A willingness

It quickly became clear it was something else. Bullets shattered the restaurant’s windows. A man collapsed onto the floor. Servers ran. A young man whom Mr. Shaw had seen minutes earlier, silhouetted in a pickup truck, was gripping an AR-15 rifle. He was squeezing the trigger, and squeezing it again as he moved toward the building.

Then the firing paused. Mr. Shaw could see the man reloading his weapon just after entering the restaurant.

He sensed a moment when he could fight back.

“I acted in a blink of a second,” Mr. Shaw said. “When he reloaded his clip, that felt like 30 minutes. I looked at him, and he wasn’t looking at me. He just had the barrel down. It was like, ‘Do it now. Go now.’ I just took off.”

He scuffled with the man, whom the police later identified as [I refuse to reprint his name], a 29-year-old construction worker with a history of brushes with authorities. Mr. Shaw managed to seize the rifle and hurled it over a countertop.

Full article.

If there’s a name worth remembering here, it’s that of James Shaw, Jr.

He saw a moment. He acted – decisively, swiftly.

I’ve been seeing some things going around about this incident countering the “what stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” trope by crossing out the “good guy with a gun” and replacing it with “good guy with bare hands”.

I get it.

It’s worth understanding a few things.

Mr. Shaw was lucky. Not every event receives such a pause, nor has a willing person in such a position to act when that pause occurs. This isn’t to say I’m not thankful for what Mr. Shaw did; just we must realize that this was a tactic from opportunity, not from planning.

This is also not a tactic suitable for all people. Mr. Shaw is a young strong man. I think about one of the students I had in class this past weekend: she was elderly, small, frail, and not strong. Are you suggesting she should go hands-on? I’m sure you’re not, but then what would you suggest she do as a means of personal protection (since I reckon you’re unable and/or unwilling to be her round-the-clock bodyguard)?

Do you know what this act demonstrates?

That sometimes violence is exactly the answer.

Violence in and of itself is neither good nor bad. It’s how that violence is applied, in what context, towards what end, that determines if it is good or bad.

Mr. Shaw made the decision to respond with violence – and thank God he did.

When a woman gouges out the eyes of someone attempting to rape her, when she kicks and punches and bites and claws her attacker – she is responding with violence. Preventing rape is quite the good reason to hit someone.

People who choose to carry a gun or simply choose to own a gun for personal protection have come to accept there are evil people in this world. They have come to understand that sometimes the right and only response is a violent one.

This doesn’t mean that a gun is the answer, always the answer. Nor does it mean that violence is always the answer.

But sometimes it is.

And it’s necessary to have the willingness to apply it.

on “Waiting for José”, and Harel Shapira

In “Bowling Alone”, [Robert] Putnam’s diagnosis of America’s decline is rooted in the loss of civic engagement and the decline in associated life. What America has lost, Putnam argues, are institutions – ranging from churches to book clubs – in which people can come together and do things as a part of a collective, as members of a shared community; what America has lost are Americans who seek institutions; what America has lost is the spirit that is at the heart of our democracy. It is the spirit that Alexis de Tocqueville noticed in the eighteenth century and claimed as the source of America’s strength. The Minutemen agree. And the Minutemen have that spirit. What they lack is not a democratic ethos. They are what people like Putnam and de Tocqueville and our whole liberal democratic political tradition want out of citizens; engaged, active, concerned.

From “Waiting for José” by Harel Shapira.

I met Harel about a year ago. He was a student in a class I was teaching at KR Training. As far as I knew, he was just another student. Turns out that’s not quite the case. 🙂 He’s also an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Texas, Austin.

Harel’s sociological interest is in guns, gun culture, firearms education, the culture of armed citizens, and the people within. He wants to understand why people join social movements, and a large part of that is the “doing” of those movements – and so, he seeks to immerse himself in the movements and “doing” them as well. He’s still an observer and tries to remain as such, but yet he must also participate. It’s quite interesting.

