Museum Professionals Who Aren't

One of the concerns across the museum field is the hiring of a person with specialist knowledge for a specialist position - for example, the job I had awhile back as the Curator at the Cody Firearms Museum.

This is a position that requires some specialty knowledge. Yes, the person in that job needs museum experience and understanding of the responsibilities of museum staff. It also needs knowledge of firearms.

Granted, you will find people who can take care of the collection without knowing the subject, but they cannot deal knowledgeably with patrons. They will not know where the collection gaps are. They cannot be a success going out and talking to Rotary about what they do. Positions above and below can do this, but they don't make a living as the subject expert.

The concern comes in when an organization is hiring. The organization needs the specialist. Who typically fits the mold? The enthusiast, the collector, the hoarder? It can be all of the above.

When the right person comes in, great success is had. Friends are made, gifts of money and objects come to the museum, and visitors come away better for the experience. When the wrong person comes in, things look great for awhile, but eventually the bill comes due...

I was reminded of this today when I saw an article out of France... This was a bad hire. Things likely looked tip-top. I'll bet everyone loved him. Granted, I don't know the ins and outs, but we have seen it done here in the US - moon rocks on ebay, guns walking out doors, and other outright thefts are the usual. The big stuff, though, is the use of museum funds to purchase materials for private use (embezzlement).

The case here is pretty bad. Most World War II armored vehicles sell in the range of $40-50,000. Most full-on tanks sell for a $150,000 or more... (And, yes, I know the M18 is not technically a tank...) Add in "arms and jackets" and we are talking something in the realm of $200-300,000 or more...

And people ask why audits are necessary.

As an aside, this also touches on a related subject - and one that can be almost as bad. Sometimes, a collector/museum employee is offered something for the museum that they want for themselves. They refuse the gift, but make an offer to purchase it privately. Don't know about you, but I consider this to be a conflict of interest, at least, and highly unethical... For more on this, take a gander at the American Alliance of Museums' Curatorial Code of Ethics as developed by the Curator's Committee (CurCom). (disclaimer - I was a member of the CurCom board at the time of the Code's creation and I am still on that board at the time of this writing)

Have a great weekend! (and don't embezzle anything from your museum!)

How much ammo does one person need?

Guns and Ammo

No, I'm not talking about the magazine. I am talking about Guns and I am talking about Ammo.

Actually, I did already talk about these once today. I had a great time on internet radio with Bennet Kelley (and here) on the CyberLaw & Business Report. We spent a half hour discussing some of the various points of purchasing guns and ammunition online. In light of last week's shooting (no, I'm not linking to it), we looked into the various rules and regs of buying guns, magazines, and ammunition.

The best thing about this is that I was able to walk Bennet and his listeners through what it takes to purchase these online, talk about how more regulations won't necessarily be a good thing, and how some common sense and education would definitely be a good thing.

Note to Gun Guys: DO NOT EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER sell a personal firearm to someone across state lines or who even jokes about not being able to pass a NICS check without going through an FFL!

As a sidenote, I want to give a nod to HARO (Help A Reporter Out). This is a website set up to help reporters get into touch with subject specialists. I jumped on the mail list and within a few days I was on the web (and getting hits as a result).

Now on to business...

How much ammo does one person need?

Over the last few days I have been in a few conversations about the shooting in Aurora (nope, still not linking it). Each one included the question, "Why did he need six thousand rounds?"

*sigh*

A little voice in the back of my head snarked, "Because he couldn't afford seven?"

I had to ask why that was a problem. It wasn't like the shooter needed much. By all of the reports I have heard, the C-Mag in his M&P 15 jammed - but we have not heard when. His shotgun likely carried 5-8 rounds (several versions of the Remington Model 870 exist). The standard magazine for the Glock G22 holds 15 rounds. There are extended magazines available (similar to those used by the shooter in the Tucson Shooting), but there have been no reports of these being used. Totaling that, we are looking at about 123 rounds (barring any backup magazines or loose shotgun shells). With some number of those not being fired, this is less than 2% of his ammo stash. 

I'm just damn glad it wasn't stadium seating and that the C-Mag jammed. Seconds here... seconds there...

