On Wednesday, the media was able to see a full Indianapolis Colts practice for the second time during this current session of OTAs, and we were able to get some interesting tidbits from them. Outside of those players, an interesting takeaway I had were some of the young players getting run with the first-team units.
Yesterday was kind of a rough day for me. Most of you don’t know and don’t care about my personal life, and that’s fine. I’m just some guy who writes about gun rights on the internet. You don’t need to know anything about me.
But this time, you might find my personal life a little interesting. It relates to why I get so damn furious when anti-gunners claim we somehow want to see people die in mass shootings, that we somehow don’t care.
For me, mass shootings aren’t just a thing that happens. They’re a little personal. It’s why a Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School teacher absolutely infuriated me with this tweet.
After the mass shooting at Douglas there is no good reason to post this photo holding the weapon period, waa done in poor taste to generate a reaction period. You are entitled to your opinion but probably don’t live in Parkland so it is just another shooting somewhere else
— Greg Pittman (@GregPittman1957) April 25, 2018
You see, six years ago yesterday, I lost a dear friend in a mass shooting.
The place was a coffee shop in Seattle, Washington called the Cafe Racer. I’ve never been there, though it’s on the list of places to visit if I get the chance. I have no idea if the coffee is any good or not, and I really don’t care.
What I care about is that it was a place where a woman named Kimberly Lynn Layfield enjoyed spending time at.
Kim and I met in 8th grade. I’d just transferred into a new school, this one a private school that was created for more working-class families. Because of how so many teachers like to seat people according to the alphabet, I got seated right by Kim.
She was gorgeous, an absolute stunner. She had the kind of looks that let so many girls get away with being total snobs; only Kim wasn’t. She was exceptionally friendly to the new kid and became one of my first friends at the new school. She preferred to hang out with the kids who weren’t the popular ones necessarily. She didn’t like the mean girl schtick, after all, and we were a lot more genuine.
Throughout high school, Kim was there. She was special. Always friendly and eager to meet anyone special in my life. She was smart, funny, and down-to-earth, the kind of person anyone would want to hang out with.
After we graduated and I went into the Navy, I lost touch with her until our fifth-year reunion (yes, we did that). She came in and plopped down right next to me to catch up. She was living in Chicago at the moment, and she was really living. Then we lost touch again until I came across an independent film she’d been in. I emailed the director and asked him to pass my email to Kim.
I heard from her the next day, and we started catching up again.
Because of the time delay between Seattle, where she was living, and Georgia, we didn’t talk all that much. But social media let us stay abreast of what was going on in each other’s lives.
Until six years ago today.
That was when I logged into Facebook and saw activity in the group set aside for people who had graduated from our school. It was there that I learned that one of the fatalities in the Seattle coffee shop shooting the day before was none other than Kim.
At the time, I was the editor and owner of a small local news site. I had the news, no one else did. My journalistic instinct said to run the story. I just couldn’t, though. I wanted verification. Someone had to confirm it. Part of it was wanting to be very professional. The other part was praying that the news was wrong, that Kim was fine and it was a misunderstanding.
I’m going to be honest here. For a moment, shortly after I pulled my bawling butt up off of the floor under my desk where I’d collapsed upon hearing the news, I began to rethink my position on the Second Amendment. Could I have been wrong?
A moment later, I remembered that my position included the fact that sometimes jackwagons were going to be jackwagons and I wasn’t about to stop them. No law I could think of, except for possibly an outright ban on all firearms, would have saved Kim’s life. Even a ban might not have done the trick.
In other words, the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners weren’t to blame for Kim’s death. It was a pathetic maniac who couldn’t deal with the fact that the coffee shop didn’t want him in there anymore. That was it.
I don’t know that most of Kim’s circle of friends from back in the day feel the same way. I don’t know either way. I don’t know how her parents feel on the subject of guns, either. I haven’t asked them and, frankly, I don’t want to.
But what I do know is that I get livid when people act like I don’t care about those affected by mass shootings, that I somehow like this kind of thing. It’s bad enough when it’s someone else who has been impacted but imagine how it feels when it’s from someone who has only seen these things on the news?
