self defense

Engagement Distances

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

The April 2014 Rangemaster newsletter discusses engagement distances of private citizen self-defense incidents. You should read the whole article (it’s only a page long), but here’s a key take-home:

We have had over 60 student involved shootings. Of those, two incidents occurred at less than 3 yards. One involved intentional physical contact between the shooter and the offender, the other involved purely accidental contact. The vast majority of these shootings occurred at distances between 3 yards and 7 yards, with the bulk of those at 3 to 5 yards. So, we see that the typical self-defense shooting is well beyond arm’s-length and may be past the length of your car. The average American sedan is 16 feet long. That is approximately 5 yards. My Silverado pickup is a little over 18 feet long, or 6 yards. This is way beyond arm’s-length.

Another useful thing is a graph Tom made:

Now consider that. 92.1% of his student incidents were in the 3-7 yard range! That’s certainly not “arms length”.

Here’s another point to consider.

I was recently listening to a trainer/instructor giving some shooting advice. He said something to the effect of learning to shoot at 25 yards, because if you can do it there, you can do it at closer distances. I take some issue with that statement.

Now, I understand where he’s coming from, because generally speaking getting acceptable hits from 25 yards is a harder task than getting acceptable hits at 3 yards. And if you can do a harder version of a task, you can probably also do the easier version of the task. So I get what he’s after and I don’t totally disagree with him.

But here’s the thing.

It’s harder.

If I’m teaching someone to shoot, I am not going to set a target at 25 yards and expect them to hit it. No, I’m going to start them out at 3, 5, or 7 yards (depending what the range will let me do, the closer the better) because I want the student to succeed. If the first thing the student does is fail, that doesn’t bode well for their ego, nor their desire to keep coming back to learn (nor their perception of you as a teacher). If they can see “yeah, I can do this!”, then you slowly build up to a higher difficulty level. Build their confidence, build their skill and ability. This is how you teach, and how most people are receptive to teaching and learning.

It also brings me back to my discussions on minimum competency. If I need to get someone going with the minimum skillset that gives them the most payoff when weighed against the most likely circumstances and situations they could find themselves in, then I want to work them in that 0-5 yard, 0-7 yard, maybe out to 10 yards range. If the student’s goal is to learn how to use a pistol for self-defense, if the overwhelming majority of incidents happen in that 3-7 yard range, then at least at the onset the student should learn to function in that context and the teacher should verify that the student can function in that context!

Furthermore, it is a different skill to shoot at 25 yards (go read Brian Enos’ book).

While it’s unfortunate that Memphis is such a violent city (read another article in the 2014-04 Rangemaster newsletter about “Violent Crime Reporting”), it does provide us with a fair amount of data we can use to better understand self-defense incidents, what happens during them, and how good citizens can respond to them.  Yes, learn to shoot well at 25 yards, but start first at 5 yards.

(thanx to Tom Hogel for the graphic, and the inspiration to write this article).

What are YOU doing about it?

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

I’m a part of a neighborhood website, which covers many neighborhoods in Austin and even has participation by Austin Police Department and Travis County Sheriff’s office.

One of the Travis County Constables posted a general “community service” message. In response, someone posted about a car break-in in their neighborhood, and from the sounds of it, it’s not an uncommon occurrence in their neighborhood. What got me was the closing sentence of their post:

We live here and we want to feel safe.

The tone of the posting was saying there’s a problem, we don’t feel safe, we want to feel safe, and what are YOU going to do about it?

While to a degree that’s understandable, I have issue with a few things.

First, you have to realize that your feelings don’t matter. What matters is reality.  Instead of living in a bubble that expects the world to be this ideal thing, accept the world is far from your ideal. That may not be the happiest way to look at things, but when you look at realities instead of falsehoods, you can accomplish more.

