Miguel is writing a book and I wish him all the best.

I’ve had a idea for a story I want to tell for a little while now.  I’ve thought more about it as a screen play than a book, but I’m not sure where to take it.  Which is why I am posting here, I want to get some feelers.  I told the idea to my wife, she sort of likes it but warned me that the premise, as well as a few of the characters will invite upon me the wrath of the SJWs.

Either as a book or a screen play, I want to do a zombie story.  I know, I know, that’s all played out, but I have a different angle I want to take it.  Part of the story is inspired by the book Dracula.  I know, I’m making it so much worse, but bare with me.

I want to have it set in Louisiana between 1862 and 1863.  The main villain will be a runaway slave who is a  Bokor, a Voodoo priest.  He is bringing soldiers who died on the battlefield back to life to enact revenge on the families of the plantation owners.  His actions go, at least for a while, unnoticed because of the war, but eventually a small group of people catch on and have to stop him.

I want one of the good guys to be a house slave, who is also (unbeknownst to his master) a houngan, a good Voodoo priest.  He is my Abraham Van Helsing character, a wise, older character steeped in knowledge of Voodoo.  I want at least one Union officer and one Confederate officer as part of the Bokor hunting party.  I like the idea of that internal conflict, that has to be overcome.  The rest of the party needs more fleshing out.  And I want there to be at least one battle with a Rougarou, a sort of Louisiana Voodoo were-alligator, that the Bokor is using as a bodyguard.

Part of why I want to do this, is I like the idea of Voodoo zombies instead of disease zombies.  There is a little bit more I can play around with – like Voodoo zombies and their aversion to salt.  I also like the idea of zombies vs. civil war era weaponry.  Fighting zombies in the Bayou is going to quickly turn into a saber and knife fight.  You can bet my Confederate officer will be dispatching zombies with a D-guard bowie.  Modern zombie movies and shows have a lot of rapid fire and accurate head shots.  Early Civil War battles were still fought with Napoleonic volley fire tactics and bayonet charges.  I imagine that not being particularity effective against a horde of the undead.

Some of it, like the locations, Civil War weapons and tactics I will try to be as accurate as possible.  Other things, like Voodoo, I will have to take some liberties.

What do you all think?  Zombies played out?  Is this something you might like?

So it was a three day weekend, did some movie watching, enjoyed some gun play.

I watched a couple of young guys open up on some targets with a shooting style that seemed to be somewhere between John Woo and James Yeager.  Obviously self taught from the school of Youtube tactical shooting videos.

I like competitive shooting.  I do a little IDPA and Steel Challenge from time to time.  I’m not hard core about it.  New job, baby, wife not really working, I just don’t have the time or money to practice as much as I’d like.  If I finish in the top 10, I call it a good day.

I have (thankfully) never been in a firefight.  I’ve heard all the Youtube bravado that “competitive shooting will get you killed, it’s not like a gunfight at all.”  Now I have no first hand experience with this, but in my humble opinion, competitive shooting is a fun way to hone critical shooting skills: accuracy and weapon manipulation.  Even in you are mediocre at something like IDPA, you are still practicing the fundamentals of sight alignment, reloading and working your gun while looking at the targets, etc.

So when I see these shooters rolling around on the ground while shooting and trying for the perfect Mozambique drill and talking about double taps and “breaking the rhythm” and all that other Youtube tacticool crap, it makes me laugh.

I remember this video I saw a long time ago.

These guys are US Army Delta.  The elite of the elite.  The operator’s operator.  The best there is.  If you watch carefully there is not a Mozambique or tactical roll in the entire video.  The shooting tactics of the best of the best is: fill the target with bullets, reload, repeat as necessary.

It is down right Steel Challenge in its simplicity.  Doesn’t matter where you hit the target, just hit it and move on (plus grenades).

The tactical roll is stupid.  The real G.I. Joes don’t do it.  Practice the fundamentals of being able to hit what you are aiming at with a reasonable degree of speed.  And for god’s sake, stop watching James Yeager.

So a news story caught my eye today.  An 11 year old shot and killed a 16 year old in what the police are saying was an attempted break in.  I have no details on the case besides what was reported through various media sources.  The police say there was some evidence that the teen tried to break in a few times before.  On the other hand, a neighbor claims that it wasn’t a home invasion and that two boys had argued before the shooting.

Beyond that I know nothing about the case.  But seeing as this story has been covered by everybody so far, with the predictable politically polarized differing slants.  Because of this, and the fact that it took place in St. Louis (with everything else that has happened there in the last year) it has all the makings of a summer blockbuster of a media circus.

Thoughts?

So an 8 foot cobra is on the loose in Orlando.

This begs the question: what’s good CCW for a poisonous snake?

When I lived in South Dakota I shot a 6 foot rattle snake with a load of CCI 38 special bird shot.  It was effective but only up close, a lot closer than I’d ever like to get to a cobra.

Then again, most of Orlando is a gun free zone  (a lot of land is owned by Disney and is private property even if it is not inside one of the parks) so it may be a moot point.  I wonder if they are going to have to implement a snake free zone policy too?  I feel it will be just as effective in preventing snake related disaster.

There is a political theory known as the “Horseshoe Theory” that states that the political spectrum is not a straight line from far-left to far-right, but that as you go from the center towards either extreme, the political spectrum folds back on itself to the point where the far-left and far-right are nearly touching.

This has lead to a the creation of an interesting internet game, StormFront or  SJW.  It takes statements made in various internet posting from either the White Supremacist website StormFront or from SJW Tumblr and edits out key words and asks you to decide who said it.