Contrary to what they might think, violence affects people of all political ideologies. Further, being touched by it doesn’t necessarily transform you into a raging anti-gun zealot.
People on this side of the debate have been touched by violence as well. We simply have a different approach to the problem and pretending we somehow are ambivalent or worse, supportive of such violence, doesn’t help anyone. Instead, it makes it harder and harder to be civil in public debate.
I have no issue that people disagree with me. In truth, I don’t actually think they’re bad people because they disagree with me. I just think they’re wrong.
Meanwhile, they apparently think that I’m evil, all because I refuse to change my mind simply because of feelings, even when that feeling is loss and pain from one of the best people I’ve ever known being stolen from the world.
The post Why I Get Furious When Anti-Gunners Think We Support Mass Shootings appeared first on Bearing Arms.
When YouTube announced its new policy regarding firearm videos, a lot of people were concerned. While it certainly looked pretty straightforward, it wasn’t. Not for many gun channel owners, at least.
Over time, however, it appears that the subject hasn’t gotten much clearer.
YouTube is the land of people doing stupid stuff, cats, and, for firearms enthusiasts, guns — lots and lots of guns. From tutorials and reviews to footage of shooters just doing their thing, it’s all on YouTube for your viewing pleasure. For now.
That’s because when a new YouTube gun video policy went into effect in April, just what is and isn’t taboo is far from settled. Instead of thousands of educational and informative videos on virtually any kind of weapon imaginable, YouTube could instead be home to more cats.
The idea that firearms content, seen by many as both a First and Second Amendment issue, could be tossed by someone who knows nothing about gun culture has video producers entering digital survivalist mode.
They aren’t playing a game of wait and see. They’re bracing for impact.
“The entire industry uses YouTube as a repository of information. It’s huge,” said Jon Patton, whose channel and brand The Gun Collective has almost 130,000 YouTube subscribers and about 12.5 million views. “The same way Facebook could change elections, YouTube could silence an entire industry.”
Unlike the majority of video producers with small to midsize followings, Tim Harmsen’s almost 700,000 YouTube subscribers on his Military Arms Channel grants him something others don’t have: access. He has a direct line to YouTube through a YouTube representative with insider intel.
What he’s learned by questioning that contact since the announcement is, well, not much. So far, he said, his requests for clarification haven’t really been answered. If YouTube officials understand the nuances of their own gun policy, they haven’t told Harmsen.
The whole thing is a pretty interesting read, and something we as gun owners and uses of sites like YouTube should make a note of.
YouTube, as a private company, has a right to host and not host whatever content they want. However, it also owes it to its content creators to be clear. Does a video on how to change the stock of your rifle constitute a “conversion” of the weapon? Are videos on assembly and disassembly of your weapon going to be considered videos on building a gun? Is a review considered an attempt to sell the weapon?
There’s a lot of gray area in there, and people have a right to want answers.
YouTube, because it is not clear about its policy, is hurting itself in the long run. While its basically the only game in town for most gun channels–trust me, as someone who has toyed with the idea of a gun-related channel myself, I’ve looked–it’ll only take time before someone opens up and starts a site that will allow all that kind of content without the baggage of some alternatives (InRange TV has gone to PornHub, for example).
In the meantime, I suppose it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission. My advice, though? Don’t count on YouTube for your revenue. It’s entirely likely that it’ll at least demonetize everything you create if it relates to guns for the foreseeable future.
It began with an attempt by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) to plant an improvised explosive device on the security fence separating Israel from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, and ended with a near full-scale conflagration on a scale not seen since the summer of 2014. Tensions for the time being have tapered off but the recent fighting demonstrates why the Israeli Army (IDF) maintains a constant state of readiness along its volatile borders.
On Sunday, security forces monitoring the Gaza border detected an object attached to the border fence. Upon closer examination, it turned out to be a bolt cutter of the type used by Palestinian rioters to breach the fence in weeks prior. A remote controlled robot was sent in to inspect and remove the object utilizing a long cord. During the course of removal, the bolt cutter exploded. Fortunately, no one was injured but the situation could have just as easily resulted in casualties.
