Guns

OK, I have to explain it

/ hsoi / 12 Comments

The ignorance of Joe Biden is gnawing at me. I shall explain his malfunction.

“Kate.

If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barreled shotgun. Have the shells, the 12 gauge shotgun, and I promise you, as I’ve told my wife… we live in an area that’s wooded and somewhat secluded… I said Jill, if there’s ever a problem, walk out on the balcony here, walk out… put that double-barreled shotgun… and fire two blasts outside the house.

I promise you, whoever is coming in is not….

You don’t need an AR-15.

It’s harder to aim.

It’s harder to use.

And in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself.

Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.

That’s the gist of what Mr. Biden said. He was speaking off the top of his head, so obviously he cut off some of his words as he worked to get all his thoughts out. No issues with that, I do understand how that goes.

So what’s the problem here? Where to begin.

His first major recommendation is to fire the shotgun into the air. I suppose “warning shots”. It comes off like he’s saying if you make the noise, that will scare them away. Bluff. I’m not really sure how well that works. Oh sure, some people may well get scared away by it, but a determined attacker will call your bluff. You’ve given away your position. And really… if “shooting into the air” was such a good tactic, why don’t the police do it? Why doesn’t our military do it? Why doesn’t the Secret Service do that?

Of course, if we’re only to have a double-barrelled shotgun and are to just shoot those 2 blasts, now they know you’re empty. That’s not a good position to be in, especially if they call your bluff.

Mr. Biden is very confident he knows how YOUR self-defense situation will play out. He knows exactly how much ammo you actually will need. He knows exactly how many attackers you will have. He knows exactly what tactics and defensive approaches will work. It’s great that he knows so much! But alas, most of us aren’t able to see into the future as he seems able to do. So if we cannot know what will come, isn’t it in our best interest to be as prepared as possible? But you know… Mr. Biden promises that 2 shots into the air is all you need and that will stop ’em. I’d like to see his Secret Service agents do the same… that’ll stop ’em, right?

An AR-15 is harder to aim? No it’s not. In fact, I’d say an AR-15 tends to be easier to aim, because of things like collapsible stocks that allow the gun to be better adjusted to fit the shooter. Most double-barreled shotguns are big and long, not very well suited for someone even the size of Mrs. Biden, nor very easily adjustable. But an AR-15? Very much so.

Harder to use? No, not really. Point-and-click interface.

Besides… have you ever compared the recoil of a 12-gauge shotgun vs. a .223 Remington AR-15? The 12-gauge will knock your shoulder out. The AR’s recoil is almost negligible. My wife will be very happy if she never shoots a 12-gauge again in her life; or even a 20-gauge. But an AR? She’ll shoot that all day. The gun fits her better, she can hold it better, she can adjust it to work for her better, the recoil is manageable… it’s frankly a lot easier to shoot.

And if you don’t believe me, well… I’ll be more than happy to take anyone to the range to shoot a 12-gauge and an AR-15 side-by-side. Proof is in the pudding.

Updated: I was in a hurry to get out the door last night and forgot to mention a few things.

Firing “warning shots” is reckless.  Do you know where those bullets or pellets will come down? Is “up in the air” a safe direction, because what goes up does come back down… or there could be something along the trajectory there. Let us remind the Vice President of the gun safety rules, or is it OK to ignore these “common sense rules”?

As well, “warning shots” can still be construed as use of deadly force. Depending upon your local laws, you might still wind up in a lot of legal trouble… just for “bluffing”.

Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool…

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

… than to be Joe Biden and remove all doubt.

He has no idea what he’s talking about. He does not have the credentials to speak with any authority on this matter. His motivations are 100% political, and have nothing to do with personal safety.

And if you don’t understand why every thing out of his mouth is not just wrong but also dangerous, reckless, will get you in deep legal trouble, and illegal in most parts of the country, well… swallow your pride, admit your ignorance, and drop me a line. I’ll be happy to help.

