New Defensive Pistolcraft Post

 Jon Low's most recent compendium of comments and links can be found here. My favorite quote from this post: "Train and practice so that violence is not a shock to your system.  Because going into shock will slow you down.  Shock may cause you to stop completely.  Training and practice will prevent shock." Runner up: "This morning my son said his ear hurt.  So, I said, on the inside or outside?  So, he walked out the front door comes back in and says both.  Moments like this got me wondering if I'm saving too much for college."

    An important point for the trainers out there are Jon's comments regarding whether defensive firearm trainers should train to protect against domestic violence. Jon says "yes" for the reason that women are most likely to be murdered by someone they know (men are most likely to be murdered by a stranger). (Playing devil's advocate, though, I doubt the women that own a firearm and attend a firearms training class fall much within the demographics of women killed by intimate partners). As Jon points out, telling a woman to leave her abusive relationship may not be realistic in many cases. Moreover, "Self-defense against a known-assailant is the same as self-defense against an unknown-assailant.  (So, don't worry about teaching it differently.)" Read the whole thing.

    Moving one: One of the videos to which Jon links is from Tom Givens discussing violent criminals. Jon comments:

     Fuck up the criminal's OODA loop by doing what he does not expect.  He expects compliance.  

     When he demands your money, he expects you to reach for something on your waistline.  Feign compliance as you step to the side (to get out of his field of view), present your pistol, and fire to center of mass.

     He's not going to drop his weapon and surrender.  He's not going to run away.  He's going to shoot you.  So, you must shoot him before he shoots you.  If you attempt to talk to him, he will be shooting you while you are talking.  

       If he is close to you, present to your close contact position and fire.  Elbow pulled back as far as you can.  Bottom of your pistol grip pressed firmly against your rib cage.  Top of the pistol tilted away from your body so that your slide doesn't get fouled in your shirt.  If he has a knife, use your support-side hand to protect your carotid arteries.  If he has a gun, use your support-side arm to protect your heart and lungs.  If he has fists, use your support-side arm to protect your head.  

Hopefully it won't come to that because you either are not there (Farnam's rules of self-defense) or you have failed "the interview" and the criminal passes you by. Farnam observes that "A big part of our training is avoidance and disengagement. When someone is offering violence, we teach to aggressively disengage and separate." He also explains:

    We’re saying, “I’m sorry, sir, I can’t help you,” with the knowledge that we are carrying our trump card. My trump card is right here [pats holstered pistol]. He can’t see it; he doesn’t know it, but I do. I know I have options. I know that if nothing I’m doing is adequate, I can always go to the next step. With that knowledge, I can be far more convincing. I can be far more successful with my less-than-lethal approach than someone who has nowhere to go when it doesn’t work.

    Disengagement is a big part of our training, but we can’t give students the impression that it just ends there, that any lethal confrontation can be avoided and diffused. That is not true! We have to have the ultimate solution at hand and ready to go and then, with everything else in place, a lethal confrontation is only less likely, not impossible.

    You do not get a risk-free life. Students come with the false expectation, asking, “Show me what to do. Show me if I adhere to what you tell me to do, that nothing bad will ever happen to me.” I can’t.

    The only thing I can guarantee you is that in the end, the Valkyries will have their victory. Between then and now, I want to expose myself to every good thing this life has to offer. Part of growing up and maturing is developing the ability to distinguish what we call normal risk from suicidal risk or risk that has no benefit. When people take suicidal risks and are injured then say, “I had no idea! This was not fair,” I wonder, “What planet are you from? Are you six years old or something?!” This is something you should learn as an adult.

    It applies to what we do with guns and when we take the same philosophy and apply it to everyday life, we don’t go to stupid places, we don’t associate with stupid people, we don’t do stupid things. Will that guarantee that nothing bad will happen to us? Of course not! It makes it less likely. In the end, despite your best efforts you may be confronted by a circumstance where you have no choice but to apply deadly force in a very ruthless and aggressive manner.

    One of the points that Jon hits hard in this post is to not talk to the police, observing that "[t]he effects of high stress are diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain." We've seen this before. Michael Drejka, you may remember, shot dead a man that had shoved him (Drejka) to the ground outside a convenience store in Florida several years ago. Drejka was going to walk on self-defense, but wound up talking the police into bringing a manslaughter charge against him. In short, you are not as clever as you think and your memory is fallible. 

    But it is a highly contentious topic. Other trainers, including Massad Ayoob and Greg Ellifritz, have taken the position that you should at least try and provide basic facts (i.e., "he pulled a gun on me; I was defending myself") and perhaps point out witnesses or evidence (i.e., "that guy over there saw the whole thing" or "you can see his gun under that car"). But even they advise against trying to get into lengthy discussions without your attorney or trying to provide specifics like how many shots you fired, how many feet you were from the person, etc. 

