April 8, 2016 -- A Quick Run Around the Web

Touch the Clouds (c. 1838-1905) of the
Miniconjou Teton Lakota Sioux.

• It's Friday, which means that Active Response Training has another Weekend Knowledge Dump available.
• While you are at Active Response Training, check out Greg Ellifritz's article on "The Secondary Device." Terrorists will sometimes plant a second bomb intended to catch first responders, or in places where people evacuating a building may gather or congregate, or where crowds might gather to watch following a terrorist attack. The initial event needn't be a bomb or explosion either: if you remember, the San Bernardino shooters had left a bomb at the scene of the shooting which was likely intended to be detonated after first responders arrived. A fire alarm or telephoned bomb threat might be enough to force an evacuation from a building. In any event, Mr. Ellifritz sets out some pointers for avoiding becoming a victim of a secondary device.
• "Miami Glock Barrels"--The Truth About Guns. According to the article, "Glock is one of a few manufacturers that use a polygonal rifled barrel. Due to this particular manufacturing process, in most cases the weapon failed to leave an identifiable signature." Thus, following an incident involving a shooting by three police officers, where forensic experts were unable to determine from whose weapon the lethal bullet had been fired, "Glock introduced the Enhanced Bullet Identification System (EBIS) that has become known as the 'Miami Barrel'," intended to leave a distinctive mark on bullets. The article indicates that it has not been effective.
• Hmm... "The real risks during deadly police shootouts: Accuracy of the naive shooter"--International Journal of Police Science and Management (via Force Science Institute). The study compared the performance of expert (i.e., passed police qualification courses), intermediate (i.e., possessing recreational experience with firearms), and novice shooters using handguns. The conclusion:

For all locations, no difference was found in accuracy between expert and intermediate groups (p > 0.30). Experts and intermediates had better results than novices on all locations (p < 0.05) except from 3 to 15 ft. Alarmingly, experts were only 10% more accurate than novices between 3 and 15 ft. Finally, novices and intermediate shooters were more likely to hit head locations from 3 ft (57%), whereas experts mainly hit the body location (78%). The results of this study indicate that officers had no advantage over intermediate shooters and a small advantage over novices.

• "Lessons from real life: The Potato Chip Assault"--Gun Nuts Media. Lessons to be learned from a shooting involving an angry convenience store customer and an armed bystander. Basic takeaway, though: 

Let’s return to what I said earlier about displays of aggressive behavior when there is no expectation of serious consequences. Often displays of anger are happening at least partially because of estimations of vulnerability. I’m willing to bet that the guy throwing the fit didn’t see the convenience store clerk as a potentially fearsome opponent. If the clerk had been 6’6″ and built like a professional NFL lineman, I doubt the deceased would have spun up on him.

When the would-be Good Samaritan intervened, I’m guessing he wasn’t very intimidating either. And he had a gun.

So let’s deal with some unpleasant truth: Guns don’t scare everybody. The fact that you have one is not going to impress a certain percentage of the bad-guy population. When I see open carry discussed on the web and even in real life, the default assumption of the pro-open carry camp is that bad men will see the gun and be scared or intimidated by the mere presence of it.This is a foolhardy mindset to slip into.

• Juxtaposition this:

• "This terrifying chart shows we’re not growing enough food to feed the world"--July 1, 2013 headline from The Washington Post.

• "The World May Have Too Much Food"--March 31, 2016 headline from Bloomberg.