Self Defense – Page 10 – A Geek With Guns

Why My First Response is Running, Err, Tactically Retreating

Am I a sheep, sheepdog, or wolf? The answer is none of the above. I carry a firearm and known how to defend myself so I don’t qualify as a sheep. I’m not an initiator of violence so I’m not a wolf. Nobody would qualify me as a sheepdog because when a bad situation arises my first response is to get the fuck away from that situation.

This puts me at odds with Tactical Tom. In their eyes I’m a coward who has failed to rise to the occasion and defend the sheeple of the world. But there’s a reason I prefer running away to fighting. As Tam points out, even if I somehow defy all odds and take down all of the evil terrorist gang members the situation isn’t resolved:

So, there our hero is, sitting in the mall, munching on a Chick-fil-A and reading Sheepdog Magazine Monthly when that event that he’s wargamed out in gun forum discussion boards for years finally happens! A bunch of guys yelling “Allahu akhbar!” come swarming out of the GAP, firing AK-47s from the hip and headed straight for the food court!

[…]

Using the tactics he learned at Rick Taylor‘s Advanced Tactical Combat Gunfighting Level II class, he assaults into the ambush…

…Only to be mowed down by the guys in blue who show up towards the tail end of the festivities.

I know tactical Tom is ready to engage any manner of hypothetical baddie and come out triumphantly. But he’s often spending too much time fantasizing about the hero’s treatment he plans to receive from the grateful sheeple he saved to consider that other sheepdogs were called to the scene and aren’t privy to the details of what transpired. All they know is that a bunch of people called and were in a panic because men with guns were shooting the area up. They are going in expecting to be shot at and aren’t going to spend a great deal of time on target identification. If they see somebody with a gun they’re likely going to assume that that person is a bad guy and take him down. So even if you managed to take down the entire Taliban you’re not home free.

Violent situations are usually clusterfucks and anybody who arrives after the situation is already underway won’t be able to make heads or tails of what is transpiring. That being the case it’s always best to be somewhere else. If bullets start flying around me I’m going to look for an escape. Only if one is unavailable* will I begrudgingly move to the second plan of utilizing my own capacity for violence. After all, bullets are hazardous to my health whether they’re being fired by terrorist gang bangers or guys with badges.

*Before some self-proclaimed guarding of the universe sheepdog comes in and makes a quip about my willingness to abandon somebody I love please note that availability relies on both existence and condition. If the escape exists and I can make use of it in a way that also saves my loved ones I consider it available. Otherwise I consider it unavailable.

Victim Blaming Versus Preparedness Advocacy

Political discussions, in general, annoy me. This is due to multiple factors including the rapidity in which emotions turn a perfectly civil conversation into a yelling match. But the factor that probably annoys me the most is how the definition of words and phrases are in constant flux.

A phrase that is finding more use in political discussions if victim blaming. Victim blaming occurs when an individual attempts to blame the victim of a crime. At least that’s what it used to mean. Today victim blaming can be more aptly said to occur whenever an individual mentions a combination of the victim and something the other individual doesn’t like. Case in point, self-defense.

As an advocate of self-defense I advocate individual learn defensive skills. Defensive skills is a topic that is so vast that volumes of books have been written on it. But the what seems to be the most controversial skill that I advocate is learning how to use a firearm and obtaining a carry permit (if you’re unfortunate enough to be in a state that requires such nonsense to carry a gun). Lately I’ve been running into people who have begun accusing me of victim blaming when I advocate individuals learn self-defense skills. The conversations usually follow a similar pattern to this:

Some Dude: “We have to find a way to stop rapes.”

Me: “Agreed. I think raising the cost of attempting a rape would help.”

Some Dude: “Damn right. Let’s put rapists in jail for life!”

Me: “Jail only comes into play after the crime has been committed. I think it would be better to make rape more difficult to commit.”

Some Dude: “Right. More jail.”

Me: “I think encouraging more people to learn how to use a firearm and carry one would go much further. Knowing that attempting to commit a rape would carry with it a high probability of getting shot would go a long way as a deterrent.”

