The title is from an article by Brad Aaronson at Orthodox Union. I have come across articles and videos in my studies that indicate that the traditional timeline and dating of significant events in the Old Testament is incorrect. In fact, I posted on some ideas about how long the Israelites were in Egypt and when they left a couple years ago based on data on pollen counts that seemed to indicate a rough date when Israel entered Egypt combined with information from older versions of the Old Testament that used by most modern Bibles that indicated that Israel remained in Egypt for 215 years.
Aaronson takes a different approach, ignoring the official dating and instead trying to match (synchronize) events. While I believe that there are significant problems with his theory (see below) he does raise some interesting points and disputes in the archeological record concerning Israel.
Aaronson analysis really begins in a footnote where he asserts that the dates commonly given for events in Egypt are off by 166 years citing “Fixing the History Books – Dr. Chaim Heifetz’s Revision of Persian History,” in the Spring 1991 issue of Jewish Action. Thus, while the accepted dating places the Exodus in the reign of Pharaoh Thutmose III, believed by some to be the pharaoh at the time of the Exodus (in my post, cited above, I suggested that Thutmose's son, Amenhotep II, was the pharaoh of the Exodus). Aaronson observes, however, that nothing like the Exodus (or, more precisely, the plagues) occurred in the reign of Thutmose III or even Ramses II, another pharaoh that has been suggested as the pharaoh of the Exodus.
Aaronson goes on (footnotes omitted):
Both Thutmose III and Ramses II date to a period called the Late Bronze Age, which ended with the onset of the Iron Age. Since the Iron Age has been thought to be the time when Israel first arrived in Canaan, the Late Bronze Age has been called “The Canaanite Period,” and historians have limited their search for the Exodus to this time. When we break free of this artificial restraint, the picture changes drastically.
According to the Midrash, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was named Adikam and he had a short reign of four years. The Pharaoh who preceded him, whose death prompted Moses’ return to Egypt (Exodus 2:23, 4:19), was named Malul. Malul, we are told, reigned from the age of six to the age of 100. Such a long reign – 94 years! – sounds fantastic, and many people would hesitate to take this Midrash literally. As it happens, though, Egyptian records mention a Pharaoh who reigned for 94 years, and not only 94 years, but from the age of six to the age of 100! This Pharaoh was known in inscriptions as Pepi (or Phiops) II. The information regarding his reign is known both from the Egyptian historian-priest Manetho, writing in the 3rd century BCE, and from an ancient Egyptian papyrus called the Turin Royal Canon, which was only discovered in the last century.
Egyptologists, unaware of the midrash, have wrestled with the historicity of Pepi II’s long reign. One historian wrote:
Pepi II … appears to have had the longest reign in Egyptian history and perhaps in all history. The Turin Royal Canon credits him with upwards of ninety years. One version of the Epitome of Manetho indicates that he “began to rule at the age of six and continued to a hundred.” Although modern scholars have questioned this, it remains to be disproved.
While the existence of two kings who reigned a) 94 years, b) in Egypt, and c) from the age of six, is hard enough to swallow a coincidence, that is not all. Like Malul, Pepi II was the second to last king of his dynasty. Like Malul, his successor had a short reign of three or four years, after which Egypt fell apart. Pepi II’s dynasty was called the 6th Dynasty, and was the last dynasty of the Old Kingdom. Following his successor’s death, Egypt collapsed, both economically and under foreign invasion. Egypt, which had been so powerful and wealthy only decades before, suddenly could not defend itself against tribes of invading Bedouins. No one knows what happened. Some historians have suggested that the long reign of Pepi II resulted in stagnation, and that when he died, it was like pulling the support out from under a rickety building. But there is no evidence to support such a theory.
