Weekend Reading #65

 Some lengthier reading for the weekend:

•  First up is Jon Low's most recent Defensive Pistolcraft newsletter. A few things that stuck out:
• Jon has linked to a 3-part series of articles by Matt Thornton entitled "The ABC’s of keeping our daughters safe." I liked this quote: "When it comes to the majority of problematic violence, masculinity is never the problem – a lack of masculine fathers in the home, is." His recipe for keeping his daughters safe is raising daughters that are (i) confident, (ii) assertive, and (iii) have mature intelligence. He goes on to explain:

Assertiveness requires confidence, and confidence in girls comes from a safe, stable, loving, connected, family environment. Where as sons need boundaries to keep in line, daughters need boundaries just to feel safe. Young girls who grow up without that feeling of safety, the kind of safety that a strong father maintains, are less likely to develop the trust and connection required to tell an adult when someone is trying to harm them. They become vulnerable to sexual predators and character-disordered creeps. They become more likely to be picked out as targets, and less likely to fight back. They become victims.

Note that leftism and feminism, if followed, creates women that will be victims. On that same note, Jon relates the following story (which he titles "Scared Bunny"):

     You need training because it will change your personality, your attitude, and of course, your behavior.  Especially, if you display scared bunny behavior.  

     Scared Bunny hears knocking on her door at 21:00.  What would you do?  Typically, you would not open your door.  You would ask, "Who is there?  What can I do for you?"  And go from there.  

     Scared Bunny does not answer the door.  She fears a home invasion.  So she calls the police.  As you might imagine, this leads to a horrible chain of events.  

     The neighbor was only trying to deliver mail that had been mistakenly delivered to his apartment.  The police charge the neighbor based on Scared Bunny's complaint.  So, the neighbor has to hire an attorney.  Huge expense.  The process is the punishment.  

     Scared Bunny complains to her friend (another resident of the apartment complex) and asks him to talk to the neighbor.  The friend thanks the neighbor for delivering the mail and tells the neighbor that in the future he may leave the mail on the welcome mat.  

     Scared Bunny calls the apartment manager to complain.  And runs her mouth (always a dangerous activity).  Mentioning that she had asked her friend, who is a firearms instructor to tell the neighbor not to bother her.  

     The apartment manager writes a letter, based on Scared Bunny's statements, telling the friend not to confront, intimidate, and threaten other residents.  And of course, that his lease is being terminated.  So he has to hire an attorney to handle the landlord-tenant action.  

     All of Scared Bunny's girlfriends tell her that she was right and that she behaved correctly.  Because Scared Bunny only associates with other Scared Bunnies.  

    Get training.  Don't be a Scared Bunny.  

The lesson here is to not unnecessarily interact with or help liberal women--they are crazy. 

• Another article Jon links to is: "He Had a Gun and Still Lost His Home Invasion Gunfight"
  by Jacob Paulsen. The gist of the story is that the dead victim had a gun, but not on him. He had to go find a gun in an upstairs bedroom. Although the victim got to his weapon and even exchanged fire with the attacker, he probably was shot trying to get his weapon. I've heard similar incidents, including one author describing a home defender shot in the back and killed as the defender was trying to open his gun safe to get to his weapon. Paulsen has a few recommendations:

• Carry on your body, even at home.
• Train for the attacker who doesn't flee.
• Know your cover. Stage it in advance.
• Have a plan for your family and the phone, not just the trigger.

•  Jon links to an article indicating that a judge is allowing a lawsuit to go ahead against the ATF for the death of Bryan Malinowski. Jon offers some thoughts about Malinowski's murder and the ATF. And, on a related note, Jon makes the following observation:

      This is why there is any support at all for "defund the police".  (Yes, it is crazy, but the effect has a cause.)  https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5-uz39pAGVs  The process is the punishment and police (not the prosecutors, not the courts) initiate it.  This is why people are willing to kill cops to avoid arrest.  They know the result of being arrested:  loss of job, loss of children, loss of home, loss of reputation, etc.  And they are willing to take the risk because the probability of getting caught for the crime is about 50% (nation wide average, much lower in large cities).   

     Police alienate the good citizens by abusing their arrest powers.  False arrests directly cause protests and riots against police abuse of power under color of law.  

•  There is a lot more, so be sure to check it out, but I would leave it with this: Jon has links to a few videos addressing security and your cell phone, including a short video showing how Volkswagon spoofed the cell phones of the audience in a movie theater; how the FBI finds your real IP address even if using TOR or a VPN (and offering some solutions). I would also note the following article from PC Magazine: "A Hacker's Arrest Reveals Microsoft Can Track Users Via a Windows Device ID." From the article:

    The arrest of a teenage hacker has revealed that Microsoft can track a Windows PC and its online activity through a “Global Device ID" that seems to have no easy opt-out, sparking fears about potential surveillance. 

    Last week, the US announced it had extradited 19-year-old Peter Stokes from Europe for allegedly being a member of the notorious hacking group Scattered Spider. But the case stands out because Microsoft played a key role in linking Stokes to the suspected hacking crimes, according to an unsealed criminal complaint. 

    Stokes allegedly hacked an unnamed luxury jewelry retailer in May 2025 while using a VPN. The 39-page criminal complaint shows the FBI used Microsoft records to discover that his IP address was associated with a Microsoft device identifier known as Global Device ID (GDID). 

