The article covers both issues such as holster selection (more votes for the Safariland ALS system), and actual in-hand retention issues.
Well worth the read.
Guns
We need to understand violence
Wim Demeere wrote an excellent piece about The death of common sense regarding violence.
It starts right off:
We live in an age where having knowledge about how violence actually works is frowned upon. Having experience with it is viewed even worse.
So very true. It’s sad tho. We love to go on about how “knowledge is power”, the importance of education, and look down upon ignorance. Yet, when it comes to issues of violence, people prefer ignorance.
I get it. Violence is ugly and something we would rather not deal with. However the ugly truth is violence exists, has always, will always, and the simple fact that the more you know about it the more you can contend with it (including avoiding it and not becoming a victim of it), the better off you’ll be. Again, knowledge is power.
Wim continues discussion of how we got to this point, because it wasn’t very long ago that one was actually expected to know how to fight and how to contend with violence. That doesn’t mean you’re out to start it, but it does mean you know how to deal with it when it crosses your path.
Now granted, that we’ve reduced a “need” for violence in society shows progress. We have become more peaceful, more civil. This is actually a good sign. However the converse is that it comes at the expense of ignorance. And if we continue to be ignorant, then we will eventually fall victim. All progress toward our “peaceful societal growth” stops and likely regresses.
Wim presents a perfect example of this ignorance, of this regression.
Have you see that cell phone case that looks like a gun? If not, click through to Wim’s article to see it.
It’s not just stupid, it’s dangerous and likely going to get the owner in trouble (or even killed).
Does that mean you have to let everything slide? No, of course not. Some things are worth fighting and dying for. But a truckload of things are not and in this age of social justice warriors and internet wisdom, that seems to have been lost. When it comes to violence, common sense is dying at an ever increasing rate. When you look at the comments on the internet about this cellphone case, the “it’s my right!” crowd is extremely well represented. Contrast that with those in law enforcement, the military and the other professions where violence is a daily occurrence: they all see what a potential for disaster this case is.
If you don’t understand why this case is a bad idea, I’ll be happy to inform you.
If after that you still wish to carry such a case, you’re welcome to. You just cannot be surprised if you suffer the consequences of your poor choice.
And the death of accepting responsibility for yourself (and your poor choices) is also happening, but that’s another discussion.
It is important for us to understand violence. It’s like anything else in this world: the more we can know about it, the more we can understand it, the more we can make rational and reasoned choices and decisions regarding matters involving it. That doesn’t make you a bad person, that doesn’t mean you’ll be a dangerous person, that doesn’t mean you will go on a killing spree. No, it just means you’re an educated person, and that ought to help make the world a bit better.
Does video tell the whole truth?
I enjoy it when my disparate interests overlap in some way. In this case, powerlifting and personal safety.
In recent years, especially the past some months, it’s become a hot topic to have police body cameras. Basically, people want recordings of every facet of police interactions. This is understandable as it generally works to protect all involved because “video doesn’t lie”.
But does video tell the whole truth?
In powerlifting, squat depth is a big deal. To oversimplify, a legitimate squat is one where your thighs are parallel to the ground, or deeper (e.g your butt touches your heels). People putting massive weights on their back and only moving them about 3 inches then claiming awesomeness — that’s not legit. All sorts of videos come out of lifters making “world record squats”, and the first thing people do is gripe if the lifter squatted to depth or not. Granted some squats (and meet judging) are legitimately up for question, but most often the squat is passed by the meet judges but not the Internet armchair judges — because of the video.
The video may be poor. The video may be at a “wrong” angle. The video isn’t likely to see and reproduce what the 3 meet judges see.
And this could be good, this could be bad. It could give you the proper perspective, or it could give you the wrong perspective.
Is the video lying?
Is the video telling the (whole) truth?
What got me thinking about this was the recent posting of the dashcam video of a controversial police interaction. Commenters took the video as objective proof. Interestingly, some commenters took it as objective proof the cop was in the right, and some commenters took it as objective proof the cop was in the wrong.
Objective?
I thought back to the endless debates on powerlifting videos about their “objectivity”, because if video was in fact objective, if video told the Truth, there should be no debate about someone’s squat depth. But yet there is.