A papyrus dating from the end of the Old Kingdom was found in Egypt in the early 19th century. It is an account of an Egypt suddenly bereft of leadership. Violence is rampant. Foreign invaders are everywhere, with no one to hold them in check. The natural order of things has come to a crashing standstill. Slaves have disappeared and taken all the wealth of Egypt with them. Based on its literary style, it seems to be an eye-witness account of Egypt not long after the dissolution of the Old Kingdom. Its author, an Egyptian named Ipuwer, writes in the document below:
Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere. (2:5)
The river is blood (2:10)
That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin! (3:10-13)
Trees are destroyed. (4:14)
No fruit or herbs are found . . . (6:1)
Forsooth, grain has perished on every side. (6:3)
The land is not light [dark]. (9:11)
Nile overflows [bringing the harvest], yet no one ploughs for him. (2:3)
No craftsmen work, the enemies of the land have spoilt its crafts. (9:6)
Gold and lapus lazuli, silver and malachite, camelian and bronze . . . are fastened on the neck of female slaves. (3:2)
Velikovsky recognized this as an eyewitness account of the ten plagues. His evaluation has been criticized on the basis that Ipuwer describes an overall breakdown of Egyptian society, and that the parallels to the plagues and the plundering of Egypt the night before the Exodus are not the central point of his composition. But Ipuwer was an Egyptian. His concern was the general state in which Egypt found itself, and what could be done to correct it. Had Ipuwer been a member of Pharaoh’s court, and witnessed the full drama of Moses and Aaron confronting his king, he might have written in such a way as to make the dating of the Exodus clear to even the most skeptical. As it is, we have an account of how the events of the Exodus affected Egypt as a whole.
He adds:
When the Bible tells us that Egypt would never be the same after the Exodus, it was no exaggeration. With invasions from all directions, virtually all subsequent kings of Egypt were of Ethiopian, Libyan or Asiatic descent. When Chazal tell us that King Solomon was able to marry Pharaoh’s daughter despite the ban on marrying Egyptian converts until they have been Jewish for three generations because she was not of the original Egyptian nation, there is no reason to be surprised.
The impact on the region outside of Egypt also supports a re-examination of the dating. Aaronson writes:
It was not only Egypt which felt the birth pangs of the Jewish People. The end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt preceded only slightly the end of the Early Bronze Age in the Land of Israel. The end of this period, dated by archaeologists to c.2200 BCE (in order to conform to the Egyptian chronology), has long puzzled archaeologists. The people living in the Land of Israel during the Early Bronze were the first urban dwellers there. They were, by all available evidence, primitive, illiterate and brutal. They built large but crude fortress cities and were constantly at war. At the end of the Early Bronze Age, they were obliterated.
Who destroyed Early Bronze Age Canaan? Before the vast amount of information we have today had been more than hinted at, some early archaeologists suggested that they were Amorites. The time, they thought, was more or less right for Abraham. So why not postulate a great disaster in Mesopotamia, which resulted in people migrating from there to Canaan? Abraham would have been thus one in a great crowd of immigrants (scholars of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries often felt compelled to debunk the idea of Divine commands).
Today, the picture is different. The invaders of the Early Bronze/Middle Bronze Interchange seem to have appeared out of nowhere in the Sinai and the Negev. Initially, they moved up into the Transjordan, and then crossed over north of the Dead Sea, conquering Canaan and wiping out the inhabitants. Of course, since we are dealing with cultural remnants and not written records, we don’t know that the previous inhabitants were all killed. Some of them may have remained, but if so, they adopted enough of the newcomers’ culture to “disappear” from the archaeological record.
And more:
... It is not only the period of the Exodus and Conquest which suddenly match the evidence of ancient records and archaeology when the dates of the archaeological periods are brought down:
1. The Middle Bronze Age invaders, after some centuries of rural settlement, expanded almost overnight into an empire, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. This empire has been termed the “Hyksos Empire,” after a group of nomads that invaded Egypt, despite the fact that there is no historical evidence for such an identification. History knows of one such empire. Archaeology knows of one such empire. The same adjustment which restores the Exodus and Conquest to history does the same to the United Kingdom of David and Solomon.
2. The Empire fell, bringing the Middle Bronze Age to an end. Archaeologists and Egyptologists are currently involved in a great debate over whether it was civil war or Egyptian invasions which destroyed the “Hyksos” empire. The biblical accounts of the revolt of the ten northern tribes and the invasion of Shishak king of Egypt make the debate irrelevant.
3. The period following the end of the Empire was one of much unrest, but saw tremendous literary achievements. Since this period, the Late Bronze Age, was the last period before the Iron Age, and since the Iron Age was believed to have been the Israelite Period, the Late Bronze Age was called the Canaanite Period. Strangely, these Canaanites spoke and wrote in beautiful Biblical Hebrew. Semitic Canaanites? Did the Bible get it wrong again? But then, coming after the time of David and Solomon, they weren’t really Canaanites. The speakers and writers of Biblical Hebrew were, as might have been guessed . . . Biblical Hebrews.