• Next up is Greg Ellifritz's Weekend Knowledge Dump at his Active Response Training blog.  The first thing that caught my attention was this warning from Greg (bold added): "An industry insider informed me that both Federal and Winchester will be raising their ammunition prices six percent starting August first." Moving on to the links and articles that I found the most interesting or useful:
• An article discussing different defensive shotguns and offering some advice on selecting one. Contrary to many such articles in the past, the quality control issues with Remington has led the author to recommend against the Remington 870 unless you get an older, used model.
• An article about the possibility of brain injury due to repeated, long term exposure of overpressure from using firearms. For instance, the article notes, "Twenty (20) rounds from an M4 exceed the daily recommended maximum exposure." The primary concern is shooting inside shoot houses or indoor shooting ranges; the article notes that, for instance: "Shooting outdoors cuts those waves in half. While the use of a suppressor cuts it by 70%." Large shooting glasses or goggles can also reduce pressure peaks, as well as hanging wool blankets (or tapestries?) inside the shoot house.
• An article from the CP Journal on examining the collective mood of people in a particular business or locale and using that to gauge safety.
• An article on "How to Overcome 'Condition One' Anxiety," or the anxiety that comes from carrying a weapon with a round chambered. I think the article sort of misses the point. The anxiety comes from either (i) the person carrying the weapon lacks confidence that the weapon will not go off of its own accord; or (ii) the person carrying the weapon lacks confidence that they won't do something stupid and accidentally discharge the weapon. Certainly training plays some role in overcoming this anxiety, and a good holster is always advisable, but mostly it comes from practice whether shooting the weapon, dry firing the weapon, or actually handling and carrying the weapon around. 
• A good article on astigmatism and using red dot sites. The author has some suggestions--one being as easy as focusing on the target and not the dot--but also acknowledges that a red dot simply won't work for some people, and so you may need to try something different like a prism sight.
• And, finally, "The Scourge of Teen Takeovers" from City Journal. Forget about the bleeding heart liberal slop about disadvantaged teens, food insecurity, and so on. It is the result of policy decisions by Democrats:

    Police officers, district attorneys, and sheriffs offer a different explanation for the teen takeovers: they are the consequence of a decades-long demonization of the criminal-justice system.

    Asked how the Chicago Police Department would have responded to a stampede on the Magnificent Mile before that demonization took hold, a recently retired officer with over 30 years on the force replied: “We would have cleared the streets, arrested those breaking windows, looting stores, and assaulting passersby. We would have used pepper spray, fists, and batons to restore order—all of which we did during the Bulls riots [in 1992], the Democratic National Convention in 1996, NATO, and other localized disturbances that didn’t make the news.”

    But then, he says, “the bottom fell out. Officers were cast as the enemy by eight years of Obama.” After the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, followed by those of Laquan McDonald in Chicago that same year and of Freddie Gray in Baltimore in 2015, “we were cleaning spit off our windshields on a daily basis. We were physically attacked more during those years than at any other point in our careers.” Officers feared being sued for lawful tactics that make for bad optics.

    The cops disengaged. “We drove by the dope sellers on the corner, asked no questions of the juveniles who were clearly up to no good, and ignored the cars running stop signs and weaving through traffic.” Better just to do your eight hours and go home.

    Another retired Chicago cop recalls asking his commanders in 2010 when mobs were storming downtown: Can we make arrests? He was told: just hold the line and move them around. Even were the officers to engage, the chance that the average detained teen would face serious consequences was already low.

    In the 1990s and early 2000s, officers had a protective attitude toward business; they took responsibility for the well-being of shopkeepers and their customers, says a Chicago sergeant still on the job. “It’s different now.”

    And then, on May 25, 2020, George Floyd died while restrained by a Minneapolis officer. The country’s elites proclaimed that systemic racism had killed Floyd. Politicians and business leaders rushed to explain the ensuing firebombing of police cars and stations, the attempted murder of police officers, and the destruction of businesses as an understandable, even justifiable, reaction to police oppression.

    The post-Floyd race-riot era is largely coterminous with the Covid era: lockdowns began in late March 2020, and the riots erupted at the end of May. That overlap has allowed policing skeptics to attribute the crime spike that began in 2020 to Covid rather than to de-policing and de-prosecution. Those same skeptics now apply the argument to teen takeovers as well.

    The rest of the world again provides a useful benchmark. Other countries did not experience a comparable surge in crime beginning in 2020, just as they did not experience a wave of teen takeovers. The United States experienced both because police and prosecutors shied away further from imposing consequences on antisocial behavior.

• Finally, check out John Wilder's recent piece: "Sam Colt Made Men Equal. A.I. Won’t Even Try." He notes that historically new developments in technology initially acted as equalizers, but eventually led to an accumulation of wealth and power in those best able to take advantage of the technology. One of his examples:

    Personal computers and the early internet followed suit.  A motivated individual could reach a global audience or start a business with almost nothing but time and ingenuity.

    Barriers collapsed.

    Then the platforms that captured attention and data became trillion-dollar businesses that could control commerce and shut off channels to those with controversial opinions.

    Technology does not care about fairness.

    It amplifies existing differences in talent, effort, discipline, and capital allocation.  It lowers some barriers and erects new ones built around mastery of the new tools themselves.

AI, he argues, will have the same results.