Back in 2014, the well-respected Force Science Institute published a list of “10 Limitations of body cams you need to know for your protection”. Original PDF here, article reprint here. You should read the article for a complete explanation, but here are the 10 points:
- A camera doesn’t follow your eyes or see as they see.
- Some important danger cues can’t be recorded.
- Camera speed differs from the speed of life.
- A camera may see better than you do in low light.
- Your body may block the view.
- A camera only records in 2-D.
- The absence of sophisticated time-stamping may prove critical.
- One camera may not be enough.
- A camera encourages second-guessing.
- A camera can never replace a thorough investigation.
I know some are going to read that list, especially because the article is titled “for your [police] protection”, assume there’s bias and these are just trying to give police “outs”, and then dismiss the article.
So let’s go back and look at this list in the context of powerlifting videos.
The camera does not follow the eyes of the judges nor does the camera see what the judges see. There may be bodies blocking the view (happens all the time when the video comes from audience members and there are lots of burly guys crowding around the squatter to spot the lift). One camera isn’t enough, when there are 3 judges precisely to judge multiple angles. Cameras only record in 2-D, and if you’ve seen some powerlifters, these guys are certainly bulging out in many places. Cameras certainly encourage second-guessing (look at all the armchair judges).
It doesn’t matter what you’re filming, these limitations apply.
We must also remember that these videos are often interpreted through the bias of the viewer.
Let’s go back to squat depth. Brandon Morrison wrote an article examining the rulebook of 10 powerlifting federations to compare how they defined legal squat depth. What you find is while everyone strives for the same basic idea, there’s a lot of variance in definition.
One thing that will be the same across all feds is the fact that the line which separates the champ from the chump, the white lights from the red lights and 9/9 from bombing out is an imaginary and invisible line whose axis through disputed points is in the heads of the three individual judges who preside over your lift. No, it’s not perfect; it’s subjective. Deal with it.
Emphasis added.
Often the armchair judges insert their own interpretation of the rules or what they feel is right or wrong. A great example is Shao Chu’s 400# bench press:
Is that a legit bench press? Sure is, because it’s within the rules of the game. But hopefully even if you don’t know much about lifting weights you can see why that lift might be considered controversial (was it even a lift? did the bar even move?).
And so it goes with police interactions, because everyone is a lawyer and legal expert, right? And even if you know the law, do you know all the laws? That video may have been filmed in a different city, in a different state, in a different country, where laws are different from what you may know. As well, do you know the police’s operating procedure and rules and regulations they must abide by (beyond the law)?
When you view the video, are you viewing it through an objective lens, or the lens of your personal bias, (lack of) experience, and/or (lack of) knowledge? I hate to tell you, but it’s probably the latter no matter how much you strive for it (or believe it to be) the former. Doesn’t matter if it’s a dashcam video or a powerlifting video.
I think video is a good thing. I think video is a solid tool towards helping us preserve history and protect ourselves. Given the proliferation of cameras, either because our governments are putting more out “on the streets” or simply because everyone’s got a smartphone in their pocket, we’re going to see more and more video and relying more on video to help us find Truth.
But in doing so, we must take video for what it is. It is not The One Source, it is not (unbiased) Truth. It has limitations, and we must remember that in our quest for Truth.
Better to fight back than to do nothing
This was a refreshing piece to see reported in the mainstream news.
Austin NBC affiliate KXAN posted an article, Fighting for your life in an active shooter situation.
SAN MARCOS, Texas (KXAN) — Theaters, malls and schools are places you’re not supposed to be afraid of. But none are immune to active shooter situations.
Experts with Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Program (ALERRT) say they don’t want people to live in fear but to understand these situations can happen. By taking a few minutes to think how you would react right now, may save your life later.
The article starts right off acknowledging the reality. And even better, suggesting that a little bit of forethought would be a wise and potentially life-saving action.
This is refreshing to see!
“It’s natural to be scared, everybody is scared when someone’s trying to cause them harm,” said ALERRT executive director, Pete Blaire. “Our first recommendation is to avoid the attacker, if you can do that. If for some reason you can’t, deny access to your location, keep them from getting to you. And that defending yourself is the last resort.”
