The KR Training August 2015 newsletter is up.
To me, the high points are some upcoming classes, such as Tom Givens doing his Combative Pistol 2 — excellent class. But also? There’s a lot of stuff for 2016 already taking shape. You should check it out and get in on things before they sell out (because they do).
See you at the range!
[Christy] Mack’s injuries included 10 broken bones, a broken nose, missing and broken teeth, a fractured rib and a severely ruptured liver from a kick to her side.
Typically when people use the term “unarmed”, they mean “doesn’t have a weapon” (knife, gun, baseball bat, screwdriver, hammer, crowbar, etc.). As if somehow that means the person couldn’t be dangerous, or couldn’t inflict severe bodily harm.
He allegedly forced her to strip naked and repeatedly punched and kicked her, breaking several of her teeth.
Look at her pictures:
That’s the sort of damage an “unarmed” person can inflict. And honestly, she’s lucky; I’ve seen worse damage at the hands of “unarmed” individuals.
So tell me again why you think “unarmed” means “not dangerous”?
I love it when I can refine and improve, especially when it enables me to become a better teacher since that enables others to refine and improve. Such a joyous cycle of betterment. 🙂
I often talk about how to “go faster without going faster“. It’s built upon concepts like performing simultaneous actions, being able to “change gears”, efficiency and economy of motion, and so on.
John Mosby (h/t Greg Ellifritz) makes a great refinement on the point of “going faster”:
The purpose of the snap drill is genuinely not about shooting “faster.” In the real world, shooting faster actually tends to have rather deleterious effects, like shooting the wrong fucking person, because you shot before you recognized that it was your 12-year old, and NOT a MS13 gunslinger.
Our goal is to shoot “sooner.” What’s the difference? Shooting sooner is about working the problem correctly, and only making legitimate shots, as soon as possible. That requires more than a fast target acquisition and a quick trigger finger though. It involves knowing and understanding what the parameters are that allow for a legitimate shot, in your circumstances, and then—and ONLY THEN—breaking a FAST, ACCURATE shot. Being able to recognize what is “precise enough,” and then delivering it “fast enough,” wil allow you to shoot sooner, AFTER the decision-making process has allowed you to positively identify your target as a legitimate target.
The time metric just forces you to accept “accurate enough,” instead of pushing for “precision.”
That’s an excellent distinction.
Granted, sometimes discussion has to be about “faster”, but “sooner” is a related concept with overlapping but also unique qualities.
Well-worth understanding the difference, and when each should be called for.
John Lott, Jr., John Whitley, and Rebekah Riley just published a paper examining Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States.
The abstract contains relevant statistics:
Since President Obama’s election the number of concealed handgun permits has soared, growing from 4.6 million in 2007 to over 12.8 million this year [2015]. Among the findings in our report:
— The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever- increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued – a 15.4% increase in just one single year. This is the largest ever single-year increase in the number of concealed handgun permits.
— 5.2% of the total adult population has a permit.
— Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed handgun permits.
— In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing so much faster than the number of permits.
— Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by 156%.
— Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.
— Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 156%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.
— States with the largest increase in permits have seen the largest relative drops in murder rates.
— Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies at one-sixth the rate that police officers are convicted.
One thing to note is the number of carriers is likely higher, because with no permit required to carry in 1/5 of our states, there’s no means of tracking and collecting such data. In a weird way, it’s one reason I like the permitting process, because data like this is useful.
Other things that jump out at me:
The largest growth is with “minorities”, that is, racial minorities and women. Just a few days ago I touched on the rapid growth of gun ownership and concealed carry amongst blacks in the US. Those who wish to see improvements in civil rights and equality for minorities must understand the vital role gun ownership has always played in that movement.
Permits go up, murder (and violent crime) rates go down. States with the largest increase in permits also see the largest drop in murder rates. I’m not saying correlation equals causation, but it’s sure something to think about.
As a permit holder in Texas, I’ve known that we permit holders are generally more law-abiding than the un-permitted citizenry. Since 1996, the Texas Department of Public Safety (who oversees the Texas Concealed Handgun Licensing process) has released reports of the number of CHL holders with convictions versus the entire Texas population with convictions. CHL holders are quite law-abiding. Which should be no surprise given the great lengths we have to go through to obtain and maintain not just a gun but the CHL itself.
But all this data probably doesn’t matter. These days data, logic, and reason aren’t as important as someone’s feelings.
