Guns

Ladies – here’s some good advice

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

This is from tacTissy, and it’s an excellent primer on how to select your first handgun — from a woman’s perspective.

(h/t TXGunGeek)

And while gender shouldn’t matter, it does. The main reason is because there’s still too much male-whatever that goes on in the gun world. Some of it is well-intended, because it’s a guy just trying to be chivalrous but unfortunately fails. Some is just asshole-ish (“hey babe, try shooting these 12 gauge 3″ magnum slugs while I video it”). And in my years of teaching at KR Training I’ve seen more than my fair share of women that have come to class with a gun given to them by their husband or boyfriend, which is just wrong for them. It’s a great gun for him, but horrible for her. We swap her a gun that is more suitable for her, and suddenly she smiles and everything improves.

It’s why I started doing a segment in the KR Training Basic Pistol 1 class comparing revolvers. Because all too often a woman will go into a gun shop, they will say “Little lady, you want one of these” and show her an airweight snub revolver. She buys it, shoots it once, it hurts like hell, and she never wants to shoot it again. What good did that do anyone? So I developed a segment where they shoot 1 round out of an airweight snub, then 1 round (same load) out of a large-frame revolver. Without fail everyone hates the snub and enjoys the large revolver. I don’t do it to hurt people, but to give them knowledge so they can say “hell no!” when the well-intended salesman tries to suggest the snub. It also demonstrates the realities of physics, that a larger, heavier gun is really going to make a better first choice because they are a lot more fun to shoot.

And while some things are certainly gender-based, most things aren’t. The size and strength of one’s hands play a large part in choosing the right gun, and size and strength of hands has little to do with gender. That is, it’s not “women need a small gun and men need a big one” but rather, the person needs a gun that fits their hands — smaller hands may need a smaller gun, larger hands may need a larger gun (note: gender didn’t enter into this).

What tacTissy talks about closely mirrors KR Training’s own guide to selecting your first handgun and what we teach in our classes. What I especially liked about her video was she relates the concepts of selection to… well… a woman’s world. I think her underwear analogy was awesome and spot-on.

 

Blind people and guns

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

Iowa is granting permits to acquire or carry guns in public to people who are legally or completely blind.

No one questions the legality of the permits. State law does not allow sheriffs to deny an Iowan the right to carry a weapon based on physical ability.

The quandary centers squarely on public safety. Advocates for the disabled and Iowa law enforcement officers disagree over whether it’s a good idea for visually disabled Iowans to have weapons.

Full story (h/t Eric)

I’ve seen numerous people mentioning this story. Of those I know that are in the anti-gun camp, they just see this as more gun lunacy and how the NRA is infiltrating and destroying everything. Of those on the pro-gun side,  I’ve seen them asking  questions and wondering, because this obviously creates some uncertainty and uncomfortableness.

When my friend Eric posted this on Facebook, here’s how I responded:

An interesting notion for sure. Certainly lots of legal implications involved, but setting those aside…

To me it still comes down to a simple thing: should people be denied the ability (right?) to defend themselves. We could even argue that folks with disabilities are, by nature, at a greater disadvantage and thus could be argued have even more need to have “force equalizers” to make up for the greater disparity caused by their disability. To deny them, to leave them in a position of greater vulnerability, would be wrong. It’s such a popular notion to care for and give special dispensation to the vulnerable, to afford them greater protection — especially by and from the state — would it be right for the state and general populace to deny them the ability?

That isn’t to say it may be right for them to actually do it [meaning: blind people shooting guns, blind people having carry permits, etc.]… but that’s different from the state forcing them into a greater state of vulnerability.

I have taught a few deaf people to shoot guns. They’re actually really good shots because there’s no BANG to make them flinch; quite an advantage. We have to do a little different handling of range commands and teaching style, but that’s not a big deal.

Haven’t taught any blind folks tho. I don’t really have a firm stance on this… quite open to discussion. The above is just my gut reaction, because I don’t see why we (or rather, The State) should deny good people the God-given right to self-defense.