Harel wanted to speak with me (beyond class) on some topics. In part because of my role as Assistant Lead Instructor at KR Training, and also in part because of the incident I was involved in on January 5, 2015. More recently, we’ve started talking again regarding phase 2 of his research (which I don’t believe I can disclose at this time, but it’s a logical progression of his research). I have maintained I will always speak about that incident, because in doing so others can learn and perhaps the world can become a little wiser, a little better. We’ve had a few long lunches, talking at great length about all manner of things (and I truly enjoy our talks). But that’s not why I write today.

Harel’s PhD dissertation became a book: “Waiting for José – the Minuteman’s Pursuit of America“. Harel gave me a copy. On a long flight to Seattle I was finally able to read it – and I’m so glad I did.

The book is thought-provoking. It caused me to reflect. It made me think deeper, not so much about The Minuteman movement or guns and gun culture – but about modern society, and our humanness. For this alone, I think this book well worth reading by anyone, and hopefully they too can step back from the specific subject matter and consider the grander implications of modern society in the USA as well as that strange thing we call “human nature”.

The Minutemen

Briefly, the book chronicles a lengthy period of time Harel spent with the Minutemen. These are people who volunteer to sit at the US-Mexico border, watching for “José” to cross illegally, and work to assist the Border Patrol in their capture.

In the pages of everything from local to international newspapers were photographs of camouflaged men prowling the desert, seemingly a moment away from committing violence. You have probably read these articles and seen these images. The liberal media describes the Minutemen as “sorry-ass gun freaks and sociopaths,” while the conservative media characterizes them as “extraordinary men and women… heroes”. In some accounts these people are patriots; in others, they are lunatics.

One thing is certain, these men and women, whatever their given labels suggest, have come to play an enormous role in our country’s debates about immigration. The problem is that our standard judgements, whether damning them or praising them, sidestep the complex dynamics of who these people are and what they do on the border.

Liberal media accounts suggest that when it comes to immigration, what the Minutemen and their supporters lack is sympathy. If only they understood the plight of the people coming across the border, they would change their minds. But if we are to understand the Minutemen, we need to understand how anger and sympathy can coexist.

Harel writes direct from his experience – he’s the one telling the story. He tells of his experiences: his first arrival, his getting thrown out, his return and initial gaining of trust, the times going out on patrol, sitting in the comms room, and other stories of his experiences with these men and women. He works to analyze and understand why these people do what they do, and become the people they become as a part of this movement.

For example, he tells the tale of Gordon. Gordon was a man without the same background as so many other Minutemen – no military, no law enforcement. Just someone who felt a pull to the movement, had no idea how to participate, but had a burning desire to do so. Then how seeing Gordon over the course of two years, how Gordon grew, how he changed, and how being a Minuteman defined his life and gave him solid purpose.

It becomes very easy to dismiss these people because they are different from you. It’s not a movement you’d join, and it seems a little weird, right? So that must mean these people are weird too. And so, they are dismissed as weirdos and written off.

But what Harel works to do? To find and show their humanness.

Because they are human, just like you.

They want to belong. They want to feel worthwhile. They want to contribute. They want to make a difference. They want to be meaningful.

Just like you.

Sure, the specifics will vary – and they even vary within this grouping. But what I found compelling about Harel’s research – and remember, that Harel is very much an outsider in almost every way – is his desire to understand. Sure, he can’t totally remove his own bias, his own filters, but it’s that very lens that makes the book the worthwhile read. Harel is naive, green, ignorant of this world, with his own preconceived notions. Sure it’s interesting to read the picture painted about The Minutemen, but it’s also worthwhile to watch Harel’s own evolution through this experience.

For me, it was especially interesting to watch because the Harel I met and know is not the same Harel as in the book. So for me, it was neat to see that further backstory to enable me to better understand where Harel is coming from, and where he’s trying to go to with his continued research.

It all boils down to a simple thing: to understanding. Why people are as they are. What makes us human. And you will find that they may not be like you, yet you are more like them than you could ever imagine.

Beyond José

To that, Harel’s latest research (as of this writing) has been published in the March 2018 issue of Qualitative Sociology, entitled “Learning to Need a Gun”. I was a participant in the research, I’ve read his paper, and while sometimes it was a hard read, I felt it was an accurate picture. Hard read? Because there are aspects of modern gun culture that are hard to accept, but to me that just means there’s work ahead towards improving how things are.