Some Dude: “Typical gun nut. You expect the victim to take responsibility. You probably tell women that they were raped because the clothes they were wearing were too slutty.”

Me: “I’ve never once said that nor do I think that…”

Some Dude: “Shut the fuck up. I’m not going to waste my time talking to somebody who blames victims.”

This brings me to the point of this post. There is a big difference between victim blaming and preparedness advocacy. The former involves blaming the victim of a crime for that crime happening whereas the latter involves preparing for the potential of a bad situation occurring.

Self-defense advocacy is a form of preparedness advocacy. It assumes that there are bad individuals in the world and one should have a plan for dealing with them. When I advocate for more people carrying firearms I’m not saying that anybody who doesn’t carry a firearm is to blame if they are the victim of a violent crime. What I am saying is that one can reduce their chances of being a victim of a violent crime if they have a means of defending themselves against violent criminals.

The perpetrator of a violent crime is always the one at fault. It was entirely within that individual’s power to decide whether or not to commit that violent crime. A target of a violent crime is not at fault because it wasn’t within their power to decided whether or not that crime would be committed. What self-defense advocacy says is that individuals who are targets of violent crime stand a better chance of mitigating harm when they are able to fight back.

Victim blaming, which is a real problem, is an idea quickly being cheapened because a handful of individuals are using it as a blanket argument against anything that disagrees with their ideology.

When Something Doesn’t Look Right There’s a Very Good Chance It Isn’t Right

I periodically discuss self-defense on this site but haven’t delved must into the topic of defending others whom you don’t know. The reason I haven’t delved into this topic is because, for the most part, defending somebody you don’t know is an extremely risky proposition. Without any knowledge of the situation a stranger may find themselves in you cannot make an educated decision on whether or not your intervention would cause further grief (for you or for the stranger). But there may be times when you stumble across a situation that doesn’t seem right to you. If your gut instinct is telling you that a situation isn’t right then there’s a very good chance that it isn’t and you may want to consider intervening.

This story is a good example:

Last night when I saw a tiny girl in a miniskirt and heels, slumped over in the arms of a guy, I had to stop and at least ask what was going on. At first, the guy had a startled look in his eyes, and was definitely sweating–maybe from the strain of carrying her, or because he was so damn suspicious. His first response to me was that her friends told him to take her home from an event, but I knoooow that gals travel in packs, especially when going o-u-t for real, and few friends would ditch their distressed miss into a strange man’s arms.

I wasn’t sure if this girl just drank too much, or was potentially drugged, so I treaded lightly at first.

[…]

My instinct was to ask this dude as much info about Jane as I could until he either cracked and gave up, or his story didn’t add up and I could straight up report him for being a creep. Key questions:

Where are you coming from?

What are you doing here tonight?

How much did she have to drink?

Where are you headed?

Where are her friends?

Why aren’t you bringing her back to her own place?

What is her name?

Where does she go to school?

Most importantly, I didn’t give him the option of being alone with her. Confronting a suspicious person can be dangerous, so always exercise caution if you choose to intervene in a suspicious situation. Approach carefully, pay attention to body language and don’t be alone with this person.

Since this is nominally a gun blog most of the time discussions of defense revolve around the use of a firearm. But many defensive situations can be resolved without having to use violence. Seeing a passed out person being carried off by another lone person should raise a few red flags. Those red flags don’t authorize the use of a firearm but they certainly authorize a cursory investigation. Our species has been developing instincts in our current form for a couple hundred thousand years. Those instincts have kept us alive all of this time, which means they’re probably worth listening to.

While I won’t go so far as to claim I know what the right response is in every situation I do believe it’s a worthwhile idea to do what you can to help keep your fellow human beings safe. That can often be accomplished as easily as being physically present. Predators tend to look for isolated prey and the presence of even one additional creature is often enough to persuade them to reconsider an attack.