PIJ terrorists who planted the IED were then spotted manning a nearby observation post. An Israeli Merkava IV tank fired at the OP instantly killing two PIJ operatives. A third was mortally wounded and died soon after. Islamic Jihad swore vengeance.
Two days later, southern Israeli border towns and communities came under intense indiscriminate rocket and mortar bombardment. A kindergarten was hit but fortunately, the children had not yet arrived. Over the course of 22 hours, Hamas and PIJ fired over 100 rockets and mortars, 25 of which were shot down by Israel’s anti-rocket defense system, Iron Dome. According to military sources, the system also succeeded in intercepting incoming mortar rounds, a first in the annals of warfare. There were no fatalities but there was some property damage and three IDF soldiers were wounded, two lightly and one moderately. A civilian was also lightly injured.
The unprovoked attacks inevitably drew Israeli retaliatory strikes which came in two waves. Some 65 Hamas and PIJ positions were targeted including a U-shaped, two-kilometer long tunnel that extended into both Egypt and Israel. It was to be used for smuggling contraband as well as for facilitating terrorist attacks. Rocket and weapons storage facilities were also hit and destroyed. A Hamas naval armory which the army said contained “advanced, unmanned submarine vessels, capable of maritime infiltration and carrying out maritime terror attacks,” was hit and destroyed as well.
Israel informed Hamas through intermediaries that if it continued its attacks, the IDF was prepared to conduct a large-scale military operation, similar to those conducted in 2009 and 2014. Hamas, still smarting from the defeats of 2009 and 2014, understood that Israel meant business and ordered its operatives as well as the PIJ to cease fire. The question is how long will the cease fire hold? The answer to that is anyone’s guess.
Nevertheless, the recent round of fighting highlighted several interesting takeaways. First, the discovery of a Hamas tunnel in Egypt is likely to further strain relations between Egypt and Hamas. Egypt has accused Hamas of aiding Islamist terrorists in northern Sinai and the revelation of a Hamas-dug tunnel in Egypt further erodes Hamas’s credibility in the eyes of the Egyptian government.
Second, the Iron Dome system continues to impress. In 2014, Iron Dome succeeded in shooting down rockets but had yet been incapable of downing mortar rounds. In 2014, a mortar round fired from a Gaza school killed a four-year-old Israeli boy named Daniel Tragerman, who lived in a kibbutz near the border. Modifications and software upgrades to Iron Dome have enabled the system to now have the ability to intercept incoming mortar rounds. This is an unprecedented development in warfare.
Third, during the Obama years, Israel received equivocal support at best, when it carried out anti-terror operations against Islamist terrorist groups. Europe, taking cue from Obama, was downright hostile. But in the latest round, Israel received unequivocal political support from both the United States and the European Union, while Hamas was roundly condemned. This positive development signals a seismic shift in favor of Israel and may have been a contributing factor in Hamas’s decision to call it quits. Hamas recognizes that in any confrontation with Israel, it will lose both militarily and politically, whereas in the past, it at least had a chance of scoring political points.
Fourth, the malevolent role of the Iranian regime in stoking the recent round of violence cannot be overlooked. Iran has its fingerprints all over this one. Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders have readily and publicly acknowledged that they receive aid in the form of cash, training and weapons from Iran. For years, the Iranians have been cultivating proxies to do their bidding and these Palestinian groups are willing participants. Iran has recently been on the receiving end of some sharp blows from Israel, and the mullahs were looking for a way to strike back but without engaging Israel in direct confrontation. Gaza appeared to be Iran’s venue of choice. Nevertheless, despite Hamas’s dependence on Iran, the group still exercises some independent thought, and they wisely cried uncle for they recognized that this was a battle they had no hope of winning.
