Guns

Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol – What we don’t need

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

I asked Tom Givens, of his 60 students that were involved in self-defense incidents, did any need to reload? Further clarifying, if so, did any reload as a part of the fight? Or was it administrative after the fight was over?

Tom’s response to this question:

John-

None of ours had to reload and continue shooting.

I can think of four off the top of my head that went to slide lock, however, further shooting was not required at that point.

Tom

Think about reloads. If typical private citizen gunfights are 3-5 shots, that’s not even enough to warrant reloading a snub revolver. Of course, that’s average. With Tom’s students, I think the range was 1 to 11 shots fired, but again, no reloads (tho apparently some came close). So do we need reloading as a minimal skill? It would seem not.

For that matter, how about malfunction clearing, be it simple failure to eject, stovepipe, double-feed, whatever type. Do malfunctions occur enough that we need to consider them a minimal skill? Again, data would point towards no. This isn’t to say it’s not useful and good to know, but remember we’re looking at minimal competency.

So if you start to look at tests like the FBI Qualification or Rangemaster Level 5, are these reasonable “minimal” tests? Nope. I would say there are somewhere above the minimum. They cover shots out to 25 yards, which doesn’t fit the bill of a typical gunfight. They cover reloads. They cover malfunctions. They also cover things like changing positions (e.g. going to kneeling). Again, all good skills to have, but beyond minimum.

Look at the FASTest, the Farnam Drill, IDPA Classifier, Gunsite Standard, Hackathorn Standards, the list goes on. At this point, what new skills or techniques are being added? Shooting from kneeling, from prone, around barriers, turn and shoot, multiple targets, transition to a backup gun, disability (e.g. loss of one hand so must do everything with the “other” hand, including reloads), using a light (weapon-mounted or held in the other hand), and the list goes on. Are these skills that are involved in the typical gunfight? Well, maybe one here or there but the exception does not prove the rule. All in all, these sorts of things just aren’t being done in the typical incident. Thus, it’s hard to argue they are part of “minimum competency”.

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

(This post is part of a multi-part series. For now, you can find other published parts of the series by looking at the “minimum competency” tag or category).

You should read this

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

The Rangemaster July 2013 (Volume 17, Issue 7) newsletter is posted. I do hate how direct linking to the PDF doesn’t really work with their website setup, so just go to the main site, navigate to the Newsletter area, and read that one.

You really should read it.

Some highlights:

  • Pictures of some factory ammo… showing that quality control is down. When the factories are cranking as hard and fast as they can, that means more getting made, eyeballs getting tired, and thus errors are going to rise. You need to take care and not assume even factory ammo is without flaw.
  • An important discussion of the Bill of Rights
  • Incident trends

I think the incident trends is the most important part. Tom’s now up to 63 student-involved incidents. While not a huge number, it’s enough to manifest a trend. The one Tom discusses here is distance.

87% of these incidents? They happen between 3 and 5 yards. 0-5 yards, 90%. 0-7 yards, that’s 95% of the incidents. Or as Tom likes to say “about a car length” (since the typical American sedan is about 5 yards long).

What do you think that tells you about what you should focus your practice on, if you’re training for self-defense handgun use?

So I think about we do things at KR Training, especially in the Defensive Pistol Skills classes. Where is the focus? 0-5 yards. Another article in the July Newsletter is about what to do after you stop shooting: things like scanning and topping off. More things that KRT’s DPS classes cover.

As I post this, I’m in the middle of my series about “minimum competency for defensive pistol“. Think about this. Probably one of the most useful Rangemaster Newsletters in recent memory.

Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol – Is this minimal?

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

It seems we have expanded our criteria:

  • multiple hits
  • in a small area
  • from close range
  • quickly
  • drawing from concealment

To see what else might be necessary, we can also look at video. Hooray for video! Hooray for dashcams, security cameras, everyone having a phone with a camera, and then a willingness to share all of this on video websites like YouTube. You can see a lot of what really goes on.

