TNK

The film is too muddled to be an anti-gun treatise. Granted, it uses the language of gun politics to create a plot device that is summed up nicely above, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would come away from the movie persuaded that more gun control is necessary. Besides, why are gun politics or the people who inhabit them above parody? Public discourse is fair game for satire, and satire, however crude, is what we have here. The ridiculous slogans or sound jabs that pass for debate on guns are given a good slap here. Everyone comes off sounding dumb, clumsy, and sanctimonious. Gee, haven't I just described American politics circa 2007? FWIW, religion, especially my religion, took a good beating too with all the nun/whore business, which is simply absurd or some type of cheap psycho-analytical reasoning. It also occurred to me that feminism is surely dead in the water for no one to be lamenting the depiction of women in the film. Exploitation does no one any favors except for the schlockmeisters that crank it out. Seeing it is something to do why I eat my popcorn.

Thank you for the replies. Because there is no rule against it, the main reason not to do it is that it would irritate people. Granted, there are other ways to slow down a draw; the suggestions to do so are good ones, but, alas, the moves I have seen all before. As for the assertion that requiring a draw from concealment would be a safety problem, well, the same thing was said of shooting on the move when IPSC first got started. The fact is IPSC has a good safety record in the 30 or more years of its existence. I think IPSC shooters can handle a draw from concealment as well as any challenge presented to them. The issue though, from what I infer reading the above, most would think it is not in the spirit of the game. Okay, but the debate on what is IPSC is not settled. To be cont'd.

Sorry, but it is not funny. It is simply NOT funny. And all the Brits in it looks pale, sickly, and constipated. Don't waste your time and money.

Communication Breakdown, Led Zeppelin I saw them play it in 1972. I am still impressed by what a strong and skillful drummer John Bonham was.

Is there a rule in the current USPSA rule book that prevents me from requiring shooters to wear a cover garment and draw from concealment on a particular stage? Is so, please cite the rule. I have looked in vain for such a rule. Also, I understand that USPSA matches are to be "freestyle," but US1.1.5.1 exempts Level I matches from freestyle requirements and round count limitations.

Here is a little more information on Tom Upthegrove: His playing may be heard on a CD by Billy Bacon and the Forbidden Pigs called "Dressed to Swill." It dates from 1992 and is still available on Triple XXX Records. A good recording, to say the least.

When I lived in Norman, OK, in the early 90s, there was a guitar player named Tom Upthegrove who played in a fast rockabilly style. I loved listening to him at Liberty D's and other places around OKC. He was in a local band called The Ban-Lons, a power trio who always got an audience moving. He later joined a San Diego band called Billy Bacon and the Forbidden Pigs. Tom left Norman to go on the road with them. The place was not the same without him. Years later, if I got it right, Tom is a bartender in Austin, TX. It is hoped he still plays. He is a great musician and a testament to the general unfairness of life. Why is he tending bar when there are so many lesser guitar players around making a living as musicians? I am tempted to go to Austin and ask him. If anyone here knows him, please enlighten me.

Are there clubs outside the U.S. that affiliate with USPSA instead of their proper region and play by USPSA rules? If so, how does this arrangement work? What is their rationale for doing so?

Fiction: The Way of All Flesh - Samuel Butler Sister Carrie - Theodore Dreiser The Recognitions - William Gaddis McTeague - Frank Norris Non-Fiction: The Trouble With Principle - Stanley Fish The World On Paper - David R Olson The Prince - Machiavelli Why I Am Not A Christian - Bertrand Russell

Is there a difference between a field course and a long course? I ask because I hear people say "field course," when referring to longer stages, but there is no mention of a field course in the USPSA rule book. The book refers to short, medium, and long courses only, all based on round count. Is the term "field course" a synonym for a long course, or does "field course" imply something special in the way the stage is designed? While the book recommends at least one long course for a local match, it does not recommend or stipulate a "field course." Thanks in advance for your replies. I just became a Range Officer, and I am still learning the details of the sport.

What I like about USPSA/IPSC is that I can make it my own game. I use it to improve my pistolcraft. I have no illusions about becoming a top competitor because I am slow. But I learn to handle the pistol with more confidence, and I like being out-of-doors for a while. It is too bad that more pistol shooters cannot join me in this endeavor. I have seen many people try it once and not return because they did not do well the first time out. I guess they don't love their pistols as much as they profess because, if they did, they would endure the last place standings (as I do) to improve. So, call it what you will, as long as you learn to call your shots.

Thanks for the quick reply. I thought so. I was just reading a thread below this one about the same problem (although from a somewhat more elaborated position). Anyway, I am not much of a competitor, but I enjoy learning to improve my gun-handling skills, which I think is only done by my participation in combat pistol matches.

Are the terms "action pistol" and "practical pistol" merely euphemisms for combat handgun matches as found in ISPC and IDPA, or are they specific disciplines with their own structures and rules? I ask because I hear the terms used from time to time and generally have no idea to what people are alluding. For instance, once, at a USPSA contest, I heard someone say that it was not a combat pistol match but an action pistol competition. Was he merely pussyfooting? A definition or specific application of the terms would be appreciated. Thank you.

I forget to mention the Petroglyphs near Hickison Summit, just east of Austin. Good stuff.

If you take Highway 50 from the Utah state line to Lake Tahoe, here are some attractions along the way: 1. Lehman Caves at the Great Basin National Park. 2. The old-timey train ride in Ely. 3. Stretch your legs in Eureka and see some of the old buidlings, which are still in use. 4. Pony Express Station near Cold Springs. 5. Big fossils at the Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park (off the road approximately 30 miles); there is camping here too. 6. Sand Mountain. 7. Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge, especially if you like bird watching. 8. Fort Churchill State Historic Park (just off 50 on 95A). 9. Carson Armory in Moundhouse, NV. Say hi to Harry and Eileen. 10. Nevada State Museum in Carson City; there is a small but interesting firearm collection. Have a safe and relaxing journey.