 

Leveling the playing field

/ hsoi / 5 Comments

Now, 15 years later, virtually all law enforcement agencies and officers are either issued AR-15 style rifles, or have them accessible. But, that is the police. In the context of self defense, why do armed citizens need AR-15 style weapons? Because, the armed citizen faces the VERY SAME criminals that police face. The only difference is that police, because they are more often called TO the incident, face these criminals more regularly. Understand, though, criminals do not prey on police, but instead, they victimize the public.

If the armed citizen wants to have a fighting chance against criminals who are armed with high capacity rifles and pistols, they also need effective weaponry. Just like the police did back in the 1990s and today.

Marty Hayes, President of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, responds to “why anyone would need one of those”.

In reading Marty’s response, it made one thing clear: it’s about “leveling the playing field”.

I’ve often said that a firearm is a force equalizer. A petite woman vs. a 300# beast of a man? Force disparity. Old man vs. young thug? Force disparity? Fit able-bodied person vs. small gang? Force disparity. So much of self-defense is about overcoming that disparity. I mean, when some martial art talks about how it’s techniques allow that weak tiny woman to overcome and cripple a 300# man, the underlying message is that martial art allows you to overcome force disparity, and thus it’s a good thing. Rape prevention techniques talk about using tasers, pepper spray, walking in groups – all means of overcoming force disparity. It’s all about reducing the disparity, or better, becoming the one with the force advantage so perhaps no one will mess with you in the first place. However, the reality is while these measures are all useful and do overcome force disparity, a firearm is a better tool for overcoming force disparity. It’s like any technological advancement; it’s why we blog and tweet and email, and why the US Postal Service is shriveling up.

We seem to put great stock in “leveling the playing field”. Why do we drug test in sports? Because we don’t want someone to gain “unfair advantage”. Why is there large political movement to change this country’s legal and economic structure? To stop few people from gaining unfair advantage and control over the rest of us. We want the field level, or whether people want to admit it or not, if the field is going to be tilted they want it tilted in their favor. So why should self-defense be any different? Why should we put ourselves at a disadvantage or force others to be at a disadvantage? That’s akin to telling the petite woman to not fight back against her rapist. To use force of law to deny her effective tools? That’s akin to tying her hands behind her back. Doesn’t it sound stupid to suggest “Hey ladies, the most effective way to keep from being raped is to lie there and take it! Just give him what he wants!”? So why do you suggest solutions that effectively create this situation?

There are numerous reasons why someone would “need one of those”, be it an AR-15, a modern semi-automatic firearm (rifle or pistol or shotgun), a firearm that could hold more bullets than you deem to be “necessary”. Fundamentally it comes down to overcoming force disparity and ensuring that “level playing field”. It’s about allowing the weak to stand strong. And yes, YOU are weak. There is always someone stronger than you: physically, mentally, economically, politically. And if not today, tomorrow you may be weaker (if nothing else, someday you will be old and frail). Are you willing to resign yourself and your fellow man to being crushed? Or would you prefer to stand strong?

First LaRue, now Olympic

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

First LaRue Tactical says what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Now Olympic Arms follows suit, and does one better.

And they’re pretty much right:

This action has caused a division of the people into classes: Those the government deems valuable enough to protect with modern firearms, and those whose lives have been deemed as having less value, and whom the government has decided do not deserve the right to protect themselves with the same firearms. Olympic Arms will not support such behavior or policy against any citizen of this great nation.

And I agree with their final statement:

Olympic Arms invites all firearms manufacturers, distributors and firearms dealers to join us in this action to refuse to do business with the State of New York. We must stand together, or we shall surely fall divided.

So come on industry people. You got the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show cancelled . Imagine if no firearms company wanted to do business with the State of New York (or California, given bills currently in their legislature… or Colorado, just ask Magpul). What would it be like? The police would be without firearms, without ammunition, without duty gear, without anything. Should they reap what they sow?

Commitments and Priorities

/ hsoi

I saw the above image posted to the DangerouslyHardcore Facebook page. In case the image goes away it says:

Commitment means staying loyal to what you said you were going to do long after the mood you said it in has left you.

