Guns

Who did the law serve?

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

WATSONVILLE – A Santa Cruz man was shot in the leg during an attempted robbery outside Markley’s Indoor Range and Gun Shop Sunday afternoon, police said.

My friend E passed this article to me.

I’ve been to Markley’s. Take a look at its location via Google Street View so you can see the lay of the street. Now, I can only go based upon what the article says, so who knows what information is missing or what bias is to be had. But based upon what we have, let’s examine a few things.

The 38-year-old victim was with his father-in-law when the two left the range about 2 p.m., after some recreational shooting, and had secured their firearm as required, Sgt. Brian Ridgway said.

They put the gun in the trunk of their car and were about to get in the car when a man walked up, armed with a handgun and wearing a bandana over his face, and demanded their weapon, Ridgway said.

So they were mugged as they were leaving the range. Why do you think that happened? What do you think that mugger is going to do with the obtained gun? I’m sure it’s not going to a “buyback” program. No… I’m sure the exact intent was to “put another gun ON the street”.

The father-in-law, who is 46, grabbed the suspect’s gun and struggled with him momentarily and the younger man began running south on Vic Rugh Lane, he said.

The suspect broke free and chased him, firing several shots and striking him once in the leg, Ridgway said.

The shooter then jumped in a black or dark green Acura, which was last seen heading toward Freedom Boulevard from Gardener Avenue, police said.

Why the younger man started running is curious to me. Was he leaving his father-in-law to fight alone? Did he perhaps take their gun and try to get it as far away from the mugger as possible? Is there a deeper issue here (e.g. they know each other and this isn’t just a simple mugging)? It’s curious.

Anyways….

Here’s what stood out to me.

We always talk about how crimes don’t happen in certain places, like in police stations or in gun stores or at gun ranges. This situation doesn’t change that assertion. The reason those things don’t happen is because people in those places have ready access to usable firearms — criminals don’t like to get shot either. What happened here was outside a gun range and store, and the victim’s gun was useless because it had to be locked up and disabled due to California law.

These laws were put in place under the onus of safety, to protect the public, to serve the common good. I have to ask, who exactly did the law serve here? Who exactly benefitted from this law? These laws enabled two men to be attacked, one was shot and now had medical bills, time off work, pain, suffering, and who knows what long-term effects it will have — all because they obeyed the law. Once again the criminal — people who, by definition, don’t obey the law — suffers nothing and no loss. Because of the law he realized what a fine target this place and these people would be. And guess what? He already had a gun, which wasn’t properly secured as per California law. Doesn’t look like those laws were doing much to stop the bad guys — only the good guys.

If due to a law bad people benefit and good people suffer, is that really a right and just law? If not, why are we keeping that law?

Yeah yeah… some people will say that this is some exception to the rule, that for the most part the laws work as intended. Funny thing tho… they always justify such laws by saying “if it saves just one life, then it was worth it”. Well, it looks like it almost cost one life… so I guess by that same logic, no it’s not worth it.

 

A tool is only useful…

/ hsoi

… if it’s handy when you need it.

If you need to hang a picture, you need a hammer for the nail. If that hammer is in your hand, things work out nicely. If you have to go to the toolbox, that’s not as handy, but hanging a picture isn’t that critical so it’s not a big deal to go and get the hammer. But if you have no hammer and have to go to the store to buy one, well… again, not critical but just growing inconvenience.

If you get a cut and start bleeding, if you have a first aid kit with you, you can get right to business of stopping the bleeding. If you have to go back to the car or rummage through the medicine chest, well… again it may not be horrible, but blood is flowing and time is a bit more critical. Certainly having no first aid kit and having to now go to the store to get one isn’t going to bode well. If it’s bad enough, you could dial 911 for an ambulance, but even that will take time for EMTs to arrive.

Then… there are the people that refuse to carry their gun. They feel it’s sufficient to just carry their gun in their car, or to just have the gun at home.

But what if you need it now, and you’re not immediately in one of those places?

For example, many violent crimes, like muggings, happen when people are going to or from their car. Like in the parking lot going to the store, or coming out of the store, on the sidewalk, to the parking garage, on the way to the car. Point being, if the gun is in the car — and you are not — what good is that gun going to do you?

