Guns

Examining the data: are “Stand Your Ground” laws racist?

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Howard Nemerov examines all the data (not just cherry picked numbers) to see if “stand your ground” laws are racist.

You may be surprised by what Howard uncovers.

Or not.

Isn’t using partial datasets to justify an anti-self-defense agenda racist in itself, and especially when restricted self-defense laws create racial disparities by inhibiting blacks’ civil right of self-defense?

Howard used to be anti-gun. Then he examined facts and data and realized that gun control doesn’t work. In fact, he wrote a book about it filled with his data analysis and findings: 400 Years of Gun Control: Why isn’t it Working? It’s not a book to shrug off, no matter what your stance is on guns.

Sheepdog Fallacy

/ hsoi / 12 Comments

In his book On Combat, Lt. Col. David Grossman speaks about the notion of “sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs”.

…“Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.” …. “Then there are sheepdogs,” he went on, “and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.”

Via Claude Werner, an article by Jack Feldman examining if the sheepdog analogy is a fallacy. He examines what a sheepdog actually is – that is, the actual dogs that are owned and used by a shepherd to guard his flock. It takes the analogy to task and makes the case that the police are actually sheepdogs, and armed private citizens are… something else.

Armed citizens are a problem for the shepherds. Not being sheep, they’re not afraid of the sheepdogs and are prepared to take on the wolves, hyenas or whoever. They mean no harm to anyone, have no desire to control others, but are much harder to control and therefore to exploit. Worse, their example might spread. They’re not wolves, but not sheepdogs either. The shepherds, expecting obedience from everything but wolves, have no clue how to deal with them. Their common response is to try to get rid of armed citizens one way or another, typically by removing the arms. Acting like a sheepdog when you’re not gives the shepherds that opportunity.

It’s an interesting examination of the analogy.

Control and awareness

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

Alas, this video was posted to Facebook, so you have to click through to watch it (and have a Facebook account).

If you can’t or don’t want to see it, it’s a video of Glock Team captain KC Eusebio shooting a stage at an indoor shooting range. As KC was moving to a new position, a magazine was on the concrete floor… and wound up under his foot. He slipped, landed on his side, got to his knees, and finished the course of fire.

Nice work.

Many things to take from this.

First, his trigger discipline. He was moving, so his finger was off the trigger and out of the trigger guard, indexed along the frame. Think about falling like that – you’re fingers are going to go, and if they were on the trigger….

Second, his muzzles discipline. He kept the muzzle pointed in a safe direction at all times, even while he was falling and recovering.

Both of these things take practice (mostly on the finger positioning, making it habit that when you are off the target you are fully off the trigger, indexed along the frame/slide), and awareness of what you are doing and your gun is doing. Focus.

It also shows that despite something totally unexpected happening, you keep going. He didn’t give up. He didn’t stop and laugh, or freeze, or go “oh shit”, nor did he let the pain stop him (obviously it hurt, given his actions after the shooting was over). I’m sure there was a bit of a “oh shit” in his head, but he maintained his action and finished the string. He stayed in, until things were truly over.

Really awesome performance.

Stop being a dick. You’re not helping.

/ hsoi / 11 Comments

So push came to shove and Starbucks went public with a stance on guns in their stores.

I can’t say I blame them. They got pulled into and caught in the middle of something they didn’t ask to be a part of. And let’s be real here; if you got pulled into a sticky messy issue caught between two warring parties, how would you feel? and how would you react?

Now of course, they could have reacted the other way, but I reckon either 1. they believe this is going to do less damage to their bottom line (they have shareholders to deal with, insurance and lawyers, etc.), 2. they are anti-gun (I do suspect a bit of this given how CEO Howard Schultz worded things), 3. some other third thing. I suspect it’s probably 1 and 2, but I’m guessing.  And yes, they have every right to do what they did.

So an article is going around about how we did this to ourselves. It struck me.

Now let me say, I’m conflicted on open carry. I think there are tactical issues and there are political issues. I can see both sides of it, and I don’t fall squarely in either camp (yet). I would like to see open carry be legal and not prohibited, but remember that legal doesn’t mean “good” or “moral” or that it’s a good thing to do (and illegal doesn’t mean bad or immoral or a bad thing to do). I would like to see a day where people carrying a gun openly isn’t considered a big deal; in fact, it may be seen as a positive and responsible act. But, is it always tactically sound to show your hand? Maybe; I’ve heard anecdotes on both sides that show how it can be good and be bad. And politically it can make a powerful statement, but you’ve got to be mindful of how you make your statement and the message you’re sending (here comes my undergraduate and graduate education in speech and human communication).

