban, I'll also share firsthand insight in how it changed market dynamics.

For reference, the bill went into effect September 13, 1994 and sunset on the same day in 2004.

First, what was included in the bill?

Magazines - No magazines with a capacity greater than ten rounds could be manufactured or imported, after the effective date, except for those designated for law enforcement or military use, which were required to be conspicuously engraved as such.  It was a major no no to be a civilian caught in possession of these.  Magazines already manufactured or imported prior to 9/13/94 were grandfathered in.  

Assault Rifles - What we've (incorrectly) come to refer to as assault rifles weren't banned outright. Instead, they were watered down to not be so scary.  Rifles with detachable mags were only permitted one of the following list of attributes: pistol grips, bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, or flash hiders, and grenade launchers.  Threaded barrels were banned.  As with magazines, those already manufactured or imported prior to 9/13/94 were grandfathered in.  There were other rules, but they weren't applicable to the topic at hand.  

What was the impact on gun violence?

Figure 1 shows gun related homicides from 1988 through 2011.*  While it's obvious the quantity dropped precipitously, while the AWB was in place, the numbers had already begun to decrease when the bill was implemented.  Also, it might be tempting to attribute the correlation between number of gun related homicides with the efficacy of the AWB.  However, if the decrease did in fact come from the AWB, murders would have returned to pre-ban levels once it sunset, which they didn't. This is another example where correlation doesn't equal causation.  

Figure 1

On the mass murder piece, Table 1 shows that there were the same number of incidents during the AWB as the decade prior.  There was a slight decrease in the number of fatalities.  However, the standard deviation on mass murder fatalities per event of 24.3, there's no statistical difference.   AR's were used in more mass murders during the AWB than in the decade prior.** 

For clarity, I use the FBI definition of a mass shooting (murder), which is an incident in which four or more people are shot and killed, not including the shooter, and the victims aren't related to the shooter.  (i.e. excludes domestic violence)

Table 1

Table 2 breaks out the numbers of incidents and resulting fatalities, across various time periods, between mass murders committed with AR's versus those that used another firearm.  You can see that the AR became more popular with mass murderers but didn't didn't become the most commonly used firearm until the most recent half decade.  I'll come back to that later.**

Table 2

What was the impact to the market and individual gun buyers?

Rifles - You could still buy those without issue.  There were plenty of used pre-ban AR's available for sale, although they'd more than doubled in price.  New rifles were plentiful as well, with manufacturers simply producing AR-15's without the features the government considered scary.  Don't believe me?  Pictured below is an AR-15 I bought brand new during the AWB to shoot 3 Gun matches (pistol, rifle, shotgun); it was just as capable as the ones I own now.

Congress was seriously miffed and pulled in the heads of Colt and Bushmaster to explain themselves.  I recall the president of Colt testified something to the effect of, "We're in compliance with the law; don't whine to us when you did a shitty job of writing it."

There were other dumb loopholes, as well.  The most egregious was the exemption for the Ruger Mini 14, which fires the same cartridge at the same rate of fire and holds the same number of rounds as an AR-15.  Just as lethal, but less scary.

Not Scary

Scary

"High Capacity" Magazines - Manufacturers did their best to compensate for the hi-cap mag spigot being turned off.  For example, in the months leading up to the AWB taking effect, Glock was using their entire sea freight allocation to bring in almost literal boatloads of hi cap magazines to include with new guns.  Other firearms manufacturers were taking similar steps, which meant there were plenty to go around at first.  If you weren't able to grab one with your new gun, there were plenty of hi cap mags available on the secondary market, for a price of course.  I recall the mags for my Sig P226 mags changed in value from $15 to $100 each overnight.  I was forced to pay $50-60 each for scruffy 30 round GI AR mags at the time.  Brand new, better designed versions currently sell for $10.  In other words, you could still get whatever hi cap mags you wanted, but at an inflated price.

There was another interesting loophole in that if you already owned hi cap mags, you could repair them (i.e. buy replacement components) if they were damaged.  I "heard stories" of my fellow competitors using this loophole to build new hi caps from components.  I will neither confirm nor deny doing so myself to support the new competition racegun I had just built.  

Ultimately, the numbers prove the AWB had almost no impact in reducing overall gun violence or the number of mass murders because it didn't really do anything meaningful.  You could still buy anything you wanted on the secondary market, at a higher price.  In reality, the AWB made the AR-15 more popular.  I've already written how a gun dealer friend of mine said that he had droves of first time gun buyers come in to his store to buy one.  He told me there were a few that literally walked in and wanted "whatever the government doesn't want me to have."  While this may be anecdotal evidence, consider that when the bill took effect, there were two manufacturers (Colt and Bushmaster) supporting 95% of the market demand for AR-15's.  After the bill sunset, new ones began coming online every year to support the spike in demand.  Now, there are no less than a thirty major manufacturers making AR-15's, which have become the most popular gun in the country. The author of the AWB was of course, Joe Biden.  Maybe a bit of irony the person who drove the greatest spike in popularity for a gun now wants to outlaw it.  

The facts above haven't prevented those who want semiautomatic guns banned from posting falsehoods and nonsense data.  The one I see most frequently is the chart showing how mass murders rapidly increased after the AWB sunset.  Anyone who understands cause and effect / the scientific method recognizes the chart as the bullshit it is.  The AWB was meant to decrease gun violence; was there a drop after the bill was put in place versus the decade prior?  That answer is obviously NO.  

In order to not perpetuate the falsehood that this piece of legislation was successful in its goals, I will no longer refer to it as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban...it was the 1994 Crime Bill.

Update:  I've been made aware of at least two studies that contradict my findings with respect to the bill's impact on mass homicides.  The recent video from Robert Reich you may have seen relies on one of these.  Both clearly had an intended conclusion they were seeking and backed into it in some sketchy ways.  I'll address each and explain why I don't care about them.

1.  A Study Conducted by Stanford Law:  This is the one Reich used for his video.  This study utilizes the same dataset as I do, but alters the criteria of what a mass homicide is to SIX or more fatalities.  They justify this via someone's book I'm not paying $18 for.  My position is if the FBI's definition is good for the FBI (and is the standard most entities use), it's good enough for me.  We can all manipulate the data and reach any conclusion we want, which is why I'm transparent.  FWIW, another author called BS on their findings and this was the article responding to it.  In addition to data manipulation, they show a complete lack of understanding of how the bill impacted someone looking to purchase a gun (it didn't).  Plus, they were bitchy and petty about being called out.  

2. A column by some guy in the Ohio Capital Journal that references some nebulous studies by Dimaggio:  This guy copy pasted a chart from the Dimaggio study and provides a link for the data.  Said data only includes fatalities by year, with no detail, and those are hopelessly understated (by almost fourfold) versus the FBI's data.  Yet, he claims to have referenced Mother Jones, which if you read the footnotes, is the exact same source I use for mass murder data.  The data being wildly off and no detail on methodology make this piece a joke.  

In conclusion, I'm done with this topic.  I lived it as a gun buyer.  I easily and legally bought the shit it was supposed to ban, so I know how it impacted the availability of the guns it targeted (it didn't).  The data is what the data is and further debate on the subject is a waste of time.

*Source: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

**Source: Mother Jones Mass Shooting Database

***For the sake of simplification, I dumped all assault rifles into the AR(15) bucket, instead of breaking down the various subtypes, such as AK's, etc.   

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  As an instructor, he taught courses in gun safety and competition.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal dog, Sadie.