Then you have cases like this: (h/t Fark)

In the incident Sunday night at 9051 Wooten Road, Raymond and Barbara Ewing said they arrived home to find a gold Chevrolet Blazer backed up in their front yard. Their front door was open and an air conditioner was missing from a bedroom window.

Mr. Ewing said he entered the front door and found two white males trying to leave out of the back door. He yelled that he had a gun and for them to get down on their knees. They complied.

Now, we can debate if it was wise to enter the house (is it worth dying for? it may have been for the Ewing’s), but that’s not my focus here. My point here is Raymond Ewing had his gun with him. If the gun was in the house, what would have happened? What could he have done? He needed a useful tool appropriate for the situation, and since it was readily available it was far more useful than if it was stored in the safe in the house.

To paraphrase Tom Givens: carry your damn gun, people!

This is why your prescription glasses are insufficient

/ hsoi

No, nothing gruesome… just sobering.

Andrew from the Vuurwapen Blog did a guest post over at LuckyGunner reviewing eye protection. In fact, he didn’t just review, he put a lot of eyewear to the test.

The thing is, there’s so much eyewear out there it’s almost impossible to test them all, so he took a good sampling and tried to focus more on protection standards, like ANSI Z87.

What’s most interesting is to look at the picture of prescription glasses and non-safety-rated sunglasses getting smacked. First, the pictures are pretty… it’s really cool to see all that glass flying everywhere. Second, the pictures are sobering, because of all that glass flying everywhere.

I’ve worn prescription eyeglasses since about the 1st grade. I do not think your prescription glasses are sufficient protection at the gun range (and I’m talking about typical prescription glasses, not people who go and get special prescription shooting glasses that are made for impact and so on). Typical prescription glasses are small lenses, offer no protection from the side, and geez… do you really want your lenses messed up? You spent how many hundreds of dollars on your glasses… don’t you want to take care of them? A piece of brass dings them, nicks the lens, and boy… that sucks. When you could get some basic safety glasses that fit over your prescription glasses for just a few bucks and save yourself a lot of pain and cost.

And… after seeing Andrew’s pictures, I guess there’s a lot more about your vision that you can save too.

Please, don’t think your prescription glasses or your cheap sunglasses are sufficient eye protection. Get some proper safety glasses and WEAR THEM when you shoot.

I just wish there were more/better options for us folks that want “over the glasses” style stuff. The Guardian Pro have served me well and I’m pleased with them, I just wish there were more choices.

Holsters – I changed my mind

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Good holsters are a must. There are many criteria of what makes a “good” holster, but I’m going to focus on one.

The mouth of the holster needs to remain open when the holster is empty. Reason? Reholstering without having to fiddle around, in part because fiddling around tends to put your other hand in front of the muzzle in order to open the holster mouth to permit the gun to go in. I hope you can see why this is bad.

If your holster is made of a rigid material such as Kydex, this is likely not an issue. Look at a holster like the Comp-Tac CTAC, Raven Phantom,  or any host of such styled holsters. By their very nature the mouth is always open, thus it’s easy and trouble-free to reholster. Hybrids like the Comp-Tac MTAC can work out fine too (I’ve worn an MTAC for years and don’t have a problem, tho certainly it’s not the same as a full-kydex holster). Usually where you run into problems is with holsters made of non-rigid material, like leather. However, good holster-makers know this and put reinforcing bands in their holster mouths to keep the holster open, such as the Pancake from Kolbeson Leatherworks. Usually where you run into problems is with cheap holsters — and there are lots of those, just look on the shelves at your local gun and gun accessories store.

So where did I change my mind?

From time to time in KR Training classes we get someone that’s just hell-bent on using some poor-choice of a holster. Some folks just don’t know better, borrow a good holster from us, and are convinced by the end of class to ditch the poor-choice and seek a better holster. But some have a reason for the use of and desire to cling to the poor choice. We do discourage the use of the holster during class because of safety issues and simple flow of class issues. But if they really want to use that holster in their own time for their own carry well… at least my personal stance has been to let them do as they want.

On the whole I still feel that way because I cannot force people to make good choices.

But what’s changed for me is I can no longer say “well, if you want to that’s fine…” and somewhat tacitly approve of the practice. It’s strong disapproval now.