4. Finally we get to the Iron Age. This is when Israel supposedly arrived in Canaan. But it has been obvious to archaeologists for over a century that the archaeology of the Iron Age bears little resemblance to the Biblical account of the conquest of Canaan. There were invasions, but they were from the north, from Syria and Mesopotamia, and they came in several waves, unlike the lightning conquest under Joshua. The people who settled the land after the invasions also came from the north, though there is much evidence to suggest that they weren’t the invaders, and merely settled an empty land after it had been destroyed by others. The south remained in the hands of the Bronze Age inhabitants, albeit on a lower material level.
And:
What is most strange is that multiple waves of invasion followed by northern tribes settling in the north of Israel is not an event which has gone unmentioned in the Bible. The invaders were the Assyrians. The settlers were the northern tribes who eventually became the Samaritans, And if the people in the south were descended from the Late Bronze Age inhabitants of the land, why, that merely means that the kingdom of Judah was a continuation of the kingdom of Judah. The only historical claims which are contradicted by the archaeological record are those of the Samaritans, who claim to have been the descendants of the ten tribes of Israel.
There are some problems with Aaronson's thesis, not the least of which is that the dating on which he relies are contested. For instance, Pepi II is believed to have ruled for 64 years; the end of the Old Kingdom in approximately 2200 B.C. puts the Exodus as roughly 1,600 years before the destruction of Solomon's temple by the Babylonians, which is far outside the 910 years in common Biblical chronologies. (Although even the Egyptian chronologies and Near East chronologies are nowhere as exact as most scholars would like you to think and not everyone agrees on the dating). The text of Ipuwer Papyrus, which according to Aaronson's thesis would have been composed about the time of the end of the Old Kingdom or shortly thereafter, is believed to have been composed hundreds of years later, in the late Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt (c.1991–1803 BC) (the actual papyrus has been dated to 1250 BC) and certain of the events do not match up with the Exodus. There was no Hyksos Empire as Aaronsen describes: the Hyksos were immigrants that flowed into Lower Egypt and then overthrew the Egyptians (see here and here). The more likely explanation is that Israel was the part of this Hyksos immigration, with Joseph being one of the "Hyksos" that obtained power by marrying into powerful Egyptian families, rather than the Hyksos being the empire of David and Solomon. Finally, the 166 year correction that Aaronson relies upon is based on faulty dating.
Jon Low has posted a new Defensive Pistolcraft post with a roundup of articles and videos related to firearms and self-defense (and a little bit of radio related topics this time as well) and his commentary on each. This week, Jon has some advice to those using or thinking of using IDPA or IPSC matches to augment their training.
The general idea behind using such matches, as expressed by Ayoob and others, is that they provide a chance to shoot while under pressure which can give you an idea of how you might perform in an actual gunfight. Obviously the stress you might have at a match is not to the level of an actual fight, but it is more than you will get on a square target range. And that brings up a second advantage to attending such matches for many people is that it might be the only time that you can actually move and shoot around barriers, whether because you only get to practice at a square range and/or can't afford all the barriers and other accouterments that will be at an IDPA match.
But back to Jon's comments:
When we shoot the match, we will go very slowly to ensure we positively identify every shoot-target and every no-shoot-target. We will not be racing to win the game. It is common for the Safety Officer to inform the shooter that he failed to engage several targets, because he just ran past them without seeing them. Moving faster than you can see. Moving faster than you can think.
We will stay back away from corners, windows, and doors, because we understand that there is someone hiding behind the corner who will grab our pistol.
We will shoot at the first part of the enemy that comes into view, because we can do so without exposing our bodies. We can always get the A-zone hit later as we come around the corner. We understand that whoever gets the first hit will usually win the gunfight.
We will not muzzle no-shoot-targets. We will not sweep across no-shoot-targets when transitioning from one shoot-target to another shoot-target. Because unlike the other competitors, we are not playing a game. We are training for combat. Shooting the no-shoot target is shooting faster than you can think.
Do not do "walk throughs". Do not choreograph the scenario. Shoot the targets as they come into view. Do not count rounds. Do not plan your reloads. Shoot until empty, then reload. Planning a scenario is a training scar. Combat is surprising.
Remember, we are training for civilian concealed carry for self-defense. We are not playing the game.
Does this mean that you will not win the match? Probably. Most likely you will fall into the middle range if you are an experienced shooter because treating barriers and movement around barriers seriously takes time. If you are treating the scenario seriously you can't, for instance, simply race around a corner and stand in the middle of the faux hallway and blaze away at the target as you would if speed was your primary concern.
