New Defensive Pistolcraft Newsletter

I don't know how I missed this, but Jon Low of Defensive Pistolcraft posted a new newsletter last week. 

    Jon breaks his newsletters into general sections--Prevention,  Intervention, Postvention, and Education--each of which is further subdivided into more narrow topics. At the very top of the "Prevention" section are links and short excerpts from a two-party article from Dave Spaulding entitled "Trendy or Noteworthy?" I liked this bit:

     Remember, fighting is final.  If you engage in combat, you run the risk of  being hurt or killed.  It’s not a video game.  There is no way to engage in nice fighting.  There is no room for “politically correct” in this arena.  I fear that some American cops and armed citizens have reached a time when force is preferably “minimal” instead of “objectively reasonable.”  On the other end of the spectrum, some want to use military-style, battle zone tactics in domestic conflict.  

This seems to be a growing trend but which seemed to take a boost in order to punish those that dared defend themselves against rioting BLM mobs. We saw several prosecutors and/or judges take the position that it was "objectively reasonable" to discern between the members of a violent mob and "mere protestors" that were intermixed. This was a deliberate strategy, I believe. We saw Antifa and BLM specifically train to mix ordinary protestors among the violent rioters in order to shield them from police action and, as we saw, provide a legal excuse to go after a member of the public that drew a weapon. No court would have made the distinction 100 years ago--even if you weren't actually throwing the stones or Molotov cocktails, if you were amongst the mob you were part of the mob.

    Jon also links to an article entitled "Home Defense Considerations: Answering the Door" by Salvatore. The author makes the argument:

     "Speak to the stranger through the door, but don’t open it."  

     "Some may argue that simply not answering the stranger on your doorstep is the best policy.  I disagree.  Many home invasions begin as a simple burglary in which a single criminal, or multiple criminals, invade a home under the presumption that nobody is home.  By letting it be known that the house is indeed occupied you immediately reduce the likelihood of the breach." 

I'm the type of person that I would go to the door and demand to know what the stranger is doing on my doorstep. I'm also a grown man. But would that work as effectively with a child or someone that might come across as timid or weak speaking to them? I don't know. Maybe if that person said they were going to call 911 unless the stranger left, it might. In any event, whatever position you have on speaking to the stranger through the door, please check the article out because there are other good tips and suggestions for securing your home. 

    I will have to say from my experience, the simplest way to secure your home is to make sure your door are kept locked, even when you are at home, so someone can't just walk in--it always amazes me how many people leave their doors unlocked when they are home. And if you live in an apartment or rental where a landlord, property manager, or maintenance staff might have a key, I would suggest getting a security bar for your door. I've used both a model that fits under the door handle similar to this one (Amazon link) and one similar to this (Amazon link) for glass doors. Please note that I said "similar"--I haven't used those particular brands. Of course, it doesn't matter how good are your locks and how strong your door if you open the door and let some criminal in. As John Farnam states in another article linked by Jon, entitled "Unprepared!," "Never unlock and open your door for people of whose motives you are suspicious." Just don't. Criminals thrive in high trust societies because they can take advantage of others' inherent goodness. But sometimes you just have to harden your heart. That person on your doorstep at 3 am saying that they need to call someone for a ride? They can give you the number so you can call for them--but don't open the door. It's sounds like a terrible thing, but one of the prices of tolerating criminals is giving up that high trust society. You can have one or the other, but not both. 

    Jon links to a good article on conceptualizing the factors to good performance: "Stairway To Performance" by Steve Tarani. 

    The difference between shooting skill and performance, is best illustrated by champion shooter Rob Leatham’s timeless quote “Shooting well requires a level of understanding, a level of skill and a level of performance.” In a nutshell, performance is one of three stairsteps leading to optimal consistency in both competitive and defensive shooting.

    The bedrock is your “level of understanding.” It is the essential foundation of conceptual familiarity, where you “get it” intellectually but have not yet made it part of your physical skill set. You cannot pass “go” without first mentally grasping exactly what you are trying to accomplish.

    The next step up from level of understanding is your level of skill. Here is where you attempt to manifest your understanding physically by first gaining a basic level of hands-on familiarity and comfort with the initial concept.

    At the top of the staircase awaits your level of performance. Here is your ability to perform a physical skill on demand with optimal consistency. At this step, you can meet your performance objectives almost every time regardless of condition or circumstance.

Read the whole thing.

    Jon recommends a YouTube video entitled ""How to Disappear Completely Without a Trace and Never Be Found Again" by Ex CIA agent Jason Hanson. Jon comments:

     Because you might not want to surrender to police.  The beatings and forced sodomy in jail may not be something to want to experience.  Remember Jeffery Epstein.  He couldn't survive; and he was rich, powerful, and connected.  The prison guards are not going to protect you.  The prison guards killed Epstein.  That's why they (including the Warden) were all transferred to other facilities.  That's how they "fire" civil servants.  They can't fire them, so they transfer them to bumfuck Egypt.  The civil servant refuses to go, so he resigns to avoid being fired for not going.  But if you're doing a job for the Clintons, they will find you another job.  

     What makes you think you could survive?  Do you have what it takes to survive in prison?  

     We all die.  Better to die free.  

    Another article to look at: "IS AN EMPTY CHAMBER DANGEROUS?" by Massad Ayoob. Jon writes (or quotes):

     Racking the slide to load a cartridge into the chamber requires two hands.  You 

won't have two hands.  

 

     "I can rack with one hand."   

 

     A one-handed rack requires something of the appropriate shape, rigidity, and 

mass to rack against.  You won't have such a thing.  Muphy's Law guarantees it.  

Murphy's Law:  Anything that can go wrong will go wrong, at the worst possible time. 

  

     Murphy's Law is a law of nature.  It doesn't matter whether or not you believe 

in Murphy's Law.  Like gravity, Murphy's Law doesn't care what you believe.  

The only way to defeat Murphy's Law is to eliminate anything that can go wrong.  

So always carry with a round in the chamber.  You won't have time to load.  

And you certainly won't have time to get your pistol if it is not on your body.

I'm only aware of only one semiautomatic handgun designed to be racked one-handed: the M1911 and M1911A1. They were designed to be used by cavalrymen on horseback who would be pushing the pistol up against their saddle bows to rack the slide with one hand while holding the reins with the other. You probably don't have an M1911 or M1911A1 (and even if you have a 1911 clone, you probably have the single piece guide rod which won't allow you to do this anyway) and it is a pretty safe bet that you won't be riding a horse when you do need to use the handgun.

    Jon has much, much more in his newsletter, so check it out.