Watching the coverage of the VA shooting, I think Vester Flanagan/Bryce William took the horseshoe and made it go full circle.  I remember when kicking off a race war was the paranoid fantasy of ultra-far-right-wing white supremacists.  It was easy for the media and the rest of society to dismiss those people as nut jobs.

With Flanagan, not so much.  Flanagan is the left-wing grievance industry personified, and this has led to some very odd reactions by those in on the left.  Community activist, liberal think tank CEO, and CNN commentator Sally Kohn made this tweet:

Kohn then goes on to explain how she believes violence is not justified… blah, blah, blah.  But the point is NOT ONE RESPECTABLE JOURNALIST looked at Dylan Roof’s manifesto and said “you know, he’s right about some stuff.”  Make no mistake about it: Flanagan/Williams is Roof, Roof is Flanagan/Williams.

A quick peek at some of Miguel’s previous posts, the internet, twitter, are just full of far-left wing/SJW hate.  Rather than tamp this down, the “thinkers” in the media are justifying it.  The media had to explain why violence in Ferguson and Baltimore was justified for reasons of Social Justice.  The #BlackLivesMatter activists have been emboldened to become more and more aggressive with candidates, ultimately shutting down an event by Bernie Sanders.  There has been a rise in police ambush shootings  which is believed to stem from a sense of social justice retribution.  And some of the other things the SJW crowd is calling for is downright horrifying (not a Poe’s Law parody), I’ve seen this movie, I don’t want to experience the sequel.

Here is the ultimate danger.  There were thousands of members of various far-right-wing, white supremacist, “militia” groups that rallied around the Waco Siege and Ruby Ridge massacre.  They published newsletters and had meetings, but were mostly harmless.  Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 people following that rhetoric.  So if Flanagan/Williams is Roof, is there a SJW McVeigh around the corner?  And if that does happen, will we have the privilege of watching the smartest people on the news say “bombing a building is bad, but these people were justified in feeling that is it was because of oppression.”

I for one don’t want a race war.  I don’t want riots.  I don’t want want to be targeted for extermination or mutilation.  The social justice movement is reaching a critical mass.  I just hope it doesn’t blow us all to hell.

You know you are a gun nut when you measure your weight loss increments in what you can comfortably carry IWB.

(Actual conversation with the wife)

Her: “How is the new gym membership going?”

Me: “Good, I’ve already lost some weight.”

Her: “How much?”

Me: “Enough to go from my P238 to my LCR.”

Her: “What!?”

I have been working on this post for a while now, I apologize if it seems to ramble a little.  I was motivated to revive it because of a news story about an attack on a CCW permit holder.  This is not the first story I have read about a CCW permit holder getting taken down and not firing a shot.  I first started this post as a response to a post by Miguel regarding a failed DGU that resulted in the death of the defending party.  And of course there is the oft repeated anti-CCW argument that women are too weak to have or carry guns.

In each one of these cases, and those like them that I didn’t link to, the scenario begs the question: why have a gun if you are not prepared to use it effectively?  This post is my attempt to answer that question.

Many years ago when I was In ROTC in college, I would read whatever I could get my hands on regarding military strategy, tactics, and doctrine.  I was going to be a general.  Rommel you magnificent bastard, I read your book.  Needless to say, those plans did not come to fruition.

One of the more interesting books I read was by Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall, the Chief Military Historian of the US Army for WWII.  Marshall discovered that about 80% of soldiers would no fire at the enemy with the intent to kill them.  Many never fired their weapon at all.  Of those who did, many would “pray and spray” or provide covering fire.  That is not to say the remaining soldiers were cowards.  They carried ammo, water, wounded, etc,. and provided for the war effort.  But it was a small minority of soldiers that could line up their sights on an enemy and pull the trigger with the intent to kill them.

This information is reinforced by the whole history of technology in combat, which served to separate the soldier from the killing he was expected to do.  The greater the distance, the better the solider was as killing: clubs to swords to spears to arrows to the long bow to muskets to artillery to bomber aircraft to ICBMs.  The further a soldier was from the casualties he was producing the easier it was for him to kill.  Arial bombardment and artillery produced far more casualties in war than small arms fire.

There is a reason for this, of course.  Humans are social animals; we do better in groups than on our own.  Empathy is part of that.  Evolution or nature or god or whatever has programmed us to be empathetic to our fellow humans, so that we don’t kill each other and instead work together.  The stronger the bond – family, clan, tribe, nation – the more empathetic we are.  It is hard to look someone in the face and kill them.  It goes against our empathetic nature.

So to get back to the original point of this post.  Why do I believe that a woman, fearing for her life from an ex didn’t kill him?  Why did two CCW permit holders not use their permitted guns to defend themselves?  I believe that despite owning a gun, obtaining a permit, and perhaps years of target practice, they weren’t prepared to kill.  That is a major emotional hurtle for a person to climb.

The military developed an entirely new training regiment prior to Vietnam with the goal of making 80% of solders combat effective.  There has been a downside to this.  It is believed that one of the reasons that America soldiers have suffered so much more emotional trauma (PTSD) in Vietnam  and the Middle East, compared to WWII, is that these young men and women have been trained to kill in combat, but do not know how to cope with the emotional ramifications of that when they return home.

So where does that leave us?  It is possible for a person to overcome their good, empathetic nature and defend themselves with lethal force.  If you choose to own and/or carry a gun for self defense, you must be emotionally prepared to use it.    If not, you may get killed by the psychopath who has no empathetic qualms about ending you.