Weekend Reading #54

Some longer and more involved reading for the weekend:

•  First up is a new Weekend Knowledge Dump from Active Response Training. Some notable links:
• Greg has a couple articles for those of us that conceal carry but have to wear something other than jeans and a loose T-shirt. The first is from Lucky Gunner on how not to dress like a "tactical hobo" and the other from A Tailored Suit that has advice on carrying a concealed handgun while wearing a suit coat or blazer, including tips for your tailor if you can afford a tailored suit or jacket. 
• A link to the latest Range Master news letter, which itself has some articles and drills. One I recommend is on the shift in understanding of Jeff Cooper's color code from a measure of how ready were you to respond to violence to simply a measure of awareness. For example:

The core question moved from “Am I willing to act?” to “Am I paying attention?” Those are not the same question. One prepares a person to move decisively under stress. The other prepares them to observe events as they unfold.

Today, the Color Code appears in workplace safety briefings, active shooter presentations, and corporate training slides. In many versions, lethal force is never mentioned at all. The result is a framework stripped of its original purpose. 

•  An article on pepper spray because sometimes you need something between a harsh word and using a lethal weapon. An excerpt that seemed particularly important:

    But the thing is, the LE use case for pepper spray is not the civilian use case at all. Craig Douglas refers to pepper spray as “an eye gouge in a can,” which I like quite a lot. If you’ve ever been poked in the eye just in general it’s distracting and disorienting, and if it happens in a fight it’s even worse. The civilian use case for pepper spray is to create time and space for you, the civilian, to escape. We are not pepper spraying people so we can go hands on with them, we’re pepper spraying them so we can run the f[--]k away.

    I have pepper sprayed several people in a civilian context, and it’s an incredibly low bar of force, it’s easy to articulate, and the entire point is for you to get away from the attacker. It could also be to access a more effective tool than pepper spray given the situation, but we have to understand that our key use case for spray is to spray and sprint. 

•  Massad Ayoob's 5-point checklist of things to say to police after an armed encounter. Greg comments: "Despite some attorneys in disagreement, I firmly believe that Massad Ayoob created the definitive list of statements that you should make to the police after a defensive shooting."
• Some history: An article about Frank Hamer, the Texas Ranger that hunted down Bonnie and Clyde, and the Remington Model 8 semi-auto rifle he used.
• The article is at the anti-gun site, The Trace; but if you can ignore the wailing and gnashing of teeth, the article outlines some major changes in rules planned or being made by the ATF which should benefit gun owners and gun dealers.  
•  An article on "What Criminals Know That You Don't" which delves into some aspects of how criminals select victims or targets of opportunity, but also discusses some other aspects of crime statistics including the following bit (bold added):

    The numbers on armed resistance are worth knowing. Complying completely in an armed robbery still leaves a 25 percent chance of injury, and the robbery succeeds 90 percent of the time. Resistance with a firearm drops injury odds to 17 percent and rarely allows the crime to complete. Resistance before injury drops that to around 6 percent. For rape specifically, armed resistance is the most effective deterrent to completion and does not increase physical harm to the victim. Research also shows defensive gun uses frequently occur without a shot fired. The presence of a firearm alone can stop a crime in progress.

    A gun is not the first solution. It is the last. But as Hearne noted, “Most of the time, you don’t need a parachute, but when you do, nothing else will substitute.” 

•  In a recent "Gun & Prepping News" I had linked to an article on using super-glue for first-aid. Greg also links to that article, but provides some addition tips on using super-glue to close wounds. He also comments: "Vet Bond is the chemical equivalent of Derma-Bond at 1/3 the cost.  The primary difference between that and standard super glue is that the Vet Bond won’t sting as much and it lasts about one day longer than super glue."
• Finally, Greg links to an article on how humanity is about to "fork" in different directions, the first of which are how people use AI tools:

    AI has handed every human being on the planet an extraordinary set of tools: the ability to build software, design products, generate content, start companies, and pursue ambitions that previously required teams of specialists and millions in capital.

    Some people will pick those tools up and build. They’ll become creators, entrepreneurs, and innovators. They’ll use AI to amplify their vision and bring it into the world. They will be the architects of the next economy.

    Others will watch. They’ll consume: watch Netflix, play video games, scroll social media… be passively entertainment. The tools will be available to them. They simply won’t pick them up.

• "Are We Subjects or Citizens? Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution" by Edward J. Erler at Imprimis. An excerpt:

    Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was not until 1868, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution. Here is the familiar language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

    We have somehow come today to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction. But this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous and without force. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, they would simply have said that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens. Furthermore, the principal supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment were explicit about the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction”: it meant owing exclusive allegiance to the U.S. and none to any other country. 

The article is a deep dive on this subject including the history, predecessor laws that informed the citizenship clause, and comments and debate from the Congressmen that wrote and debated the clause. The author also closes with some comments about how duel citizenship undermines the idea of citizenship and the nation-state.