self defense

Video analysis

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

So the hot new video to watch, examine, and learn from:

This is actually an old video as I saw it some long time ago. Nevertheless, t3h Int3rw3bz knows how to recycle, so here we are.

Over at Ikigai, he provided a reasonable analysis: the victim didn’t lose his cool, kept it simple, the victim sought to end the confrontation and once it was over let it be done. However, I don’t like what happened in the video.

The thug got too close, way too close. The thug put his hands on the victim. For me, none of that should have happened in the first place. This is where skills like Practical Unarmed Combat come into play: Managing Unknown Contacts (MUC), The Fence, and other such techniques really need to be applied. The situation should never have gotten to the point it did. But if someone did manage to get up in your face, that’s why that fence is important… to be able to hit that “default position”, eye flicks, or whatever else may be necessary. Having your hands folded and down like that, there’s no way you’d be able to get them up in time to be of any use to you… not with an attacker in that close.

In fact if we want to talk fences, how did this thug get past the homeowner’s physical yard fence? Now you’re trespassing on my property, and that changes things a whole lot. Granted, I think the video was in the UK and unfortunately law-abiding citizens are neutered there, but here in Texas and in much of the United States there is the Castle Doctrine and that plays into effect in a situation like this.

I will say that the outcome shown on the video was fortunate and the thug was lucky all he got was a bruised ego. The victim was lucky he was able to walk away with just his yard to clean up. To me, the take-home lesson is to not allow situations to get to that point. Acquire and use skills to prevent such situations in the first place.

But what if…? Well, seek training.

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

OK, I’ll concede.

Just because you have a license to carry a concealed handgun doesn’t mean you truly know how to use it. Oh sure, you are probably good enough on the range, in an unpressured environment, taking your time, shooting a stationary cardboard/paper target. Take a look at the shooting/skills requirements for the Texas CHL. Certainly if you can’t do that you have no business carrying. I agree with the sentiment on that page that while 70% is passing, if you can’t pass with 90% on the first cold try you should seriously consider additional training. IMHO, to obtain a CHL is not an end, it’s a beginning. Consider it your pass to take additional training. Many top training schools will only accept students with a CHL for their non-entry-level classes. The CHL demonstrates good character, demonstrates some measure of understanding handgun skills. Obtaining your CHL should (must?) be viewed not as your final destination, merely the key necessary for opening the door to better training and improved skills.

I seek to encourage people to obtain as much education and training as possible because I believe it’s important. When the shit hits the fan, will you be able to perform at the level the situation requires? My primary instructor, Karl Rehn, said it best:

Shooters, more than any other group, suffer from delusions of competence.

I know I’ve suffered from it, and probably to some extent I still do. It keeps me practicing, it keeps me taking classes, and seeking out ways to improve myself.

Why is this so important? One argument by people against concealed carry by law-abiding citizens is that the citizen might screw up, for instance, shoot an innocent bystander. The purpose of training is to minimize undesirable and maximize desirable performance. Why would you want to perform at any level less than desirable?

Nevertheless, the arguments are put forth. What prompted me to write this article was a posting made to a mailing list by J.K.:

But I don’t see how those are realistic and logical arguments. Whoever the active shooter is, like Cho at Virginia Tech, it’s going to be VERY clear to any observer who is the bad guy. He’s the one walking around shooting guns at people who are running and cowering in fear for their lives. Anyone putting fire downrange at Cho at VT would have helped the situation far more than hurt it, even if they winged or killed someone innocent downrange. How many people did Cho kill? 33? What would the total body count have been if someone had shot back in the 2nd classroom he attacked? Even assuming he wasn’t injured in that imaginary exchange, would he likely have continued calmly walking from room to room, executing students, after getting shot at? I doubt it.

So yes, innocent people MIGHT get hurt with a good samaritan gunfighter. But innocent people actually WERE getting hurt by the murderer. And without the good samaritan, MORE innocent people would be hurt, not fewer. What most people who argue against this fail to realize or recognize is that violent criminals aren’t generally looking for gunfights. They’re looking for victims. As soon as it turns into an actual fight where they’re taking fire, it dramatically alters their plans.

Look at the stats, and you’ll see that far more good than harm is done by regular citizens who attempt self-defense with a gun. The tragic stray bullet killing an innocent kid scenario pretty much never happens.