One thing that happens often? Hands. Shooting with two hands, shooting with one hand. There’s no question you should try to shoot with both hands. Why? You’re faster. This goes back to “quickly”, and shooting slower is the opposite of “quickly”. That said, the reality of life is your situation may require you to shoot one-handed — and perhaps with your weak hand. You may have something in your hands that you cannot drop: like a child. Or another reality is, sometimes you just start shooting with one hand. I’ve seen it, I’ve done it — we know better, but yet something happens in the head and you just start shooting one-handed. It’s good to know how to do it.

At this point, a drill like KR Training’s 3 Seconds Or Less Drill starts to come into play. This drill was intentionally designed around the the “3 shots, 3 yards, 3 seconds” typical gunfight. It works on multiple hits, in a small area, from close range, quickly, drawing from concealment, two- and one-handed shooting.

The drill also adds in another aspect: movement. Do we need to move in a self-defense situation? You betcha. Karl often asks, “is it better to shoot, or not get shot?” not get shot. Some like to phrase it that incoming bullets have the right of way. Thankfully since bullets only travel in a straight line (well ok, an arc, and there’s wind, but go with me here, this isn’t Wanted), a simple but large enough side-step is important. It “gets you off the ‘X'”, it causes the assailant to reset their OODA loop, and well… movement is going to happen.

That’s the thing. Movement is going to happen, or at least, it should. Generally, something happens and people scatter, running away from the source of trouble. This of course is a good thing (distance yourself from the problem). However, it’s really either move or shoot, not shoot on the move. Paul Howe pretty much says to do one or the other:

shooting on the move, it’s a skill all shooters aspire to learn and spend a great deal of time and effort trying to master. I’ve never had to use it in combat. When moving at a careful hurry, I stopped, planted and made my shots. When the bullets were flying, I was sprinting from cover to cover, moving too fast to shoot. I didn t find an in-between. If I slowed down enough to make a solid hit when under fire, I was an easy target, so I elected not to.

As for shooting and closing on a target, it only makes the bad guys accuracy better and walking into a muzzle may help you to test your new vest sooner than you wanted to. Diagonal movement works, but again if you have to slow down too much, you re an easy target, and are generally in the open. Speed can act as your security in this case to get you to a point of cover.

Training to “shoot on the move” with a Groucho Marx walk? Well, nice skill, but is it really important within our context? Howe’s case was military, and if he doesn’t need it there, would we really need it in the “3 seconds” of a private citizen self-defense incident? A little movement, like a quick and decisive (and far enough) side-step on the draw is good. Much more than that? Not really needed.

So now we’re starting to find things we don’t need.

Are there other things we don’t need, in terms of minimum competency?

(This post is part of a multi-part series. For now, you can find other published parts of the series by looking at the “minimum competency” tag or category).

Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol – Sub-minimal

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

In her book Effective Defense, Gila Hayes described a simple test:

  • 5 shots
  • in 5 inches
  • a 5 yards
  • within 5 seconds

Some people refer to it as the “forty-five” drill, some the “4×5” or “5×4” or “4^5” or “5^4”. Claude Werner has a “5^5” variation, adding “repeat the drill 5 times to eliminate luck and ensure consistency”. Greg Ellfritz made a “6×6” varation. However you label it, doesn’t that seem to mesh directly with multiple hits? small area? close range? quickly? It’s quite a simple drill, and looks like it can fit the bill.

Looks are deceiving tho, because it doesn’t require you to draw from a holster. If the data shows that most incidents are going to be in public spaces, that means you need to be carrying the gun (i.e. it’s not on a table, in the nightstand, in the glove box, etc.), which means it’s in a holster, which means it’s concealed (under clothing, in a bag, etc.). So this implies you know how to draw and present a gun from concealment. That’s actually two implications: drawing from concealment, and being able to carry concealed in public.