Second, why are you putting your safety on others? Why are others responsible for your safety? Why aren’t you responsible for your own safety? Why aren’t you rallying your neighbors to get more active and do something about the level of safety and crime in your neighborhood? Start a neighborhood watch. Talk with each other. Keep a watchful eye out for yourself and each other, to look for odd things going on. That doesn’t mean you have to get vigilante, but it’s about having awareness and being pro-active about your own well-being instead of expecting others to provide it.

This isn’t to say you shouldn’t request help from local law enforcement. That’s part of their job, it’s part of what your tax dollars pay for. But realize there are only so many police in town and they cannot be everywhere. But you and your neighbors are there in your neighborhood, and you can and should take your own steps to help improve your conditions instead of expecting, waiting for, and being let-down by putting your safety and well-being in the hands of others.

And then, perhaps you’ll be able to feel safer, because you’ll know something is actively being done to actually make your neighborhood safer and have less crime. And you’ll probably even feel better about it, because that improvement is coming by your own hands.

Why 2?

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

I read this article (h/t to Greg Ellifritz) about carrying folding knives:

So, now I’m going to blow your mind. What side do you carrying your folder and let’s say you cannot carry a fixed? I would say the vast majority and I mean like everyone I see in classes carries their folder on their strong side. Again, we have to go back to defining the mission. Is this a secondary weapon, your pistol being the primary. If it is, then the better approach is to carry the folder on your weak side. The first thing people say is I cannot use my weak hand for anything. That’s a lot like a boxer saying they can’t jab with their weak hand…doesn’t make much sense does it. If you are a bit awkward on your weak side then you will need to train. We have been training on the folding knife for several years and I’m surprised to hear folks comment about how easy it was to pick up the folder on the weak side with the right structure.

We try to encourage folks to look at themselves from a bi-lateral point of view. That means consideration for weapon system available and deployable from your weak side. Not every scenario is a gun scenario, you have to find the balance. That is code for not getting you face punched in before you can think of other weapon systems. Then being able to retrieve and deploy the blade from a folder is the next progression.

So I’m going to blow your mind: carry 2 folders, one on each side.

Part of my EDC are 2 folding knives (Spyderco Delicas, if you’re curious). I learned this from Insights Training Center in their Defensive Folding Knife class. The folders are both set the exact same way: tip-up carry, clipped inside my front pant pocket, one on my left, one on my right. Yes, that means the one on the left is “backwards”, but trust me it works for consistency. It does mean when I draw with the left hand, I must give the knife a flip, but that’s alright because then I have consistent motion. If I use my right hand to obtain the knife on the left, it’s the same as using my right hand to obtain the knife on the right! Same with the left: it’s consistent no matter which knife I go for.

I often get the question: why do you carry two knives?

We can go back to the whole “2 is 1, 1 is none” mantra, and while true that’s not the primary reason. The primary reason is because sometimes you can’t get to one so you have to go for the other.

It doesn’t even have to be in a combat situation. I use my knives for daily tasks, like opening letters, opening packages — cutting things, you know, what knives were designed to do.( BTW, for those that discourage using your “fighting knife” to open letters because it will dull the blade: 1. the daily drawing of my knife is another rep, another bit of practice towards deployment and use, 2. this is why the Spyderco Tri-Angle Sharpmaker was invented; buy one, use it.) And even in my daily life, sometimes I cannot get to my desired knife. Maybe I’m lying on my side. Maybe I’ve got a seat-belt in the way (and sometimes I’m driving, and sometimes I’m a passenger). Who knows. But believe me, having worn 2 knives like this for the past 6 years, while I may generally go for the same-side knife, there have been more than enough times when I had no choice but to go for the other-side — and so far, no knife fighting outside of the classroom.

And yes, sometimes I go for the other-side knife just for the practice.

I agree with the author about the importance of weak-side and being offset from your primary. But even then, you may not be able to get to your one-side, and there’s so little cost and overhead in having a folder on both sides. Consider it.

What should she have done?