Of course, the State denies all sorts of things all the time. Some of them are right, some of them are wrong, and no matter what we shouldn’t be making legislation off knee-jerk reactions and feelings. Furthermore, legality and morality are (should be) two separate things: just because it’s legal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right, and just because it’s illegal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. As well, just because it’s legal doesn’t always mean it’s a good idea to do, and just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean it’s always a good idea to avoid.

Because well… you tell me what a blind woman is supposed to do in response to being raped. You acknowledge her blindness puts her at a disadvantage, do you really want to make her more vulnerable? Before you deny her right to self-defense, before you deny her right to life, before you deny her right to choose, before you deny her “women’s health”, offer a better solution.

What should she have done?

/ hsoi

Kari Bird just started law school and continues to work full time. Bird got home at 11:30 p.m. Wednesday and when she got out of her car, a group of three or four young guys approached her.

….he quickly pulled out a gun.

“He told me to … give him my keys,” Bird said.

She did turn over her keys, but realizing all her law books and belongings were in the car, Bird made a quick decision. With the gun still pointed at her, she reached into her center console to pull out her own gun.

“(He said), ‘Oh s***’ and then ran,” Bird told Fox 59.

Full story (h/t Brian)

Just one question.

For those of you who wish to ban guns, that wish to deny good people the ability to defend themselves, that seek to prevent people possessing guns in public (in their car, on their person)… why are you seeking to harm Kari Bird?

 

A little each day

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Which is better? Practicing something for 1 day once a year? Or practicing something for 1 hour once a month? Or practicing 10 minutes each day?

Granted, this depends what we’re practicing, but for many things we do better if we do a little bit of it on a regular basis.

What makes some things tough for folks is thinking they have to do a lot of it often. Granted, if you’re totally in love with the thing you’re doing, if you are driven to some higher level (e.g. to be a world champion), that’s a different context. But for most of us regular schmoes, we just want to not suck at our chosen thing.

Yeah, you have those gym rats that spend 2 hours twice a day at the gym. It’s probably their social thing and that’s fine as far as it goes, but then their goal is probably social and not performance. I have appreciated the basics of Wendler 5/3/1 because it’s gotten me stronger than I’ve ever been, and it’s about doing more with less, e.g. the most basic template, Boring But Big, has you doing just 2 exercises (tho 1 is done in 2 different ways, so I suppose you could say 3 exercises) in a simple scheme, and you ought to be in and out of the gym in under an hour.

Champion pistol shooter, Ben Stoeger, promotes a dry fire practice routine around the notion of “15 minutes a day”. I recently started doing his 15 minute sessions, and some actually take less than 15 minutes. But you see the point that it’s about manageable chunks, not some massive session that you’ll dread and thus opt to never do. But it also needs a “per day” in order to progress. One 15 minute session once a year isn’t going to cut it.

PoliceOne even talks about how police officers can practice the skills of their trade in just 10 minutes a day. This could be things like dry fire practice, handcuffing skills, or even watching the news and visualizing your own response to reported situations.

The P1 article made a good point:

Do 10 minutes of training a day, every day you work the job.

Doesn’t sound like a lot, but it is.

Assuming you work a four-day week, and you do 10 minutes of training each day you work, you will have done 40 minutes of training per week. Easy math, right?

Assuming you have four weeks off (vacations, holidays, etc.), leaving you with 48 work weeks in a year, and you do the prescribed 10 daily minutes, you will have done 1,920 minutes of training annually.

That’s 32 hours of training.

Every year.

For FREE.

I hadn’t thought about that. I hadn’t looked at the math.

There are schools out there that you attend for a week. You take a week off work (taking the hit to your vacation time and paycheck). You spend thousands of dollars for tuition, travel, food, accommodations, whatever. You get a week of good training. It’s fun. I won’t discount the value of such things. But the above shows you can get a whole lot out of a little each day.

Tom Givens makes a point that you do far better with a little practice more often. That is, better to practice 15 minutes 2-3 times a week than to practice for 1-2 hours once a month. When skills are perishable (and most are, if you want to operate at any level above rudimentary), when skills are ones that must be called upon at any unexpected time, you do better when those skills are more fresh in your mind and body. If the last time you practiced was 3 days ago, that’s less “rot time” compared to 30 days ago; things will be fresher, you’ll perform better.