If you’re going to carry concealed in public, in most states in the USA that means you need to have some sort of concealed handgun/weapons/carry license/permit. Many times that means you have to pass some sort of shooting test. To receive a concealed handgun license (CHL) in Texas, there is a shooting test. Notice the test is structured around getting multiple hits, (somewhat) quickly, from various “close” ranges. It’s a bit better than Gila’s test since it works different amounts of shots and different distances. But it fails on a few counts. First, the B-27 target and “within the 8-ring” is akin to hitting the side of a barn; that’s not “in a small area”. Second, just like Gila’s, there is no drawing from a holster. Did you catch that? The Texas test for obtaining a license to carry a concealed handgun — which implies a need to draw the handgun out of concealment — doesn’t require you to show you can draw the gun from concealment. Note, I’m not advocating changing the test because there are reasons why it is the way it is. But do these tests truly provide you with the needed skills? or a false sense?

I will say this.

Both of these tests are something I could label “sub-minimal”. That is, they are reasonable tests, but not quite to the standard we’re trying to define.

I believe the primary reason for Gila’s test isn’t so much a proficiency test as a shopping test. That is, if you get a gun, you need to be able to do her test with that gun. If you cannot, that is probably not a suitable gun for you. All too often I see a woman that comes to class with the gun her husband or boyfriend gave her: she has small, weak hands, and he gave her a Sig P226 which she simply cannot operate — she would easily fail Gila’s test. As soon as we swap her with a more reasonably fitting gun, her skills and abilities didn’t change, but now she could pass Gila’s test. If you read the linked-to article on the 6×6 variation, Greg Ellfritz struggled with the Ruger LCP because it’s too small a gun (fit) for him. So perhaps consider this test more of a good way to suss out appropriate equipment than skill.

But certainly, if you cannot perform Gila’s test (or I’d say Claude’s variation, to ensure you didn’t get lucky on the one run) or if you cannot clean the Texas CHL, and you cannot do these consistently and on-demand, then certainly you do not have the minimum competency. These aren’t enough due to shortcomings in the drills themselves, but they are a rung on the ladder.

So if these are “sub-minimal”, what might be minimal?

(This post is part of a multi-part series. For now, you can find other published parts of the series by looking at the “minimum competency” tag or category).

Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol – Definition

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

So then, what is minimum competency? The Texas Legislature and Department of Public Safety think the TX CHL Shooting Test is minimum. Karl Rehn formulated the “3 Seconds or Less Drill” that’s based around the typical gunfight, and this test gets used in the various Defensive Pistol Level 1,2,3 classes at KR Training. I could be remembering this wrong, but I swore one of Tom Givens’ students only took Rangemaster’s Level 1 class and was able to successfully defend themselves. Claude Werner seems to come up with different statistical analyses of gunfight realities, and one could argue it’s mostly (only?) important to have a gun and draw it.

Defining “minimum competency for defensive pistol” is hard.

However, just because it’s hard doesn’t mean we should avoid doing it.

I think before we can answer the question, it’s important to define and frame the problem. If we’re going to define minimum competency for a self-defense situation, then we need to first know what is a self-defense situation. We’re not hunting. We’re military nor police (tho it’s possible there’s some overlap). We’re talking about private citizens going about their daily lives, but having to deal with robbery, assault, burglary, rape, etc. and refusing to be a victim of such crimes.

Tom Givens has examined incidents of FBI and DEA agents, along with the 60+ student incidents he’s had. What are the common threads?

  • Distance between victim and assailant? up to about a car length. But exceptions can occur (e.g. out to 25 yards)
  • You’re in plain clothes, gun is concealed, you need fast access.
  • Occur in public areas such as parking lots, shopping malls. Home is rare.
  • Shots fired? 3-5, on average
  • Multiple assailants are not uncommon

What Tom’s data concludes is that a typical private citizen “incident” is:

  • armed robbery in some form
  • 1-2 assailants highly likely
  • 3-7 yards
  • limited response time
  • “3 shots, 3 steps/yards, 3 seconds”

I know I lean on Givens’ teaching and data a good deal, but Tom’s a top-notch researcher. Certainly to an extent he’s biased, but what Tom is biased towards isn’t necessarily “pro gun, rah rah rah”. Rather he has a bias towards helping people stay alive in the face of a violent world (like Memphis, TN), and to do so you better have a solid, methodical approach towards finding the Truth and what really works; anything else will get people killed. So I consider Tom’s research serious and genuine. Besides, you don’t have to take his word for it: the data is out there, so you can see for yourself.