/ hsoi / 7 Comments

What do you think this 12-year old girl should have done?

Fine. You don’t like guns. You think guns are horrible, evil things that should be banned and no one should have them. Fine.

Given that, tell me what this 12-year old girl should have done?

Oh, here’s some more information:

Supposedly the dude was arrested previously for an alleged abduction of a 17-year old girl. That wouldn’t have been known to this 12-year old girl at the time he was making his way through her house, but does it matter?

She’s home alone.

She cannot escape, because obviously the dude is out there and his intentions are quite clear.

She doesn’t go to confront him, she doesn’t go looking for trouble (smart). She retreats to a safe area, hunkers down, and is on the phone with 911 the entire time.

Dude continues his way through the house, makes his way to where she is.

If you were her, how would you be feeling right about then?

And really, if this 12-year old girl didn’t have that gun, what sort of story would likely have been reported on the news that evening, especially given dude’s past?

So tell me, how was it a bad thing that this girl had a gun? And that she used it to ensure her safety?

Please… I’m really wanting to know.

And if you can tell me, could you look her in the eyes and tell her the same?

Guns are a force equalizer. As humans, we are tool-users, and a gun is a tool to help us overcome force disparity. A 12-year old girl cannot overcome a 32-year old man, especially a 32-year old man determined to do evil.

Do not deprive those on the lesser. You just empower those of the greater.

Wiser choices

/ hsoi / 7 Comments

We always make choices. Some are more wise than others. Some are more foolish than others.

While police operate under different conditions than private citizens, this lapel-camera footage of an Albuquerque police interaction with a hammer-wielding suspect provides us with some information from which we should be able to make wiser choices.

That’s a KRQE report of the incident. More raw lapel-camera footage can be found at LiveLeak. More story here.

There’s much to take from this, but I want to focus on one thing: ammunition selection.

There’s a lot about the shotgun that’s great, because it can be so versatile. There’s all sorts of useful, and then all sorts of exotic ammunition one can buy for it. Because of that, some people feel a need to use that exotic ammunition for whatever reason. In such a case as this, using bean bag rounds because they are “less lethal” and because “they don’t want to hurt anyone”.

Here’s a tip.

While you not wanting to hurt anyone is commendable, look at dude in the video — he very much wanted to hurt people. He was quite happy to hurt people, which is what caused police to be initially called to the scene. Then when 2 police officers confront dude, he charges them armed with a hammer — and yes, a hammer is a deadly weapon. Dude was quite determined to hurt people!

First officer fired 4 bean bags — they didn’t stop the threat. In fact, the threat got WAY too close for comfort, before second officer stepped in with a more effective mechanism for stopping the threat.

We’re not out to kill. We want to stop the threat. We want to go home, we want to be with our spouse, our children, and see our great-grandchildren graduate from college. When your life is at stake, you want the most effective tools for preserving your life. Choose wisely.

Survey says…

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Austin Police Department released some crime figures for the SXSW festival:

City wide:

149 arrested for driving while intoxicated
96 arrested for public intoxication
28 arrested for aggravated assault
309 arrested for theft

Downtown:

22 arrested for driving while intoxicated
45 arrested for public intoxication
4 arrested for aggravated assault
66 arrested for theft

As soon as I read that, what came to mind was John Farnam’s saying about staying safe and managing risk in life:

Don’t go to stupid places; don’t associate with stupid people; don’t do stupid things. We will add to that, be in bed by 10 o’clock.

SXSW fails on all 4 counts. 🙂

Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol – Revisited

/ hsoi / 13 Comments

I’d like to revisit a series I wrote some months ago about “Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol“.

After presenting the series at the 2nd Annual SDS Conference, I looked at how I did and coupled that with some feedback I received from an attendee whose opinion I greatly value (thanx, Sam!). His assessment and feedback reinforced my own thoughts on my performance, and with that, I figured it was right to revisit some things.