Mother of the Year Award

I know a lot of older people who complain about today’s youth. But behind many problem children there are problem parents. Take this story for example. Roman Rodriguez left class to find eight teenagers beating up a smaller child. Rodriguez approached the group, determined who the ringleader was, and addressed him with a request to leave the child alone. His request was met with an attempted punch, which missed. Reacting to the initiated aggression Rodriguez, a teenager with martial arts experience, put the aggressor on the ground and held him. What happened after that makes one ask what the fuck is wrong with some parents:

Rodriguez’s strategy worked. The teen, who Rodriguez could only identify as “Angel” ran home, with his group of friends following. What he wasn’t prepared for was the threat he yelled.

“The kid threatened to stab or shoot Roman,” Colón said.

Rodriguez ran back inside the building to tell his father, who was still packing up after class, what happened.

“My son is a pretty mellow kid and I could tell something was wrong as he was pretty hyped up,” Ricardo said.

As they walked outside together, Ricardo said, the teen had returned brandishing a large kitchen knife with his mother by his side.

“I witnessed this kid’s mother encourage her son to stab mine. She was instigating a fight,” Ricardo said. “My first reaction was to protect my son, but also to avoid any kind of tragedy.”

Emphasis mine. The aggressor returning with a knife is bad in of itself but it’s pretty easy, based on this stroy, to figure out where he learned such behavior. What mother on Earth would give a knife to their child, accompany their child to the scene of a previous fight, and encourage him to stab the kid that had previously won the fight (that, I might add, was started by the kid who lost)? That has to be one messed up household.

Kudos to Roman Rodriguez for doing the right thing. I don’t think the situation could have been handled any better than it was. But the mother of the aggressor… holy shit. The fact that parents like that exist in this world saddens me greatly. Can a child with such a mother have any chance of a decent life?

Competitive Sports Can Teach Valuable Self-Defense Skills

I’ve decided to take up judo as both a form of exercise and a self-defense tool. After reviewing numerous martial arts I settled on judo for two primary reasons: it’s an art that focuses on throwing and can be practiced against a fully resisting opponent. The reason I’m interested in a throwing art is because throwing opens an opportunity for running and running is what I really want to do in a self-defense situation. But the second reason is more important in my opinion.

When it comes to self-defense arts there are two schools of thought. The first school, which includes arts such as aikido and most forms of karate, teach self-defense moves by having individuals practice against fully cooperative opponents. The second school, which includes arts such as judo and Brazilian jujutsu, teach self-defense moves by having individuals practice them against fully resisting opponents. Often the second school is criticized for being sport focused, which is a criticism often made against various shooting sports such as United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA). Critics often claim that the skills learned in these sports don’t transfer over to self-defense. In the case of martial arts that practice against fully resisting opponents critics claim that the moves, being safe enough to practice on a fully resisting opponent, are ineffective in a real fight. The criticisms against USPSA usually revolve around the “bad gamer habits” that one develops when shooting competitively.

One of the first things I heard when I decided to start USPSA was that the habits it caused me to develop would get me killed. But these claims are, in my not so humble opinion, malarkey. USPSA teaches you several important skills including operating a firearm under stress, shooting while moving, and the ability to engage hostile targets efficiently while avoiding friendly targets. All three of those things and many of the other skills one picks up by participating in a combat handgun sport are transferable to an actual self-defense situation.

Martial arts that allowed one to practice against fully resisting opponents share similar criticisms. Critics often claim that the “bad habits” learned in a sport such as judo will get one killed in a real fight. One of the toughest problems with self-defense situations is having to deal with one or more human beings. Humans, being creatures capable of thinking, aren’t restricted to acting in predictable ways. Prearranged scenarios involving cooperating opponents are not going to prepare you to deal with uncooperative attackers. While arts that allow fully resisting opponents may not have a repertoire of especially lethal moves (although throwing a guy against a concrete sidewalk can be extremely painful and potentially lethal) they will ensure you have actually practiced the moves you know against opponents who were trying put you on the ground.

