self defense

Why not a TASER?

/ hsoi

I know people who desire some sort of tool to aid in their personal safety, but seek non-gun options. So the notion of a TASER comes up a lot.

Here’s a great summary from Kathy Jackson (posted to her Facebook page) on the use of TASER’s and other such tools.

A few days ago, someone asked me what I think about using Tasers instead of firearms for personal defense. My answer: It’s complicated.

1 – If I had access to a nice little Star Trek phaser that could be set to “stun” and would work without fail to drop attackers in their tracks with no possible negative consequences to either myself or the attacker, so the criminal justice system could grab them and choose the appropriate disposition for them with no risk to my own life, I’d hang up my defensive handgun and never carry it again. But that reliable, effective, no-consequences tool does *NOT* exist in this world. No matter what the ad copy says.

2 – Most “tasers” sold to ordinary people are *not* Tasers at all. They are simply low-power electric shockers that require physical contact. And no matter what the packaging says, most of them are about as powerful as the handheld buzzer your joker of a big brother used to use to make his buddies jump when they shook hands. Waste of money.

3 – A true Taser — which comes from the TASER International Inc. and costs about as much as a firearm — will in fact lock up the attacker’s muscles by blocking signals from the nerves back to the brain. Having one used on you feels about like a full-body muscle cramp. Not pleasant! Despite this, it’s *not* a pain compliance tool; it actually functions by blocking the nerve signals. That’s the upside.

The downside: You get exactly one shot, and it fires two projectiles at once at a relatively slow speed. Both probes have to hit. If they hit too close together (as they will if the attacker is too close to you) the signal isn’t blocked that well and the attacker will likely keep coming. If they spread too far apart (as they will if the attacker isn’t right on top of you), one of the probes may miss the attacker — which means you might as well have missed entirely.

Taser advertises that many of their products have a “drive stun” capability, meaning if you miss with one or both probes you can just shove the end of the Taser gun into the bad guy’s body and disrupt the nerve signal that way. This is painful for the attacker, but … it won’t get the same solid lock up and he can fight through that pain.

If you do hit him with both projectiles, the Taser will keep the electrical pulse going through the wires for a short while. The company suggests you leave the pulse going, drop the Taser product, and run away at this point while the attacker’s muscles are still locked up. Better hope you can run faster and farther than your attacker can follow in that amount of time, because as soon as the current shuts off, he’ll be able to follow you.

And finally, there’s this: because Tasers fire projectiles with wires attached, stuff like what happened in the news report below, can and does happen. That’s why law enforcement officers always have access to deadly force whenever a Taser may be deployed.

4 — Bottom line? A Taser can be a good tool for some situations, but it isn’t magic. The products can and have saved lives, mostly lives of law enforcement officers, or suspects being arrested. When LEOs use these things, most of them have backup officers on hand who can and will immediately use deadly force if the Taser fails to subdue the suspect. For us, who don’t have that kind of backup on hand, it’s more dicey.

Open Carry – this was bound to happen

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Chuck Rives shared this story about a man open carrying a handgun, and getting robbed.

Investigators said the 21-year-old victim bought a handgun earlier in the day and was openly carrying it while talking to his cousin.

They said a man approached them and asked for a cigarette. Talk eventually turned to the victim’s new purchase, before the robber pulled his own gun from his waistband and said, “I like your gun, give it to me,” according to police.

The victim handed over his gun and the suspect ran away.

There’s numerous things we can learn from this.

First, with the growth of open carry, this sort of thing is bound to happen.

Second, if you are going to open carry, it involves a lot more than just sticking a gun on your hip and thinking you are good to go. You need to greatly improve your awareness and mindset.

Third, someone approaching asking for a cigarette? A classic way for a mugger to make contact and breach your space, to get close, and then mug you. If I can use SouthNarc parlance, the victim here failed to Manage the Unknown Contact. It’s critical to understand such things and how to deal with it so you don’t wind up in trouble.

Fourth, why was the victim engaging in conversation with this random stranger in the first place? Fine the cigarette, but after saying “no”, that should be the end of it. Even if you HAVE a cigarette, and I totally understand the social implications to a fellow smoker (I was one, I know how it goes), don’t let someone encroach on your space. I know it seems wrong to be selfish, but look at what the consequences were for not doing so.