These are the facts, based upon all the active shooter situations we’ve had over the past some decades.

Nevertheless, I think with the dramatic rise in people obtaining their concealed handgun licenses, the more training we each receive the better. Not so much to ensure a minimization of collateral damage, but more to ensure a maximization of desired outcomes. If you really want to stop innocents from getting injured, we need more sheepdogs.

A Photo Essay

/ hsoi

Apparently a man mugs a woman in Chicago’s Chinatown then takes off running. Two citizens chase after the mugger and restrain him, waiting for police to arrive. A photojournalist happens upon the scene (his office was nearby, he was going out for lunch). This is what he captured on film.

What I took from it:

  • Crime happens at any time of the day, any where.
  • When a mugger, robber, burglar, rapist, or any other assorted scumbag says “Do this and I won’t do that”, why should you believe him? The scumbag has already demonstrated they’re a scumbag and untrustworthy.
  • It took the police 7-8 minutes to arrive, and then all they did was clean up.
  • There are good people in this world, willing to step up and help. We need more such people.
  • Don’t go messing around in Chinatown… people will “put moves” on you. 😉

I’m speechless

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Reading this posting from Linoge… I’m speechless. Well almost speechless.

Not at Linoge, but the crime he discusses. I don’t even know where to begin… but what Linoge writes is a good start.

Happy Birthday, Monty Python

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Today marks the 40th anniversary of the first airing of Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

Since I like to blog about self-defense, I figure it’s only fitting that we learn how to defend yourself against anyone who attacks you armed with a piece of fresh fruit. No pointed sticks (SHUT UP!).

Home break in caught on webcam

/ hsoi

The Austin American Statesman has a slide-show of pictures from a home break-in. Here’s the accompanying article. (h/t to Kellene) Apparently the Austin homeowners had installed a webcam to be able to watch their dogs during the day. When the house was broken into and the alarm company notified the homeowners, the homeowners checked on the webcam and caught a series of pictures that ought to do a fair job at identifying the burglars.

What can we take from this:

  • The break-in happened about 10 AM on a Tuesday. This is when many home break-ins occur (weekdays between 10 AM and 3 PM), because chances are high people are not home: both the house being broken into and any neighbors to witness the event.
  • It appears the first guy came in through the window next to the front door. From the looks of the picture, the window was raised up, not broken. The only way that could happen is if the window was not locked. Folks: a determined individual cannot be kept out by locks, but when criminals are after easy targets, why are you making things easier for them? Lock your doors, lock your windows.
  • A dog is not a guaranteed deterrent. From the looks of the pictures, the dog looks like he was just being friendly with the burglars, trying to chase and jump on them to say hello. Certainly the burglars don’t appear to have reacted as if the dog was acting in a threatening manner.
  • The homeowners had an alarm system. It did not keep the home from being burglarized. Despite what the TV commercials say, the sound of an alarm going off doesn’t make the invader instantly shit his pants and run away. It’s likely the alarm did let them know they have a finite amount of time in the house (the police would probably eventually show up), but they still had enough time to grab $1000 worth of electronic equipment.

The homeowner:

And although the burglary has shaken her, she said she still feels safe in the neighborhood.

“I love the neighborhood and know a lot of the neighbors,” Emily McGuire said. “I know these kinds of things happen.”

This is a healthy attitude, because there are no places immune to bad things. The homeowners did appear to do all that they could (tho the window lock is in question). Furthermore, the homeowners are hoping that good comes out of it. One of those good things is to try to learn from the experience of others.

Do church CHL bans violate the First Amendment?

/ hsoi

David Kopel has an interesting legal analysis of church (or other place of worship) bans on concealed carry. And this isn’t talking about “free speech”…. remember there’s other things in 1A too.

Moreover, the CHL ban also violates the Establishment clause because it favors some denominations over others. In effect, the statute privileges pacifist denominations over non-pacifist ones, by forcing the non-pacifist religions to obey pacifist standards of conduct in their own houses of worship. This is not only a Free Exercise violation, it is an Establishment clause violation, because it plainly creates the message that the pacifist way of being is the only way of being which the state will allow in any church, anywhere in the boundaries of the state.

It seems in so many ways we create problems because we poke at things too much. Consider the large structuring of laws that got us to even have to consider the above. If those laws were stripped away, we wouldn’t be having this discussion and all involved groups would be able to freely practice whatever it is they believe.