There is no way to fully simulate a self-defense situation. Critics of USPSA often cite force-on-force training as the ultimate method of realistic self-defense training. While force-on-force training certainly offers different elements than USPSA it’s still the same as an actual self-defense encounter. After all, the chances of you getting seriously injured or killed in force-on-force training is practically zero. Likewise, martial arts that rely on cooperative opponents can teach you far more dangerous techniques than arts that rely on resistive opponents. But when the time comes to actually utilize one of those moves you may find yourself screwed since you’ve only practiced it on a cooperative opponent and a resisting opponent is unlikely to offer you the window needed to perform the move.

Let’s cease this constant sport versus self-defense debate (I know my plea is falling on deaf ears but I’m going to make it regardless). Combat sports can teach you many valuable skills when it comes to self-defense. While the sporting nature of those combat sports may lead one to develop skills that aren’t effective in a self-defense situation you must be able to overcome numerous ineffective responses when entering a self-defense situation anyways. At least you will have a solid foundation of effective skills to work with though.

Sometimes It’s Just Not Worth It

So there’s another trial in Florida revolving around a situation that ended up with an African American teenager being shot by a white male. The shooter is claiming self-defense and the prosecutor is claiming murder. After the fiasco that was the Zimmerman trial I’m not even going to make an attempt to guess whether or not the defendant is innocent. But I will take a moment to discuss potentially confrontational situations:

On the evening of 23 November 2012, Mr Dunn and his fiancee parked at the petrol station in Jacksonville, Florida, after attending his son’s wedding. His fiancee went inside to buy wine and crisps.

Davis and three other teenage boys, all African American, had stopped at the same place after visiting a shopping mall.

On Tuesday, Mr Dunn, a software developer, testified that the music blasting from the boys’ sport utility vehicle, next to his, was so loud it hurt his ears. He said he asked them cordially to turn it down, and they did.

But Davis, sitting in the rear passenger-side seat, apparently ordered his friend in the front seat to turn the music back up. Then, Mr Dunn testified, he became verbally abusive toward Mr Dunn, called him a “cracker”, a derogatory word for a white person, and then threatened his life.

Here’s the million dollar question: was it worth engaging with the teenagers in the first place? Obviously we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight to say it wasn’t. But let’s put ourselves into the shoes of Mr. Dunn for a second. Were you in his position would you have asked the teenagers to turn their music down? I wouldn’t have. Why? Because it simply wouldn’t have been worth it. Mr. Dunn was only at the gas station temporarily, which means the discomfort of the loud music would only last a minute or two. That right there makes the effort of asking the person to turn down their music greater than the reward for me.

I’m not saying Mr. Dunn was in the wrong by asking the teenagers to turn their music down. What I am saying is that most of the time when faced with a short-term inconvenience inflicted on us by another it’s better to just suffer it. Especially when you consider how hotheaded people in this country can be. Something as simple as asking an individual to turn down their music can seen as a challenge and the response is often going to be a confrontation (not necessarily a violent one but a confrontation nonetheless).

The first step on should take in any self-defense situation is avoidance. This is something everybody should keep in the back of their head.

A New Telephone Scam

Usually when word spreads of a new telephone, mail, or online scam I’m skeptical. Most of the time these scams end up being fear mongering. But I actually know a friend who was cheated by a recent telephone scam so I believe it’s legitimate and therefore worth bringing up:

One of my Facebook followers let me know about an old scam that has roared back to life. Years ago, crooks found a way to exploit a handful of international area codes that don’t require a foreign code to dial up.

Now that scam has resurfaced as what’s being called the “one ring scam.” Crooks are using robocalling technology to place Internet calls that only ring once to cell phones.

If you pick up, the robocaller just drops the line. But the bigger danger is if you miss the call. Like so many people, you might think it’s an important call and dial that number right back.

Bad move.

Turns out the area codes are in the Caribbean. That call will cost you between $15 and $30! And to add insult to injury, the criminals behind these calls will sign you up (through your cell provider) for bogus services that will be crammed on your phone bill if you return their call.

I have a policy of never answering the phone when I don’t recognize the number. If it’s important I know the person will leave a voice mail, which I can use to identify the caller. If I’m unable to identify the caller via their voice mail message or don’t recognize the individual or organization that left the message I don’t bother calling back. My primary reason for this is sheer laziness but it turns out that it also guards against several scams.