Before, the feeling was most of the time when you carry you are carrying, not drawing, so if the attributes of the holster better suit your CARRY needs then well… ok, maybe perhaps that’s fine. Yes, it might mean you can’t practice with your gear, but you still could (e.g. dry work for draw and reholster); may not be ideal, but it’s your situation to work out. And if you find yourself in a situation where you must draw, the need to reholster will be different and one you can administratively carry out. What struck me tho was that mentality contrasted against this quip from John Farnam:

By that, I mean, when using it, you may be able to draw your pistol quickly and smoothly, which is all wonderful, of course. But, what do you do with your draw pistol when you suddenly need to go “hands-on,” or you need to politely greet arriving police officers?

[…]

The act of reholstering, using the holster in the above-mentioned ad, required both hands and the better part of thirty seconds. In a continuing emergency, that obviously won’t fly. The pistol would have to be quickly stuffed into a pocket (a dangerous procedure in itself), or jettisoned.

Emphasis mine.

See, we keep thinking about the situation in terms of “there will be time” to reholster. That you’ll have time to fiddle-fart around and do what’s needed to reholster. That’s the flaw in our thinking. First, we’re already aware of this because we generally recommend using good holsters (so why are we tolerating poor-choices? well… because we accept some people will continue to make poor choices despite our best efforts). Second, who says we will have time? We already know time can be precious and short, why couldn’t there be need to reholster quickly? ah… because our mentality is that reholstering isn’t a race, do it slow and deliberate — a good training/range artifact. Real life might not be that way tho, as Mr. Farnam points out. And so, an inconsistency has crept into my mindset. Thank you, Mr. Farnam for enlightenment.

So whereas before I could kinda sorta permit such poor-choice holsters (on their own time), Mr. Farnam’s quip shed a little light showing that poor-choice holsters remain poor-choice holsters, and we really shouldn’t compromise on that fact. A good holster won’t be a problem for you, ever, so why compromise in the first place? In the end, I still can’t force people to make good choices, but I now have more information to offer towards encouraging better choices. I can also remove my tacit approval of such avenues (I can at least change and improve myself).

Use good holsters, folks. 🙂

 

Her story

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

At KR Training, our beginner-level courses have a lot of female students, which is great. However as we go further in the course curriculum, female enrollment drops off. I’ve often wondered why, because the mid- and upper-level classes certainly aren’t just for men. These classes are arguably the more important level classes to take (by anyone) because it’s in these classes where you move beyond basic mechanical skills to learn how to fight with your gun, which can include the choice to not fight with the gun.

Sure I have some theories as to why, and I’ve spoken with numerous women about this phenomenon. Mrs. Groundhog (obviously not her real name) shared her story with me, and she graciously allowed me to reprint part of it here.

Learning about guns and taking the FOF [force-on-force] classes gives me options to use to never be a victim again.  I fully realize the crime may still occur but the emotional effects will be entirely different because I will have done everything that I possible could to protect myself.

I think that women in general don’t want to take higher level courses because they live in denial that crime could happen to them or one of their loved ones.  If it does happen to touch them that there will be someone there to protect them and that they aren’t capable or shouldn’t take that role upon themselves. The image that many women in our country have of themselves is that they should be the “beautiful one” not the protector. That role belongs to the man. Women are told by the media that they should be concerned about things like clothes, hair, makeup etc..  In generally, they do not understand they need to learn the skills to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones.  They expect their “knight in shining armor” to do that for them.

The gun community is embracing the idea of attracting women shooters if for no other reason than it brings in more money. However, I think the concept of the “pink gun” is the wrong way to go about it. If they want to add color to guns, which I think is unnecessary; make green, red or purple guns too, not just pink. I think it tends to reinforce stereotypes instead of breaking them down.

The best way to attract new women shooters is to treat them with respect.  I absolutely hate going to a gun show and asking a question only to have to clerk give my husband the answer and ignore me even though I asked the question. Yes, there are many things that I don’t know but I should not be treated like a second class citizen because I am a women. I have felt that way at gun shows. Sometimes I prefer to roam without him so I won’t get treated that way.

In all fairest, I have never not once, felt that way with you or anyone else associated with KR Training.  You guys have a class act and I have always felt welcome there.

