self defense

Let the dogs deal with it

/ hsoi

Another one from John Farnham, about bears.

Bears are not much different from most others predators. They know they need to eat, and they know how to get food.

[…]

Human predators are similar, just less honest and a good deal less respectable. They function outside our normal economic system, but, like bears, they know what they need, and they know how to get it. To them, you have no value outside what they can forcibly extract from you, with minimal effort and risk.

The concluding advice?

 

“… and when a bear comes… keep as many sheep as you can between the bear and you. Then, let the dogs deal with it!”

 

 

But you know, that only works if there are dogs around to deal with it. When we accept the myth that the police will be there to save us, I ask you right this moment, where is the nearest person that can save you? Where is the nearest police officer, this very moment? You know tho, one person that is right here right now is you yourself. Think about that.

Furthermore, when we attempt to use the law of the land to prohibit sheepdogs from existing and doing their thing, we’ll have fewer and fewer dogs to keep us safe. You may be unwilling to protect your own life, and in doing so you put the job of preserving your life into the hands of others. Don’t restrict and abridge those willing to help you, else you put the job of preserving your life into the hands of the predators… and they don’t see you as something to protect, only as prey.

 

You’re on your own, and always have been

/ hsoi

Whenever I talk about the fallacy of “gun free zones” being equated with “safe”, I point out where shootings do and do not tend to occur. Where do they tend to happen? Places where the law-abiding citizen cannot protect themselves, like schools or places that like to post “no guns” or “weapons prohibited” signs (e.g. Westroads Mall in Omaha). I then point out that shootings tend to not happen at places where you know everyone is armed, like NRA meetings, gun shops, and police stations.

Well, I guess I need to revise my statement. John Farnham tells of a Detroit police station that got shot up.

In the case of the Detroit Precinct Station, all legitimate residents were carrying guns, so the armed invader enjoyed only an abbreviated tenure before he was shot to death by officers who courageously and unhesitatingly responded in kind, but with more skill and precision. Had they all be unarmed, as would be the case with denizens of most schools and churches, the criminal’s deadly spree would have gone on and on!

The fact that those DPD Officers were routinely armed and ready, even in the “office,” saved many innocent lives.

You can’t stop crazy — and going into a police station to shoot the place up is a definition of crazy (he wanted “death by cop” for certain). But consider what happened. It was cut short only because of the ability to swiftly respond. Imagine if swift reaction wasn’t able to happen, how much more havoc could have ensued. Look at the big mass murders say at Virginia Tech or Westroads or other such places… lots of people died because no one was able to swiftly respond.

You’re on your own, and always have been. For the clueless and unprepared, it is only luck that has protected them thus far.

What Brandon Moore can teach us

/ hsoi

Brandon Moore, a sheriff’s detective in Morrow County Ohio, was involved in a shootout with a marijuana grower.

Here’s raw footage of an interview with Detective Moore. He discusses what he went through and covers many bases. Insightful.

A few things I took home from his experience:

  • Carry a reload
  • When you plan and visualize, visualize yourself as calm, cool, collected. Seems it paid off for Detective Moore.
  • The fight isn’t over until it’s over. Keep fighting, don’t let panic overtake you. Keep fighting.
  • He emptied his gun. He said the last shot ended the fight.

The last point hits home. I’m not sure what his duty gun was, but these days it’s likely something that holds more than 10 rounds.

Who needs a gun that can hold more than 10 rounds?

Detective Moore, for one. Good thing he had more than 10 rounds, else today his wife would be a widow and his children would be fatherless.

KICK HIM IN THE NUTS!!

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

People think kicking someone in the nuts is the be-all-end-all solution to fighting or ending an attack (e.g. you’ll hear this countless times in “women’s self-defense” classes).

Well, watch this:

All the controversy about “Combat Ki” aside (if you don’t know and are curious, click here), it sure seems that the guy is taking one hell of a nut shot and barely flinching.

Granted, most people will get hit in the nuts and drop to the ground in a fetal position. But the takeaway here is you can’t necessarily expect a nut shot to have a 100% success rate.

But for all the “Combat Ki” in the world…. I doubt they’re able to condition themselves to withstand a good dose of lead…. Sometimes there are better self-defense tools out there.

That aside, I love watching the video. I love the use of “blue balls” (har har) and the little up and down animations. The constant over and over and over and over and over replays of the nut shot, full speed, slow motion, different angles. Amusing.

Killed by coyotes? What can we learn.

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

I was flipping through TV channels and came across a show on the National Geographic Channel called “Killed by Coyotes?”