I'm of two minds on Jon's advice to avoid the detailed walk-through and planning how you will shoot the stage. First of all, you need to at least view the stage and objectives so you can safely complete the stage. Second, I'm not sure that the planning process is a bad thing; it may even be a good thing. Why do I think that way? Well, for one, I'm not going to be clearing random buildings. The only building I see myself clearing is my home for which I can plan in detail and even modify the environment to make it easier for me. So planning how to shoot a stage isn't going to cheat me out of valuable experience on clearing random buildings. Secondly, most of us haven't had any training or experience in clearing buildings so we don't have that background in thinking how to approach or react to a situation where we might have to move and shoot in a less familiar space. Having to think how you will solve an IDPA stage may, in fact, be the only chance you have to practice on evaluating a structure and coming up with a plan. Anyway, my two cents.
Back to Jon's comments. He relates this recent experience:
A couple of hours ago, I finished a Low Light Outlaw match at the Glock Store in Nashville, TN. I used my EDC (every day carry) gear (including a hand held flashlight).
Strobe lights are distracting. Use your hand or hat brim to block the strobe lights.
The guys using night vision goggles could not distinguish colors. They couldn't tell the difference between the brown shoot-targets and the white no-shoot-targets. That's a real problem.
My marksmanship ability in low light is degraded. Because I don't practice low light shooting enough. An operator must know how low light affects their ability to hit at given distances and adjust accordingly. If you can group in a 12 inch circle at 25 yards that's fine. If you know that you can group within a 30 inch circle at 25 yards in low light conditions. That's fine. You can charge in to get the group size needed. But if you don't know what your group size is at 25 yards in low light, that's a real problem.
There was a house clearing scenario in which the mission was to rescue the baby. There was a recording playing of a baby screaming and crying. I knew it wasn't real, but it was still very disturbing. The "baby" wasn't a life size doll as I had expected. It was a 3D cardboard "baby" that weighed what you would expect a baby of that size to weigh, and clearly labeled "BABY". I went slowly and carefully, and accomplished the mission. Others shot the baby. Others could not find the baby, complaining that it was buried under the blanket or the pillows. I was thinking, "That's stupid." You just keep searching until you find the baby. Never give up. But, they were pissed that they were taking so long that they would get a bad score on the stage.
A couple more points:
_and_Tsakkaras_(painting).png) |
| Sherden and Tjeker on Pylon of Medinet Habu (Wikipedia) |
Ilan Ben Zion has published an article in Archaeology Magazine on the topic of "The Philistine Age." Most of us are only familiar with the Philistines in their role as the arch enemy of the Israelites during the later period of the reign of the judges and during the period of the united Kingdom of Israel under Saul, David and Solomon. As Ben Zion observes: "The Bible’s pejorative depiction of the Philistines has so pervaded Western culture that, more than 3,000 years on, 'philistine' remains a byword for an unsophisticated person indifferent or hostile to artistic and intellectual pursuits."
Up until recently, the pervasive belief among archeologists was that the Philistines originated in the Aegean, were probably the "Sea Peoples" (or a major constituent thereof) that overthrew and destroyed the kingdoms and empires causing the Bronze Age Collapse, and forcefully invaded Israel and Canaan and settled there. Ben Zion argues that more recent and more extensive archeological digs of four of the main five Philistine cities paints a more nuanced picture.
Maeir and many of his colleagues suggest that the Philistines were an eclectic and multiethnic group of migrants, not a uniform horde of invaders. He believes it’s likely they hailed from various locations around the eastern Mediterranean and moved to the Levant over many decades between the late thirteenth and mid-twelfth centuries B.C. They settled, mostly peaceably, among the local Canaanites, creating a distinct hybrid culture that endured for much of the Iron Age. “What we’ve learned about Philistine culture at Gath,” Maeir says, “is that the process of its origins, formation, transformation, and development is much more complex than was originally thought.”
The article continues:
Like the Israelites living in the inland hill country to the east of Gath, the Philistines first appear in the historical record during the upheaval of the end of the Late Bronze Age, around 1200 B.C., when a period of stability in the eastern Mediterranean marked by long-distance trade and diplomacy came to a dramatic end. The Hittite Empire that had ruled Anatolia since about 1750 B.C. collapsed. The Egyptian grip over Canaan began a long decline, after which some Canaanite cities were destroyed. Scholars debate what precipitated this Late Bronze Age collapse. Maeir says there likely wasn’t a single root cause, but that a combination of environmental and social factors were to blame. Analysis of pollen and sediments from Bronze Age sites in Greece and Israel shows that the eastern Mediterranean experienced a period of severe aridity starting around 1250 B.C. Protracted periods of drought and famine likely fanned social unrest and may have triggered mass migrations and invasions that undermined the political stability of the Late Bronze Age.