Another way to look at it? It’s the ability to get:

  • multiple hits
  • in a small area
  • from “close” range
  • quickly

Unfortunately, if you just say that, everyone’s going to define it their own way. So we need to have clear definitions and create standards based upon the clear definition.

Next, we’ll start to formulate a definition. In doing so, we’ll come to see how the acceptable minimum is higher than you think.

(This post is part of a multi-part series. For now, you can find other published parts of the series by looking at the “minimum competency” tag or category).

Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol – An Introduction

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

Minimum Competency.

Minimum – the least or smallest amount or quantity possible, attainable, or required.

Competency – the ability to do something successfully or efficiently.

When it comes to the use of a pistol for self-defense, minimum competency would be the least amount of skill and ability needed in order to use that gun to successfully defend yourself.

What would that be?

I got to thinking about it. I see people at gun ranges that blaze away at a target 3 yards in front of them, and they are barely hitting paper. I see people slow plinking, taking one slowly and carefully aimed shot, checking their target, taking their time to set up again for another shot, repeat. I see videos of people attending “tactical band camp” training, throwing lots of lead, but are they hitting anything? are they doing anything effective? I see people passing their Texas CHL shooting test, and their B-27 target looks like it was peppered by a shotgun blast. I see people who are really good at shooting competitions, but struggle with defensive concepts.

Will this cut it? Is this enough true skill and knowledge to survive and win? Or is it a false sense? Sometimes in life it doesn’t matter if our assessment of our competency is different from the reality. But in a case like this, when your life is what’s at stake, you need to be soberingly aware of your skill and ability.

As friend and fellow KR Training Assistant Instructor Tom Hogel likes to say, “you don’t know what you don’t know”. If you don’t know what it takes, if you don’t know what you can and cannot do, well… what’s that going to get you? So, I started to think about what a minimum set of drills would be to try to illustrate this concept to folks. That is, if you shot these drills and could not do them cleanly on-demand, then you don’t have the minimum competency. That someone who thinks “I’ve got what it takes”, you give them this drill(s), have them shoot it right then and there, and if they cannot do it no they don’t have what they think they have.

This isn’t to say once you can do these drills then you are done and can rest here; no, because this is minimum. Karl Rehn likes to point out something he learned from Paul Ford (former Austin Police SWAT member). Paul pointed out that in a gunfight you will do about 70% of your worst day at the range. Think about that: take your worst day (under the ideal circumstances of the range), and now make it a lot worse, and that’s how you’ll do. If this is how it goes, how good do you think you really need to be so when the flag flies and your skills degrade to being “worse than your worst”, then that level is still high enough to get you through? So, you must train well beyond these minimums.

But that said, if you cannot perform to the minimum, the sooner you can know that the better. The sooner you can work to remedy it.

Hasn’t this already been defined? Well, maybe. Take a look at this extensive collection of handgun standards. If we have so many standards, do we really have *a* standard? Well, we do have to consider these standards are likely within a particular context, e.g. qualifying for police, carry permits, etc.. Furthermore, every trainer out there wants to have their own set of standards and performance assessment, but are their standards truly testing something? are they well thought out towards achieving a particular end? or did they just string together a bunch of stuff so they could slap their name on a drill? And is there really a “standard” or “drill” that is trying to answer the question I’m asking?

Ultimately, my motivation is trying to bring some cold truth to folks. I speak to people all the time that passed the Texas CHL shooting test, maybe even got a perfect score. They are quite proud of their accomplishment, and consider that the end – that they have passed the CHL test, they know all they need to know, that they are as proficient as they need to be, and will be able to handle themselves should they ever need it. I speak with people who grew up around guns, learned to shoot in the back pasture, but it’s evident from watching them they really couldn’t shoot their way out of a paper bag much less deal with a response to being assaulted. I’m no expert, but I’ve learned enough to know that I don’t know. Furthermore, I know it’s better to have your bubble burst when it doesn’t matter, than to see your world fall apart when everything is on the line. If I’m in the business of helping people protect themselves and their loved ones, I’d like to see what I could do to come up with a simple way to help people assess if they truly have the minimal skills or not.