Fifth, I can’t say for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the victim was selected precisely because he was open carrying. And I would say it wasn’t purely because of O.C. but likely the victim also displayed other mannerisms and behavior that demonstrated to the mugger that he’d make good prey. There’s lots of study out there on victim selection, and chances are good the victim was selected because he demonstrated all the traits of being a good victim.

Which… isn’t something you can afford, if you’re advertising that you have things on your person that others might want and would be willing to take, be it a gun or an iPhone or whatever.

To me, this isn’t reason to say “open carry is bad” and “we should ban open carry”. No, I still think from a purely legal and legislative standpoint there’s no reason to deny/ban open carry. But it does provide illustration that you cannot blindly go about this process. That to open carry brings great responsibility, some risk, and you had better have your head on right and some education into the realities you could face, then prepare, practice, and carry yourself accordingly.

Lone Star Medics – now on YouTube

/ hsoi

Our friends at Lone Star Medics now have their own YouTube channel!

Check out the first video, where Caleb Causey talks about an every day carry (EDC) option for a med kit.

A couple years ago I was working with Caleb on trying to find a way to carry a tourniquet on-body. Caleb has long been partial to the ankle method in the video. That just won’t work for me, because the Texas summers are hot and I like to wear shorts. 🙂  I’ve been meaning for quite some time to write up my exploration of this effort. Stay tuned.

Facepalm

/ hsoi

One of the men lifted his shirt to display a handgun tucked into the waist of his pants, [Lt. James] Espinoza said. Moments later, five or six other men began beating up the 37-year-old coach. One of the men used a set of brass knuckles, Espinoza said.

(full story)

What would a reasonable person conclude?

A group of 6 or so men come up to you, with obvious ill intent (I’m sure they didn’t have smiles and rainbows on their faces, given the backstory). One flashes a gun at you. Then they start beating on you.

I would think any reasonable person would conclude the coach was in grave danger, that his life was at stake. If you wouldn’t reach this same conclusion, please tell me why.

Seeing the attack, the coach’s wife pulled out a gun and fired a warning shot into the air, Burris said.

The coach broke free of his attackers and went to his car for a second gun, which he pointed at various people in the crowd, Espinoza said.

I believe the wife’s response to be reasonable. I don’t think it was tactically sound nor safe (insert discussion of why it’s bad to shoot into the air, why warning shots are a bad idea, why it’s good to receive education in not just marksmanship but also threat management and legal implications of use of force, etc.), but generally speaking her response was reasonable. As well, I believe the coach’s response was reasonable as well. Again, I don’t think it was tactically sound (insert discussion of why it’s important to have gun on person and not stored far away, although in his case he may have had to do it for “youth coaching” reasons). Nevertheless, in the eyes of the law, the response by the man and woman are considered reasonable.

The coach who was involved in the clash and pulled out a gun after being attacked has been relieved of his coaching duties, [Jeremy Burris, director of the Tigers football program] said. His wife was also dismissed from involvement with the team.

“He’s been a great role model” for kids, Burris said of the coach, who has been with the Tigers for a few years and worked in the league for at least 15 years. “He’s really helped.”

Despite that background, Burris said, “you can’t take weapons out around children.”

Facepalm. Major facepalm.

Why can’t you take weapons out around children? Please, Mr. Burris, explain your statement.

“Nothing like this has ever happened in this organization,” said Burris, who said he has been affiliated with the Tigers for 20 years. “We pride ourselves on zero tolerance for anything that goes on.”

Ah, the beloved – and brain-dead – “zero tolerance” policy.

Was either the coach or his wife pointing their guns at the children? Were they threatening the children? Were they endangering the children?

Or have you considered that the coach was getting the living tar beat out of him? Have you considered what would have happened to this man if he and his wife did not take out a weapon around children? Maybe that “great role model” would be in the hospital, or dead. What good would that have done the world, to lose someone that’s contributed to the betterment of our youth for 15 years? Please explain how such a good man becoming crippled or dead would be a better thing.

Have you considered the message your action sends to those very youth?

That defending yourself is a good way to lose your job. Your choice is to lose your job or lose your life.

That hiding behind blind policy is an unthinking and cowardly thing to do. There is no consideration of the man’s years of service and demonstrated commitment. No, because this man was committed to continue living so he could continue to serve your community’s youth for another 15 years, that commitment deserves punishment.