Just this morning I was musing over the new kneeling ban in the NFL and what led to the outpouring of anger from fans. While mulling that over, I concluded that the new policy likely wouldn’t make much of a difference at this point because too much water has passed under the bridge. But a new survey released by SurveyMonkey this week provides at least a hint that I may have been wrong. After a lot of bad polling days for the league, a solid majority of respondents are now saying that they support the new policy.
Americans—and especially NFL fans—are supportive of the league’s recently-announced policy to fine teams whose players kneel on the field during the national anthem. More than half of adults in the U.S. (54 percent) say they approve of the policy, while just 43 percent disapprove. Among those who call themselves NFL fans, 56 percent approve and 42 percent disapprove. Drilling down even further, “big fans” of the NFL approve by a margin of 59-40.
More than four in 10 people (42 percent) say that kneeling during the national anthem “is not related to patriotism.” Nearly as many (41 percent) say that kneeling during the national anthem is unpatriotic–almost three times more than the number of respondents who think it is patriotic (14 percent).
A majority of people (55 percent) say it is fair for teams to be fined for a player’s actions. About as many (57 percent) say that the ability for players to stay inside the locker room during the national anthem rather than kneeling on the field is a fair compromise.
You can read the full results here. There are several clear demographic breaks in the responses. Democrats were far less impressed with the new policy, with 65% disapproving and 67% saying it would be unfair to fine the teams for the actions of the players. But 81% of Republicans approved, with only 19% disapproving.
The racial divide was almost equally stark, with whites approving at a rate of 59% while only 38% of blacks do. That may still prove troubling for the league since an even more interesting question had to do with who considers themselves fans or “big fans” of football. 68% of black respondents said they were fans, while 53% of whites did.
With all that in mind, I have to wonder if the plan among some players which Allahpundit reported on the other day will have much of an effect. If any significant number of starters who will have a real impact on their teams’ prospects decide to “sit out” the games until Kaepernick and Eric Reid are signed, how would the fans of their individual teams respond? I know that if any of the Jets’ starters decided to do that and reduce our already comically low shot at a Super Bowl ring even further, I’d be pretty ticked off at the players, not the league. But then again, am I in the minority there? From the looks of this poll, I’m guessing I’m not.
Anyway, that’s just some recent polling for you to mull over until the preseason kicks off. (Assuming it actually does.)
The post Poll: majority of Americans approve of NFL kneeling ban appeared first on Hot Air.
My son brought home some pretty interesting stories from preschool. He’s my first, so every new experience for him has also been a new experience for me. Going to an Israeli preschool with born and bred Israeli teachers, outlooks, and educational …
1. Chart of the Day I (above) shows graphically the amazing “life course dynamics of affluence” that summarize the research of Thomas Hirschl and Mark Rank, based on their empirical investigation of individual lifetime income data over a 44-year period for individuals from ages 25 to 60 to see what percentage of the American population would experience different levels of affluence during their lifetimes. The results above are striking and remarkable and were featured before on CD here and here, and totally worthy of a re-post here.
As Washington University professor Mark Rank wrote in a 2015 New York Times article about his research with Thomas Hirschl, “Rather than being a place of static, income-based social tiers, America is a place where a large majority of people will experience either wealth or poverty — or both — during their lifetimes.” The chart above is based on the data in Table 2 of the research paper and shows the following remarkable finding on income mobility in America:
More than half of American adults (53.1%) will be in the top 10% of the income distribution for one or more years between the ages of 25 and 60. But staying in the top 10% is much less likely, and only about one in three Americans (35.4%) remain in the top 10% for two consecutive years between ages of 25 and 60, about one in four (26.7%) for three or more consecutive years, about one in five (21.7%) for four or more years, and only about one in 13 (7.8%) stay in the top 10% for ten consecutive years or more.
Don’t the Hirschl and Rank findings above of significant income mobility (including the finding that nearly 70% of Americans make it into the top 20% for at least one year and nearly 62% for at least two years) pretty much destroy the narrative of income inequality being the “defining challenge of our time,” as we heard so frequently from Obama?