One reason open carriers do this as a political statement is to help normalize it. But some say it’s stupid and should be kept hidden. Well, politically or tactically? Tactically? Sure. But politically? Well, are you saying my parents – my white father and Korean mother – should have kept themselves hidden during the late 1960’s? They faced massive rejection and racism (even from within our own family). Should they have let all that stop them? Should they have kept themselves hidden? Granted, racism still exists today, but we can argue that we’re at least a little better than we were back then. To see people of other races, of other cultures, to have it always around… it’s normalizing. And so, yes I can understand why open carriers take this approach in their use of open carry as a political statement and action.

But when you make a statement, you have to choose how you make your statement and craft it in a manner that will make your audience receptive to your message; else, naturally, they will reject it.

And I think that’s really what we gun folk have done to ourselves:

We have turned the debate into a joke. Yes, we are all responsible.

Whether youre an (A) “in your face activist” as previously mentioned, or a (B) gun owner who doesnt agree with them but remains silent and thereby complicit, we are all responsible. Own it.

Personally I fall into the latter category (B). I think the first category are a bunch of fools, and open carry is a piss-poor method of carry outside of a few distinct instances. I have remained silent on the issue, but that ends today. I don’t want to be represented as a gun owner by those who choose to act as those described above. A tactical victory is never worth a strategic defeat. In the end this has hurt us in a battle where we are making progress. If we dont “eat our own” and correct these issues, the OTHER SIDE will. We have lost ground due to tomfoolery, chicanery, and general shenanigans. If we don’t get on the same page, we will continue to give up ground.

Much like how we get irritated when the “not terrorist” muslims dont come out and outright condemn muslim terrorist acts and organizations…we are taking the same track by not raising the bullshit flag when we ought to. We have to police our own. No successful organization, entity, or cause embraces personnel or spokesmen who damage the image and value of the brand.

If I can only choose between camp (A) and camp (B), I’m in (B). But I guess by my present writing, that’s stopping. I’ve felt the following for some time, but for whatever reason opted to be quiet about it.

Here’s the problem.

You’re being a dick.

I see this a lot by the visible pro-gun folk out there.

I see various bloggers, on Twitter, on Facebook. It’s really a problem. It’s really bad on Twitter. I see various pro-gun folk even seeking out anti-gun people, engaging them in “debate”, and being a total fucking asshole while doing it.

Oh sure, you are right. Your facts are sound. The other person is totally irrational and emotional. Yes yes, I’m not going to deny any of that.

But it’s your presentation that’s the problem; and that also cannot be denied.

When you tell someone “you’re wrong”, you force them to double-down more strongly on their (wrong) stance.

When you curse them, call them names, engage in the same childish behaviors that you call them out for, you’re making things worse.

I debated calling out some of these pro-gun folks by name, but I’m not ready to do that yet.

But really, think about it. You want them to see your side of things. How are you going to accomplish that if you treat your audience like shit? If you are rude, mean, condescending, and inconsiderate?

That whole “attract more flies with honey than vinegar” thing.

Or maybe better… learn how to win friends and influence people.

The reason these open carry things aren’t working out is because some of those engaging in the act are being assholes about it all. And so when you do this, when you act like an asshole, when the news reports you being an asshole (because face it, most of the mainstream media is anti-gun and so they will relish any opportunity they can to make gun owners look like stupid evil asshats that need to be controlled and broken and driven out of society)… what do you think that’s going to do? That’s going to reinforce the stereotypes, that’s going to strengthen the anti resolve, and it only makes things worse and more difficult to overcome.

Of course, the same can and should be said for anti-gun folk. When you engage in lies, sensationalizing, blood-dancing, knee-jerk reactions, suggestions that have been proven to not work to solve problems that aren’t there, what do you think that’s going to do? How do you think you’ll be perceived?

Maybe take one from LZ Granderson here.

There is no one enemy.

Thus there is no one solution.

Because like it or not, the folks spraying our cities with bullets are not NRA members or legal gun owners. And despite the tendency to tie it all together, they have nothing to do with the Adam Lanzas of the world.

And it’s too early to know how Alexis fits in the conversation.

According to a count by USA Today, more than 900 people have been killed in mass shootings since 2006. The thousands of other victims of gun violence over the past seven years died from many different circumstances, requiring different conversations.