Open spaces, like a movie theater, leave you with the fewest options. ALERRT trainers say it’s alright to duck down, but don’t stay put.
“One thing we don’t want to see you do is what we call ‘hide and hope.’ Which is where someone hides behind something and hopes the shooter doesn’t find them. If the shooter does find you, doesn’t leave many options,” said Blaire.
This is all solid stuff. The suggested course of action is essentially: “Run. Hide. Fight”. About 3 years ago the City of Houston with funds from DHS created an excellent video on that course of action. It’s becoming the mantra for dealing with active shooter events, and with good reason. Yes I know, you’ve got your CHL and you’re just ready to save the day. Well, we all draw our lines in different places in terms of what we will and won’t be willing to die for, and how context and personal situation matter. Whatever your decision, just determine your line ahead of time and be well-prepared to execute your plan.
The article continues:
He says if it does come down to defending yourself, better to fight back than to do nothing.
Blaire teaches people to grab a hold of the gun and get it pointed away from you.
He says when you’re fighting for your life, you don’t have to fight fairly.
And this is such a great thing to see printed in the mainstream media. That it’s better to fight back than to do nothing. Or to more clearly phrase this: it’s better to fight back than to die… better to fight back than to be murdered… better to fight back than be executed. Yeah, fighting back is no guarantee you’ll live, but not fighting back is a fair assurance you’ll die. At least for me, I choose to live.
I also like that KXAN was willing to print that you don’t have to fight fair! It’s reasonable for people to expect fairness and to abide by some sort of “code” of behavior/ethics. And usually people expect others in society to have some sort of “code” as well, and that likely our codes are somewhat in the same ballpark. Realize that if someone is trying to kill you, they have demonstrated they do not have the same code as you; they may have some code, but it’s nothing like yours. There is nothing to say they will “fight fair”, and essentially that means you have to be willing to fight “unfair”. It’s the sort of thing where it’s considered bad form to hit a guy in the crotch, but an active shooter situation is not a time to practice gentlemanly manners, y’know? You need to give yourself permission ahead of time that should you find yourself in an active shooter situation, you allow yourself to do whatever it takes to come out alive.
What really got me about the article? The closing statement:
Right now, ALERRT only trains law enforcement, but has recently partnered with a company to bring the training to the public.
KXAN will keep you posted on when that training begins.
They will keep us posted when such training for the public begins.
It’s great to see the mainstream media supporting and encouraging activities to help people stay alive and stay safe.
Statistical filter
People tend to love data, especially if they can use (twist?) it to back up their emotional appeals to further things towards their desired ends.
Hey, we all do it.
The trick for the listener is to sift through everything and truly see the data for what it is, not what someone wants to present.
So to that, well… I’d reblog this if there was a way, but as a posting on Facebook the best I can do is copy/paste it. This was posted by Marc MacYoung here:
In a thread about gun control, the old saws about the victims being children, women and targets of racism came up. Here’s some things to think about…
***Here are some raw, baseline — and indisputable — facts about violence that spin-doctors tend to deep six. (As they should because they undermine the credibility of the agenda-group’s message.)
An overwhelming majority of violence occurs between people who know each other. (Killing a stranger is exceedingly rare.)
An overwhelming majority of violence is committed by a member of a race on someone of his/her own race. Violence between different races is rare — except robbery.
A large — if not overwhelming — majority of homicide ‘victims’ have criminal records (and are themselves engaged in criminal lifestyles or illegal activities)
An overwhelming majority of homicide perpetrators have criminal records and are actively engaged in criminal lifestyle or illegal activities)
(Note and distinction — a criminal lifestyle means literally crime is their profession. They make their living off it. [e.g., a drug dealer]. This as opposed to someone who is doing something that is illegal [e.g., buying drugs])
Criminal enterprises — especially drug dealing — commonly involve teens and even children (under 12) as part of their ‘crew.’ (In other words, the ‘children’ killed by guns are often gangmembers and drug dealers.)
Men are more likely to be the ~cough cough~ victims of physical violence than women. With the following caveats…
Women are far less likely to become physically violent with a stranger, but are AS likely (although some argue more likely) to become physically violent within family/ relationship.