Presentation

The presentation itself? I thought I could have done better. I realized as I was putting the presentation together that I had organized it well for serialized presentation on the blog, but that didn’t lend so well to a public speaking forum. Alas, I didn’t have time to revise the presentation, so I presented it with only minor adjustment. It went over alright, but I know there was structure I could have improved.

One of the biggest parts? I spent a good deal of time talking about defining minimum standards, but not enough on how one can go about achieving them. Again, this worked well for the serialized blog presentation, but wasn’t as engaging for a listening audience.

I also realized, I never explicitly defined a drill or other test that helps one assess meeting those minimum standards. I implied it to be the “3 Seconds or Less” drill, but as it stands now? Well….

On Minimum Standards

If you haven’t, go back and read the original article so you can be aware of the foundation.

In the end, I think “minimum competency for defensive pistol skills” lies with the ability to:

  • Draw from concealment
    • Perhaps with movement (sidestep) on the draw)
  • Make multiple, acceptable hits
  • In a small area
  • From close range
    • Think “within a car length” (0-5 yards)
  • Quickly
    • 3 seconds or less
  • Using both hands
    • Enables multiple acceptable hits, quickly

Skills beyond that (one-handed shooting, reloading, malfunction remedy) are useful but above minimal. And of course, both safety and etiquette are expected.

Remember: this is about “minimal”. Put it this way. You have a friend whose crazy ex is now stalking them, threatening to do them harm. They have the restraining order, but they know how useful that is so they choose to get a gun. You have an afternoon to get them some basic skills. What is most vital for them to learn how to do? That’s what I’m talking about.

So yes, I was figuring the “3 Seconds or Less” drill was a good answer to this question. But now? Not so much.

Karl has evolved the drill. One change was in the ordering of the course of fire, merely to facilitate running the drill (eased the ammo and reload requirements so you could more easily run it with semi-autos or revolvers). That sort of change doesn’t really matter towards answering the question, and frankly it’s a good revision.

But Karl also changed the content of the drill. For example, in the current version of the drill there’s a reload, some walking backwards while shooting, and a turning draw; none of these were present in the original version of the drill.

This is why I think this drill no longer answers the question: it involves skills that are above minimal. This makes sense for the context in which Karl uses it: as a core test for KR Training’s “Defensive Pistol Skills” course progression. However, it is doing more than minimal, so it’s not strictly the correct answer for “minimum competency”.

That said, I’ve maintained that minimum competency is not good enough. You need to work to a higher standard (that Paul Ford comment about 70% of your worst day). I would say the current “3 Seconds or Less” drill is a good “higher standard” to work towards. Other good “higher standards” would be:

But again, this is higher. We’re talking minimal.

A Possible Minimal Drill?

As much as I hate to say it, I think the Texas CHL test COULD be it.

But it needs work.

Here’s the drill:

  • 3 yards
    • 1 shot, 2 sec., 5x
    • 2 shots, 3 sec., 5x
    • 5 shots, 10 sec., 1x
  • 7 yards
    • 5 shots, 10 sec., 1x
    • 2 shots, 4 sec., 1x
    • 3 shots, 6 sec., 1x
    • 1 shot, 3 sec., 5x
    • 5 shots, 15 sec., 1x
  • 15 yards
    • 2 shots, 6 sec., 1x
    • 3 shots, 9 sec., 1x
    • 5 shots, 15 sec., 1x

Here’s how it could be changed to make it a better test of minimum competency:

  • Needs to be shot from concealment
    • Current test has you working off a bench, and shooting from a ready position. Unrealistic.
    • Must shoot from concealment, whatever your chosen carry and concealment method would be. If that’s from a hip holster under your shirt, fine. Pocket carry, fine. If that’s from a purse, fine.
  • Use a better target
    • The B-27 is like hitting a barn wall. Furthermore, it’s not anatomically correct.
    • Use a target like an IPSC or IDPA target. There are a host of such targets out there. The key is a target that provides a smaller “acceptable hit” zone, and that is anatomically correct.
    • Make scoring more difficult. It’s “hit or miss”, “acceptable or unacceptable”. There is no graduated scoring scale, it either is or is not. If it’s on a line, if it’s questionable, score it unacceptable. 90% minimum score, or better, 100%.
  • Do not adjust the listed par times.
    • Having to shoot from concealment adds enough time to make the published par times more difficult.
    • This could be debated, and probably debated per-string. Like the first string (3 yards, 1 shot, 2 seconds) is probably sufficient, but the last 3 yard string (5 shots, 10 seconds), should that time be lowered? Probably, but this is splitting hairs at this point. Keep it simple and keep the test as written. These other modifications are more important.
  • The 15 yard strings are debatable.
    • That’s a pretty long car…
    • If I was using my above example of needing to get a friend some quick skills in an afternoon, I’d focus on the 3 yards, then on the 7 yards; I’d skip the 15 yards.

Shooting the TX CHL test with these changes (call it “TX-CHL++”, that’s “Texas CHL plus plus”) doesn’t make you any sort of bad-ass gunfighter, but I think it does a fair job at addressing the minimum requirements.

Remember: the intent of trying to establish “minimum competency” is because we, as humans, tend to overestimate our skills and abilities. We tend to think we have the skills, that we’ll handle ourselves just fine when the flag flies. It’s better to test yourself against standards such as these to see if you really do or do not. It’s better to have a dose of reality now, when you can afford it and can then work to remedy any shortcomings.

How to get there

So you’ve shot some tests and determined you need some work. How to get there?

After talking with Sam, I felt like maybe there should be a program to help you out. Like when doing all this weight lifting, a program like Jim Wendler’s 5/3/1 program is a great way to get going and address a lot of things. Could such a program be devised for shooting? I think so. Look at the books and DVD’s from Mike Seeklander. He takes a bit of a different approach, but that could certainly get you there.

I think in most regards it’s going to come down to the individual. What is your learning style like? Are you self-motivated?  Do you have enough to be able to self-diagnose and improve? In the beginning, we all need good teachers, and there are good schools and instructors out there. Take advantage of those opportunities to have a teacher, a mentor. There’s a lot of DVD product coming out that can be a help for sure, but I’ve found that those tend to be most useful to folks that already have a clue. You don’t have a be a master, but a rank beginner is going to get a lot more from having a real instructor looking over their shoulder, that can see precisely what’s going on and offer ways to correct, improve, and progress.

You have to practice the things you don’t want to practice. You have to be willing to push yourself outside your comfort zone. And I think another key factor is having a tangible goal. You can have a lofty goal, then break it up into smaller milestones. Perhaps it starts with shooting the TX-CHL++ clean with no time limits. Then you work towards the time-limits. Then you pick a harder standard, like the Farnam Drill, with a 15 second par, then 14 second. As you work, you’ll find where your weaknesses are and use dry fire practice to improve those. And so on. Be willing to be patient, but work consistently.

In the end, the desire is improvement. That we understand what “minimum acceptable” is so we can ensure we’re at least that, but then work to exceed it. Set a new level, then rise above it. And so on, and so on.

AAR: MAG-20 2014-03-08/09

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

There’s a great deal of focus out there on how to keep yourself out of trouble and what to do if you find yourself in trouble. There’s a huge market out there of both producers and consumers of the “before” and “during” parts of personal defense.

But what about the “after”?

The reality is, if you find yourself in a situation where you must defend your life or the life of a loved one, there is going to be an after. It may be as simple as some interaction with the police, all good, and you’re on your way. It may be as complex as being arrested and spending millions of dollars and many years of your life tied up in court cases (even if you were righteous). The after may be littered with dreams, flashbacks, hospital visits, affected relationships, and all manner of other “side-effects” for the remainder of your life. The after may even wind up with you being sent to prison for the rest of your life for a crime you didn’t commit. There’s going to be an after, and it behooves you to prepare for it, just like you prepare for the “before” and “during.”  And while it may not be as sexy as learning how to use some shiny toy or learn some cool tactics, it is a reality that should not be denied. When you are in a situation, that is not the time to acquire knowledge about how to deal with the situation.