Scamming people out of resources is probably the second oldest profession in the world. Unless you want to regularly be separated from your money you need to be extremely skeptical of, well, everything. If you can’t identify the person you’re communicating with then you should assume that it’s a scam or a waste of your time (or both). Even being able to identify the person you’re communicating with isn’t always an effective defense since many so-called friends turn out to be scam artists themselves.

A Costume and Badge Don’t Guarantee Authenticity

When people see a man dressed in a state issued custom that includes a shiny metal badge they have a tendency to trust that person. This is not a smart strategy if one wants to guarantee their safety. Putting aside the danger police officers hold, let’s consider the danger posed by people who impersonate police officers. By impersonating a police officer an individual can gain a level of authority over others that they generally wouldn’t have. That means they can more easily perform wicked acts such as rape:

A man posing as a police officer is believed to have kidnapped and sexually assaulted a Minneapolis woman Saturday in Fridley before doing the same to a second woman hours later near the University of Minnesota, an Anoka County sheriff’s official said Monday. Rarely do suspects in violent crimes impersonate police officers, say Minneapolis police and Anoka County authorities, who have been conferring over the cases.

The suspect in the Fridley rape, which occurred near City Hall at 1 p.m. Saturday, told the victim that he was a detective before kidnapping her, said Anoka County Sheriff’s Commander Paul Sommer. Early Sunday morning, a man fitting a similar description and wearing a badge approached a woman near the U. In both cases, the suspect’s small, dark-colored SUV was described as having a squad-like computer dashboard, Minneapolis police and Anoka County authorities said.

“There’s a pattern here,” said Sommer. “Basically, his modus operandi was the same. He approaches a victim, identifies himself as a police officer, kidnaps them, sexually assaults them and releases them.”

In Minnesota we are not required to inform a police officer that we’re carrying a firearm unless directly asked. There is a lot of debate surrounding whether or not one should inform an officer immediately or wait until he or she asks. I’m a firm believer that one should not volunteer such information because the police officer may not be an actual police officer. If you volunteer such information up front you may find yourself disarmed while facing a police impersonator who means you harm. Anybody can get a hold of a police costume and badge so those objects don’t guarantee authenticity.

On a side note I must also point out the brilliance of impersonating a police officer while committing crimes. What better way to blend in with a crowd a criminals than to dress as a criminal in the largest violent gang in the area?

Be Sure of Your Target

I’ve been thinking over the story of the 13 year-old shot by police for holding a pellet gun. Officers hit the teenager seven times out of a believed eight rounds fired. At first this lead me to one of two possibilities. Either the officer took glee in unloading rounds into the teenager or he had poor shot placement.

But another thought has crossed my mind regarding this incident. Since a police officer performed the shooting many people, including advocates of gun control, seem willing to assume fault on behalf of the teenager. We have little more than the officers’ words to go by since the teenager is dead. After 30 years of living on this planet one of the lessons I’ve learned is that police officers aren’t more honest than other individuals. In fact I’ve found that police officers are quite often dishonest. I’m not willing to simply believe the officers’ stories. Even the outcome of the investigation may be in question because the same organization that shot the teenager is performing the investigation. Having a monopoly on law enforcement and justice has its benefits.

Now let’s assume that the person who shot the teenager wasn’t a police officer but an average Joe with a carry permit. Do you think people would be blaming the teenager or the permit holder? My guess is that the permit holder would be the one receiving the brunt of the blame. We need only look at the shooting of Trayvon Martin to get an idea of how things may have gone down. Before any evidence was brought forth people would be calling for the permit holder’s head. The media would be reporting about how the horrible permit holder purposely shot the small child for no reason whatsoever. We would learn about how the kid worked at several local charities, excelled in school, and never did anything wrong. Every bit of dirt on the permit holder would be dug up and put under a microscope. The fact that the permit holder felt threatened by what he thought was a real rifle would be brushed aside. It would be written off as a lame excuse to get away with murdering a child in cold blood. Even if the evidence later exonerated the permit holder his life would be ruined by the media’s character assassination.