What do you do when you practice?
Do you practice the good stuff? The easy stuff?
You may be wiser and realize the best thing to practice is the stuff you suck at; to address your weaknesses because that’s the only way to convert them into strengths.
But how much time do you put into the unconventional?
This hit me the other day.
I’ve been fairly regular with my dry fire practice, but my dry practice has been “conventional”. I practice Wall Drills. I practice the press-out. I practice drawing from my concealment holster. I practice reloads and malfunctions. I practice two-hands, strong-hand-only (SHO), and weak-hand-only (WHO). I do all the conventional stuff, especially what I suck at (WHO).
But then the other day I realized I haven’t been practicing the unconventional. I realized this because I found myself in an unconventional situation (nothing bad, but just enough of a situation to make light the bulb above my head).
For example, my concealment draw typically involves my left hand reaching around to my right side, yanking up my shirt, then my right hand goes to draw.
But what if I don’t have my left hand?
What if I have to use only my right hand to make everything go?
Or… what if I only have my left hand to make everything go?
Unconventional.
Now, this isn’t to say we need to make addressing the unconventional a staple of our practice. However, it’s worthwhile to consider and work on these things every so often, at least so that the first time you have to do it isn’t when you need it.
Did you know African-American support for gun ownership and carrying firearms for self-defense is at an all-time high?
Members of Larry Cook’s church in Minnesota, an all-black congregation, carry guns and provide protection to the pastor and church members. They’ve had threats, and Charleston provides a reminder.
Detroit’s Chief of Police, James Craig (who is black) tells NPR:
Police chiefs usually don’t like the idea of citizens carrying concealed guns for self-defense, but Craig says he had to be realistic about the situation in his hometown.
“It was a well-known fact here in Detroit,” he says. “People didn’t have a lot of confidence that when they dialed 911, that the police were going to show up. In fact, we know they didn’t.”
So he endorsed a trend that was already well under way — the trend toward more people carrying legal guns.
The same NPR article reports:
According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, 54 percent of blacks now see gun ownership as a good thing, something more likely to protect than harm. That’s up from 29 percent just two years ago. In places like Detroit, more African-Americans are getting permits to carry concealed weapons.
And again, more pastors are encouraging carrying in vulnerable places like churches:
Detroiters are even taking their guns to church. When Rosedale Park Baptist had trouble with drug dealers and car thefts, Pastor Haman Cross Jr. told his congregants from the pulpit that they should consider getting concealed-carry permits.
“I love the Lord; I’m a Christian,” he says. “But like I told the congregation, let’s send a message right in front. I want the word out in the community, if you steal any of our cars, I’m coming after you.”
At another black church, Greater St. Matthew Baptist, Pastor David Bullock points out the pews that where his armed congregants usually sit.
“The chairman of my deacon board, he carries,” Bullock says. “And then on the west side, there’s a middle-aged woman who also carries.”
The article covers both issues such as holster selection (more votes for the Safariland ALS system), and actual in-hand retention issues.
Well worth the read.
Wim Demeere wrote an excellent piece about The death of common sense regarding violence.
It starts right off:
We live in an age where having knowledge about how violence actually works is frowned upon. Having experience with it is viewed even worse.
So very true. It’s sad tho. We love to go on about how “knowledge is power”, the importance of education, and look down upon ignorance. Yet, when it comes to issues of violence, people prefer ignorance.
I get it. Violence is ugly and something we would rather not deal with. However the ugly truth is violence exists, has always, will always, and the simple fact that the more you know about it the more you can contend with it (including avoiding it and not becoming a victim of it), the better off you’ll be. Again, knowledge is power.
Wim continues discussion of how we got to this point, because it wasn’t very long ago that one was actually expected to know how to fight and how to contend with violence. That doesn’t mean you’re out to start it, but it does mean you know how to deal with it when it crosses your path.
Now granted, that we’ve reduced a “need” for violence in society shows progress. We have become more peaceful, more civil. This is actually a good sign. However the converse is that it comes at the expense of ignorance. And if we continue to be ignorant, then we will eventually fall victim. All progress toward our “peaceful societal growth” stops and likely regresses.
Wim presents a perfect example of this ignorance, of this regression.
Have you see that cell phone case that looks like a gun? If not, click through to Wim’s article to see it.
It’s not just stupid, it’s dangerous and likely going to get the owner in trouble (or even killed).