I don’t know if this has answered your questions but maybe it will give you some things to think on for a while.

Thank you for allowing me to reprint this, and thank you for sharing your story with me. It has answered some questions, and given me things to think on.

To others reading this, take it for what you will. She’s on a powerful, moving, and motivating journey.

Tips for teachers

/ hsoi

While the article is titled “Being a Woman is Not a Disability“, and while the article is presented in the context of powerlifting, what the article is really about is teaching.

Teaching boils down to a lot of the same concepts, whether you’re teaching arithmetic, how to bench press, how to shoot a gun, how to bake a cake. And addressing needs of a student rarely comes down to the student’s gender, race, ethnicity, religious preference, sexual orientation, age, etc.. Oh sure, sometimes those things do matter, but all too often teachers/coaches/educators apply the wrong context and thus the wrong solution. For example, many times when teaching beginning shooters, women do get treated differently. But I’ve found issues with new shooters aren’t because of gender, but because of something like smaller/weaker hands. Yes one can make the generalization that women have smaller and weaker hands than men, but I’ve seen some large strong women and some small weak men. It wasn’t their gender that mattered, it was their hand size and strength. Thus what’s important to address is their hand size and strength, not their gender.

Successful teaching does follow the same guidelines regardless of the topic being taught. Amy Wattles’ article does a fine job of presenting these guidelines:

  • The introduction is the most important part of a lesson<
  • After the delivery of your instruction, check for understanding.
  • Next, it is time to demonstrate the skill to be acquired.
  • Provide students with constructive feedback throughout the lesson.

Read her article for full details, including a good list of additional tips for teaching success.

One thing I’ll add? Know your audience.

If you know your audience, you can better shape the presentation of your message. Let’s say you want to teach how to bake a cake. How might your presentation differ if your students were a group of adults vs. a class of kindergarteners vs. veteran chefs? Your material and message would be the same, but how you present that message, how you work to convey your information, that’s going to and should differ from audience to audience. Suppose you didn’t change. Suppose you wrote it all out for a group of veteran chefs and your audience is a group of 5-year-olds? Do you think your presentation is going to succeed? Do you think you’ll successfully convey your message? Unlikely.

Some might say that they don’t know what their audience will be comprised of. If that’s the case, then you still know that fact and should proceed accordingly. But you may also be able to glean at least a little something. For example, when a new class of Basic Pistol 1 students show up at KR Training, we generally don’t know what to expect. We will have people of both gender, wide range of ages, many ethnicities, socio-economic status, background (e.g. maybe they were brought here due to a bad crime victim experience and are very sensitive)… it’s all over the map. We really can’t know much and thus have to be reserved in our presentation. But we can know they are all here to learn how to shoot a gun, and most are coming because of an interest in personal defense, so we can play off that tidbit of audience awareness.

Teaching is rewarding, even more so when you’re successful at it. Knowing how to teach helps you succeed.

Looking for a new flashlight — do you have any input?

/ hsoi / 13 Comments

For many years I’ve carried a SureFire E2L Outdoorsman. It’s part of my every-day-carry, and in fact I use it almost every day. It’s because of that daily utility that I chose that particular model of flashlight.

However, over the past year I’ve started to have a change of heart. Many new flashlights have come to market, and over the years of carrying I’ve started to find myself wanting… a little more, a little different. And probably too much time hanging out with TXGunGeek, who is also a big flashlight geek.

What’s my beef with my E2L?

  • High-beam output. While my E2L’s high beam is pretty good, there’s better out there now. I’ve found myself in enough situations where I wished for more light.
  • Beam quality. I don’t know how to describe it, but the high beam feels… fuzzy. Maybe it’s my (aging) eyes, but compared to some other flashlights I have, there’s something about the light quality that just doesn’t provide me with the best picture. It’s certainly good enough for most things, but if I can have a little better, since again, my eyes are getting older and anything I can do to help out is A Good Thing™.
  • High first, low second. There’s no question I want dual-output because much of my every-day light needs require a low-beam. Originally I wanted the low-beam to come on first since I figured most of my needs were mundane and didn’t need to blind myself. Now I want the high beam to come on first, because I find myself in more situations where I need a lot of light right now and don’t need to waste time clicking through beam modes. I decided if I needed low beam mode, it would likely not be a “need it immediately” need and I could do something like press the flashlight into my stomach or leg to suppress throwing light, click through to low, then there we go. Besides, when you need a lot of light right now, you need it now and need to be able to just slam the light on and get the light. Yeah I tried many times to just get used to “half click, release, full click” to get as quick as I could over the low mode and locked into the high mode or doing 2 full clicks, but it’s just too error prone, too time consuming, and too loud.