This is something to think about. As permit holders we are under far more scrutiny than police officers. While the average person, media, and courts tend to side with the police the same is not true for permit holders. I guess they believe that an officer’s costume and badge somehow make him morally superior to the common man. But my point is that life will be far different for us than it is for a police officer. While police officers get a paid vacation after shooting somebody we get to spend time in a cage. Media outlets will generally consider the evidence and explanations put forth by police officers after a shooting. As permit holders we don’t receive the same treatment. Ever grain of dirt will be brought out for the public to see.

The bottom line is this: we need to be absolutely sure of our targets. We have to be so sure of our targets that we’re willing to go to jail for the remainder of our lives over not defending ourselves. Equality under the law, at least here in the United States, is a myth. Police officers, as the state’s enforcers, receive special privileges that us serfs do not. Keep this fact in mind at all times and let it guide you in whatever manner you see fit.

Gun for Me, Not for Thee

I’m left in awe of the ability politicians have for giving a long-winded response devoid of content in lieu of a short quip that would have done the same. After coming into office, Obama announced the release of the We the People Petitions. Supposedly the system is one where individuals can submit petitions and if that petition gets enough signatures within a specific span of time somebody from the White House will address it. The White House’s first slew of response let us know how popular petitions would be handled. Instead of giving any notable consideration to popular petitions they are simply ignored. Sometimes, I’m guessing when a petition is particularly uncomfortable for the White House, popular petitions vanish. Consider the history of We the People Petitions I’m not surprised to see this response:

A petition on the formal White House petitions website called for “gun free” zones to be extended to politicians, saying if it’s good enough for children in schools and other places where otherwise legal firearm carry by private citizens is prohibited, then it should be good enough for our country’s leaders, right?

[…]

Here is the response of the White House:

Working to Keep Everyone Safe

Thanks for your petition.

We live in a world where our elected leaders and representatives are subject to serious, persistent, and credible threats on a daily basis. Even those who are mere candidates in a national election become symbols of our country, which makes them potential targets for those seeking to do harm to the United States and its interests. In 1901, after the third assassination of a sitting President, Congress mandated that the President receive full-time protection, and that law is still in effect today. Because of it, those who are the subject of ongoing threats must receive the necessary and appropriate protection.

At the same time, all of us deserve to live in safer communities, which is why we need to take responsible, commonsense steps to reduce gun violence, even while respecting individual freedom. And let’s be clear: President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. You can see him talk about that in a previous petition response.

But the common-sense steps the President has proposed don’t infringe in any way on our Second Amendment rights. We ought to be able to keep weapons of war off the streets. We ought to close the loopholes in the background check system that make it too easy for criminals and other dangerous people to buy guns — an idea that has the support of 90 percent of people in the United States.

That’s why the President and an overwhelming majority of Americans are calling on Congress to pass gun safety legislation that closes loopholes in the background check system and makes gun trafficking a federal crime.

A minority in the Senate is blocking this common-sense legislation to reduce gun violence, but President Obama is already taking action to protect our kids with executive actions. He is taking the steps available to him as President to strengthen the existing background check system, give law enforcement officials more tools to prevent gun violence, end the freeze on gun violence research, make schools safer, and improve access to mental health care.

You can learn more about the President’s positions on this issue at WhiteHouse.gov/NowIsTheTime.

The White House could have simply said, “Guns are for masters, not for slaves.” Instead it gave a lengthy response that said nothing and merely plugged Obama’s gun control plan. Seriously, this response is a marvel when you look at it as an example of a political statement that runs on in length but fails to answer the question posed.

I did find it rather humorous that the response mentioned the assassination of President as justification for granting the position a full-time security detail. It’s a response that spits in the face of every non-politician who has been murdered. More non-politicians have been murdered than politicians yet the politicians are the ones who both receive special protection and prevent us from defending ourselves. If that doesn’t shine a light on the state’s attitude towards us then nothing will.