So where women are as likely to be victims as men are in domestic situation, BUT they are just as likely to be the perpetrators. (I have a saying that before someone can be certified as an expert in the subject of domestic violence they should be required to live in a trailer park for a year.)
Where women ARE the leading ‘victims’ of physical assault is when it comes to rape. But with the current redefinition of rape to include drunk sex — technically speaking men are being raped at a higher rate. (Granted that’s not how it’s being legally interpreted, but drunk and unable to give consent is not sex/gender specific.)
Rape has a legal precedence of being deemed ‘Grievous bodily injury’ — thereby justifying use of lethal force.
Now, these ‘facts’ are available, but you have to dig — I mean REALLY dig.
Because simply stated, a lot of the times questions (that would reveal these) are deliberately not asked in studies/statistics that are going for a specific answer. Answers to support particular agendas. Oddly enough, in studies where they are, the common response to claim the study is biased, unreliable and agenda driven. (How do they manage not to choke on the irony?)
That’s why when people start with the women, children and race aspects of gun control I have to hold up my hand and say “Wait a minute…” because this is the stuff they’re leaving out. Starting with the fact that we have an armed professional criminal class in this country. (The good news is they prefer shooting each other over civilians.)
Spend some time looking up this data at the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Again, it takes digging and you’ll often find only fragments here and there. But when you put the pieces together, you’ll find that things are WAY different than what the agenda pushers are selling.
UCR
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
BJS
http://bjs.gov/
So, take it for what you will.
One thing that sprung to my mind after reading Marc’s posting was something Tom Givens trots out.
Tom likes to point out that you’ve got about a 1-in-150 chance of being the victim of a violent crime. Tom uses numbers taken from those above same sources. If you look at Tom’s number through the filter of Marc’s information, the average law-abiding citizen doesn’t have a 1-in-150 — their chances are much less; 1-in-300? 1-in-1000? 1-in-10,000? I can’t say, but certainly not 1-in-150. And if you’re a member of that criminal class, your chances are much higher; 1-in-15 maybe? Again I can’t say.
Granted, Tom is simplifying to make a point, because whatever the actual chances are, it’s still a likely event.
But however you look at it, and whomever is presenting data – even people “on your side” – it’s wise to dig deeper.
Bill Rogers on Proper Drawing Technique
An excellent video from Bill Rogers on proper drawing technique.
KR Training July 2015 Newsletter
The KR Training July 2015 Newsletter is up!
Big news is that we’re running some specials on classes this summer. Not a lot of time, not a lot of money, but ever-so-valuable instruction and reinforcement of fundamental skills – something we all need from time to time. Come on out and see us!
“The only reason…”
“The only reason for guns is to kill”
Right?
The only reason.
In the July/August 2015 issue of Front Sight magazine, they had an interview with Valerie Levanza.
Valerie is the CEO of a healthcare staffing agency, a mother, an immigrant, and an accomplished shooter in numerous disciplines.
A particular part of her interview stood out to me:
Q: Do you do any hunting?
A: No, I don’t have the heart to shoot anything alive.
She shoots guns, competitively, but doesn’t hunt.
I know a number of accomplished competition shooters, that don’t hunt, nor do they even carry a gun for personal protection. To them, a gun is nothing more than a piece of equipment for their chosen sport, like a racket or a ball.
But you know… the only reason for guns, and that people have guns, is to kill. Right?
Just because you can doesn’t mean you should
Yeah I know. You want to open carry because it’s your God-given right or whatever. Or because the legal boundaries have been expanded here in Texas so it’s novel.
Greg Ellifritz posted the following to his Facebook page. What he wrote accompanies a video. I will not repost the video here, but basically it’s surveillance video of 2 police officers in Venezuela, ordering/paying for their lunch. As they do so, a group of men come up behind them — one man sticks his gun to the back of cop 1’s head and shoots him, then turns and shoots the other cop as his cohorts close in.
Why do they do this? It’s obvious in the video: they want the policemen’s guns. They come up, ambush and kill the cops, take their guns, leave.
Greg writes:
Watch this video of two police officers being assassinated. It’s from Venezuela. In that country, gun control makes it impossible for the average citizen to legally own a gun. Criminals there specifically target cops to steal their pistols.