Very true.

I’ve had a bunch of things rolling in my head for a while, and seeing the above image/text along with something that happened in Wife’s life a few days ago… it changed my priorities regarding my commitments.

I had committed to being more involved in shooting competitions, like IDPA. That’s going down the priority ladder.

I had committed to working on a new iPhone app. This commitment was made some time ago, work started, but has been treading water for too many months. This is going up the priority ladder.

I only have so much time and energy. The app went down the ladder because after staring at the computer all day and busting my ass all week for the day job, I just didn’t have the desire to look at the computer any more. I was (am) drained. Other things went up the priority ladder because they were not-computer things. They gave me something else to do, something else to occupy my mind and energy. Plus they were things that needed attention.

Well… the lack of app commitment also strikes a little closer because this particular app project is very personal. It’s something I’m doing with Wife, and it means a lot to her. That I haven’t been able to give it the attention it’s due is not right, and I feel horrible. It’d be one thing to not honor the commitment to myself, or to anyone else. But to not honor this commitment to my wife? That’s not right, and that hurts me deeply. It wasn’t not honored out of malice or anything bad, just exhaustion. I need to do something about it.

And in some regard, the mood for the app has left me. It’s mostly because I’ve been away, had too many false restarts, and it’s just hard to get motivated yet yet yet again. But I know once I truly get back into it, I’ll roll along alright. I need to rediscover my commitment, and see it through.

So, since much of my “free time” is on the weekends, that means I need to spend it working on this app.

That means shooting matches is out, for now. I don’t expect the app will take me all year to do, so I reckon later this year I should be able to make it out to matches. As well, so long as I keep dry firing at home and regularly shooting, like when I go out to KRT to teach, that’s alright. I mean, if I can run through a few magazines, run a few drills, assess state of things, then go home and dry fire to bring up the skill, then go back and shoot to measure progress, really, that’s OK. That will hold me for now. That I’m just shooting live at least once a month is well, about what shooting competition would be. Granted, there isn’t any of the pressure or environment, but this is the trade-off for now while I live up to my more important commitment. I just have to keep up with dry fire and ensuring I put at least a mag or two through the gun (for myself, with purpose) when I go out to teach.

I’m not abandoning my commitment to shooting competition, just changing course a bit. I have to, because Wife is more important. 🙂  And hopefully it brings other commitments back, like more regular dry fire and practice.

I can only look at this as a good thing, as long as I remain committed. 🙂

Shooting practice

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

When I went out to KR Training this past Saturday for teaching, I made sure to go out extra early. Had to get things set up and prepped for classes, and I knew if I timed it right I’d give myself a fair chunk of time to do some of my own shooting practice.

After my last live-fire practice, my big decision was: slow down. My general guide is to be accurate first, fast second. This I know, have known, and is always the case, but the pressure of the line always winds up being on going faster and not being the last guy to shoot. It’s just how you get swept up in things. I’m making the conscious effort to not do that. And so when I shoot, slow down.

So to that end, I thought a good cold diagnostic would be shoot “the Farnam Drill”, at least, as I understood it to be. I’ve read so many variations on it, so here’s what I did:

  • IDPA target, only shots in the ‘-0’ zone count. (I’ve read some that say 8.5″x11″ piece of paper)
  • 7-8 yards. I just paced it off and that’s about where I was. (I’ve read 7 yards, 10 yards, 8 meters)
  • 1 round in the chamber (most agree on this)
  • load magazine with 5 live and 1 dummy round (randomly). (I’ve read some with 4 live rounds; I’ve read some that get specific about where the dummy should be, i.e. not on top, not on bottom; I say let it be wherever because you never know where a failure might be, and if you look at the magazine before you seat it well… you’re just cheating yourself.)
  • spare mag with at least 3 live rounds in it
  • shot timer

then on the buzzer:

  • drawing from concealment (I’ve seen some that don’t specify concealment/retention)
  • shoot until you hit the dummy round
  • clear the malfunction (tap, rack, bang)
  • keep shooting until the magazine is empty (slide lock)
  • reload (generally a slide lock “speed” reload, i.e. no retention of the mag)
  • shoot 3 more (I’ve seen some say to only shoot 2 more, so then the 3rd becomes the setup for running the drill again)

I also make sure to move at every non-shooting portion. Draw? move. Clear malfunction? move. Reload? move. It’s just a large side-step, but it’s still moving while doing “not-shooting” actions. Most write-ups I’ve seen of the drill do not discuss movement one way or the other.