Does that mean you have to let everything slide? No, of course not. Some things are worth fighting and dying for. But a truckload of things are not and in this age of social justice warriors and internet wisdom, that seems to have been lost. When it comes to violence, common sense is dying at an ever increasing rate. When you look at the comments on the internet about this cellphone case, the “it’s my right!” crowd is extremely well represented. Contrast that with those in law enforcement, the military and the other professions where violence is a daily occurrence: they all see what a potential for disaster this case is.
If you don’t understand why this case is a bad idea, I’ll be happy to inform you.
If after that you still wish to carry such a case, you’re welcome to. You just cannot be surprised if you suffer the consequences of your poor choice.
And the death of accepting responsibility for yourself (and your poor choices) is also happening, but that’s another discussion.
It is important for us to understand violence. It’s like anything else in this world: the more we can know about it, the more we can understand it, the more we can make rational and reasoned choices and decisions regarding matters involving it. That doesn’t make you a bad person, that doesn’t mean you’ll be a dangerous person, that doesn’t mean you will go on a killing spree. No, it just means you’re an educated person, and that ought to help make the world a bit better.
I enjoy it when my disparate interests overlap in some way. In this case, powerlifting and personal safety.
In recent years, especially the past some months, it’s become a hot topic to have police body cameras. Basically, people want recordings of every facet of police interactions. This is understandable as it generally works to protect all involved because “video doesn’t lie”.
But does video tell the whole truth?
In powerlifting, squat depth is a big deal. To oversimplify, a legitimate squat is one where your thighs are parallel to the ground, or deeper (e.g your butt touches your heels). People putting massive weights on their back and only moving them about 3 inches then claiming awesomeness — that’s not legit. All sorts of videos come out of lifters making “world record squats”, and the first thing people do is gripe if the lifter squatted to depth or not. Granted some squats (and meet judging) are legitimately up for question, but most often the squat is passed by the meet judges but not the Internet armchair judges — because of the video.
The video may be poor. The video may be at a “wrong” angle. The video isn’t likely to see and reproduce what the 3 meet judges see.
And this could be good, this could be bad. It could give you the proper perspective, or it could give you the wrong perspective.
Is the video lying?
Is the video telling the (whole) truth?
What got me thinking about this was the recent posting of the dashcam video of a controversial police interaction. Commenters took the video as objective proof. Interestingly, some commenters took it as objective proof the cop was in the right, and some commenters took it as objective proof the cop was in the wrong.
Objective?
I thought back to the endless debates on powerlifting videos about their “objectivity”, because if video was in fact objective, if video told the Truth, there should be no debate about someone’s squat depth. But yet there is.
Back in 2014, the well-respected Force Science Institute published a list of “10 Limitations of body cams you need to know for your protection”. Original PDF here, article reprint here. You should read the article for a complete explanation, but here are the 10 points:
I know some are going to read that list, especially because the article is titled “for your [police] protection”, assume there’s bias and these are just trying to give police “outs”, and then dismiss the article.
So let’s go back and look at this list in the context of powerlifting videos.
The camera does not follow the eyes of the judges nor does the camera see what the judges see. There may be bodies blocking the view (happens all the time when the video comes from audience members and there are lots of burly guys crowding around the squatter to spot the lift). One camera isn’t enough, when there are 3 judges precisely to judge multiple angles. Cameras only record in 2-D, and if you’ve seen some powerlifters, these guys are certainly bulging out in many places. Cameras certainly encourage second-guessing (look at all the armchair judges).
It doesn’t matter what you’re filming, these limitations apply.
We must also remember that these videos are often interpreted through the bias of the viewer.
Let’s go back to squat depth. Brandon Morrison wrote an article examining the rulebook of 10 powerlifting federations to compare how they defined legal squat depth. What you find is while everyone strives for the same basic idea, there’s a lot of variance in definition.
One thing that will be the same across all feds is the fact that the line which separates the champ from the chump, the white lights from the red lights and 9/9 from bombing out is an imaginary and invisible line whose axis through disputed points is in the heads of the three individual judges who preside over your lift. No, it’s not perfect; it’s subjective. Deal with it.
Emphasis added.
Often the armchair judges insert their own interpretation of the rules or what they feel is right or wrong. A great example is Shao Chu’s 400# bench press:
Is that a legit bench press? Sure is, because it’s within the rules of the game. But hopefully even if you don’t know much about lifting weights you can see why that lift might be considered controversial (was it even a lift? did the bar even move?).
