New Defensive Pistolcraft Post

Jon Low has a new Defensive Pistolcraft post up as of May 24, 2023. It took me longer than usual to go through it because it was chock full of good information and links, which is why I am so tardy on reporting on it. As usual, I have attempted to pick out a couple things to whet your interest.

    One aspect of self-defense that is often over-looked from the defense side are what one source termed "psychological weapons" which essentially boils down to demoralizing or otherwise intimidating an opponent. Thus, it is common in historical periods, to see armor with garish designs or plumes to make the person look scarier or bigger. Cannon were sometimes cast to resemble some creature so that when it fired, it looked like a monster belching fire. Troops would yell and clash weapons to shield. In more modern times, we see close support aircraft painted with mouths filled sharp teeth and eyes like some beast of prey. 

    One of Selco's pieces mentions his encountering a man from the siege of Sarajevo who went around with a crazed look and demeanor and a machine gun hanging from one shoulder. According to Selco, no one messed with this guy because he was heavily armed and absolutely crazy and ruthless. Except, as Selco learned, the man wasn't that way. It was an act. And the machine gun was just something he gotten from a museum that didn't even operate. 

    While the "psychological weapons" discussed above has to do with military combat and warfare, the idea of intimidation carries over into self-defense.  Massad Ayoob recently had an article discussing the intimidation of criminals at gun point and whether the choice of firearm matters. Specifically, he was looking at choosing something big bore (i.e., .45 ACP) versus a medium bore weapon (.38 Special). He also discussed the advice (myth?) of racking a shotgun to scare away a criminal. Ayoob concluded that the weapon might intimidate someone, but not to count on it. Rather, he concluded, in the end "[t]hey fear the wielder, not the gun."

    Low gives some tips on making yourself a bit more intimidating--i.e., ready to do something violent to a criminal--and that actually do help you be better prepared to preemptively attack, counter attack (i.e., using the fencing definition of the term which is to attack before your opponent can complete his attack) or defend from an attack. He writes:

     What if you are not armed or have decided that you are not going to use a weapon yet?  How do you convince the enemy that you are ready, willing, and able to fight?  Body language.  

     Look at the enemy's hands and waist line.  

     Shut up.  (Idiots talk.  [Dirty Harry was a Hollywood character, not a real anything].  Operators strike silently, preemptively, without warning.  But you're so confident, you haven't decided to strike yet.  You're going to give this schmuck the opportunity to save his life by leaving.)  

     Stand up.  (If you can.  If you can't, move forward to the edge of your chair and prepare to push off from your toes and balls of your feet.)  

     Shoulders down and relaxed.  

     High chest.  (Imagine someone is pulling your nipples up.)  

     Tuck your chin and pull your head back, so your ears are above your shoulders as they should have been if you had good posture and weren't slouching.  So you will be looking at the enemy out of the tops of your eye sockets.  And your chin won't be sticking out to invite an uppercut.  

     Tilt you body forward if you are standing.  Tilt torso forward if you are sitting.  

     Shift your weight to the balls of your feet and your toes.  (Even if you are sitting.)  

     Flex your knees, if you are standing.  Prepare to push off, if you are sitting.  

     Practice doing this until the action is smooth and automatic, while looking at the enemy and surroundings.  

     The wimp may take a step back and raise his hands.  The hardened criminal may give you a hard look and flare his nostrils, clench his fists, or something like that.  If you don't get a good reaction from the enemy, time to acquire a weapon.  Lots of field expedient weapons all around you that you noticed upon entry.  Because you were paying attention.  

    One of the articles to which Low links has some important information on an orderly (or tactical) retreat. The article is by Hock Hochheim and discusses how to safely retreat (i.e., remove yourself) from a violent situation. Why would you want to do so? The biggest reason is that in many jurisdictions, unless you are in your home, you are required to retreat if you can safely do so before resorting to force. You might want to retreat to gain a tactical advantage such as cover, the ability to approach from a flank, and so on. You might want to retreat because what is going on isn't your fight. Low writes:

     Are you competent?  If not, your smart move is to leave.  Deciding to get involved, when incompetent, is effectively deciding to commit suicide.  What would your spouse and kids think of that?  

     "I won't be a coward."  

     Protecting your family's income and health is not cowardice.  

     "I have a duty as a citizen and human to defend others."  

     No, no, you don't.  The victim has a duty to defend himself.  His negligence, in not maintaining situational awareness, not acquiring a pistol, not carrying the pistol, not getting training, and not practicing is his sequence of choices that lead to his victimization.  He chose to be a victim.  Why would you interfere with the consequences of his choices?  (Well, if the victim is smoking hot, maybe.  Though in my experience, the damsels in distress that I have rescued, haven't given me a second glance.)  Remember, his choices were intentional.  Just as smoking, doing drugs, driving while texting will eventually kill a person, so the victim's past decisions will eventually kill him.  You can't save him.  You have no duty to try to save him.  Your imagined duty is from reading too many "knights in shining armor" stories.  