When are we going to learn to sometimes leave things alone?

CCTV attack footage and analysis

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Over at Low Tech Combat there’s some CCTV video and analysis of a subway station robbery. The analysis is good.

It takes me back to SouthNarc’s discussions of pre-assault cues. You can see a lot of them in the video. It’d be interesting if we could have heard audio.

Go watch and read. Learn from the experience.

Rangemaster October 2009 Newsletter

/ hsoi

The Rangemaster October 2009 Newsletter is now posted.

This issue has a few things worth reading. One is a fantastic dry fire regimen which I’m about to print out and keep in my practice area (it mirrors the skills I learned in the Combined Skills course). The other is discussing some data. One of those I think is well worth sharing so I’m going to reprint it here:

The National Safety Council, chartered by an act of Congress, is a nongovernment, not-for-profit, public service organization with a mission to educate and influence people to prevent accidental injury and death. They collect and report the facts about accidental injuries and deaths from all sources. Recently, the NSC released data from 2007. Here are some facts:

Accidental Firearms Fatalities are at an All-time Low. Firearms are involved in fewer than 1 percent of all accidental fatalities in the United States. In a side by side comparison with other forms of injury, firearms have the lowest rate of accidents.

Public firearms safety education projects, like Hunter Safety Courses, Handgun Permit Courses, NRA First Steps programs, and similar educational programs are credited with contributing to the decline in firearms accidents. Firearm related fatalities in the U.S. have been decreasing consistently since record keeping began in 1903 and have reduced dramatically in the last 20 years.

During the last decade, the number of unintentional firearm related deaths for children 14 years of age and under has decreased by 61%, and by 77% in the last 20 years. Firearms are involved in 1% of accidental deaths among children 14 years of age and under, the lowest cause of accidental fatality.

Firearm related accidental deaths in the home are down 50% from 1987 levels. In the entire United States in 2007 there were only 400 accidental firearm related deaths occurring in the home, in a population of 300,000,000 people. In contrast, in 2007 about 1,000 people drowned in their own homes and another 11,600 died in accidental falls in the home. Removing bathtubs and stairs from your home would be more prudent than removing the firearms.

Hunting is a sport deeply involved with firearms, but it is one of the safest sports. The number of injuries reported for participants in various sports in 2007 included:

  • Baseball – 167,661
  • Bowling – 21,819
  • Football – 455,193
  • Golf – 36,886
  • Soccer – 198,679
  • Volleyball – 57,039
  • HUNTING – 916

Thus, one is 22 times more likely to be injured while bowling than while hunting. Remember that the next time somebody tries to tell you how unsafe it is to have a gun in the home.

For the purposes of record keeping, the US Justice Department defines “violent crime” as Murder, Aggravated Assault, Forcible Rape, Robbery, and Kidnapping. The Justice Dept recently released figures for 2008, indicating there were 4.9 million of these offenses during last year. That is roughly a rate of one violent crime per 60 residents.

Another set of data provided in the newsletter is about where attacks occur. Some people think it’s sufficient to have a gun at home, or to just keep a gun in the car. While that’s certainly good, the likelihood of needing it in those locations isn’t as high as other locations:

To illustrate, here are some statistics from the United States Department of Justice, looking at Robbery Locations for the year 2007:

  • Street – 43.8%
  • Commercial- 13.9%
  • Residence- 15.2%
  • Banks- 2.1%
  • Gas station- 2.6%
  • Miscellaneous- 16.8%

So, you are almost three times as likely to be robbed on the street than at home, and in the home only accounts for 1 robbery in 6. Similar patterns exist for rape, aggravated assaults, etc. In fact, good locks, an alarm system, and proper lighting can reduce your risk of violent crime at home to very low levels. Once you leave your home, though, you have no control over such items. The one thing you can control is having your emergency safety equipment with you, so you can respond to emergencies that occur away from home. Remember, the gun you left at home won’t help you anywhere else.

Loading your own carry ammo

/ hsoi / 9 Comments

So the big buzz on the gun blogs today is about Sebastian’s pondering on loading his own carry/self-defense ammo.

A few of my own thoughts on the matter. But first, I’m not a lawyer. This is my own opinion on the matter, and as I discuss it more with folks, read more on the topic, I may well change my mind down the line. But for now, here’s what’s rolling around in my head.

Continue reading →