Ben Zion then goes into more detail about Maeir's findings and his belief that the Philistines actually represented a vibrant cosmopolitan and migrant culture. That doesn't mean that Maeir's views are fully accepted.
Maeir’s vision of the Philistines isn’t the only one embraced by modern archaeologists. Wheaton College archaeologist Daniel Master, who codirected recent excavations at Ashkelon, the Philistine port 18 miles west of Tell es-Safi, believes Egyptian and biblical accounts should be interpreted more literally. He thinks that the Philistines likely hailed from Crete and conquered Canaanite cities during a brief window around 1175 B.C Philistine pottery resembling ceramics from Mycenaean sites was a product of a single stylistic moment, Master says. Those pottery types and decorative styles, he thinks, changed in parallel in Philistia and the Aegean during a single generation.
The 2013 discovery of a cemetery at Ashkelon, the first large burial ground to be excavated at one of the cities of the Philistine Pentapolis, has helped bolster Master’s view. This cemetery contained some 200 burials dating to the Philistine period in which individuals were interred separately. This is unlike Canaanite funerary practices in which the dead were cremated or buried collectively in pits or tombs. Genetic analysis of these remains, says Master, supports Egyptian accounts of the Philistines’ origins. He was part of a team that analyzed the DNA of 10 individuals found in the Ashkelon cemetery: three dating from the Bronze Age, four from the Early Iron Age, and three dating to the tenth to ninth century B.C. The team found that DNA sampled from the Early Iron Age burials had a European genetic component that set the people apart from the local Bronze Age Canaanite population and supports the idea that the Philistines originated in Crete.
But other researchers warn that the sample size for the DNA study are too small to be taken as definitive, and while there is a strong Greek thread in the styles of pottery and other objects, there are also elements of Levantine styles intermixed, and some Canaanite practices apparently continued into the Philistine period.
Hitchcock says the archaeological record doesn’t neatly match the traditional scholarly accounts of Philistine invasion and colonization. In particular, she points to the absence of evidence of violent conquest at Philistine sites, including Gath. “We go straight from early Philistine layers down into Late Bronze Age layers with no evidence of destruction,” she says. “This calls into question the whole myth of the Philistines as an invading force of Mycenaean colonizers sweeping in and taking over.” In addition, very few weapons have been found at Philistine sites, an absence that challenges the martial image of the Philistines presented in the Bible.
Maeir and Hitchcock propose that the people who became the Philistines were part of migrating populations who formed opportunistic pirate tribes. These groups may have roamed the Mediterranean, taking on followers from a number of different disrupted societies. “When Egypt loosened its grip on Philistia, these groups finally settled in among the local population,” Hitchcock says. The scholars believe that some of the peoples who comprised the Philistines were multiethnic groups of raiders possibly analogous to Atlantic pirates of the seventeenth century A.D., who are known to have come from many different nations.
The truth of the matter is probably somewhere in the middle. Egyptian paintings of the Sea Peoples show a rather polyglot group of invaders, and the two pharaohs that recorded battles with them listed a total of 9 groups: Shardana, Shekelesh, Lukka, Teresh, Ekwesh, Tjekker, Denyen, Weshesh, and Peleset. The Peleset are believed to have been the Philistines. The popular theories of the Sea Peoples suggest that they originated from several groups migrating into the Mediterranean and seemingly arriving at a time that the local populaces were unhappy with their rulers, with the result that there seemed to have been widespread war and uprisings through the area.
As for where they came from, the early Egyptologists were split in their opinion as to whether the Sea Peoples had come from the west, i.e., Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, and traveled east, or whether they were from the Eastern Mediterranean and had fled west after being defeated by the Egyptians. Even today we still play linguistic games with the names of the individual groups whom the Egyptian pharaohs mentioned. Most (although not all) scholars would now argue that the Sea Peoples began their migration from the Western Mediterranean, and that there is a linguistic link between the Shardana and Sardinia as well as the Shekelesh and Sicily. However, when they headed east and overran various countries and areas, others joined in along the way, so that the Denyen and Ekwesh might be from the Aegean (Homer’s Danaans and Achaeans), the Lukka are almost certainly from Lycia in southwestern Turkey, and so on.