This is the big problem I have with open carry. No one can stay 100% aware of his surroundings at all times. You open carriers don’t think this could happen to you? Wake up. You too could be distracted in a public place ( like this officer paying for his meal in a restaurant) and have a criminal walk up behind you and take the shot.
I have to carry openly as a cop. I would prefer not to, but that isn’t an option. I won’t further enhance my risks for a crime like this by doing it in my off duty hours as well. Be smart. Keep your force options hidden until you need them.
Emphasis added.
And if you think you’re so impervious, that your “head is on a swivel”, that you’re always in Condition Yellow, that your awareness levels are awesome and this will never happen to you, that you’ll be able to take on a determined and well-armed group of men who have zero regard for you and just want what you have… well, I hope you’re right, and I hope your luck never runs out.
Again, I’m all for improving the legal standing of open carry. However from a tactical perspective it’s fairly weak and opens you up to and potentially invites a whole slew of larger issues.
Remember why it is that you carry a gun and try to act humbly and accordingly. If you carry a gun so you can be sure to go home each night to your family, continue to conduct yourself in the manner to best enable that, y’know?
A critique of “good enough”
What is “good enough”?
Usually it means it’s sufficient to get the job done, but doesn’t exceed what’s (minimally) needed. But still, what does that mean?
I just came across an article “What’s Considered ‘Good Enough’ Shooting for a Concealed Carrier?” While I think the article intentions are generally valid, I think the article could be improved.
BTW, if you haven’t read “Minimum Competency”, I suggest you detour from here and give it a read. The rest of this article will have greater meaning if you have a fuller understanding of where I’m coming from.
Minimum Competency
About 2 years ago I wrote a series of articles about “Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol“. I spent time looking at what happens in self-defense incidents, and from that being able to compile what might be considered minimum competency. It’s essentially the same goal as trying to define what is “good enough”. From that:
It seems when we look at what unfolds in a typical incident and what needs to be done to handle that typical incident, you get:
- drawing from concealment
- And perhaps moving on that draw (like a side-step then stop; not shoot-and-move)
- getting multiple hits
- in a small area
- 5″ circle? 6″ circle? 8″ circle? consider human anatomy
- from close range
- Within a car length, so say 0-5 yards
- quickly
- 3 seconds or less
- using both hands, or maybe one hand (or the other)
First
The first assertion in the article is to get your concealed carry draw down. Certainly that is important. But the article becomes scattered.
It talks about how targets move and how you don’t want to be standing in one place. But then, when a drill is presented in this section of the article, there’s nothing that addresses movement. Simply discussing side-step on draw is a first step (no pun intended).
The article then presents a drill for concealment draw:
- Place your hand on your handgun in its holster.
- Scan your full field of view.
- Lock on target.
- Draw your pistol or revolver from its holster.
- Instinctively put two rounds center mass on the target.
- Scan your full field of view.
- Place your handgun back in its concealed carry holster.
I’m trying to understand why you put your hand on your gun, then scan for a target. Generally speaking (both legally and tactically), you go for your gun once an imminent threat to life has been identified. That likely means the target is already acquired before you put your hand on your gun. So I don’t quite understand this given order of operations.
I’m not sure what “instinctively put two rounds center mass” means.
What is “instinctive”? Humans are not born with any instinct to shoot a gun. Does this mean I should be able to accomplish this feat with my eyes closed? Does this mean I should not use the sights of my gun? Granted if the target is just a couple feet in front of me I can probably get away with a coarse index on the target with just the top of the slide and a general notion of pointing the gun towards the target. But what if the target is 15 yards away? What instinct is to help me there? I’d rather bring the gun up to the eye-target line, with both hands on the gun, and use the sights to some degree (by “some degree” I am acknowledging different types of sight pictures as described by Brian Enos — another topic).
Why 2 rounds? Is it wise to ingrain a habit to always and only shoot twice? What if you only need 1? What if you need 5? Should we be shooting 2 then assessing? Or should we be shooting and assessing and to keep shooting until the threat as stopped?
What is “center mass”? Center mass on me is somewhere around my belly button, if you want to be complete about the typical human body. That is not the best place to shoot something. Instead, one should be shooting where vital organs are, which is well above the center of body mass.