If you want to go forward with Harel, I suggest you go backwards a bit. Here’s an interview he did with the UT Sociology department back in 2013 that explains a lot about where he’s coming from.

And for the record, there’s a number of things Harel and I do not agree on. But I’ve found him to be fair and honest, and earnest in his research. I’ve also found that I really enjoy our lunches together. He’s engaging, thought-provoking, and open. I greatly enjoy talking with him, even if we may not agree (what a concept these days, eh?).

I know a lot of people are into the work of David Yamane and his “Gun Culture 2.0” research. Harel and David know each other, and Harel presented at Wake Forest back in 2016. If you dig what David is doing, you should also be following what Harel is doing.

And a great place to start? Reading Harel’s book, “Waiting for José“.

AmmoToGo’s Gel Tests

AmmunitionToGo recently published the results of a pretty big gel-test.

109 loads of popular self-defense pistol calibers (.380 Auto, 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP) through a 4-layer barrier into ballistics gel. It’s just a portion of the full FBI testing protocol, but it’s still some good information across a lot of brands of ammo. Because no — all ammunition is not the same. They make a good point about this when it comes to switching calibers: that your favorite brand in 9mm may not perform the same in .45 ACP. It’s worth knowing and testing — and AmmoToGo did a lot of testing for you.

That said, this is just one data set. There are others out there that have done testing of ammo. Whatever you might be researching, I encourage you to seek out as much information as possible to make the most informed decision possible.

Disclosure: I heard about this test via a direct email from AmmoToGo. I received nothing in exchange for posting it — I posted it simply because I think it’s good and useful information worth sharing. I have been a customer of AmmoToGo for some time, and for many years they’ve been a go-to source for me because they have great selection and sometimes carry hard-to-find stuff that no one else stocks. Again, I’m sharing this because it’s useful.

 

Ernest Langdon on efficient presentation

A fantastic video from Ernest Langdon about efficient presentation (h/t Spencer Keepers)

Back in 2012 I wrote about how to “go faster without going faster“. In trying to find that post, I came across something I wrote in 2015 about “sooner, not faster” (and I’m glad I did because it was a good reminder that I’ll try to use going forward). And not quite a year ago I wrote a meta-article on the topic.

It’s all about what Ernest demonstrates towards the end of the video: how performing actions simultaneously, with efficiency, might look slower but accomplishes things faster sooner. This is the sooper-sekret ninja trick.

What I also liked about the video was it gave me some thoughts on how I can improve my presentation and discussion of the topic.

Give the video a watch. There’s good stuff to learn.

The importance of positive phrasing

One excellent tip he provided was to think of keeping the gun pointed AT something in a safe direction rather than trying to keep it pointed AWAY from things I didn’t want to kill or destroy. Having a more proactive mindset in this respect has helped me since.

From David Yamane, during his range trip with John Johnston.

Words matter. Phrasing matters. The right words, the right phrasing can do wonders for understanding and mindset.

Long ago I observed adults seeing children running when they shouldn’t be (e.g. on the wet floor around a swimming pool). A parent would yell “DON’T RUN!” at children, then the kids would start skipping or hopping. The parent would get mad because, in their mind, the child was disobeying as the parent intended for the child to walk. However, the child was following the given directions: they were told not to run and they did stop running. Since the child was given no direction as to what TO do, they made their own (unguided) choice that to them was acceptable but to the parent it was not. Because of the parent’s choice of phrasing, relative to the message they intended to send, well… everything broke down and communication was not successful.

It’s the same with gun rule-sets. Often rule sets tell you what not to do, like “never let the muzzle cover anything you’re not willing to destroy.” Certainly there’s truth in that statement, but what it doesn’t do is then tell you what you SHOULD do? Should you start pointing it at things you ARE willing to destroy? That could be open to some terrible interpretation, because maybe you’re willing to destroy your ex-spouse or your boss. That’s not good.

This is why I (and the rest of the instructors at KR Training) prefer rule sets like the NRA’s. Their phrasing is clear and positively stated so you can know what TO do: “ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.” That not only covers the desire to not point the gun at things you don’t want destroyed, but it also tells you where to actually point the gun muzzle.