So it’s not much, but it’s enough to motivate me to look for alternatives.

But on that token, some things I would prefer to not give up:

  • Clip. The clip is very useful, especially since I can hang it off the brim of my hat for hands-free use. That means the clip needs to attach near the head and point back towards the tailcap (like the E2L has). So many flashlights have the clip attach at the tail and run towards the head, which can be good for keeping the flashlight in your pocket, but isn’t very usable during use.
  • Dual mode. I need high and low beam. Strobe? Oh please… no.
  • Size. I like the E2L’s size. First, because it means 2 batteries instead of 1 thus more runtime. Second, the diameter feels good in my hands in terms of being able to hold a grip and not lose the flashlight in my hand.

And then there’s one thing I flat out do not want: strobe. This ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco. I do not need nor want strobe. I do not want to waste time clicking through a mode that I don’t need, that all too often will accidentally fire because I’m trying to click through to the mode past it. If someone can tell me how strobe is actually useful, please comment. In the dark, it just screws up YOUR vision too, and again it’s too many modes to click through to get it. Enough Low Light shooting classes and strobe never comes up as useful.  But, I will admit I recently found a use for it. While taking Kiddos around the neighborhood this past Halloween for trick-or-treating, I carried a Streamlight Super Tac-X because low beam is good for close-up work (e.g. picking up dropped candy); the high beam is bright, crisp, clean, lots of throw, lots of spread, really lights things up which can be useful when walking around in the dark and well-behind a group of kids that might need some illumination in front of them (throw!). And then… yes… strobe was useful when we would cross the street. I would aim it down at the pavement and let it blink, and saw more than enough cars react to the flashing strobe (vs. other times when I’ve used a plain beam) and slow down. So yeah, THAT was useful. But for my EDC flashlight? No strobe.

There’s no question the awesomeness of Fenix Lights, especially that they have such great output, quality, and runtime on ubiquitous AA batteries, all at such a low price. The Fenix lights I presently have are great.  Because of them, SureFire and Streamlight have had to pick up their game. So lots of new and interesting stuff out there. I focused on these 3 companies. I did look at some others, but they either were no longer in business or their lights could all be eliminated from consideration because they had features I didn’t want (e.g. Blackhawk, NovaTac, Pelican).

Streamlight didn’t have anything that would fit my bill. Mostly lost out on the clip front. In fact, on the clip front alone I pretty much eliminated most every flashlight out there. *sigh* The two I found were:

Fenix LD22 (S2)

SureFire E2D LED Defender

The Fenix has a lot of win all around. Many different modes/levels of light output. Cree LED’s. A tailcap switch, but also a side button; so yes, that means there is a strobe mode but at least it’s not part of the tailcap. There’s a clip, but I’m mixed on the fact it’s removable. Sure that’s cool from a sales standpoint, because they can sell it to more people. And I kinda like that if the clip snagged on something it would just break away instead of bend (how many times have I bent my Spyderco Delica clips because of a snag?). But… that also means it can break away, which may not be what I want. I’m unsure about the clip. I think tho the bigger concern is while it’s cool it remembers the last output setting and uses that next time you turn it on, that means if the last thing I did was read a map but RIGHT NOW I need a lot of light, I won’t get it. The Fenix looks good in so many regards, but I’m not sure it will win the “tactical need” test. But it’s only like $60, so I might pick one up anyways because I could see a lot of use for this in other contexts, like camping or hunting.

The SureFire E2D. Funny how things happen. My only beef with this? The fact it looks aggressive. Of course, that’s the point of the “Defender” models, and I’m honestly not bothered by it myself. But as I wrote in my old “why I like the E2L” article I specifically avoided that light for its looks. At the time I was active in Boy Scouts and a lot of parents there did not “get it” and would freak out at the thought, and I just didn’t need the grief. As well, I flew and didn’t want to have some TSA goon take my $150 flashlight. But these days? I don’t fly. I don’t do BSA, and operate my life in a different context. Besides, I’ll still have my E2L in storage and can always pull it out and use it if context changes.