     "I am competent."  

     As Andrew Branca says, when you get involved, you take on the risk of death, serious injury (which means disabled, wheelchair, bed ridden, drooling on yourself in the nursing home, etc.), and spending the rest of your life in prison (with violent agressive persons who will eventually kill you, oh it's true that some people thrive in prison, get degrees and such, but not good people like us).  And you don't take on the "risk" of spending more money that you could possibly have; no, no, you will definitely spend that money because you don't want to spend the rest of your life in prison.  And if the first trial ends in a mistrial, you'll have a public defender for the second trial, because you won't have any money.  You're not Bill Cosby.  You don't have money for a second trial and appeals.  In America, you get as much justice as you can afford.  

     I have had real training in the Marine Corps.  I was a military policeman for a time in the Marine Corps.  I have had lots of training in civilian gun schools and conferences.  I practice a lot.  I have had combat experience at the individual level.  An objective observer would probably consider me competent.  I do not consider myself competent, in the sense that I am not sure that I can incapacitate the assailant and escape unscathed.  (Because that is my purpose, to escape, preferably unscathed.)  

     I know that getting involved will not end well for me.  CNN will label me a White-Asian (just as they labeled George Zimmerman a White-Hispanic), gun nut, and extremist (maybe a White Supremacist, because that's the label they used on the Mexican (not Mexican-American, just illegal alien Mexican) in Texas who shot up the Allen Premium Outlets north of Dallas, TX).  The local prosecutor, Glenn Funk, will prosecute me (remember Andrew Delke).  Black Lives Matter will be protesting in the streets.  So I have to be absolutely certain that shooting the young black male with a long violent criminal record (because statistically, that is the assailant) is the only way to protect my loved ones and myself.  As Andrew Branca says, after 20 years in prison, you have to be able to think to yourself, "Ya, it was worth it, I would do it again."  

     Oh, do you find this reality disturbing?  

     So even if you're competent, the smart move is to walk away.  

     And another good tip, this one on using cover/concealment:

     Your target area decreases as the reciprocal of the square of the distance from the threat. You may not be able to hide your entire body behind a telephone pole if you're standing right behind it, but take a few steps back and the 2-dimensional angle (measured in steradians) subtended by your body decreases and you are completely covered and concealed by the telephone pole.  (The closer the enemy is to the telephone pole, the worse it is for him, because the telephone pole will subtend a larger angle, obscuring more of the enemy's field of view.)  

     If the enemy moves left or right to shoot you, you will be able to see him at the edge of the telephone pole and shoot whatever part of him first becomes visible.  (Prefer the enemy's foot as opposed to the elbow or shoulder, as that will reduce the chance of hitting innocent bystanders in the background.  Ya, your bullet may ricochet, but ricochets have less energy than direct hits.)  

     Finally, I apparently missed one of Low's posts from earlier in May in which he had some comments about my article on disposing of dead bodies after SHTF. After linking to my article (thanks for the link, BTW), Jon adds:

     My experience working in hospitals and the morgues in those hospitals was that bodies start to stink within 4 hours of death.  

     In the Marine Corps we bring our dead home.  We search and then leave enemy dead.  No souvenirs, no desecration.  

     If you want to quickly eliminate the body, thermite.  Thermite is easy to make, aluminum powder and ferric oxide (rust from iron).  Thermite is available from welding supply stores.  Thermite blocks (12" X 12" X 3") for destroying the engine blocks of abandoned vehicles are available in most supply units (you pull a cord to ignite them).  If you don't have a 55 gallon drum, a hole in the ground will work, or any confined space (the trunk of a car, especially if the gas tank is under the trunk).  Or phosphorous grenades.  

In this most recent post, he addresses a reader comment about why he didn't address gasoline, essentially noting that in his experience using gasoline to burn things, gasoline can be dangerous and he doesn't have experience with gasoline. 

    I will make a quick observation about my article and sources from which I obtained the information: it was intended for survivors of a major SHTF event, most probably a major disaster or a major economic collapse combined with social upheaval, not military units in a war zone. The authors of the books from which I drew my information recognized that burning a body (cremation) was a possible means of disposal but dismissed it because it would use an ungodly amount of fuel--i.e., scarce resources that could be put to better uses--just to dispose of one body. Why would I waste a scarce resource (gasoline) to burn a body when I could put it to better use to power a vehicle or generator?