2. Chart of the Day II (above) shows annual US real manufacturing GDP value-added (in 2009 dollars) from 1997 to 2017, which increased to a new record all-time high of $1.955 trillion last year. It was the first time since the Great Recession since that the output (value added) of US factories surpassed the previous, pre-recession record high $1.925 trillion in 2007. While it took an entire decade, US manufacturing has now officially and completely recovered from the devastating effects of the Great Recession. Interestingly, I couldn’t find this manufacturing output milestone reported elsewhere, so perhaps you’ve heard it here first! Carpe vestibulum!
4. Cartoon of the Day II (above), self-explanatory!
5. Cartoon of the Day III (above), another great one from Michael Ramirez.
6. Quotation of the Day is from Anatoly Kurmanaev writing in the Wall Street Journal (“The Tragedy of Venezuela“):
Growing up in provincial Russia in the 1990s, I lived through the collapse of a superpower and witnessed the corruption, violence and degradation that followed. I thought I had the street smarts to navigate Venezuela’s maddening Socialist bureaucracy and controls, while enjoying much nicer weather.
What struck me on arriving was how little the Socialist leaders cared about even the appearances of equality. They showed up at press conferences in shantytowns in motorcades of brand new armored SUVs. They toured tumbledown factories on live state TV wearing Rolexes and carrying Chanel handbags. They shuttled journalists to decaying state-run oil fields on private jets with gilded toilet paper dispensers.
7. Chart of the Day III (above) shows the gradual decline in average US round-trip, inflation-adjusted airfares, which have fallen by nearly 30%, from $485 in Q1 1995 to $347 in Q4 2017 (in 2017 dollars), inspired by the article by Robert Poole in the June issue of Reason Magazine “If You Can Afford a Plane Ticket, Thank Deregulation“:
In 1979, the first year of deregulation, the average domestic fare was $616 (in 2016 dollars), or 1.2% of average household income that year. The most recent comparable data I can find is for 2016, when the average fare was $344—a mere 0.6% of average household income.
So after adjusting for both inflation and increases in average household income, the cost of air travel in the US has fallen by 50% since deregulation.
8. Chart of the Day IV (above) was inspired by Manhattan Institute fellow Robert Bryce’s New York Post article “Bad news for green energy lovers: US oil & gas are booming“:
The combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has resulted in the fastest and biggest addition to world energy supply that has ever occurred in history. How big is that addition? Over the past decade, merely the increase — I repeat, just the increase — in US oil and gas production is equal to seven times the total energy production of every wind turbine and solar project in the United States (see chart above).
Climate-change activists like to claim that renewable energy can power the entire economy and that we should “do the math.” I couldn’t agree more — on the math part. In 2008, US oil production was about 5.2 million barrels per day. Today, it’s about 10.2 million barrels per day. In 2008, domestic gas production averaged about 55.1 billion cubic feet per day. Today, it’s about 87.6 billion cubic feet per day. That’s an increase of about 32.5 billion cubic feet per day, which is equivalent to about 5.5 million barrels of oil per day. Thus, over the past decade, US oil and gas output has jumped by about 10.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (see chart).
Let’s compare that to domestic solar and wind production which, since 2008, has increased by 4,800 percent and 450 percent, respectively. While those percentage increases are impressive, the total energy produced from those sources remains small when compared to oil and gas. In 2017, US solar production totaled about 77 terawatt-hours and wind production totaled about 254 terawatt-hours, for a combined total of 331 terawatt-hours. That’s the equivalent of about 1.5 million barrels of oil per day. Simple division (10.5 divided by 1.5) shows that since 2008, the increase in energy production from oil and gas is equal to seven times the energy output of all domestic solar and wind.
9. Who’d a-Thunk It? Raising the minimum wage results in reduced fringe benefits for low-skilled workers? That’s the finding of an NBER research paper “The Minimum Wage, Fringe Benefits, and Worker Welfare,” here’s part of the conclusion (italics added):
We find robust evidence that recent state minimum wage increases resulted in declines in employer-sponsored health insurance for minimum wage earners. Our estimates also suggest that insurance and wage effects spill over to those earning above, but not far from, the minimum wage.