I’m not perfect about this, but it is something I strive for. And seeing the above math? That really hits it home. A little each day, and it really adds up.

If stats are any indicator….

/ hsoi

If my blog stats are any indicator, a lot of people spent their Labor Day at the gun range… then came home to research why they couldn’t hit anything. 🙂

My post on “correcting handgun shooting problems” is the most popular page on my site.

Frankly, targets like that might tell you something about what you’re doing wrong, but they don’t really do much to help you correct it. This is where the watchful eye of a good instructor is invaluable. But since that’s not workable for some, here’s some generic advice.

Learn to press the trigger. Not pull, not squeeze, but press. Your flinch, your slapping/yanking/jerking of the trigger is likely your problem. Dry fire is your friend. Wall Drill will help. Then when you go to the range for live fire, ball & dummy drill. Work on accuracy first, speed second.

As well, think about adopting an improved mindset, one where it’s not a miss, it’s an unacceptable hit.

One at a time

/ hsoi

Here’s something I learned from lifting that I’m working to apply to shooting.

When lifting, we look at sets and reps. We think of 3 sets of 10 reps, or 5 sets of 5 reps,. When we perform them, we count. When we count, we think about the string we’re performing, and we’ll often think about them in a relative way, like instead of “7, 8, 9, 10” we might think “3 more, 2 more, 1 more, done”. Whatever we’re doing, we’re doing a couple things:

  1. We think about the reps in a series
  2. We think about the reps.

Somewhere in all the reading I do about lifting, someone said to think about each rep as a single rep. So instead of thinking about doing 1 set of 5 reps, think about doing 5 sets of 1 rep, consecutively. The difference? You don’t think about the reps. You don’t count the reps. You don’t allow any part of your lifting to be focused on not-lifting, so all your energy can be focused on performing the lift itself. Yeah, if you’re lifting the 5# dumbbells it probably doesn’t matter, but when you’re truly pushing your limits, every ounce of energy and focus matters. Furthermore, when we lift with counting, we will start that first rep all tight and ready, then things degrade. If you always think about it being “1 rep, first rep”, you take a moment to reset every time, to ensure this rep is a “first rep” in every and all regards. It increases the quality of the reps.

But for me, it’s often about the mental distraction. I get too focused on where I am in the rep scheme and where that is relative to my goal reps. That loss of focus is bad and something I continue to work on.

And so, it comes to shooting.

When we shoot, we will shoot in a “set and rep” scheme. Look at the “3 Seconds or Less” drill. We’re going to lift (shoot) 20 reps (rounds) total. We’ll start with 1 set (string) of 3 reps (shots), then a 2nd set of 2 reps, and you see where I’m going? it’s the same sort of setup and scheme here, and it allows us to fall into the same sort of counting and mental distraction.

At the A-Zone Range, Karl has a steel “hostage” target (not sure if this is the exact model, but it’s close enough for discussion purposes). The target is set up on “the small range”, and depending where we put the firing line, it’s generally a 25 yard shot. Karl says the flapper is 6″ diameter with probably 75% exposed. So it’s a small target, but hittable. I’ve long had a goal of being able to step up to the line with my carry gun (M&P 9), shoot a full magazine of ammo at the flapper (16+1 rounds), and have 100% hits on the flapper.

I have yet to do this.

25 yards is a humbler for me, and something I’ve long needed to work on. Alas, there’s always something more important to work on, so it always gets bumped down the priority ladder.

The other day I started shooting this and realized what I was doing. I was going along, making hits, doing well. Then I got too mentally excited about things and thinking “hey, I might actually do it this time…. nope… damnit!”  I was distracted. I was thinking too much about my count… hey, I got through 6 without a miss, 7 without… 8!!  9… nope. I could see myself getting closer to the finish line, then falling because I was thinking more about the end goal than doing the work required to get there.