So yes, presently I’m leaning towards the E2D. I even emailed Comp-Tac to see if their flashlight holster for the E2L works for the E2D.

What’s your input?

13-Nov-2012 Update: Comp-Tac replied:

From what I can tell the e2d and e2l have the same bezel diameter. However, the e2d has that crenellated bezel, which adds to the length a small amount.
I would feel comfortable in saying that it would work.

So I figure if I go with the E2D, I’ll get it, try it, and hope for the best. If I do have to buy a new pouch, I reckon the existing one would work well enough until the new pouch arrived.

 

3 ounces isn’t very much, is it?

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

TSA limits us to 3 ounces of liquid in our carry-on luggage.

I think we’ve all agreed this isn’t much, and doesn’t really provide us with enough to get the job done. Doesn’t matter what the liquid is, be it water for drinking or shampoo for your hair — it’s not enough to get the job done.

Well to be fair, maybe it gets you through; maybe some people get by alright. I know most men have short hair and 3 ounces of shampoo is perhaps enough for them. I’ve got long hair and 3 ounces doesn’t cut it; maybe one shampoo, but if I need to wash my hair a second time? Forget it.

These reduced capacity containers just don’t work for all situations. Yes perhaps it works for the statistical average, but statistics are of little comfort when you’re the anomaly (and no, I’m not going to cut my hair).

We supposedly free citizens are restricted in our liquid carrying capacity for our own safety. We acknowledge it may not get the job done, it may leave us in a lurch… but at least it’s just shampoo, nothing that’s difficult to obtain no matter where you go, and your life generally doesn’t depend upon it.

I think about other contexts where capacity is limited, and the same principles apply. That restricting the amount of ammunition law-abiding supposedly free citizens can carry or possess may not be enough to get the job done. Oh sure, statistical averages say you’ll be attacked by a single person, but that doesn’t mean your enjoyment of your Starbucks won’t be interrupted by a violent mob of 25 pipe-wielding people.

Think about applying this sort of capacity restriction across the board in your life. If all liquids could only come in 3 ounce containers. Your milk, your coffee, your soda (wait… this might give Bloomberg some more ideas), your housecleaning supplies, gasoline… we wouldn’t stand for it because we know it’s a silly restriction and causes more problems than it solves. Yes… causes more problems than it solves.

Bad guys don’t follow the rules

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Being the “bad guy”.

When we’re doing Force-on-Force scenarios, someone has to play the bad guy role. At first it’s hard for people new to FoF to be a bad guy, but after a little bit they get it and have a LOT of fun doing it. The reason is, they’re good people and now have to behave by a different set of standards — or perhaps, by no standards at all.

I recall hearing some pro wrestlers talk about playing the “heel” role… the bad guy. Many of them like playing that role because they can do anything they want. They have a great freedom, whereas the “babyface” (the good guy) has to color within the lines, play by the rules, and is rather restricted in what they can do.

Thus, we can define what it is to be a bad guy: you don’t follow the rules.

And so it goes in real life.

Gun bans are instituted through laws. Good guys will obey those laws. Bad guys won’t… because bad guys don’t follow rules.

Gun restrictions, like “gun free zones”, are instituted through laws. Good guys will obey those laws. Bad guys won’t… because bad guys don’t follow rules.

Signs on doors are something good guys pay attention to. Bad guys won’t… because bad guys don’t follow rules.

Bad guys don’t follow rules.

Not only is it useful to remember that bad guys don’t follow rules, it’s also useful to remember they won’t follow your rules, your standards, your moral code. If you were ever driven to steal, you might rob someone of their wallet but it’s not in you to senselessly and without just-cause take someone’s life. But that’s YOUR moral code. The fact someone is mugging you demonstrates they are not rational — according to your standards. What makes you think they’ll continue to adhere to your standards and not kill you just because they can? Maybe they will, maybe they won’t — you don’t know, you can’t know. All you can know is bad guys don’t follow rules.