This is where MAG-20 comes in.

MAG-20

If you don’t know who Massad Ayoob is, just Google search on his name. His resumé and legacy speak to what you need to know about him. The depth and breadth of his experience, not just as a cop, not just as a “gun guy”, not just as an author, but also as an expert witness with his extensive time in a courtroom along with his intensive study and research of these issues, he brings an immense amount of knowledge and wisdom. And he’s willing to share it, in courses like MAG-20.

I spent this past weekend (2014-03-08/09) taking his MAG-20 Classroom course (classroom only, no live fire). It was hosted by KR Training and held at the Red Oak Ballroom in Austin, Texas. Here’s the summary of the class from his website:

A two-day, 20-hour immersion course in rules of engagement for armed law-abiding private citizens, emphasizing legal issues, tactical issues, and aftermath management. Topics will include interacting with suspects, witnesses, responding police officers…threat recognition and mind-set…management of social and psychological aftermath after having had to use lethal force in defense of self or others…and preparing beforehand for legal repercussions and minimizing exposure to them. Situations in the home, at the place of business, or “on the street” will all be covered.

Now don’t think this is any sort of “Hey, learn how to work the legal system so you can kill people you don’t like, then get out of jail free!” sort of thing. No, that’s the furthest thing from the truth (and any sort of moral or ethical behavior). This class is about helping private citizens who have accepted the responsiblity for the care of themselves and those they love, to understand the realities of the full scope of their undertaking. The class conveys the weight and true gravity of the matter. Yes, there is a measure of preparedness for things like the potentially inevitable courtroom battle; why shouldn’t we be prepared for that? Not to dodge the law but to ensure we act in a lawful manner, and in a manner that doesn’t allow the law (or unscrupulous prosecutors) to steamroll us for trying to remain alive to see our grandchildren graduate college.

Yes, this is an important course for everyone to take.

Sure, Mas can be polarizing. Some consider him to be strongly on one side of the spectrum. Well, that’s alright. He’s got decades of experiences and research that back up his knowledge and why he views things as he does, why he teaches what he does. That doesn’t mean everyone accepts Mas’ teachings and stances lock, stock, and barrel. During the weekend I spoke with Mas about a particular topic where he and another respected trainer disagree, and both have valid arguments for their stances. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth your while to listen to what he has to say.

Furthermore, given Mas has been around for so long, written so much, and spoken to so many, there’s no question some of the things he has said have become distorted. Case in point, Mas’ stance on using handloaded ammunition for self-defense. I know what I’ve heard over the years, and just like any round of “the telephone game”, the truth gets distorted as each person retells it from their foggy memory. In fact, back in 2009, Kathy Jackson posted a comment to this very blog about this very subject, working to clear the air on what Mas actually says (and yes, I stand corrected)! But anything you can hear straight from “the horses’ mouth” is always going to carry more weight, and certainly ensures clear air. Many things were said over the weekend that I’ve heard before, but to hear them from Mas gives a different weight, a different perspective, and certainly ensures a clarity and authority you can’t get from the Internet message boards.

Our Class

So how was the class itself?

Intense and intensive.

Two 10-hour days is a long time for your butt to be in a chair. Furthermore, we lost an hour due to Daylight Saving time starting, so by day 2, everyone was feeling a little run down. But class was never boring, never inattentive. In fact, I don’t think I’ve taken notes like this since college.