The next some postings will be a short journey to examine this question: what is the minimum competency required for defensive pistol use?

(This post is part of a multi-part series. For now, you can find other published parts of the series by looking at the “minimum competency” tag or category).

AAR KR Training 2013-06-22 – Defensive Pistol Skills 1

/ hsoi

Defensive Pistol Skills 1 @ KR Training is about the most difficult and intensive course. Why? Because it represents a big paradigm shift.

Most people come to class with an understanding of how to stand on a square range, in a lane, in a stall, and punch holes in paper at a leisurely pace. The vast majority of students also come with a TX CHL, but the shooting test there isn’t much more than the same “plinking” (more or less). DPS1 introduces concepts like drawing from a holster, from concealment, moving, and having to shoot fast — and accurately — under pressure. It’s a big shift, a lot of information, and an eye opener to folks.

That said, this past sold-out class was a pretty good one. A lot of eager students. Again, a lot of couples in this class too, both husband-wife and father-son types of things. Very good stuff.

Instead of talking about the class, I want to talk TO the class. That is, if you were in this class, here’s some things I want you to take home in addition to whatever you personally took from the class.

Gear Matters

Yes, ultimately it’s the person operating the gun and not the gun, but the right gun and accessory gear makes a big difference. If nothing else, the wrong gear is certainly going to hinder you.

Most students had good holsters, but y’all could use some improvement on belts. Gun belts are wider, thicker, more sturdy. Remember what we said about getting the initial grip on the gun in the drawstroke? A good belt is going to support you against that initial grip. As well, all the weight on your belt from the gun itself to the spare mag pouches on the opposite side? that belt is going to support and distribute that weight better. There are lots of good belt makers out there. I’ve got some leather belts from TheBeltMan, but these days I’ve been wearing a “The Wilderness Original Instructor Belt“. While I really don’t find nylon and velcro all that fashionable, I cannot deny the practicality of the belt, especially since I can get precisely the fit and tightness I need since it’s “infinitely adjustable” vs. 1″ spaced holes.

And guns? Your small guns suck. Sorry to be blunt. Small guns have their place, but most people don’t need small guns. You think you need a small gun for concealed carry — I sure did (Karl cured me of that). But most people do not need a small gun. And even people that might have gun fit issues can likely still get a gun that’s larger than they think. You’ll be able to shoot it better, manipulate it better, and so on.

We had numerous people shooting 1911-style guns. It was complicated. Lots of dohickies to work. The smaller 1911’s were tough to get your hands on to manipulate. Everyone had trouble locking the slide open because they just couldn’t reach the slide stop lever (gotta flip/twist the gun in your hand). All sorts of issues. Switched folks to one of the various polymer-framed guns (Glock, XD, M&P) and all their problems went away. Simple point-and-click interface. Better fit. Larger size. All good things.

Don’t think the gun will make you an expert shooter, but do realize the wrong gear will make you a poorer shooter. Don’t be married to your gear. This is an excuse to go shopping. This is an excuse to buy another gun. Why are you complaining? 😉

Unacceptable Hits

In a fight, yes speed matters, but accuracy matters more.

Yes, we worked to make the point that in the 0-5 yard range you don’t need a perfect sight picture, but you at least need to get the front sight in the target area. You cannot blaze away. You cannot shoot faster than you can see, nor faster than you can get acceptable hits.

You must get acceptable hits.

You cannot get unacceptable hits.

Read this. Yes… go read it now. Burn the phrase “unacceptable hits” into your mind. Work to only get acceptable hits.

How to do that?

How to get acceptable hits?

Well, while everyone passed the “3 Seconds or Less” test, it was passing for DPS1. Just about everyone in class will need more work to pass the same test at the DPS3 level (tighter scoring area, higher minimum score). The biggest thing is getting those acceptable hits. Just about everyone can get the speed, but what you need is the accuracy.

Regarding speed, you don’t need to go any faster. You need to use your time more efficiently.