 

A talented young folk singer, Taylor Mitchell, is killed by coyotes as she hikes alone in a Canadian national park. It’s the first fatal coyote attack on an adult human ever recorded, and it shocks not only the surrounding community but coyote experts as well. Highly intelligent and generally timid around people, coyotes have traditionally not been considered a threat to human communities. But are they becoming more habituated to us and are they losing their fear of us? In the wake of the attack, scientists, police and park rangers try to develop a clear picture of what happened – and why. And with coyote numbers increasing throughout North America, we explore how humans and coyotes co-exist.

 

 

I remember when this story hit the news. I only caught the last half of the show, but it was interesting. They came to the conclusion that Taylor was killed as a result of a predatory act, that is, they were hunting her… not defense, not a rabid animal acting out of character, but she was hunted. They said these yotes were “Eastern Coyotes”, a hybrid of coyote and wolves; consequently, they have a different behavior, one that’s not afraid of larger quarry. Furthermore they asserted that in a protected forest, there’s no fear of predatation by humans, and in fact there is likely chances for “friendly” interaction with humans thus critters become less afraid of humans. Consequently, any attempts to “scare them off” just wouldn’t work because they have no fear of humans; that you are bigger means nothing.

We’ll never know the truth of what happened to Taylor Mitchell, but it does go to show that the world can be a dangerous place. We are so insulated, so isolated from the reality of the world… most people don’t want to acknowledge or are ignorant of how the world really is (including human predators that surround us on a daily basis). And yes it’s true that Taylor’s case is a first in recorded history. But you know… it’s little comfort to know you’re a statistical anomaly while in the midst of being attacked.

I did take a few things from this.

First, they hypothesized based upon their findings that Taylor detected she was being followed and started to run, throwing her keys, her camera, all in an attempt to flee. It’s very natural to choose one reaction: fight or flight. They hypothesized that Taylor chose flight, and that triggered a stronger predatory response in the coyotes. What if she had chosen to fight? Granted the results may have been the same, but you can’t help but wonder if standing your ground and fighting could have yielded a better result. I also consider that one’s response to such a situation may be biological, but one thing we humans have is an ability to overcome our biological programming. If instead you train and condition yourself to fight, if your first reaction might be “OH SHIT!” but then your second reaction is “YOU’RE GOING DOWN!!”, what sort of difference could that make? There’s often discussion of the wussification of America, how we’re teaching kids to go fetal instead of fight… how could things be different if we raised fighters, not flighters?

Second… I can’t help but think about all those people who freak out over the whole “concealed carry in national parks” issue. For me, it’s not about wild animals, but still about predators. It’s quite common for drug manufacturers to grow marijuana on public lands in national parks. Of course, they don’t want to be found, so if you stumble upon them, it’s unlikely the rest of your day will go well. But I think back to a camping trip with my family at a Texas State Park. We’re just walking down the road in the park and suddenly a coyote runs across the road in the middle of the day. Odd behavior, but it happened. Thankfully nothing came of it, but what if the yote thought otherwise? Do you have a plan to deal with that situation? Do you have a means to handle it?

.44 Magnum does a good job of addressing the situation. Imagine of Taylor was armed. Imagine if she had such an equalizer. Might she be alive today?

 

Yes, fights go to the ground

/ hsoi / 7 Comments

What with MMA being so hot these days, a common refrain to anyone studying martial arts is about how you need to have ground fighting skills because “all fights go to the ground”. Or maybe not all fights, but a large majority, or some other number pulled out of the air.

How much truth is there to the statement of fights going to the ground?

LowTechCombat pointed me to this article: Do Most Fights Go to the Ground?

So over a period of three months I designed an implemented an exploratory study with the expressed interest of trying to see if there was any validity in the claim that 90 to 95 percent of fights go to the ground or that most fights go to the ground. Over 300 street fights were analyzed during this study. The results were clarifying as well as totally unexpected.

Enter the joy of YouTube, which if you quickly search it you’ll find thousands of videos of people fighting. While the study was certainly not in-depth and more study truly should be done (and use venues other than YouTube, since that could have a “posting/content bias”), I do think the conclusion sheds some light:

So, there you have it; an exploratory study to try to find out if 90 to 95 percent of fights end up on the ground. The results offered in this study indicate that 90 to 95 percent is too high of a percentage rate. It is probably closer to 42% where both fighters hit the ground and 72% where at least one fighter ends up on the ground.