Performance? Well, I’ve seen various numbers as well for what performance should be. I’ve seen students should be able to shoot it in 18.25 seconds. I’ve seen that students should be able to do it in 15 seconds. I’ve seen it said that instructors should be able to do it in 12 seconds. But then, how much of a standard can this be with so much variation in procedure? I mean, if you load the mag with 4 live rounds and shoot 2 after the reload vs. 5 live and 3 after, those additional 2 rounds will consume more time. So…. well…. that’s why it’s just hard to compare this across the board. Regardless of minutia, it’s a great drill that incorporates a great many parts of defensive pistol shooting. It provides a good measure of ability and performance. While I cannot compare so much to others, I can at least compare to myself.

My first run, “cold from the car”, all I knew was I told myself to go slow. I had to clean it, timer be damned. Go too slow, be certain of every shot, and just ensure a clean run. That I did, and ran it in 12.63 seconds. It felt glacially slow to me.

I opted to run it again, speeding up a bit. 11.10 seconds.

Then I changed course. See, I was going to just run that drill twice to get a feel on things then move to other stuff. But I decided to keep running the drill over and over and from it take what I could regarding my speed vs. my accuracy. How fast could I push myself before things fell apart? So I kept running the drill over and over, pushing myself faster every time. A couple times I pushed myself to a level that I felt was certainly “too fast” and I really didn’t care if I did miss because the goal was to find the point of “too fast”. I shot it in 8.56, but with 4 holes just outside the ‘-0’ ring, that was obviously too fast. Interestingly, I did shoot it in 8.84 clean. When I thought about the two runs, what was different? What I saw… or rather, didn’t see. On the 8.84 run I may not have seen perfect “target shooting” sight pictures, but I saw enough and was clearly seeing enough, brain was processing “yeah, that’s good (enough)”. On the 8.56, my brain wasn’t as “there” as the other run; I recall my eyes were just taking in noise, and it was akin to just “blazing away” at the target. Was the speed of shooting really any different? I’m not sure; I wish I had looked at the shot-to-shot times because that would be more telling, because maybe I was blazing away, or maybe I had greater time differences during the reloads or some such? I didn’t look. *sigh*  But I did note that even on the 8.84 run I had fumbled a bit, but still got a decent time. I recall Tom Givens shooting this drill (or whatever his flavor of it was) in about 8.5 seconds, so hey… I can live with this.

Averaging out the strings, I generally shot it in about 10-ish seconds. I’ll analyze in a bit.

After doing this drill a bunch, I decided to do a basic thing from the IDPA Classifier: Mozambique. I stood at 7 yards and fired. All 3 rounds must be acceptable hits. Shot from concealment, par time of 3 seconds. This was not only to nod towards my desire that the first string of the IDPA Classifier is something I should be able to clean on demand, but it was also some time to work on my concealment draw.

Finally, I ran the 3 Seconds or Less drill. That’s another drill that I should be able to do, cold, on demand, and clean every time. Only ran it once, but did clean it.

Analysis

I must remember to forget the timer and focus on accuracy. Even if that means I’m last in the match, if I can show “no points down” I’ll be happy about that. If that means in classes I’m the last guy, fine, because I’ll have no tape on my target. Accuracy is my focus, even if I’m slower.

But on that token, I must keep pushing myself on speed because I have to know where my limit is, and if I’ve improved.