If he’s “really helped”, why don’t you try to help him as a small return for all his years of service.

Is this what our society is coming to?

Challenging human predators

/ hsoi

Reading this, I think about KR Training’s Defensive Pistol Skills 1 class. That class teaches both presentations Claude mentions: challenge, and shoot. In light of the most recent DPS-1 class (the rains forcing us to do more dry fire and discuss dry fire), I think it’s important for people to realize that one’s dry fire practice shouldn’t just be about pistol fundamentals or other such hard-skills. But one’s dry fire practice, if you are practicing for the purpose of self-defense, should practice all such relevant skills, which includes things like yelling those challenges (e.g. “STOP! DON’T! MOVE!”).

tacticalprofessor's avatartacticalprofessor

Pointing guns at people you have no intention of shooting to force compliance with your demands is poor business.

–Ed Head in his article Pistol Provocation

I agree with this statement and feel it can be even further amplified from the perspective of training people how to Control a Confrontation. The statement can be, and has been, misconstrued by the inexperienced into “I believe that the first time any bad guy should know you are armed is when he sees the muzzle flash.” As a philosophy, reluctance to display a firearm without firing is a mistake. The majority of criminals are looking for a victimization not a fight. The display of a firearm by the intended victim, along with the obvious intent to use it if necessary, is an indicator that the victimization has the potential to turn into a fight. That’s not what economic predators are looking for.

Let’s…

View original post 405 more words

Police response slows, as Austin grows

/ hsoi

Austin is one of the fastest growing cities in the US. As more people move here, it puts greater strain on the limited resources of the city, and the city infrastructure just cannot keep up with the population growth. Consequently, police response times are increasing.

My friend Ed sent me this article:

On Friday evening, four of the 10 officers working in Northwest Austin responded to a top-priority call, meaning 40 percent of all that area’s officers were busy at the time. In that sector, Adam, records show it takes an average of nearly 7.5 minutes from the time someone calls 911 to the time police arrive for a top priority call.

Think about that. Not only is it taking 7.5 minutes to respond…

“If they’re calling up and there’s a burglary in their residence, seven minutes is an eternity,” said Commander Donald Baker.

…but almost half of the officers on duty are focused on a single incident.

In the Adam and Edward sectors, officers responded to nearly 93,000 calls in 2013. Each shift should have about 12 officers on patrol, but Baker said he’s not fully staffed and many times officers are off for vacation, sick time, military leave or training.

93,000 calls in 1 year. For the sake of discussion, let’s over-simplify some math. Let’s assume then there was 46,500 calls per sector. That then breaks down to just under 4000 calls per month, about 120 calls per day, about 5 calls per hour, 1 call every 12 minutes. And 60% of those 12 minutes are taken up in merely responding. But of course, when police arrive on the scene, they aren’t going to be there for a mere 5 minutes. And when nearly half of the officers on duty are responding to a single event, and when they can’t even be fully staffed during a shift, when a response may require calling officers from other sectors and now those other sectors are even more understaffed… can you see why police response time is deteriorating?

Note, this is also average response time. That means some response times will be faster, and some slower.

“I found that to be a little bit long to wait for an attack, basically,” said Austin resident Devin Richardson describing the last time she called police.

Richardson said she’s called police at least twice in the last nine months. The first time it took 20 minutes for them to respond to a domestic disturbance at a neighbor’s house. The second time, she said, it took nearly an hour an a half after a neighbor’s dog attacked her daughter.

“As a mother of three who are very young, it definitely concerns me that it takes so long to get here for something,” Richardson said.

As well, consider this is response time. There’s more time involved. You experience the event, you have to register that police need to be called. You have to get to a phone. You have to dial 911. You have to wait for 911 to pick up and actually connect you to an operator. You have to relay all the information, which then the operator must process and then relay to a dispatcher. Then the dispatcher must relay the information out to the police. All those things? They take time too… precious seconds, precious minutes. The total response time has increased.

I’m not trying to be hard on the police. They have a tough job, and this is just an unfortunate numbers game where they are getting the short end of things. Does this mean Austin needs more police on the street? Certainly. But even if they get the additional 59 officers proposed in next year’s budget, that doesn’t amount to much. Consider some officers will retire or leave APD. Divide the new hires over multiple sectors, multiple shifts, and the net gain per sector per shift is perhaps 1 officer. It’s something, but barely.