BTW, quick shout out to Circus Ponies for their NoteBook for Mac app. I’ve long wanted a good note-taking app, but for one reason or other never got around to finding one (or writing my own). I knew my traditional approaches were fine for my normal daily workflow, but for something this intensive well… Saturday morning before class started I went looking, found Circus Ponies’ app (which I had heard of before but never looked at beyond smiling at the fun company name), download, install, quick tutorial, then off and running. It was a smart move and tremendously helpful in my note-taking efforts. I’m going to continue my 30-day free trial, using NoteBook in my daily workflow instead of what I’ve done for the past 20 years, and see how it pans out. I’m optimistic! But I digress.

The class was logically presented, with each topic building upon the ones before it. Yes, if you’ve been around long enough, read enough, taken enough courses, you are going to be hearing things you’ve heard before. But now, maybe you’re hearing it correctly, or maybe the simple repetition is good for memory retention. This isn’t to say the class is just rehashed stuff; far from it. There’s a great deal of new and valuable information too.

The Power of Language

For me, one of the more interesting aspects was insight into the way the courts can work. The way the lawyers can work. Mas made a point that often a lawyer is going to make more use of Webster’s dictionary than Black’s Law dictionary. Here’s an example.

“I’m sorry.”

When you heard (read) those words, what impression did they leave upon you? Likely the impression that the person who spoke those words is sad… and regretful. Penitence. There’s implication of guilt.

But is that always the case?

What if you didn’t hear someone (loud room)? You might say “I’m sorry?” in an effort to get them to repeat themselves.

What if a friend’s mother just lost her battle with cancer. You might say to your friend, “I’m sorry.”  This is an expression of sympathy, not of guilt.

In each of these, it’s the same words uttered each time, but the intent and meaning behind those words is vastly different! Consider the impression some may take when they hear those words: “I’m sorry”. If you stand up in front of the court and say “I’m sorry”, could that be perceived as confession of a crime? or through some deft use of Webster’s dictionary, a prosecutor choosing to point out to the jury how the use of the words “I’m sorry” can mean penitence: a feeling of sadness because you did something wrong… wrong… like admission of guilt. Can you see how your words, that maybe were expressed out of sorrow, could be turned into an expression of guilt?

That was something from the course that really stood out to me. How yes, everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You’ve heard that phrase, but have you ever considered how your words may then be used against you, given the above example?

No, it’s not fair. But if you can have prior awareness, prior planning, prior knowledge — education! You can be prepared. Again, yet another time where people may not understand the value of a good education, until it’s too late.

Personal Take

All in all, I think the only downside to the weekend was a sore butt and stiff legs from sitting so much. 🙂 Oh, and I somewhat blew out my diet (two words: catered Skittles).  I learned a great deal. I have some thoughts on ways to improve my own planning, my own strategies, my own program. I even have a few things I wish to talk  over with Karl regarding KR Training. Regardless of those, I also have some thoughts on ways to improve myself as an instructor. If that’s what I walked away with, I have to think it was time well-spent.

Oh and my personal highlight of the weekend? I got to be Mas’ chauffeur. 🙂  It was fun to be able to speak with him on a more personal level, and personally experience what a down-to-earth and class-act he is. Yes, I made sure to take him to Rudy’s BBQ (nothing like their extra moist brisket!), and Mas… next time I’ll be sure to find a good BBQ joint that also serves Rolling Rock. 😉 Thank you so much for coming to Austin and sharing your knowledge with us.

Unpossible

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

A Westlake High School student was robbed at gunpoint in the school’s parking lot Thursday [Feb. 27, 2014] afternoon, the school’s principal says. Principal John Carter says the student was not physically harmed. He says it happened at around 4:30 p.m. The student was approached by a man with a gun who took his cell phone and then fled the scene. The student immediately reported the incident to school officials, Carter says. The Travis County Sheriff’s Office is investigating the incident. Carter says as a precaution the school will have extra security staff in the parking lots on Friday.

Original story. (h/t Paul Martin)

But I thought guns weren’t allowed on school property. It’s a gun-free zone, right? Or does this mean that criminals don’t obey the law?