That said, it is good once things are done to scan. Scan for what tho? Don’t just look around, look FOR things. Look to see if there are other attackers. Look to see if there are injured people. Look to see if police or EMS are arriving. Look to see if you are injured. To scan is good, but you need to make the scan meaningful.
And reholstering is also good, but don’t do that until you know the scene is safe. I’d also add that you are unlikely to know how many rounds you fired, so before you reholster I’d reload so your gun is back at full capacity. You do carry a spare magazine, yes?
But here’s another issue with this exercise.
Still, what is “good enough”?
There is some litmus provided:
Shot groups are not nearly as important as developing the mechanics of your reaction. Your reaction speed is the first priority. Tight 6″ shot groupings at 5 yards is the second. Why 6 inches? If you’re able to place two shots center mass into a target with your concealed carry handgun – while doing all the above things in a timely fashion – you’re doing pretty good.
Very true. Reaction speed matters. And getting the hits all within a 6″ circle is actually quite a good “grouping” for the context. That the author gives a distance for this drill of 5 yards is also a good one, as that’s typically the extent of most self-defense shooting.
But it says “a timely fashion”. What is a timely fashion? Trouble with leaving this open to reader interpretation is they will interpret it in whatever way enables them to succeed. Granted, most people will not say 5 minutes is a timely fashion, but a lot of people will consider 7-10 seconds to be timely enough. Really, it has to be 3 seconds or less. And yes, it needs to be on a timer. That there needs to be a buzzer that sounds at an unknown/random interval so you can only react (you cannot anticipate); that you then draw from concealment, and must get off the hits all within 3 seconds.
It’s important to have some semblance of parameters that actually jive with real world need. Skills that apply to how things really work. Distances. Times, and using timers — because as Tom Givens likes to say, there is a timer in a gunfight and it’s held by the Grim Reaper. And then yes, maybe we can start to say this exercise leads to “good enough”. This drill isn’t bad; it just could use a lot of improvement.
Second
The second exercise involves reloading. Honestly, reloading is not that critical of a skill.
Again, from Tom Givens:
None of ours had to reload and continue shooting.
That doesn’t mean reloading is a skill to ignore, it’s just not as much of a priority.
One thing I do like about the article’s reloading exercise? It has you shoot 2, reload, then shoot 2 more (known as the “4 Aces” drill).
This is a really good drill because not only does it work the reload, but it helps you deal with post-reload shooting, because a common problem is to blow the first shot after the reload.
But still, no standards are given. Check out Ben Stoeger’s take on the drill. And yes… Ben’s times are aggressive, GM-level performance. Still, it gives you something to strive for.
Third
I actually am not sure what the third exercise is supposed to be. It says “move between two targets”. But it never really gives an exercise here.
Am I to be walking between the two targets? i.e. start at position A and move to position B?
Or am I to stay at position A and transition from shooting at target 1 to shooting at target 2?
Or maybe both?
Either way, both are valid things to consider, but for concealed carriers I’d say be more concerned with transitions of shooting 1 target then another target (keep your feet planted while shooting; shoot then move, don’t bother shooting and moving — ask Paul Howe).
Coda
The article isn’t a terrible one, but it’s not the best either. It’s well-intended, but needs refinement.
If we’re going to talk about what is “good enough” then that implies we’re establishing some standard of performance. While some reasonable drills and skills were considered in the article, I didn’t see much that established an objective standard of performance. If you want such a thing, here are some such drills that are better suited towards helping you determine if you are “good enough”:
- 3 Seconds Or Less Drill
- Gunsite Standards
- FBI Pistol Qualification
- Rangemaster Level 5
- FAST Test
- The Farnam Drill
There’s many more, but those should get you started.
They focus on skills used in combative/defensive pistolcraft. They involve time pressures. They are scored and graded for a performance standard. They allow you to find where you are strong, where you are weak and thus where you need improvement. They allow you a means of tracking that improvement over time. They allow you to be compared to and measured against known objectives and situations, and held to a high standard, so when the flag flies you can proceed with confidence knowing what you can do.
Of course, “good enough” is rarely “sufficient enough”. Always strive to improve, always strive to become better than you were before.
Stuff From Hsoi 