When you hear the timer’s start beep, MOVE! Move quickly and get the gun out of the holster quickly. This is not time to mosey. If you have a 3 second par time and use 2.5 of it to get out of the holster, you don’t have much time left to shoot. What also happens is you mentally realize you’ve wasted all your time, so you then rush the shot and everything goes to shit and you blow the shot. Instead, get the gun out of the holster quickly. If you move and get things out in say 1.5 seconds, now you have 1.5 seconds to make the shot — which is more than enough time, and you will know it, and you won’t rush, and you can make the shot. Clear leather/kydex quickly.

But once you get the gun quickly out of the holster, you must change gears and slow down. Throwing the gun out there isn’t going to help you. Your eyes need to find that front sight. This is why the 4-count drawstroke needs to move in an L-shape, up the body, out from the body; not bowling, not fishing. While yes, to go from point A at your hip to point C at extension is shorter distance, it’s visually slower since your eye still needs to find the front sight. If instead you pass through point B at your chin/neck/upper-chest, that whole press-out from B to C lets your eyes have time to find the front sight. And as soon as they pick it up and have enough sight picture, you can fire (even if not at full arm extension). So there’s much speed gained here not from moving fast, but from moving efficiently.

This efficiency comes because things are happening in parallel instead of serially. Another example of that is pressing the trigger in as you press the gun out. For the sake of discussion, if it takes you 1 second to press the gun out and 1 second to press the trigger in, do this serially and you’ve taken 2 seconds to make the shot. If instead you do this in parallel (simultaneously) it’s now taken you 1 second to make the shot — and you didn’t move any faster. In fact, you could actually move a hair slower and still make the shot in less overall time!

Remember what I said above about how DPS1 is a big paradigm shift? This effort to do things simultaneously is probably the biggest and most difficult paradigm shift  for people to make. But work on this. Going faster doesn’t necessarily mean going faster.

(Read this one too)

Dry Practice

To get this way, you don’t have to throw lead. You can and should dry practice.

Use a timer.

Relax.

Breathe.

Work on the skills you need to improve. Everything we did in class? Do it dry. The drills, the strings, the skills, just work on them dry.

With a timer.

And be patient. Improvement will come with time and practice.

Other

Drink water.

Wear sunscreen.

Start eating better and hydrating yourself a few days before class. It takes time to build things up in your system. You want to do well and stay focused in class, and with the Texas summer setting in and temps getting up near 100 degrees now, you need to be prepared and take care of yourself.

 

 

A response to “An Analysis of Gun Violence in Austin 2010 – 2012”

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

The [Austin] City Council passed Resolution 20130228-035 based on concerns about gun violence. The resolution language includes direction to the City Manager to explore methods for collecting data about the use of firearms in the commission of a crime.

In response, the Austin Police Department has compiled data into a report about trends in gun violence. That report is attached for your review. Based on nationwide statistics collected by the FBI, Austin remains one of the safest U.S. cities of our size. This fact is reflected in the comparatively small number of crimes that involve a firearm.

H. A. ACEVEDO
Chief of Police

The full report is here.

Austin’s Mayor and City Council are notoriously anti-gun. It doesn’t matter what reason and facts show, they just hate guns (made evident by their past actions both in and out of the council chambers). So they passed a Resolution about “gun violence”, tax dollars were spent, and the findings have been posted.

Basically, it shows that gun violence isn’t much of a problem in Austin.

Let’s see if their own findings will affect their future actions, or if they’ll ignore it and keep riding that horse.

That said, let’s look at some things:

The report disclaims and caveats the data. How different reports run at different times can get different results. That there are numerous cases in APD’s records system that include no weapon data at all. The way various guns are labeled causes a problem (to call a gun “automatic” is problematic, because a lot of older folks refer to semi-automatic guns as “automatics” or “auto-loaders”, but a lot of other people see the term “automatic” and think “fully-automatic”… this is both a statistics and a perception/reporting problem). So, it’s really hard to be certain of the integrity of this data. I’m sure bother sides of the debate will use this fact as a way to discount the study’s data and press on with their agenda.

Regardless, let’s look at the data provided.