Shooters and Ammunition

I remember years ago (as a young Liberal Gun Guy) buying a box of shells,  going to the range, and shooting EVERY LAST ROUND. How many rounds were left at home? none. I couldn't afford any ammo other than what I put into the cinder cliff behind the target. Now? I'll shoot about half of what I buy (maybe). If I'm in a 100-round trap shoot, I'll get 150 shells and come home with 40-some. Sure, those extras get shot at some point, but they build up.

As a result of the conversations recently, I did some mental calculations. Given range bringbacks and the odd lots I have picked up along the way, I think I have about 1500 rounds of different types - 40 S&W, 12 gauge, .410, .30-06, 7.62x54R, .303, and .22. I think I also have some loose .45ACP (which I don't even have anymore...). Don't think I'm the only one. I didn't intend to get there. I just did. Now, if I was an active shooter (in a local-gun-club-regular-shoot-winner), I would be buying or reloading hundreds of rounds a week (high power rifle maybe being a little less).

Shotgun sports, 3-Gun, Cowboy Action Shooting, name it. If these folks want to stay on top of their game at the local/regional level, they will shoot (conservatively) 300-500 rounds a week - often a non-standard round. That is somewhere around 5,000 rounds in a few months. This is a supply that can't be supplied by your FLGS (Friendly Local Gun Store) or Wal-Mart.

Kim Rhode, two-time Gold Medalist in Double Trap, shoots 500-1000 rounds A DAY. Even on the south side of that (and taking a couple months of over the year), this comes up to more than 150,000 rounds over a year. Take that order to the Gun Shop up the street.

EDIT: I was reminded by a Facebook Friend that another reason competition shooters buy in bulk is to ensure that the ammunition is part of the same production lot. This ensures that differences from cartridge-to-cartridge and box-to-box are kept at a minimum.

Unfortunately, these aren't the folks we hear about. We hear about the folks stockpiling against armageddon, further government regulation, and zombies... OK, maybe not necessarily the last.

Also, unfortunately, we have the guy in Colorado. I don't know his deal. He had a lot of ammo. He also had a lot of issues (based on numerous articles and his appearance at his hearing. It does reflect poorly. I want to stress that while he had lots of ammo, he didn't apparently have a plan for it except to leave it in his apartment to burn it. This may give a tip to his knowledge of guns and ammo.

Ammunition in a fire will go nowhere - it needs a chamber to prevent a splitting case and a barrel to give direction. I have seen the aftereffects of a house fire on several hundred rounds of .30-06 stored in a wood case. It was a beautiful, semi-artistic piece of lead, mangled cartridge cases, and copper bullets.

The Upshot

Seeing as how he passed a series of background checks while purchasing four firearms over the previous several months, the knucklehead in question would have undoubtedly passed any sort of check someone would want to create for ammunition. There are legitimate reasons (sane or otherwise) to obtain or store bulk ammo. Registering bulk purchasers would be tantamount to registering gun owners. To my mind, this seems to be something that the majority of gun owners would oppose. I don't mind some regs and laws, but I don't want my name on a list.

Weak close, I know, but I had a good (long) day and I am glad I got to teach some folks about guns.

The Argument Clinic - or "How I Disagree with the White House"

This isn't an argument... It's just contradiction...

Lots of fun lately watching people on the talking box "discuss" things. 


Quite often it's as Jonathon Bernstein pointed out - the "out" party gainsaying the "in" party, regardless of where they stood when they were in power, a la Monty Python. The President or Democrats say one thing and the Republicans are instantly against it - especially if Grover passes it along as the official line on the weekly phone call.

However, I think one subject has been gaining some traction lately. It is something that people can form a little bit of a personal opinion about and a subject that was not much of an issue a few years back. It is the use of a 'kill list' and its widespread use around the world and across borders.

I have asked a few people if they can think of something illegal or unconstitutional the President has done. I rarely get a response. Often it is something easily disproved by a quick trip to Factcheck.org or Snopes.com. [As a side note - anyone concerned by how "Liberal" these sites are needs to go back to them, you would love how they have been finding fault with the President. They are equal-opportunity fact-checkers.] This is the one thing on the top of my head that I have questions about - legality.