One thing certainly is what I see. Those two 8-second runs were quite different in terms of the visual information gathered and processed, and I have to remember what I saw, and didn’t see. And I’m probably due for a refresh from the Enos book.

The other is “other stuff”. My concealment draws were consistently around 1.7 seconds. Not bad, but certainly room for improvement. But that said, I’m not sure that’s the best place to focus my time. I don’t think it’s so much speed getting the gun out of the holster as it is on my presentation. It’ll go back to the visuals. I need to get on the trigger sooner, allowing the shot to break when I have a “good enough” sight picture. I know I’m waiting a little too long, for more visual feedback than I actually need. Just gotta get on it sooner and allow the shot to break when I have the good enough picture, not after I have it.

It’s even visuals with split times. I actually didn’t look at my splits, but I know I’m going slower than my eyes and brains need.

Plus, reloads. I got caught in my concealment garment too much or had other little fumbles.

But I think the biggest help is my mindset: accuracy is final.

Still, while keeping the mindset is appropriate, if there’s anything to specifically work on it’s “see what I need to see, and ONLY what I NEED to see”.

AAR – KR Training, 2 Feb 2013 – Basic Pistol 1, Basic Rifle 1

/ hsoi

More women want to learn how to shoot guns. Look at the growth of groups like A Girl & A Gun, the Sure Shots. NPR just did a story on it.

And in the two classes we held yesterday at KR Training, there’s no question about women’s growing interest in shooting. About half the folks in both classes were women.

I don’t know all their reasons, but it’s evident many come to overcome. It may be to overcome lack of knowledge about guns. It may be to overcome their fear of guns. It may be to overcome fear of the crazy ex. Some come because they accept their male partner nor society’s appointed protectors won’t and cannot always be around to protect them. Some come because it’s just a fun time to do something with their girlfriends. Whatever the reason, it’s great they come.

I support a woman’s right to chose. She can choose to remain ignorant, or choose to gain knowledge. She can choose to remain at the mercy of others, or choose to empower herself. She can choose to remain in fear, or choose to gain confidence. She can choose Glock or choose Smith & Wesson… just please, don’t choose Sig. 😉

And so, Basic Pistol 1 proceeded as it does, introducing folks to handguns, with a large emphasis on safety, and laying good foundations to build upon. It’s always a trip to watch people’s expressions after they shoot for the first time. You see some overcome their fears — especially evident when they look at you and eagerly ask “Can I shoot that again?” 🙂

Yes, guns can be scary, but it’s amazing how gaining even a little bit of truthful knowledge overcomes that fear.

Basic Rifle 1 is a brand new course. There’s a growing curiosity in rifles, but many don’t know how to jump into the pool. So we took the Basic Pistol curriculum and modified it for rifle, since at that level, a lot of the structure remains the same. Big emphasis on safety, fundamental shooting positions and skills, and then shooting a lot of rifles. One difference was instead of being more “brand-focused” like Basic Pistol 1 is, there’s such a wider variety of options with rifles be it brands, models, actions, calibers, purposes, that instead we focused on action types. What’s a pump? what’s a semi-auto? what’s a lever-action? what’s a bolt-action? What’s this “AR” thing and why is it so cool? Shoot a few of them, see how they work, roll from there.

BTW, there are some that think AR’s are too hard for women to use and “traditional rifles” are better. Hogwash and ignorance. You should have seen the ladies in this BR1 class.

For a first class, it went alright. John, Tom, and I spoke afterwards and we’ve got ideas on what to improve, what to refine. Always striving to be better.

Oh, where was Karl? He and Penny were helping with the NSSF’s Scholastic Pistol Program. I hope there will be a write-up of the event soon, because I spoke with Karl on the phone during my drive home. He told me about what went on and it sounded like a spectacular day. What sounds even better is hearing about the caliber (pun intended) of the kids involved in that program. Hard-working, dedicated, good sportsmanship, no drama, positive, happy… gives me hope for our future.