The study looked at part 1 violent offenses (murder, attempted murder (aggravated assault), robbery, rape) and disorderly conduct.

Less than 1/4 of these offenses used guns.

Right there’s the money: guns are used in less than 25% of the offenses. That means 75% of the offenses used something else. I know news media and politicians like to make it out like it’s some major catastrophe, but the data isn’t there to back up the hysterics. Oh sure, it would be nice if the number of part 1 violent offenses was 0 (gun or no gun). But the point is, they want to see if “gun violence” is a problem, and it seems the far greater problem is “not-gun violence”.

Handguns are the most commonly used firearm type. Yet, “they” want to ban rifles. I’m not saying they should ban handguns (or rifles or much of anything). But if thinking a ban on X would reduce or eliminate a problem (perceived to be caused by X), shouldn’t you actually ban X instead of Y? and leave Y alone?

There’s a lot of aggravated assault in Austin. You have to remember, that used to be called “attempted murder”. All this means is someone tried to kill you, but didn’t succeed. But you may be injured, maimed, crippled for life. Don’t think it’s something “more friendly” or “more desirable” as far as crimes go. So I don’t know what that says about Austin… that there’s a lot of attempts to kill people, but they don’t succeed. Maybe it’s because the overwhelming majority of them don’t involve a gun? They involve something else… so why don’t we address why assaults are occurring, instead of looking at an object used in the commission of them? Maybe… just maybe… it’s not about guns.

Another fun take-home are the maps showing where most crimes happen. East of I-35; along the I-35 corridor between 71 and the river (esp. the Riverside area), and again around the 183 intersection (esp. the “northwest” quadrant). Read: avoid these places.

All in all, the report is pretty straightforward. It’s mostly a presentation of data, and opinion doesn’t really come until the end conclusions.

First, Austin remains one of the safest cities, if you measure “safe” by “number of violent crimes”. Not an unreasonable measure, but 1. there’s still more than many people would consider acceptable, 2. what about all the other crimes? property crime, burglary, etc. are pretty high.

Crime incidents involving the use of a firearm remain relatively low for the City. As a result, the limited data makes it challenging to formulate effective preventative measures.

Indeeed there’s not a lot of data. They looked at 3 years of data and with “so few murders”, it certainly is hard to formulate a plan.

But maybe that’s just it: maybe there doesn’t need to be a plan.

First, the summary statement above is loaded, because the wording shows they want to formulate effective preventative measures against crimes involving guns. They don’t want to formulate effective preventative measures against crime… no, it’s against guns. But the data shows that there’s just not as much involvement of guns in crimes as the City Council was hoping for, so there’s not much for them to do and go on. Darn the luck, but we’ll keep selectively researching until we get data that backs up our agenda!

Here’s a tip. What the data does show is there’s still a lot of violent crime in Austin. Focus less on the tools used in the crime, and focus more on the crime itself. I don’t see why it matters so much if someone tried to kill me with a knife vs. a gun vs. a car vs. poison vs. their bare  hands. Isn’t it enough they tried to kill me? Why don’t we focus on the whole “not killing me” part? Why are we so hung up on HOW people were killed? This isn’t a game of Clue. Instead of being so discriminatory towards certain traits about people, let’s focus on the root issues to really solve the problems.

 

KR Training May/June 2013 Newsletter

/ hsoi

The KR Training May/June 2013 Newsletter is out.

All the usual good stuff, but two things stood out to me (that I hadn’t seen prior to the newsletter).

1. Howard Nemerov looks at the mystery of the missing crime data.

2. Austin Police Department releases data on gun violence in Austin.

Firearm Violence, 1993-2011

/ hsoi

The Bureau of Justice Statistics collects and publishes all manner of criminal data. Of course it lags a little bit because you have to wait for the year to end, then allow time for data collation. Nevertheless, there is no bias, no agenda, just pure data from the .gov.

And we can trust the .gov, right?

In May 2013, they published their Firearm Violence, 1993-2011 report.

Let’s look at some of this data.

Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.

Of course, if you listen to the “news,” you’d think it was at an all-time high.

About 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun from 1993 to 2011.