It’s important to tell people what you want them to do. This doesn’t necessarily mean the phrasing has to be “positive”. For example, if a child is about to touch a hot stove, to say “Don’t touch the stove!” can be acceptable phrasing, because not touching the stove is precisely what you want them to do. Granted, phrasing in a more “positive” manner may be better (e.g. “Stop!” or “Put your hands behind your back!”) – the key is to clearly convey to people what you want them to do.

Proper phrasing goes a long way towards helping people learn, and establishing a stronger mindset for success.

Improving Grip and Recoil Control

I’ve been having a chat with a student about improving grip strength to help with recoil control.

There’s no question a strong grip aids in recoil control. Improving your grip strength will help because of the physics and physiology involved – the gun simply cannot move as much because you’re able to apply a greater counter-force.

There are different exercises one can do to improve grip strength, and the ones most applicable to recoil management are those which strengthen the crush grip, as opposed to extension, flexion, pinch, etc.. What sorts of exercises can you do? Anything that works to improve both your general gripping strength, as well as your grip endurance. If you’re the gym-going type, exercises like farmers walks, deadlifts, dumbbell bench press, anything that requires you to grip hard and hang on for a reasonable period of time. If you’re just looking for specialized grip training, one of the best is the Captains of Crush grippers. They are high quality, and come in a variety of resistance “weights” so you can start where you are and progress as you get stronger. I’d suggest picking up an array so you can practice different ways. For example, pick up a heavy one for low-rep (3-5) sets to build strength. Then pick up a lighter one for holds (10, 20, 30 seconds). Note, when doing holds, strive to increase your grip pressure during the hold time. Naturally your muscles tire so your grip will loosen, but that’s not what we want nor need! If you strive to increase your grip pressure throughout the hold, it will take you further and you’ll see greater gains that should pay off in your recoil management. FWIW, while I own a bunch of CoC grippers, I don’t regularly train with them since I regularly lift weights. But I am able to close a CoC #1.5 (167.5 lb), which is more than is necessary for recoil management, but IMHO there’s also no downside to having a strong grip.

But recoil management doesn’t just come from pure strength. It also comes from technique. Watch this instructional video from Mike Seeklander. While Mike does use strength, he’s really using some excellent technique to take recoil management to the next level.

Effective recoil management is a component of good shooting technique. Through a combination of grip strength and shooting technique, you can step up your game.

Are you sufficiently self-confident?

What is Confidence?

The feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something; firm trust. A feeling of self-assurance arising from one’s appreciation of one’s own abilities or qualities.

Confidence is something we all want to have, especially in areas important to us. When we are confident, we have the ability to perform under pressure – instead of crumbling. It doesn’t mean we won’t be nervous or scared, but it does mean we know we can and will perform.

There are numerous ways to achieve (a higher level of) confidence. One is to ensure a solid grasp upon and ability to apply fundamentals – the necessary base or core.

“You can practice shooting eight hours a day, but if your technique is wrong, then all you become is very good at shooting the wrong way. Get the fundamentals down and the level of everything you do will rise.”

– Michael Jordan

There’s really no super-secret ninja tricks. The best out there are just the best at applying the fundamentals – and they are supremely confident in their ability to do so.

Note this requires not only having the skill, but KNOWING you have the skill AND knowing that you can apply those skills, on demand, under pressure.

When it comes to defensive pistol skills and concealed carry, there is without question a need – a requirement – to have confidence in one’s abilities. You carry because you acknowledge the possibility you may have to defend your life or the life of someone else, so this is a realm where you must have a strong self-confidence. Anything else could put your life – or the life of someone else – at risk.

Step back and think about it for a moment.

You probably think you can handle these things just fine. And maybe you can.

But do you know this for certain?

In December 2017, Karl Rehn and I were on the Handgun World Podcast and discussed 10 drills we think make a good baseline set of drills handgun shooters can use to maintain and develop skills. It’s part of our ongoing study on minimum competency.

Can you shoot and pass these drills?

Or let’s make it simpler.

Going back to my 2013 article that started the minimum competency exploration I concluded:

So have I been able to define “minimum competency” required for defensive handgun use?