In the final analysis, an overwhelming majority of fights did end where at least one fighter ended up on the ground at some point. As this was an exploratory study, more are definitely needed to explore this topic and other grappling or MMA related issues. However, what was probably the most important finding in this study is that if you are untrained and are the first person to end up on the ground in a fight there is a good chance that you will lose and the best you can hope for is that no victor can be declared.

So yup. You can expect ending up on the ground. Now, I might be curious to know if going to the ground ended up being “an issue”. For instance, A punched B, B went to the ground, fight was over. So yes, B went to the ground so you tally one in the “went to the ground” column. But did B’s going to the ground have any greater implications? That is, the whole “fights go to the ground” issue is predication on the notion that because fights go to the ground you need to have some skills to deal with that situation (thus you must learn BJJ). So if B hit the ground and the fight was over, there really wasn’t need for skills or awareness or to even get back up. I’m not sure if this matters or if this is important, but I am going to contact the author of the study to see what he thinks. I guess it’s trying to find out not just if a fight goes to the ground, but since that assertion is made to imply you need to gain ground skills well, I think it’s worth a consideration if that is warranted. Of course, I’d say yes… but still, let’s discuss.

The best part of the study, however, is the greater implications for avoiding the fight in the first place. Truly, that’s the take-home from this:

  • Most fights are not spontaneous. There’s an incubation period. There are things that lead up to the fight and, if minded, the fight could have been avoided.
  • Be mindful of your personal space and don’t let people get close to you. I think about the book Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere because that’s what this is about.
  • Don’t be rude. Trash talking (either you doing it or them doing it to you) usually winds up with someone getting hit mid-sentence.
  • Fight or leave. If the fight is inevitable, either turn it on hard and fast, or go home immediately. Posturing and posing will get you hurt.
  • Multiple attackers will always have a massive advantage.
  • Getting mounted will put you at a severe disadvantage. Avoid it at all costs.
  • Don’t be the first one to go to the ground.

 

NRA Personal Protection Outside the Home

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

I am now (almost*) a certified instructor in NRA Personal Protection Outside the Home (PPOTH). In short, this is the NRA’s course for teaching private citizens how to draw a handgun from a concealed holster and use it as a last resort for self-defense.

I spent Valentine’s Day weekend working on this certification, because I love what I do and I do this for those that I love. It was long and intensive – 33 hours of training in 3 days. First we take the actual PPOTH course (14 hours), then we learn how to teach the course (19 hours). It was taught by Wendell Joost and Dave Burdett, hosted at KR Training.

The stated course goal:

To develop in students the knowledge, skills, and attitude essential for avoiding dangerous confrontations and for the safe, effective, responsible, and ethical use of a concealed pistol for self-defnse outside the home.

Students are expected to already know fundamentals of marksmanship and personal defense, as NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home is a prerequisite (there is also a pre-test that can be administered to waive this requirement). PPOTH provides important foundational material such as how to select proper equipment; proper mindset for concealed carry; dealing with the physical, mental, emotional, and legal aspects of concealed carry; and fundamental shooting skills for the context. The shooting skills build from the basics of drawing from a holster, to shooting multiple targets, use of cover, different shooting positions (e.g. kneeling, squatting, turning, basic movement). Even drawing from other carry methods like a holster purse. Yes… nothing like 12 guys struggling on the firing line not with how to shoot, but with how to carry and use a purse. 🙂  But it’s good because as instructors we can encounter students that don’t fit our personal mold, e.g. a right-handed semi-auto shooter. We could have a lefty shooting a revolver (note: 99% of revolvers are right-hand biased, and not very lefty friendly), we could have a woman who wishes to carry in her purse. We need to know how to work with these things.

Overall, the material in the PPOTH course is pretty good; we were pleasantly surprised. The material is nothing groundbreaking and isn’t on the cutting edge of carry techniques (e.g. it doesn’t mention the “cheek index” flashlight technique, which is de rigueur these days), but overall what’s presented and how it’s presented is quite solid. Yes, we came to learn and understand lots of “design by committee” and internal politics that went into producing this course, so I’d have to give it a B+ rating. There are a few little nits, printing errors, and stuff  you can easily overlook and forgive. There are some inconsistencies, e.g. some shooting exercises reuse the “ready” command to mean two different things, so it’s best for any prospective instructor to reconcile the instructor manual and the range drill manual AND also run through everything outside of a class and add your own notes to ensure typos and omissions don’t catch you.