And so it goes with police interactions, because everyone is a lawyer and legal expert, right? And even if you know the law, do you know all the laws? That video may have been filmed in a different city, in a different state, in a different country, where laws are different from what you may know. As well, do you know the police’s operating procedure and rules and regulations they must abide by (beyond the law)?
When you view the video, are you viewing it through an objective lens, or the lens of your personal bias, (lack of) experience, and/or (lack of) knowledge? I hate to tell you, but it’s probably the latter no matter how much you strive for it (or believe it to be) the former. Doesn’t matter if it’s a dashcam video or a powerlifting video.
I think video is a good thing. I think video is a solid tool towards helping us preserve history and protect ourselves. Given the proliferation of cameras, either because our governments are putting more out “on the streets” or simply because everyone’s got a smartphone in their pocket, we’re going to see more and more video and relying more on video to help us find Truth.
But in doing so, we must take video for what it is. It is not The One Source, it is not (unbiased) Truth. It has limitations, and we must remember that in our quest for Truth.
This was a refreshing piece to see reported in the mainstream news.
Austin NBC affiliate KXAN posted an article, Fighting for your life in an active shooter situation.
SAN MARCOS, Texas (KXAN) — Theaters, malls and schools are places you’re not supposed to be afraid of. But none are immune to active shooter situations.
Experts with Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Program (ALERRT) say they don’t want people to live in fear but to understand these situations can happen. By taking a few minutes to think how you would react right now, may save your life later.
The article starts right off acknowledging the reality. And even better, suggesting that a little bit of forethought would be a wise and potentially life-saving action.
This is refreshing to see!
“It’s natural to be scared, everybody is scared when someone’s trying to cause them harm,” said ALERRT executive director, Pete Blaire. “Our first recommendation is to avoid the attacker, if you can do that. If for some reason you can’t, deny access to your location, keep them from getting to you. And that defending yourself is the last resort.”
Open spaces, like a movie theater, leave you with the fewest options. ALERRT trainers say it’s alright to duck down, but don’t stay put.
“One thing we don’t want to see you do is what we call ‘hide and hope.’ Which is where someone hides behind something and hopes the shooter doesn’t find them. If the shooter does find you, doesn’t leave many options,” said Blaire.
This is all solid stuff. The suggested course of action is essentially: “Run. Hide. Fight”. About 3 years ago the City of Houston with funds from DHS created an excellent video on that course of action. It’s becoming the mantra for dealing with active shooter events, and with good reason. Yes I know, you’ve got your CHL and you’re just ready to save the day. Well, we all draw our lines in different places in terms of what we will and won’t be willing to die for, and how context and personal situation matter. Whatever your decision, just determine your line ahead of time and be well-prepared to execute your plan.
The article continues:
He says if it does come down to defending yourself, better to fight back than to do nothing.
Blaire teaches people to grab a hold of the gun and get it pointed away from you.
He says when you’re fighting for your life, you don’t have to fight fairly.
And this is such a great thing to see printed in the mainstream media. That it’s better to fight back than to do nothing. Or to more clearly phrase this: it’s better to fight back than to die… better to fight back than to be murdered… better to fight back than be executed. Yeah, fighting back is no guarantee you’ll live, but not fighting back is a fair assurance you’ll die. At least for me, I choose to live.
I also like that KXAN was willing to print that you don’t have to fight fair! It’s reasonable for people to expect fairness and to abide by some sort of “code” of behavior/ethics. And usually people expect others in society to have some sort of “code” as well, and that likely our codes are somewhat in the same ballpark. Realize that if someone is trying to kill you, they have demonstrated they do not have the same code as you; they may have some code, but it’s nothing like yours. There is nothing to say they will “fight fair”, and essentially that means you have to be willing to fight “unfair”. It’s the sort of thing where it’s considered bad form to hit a guy in the crotch, but an active shooter situation is not a time to practice gentlemanly manners, y’know? You need to give yourself permission ahead of time that should you find yourself in an active shooter situation, you allow yourself to do whatever it takes to come out alive.
What really got me about the article? The closing statement:
Right now, ALERRT only trains law enforcement, but has recently partnered with a company to bring the training to the public.
KXAN will keep you posted on when that training begins.
They will keep us posted when such training for the public begins.
It’s great to see the mainstream media supporting and encouraging activities to help people stay alive and stay safe.
Stuff From Hsoi 