So why then do they want to ban rifles? Something doesn’t add up.

From 1993 to 2010, males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide.

What’s going on with these populations that cause them to have the highest rates? Maybe we should examine some deeper social issues?

In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, less than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show and 40% obtained their firearm from an illegal source.

So if they didn’t follow the laws we have now, how will bans, background checks, and other regulations and limits stop anything? Perhaps we need to look for real answers, not knee-jerk reactions, not solutions that don’t stop crime but do stop good, law-abiding citizens?

In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 10% purchased it from a retail store or pawnshop, 37% obtained it from family or friends, and another 40% obtained it from an illegal source (table 14). This was similar to the percentage distribution in 1997.

Further data on the above. So they talk about the evils of the gun shows and make them out like a Wal-Mart for criminals, yet gun shows are barely a statistical blip. Most are getting them off the street, through theft, drug deals, or obtaining from people they know. So they’re already committing an illegal act to obtain their guns. How will making it more illegal do anything? They aren’t regarding the current laws.

Persons living in urban areas had the highest rates of nonfatal firearm violence

Basically that means they stuck a gun in your face, you gave them your money, and they left without killing you (still maybe harming, maiming for life, but you lived). This also means that if you live in the city, you’ve got more chance of being the victim of a violent crime than if you live in a rural area.

In 2011, higher rates of nonfatal violence occurred in areas with a population of more than 250,000 residents than in areas with a population under 250,000

That further backs up the above: live in a big city? greater chance of being victim of a violent crime, than if you live in a small town.

In 2007-11, the majority of nonfatal firearm violence occurred in or around the victim’s home (42%) or in an open area, on the street, or while on public transportation (23%) (table 7). Less than 1% of all nonfatal firearm violence occurred in schools.

Actually the summary is a little deceiving and you need to look at the table itself. The upshot? Yes, violence can and does happen in the home. But the majority of violent encounters happen outside the home: open area, street, public transportation, parking lot or garage, or near your home (but not in it). The implication? As Tom Givens like to say, “Carry your damn gun, people.” People seem to have no problem preparing for a home break-in’, or want to carry a gun in their car. But when the data shows that most violent crime happens in not-these-places, what are you doing to be prepared for those violent encounters?

As well, firearm violence in schools? It’s marginal. It might grab the most headlines, but that’s the only thing it has a lot of.

Anyways, you can read the report for yourself.

Yes, the report also contains some things that “pro-gun” folks might not want to tout. For instance:

For both fatal and nonfatal firearm victimizations, the majority of the decline occurred during the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002

That somewhat coincides with the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (through 2004). So did that ban work? Hard to say, but I would think it had no effect because if the vast majority of crimes were committed by handguns (which really weren’t the target of the ban, and if you look at the firearms used in crimes again it doesn’t mesh with those firearms targeted by the AWB). Then from about 2002 to 2011, numbers have remained about the same.

Really, what a lot of this says to me? The common tactics of addressing “gun violence” are not addressing gun violence at all. They might be trying to address the symptoms, but they are not addressing the root causes. It’s like taking a cough drop: sure you stop coughing, but you’re still sick.  It’s evident the common tactics of bans, restrictions, checks, etc. are ineffective because those things have been in place and are still in place, but yet they make no impact towards the end of “reducing/eliminating gun violence”.  So why are you continuing to seek solutions in answers that have been proven ineffective? Or do you not understand the definition of insanity?

Or maybe you use “stopping violence” as a front, and your goals are more nefarious.

But let’s assume you mean well and truly want to stop violence. If so, you need to stop taking cough drops and get some proper rest. You need to work at the root causes. Again, why are young black males the overwhelming majority of perpetrators? What is going on to bring that about? What’s different in the Hispanic populations that has brought about the largest drop in that group? Maybe we should be looking at deeper social issues, economic issues, etc. to see what’s causing people to turn to guns and violence as the way to proceed in life.

I know it won’t give instant results, nor easy answers. In fact, it may be rather a tough pill to swallow because it might not be very politically correct. But if you want real solutions, you’ll face the Ugly Truth and work to make things truly better… else, things will only get worse.