The weather was awesome, the people great. And I got to stop into Buc-Ee’s. Made for a great day. 🙂

Feeling safe vs. Being safe

/ hsoi

I could lay a strip of fabric across your shoulder while you drive a car. That might make you feel safe, since it would feel like a seat belt and look like a seat belt, but it wouldn’t actually make you safe because it’s not really a seat belt and will not work like one if the car crashed.

I could stamp the words “air bag” onto pieces of the car’s dashboard, but leave the space behind the dashboard empty. You’ll have an illusion of safety, but no real safety.

Seeing a fire extinguisher hanging on the wall is nice, but unless it’s the right type (e.g. ABC), full and functional (you did check the valve? you did inspect it at least yearly, right?) it won’t be much use when you need it.

I frequently see expressions of a “need to feel safe”. That this feeling trumps measures that actually provide true safety. I don’t understand this line of thinking because you’d rather have a measure that makes you feel safe but doesn’t actually make you safe, instead of a measure that actually would make you safe which would naturally also provide the feeling of safety (and the confidence of that knowledge). Both steps give you the feeling of safety, but only one actually makes you safe in the face of danger. Why choose the illusion over the reality?

This isn’t just about guns, so please don’t get hung up there. We could apply this to the TSA. We could apply this to “self defense” programs, including most martial arts. We can apply this to products in our homes. We can apply this to our homes and neighborhoods. We can apply this to laws and regulations. Really, it’s about a concept that can be applied throughout life. Step back and think about it. Be honest with yourself, and be willing to admit if you are holding on to an illusion. It’s good to follow dreams, but it can be unhealthy to cling to illusions.

 

Question for those who support banning guns

/ hsoi

I need some enlightenment. Friends, please help me for I do not understand.

I’m reading through Sen. Feinstein’s bill.

By name she explicitly bans the Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle. Later in the text, she exempts the Ruger Mini-14 (w/o folding stock) and the Ruger Mini-30.

Could you please explain to me the logic behind this? Truly, I am curious. I’d like to know how this qualifies as a “good law” founded in reason, facts, and logic. Is it not reasonable to expect our laws to be based upon such things? Is it unreasonable to want to know what those reasons, facts, and logic are? What Feinstein proposes here defies all logic and reason — towards the supposed goals of “stopping the mass murder of innocent children” — but if you know how such wording and logic achieves the goal, I would love to know.

And if you don’t understand what the problem is with the wording of her ban and exemptions, then I’d suggest taking an honest step back and admitting you don’t understand, that you are, well, ignorant about the topic. It’s not a bad thing to admit ignorance — but it is bad to willfully remain as such.

2A in 2013 – the Federal legal structure

/ hsoi

David B. Kopel, of the CATO Institute, takes a look at the Second Amendment in the scope of today’s political and legal environment.

While some will dismiss this out of hand because it’s Kopel and CATO, it presents a great deal of factual information about the federal legal structure that we presently operate within. It looks at the National Firearms Act of 1934. It looks at Executive Orders. It looks at magazine capacity restrictions. It talks about recent SCOTUS decisions. Given our current legal environment, what can be done? what can’t be done? What stands up to Constitutional scrutiny? This is a fair discussion, and I’m sure some of the things Kopel says will make pro-gun people cringe as much as other things he says will make anti-gun people cringe.

Kopel also makes a sound point about solutions that work now, that have immediate impact. Sure, maybe we can have greater solutions that may bring about greater change in time, but a solution that fixes things 5 years, 2 years, 2 months from now… is that too much time to let pass? too large a window of opportunity for the next madman spree? You may not agree with Kopel, but if you know anything about dealing with active shooter situations and how law-enforcement has changed their own procedures for dealing with active shooter situations then well… it’s tough to refute the present law enforcement tactics and the reasoning behind them. Thus, if you wish to offer up other solutions, that’s fine. If your solution is successful, how long will it take before it is? What do we do between now and then? Can you offer a solution that brings about immediate results, especially given the context law enforcement works within and why? It’s a fair point to consider when discussing solutions to this problem – the timeframe in which a solution will have the positive, desired impact.