We conclude by observing that while employer insurance coverage is an important non-wage job attribute, it is but one of many non-wage job attributes. Our findings thus point to the need for an analysis of other job attributes and how they fluctuate with the minimum wage. Margins of interest, some of which have received attention in recent work, include the flexibility of work hours, implicit effort contracts, the pace of work and occupational safety. Standard theory suggests that such margins may have high relevance for worker welfare.
In other words, the researchers only examined the demonstrated reductions in employer-sponsored health insurance that result from increases in the minimum wage. As economic theory and basic logic tell us, health insurance is just one of many fringe benefits and job attributes that are adjusted by employers to the disadvantage of limited-experience workers following artificial, government-mandated increases in labor costs in the form of minimum wage laws. That is, minimum wage laws = minimum/reduced fringe benefit laws for the most vulnerable workers.
10. Video of the Day (below) features Charles Koch discussing the “History of Freedom” who takes a look across history at how increasing freedom and openness in society dramatically increases human well-being.
“A true Englishman,” Jules Verne once quipped, “doesn’t joke when he is talking about so serious a thing as a wager.”
After the Supreme Court’s ruling two weeks ago effectively legalizing sports wagering, Americans, too, are starting to take gambling seriously, both inside and outside the world of sports.
In Murphy v. NCAA, the Supremes held by a 7-2 margin (more or less) that a congressional act forbidding state legislatures from authorizing sports gambling violated the “anti-commandeering” doctrine of the Tenth Amendment and therefore was unconstitutional.
Under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1991 (PASPA), instead of prohibiting sports gambling outright, Congress declared it “unlawful” for a state to “advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact . . . a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme” based on competitive sporting events.
In 2011, voters in New Jersey approved a state constitutional amendment authorizing just that, and the following year, the state legislature formally authorized sports betting. Shortly thereafter, the major sports leagues and the NCAA challenged the legislation in court, arguing it was barred by PASPA. New Jersey countered that PASPA itself was unconstitutional because the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from “order[ing] the State to regulate in accordance with federal standards” — a principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
After further judicial and legislative maneuverings, the case found its way to the Supreme Court, where Justice Alito, writing for the majority, explained that the anti-commandeering doctrine derives fundamentally from the Framers’ “decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States.” This “structural protection of liberty” helps “promote political accountability” and “prevents Congress from shifting the costs of regulation to the States.”
And in the case of PASPA, the high court held that by purporting to tell legislatures not what they must affirmatively do but what they must not do, Congress overstepped its bounds and violated the doctrine.
Thus, New Jersey and the 49 other states found themselves suddenly liberated to enable sports betting within their borders. Anticipating the ruling, several states, including New York, West Virginia, Connecticut, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania, did exactly that. Another 15 states have taken steps in this direction.
But the Supremes’ Murphy decision nevertheless left sports fans and others alike wondering whether sports will benefit or suffer from the ruling.
Predictably, libertarians celebrated, and with good reason. Americans are already betting enormous sums of money on sports, they reckoned, so why not legalize it outright and at least capture some tax revenue?
According to statistics cited by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, while Americans legally wagered nearly $5 billion in 2017, they bet $123 billion per year on sports, almost all illegally. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of states conduct lotteries and permit some form of casino gambling, generally on Indian reservations.
But doesn’t widespread, legalized sports gambling run the risk of interfering with the integrity of games? Worse, wouldn’t the prospect of, say, in-seat touchscreens in sports arenas, on which spectators could place bets on all aspects of the game they’re watching, ruin the stadium experience?
The four major sports leagues, which had joined the NCAA in the original suit against New Jersey, wasted little time in calling for uniform national standards, with the National Basketball Association emphasizing that “the integrity of our game remains our highest priority” and the National Football League reportedly “focusing on getting paid for selling rights to its own data and video footage — intellectual property that legal betting operators will want to pay for in order to help them set lines and prop bets.”
What also remains uncertain is whether sports wagering will benefit local and state coffers.