    The devil is in the details and that, frankly, is where people often screw up. I know a guy that lost his automobile accident case because instead of sticking to generalities, he decided to try and answer a question of how far behind the other vehicle he was when that vehicle made a sudden U-turn. He replied "30 feet". I'm sure that (a) he didn't actually know how far he was behind the other vehicle and (2) he was actually probably much farther back, but once the "30 feet" was out of his mouth--which was far too close given the speeds the vehicles were traveling--it was pretty much the end of the case and his insurer settled the claim. It is exactly that type of game you want to stay away from: getting pulled into answering questions on specifics that you probably don't know and are likely to just guess about. And if you do decide to talk to the police, don't guess about something--if you don't know, say you don't know (or don't recall or are unsure).

    The answer to this question also depends on the attitude of the police force and prosecutor. A more conservative police force or prosecutor will probably cut you some slack; a liberal or, God help you, radical leftist prosecutor will do everything to put you away if you fall within the "wrong" (i.e., privileged) demographic or just because he/she/it doesn't like the idea of peasants owning firearms. It is probably the latter case were you most assiduously want to avoid talking to the police. Oh, and the police "bug" holding cells and waiting areas, so don't talk to anyone else--family member, another arrestee, etc.  

    I like examining real world incidents, and so apparently does Jon because he includes links to videos and articles about some incidents, including the women that was kidnapped from a Walmart parking lot in Nevada and murdered. Check out the article for more of the details, but Jon offers this warning and advice:

     Statistically speaking, all crime occurs in Wal Mart parking lots from 22:00 to 06:00 (10:00 PM to 6:00 AM).  So, DON'T BE THERE!  

     If you have to be there:  Park under a light.  Pay attention to who is around you.  Letting the assailant know that you see him by shining your flashlight at him is a big deterrent.  The criminal predator wants surprise.  Deny him surprise, and he will move on to easier prey.  

     If he attacks, FIGHT!  The bad guy expects compliance and submission.  The sooner you gouge out his eyes, the sooner you can escape.  The shorter the fight, the less hurt you get.  KEEP FIGHTING!  You will win.

     You may lose.  But, if you are able to take out his eyes, you will be saving all of his subsequent victims.  Which is a big win for your community.  

     As Jeff Cooper says in his book, "Principles of Personal Defense", the first person to fight back usually stops the serial murderer.  The reason there were serial murders in the first place is that all of the previous victims surrendered without a fight.  

I've read comments from other LEO and ex-LEO that have noted that local Walmarts represent a significant, if not a majority, of their calls. If you do decide to visit a Walmart, try and do it during the busy time of the day (day as in daylight) and check out the people shopping there. At least half of the people shopping there should look like you. If not, you might consider going someplace else.

    We, in the gun community, harp on the need for situational awareness, but that is because it is so important. Jon links to a video featuring Ken Hackathorn talking about situational awareness, decision making skills and, as a distant third in importance, combat marksmanship; as well as Tactical Professor post with some comments about the same video. As Hackathorn notes, combat marksmanship is actually the least important and typically represents a failure of situational awareness and decision making. Hackathorn also recommends watching a video from Paul Howell about target discrimination: essentially identify friend or foe. On this latter point, Jon adds:

     Some guys are proud of the fact that they got a certain score, or they got A-zone hits on all their targets.  But, the tactically correct thing to be proud of is "no hits on no-shoot targets".  Can you claim that?  If you passed though a shoot-target and hit a no-shoot target behind it, you can't claim it.  If you killed the little girl in the dressing room who you didn't even know was there, you can't claim it.  

    Another article to which Jon links is by Erick Gelhaus at American Cop and discusses flashlights, not only as a piece of equipment but their use in a police or defensive situation. Jon comments:

     Outside your house, you probably won't need your flashlight for self-defense, because the robber has to have enough light to target you, which means you have enough light to defend.  

     Inside your house, the probability of encountering a no-shoot-target is much higher than encountering a shoot-target.  So, you have to have your flashlight to positively identify the target.  You should also use your words.  Loud and clear, "Who's there?"  But, won't that give away your position?  Yes, it might also cause the bad guy to flee, which is a big win for you.  But, most likely it will be some relative answering, "It's me."

    Something I had never thought about, but which Jon brings up, are the dangers of loosening a tourniquet. Jon observes a couple of what I would consider significant problems:

1.  The patient will bleed to death.  

2.  Toxins that built up in the limb when the blood flow was stopped, will be released into the blood stream.  

     Just wait for a doctor to release the tourniquet.  

    In response to an NRA article on why you should shoot with both eyes open, Jon states: "If you aim with both eyes open you will get a double image.  Murphy's Law guarantees that you will shoot at the wrong image, missing your target, destroying property, hitting bystanders, maybe killing them." I know that most people can train to shoot with both eyes open by only having one eye focus on the sights. I question why bother when you can keep both eyes open until you need to take the shot, and then close the eye you are not using for aiming. It gives you the tactical awareness you need without the hassle of trying to ignore one eye. I can get away with not closing one eye if I'm not wearing my glasses because one of my eyes is so much worse than the other that my brain automatically shuts down most of the input from the worse eye. But with my glasses on, I just close the eye I don't need for that final sight alignment. 

    Anyway, I could go on and on discussing various comments or articles. There is a reason Jon only puts out these posts once or twice a month and it is because there is so much information there. Check it out and read through to the end.