One thing that really bugged me was how during instruction they say:

You should never search and assess with an empty gun. Always reload before scanning and assessing the area. (Instructor manual, page V-15)

But then all the range commands during the shooting drills have you scan then reload. The instructor manual does attempt to excuse it by saying “However, for training purposes, when you exhaust your ammunition on the last shot of an exercise, do not reload before scanning and assessing.” (V-15) But this is bad! Page II-3 of the Instructor manual says:

The way you train is the way you will react under stress. This is why you will train to develop proper habits, such as immediately seeking cover.

I agree. You will fight the way you train. I recall a story of a police officer that was killed in the line of duty. The way the police department gun range operated, you shot your revolver, then you could not drop the empty cases onto the floor: you had to dump them into your hand, put them into your pocket, then reload. Well, this officer was in the field, got into a gunfight, and was killed. When the officer was found, he had empty cases in his hand because he was fighting like he trained: wasting time with range administrative nonsense instead of getting his gun and himself back into the fight. I don’t know exactly why the NRA chose to say one thing then train another – that’s bad. They should be training that if your gun runs dry, immediately get it back into action. The gun should be ready for action before you scan. If this class is out to introduce people to concepts, if this is the first time students could be learning such concepts, then we should be setting them up for success in everything we do and teach. We should be carving those initial neural pathways with the 100% right way to do things, not cluttering them up with administrative nonsense that won’t serve to help them.

I am making a big deal out of that one because it stood out to me, but that is just one. On the whole, NRA PPOTH is a good course and is generally full of good material. Material that, with a good instructor that cares enough to make the right corrections and spit-and-polish where needed, can make PPOTH into a very good course for teaching these concepts. I find PPOTH is a good introduction to all the factors that come into play when it comes to concealed carry. Couple that, at least here in Texas, with the Texas CHL course, tests, and requirements, and someone who wishes to carry a concealed handgun should have a good start on things. I say start because I highly encourage people to seek greater, deeper, and continuing education. Obtaining your CHL is just the beginning and should open the gate for more education.

One other thing I got out of the weekend? I’m embarrassingly out of practice. 😦 I know why… the job change has me down, stress, and so on. It’s no excuse, but it is why. But I am wanting to use it as motivation to not just get more practice, but to ensure I get out and shoot more because yes, it’ll be a stress reliever. The weather appears to be improving here too (the 3 class days had perfect weather), so maybe that means soon I can be back at the reloading bench getting to work on my .223 loads… but I digress. That said, I did spend most of the weekend shooting my snub revolver, and that was fun. 🙂

I’d like to thank Karl Rehn for hosting the event. I’d also like to thank Dave Burdett for coming down from College Station, and Wendell Joost for coming out from Seattle. It was a pleasure to meet and work with both of them, and I’m sure we’ll continue to cross paths in the future. It was cool to finally meet Dave Re, and we got to talking about a project to do together (stay tuned). And finally, I’d like to give thanks to Tom Hogel, for being my snubbie brother this weekend and always being there to bust my chops. 🙂

(*almost – just a matter of paperwork and processing; all the heavy lifting is complete)

Updated: Dave Re, another student in the class, posted to his blog about his experience.

Excellent use for old cell phones

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

I knew that old cell phones, plan or not, still had to be able to call through to 911. A Good Thing™ for sure.

Linoge took the logical step.

Put it on a timer. It’s one of those things where you slap yourself on the forehead for not thinking of it yourself. Makes perfect sense because it keeps the phone powered up, keeps the battery “moving”, but doesn’t make for a constant drain. And if you’ve got a bunch of old phones, scatter them about in your “safe areas” and other “hunker-down” spots so there’s certainly a phone where you need it for when you need it.

Of course, do check them. Old phones could have batteries at the end of their life. One hour a day may not be enough to keep them working. Do check them from time to time to ensure they are working and holding a charge. etc..

Nice tip!

The myths go on

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Tam linked to a blog posting where they tested various loads against drywall. The intent was to address the common myth about what can and can’t go through drywall, thinking shotgun loads will have little penetration and rifles will go right through to the next zip code.

The Box O’ Truth has covered this many times. I’ve blogged on it too. But hey, I’m not going to deny someone a fun day at a the range. 🙂  Besides, more supporting evidence is always welcome.

Their conclusion? Same as the others: rifle rounds penetrated the least. Well-designed .223 Rem/5.56×45 NATO rounds will fragment and yaw. That’s how they do their damage, but it also means a dramatic loss of energy and penetration potential (after initial impact) thus all those over-penetration concerns are addressed. Buckshot? It just keeps going and going, and where do those pellets land? A hollow-point handgun round hits drywall, plugs the cavity up, and now it’s going to act like a ball round and just keep penetrating, no expansion to help slow it down. More info here.