This is why gun-control advocates need to abandon the routine of using mass shootings to turn law-abiding citizens into social pariahs and instead focus on something that could work.

In the end, it doesn’t matter what you are trying to do, what the debate is about, or what side you are on. You will never convince anyone to see your side of things if you’re a dick.

Stop being a dick. Start being more considerate of others.

Or if your whole point is to be a dick? Please grow up, or go away.

“3 seconds or less” love

/ hsoi

Greg Ellifritz runs KR Training’s “3 Seconds or Less” drill.

It’s really a good drill, and I hope this helps it become more popular as a way to convey the notion of true minimum competency with a handgun.

Ladies – here’s some good advice

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

This is from tacTissy, and it’s an excellent primer on how to select your first handgun — from a woman’s perspective.

(h/t TXGunGeek)

And while gender shouldn’t matter, it does. The main reason is because there’s still too much male-whatever that goes on in the gun world. Some of it is well-intended, because it’s a guy just trying to be chivalrous but unfortunately fails. Some is just asshole-ish (“hey babe, try shooting these 12 gauge 3″ magnum slugs while I video it”). And in my years of teaching at KR Training I’ve seen more than my fair share of women that have come to class with a gun given to them by their husband or boyfriend, which is just wrong for them. It’s a great gun for him, but horrible for her. We swap her a gun that is more suitable for her, and suddenly she smiles and everything improves.

It’s why I started doing a segment in the KR Training Basic Pistol 1 class comparing revolvers. Because all too often a woman will go into a gun shop, they will say “Little lady, you want one of these” and show her an airweight snub revolver. She buys it, shoots it once, it hurts like hell, and she never wants to shoot it again. What good did that do anyone? So I developed a segment where they shoot 1 round out of an airweight snub, then 1 round (same load) out of a large-frame revolver. Without fail everyone hates the snub and enjoys the large revolver. I don’t do it to hurt people, but to give them knowledge so they can say “hell no!” when the well-intended salesman tries to suggest the snub. It also demonstrates the realities of physics, that a larger, heavier gun is really going to make a better first choice because they are a lot more fun to shoot.

And while some things are certainly gender-based, most things aren’t. The size and strength of one’s hands play a large part in choosing the right gun, and size and strength of hands has little to do with gender. That is, it’s not “women need a small gun and men need a big one” but rather, the person needs a gun that fits their hands — smaller hands may need a smaller gun, larger hands may need a larger gun (note: gender didn’t enter into this).

What tacTissy talks about closely mirrors KR Training’s own guide to selecting your first handgun and what we teach in our classes. What I especially liked about her video was she relates the concepts of selection to… well… a woman’s world. I think her underwear analogy was awesome and spot-on.

 

Blind people and guns

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

Iowa is granting permits to acquire or carry guns in public to people who are legally or completely blind.

No one questions the legality of the permits. State law does not allow sheriffs to deny an Iowan the right to carry a weapon based on physical ability.

The quandary centers squarely on public safety. Advocates for the disabled and Iowa law enforcement officers disagree over whether it’s a good idea for visually disabled Iowans to have weapons.

Full story (h/t Eric)

I’ve seen numerous people mentioning this story. Of those I know that are in the anti-gun camp, they just see this as more gun lunacy and how the NRA is infiltrating and destroying everything. Of those on the pro-gun side,  I’ve seen them asking  questions and wondering, because this obviously creates some uncertainty and uncomfortableness.

When my friend Eric posted this on Facebook, here’s how I responded:

An interesting notion for sure. Certainly lots of legal implications involved, but setting those aside…

To me it still comes down to a simple thing: should people be denied the ability (right?) to defend themselves. We could even argue that folks with disabilities are, by nature, at a greater disadvantage and thus could be argued have even more need to have “force equalizers” to make up for the greater disparity caused by their disability. To deny them, to leave them in a position of greater vulnerability, would be wrong. It’s such a popular notion to care for and give special dispensation to the vulnerable, to afford them greater protection — especially by and from the state — would it be right for the state and general populace to deny them the ability?

That isn’t to say it may be right for them to actually do it [meaning: blind people shooting guns, blind people having carry permits, etc.]… but that’s different from the state forcing them into a greater state of vulnerability.

I have taught a few deaf people to shoot guns. They’re actually really good shots because there’s no BANG to make them flinch; quite an advantage. We have to do a little different handling of range commands and teaching style, but that’s not a big deal.

Haven’t taught any blind folks tho. I don’t really have a firm stance on this… quite open to discussion. The above is just my gut reaction, because I don’t see why we (or rather, The State) should deny good people the God-given right to self-defense.