Interestingly, misery and ecstasy have blended on the Strip: Las Vegas sports bookmakers stand to lose big as the city’s juggernaut National Hockey League expansion team, the Golden Knights, has overcome tremendous odds to reach the Stanley Cup Finals.
In addition, a 2016 report from the State University of New York’s Rockefeller Institute found that “state authorizations and promotions of gambling offer little long-run relief to state revenue problems” because while “new gambling activities may generate short-run increases in public revenues . . . these increases are getting smaller and their duration shorter, perhaps as more and more states compete for a limited pool of gambling dollars.”
Thus, many questions remain as we enter the brave new world of sports gambling. Jules Verne wasn’t joking around.
This week, Billboard is celebrating the music of 20 years ago with a week of content about the most interesting artists, albums, songs and stories from 1998. Here, writer and former MTV VJ John Norris looks back on George Michael’s audacious “Outside …
France –-(Ammoland.com)- The Second Master International Shooting Safety Instructors Association (MISSIA) Training Seminar took place in Châteauroux, France on Friday, May 25. The one-day session was led by Vitaly Kryuchin, the IPSC President.
The Seminar, developed under the auspices of the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC), was aimed at teaching and implementing international standards for safe gun handling and IPSC coaching skills to the Regional Instructors. At the end of the event, the certification of Instructors took place.
The MISSIA structure, sequence of training topics, safe groups teaching methods, removal of the main mistakes made by shooters and the testing system for competitors and Instructors were the main topics of the theoretical and practical parts of the Seminar.
“We discussed the sequence of educational topics in the training of a beginner shooter with some special tips, the main drills that instil safety skill, methods of getting rid of jerking/flinch, some special training methods for high-level competitors, the future of MISSIA and IPSC” said the IPSC President, Vitaly Kryuchin.
There were 9 participants from Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Indonesia and Spain. All participants except one successfully passed the handgun shooting tests. Four people successfully passed the shotgun tests. Everybody get the MISSIA Certificates.
Participants, who successfully passed the Shooting Tests will get the MISSIA Instructors ID card. All who did not pass the Shooting Test have the chance to pass it one more time at any official MISSIA event during the 2018 year.
The Seminar’s participants noted the importance of MISSIA creation and its further development, liked the learning process and some secrets that were given during the training session, and that the shooting tests did show their level of skills as shooters. Some of the participants noted that one-day session was not enough and asked to expand the classes to two days.
The next MISSIA Seminar is going to take place on June 20, 2018 in Hodonice, Czech Republic.
The Master International Shooting Safety Instructors Association (MISSIA) was created within the IPSC structure for the accreditation, recognition and maintenance of International Shooting Safety Instructors and to establish international standards for safe gun handling classes and IPSC coaching skills. One International Instructor, called a Master International Instructor, will be appointed in every IPSC Region. The Master Instructor will then pass on to the other Instructors and Coaches in his Region the minimum IPSC international training standards.
The International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) was founded in 1976 as a shooting sport and today recognizes all the main shooting disciplines – Handgun, Rifle, Shotgun, and Action Air. The Latin words Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas (DVC) meaning accuracy, power, and speed are IPSC’s motto and form the foundation for competition.
IPSC also emphasizes procedures for safe gun handling and strict adherence to the rules governing the sport. In IPSC courses of fire the results are calculated by dividing the competitor’s target score by the time taken to complete the course of fire. The shooter must be the most accurate and fastest to win.
Courses of fire utilize many aspects not found in the more traditional shooting disciplines such as movement by the shooter, moving targets, multiple targets, and the freedom for the shooter to solve the shooting challenges presented in the courses of fire. Therefore, competitions are very exciting for competitors and interesting for spectators.
105 countries (IPSC Regions) are members of the Confederation and actively organize IPSC Matches. The number of active IPSC competitors worldwide exceeded 200,000 in 2017 with 351 IPSC national and international sanctioned matches held.
The post Master International Shooting Safety Instructors Association Seminar Held in France appeared first on AmmoLand.com.