Maybe, maybe not – I’m sure there will be folks who take issue with what I’ve written. It seems when we look at what unfolds in a typical incident and what needs to be done to handle that typical incident, you get:

  • drawing from concealment
    • And perhaps moving on that draw (like a side-step then stop; not shoot-and-move)
  • getting multiple hits
  • in a small area
    • 5″ circle? 6″ circle? 8″ circle? consider human anatomy
  • from close range
    • Within a car length, so say 0-5 yards
  • quickly
    • 3 seconds or less
  • using both hands, or maybe one hand (or the other)

That’s what you need to be able to do – at a minimum.

So let’s just look at the “Bill Drill” (#4 on our list) because it’s a short and simple drill that basically covers the above 6 points.

If I walked up to you and asked you to shoot a Bill Drill, right now, in front of me, could you do it? How does the thought of that make you feel? Does it make you uncomfortable? Do you feel butterflies in your stomach? Do you know for a solid fact you could shoot that cold, on-demand, and rock it – or are you not certain?

If the thought of this makes you feel even one iota of uncertainty, then you do not have the confidence you need.

If you feel confident, then shoot it. Can you shoot it to an acceptable level? And can you do it again?

Or maybe you don’t feel anything, and you just admit you don’t know. Then well, you need to know.

If you don’t have the confidence you need to work to gain it. If you don’t have the knowledge, then you need to shoot it and gain that knowledge. And once you’ve acquired that knowledge, now you have measured and quantified knowledge of your performance, which not only gives you an articulable and tangible expression of your ability, but also the confidence in knowing your level of performance.

This is one reason why we at KR Training have our Basic Pistol 2 and Defensive Pistol Skills 1 classes. These classes are not just core curriculum, but are the two most important classes we teach, as they provide the student with the necessary fundamentals for defensive pistol use. We provide you with the knowledge you need, help you establish your skills, and provide you with a quantified measure of your skills (via the “3 Seconds or Less” test).

I’ll state again: if you don’t have the self-confidence to shoot and pass “3 Seconds or Less” right now, you have work to do and knowledge to gain. This is not a time for believing you’re “good enough” with no factual basis to back it up – do not let your ego get you killed; this is not a space where you can “fake it ’til you make it”. Your life, and the lives of those you love are on the line. You need a true, honest assessment and knowledge of your skills and abilities – and the confidence that knowledge brings.

Have that confidence. For when the flag flies is not the time to wonder if you can – you must already know you can.

AAR: Use of Deadly Force Instructor, February 2018

From January 31, 2018 to February 4, 2018 I participated in the Use of Deadly Force Instructor class offered by the Massad Ayoob Group in conjunction with the Firearms Academy of Seattle, hosted by KR Training. The event was held at the Giddings (TX) Downtown Restaurant, which provided a large and comfortable meeting room, as well as most excellent lunch (and coffee/drinks) catering throughout the event.

About the course, from the MAG website:

Taught personally by Massad Ayoob, this one week 40+ hour course of instruction is offered by the Massad Ayoob Group in conjunction with The Firearms Academy of Seattle, Inc. to teach and certify self-defense firearms instructors in the complicated and nuanced discipline of teaching the legalities of use of deadly force in self-defense. Teaching how to shoot is the easy part. Much tougher is teaching people when and when not to use force, including deadly force, in self defense. In addition to learning what to teach and how to present it, students will also learn how to take their expertise to court, to both serve as a material witness for their students, and perhaps an expert witness in other self-defense court cases. Course content includes:

Justifying use of deadly force in self-defense
Use of non-lethal force in self defense
Understanding the affirmative defense of self-defense
Physiological phenomenon involved in deadly force incidents
Criminal law and self-defense
Dynamics of violent encounters
Mock courtroom exercise
Issues from actual self-defense cases (case studies)
Classroom presentation

Students will be expected to prepare for this class by researching their own state’s laws on use of deadly force, along with their own state’s case law, and bring this material to class. Additionally, students should be prepared for instruction to go into the early evening if necessary on some days, in order to cover the vast array of material which needs to be covered.

Pre-requisites: Instructor credentials or membership in the Armed Citizens’ Legal Defense Network, Inc.