Of course, the State denies all sorts of things all the time. Some of them are right, some of them are wrong, and no matter what we shouldn’t be making legislation off knee-jerk reactions and feelings. Furthermore, legality and morality are (should be) two separate things: just because it’s legal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right, and just because it’s illegal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. As well, just because it’s legal doesn’t always mean it’s a good idea to do, and just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean it’s always a good idea to avoid.

Because well… you tell me what a blind woman is supposed to do in response to being raped. You acknowledge her blindness puts her at a disadvantage, do you really want to make her more vulnerable? Before you deny her right to self-defense, before you deny her right to life, before you deny her right to choose, before you deny her “women’s health”, offer a better solution.

What should she have done?

/ hsoi

Kari Bird just started law school and continues to work full time. Bird got home at 11:30 p.m. Wednesday and when she got out of her car, a group of three or four young guys approached her.

….he quickly pulled out a gun.

“He told me to … give him my keys,” Bird said.

She did turn over her keys, but realizing all her law books and belongings were in the car, Bird made a quick decision. With the gun still pointed at her, she reached into her center console to pull out her own gun.

“(He said), ‘Oh s***’ and then ran,” Bird told Fox 59.

Full story (h/t Brian)

Just one question.

For those of you who wish to ban guns, that wish to deny good people the ability to defend themselves, that seek to prevent people possessing guns in public (in their car, on their person)… why are you seeking to harm Kari Bird?

 

A little each day

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Which is better? Practicing something for 1 day once a year? Or practicing something for 1 hour once a month? Or practicing 10 minutes each day?

Granted, this depends what we’re practicing, but for many things we do better if we do a little bit of it on a regular basis.

What makes some things tough for folks is thinking they have to do a lot of it often. Granted, if you’re totally in love with the thing you’re doing, if you are driven to some higher level (e.g. to be a world champion), that’s a different context. But for most of us regular schmoes, we just want to not suck at our chosen thing.

Yeah, you have those gym rats that spend 2 hours twice a day at the gym. It’s probably their social thing and that’s fine as far as it goes, but then their goal is probably social and not performance. I have appreciated the basics of Wendler 5/3/1 because it’s gotten me stronger than I’ve ever been, and it’s about doing more with less, e.g. the most basic template, Boring But Big, has you doing just 2 exercises (tho 1 is done in 2 different ways, so I suppose you could say 3 exercises) in a simple scheme, and you ought to be in and out of the gym in under an hour.

Champion pistol shooter, Ben Stoeger, promotes a dry fire practice routine around the notion of “15 minutes a day”. I recently started doing his 15 minute sessions, and some actually take less than 15 minutes. But you see the point that it’s about manageable chunks, not some massive session that you’ll dread and thus opt to never do. But it also needs a “per day” in order to progress. One 15 minute session once a year isn’t going to cut it.

PoliceOne even talks about how police officers can practice the skills of their trade in just 10 minutes a day. This could be things like dry fire practice, handcuffing skills, or even watching the news and visualizing your own response to reported situations.

The P1 article made a good point:

Do 10 minutes of training a day, every day you work the job.

Doesn’t sound like a lot, but it is.

Assuming you work a four-day week, and you do 10 minutes of training each day you work, you will have done 40 minutes of training per week. Easy math, right?

Assuming you have four weeks off (vacations, holidays, etc.), leaving you with 48 work weeks in a year, and you do the prescribed 10 daily minutes, you will have done 1,920 minutes of training annually.

That’s 32 hours of training.

Every year.

For FREE.

I hadn’t thought about that. I hadn’t looked at the math.

There are schools out there that you attend for a week. You take a week off work (taking the hit to your vacation time and paycheck). You spend thousands of dollars for tuition, travel, food, accommodations, whatever. You get a week of good training. It’s fun. I won’t discount the value of such things. But the above shows you can get a whole lot out of a little each day.

Tom Givens makes a point that you do far better with a little practice more often. That is, better to practice 15 minutes 2-3 times a week than to practice for 1-2 hours once a month. When skills are perishable (and most are, if you want to operate at any level above rudimentary), when skills are ones that must be called upon at any unexpected time, you do better when those skills are more fresh in your mind and body. If the last time you practiced was 3 days ago, that’s less “rot time” compared to 30 days ago; things will be fresher, you’ll perform better.

I’m not perfect about this, but it is something I strive for. And seeing the above math? That really hits it home. A little each day, and it really adds up.