I was not in the present moment. I was distracted by a potential future, one that wouldn’t happen if I didn’t live in the present moment and do what the present required of me.

And I thought to myself, this is just like heavy squats. I shouldn’t be trying to do 1 string of 17 shots, I should be doing 17 single shots.

I also thought I should be more progressive and work up to it. You know, start light (huzzah, Jim Wendler). So I moved up to 15 yards and 10 rounds. I did that. Great! It was getting too hot so I called it an afternoon, but there’s where I will resume: 15 yards, full magazine, one shot at a time. When I can clean that on-demand, I’ll back up to 20 yards, and go for 5 rounds, and “work up” (there’s a lifting term again).

Crazy how world’s overlap, eh?

A little bit about me

/ hsoi

Would you like to know some things about me?

I just did some paperwork for renewing my Texas Concealed Handgun License Instructor credentials. Yes, I hold a valid Texas Concealed Handgun License, and I am also certified by the State of Texas as a CHL Instructor. So, there are a lot of rules, laws, fees, and paperwork I have to abide by.

Here’s some of them:

Eligibility Statement

I, JOHN C DAUB , hereby swear or affirm the following:

I satisfy all the eligibility requirements listed under 37 TAC Chapter 6, and Chapter 411, Texas Government Code.

This includes:

  • I have established legal residence in the state of Texas for the preceding six months (resident license only) or I am eligible for a license as a non-resident under Section 411.173(a);
  • I am at least 21 years of age; or I am 18 to 20 years of age and am eligible under Section 411.172(g) (military exception);
  • I have not been convicted of a felony (as ‘convicted’ is defined in Section 411.171(4);
  • I am not currently charged in any jurisdiction with the commission of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or equivalent level offense, or an offense under Section 42.01 (Disorderly Conduct), Texas Penal Code, or of a felony under an information or indictment;
  • I am not a fugitive from justice for a felony or Class A or Class B misdemeanor or equivalent offense in any jurisdiction;
  • I am not chemically dependent (as defined in Section 411.171(2);
  • I am not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun;
  • I have not been convicted in any jurisdiction of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or equivalent offense, or an offense under Section 42.01 (Disorderly Conduct), Texas Penal Code (as ‘convicted’ is defined in Section 411.171(4), in the past five years;
  • I am fully qualified under applicable federal and state laws to purchase a handgun. (refer to 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g))
  • I have not been finally determined to be delinquent in making child support payments administered or collected by the attorney general;
  • I have not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of taxes or other money collected by the comptroller, state treasurer, or tax collector of any agency or political subdivision of this state (or state of residence for non-resident applicants);
  • I am not currently restricted under a court protective order or subject to a restraining order affecting the spousal relationship, not including a restraining order affecting property;
  • I have not in the past 10 years been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law of the grade of felony; and
  • I have not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any material fact, on my application.

And that’s just the beginning.

But look at that and roll that around in your head a bit.

By the mere fact I hold a TX CHL, you can tell I’m what society would generally term a “good person”.

So why would you want to abridge me? What have I done to harm you? Why do you think more laws that will only serve to restrict my behavior are a solution? Shouldn’t we be promoting good people doing good things? enabling good people to freely live their lives? Why are you behaving contrary to this?

 

Good for you, Mayor Stothert

/ hsoi

The new Mayor of Omaha, Jean Stothert, just got her concealed handgun permit.

Mayor Jean Stothert is now the proud owner of a black, Austrian-made Glock 26 pistol.

But you might not be able to tell when she’s packing. The mayor says she’s awaiting delivery of a state concealed-carry handgun permit.

“It is not an issue of being afraid,” Stothert said Friday. “It’s an issue of not being afraid to protect myself.”

“Because it is the law, I wanted to really understand what went on in that concealed-carry class,” she added. “I thought, as mayor, I needed to understand.”

Before I go any further, I should give some context.

I was born in Omaha and still have family there. It might be my hometown because of birth, but I no longer consider it so because I’ve lived in Texas for 20 years — far more than I ever lived anywhere else. Austin is home to me. But still, family is there and they have a fair presence in town. I mean, my Dad was US Congressman from Omaha for 8 years, and did spend 6 years as Mayor as well. So there’s some interest in this for me.