If that thinking is correct, then the two waves of Sea Peoples that crashed upon the shores of Egypt thirty years apart were composed of a motley crew from many different areas of both the western and eastern Mediterranean plus the Aegean and perhaps Cyprus as well. But all of that, plain and simple, is still just a hypothesis, for there are no other texts or even archaeological evidence at the moment to confirm the entire story.
What we have instead are bits and pieces of the puzzle, such as the fact that the Shardana (also called the Sherden) appear in Egyptian texts and inscriptions already a century or more earlier, fighting as mercenaries both for and against the Egyptian army. Individual texts from places such as Ugarit in north Syria report unnamed invaders and foreign ships, as well as famine in the Hittite lands. We also have sites destroyed during this time, but it’s not always clear who or what did it and why – perhaps foreign invaders; perhaps an uprising by the local populace; perhaps an earthquake. It can be difficult, and sometimes impossible, to tell what caused the destruction of a site, especially if no weapons (such as arrowheads, swords, or spear tips) or bodies are found in the rubble.
It is possible that Canaan was rapidly overwhelmed with migrants (i.e., an invasion) but that the local rulers either capitulated without a fight or realized that hosting bands of pirates might enrich their pockets (i.e., no evidence of a violent invasion). Or, as Ramses' inscriptions suggest, perhaps the Philistine colonization of Canaan was part of an Egyptian resettlement program after he defeated the Sea Peoples in 1177 BC.
Given that it is summer and Europe is having summer temperatures similar to what you see in the United States, The Conversation has published what seems a timely article on "How hot is too hot for the human body? Our lab found heat + humidity gets dangerous faster than many people realize." The authors first lay out what is the current consensus:
People often point to a study published in 2010 that estimated that a wet-bulb temperature of 35 C – equal to 95 F at 100% humidity, or 115 F at 50% humidity – would be the upper limit of safety, beyond which the human body can no longer cool itself by evaporating sweat from the surface of the body to maintain a stable body core temperature.
It was not until recently that this limit was tested on humans in laboratory settings. The results of these tests show an even greater cause for concern.
The article then briefly describes how the authors conducted their research before getting to their findings:
That combination of temperature and humidity whereby the person’s core temperature starts to rise is called the “critical environmental limit.” Below those limits, the body is able to maintain a relatively stable core temperature over time. Above those limits, core temperature rises continuously and risk of heat-related illnesses with prolonged exposures is increased.
When the body overheats, the heart has to work harder to pump blood flow to the skin to dissipate the heat, and when you’re also sweating, that decreases body fluids. In the direst case, prolonged exposure can result in heat stroke, a life-threatening problem that requires immediate and rapid cooling and medical treatment.
Our studies on young healthy men and women show that this upper environmental limit is even lower than the theorized 35 C. It’s more like a wet-bulb temperature of 31 C (88 F). That would equal 31 C at 100% humidity or 38 C (100 F) at 60% humidity.
The authors also warn:
Keep in mind that these cutoffs are based solely on keeping your body temperature from rising excessively. Even lower temperatures and humidity can place stress on the heart and other body systems. And while eclipsing these limits does not necessarily present a worst-case scenario, prolonged exposure may become dire for vulnerable populations such as the elderly and those with chronic diseases.
Jon Low had a new post a few days ago. Lots of good articles, so be sure to check it out. He also linked to the firearm safety public service announcement that you can find at the top of the page.
Jon likes to remind readers that vehicles are not holsters ... or gun cabinets or safes ... so don't store your firearms in them. Why? Well, he relates:
This past Tuesday evening, a Nashville Police Captain and the Director of the Tennessee Handgun Permitting agency came to the Tennessee Firearms Association meeting and told us that 4818 pistols were stolen out of cars and about 5000 pistols were stolen out of homes since the beginning of this year, 2022 A.D. Last year about 10,000 pistols were stolen out of cars and homes. These pistols end up being used in crimes.
It isn't just you average John Doe either. I was researching the topic of police losing firearms a couple years ago (it was for a post that I wound up never writing), using news accounts I could find, and was frankly surprised at how often law enforcement officers lose firearms from police vehicles and their own private vehicles.