Everything is about money.

It being a game means that it is a discipline that tests the skills of shooters within certain limits. For instance, in Production Division, the limits upon equipment test what a skilled shooter can do on an IPSC course with a factory gun and a daily carry rig. True, the rules now (in USPSA Production Division) do not have a minimum trigger pull, but I support the establishment of one because Production Division is about performance within the strictest limits on equipment. There are other divisions if one wants to build a custom race gun. As for my comment about mickey mousing triggers, I was referring to a LDA pistol that has its Series 80 parts removed to lighten the trigger pull. I am not comfortable with removing safeties. Factory pistols are engineered and tested to perform properly in a particular fashion. When these specifications are altered, it makes me cringe. If one does not want Series 80s parts, there are 1911 pistols available without them. Production Division is about not embracing the 1911 mentality that insists on radically changing pistols to suit the whims of the shooter. Production Division came about because at last there are non-1911 pistols that stand up to the rigors of competition. Berettas, Glocks, Sigs, HKs, and CZs are excellent just the way they come out of the box. Granted, they can use some minor tuning, and Production Division rules permit this work, but such activity is nowhere near the level of changes people do on their 1911s. Yes, there are purists who do only minor alterations to their 1911s, and I applaud them, but they are a rare breed. It is within the discipline of a game that people know whether they are any good. Given the many rules of Production Division, it seems that eventually we will learn who are the best shooters given the limitations of what a factory gun in Production Division provides.

At June's monthly Western Nevada Pistol League (WNPL) match in Reno, NV, there were, for the first time (as I recall), more shooters in Production Division than in Limited 10. There were ten in Production and seven in L-10. As one of those Production shooters, it pleases me to see our modest division gain support. Mind you, the club is hardcore 1911 fans (most of whom seem to be going Limited if they were not already Open). I have taken some abuse for my loyalty to the factory 9X19 round and the succession of Berettas, Sigs, and Glocks I have shown up with. I am now using the Glock 17 and like it best. Yet, I am still told by some 1911 guy that "when I get serious" I will "move up" to the expensive race gun with some exotic caliber that I can only obtain by reloading. I don't think so. My personal rule is to only to compete with what is on my CCW permit. If it is not on my permit, I shall not use it. The Glock is the most popular pistol among the cadre of Production shooters, but the XD is gaining a following. At the last match, there was one Beretta 92 (the shooter of which won the division) and a Para LDA in minor .40 with a heavily-doctored trigger. I think this one is not exactly in the spirit of Production Division because who would carry concealed with a three pound trigger, which was made such by some serious mickey mousing? But it is not against the rules of the Division in the U.S. (so far), so I let it go. I love my Glock, and I love Production Division. I am not changing or "moving up."

I apologize for not being more specific. I understand that USPSA is a region of IPSC. What I am interested in learning is how this organizationial relationship came about. As I glean from reading Patrick Sweeney's stories about the early days of IPSC, prior to 1984, American IPSC shooters were directly members of IPSC. When USPSA was formed, they become members of USPSA, which is affiliated with IPSC as one of its regions. Yet, USPSA has different rules, different targets, and, in the case of Production Division (the division in which I play), a different list of pistols that are eligible for this division. What I am seeking is a narrative of what happened circa 1984 to lead to these differences. My request is largely for my own personal edification. I would like to know how we arrived at the current organization we enjoy today. If someone can recommend written material on the topic, please let me know.

I know this event happened in 1984, but what conditions or situations prompted the move?

According to recent threads, the following are some of the reasons that IPSC/USPSA does not attract more players: 1. USPSA does not promote the sport properly. It is a marketing issue. 2. People are put off by by the sight of race guns. They think they must spend a lot of money to play to game. The cost of round count and entry fees may also discourage people from playing. 3. Matches run too long; people cannot hang around all day. This matter also relates to the complaint that local clubs do not properly welcome and accommodate new members or participants. 4. The gun magazines have promoted IDPA at the expense of IPSC. All of these observations have some cogency. Yet, I would like to add another. Rather than blame the sport or competition among factions of the sport, let us blame the newbies who are too timid to learn something new. As a former college instructor, I find most adults set in the their ways to the point of recalcitrance when it comes to developing a new skill or ability. If they do not get it right away, they give up. Playing the action pistol game is not something that one learns right away. It takes time, trial and error, and a commitment to play well enough to get something out of it. Many people are afraid of looking bad or stupid as they learn. Thus, they do not attempt something new to protect themselves from embarrassment. When I tell people I shoot IPSC, they tell me: “You must be very good. I could never do that.” I respond that I am a D class shoot, the lowest ranking, but my goal is to improve my gun handling skills regardless of how I rank. I have had some bad scores. I usually come in last at local club matches. But I do not care because every time I play I learn more about my pistol (or pistols since I have shot about a a half dozen different types of pistols in Production Division). I explain that the effort is worth it to learn to be a better pistolero, despite my scores. I have yet to persuade anyone on this point. I cannot recruit a new member to save my life. As a result, I would assert that the problem with bringing new players into the sport is more about people out there rather than about people within the action pistol shooting sports. Granted, we have out squabbles, but who out there is ready to keep trying despite the long march up and over the learning curve? Who is willing to develop the discipline necessary to be better? Find those people, and the sport will grow. Be aware though that they are few and far between.