As you can see, it’s quite an in-depth and intensive class. Officially, the class is 40 hours of instruction, but I reckon we totaled about 50 hours due to extended discussions, Q&A, and a large number of student presentations (I believe the student headcount was 32).

Class Content

I cannot go into detail about the class content: you need to come to class yourself. But there are a few things I can say.

Class started with Massad teaching solo; Marty arrived later with Mas and Marty co-teaching the last three days.

If you have previously taking LFI-1, MAG-20 (classroom), or MAG-40, a fair portion of the material will be redundant. I have MAG-20 classroom and MAG-40 certificates, so for me there was redundant material. Sometimes it made it hard to sit through class, but I actually appreciated it. Why? Because redundancy fosters learning. Let me repeat that: redundancy fosters learning. To hear this material again was a good thing. As well, when you hear the material in MAG-20/40, you’re hearing it from the perspective – both as it’s being taught and as you are consuming the information – of the student. When you hear that material in this DFI content, it is being presented and you are consuming it as that of an instructor. The context shift makes a difference in the material, how it’s presented, and how you consume it; so it’s actually a good thing to hear the information again.

After Marty’s arrival, content of the course shifted from use of force knowledge and information to more about courtroom matters. Issues of defense, of concept articulation, of expert witnesses, and how court and trial proceedings work.

The highlight event was the moot court exercise. The intent of the exercise is to show what a trial can be like (if you’ve never had exposure to one), how proceedings work, how direct and cross happen, and then how you – as a possible material or expert witness – will operate. Due to the fact we only had one day for the exercise, the ground was laid by watching an interesting movie that left a lot of questions. We treated this as evidence, because in a real trial all of that information could come out but it would take 2 weeks to do so; since we didn’t have 2 weeks, this was a fair device for the exercise.

We had only one actual lawyer in class, so he played the judge. Marty prosecuted, Mas defended. Particular students were tapped to play certain characters. Other students directly participated as expert witnesses, generally playing themselves. For example, Marty used me as an expert witness, and I played myself as an expert on martial arts, firearms, and weapon disarms. (Aside: during cross, Mas posed a hypothetical to me – which was a little personal and stunned me that he would “go there”, but was brilliant in delivery, execution, and context; it made his point so well, and it demonstrated Mas’ keen senses and abilities. Bravo, sir!). The remaining students were on the jury, and after much deliberation? We resulted in a hung jury (we were told in past classes that juries have found both guilty and not guilty – so it’s far from a canned experience!).

Every student in class was required to give a 5-10 minute presentation on a topic, which was assigned by Marty prior to class. This allowed each student to demonstrate presentation ability (it’s an Instructor class, after all), but it also provided each of us with 30-some solid articles and references directly relevant to use of force, expert witness knowledge, court proceedings, case law, and other topics to really expand the information provided by this class. I believe Karl will be posting student presentations (of those who wish to do so) over at the KR Training blog in the coming weeks.

If you’ve been to one of Mas’ classes before, you know a portion of the material is provided by watching videos – which provides consistent, documented, and easily reproducible content. But then there was a great deal of live lecture, presentation, Q&A, and discussion as well; this is why class would run later.

My Take-Home

I thought the class was fantastic.

There’s a huge amount of information provided on the issues of deadly force, and how I, as an instructor, not only have to work to convey such matters to my students, but then how as an instructor I may be called to be a material witness or could offer my services as an expert witness. I know of no other program that provides this vital information.

While the lecture was good, the moot court exercise was great. Asking some other students, and they too felt the moot court was the best and most valuable portion of the class.

I think it’s important to consider the prospective students of this class: people who instruct in the use of deadly force. You don’t need to be a prior MAG graduate. In fact, I got the impression a fair number of students were folks who just taught things like their state CCW course or maybe the NRA basic courses as a side-gig. Consequently, they may never have had the exposure to the courtroom, to trials, to other things Mas teaches. This class is a great resource for breaking that ground and being able to do so through the eyes of instruction.