But Docent, you say, what if I'm carrying and I have to run into a post office or (shudder) am in a jurisdiction where it is a crime to carry a firearm into businesses that have posted that firearms are not allowed? Good question. While I certainly cannot advise you to do so, there are those that will carry into such locations anyway--just make sure that your firearm is well concealed. If you don't fall into that group, the options are: (i) make a special trip--unarmed, of course--to that location; or (ii) leave your firearm in your vehicle. In the latter case, you again are left with two choices: (a) install a lockbox in the vehicle that is securely bolted down in which to store the firearm, or (b) conceal the firearm inside the vehicle or cargo area (trunk) where it cannot be spotted. Option (a) is the acceptable answer. And even then, you should make sure that neither you nor your vehicle advertises that you own or carry firearms: e.g., that the vehicle and your clothing are devoid of any decals or patches related to hunting or firearms or the NRA--which you should be doing anyway--and your vehicle doors are locked and the car alarm is set. Ditto with option (b) but you will also need to take additional precautions to make your vehicle less of a target such as not parking on street, parking in a busy location or where you can keep an eye on your vehicle, making sure the vehicle is locked and alarm is set, keeping your errand short, etc. But you really should go home, drop off your firearm, and make a special trip.
But back to Jon's post, I found his comments and advice concerning low shooting positions and cover interesting and useful:
Lower positions entail less mobility and more stability, hence better accuracy. Lower positions allow you to change the trajectory of your bullet to avoid hitting innocent persons. Going to a lower position reduces the probability of you being seen, because you are below eye level. No, really it's true. Remember the context we are operating in; fast moving chaotic situation. And if the enemy doesn't see you, he won't shoot at you.
Squatting (This is the fastest position to get in and out of, but requires flexibility). From your bladed standing position, bend your knees to drop straight down. (Don’t move your feet.) Keep your feet flat on the ground. (Don’t let your heels come off the ground.) Rest the back of your support side upper arm against the front of your knee cap, just as in the kneeling position. The upper body and arms are in the same Weaver position as in standing. Pivot around the ball of your firing side foot to adjust your natural point of aim.
Using a curb as cover. Present your pistol to the target first. Lie flat on your back on the street using the curb as cover. Turn your feet to get your toes down, so they are behind the curb. Shoot over the curb to your right using a left handed Weaver position. Shoot over the curb to your left using a right handed Weaver position. Pull your head up as necessary to get your aiming eye behind the sights. You'll expose less of your head if you use your left eye when shooting left handed and your right eye when shooting right handed.
Some curbs are concrete, some are basaltic rock (as in Hawaii), etc. In Tennessee, there is often a drainage ditch running parallel to the road (even better cover). Depending on the standard in the area, the curbs may be 8 inches above the road. Anything that hits in front of you is going to ricochet over you.
I've had students who refused to get into lower positions because they felt it was undignified or they didn't want to get their clothes dirty. "But, that's okay. Because in a life or death situation, I'll be able to do it."
Really?
The body cannot go where the mind has never been. And the body will not go there quickly, unless the body has been there many times before.
Consider moving behind the cover of parked cars. Can you high crawl? (on your hands and knees) You don't know, if you haven't tried recently. Maybe your knees or wrists won't tolerate the pain.
Consider moving on a road using the curb as cover. Can you low crawl? (sliding your belly on the ground, using your elbows, knees, and feet to push you along) If you've never done it before, how do you know? Maybe you can't get your elbows over your head?
"I seem to have range of motion limitations."
Well, that's a terrible thing to discover in combat.
Indeed.
Jon also warns to not talk to the police after a shooting. He writes:
"I can talk to the responding officers. Explain what happened to prevent them from arresting me."
No, you can't. And if you believe you can, you're a damn fool.
Just ask for your attorney and shut up. Don't talk to the police. Don't answer their questions. Don't listen to their lies. Oh, yes, they will lie to you. Several U.S. Supreme Court rulings say that it is perfectly fine for the police to lie to you. On the other hand, if you lie to the police, that's a felony crime. They will lie to you to elicit a response from you, which will be used against you.
"The police would never do that."
If you believe that, you're a damn fool.
And don't talk to anyone else, either. Police will and do place microphones in waiting areas, holding cells, and so on. People blab and not very accurately either (try a round or two of the telephone game and you will get the idea). See also the link to "The Self-Defense Acquittal of Rondale King" video that Jon mentions and his comments on that situation.
Like I said above, there is a lot more links and commentary, so be sure to read the whole thing.