So really, I know what conventional wisdom is, but it needs to be updated because the data and facts support it. Kudos for CTone for helping to spread that word. 🙂

But despite that, some myth remains. One commenter on CTone’s posting, Laughingdog, said:

Honestly, a shotgun really is the ideal choice for a home defense weapon for most people, but not for the bullshit reasons so many instructors give (e.g., won’t penetrate drywall, you don’t have to aim, etc.).

You can get a good pump action shotgun for less than the cost of a good handgun, and much less than the cost of a good semi-auto rifle. That pump action shotgun is also easier to operate than most semi-auto rifles. Most people can figure out a pump-action without a lot of help.

[…]

To clarify the point I was trying to make there. The average person is not going to spend the money on a good rifle. They also aren’t going to spend the time training with that rifle. So, for that type of person, a shotgun is a good choice, but not because of the myth that it won’t go through the walls.

Laughingdog, I’m not picking on you in particular, just you happened to say what a lot of people say. First yes, shotguns generally can be obtained much less expensively, which is something in their favor. But easier to operate? I’m not so sure. Most rifles are a simple point-and-click interface. If you want to talk inexpensive shotgun, that means a pump-action. While yes most people can figure out the notion of a pump, it doesn’t magically happen — you still have to have practiced with it. And when the flag flies, are you going to remember to “point-click-rack-point-click-rack”? And if you do, to not short-shuck it? People have trouble with flicking off manual safeties when the flag flies — especially people who don’t practice — so why would they remember to rack the shotgun? And how about reloading? It’s far easier and faster to drop an old and insert a fresh magazine, it’s far more cumbersome to reload a shotgun (which has such low-capacity to begin with). Don’t think your situation will require a reload? How do you know that (and it’s not just about number of rounds fired, what about malfunctions?) Take a look at the Magpul Dynamics Art of the Dynamic Shotgun video and you’ll see how complex the shotgun weapon system really is.

If you’re not going to train (and that’s a whole other matter), you really need the simplest manual of arms possible. When you eliminate the commonalities between a rifle and shotgun (e.g. both require flicking off a safety, both have to be aimed), the rifle is going to be simpler, in theory. I say in theory because the rifle could have some of its own issues, like holdover. But the decision of what tool to use is not as simple as “oh this one is better because of X Y and Z”. You have to choose the right tool given the context. That right tool could be a shotgun, that right tool could be a rifle, that right tool could be a handgun, that right tool could be something else. The best you can do is talk frankly about all weapon systems, give people information, then let them make the best decision that fits them. Corollary to that is if you then find out your decision wasn’t right, fix it; don’t be afraid to admit mistake or fix a problem or upgrade your situation… your life hangs on it.

I will say tho, Laughingdog did make an excellent case to use to dispel another horrible myth of defensive shotgun use.

 

I’m just glad I’ve gotten all of the other instructors at the range, as well as about half of the salesmen downstairs, to accept that bird shot is not acceptable self-defense ammo. Even the stubborn ones finally cave when I say two words to them to describe why bird shot sucks for that purpose: “Dick Cheney”.

 

 

Good one! 🙂

 

Female student attacked on UT campus

/ hsoi / 5 Comments

A female University of Texas student was attacked on campus: (h/t Robert)

On Wednesday around 12:30p.m., UT Police say a woman walking near the Jester West Dormitory area was attacked.

She told police someone wearing all black clothing had been following her.

Middle of the day, on campus.

“If you are trying to fight someone off take the bottom of your palm since it’s the hardest part of your hand and like get them right here under the nose and it shoves the nasal cavity back into the brain,” said UT student, Caitlin Clemenson.

“They teach you how to kick punch where to do it and they teach you about pepper spray,” said UT Student Cara Bessom.

You know what hits harder than your hand? You know what’s more effective at shoving body parts back into the brain?

A snub-nose revolver.

I don’t care what the martial arts guys tell you about a 90-lb. woman being able to defeat a determined 250-lb. man. Sorry, but physics and biology will win out here. Your kick, your punch… it means little to someone hell bent on raping you. Pepper spray? Sure it sucks, but people can fight through it.

Ladies, steel and lead are far more convincing.

1 in 4 American women will be assaulted in her lifetime. Every woman has a right to defend herself. Concealed carry reform now!

Support a woman’s right to self-defense. Support concealed carry on college campuses.