While for sure the class was biased towards firearms (tho there’s no shooting in the class: it’s 100% classroom), this is the sort of class that ANYONE teaching “self-defense” should take. Do you teach women’s self-defense courses? even those that are just about awareness, palm strikes to the chin, and knee to the groin — there’s still use of force matters to be aware of. Pepper spray classes? Traditional martial arts? If you are in the business of teaching self-defense, under whatever mantle, you need this knowledge. As I think about it, it generally seems that only firearms folk cover such legal matters, but it really needs to be anyone teaching self-defense.

Any criticisms of the event? I think the only thing that actually bothered me during class was at times Q&A could go off the rails. Some questions felt like personal questions that should have been asked during break vs. taking up class (and everyone’s) time. And sometimes it just ran long. On the one hand, it’s understandable because the topic is interesting, engaging, broad, and deep – so it’s very easy to “get into it”. On the other, when you’ve been sitting in a chair for days, drinking from the firehose, sometimes you just need the firehose to be shut off for a little bit and get to break sooner rather than later. Again, I don’t necessarily fault folks here (I’m guilty of time management issues myself), but if I had to mention anything that I didn’t like, it was that. But it’s a minor thing.

One other thing I liked about the event? The non-classroom stuff. I made a few new friends, got to meet Dr. H. Anthony Semone, PhD (Google him), and spend some informal time with Marty Hayes. If you know some of my past, I am thankful for some things Marty has done. We’ve spoken here and there (including recording an episode of the Polite Society Podcast mere days before this event), so it was great to finally meet him in person, have supper a few times, and sip some bourbon together. Oh, and I got to introduce him to Buc-ee’s. We’ve got a small world, and our industry here is even smaller – events like this, to meet and work with like-minded folks, are precious.

Mas and Marty don’t teach this class that often. So when it becomes available, make the effort to take it. It’s some of the most important training you can receive.

I’m a guest on the Polite Society Podcast

Episode 437 of the Polite Society Podcast was just released, containing an interview with myself and Marty Hayes of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.

I was invited to the podcast to discuss my incident of January 5, 2015. What made this particular discussion interesting (compared to my retelling/Q&A on the ProArms Podcast, and interview on Ballistic Radio) was what was to be a general discussion with Marty and I as guests turned into Marty actually doing a lot of the interviewing/questioning of me on the incident.

You see, Marty and I have never met in person – we only know each other through ACLDN, and I believe my first actual interaction with him was when I called him needing The Network’s services. We spoke a couple times since (and I spoke in-depth with his wife, Gila, for the January 2017 ACLDN Newsletter), but generally brief and just to get some details handled. So this really was the first time we’ve been able to speak more freely and Marty asked me a lot of questions that have been on his mind about the incident. I learned a few things as well.

The podcast is available wherever podcasts can be found (e.g. iTunes), or you can find a direct link here.

I’m actually going to be meeting Marty in person (finally) in a few days. Looking forward to it.

No! No! 1000 times No!

A man was shot at after he said he flipped off another driver on the highway in Travis County, deputies say. Meanwhile, that suspect driver told them he believed he was allowed to fire a “warning shot.”

Read the whole thing. (h/t KR Training)

Everything is wrong here.

Driver 1 gets cut off in traffic, so he gets pissed and flips off Driver 2.

Driver 2 gets pissed off and pursues Driver 1.

Driver 2 pulls out a gun and shoots at Driver 1.

Driver 2 gets followed by police. Police observe an occupant of Driver 2’s car throw marijuana out the window.

Driver 2 gets pulled over. Admits to what he did.

“Ernesto [Molinary-Garcia] stated that he did so because he was under the belief that he was allowed, as a Licensed Handgun Carrier, to shoot a ‘warning shot,’” the affidavit stated. “Ernesto claimed that [the victim] was purposefully merging into his lane while on the on-ramp after the near-collision incident.”

WTF? There is no where in Texas statute that permits this (reference: LTC-16, the official document published by the Texas Department of Public Safety that contains the relevant portions of statute for license holders). And if his LTC Instructor taught him this, that instructor needs to have their credentials pulled immediately. However, I suspect he wasn’t taught this and is either bullshitting or a dumbass; maybe both.

Everything in here is wrong. Both parties made poor choices. Both parties are paying the price for their poor choices.

Learn from this: do NOT do what either party did.