Westlake is the “rich folks” part of Austin. Crime never happens there, right? Well granted, it’s not I-35/Riverside (one of Austin’s crime hotspots), but folks — no where is immune. Not “the good parts of town”, not “in gun free zones”. This doesn’t mean everywhere is a battleground, just that you should not be lulled into thinking that there’s some impenetrable bubble around certain areas. Shit can happen, anywhere, to anyone.

Updated (2014-03-13): I work with folks who have kids that attend Westlake High School. The story is legit. Apparently some dude was combing the parking lot, breaking into cars. This student just happened to stumble upon dude, dude pulled a gun, demanded phone, bailed.

School just let out. Kids everywhere. And doing this? Yeah… just remember that if criminals had the same smarts, standards, and ethics as you, they wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing in the first place.

Avoiding tragedy

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Ronald Westbrook, the Alzheimer’s patient, got out of his house during the night of Nov. 27. He appeared hours later at the home of Joe Hendrix, knocked repeatedly on the door and tried the bell, apparently being in a state of confusion. The homeowner, Joe Hendrix, 35, armed himself, went outside, and confronted Westbrook. Eventually, Hendrix shot Westbrook, 72, several times, which proved fatal. According to Hendrix, the elderly man was carrying an object and did not obey his commands.

Full story. (h/t Claude Werner)

By all accounts, Mr. Hendrix acted in a reasonable manner – in terms of the law. However, from outsiders looking in, they will not view what Mr. Hendrix did as reasonable. As Claude states:

While Mr. Hendrix will not face criminal charges, there is no doubt that he will still have issues to deal with for the rest of his life. Assuming he is a moral person, no doubt the outcome of the confrontation will haunt him as long as he lives. He will most likely always be known in his community as “the guy who killed that poor old man.” In some cases, there are aftereffects in family life, as well.

This is why it is important to receive self-defense training, and why that training needs to be more than just about equipment and skills. So fine, you can shoot a gun, so fine you can throw a punch, but if that’s all you know how to do, chances are that’s how you are going to respond. Tactics and mindset are often more important.

Case in point. KR Training alum and Assistant Instructor, Dave Reichek attended the 2014 Polite Society conference. At the conference, Dave participated in a Force-on-Force training scenario. Here’s Dave’s write up, and here’s a video of Dave’s session.

As well, TLG posted about it, and it’s a post where reading the comments is actually a good thing. Please, read Dave’s write up, watch the video, and read TLG’s posting too.

Look at the results of how many participants responded. Look at how Dave responded.

I can’t say what I would have done. With the benefit of arm-chairing this, the best I can think of is my initial reaction would have been to respond with “I cannot help you, but I will call the police”, then make myself scarce and dial 911 (i.e. “maxim of beer & tv“, not my problem, need to get home alive to take care of my family, etc.). But who knows if I would have actually done that, given how the scenario itself would have actually played out.

Folks….

Just because you have a Y chromosome doesn’t mean you know how “take care of things”. Just because you know how to shoot a gun, or because you have martial arts training, or took a “self defense course” one day at “the Y” doesn’t mean a whole lot. Yes it’s a good start, but you need to keep going.

As a society, we put so much weight and emphasis on the importance of getting a good education. We understand how knowledge empowers, and the more you know, the more you can do, the better off you’ll be in all areas of life. So why is it folks don’t apply this same value of knowledge to the area of taking care of yourself? Why is ignorance an acceptable trait? (which also spills into folks that attempt to lobby for or make policy/laws based on this same ignorance, but that’s another discussion).

Do not fear force-on-force training. As you saw in Dave’s video, there was nothing physical. It was very mental, it was exhausting, it’s intimidating. But you better believe everyone that goes through FoF gets humbled and walks out far better for the experience. That is the nature of it.

And hopefully, when you have this sort of knowledge, it can help you make better decisions and avoid potential tragedy.