Omaha has a lot of violence problems. Lots of gang problems. They worked hard to build things up, to try to combat and deal with it. A recent/former Mayor did a lot to tear down all that hard work and folks tell me things regressed pretty badly under his tenure. Jean Stothert looks to try to remedy things, so here’s hoping. And her getting a permit seems a good step. Because while Nebraska is generally alright in terms of gun laws, Omaha has a lot of weird things because it somehow thought more laws and ordinances would be adhered to by drug gangs. Yeah… people willing to smuggle millions of dollars of pot, heroin, and cocaine somehow care about your ordinance. 🙄 So law-abiding folks get abridged, and this even caused some weirdness for me when I’ve traveled there. Frankly, the laws there are really unclear, especially for visitors. But I don’t want to digress into this, other than to say maybe with this, Mayor Stothert will be able to fix things.

I do appreciate her desire to go through the process to gain first-hand understanding. Wouldn’t it be nice if more politicians gained first-hand experience about matters so they could better do their jobs? And not just doing it for a photo-op.

She does seem to get it:

“People have a right. They have a right according to the Second Amendment,” Stothert said. “And I feel like I want to let people understand that I agree with that right, and I don’t think that restricting gun ownership from responsible gun owners is the way that you address irresponsible (owners), and gun crimes and gun violence in a city.

“You’re not going to be able to restrict guns with responsible people and reduce the gun violence; you’re just not.”

So that’s good.

But this….

“If there is the occasion that I feel like I want to carry it, now I will be able to,” she said. “But I don’t have any intention of carrying it here while I’m at work.”

Members of Stothert’s staff already do. Stothert’s has a rotating security detail of retired Omaha police officers. Chief of Staff Marty Bilek — a retired Douglas County sheriff’s deputy — recently won the right to carry his old service weapon at work.

Because the City-County Building doesn’t allow weapons, Stothert had to seek permission from the Omaha Douglas Public Building Commission for Bilek’s gun.

That bothers me a bit more.

And there’s this:

In her request, Stothert raised the prospect of gunmen targeting random citizens or elected officials in a mass shooting.

“Our request for him to carry a weapon inside city hall is simply another layer of caution,” Stothert said at the time.

Stothert said she’s been threatened before, in phone calls and emails that she declined to elaborate on. The mayor said she hasn’t been threatened since taking office.

“I feel very safe and secure at work. I feel very safe and secure in my home,” the mayor said. “But again, I feel like its a right, and I wanted to exercise my right.”

I’m sure Gabby Giffords felt very safe and secure. In fact, most of us all feel safe and secure, until we get violated.

It’s a question of mindset here. But, I’m not going to totally be mad at her because she admits she did this more for the education than anything else. Plus yes, she has a security detail. Now I recall my Dad having some level of security, but it wasn’t like the Secret Service hovering over him at every moment. Maybe things are different now and she does have more regular security. But if not, just realize, Mayor Stothert, that those holes are when you are more vulnerable.

Yeah, you’ve been threatened. I actually recall my Dad receiving threats. I don’t know the extent of all that he’s dealt with as he chose to shield his children from such things (understandable). But in later years both Mom and Dad have revealed to me they received threats. I have to figure that it’s worse these days… the way things are these days. *sigh*

Anyways, I think what also bugs me is the statement of her security having to “win the right” to carry his service weapon at work.

Since when do we have to “win the right”? There’s something inherently backwards and wrong about that mentality. Just think about it. Should have to win the right to speak freely at the office? on public ground? Should have to win the right to attend the religious service of your choice?

And it’s her security detail. Why should someone tasked with the duty of protecting another have to jump through hoops to do their job? That’s just wrong.

But this is precisely what I hope Mayor Stothert may be able to improve in Omaha. Law-abiding citizens should not have to go through such hassle to go about their law-abiding lives. We need to rebuild a world where good people can live their good lives without abridgement, and only work to abridge those that infringe upon others to freely live their lives.

Good luck, Mayor Stothert.