Men and Machines

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or Drones have been in use by the military in a wide variety of purposes since World War I. The MQ-9 Reaper is the current top-of-the-line version of the drones that first arrived in the 1990s. The US Air Force and the Central Intelligence Agency use these to kill targets around the world - mainly in the 'Stans - 309 in Pakistan, alone. However, there have been strikes in Yemen, Somalia, and the Philippines.

These missions have been carried out from bases around the world. Besides bases in-theater, there are now 64 known drone bases in the US. Some of these bases are for training, some of these bases are for war fighting, some of them are for national defense. Some are all three. Most of the drones are for optical/signal surveillance only. Some can be configured to carry ordnance.

Unfortunately, this means that some of these birds can "accidentally" spy on you (even though the military is not allowed to do so). I'll be the first person to say that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. However, as much as I trust the military, I harbor less trust for local and state jurisdictions operating these UAVs. Granted - there are the legitimate uses we hear about, but my money is that there are as many times (if not more) in which somebody was wondering why that remote control plane was orbiting their yard while they were sunbathing.

On the civilian front, there is a growing culture of amateur UAV pilots who are using their camera equipped drones for fun. Some of them are inadvertently catching evidence of illegal activity. My thoughts on this are about the same as my issues with Law Enforcement using UAVs. Pervs will Perv.

Legality and Targeted Killing

I can understand how it is OK to kill an enemy combatant with any weapon. I was in the Army. We were soldiers first, regardless of our MOS. Granted, I was a Bass Guitar Player for two different units that were without arms rooms, but I was still a soldier and knew what it could entail.

From my historian perspective, I know that you win wars by the correct application of force. Add in a little politics... A little economics... A little public relations... and you have a won war. This one, I am not too sure about.

I know that assassination is illegal. You can't just go out and kill someone who your country doesn't like. In the realm of targeted killing, however, the target has lost protection of the Geneva Convention through a "allegedly taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise". The 'allegedly' part is what concerns me. The only time I hear the word 'alleged' in conversation, there is a court, a judge, and a jury involved. Many of the targets had it coming to them, I am sure. Some of them concern me (there I go using that word again).

None of my reading has given me sufficient satisfaction that due process is being followed and that some attacks have been badly-researched, badly-thought-out, or badly-executed.

Much of what has been happening in Pakistan and elsewhere has been the result of the CIA, not the US Military. Concerns have been raised as a result of both this and that Pakistan is not "a zone of armed conflict." Even though we may see this as being a fully legal act, I doubt that Pakistan, a sovereign nation the last time I checked, considers it to be against the law. And 74% of Pakistanis consider America to be an enemy... hunh. I wonder why.

I can only imagine how the US would feel if we were to suddenly experience a spate of (officially) unauthorized attacks by a nation-state on American citizens because they are involved in some sort of military adventure in a 3rd-party country. I think that would last about 2.4 seconds before we would be going on alert as a nation.

Guns, Museums, and Security

I have a presentation I give to museum professionals about firearms. It is a full-day seminar and it covers all aspects of guns and museums. I cover safety and identification, exhibition, legal aspects (I bring in the local ATF Industry Operations folks for this), and security.

My security discussion includes background checks for staff AND volunteers, key control, vault/case access, record keeping, and other topics.

Unfortunately, most folks only think of security in terms of this robbery in Roswell, New Mexico. Short of bars on the door or thick plexiglass or safety glass instead of regular plate glass, nothing would have stopped this crime.

However, the crooks are IDIOTS. The reasons?

• Most museums have many things on exhibit that are more valuable than the guns. Most "Old West" guns are worth very little and the stories associated with them are usually just that - stories.  The resale value on these guns (Granted, I don't know what they took - although I can guess) is probably less than $500 each. This is based on the condition, quality, and type of most guns I have seen in Western Museums.
• Most guns made before the turn of the century may have, ahem, issues with modern ammunition.Try using some hot modern .45 Colt in your 1870s wheel gun. Good luck with that.
• Many guns made before the turn of the century use ammunition that is no longer available - well, at least at Wal-Mart... .45 Schofield, .44 S&W, .32 Short. or various .38s that aren't 'Special'. 

The most useful aspect of these guns to the criminals would be if all of them were manufactured before 1899, making them non-firearms. Possession by felons is then legal and these then fall outside of firearms law.

Have fun fencing them guys!