Some Weekend Reading

Active Response Training has released a new Weekend Knowledge Dump. A few things that jumped out at me.

• First, he links to where you can download a free PDF of Stephen Wenger's 3rd Edition of Defensive Use of Firearms. There is also information on ordering a print copy of the book.
• Next up is a link to a PDF of a trauma guideline entitled "Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Injury Response Part 3: Medical Management of Radiation Exposure and Nuclear Events."
• An article from  W. Hock Hochheim on "Home Invaders At My Home!" He includes a good anecdote of when he and his wife were almost the victims of a home invasion, and also goes over the three most common types or tactics of home invasion. 

The only issues I had with the article was Hock's terminology that he defined at the beginning of the article. I'm sure that he intended it to make clear what he was talking about, but he did not use the common definitions of the terms; and I believe it would just add confusion down the road if someone were to adopt his definition of the terms and later used those terms and definitions when interacting with a police officer or prosecutor in describing the crime. 

 

The main issue I had was that he defined "burglary" as "[w]hen your residence or business is broken into and no one is at home or work, that is just a burglary NOT a robbery. Robbery is different." This is completely wrong. Burglary is entering an occupied building with the intent to commit a felony. In some jurisdictions it may only apply to residences, but I believe most jurisdictions extend it to include businesses or commercial buildings as well. Conversely, breaking into an unoccupied building would be breaking and entering. Also note that burglary is a separate crime from the theft, robbery, assault, kidnapping, murder, etc., that a criminal might do after entering the building. Finally, I would point out that robbery is theft accomplished by the use or threat of force (whether armed or unarmed) and does not require entry into a building--you can be robbed on a sidewalk or in a parking lot, for instance. Obviously, these are just common definitions and there might be differences between these and the specific legal elements required by a particular jurisdiction, so check you state and local laws if you want to know the elements or definitions used in a particular jurisdiction.

• An article on "Low Light Concerns – Normal Human Beings," which addresses the needs of a normal person (rather than law enforcement or military) for weapon mounted lights. As to incidents outside the home, the author notes that Tom Givens (Rangemaster Firearms Training Services), who has kept track of his students' armed force encounters, found that none of his students needed any sort of light because the incidents in which they were involved were almost all robberies--i.e., there was always some light because the criminal also needed the light to pick out and approach his targets. Turning to inside the home, the author turns to Claude Werner (The Tactical Professor) who keeps track of incidents of mistaken identity shooting; and while Werner recommends a light of some sort, he insists it should be a separate handheld light, not a weapon mounted light.
  
• An article entitled "Murder as measuring stick" that delves into the problem with using murder as a proxy for overall violent crime. The issue isn't over the short term, but over the long term as advances in medicine and the widespread use of cell phones to call emergency services has resulted in far fewer deaths relative to the number of incidents of violent crime. Thus, comparing murder rates between now and, say, the 1960s as a proxy of violent crime in the 1960s would be inappropriate. And it would be worse the longer the time scale. (Although he doesn't mention the book, I wonder if this is meant as a criticism of the methodology used by the author of The Better Angels of Our Nature, who used murders as proxies for violence in past centuries). The author notes, for instance (footnote omitted):

Taking this into account, I would estimate that a murder today represents 4-5 times as much crime and disorder as a murder in 1960, and probably 10 times as much as a medieval murder, with the early 20th century somewhere in between. As such, today’s murder rate being comparable to that of 1960 represents a colossal failure of justice, with overall crime and disorder being several times higher than it was two generations ago.  

Using murder as a proxy for violent crime also fails when comparing between cultures. Again, by way of example, although the U.S. has a much higher murder rate than other industrialized countries (although I would note that this is only when considering the largest population counties), the article points out:

But international victim surveys with a consistent methodology show the US to have similar overall crime rates as Canada or Europe. The major reasons for the high American murder rate are probably Americans using highly-lethal guns (rather than knives or fists) and blacks (who are responsible for more than half of US murders) being more likely to commit impulsive murders rather than property crimes.

• Finally, Greg links to the "Before Mace, a Hatpin Was an Unescorted Lady’s Best Defense" article I had posted about a few days ago.