Baker and and those who live in the area agree that as Austin continues to develop and grow, something needs to change sooner rather than later.

“If something happens and it takes them over an hour and a half to get here, what am I supposed to do?” asked Richardson.

Emphasis added.

I’ll tell you what you need to do.

You need to stop relying on the police to be your savior. It’s sorely evident they cannot be there when you need them. Will they try? Yes. Most police will work to protect and serve, and will do all they can to help you. But the painful reality is in the numbers, and the police simply cannot be there and respond in the seconds needed to intervene in a life-threatening situation.

This isn’t just a call to “get a gun, learn how to use it effectively, get a carry license, and carry everywhere”. Yes, I think that’s part of it. But it also is a call to do things like get first aid training, and training beyond putting band-aids on boo-boos (learn how to use a tourniquet; how to treat burns; etc.). It’s taking steps to make your home a less-inviting home for burglars (illuminate your exterior, get and use an alarm system, etc.). It’s a commitment to make changes in your life that invite less trouble (e.g. “don’t go to stupid places, don’t hang out with stupid people, don’t do stupid things” — i.e. stay away from 6th Street).

 

But it really starts with an acknowledgement that your personal safety is your own responsiblity — you cannot and should not put it in solely the hands of others because, despite their best desires, they just may not be able to be there when you need them.

In personal defense, physical fitness matters – Follow-up

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Greg Ellifritz posted on Facebook, coincidentally, the same day I originally wrote about how, in personal defense, physical fitness matters. Greg was sharing an article from Aaron Cowan on the very topic of the importance of physical fitness in personal defense. It’s very much in line with my prior writings on the topic.

In Greg’s Facebook share, my boss-man, Karl Rehn commented:

and examples of armed citizens who lost their fights due to poor physical condition are where, exactly? I’m not saying that getting in shape is a bad idea. Better physical condition has a lot of advantages. But as with a lot of things that we are told “will get us killed on the street”, examples of it actually happening are difficult, if not impossible, to find.

Karl is correct. But I take odds with his stance. Is the lack of examples because we’ve collected data and evidence shows fitness doesn’t matter? or because there’s no data at all? I believe it’s the latter. Use of a gun? that gets put on the police report. But “subject is able to run a 10 minute mile and bench press 200 lbs.” or “subject is an out of shape fat-ass” isn’t on the police report checklist. I assert lack of examples is because there isn’t formal data collection on the topic.

I’ll agree with Karl that we cannot presently prove that “being fat and out of shape will get you killed on the street”. But that’s not what I’m saying.  I’m saying that the stronger you are, the more “fit” you are, the better chances and more options you have available (and Karl does agree there). Plus, there’s a confidence and mindset factor that cannot be discounted.

Look at the Force Science articles I previously referenced. Is that not some scientific examination of how physical fitness can matter?

How about that store clerk in Houston who, earlier this month, used his semi-pro MMA skills to stop his store from being robbed? Granted his MMA skills contributed, but his physical fitness mattered a great deal as well because, as far as fights go, that was a long fight. Anyone can throw punches for a few intense seconds, but to keep throwing intense punches in a lengthy fight takes a good degree of fitness.

Or let’s bring it back home and look at how many students in our classes struggle because they cannot grip the gun hard enough to adequately manage recoil? Or get tired after an hour of holding a 5 lbs. gun at arms length. Or cannot handle the level of effort to get through a 3-4 hour class, especially in the Texas summer heat?

To me, it all comes back to a question I keep asking and no one has yet answered:

Name me one place – especially in this context of personal safety – where being weak is an advantage.

Granted, Greg, Aaron, myself, we’re biased because we all lift weights and are personally invested in improving our own physical fitness. We see the advantages. Heck, I see how getting fatter has hurt me in this realm, and am presently dedicated to getting off this fat-wagon. Yeah, maybe there’s no demonstrable proof that being fit and strong “will get you killed”. But to me, it’s more that being fit and strong is rarely going to be a disadvantage, and will do a lot to give you an edge. We always emphasize how you should take and make every advantage possible to maximize your ability to survive and win.

Again, I’ll leave you with something Mark Rippetoe said:

Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general.