Tag: Self Defense

More Sheepdog Stupidity

Why I bother venturing out into the Internet is beyond me. But to add another feather to my hat that sees the whole sheep, wolf, sheepdog analogy as corrosive and meant solely to jerk off the egos of insecure gun owners I now have this gem of an exchange:

Self-Proclaimed Sheepdog: “The difference between a sheep and a sheepdog is that a sheepdog runs towards the gunfight!”

Me: “Personally I find gunfights to be a hazard to my health and try to avoid them.”

Self-Proclaimed Sheepdog: “And that’s why you’re a sheep. You want to carry the gun but you can’t handle the responsibility that comes with it.”

Me: “If you were walking down the street and heard gunfire being exchanged between two groups would you run towards it?”

Self-Proclaimed Sheepdog: “You’re goddamn right I would!”

Me: “Well then you’re what I like to refer to as a self-correcting problem.”

In addition to being a self-correcting problem this individual also suffers from a hero complex. Not surprisingly there is a positive correlation between people who talk about running towards a gunfight and a rather tragic form of situational color blindness where anything other than black or white situations fail to register. I imagine most of the scenarios concocted in self-proclaimed sheepdogs’s heads is based on a simple pattern of first the neo-Nazi skinhead walks into a mall and announced “I am a neo-Nazi skinhead! I intent to murder all of you in cold blood without any reason! I am going to commence murdering you now!”, begins shooting, gets shot by the heroic sheepdog that ran towards him like all sheepdogs do, and all of the hot women in the mall have sex with their savior (and later all of the hot women on his Facebook friends list who read about his heroism have sex with him).

Defensive situations are seldom that black and white. What’s more likely is that our sheepdog will hear the sound of gun fire, run towards it, realize that it’s a complete clusterfuck where the good guys and bad guys are indiscernible, and end up getting shot dead by a stray bullet because he was stupid enough to run towards a gunfight.

Self-proclaimed sheepdogs like to act superior because they seem themselves as paragons of all that is right and proper in the world. As individuals of such high moral character it is up to them to defend all of the stupid sheep. That means running towards any situation that might involve wolves eating sheep. What these paragons of all that is right and proper fail to consider is that any confrontation is potentially hazardous to your health. I don’t know about them but there are people in my life who want me alive. Since I really like these people I don’t want to disappoint them by dying needlessly, which means I’m going to run towards any gunfights. Furthermore I know that involving myself in a random gunfight isn’t going to result in me getting my brains fucked out by hundreds of super hot women. What it will result in is me getting shot by a responding police officer who saw a man with a gun and decided his safety was more important than determining whether or not I was a good guy sheepdog. Even if I don’t get shot I know that there will likely be a long legal battle ahead.

Holding the attitude that you’re a sheepdog and will therefore run towards gunfights is a quick way to end up six feet under the ground or in a cage and in debt to a lawyer.

Another Shooting in Missouri

There was another shooting in Missouri. Once again it was a white cop, working as a private security agent at the time, who shot a black teenager. But this time the teenager wasn’t unarmed and apparently exchanged fire with the officer:

An off-duty police officer in St Louis, Missouri, has fatally shot a black teenager, leading to angry demonstrations on the streets.

The white officer was on patrol for a private security company when he exchanged fire with an 18-year-old after a chase, say police.

He fired 17 shots at the teenager, police added.

Obviously very little concrete evidence has been released regarding this shooting as it is very recent. I bring it up primarily because this situation is an example of a no win situation. Assuming the story is being reported accurately, the officer came under fire after pursuing the teenager and returned fire. On the one hand returning fire is a smart thing to do when somebody is shooting at you. On the other hand any incident in Missouri of a white cop shooting a black teenager is going to cause civil unrest as the memory of the incident in Ferguson is still on everybody’s mind.

It’s not uncommon for people to concoct self-defense scenarios and plan for a way to survive them. But sometimes there is no winning. That is something we should all come to understand and accept.

Don’t Be Stupid and Other Observations By Captain Obvious

Opponents of open carry often claim that anybody who open carries a gun will have it taken from them by an attacker. After a lot of huffing and puffing they finally have an example to point to:

William Coleman III was robbed of his Walter- brand P22 just after 2:00 a.m. October 4 in Gresham by a young man who asked him for it — and flashed his own weapon as persuasion.

Coleman, 21, was talking to his cousin in the 17200 block of NE Glisan St., after purchasing the handgun earlier that day, when a young man asked him for a cigarette, police said.

The man then asked about the gun, pulled a gun from his own waistband and said “”I like your gun. Give it to me.”

Coleman handed over the gun and the man fled on foot.

Now opponents of open carry can feel justified for all of the time they spend bitching, moaning, and whining about how terrible openly carrying a firearm is. Caleb over at Gun Nuts Media covered most of the important points to take away from this story. I do, however, have one point to add.

I took to Google Maps to verify that the location mentioned in the story was a residential area. It is. Although that’s not super important to what I’m going to say it’s a worthwhile criteria point to mention. The big red flag, to me, is that the thief asked to bum a cigarette. Asking to bum a cigarette, begging for some change, or approaching somebody and asking for directions are common tricks thieves and other violent criminals use to close the gap between themselves and their intended prey without, they hope, raising any red flags. Because of this these things should all raise immediate red flags. If you’re standing at a house at 02:00 and somebody starts walking up to you asking for a cigarette you should immediately be on the defensive. It’s not common, in my experience at least, for random strangers to walk up to people in residential areas and ask them for a cigarette. That kind of behavior is more common at bars where people are grouped together and smoking.

When you’re suspicious of a person you should also be very watchful of their hands. According to the story the thief drew his gun from concealment. The moment a suspicious man’s hands being moving towards a potential weapon your hands should probably begin moving towards your weapon. Especially when you’re advertising that you are in possession of a valuable object such as a firearm. In most cases a person openly carrying a firearm should be able to draw their firearm quicker than a person carrying concealed. At least if they’re paying attention.

While there are times when I open carry I prefer to carry concealed for the same reason I prefer not to have my phone visible when walking around; I don’t like to advertise being in possession of highly sought after items. Guns, like iPhones, are highly sought after by thieves. If you’re open carrying you’re advertising not only an ability to defend yourself but also that you possess something worth stealing. Hence you need to also need to be aware of your surrounding. Not only must you be aware of your surroundings but you must project the fact that you are aware of your surroundings. Thieves usually rely on distraction. They tend to prey on individuals who are distracted and avoid individuals who are obviously aware of what’s going on around them. Although I can’t be sure I believe it’s fairly safe to assume that the victim in this story wasn’t paying a whole lot of attention to what was going on around him.

Fun with Medieval Weaponry

I enjoy learning how to use a katana. In fact I enjoy it so much I plunked down too much money to buy one (although, granted, it’s not sharp but the point is a nasty little bitch). When I discuss that I’m learning how to use a katana with friends their first reaction is usually to ask why (and insinuating that there’s no point and my time is being wasted). Obviously a katana, like any medieval weapon, is pretty lame when compared to modern day lead throwers. But once in a while I come across a story that proves that medieval weapons are still effective at what they do:

Morgan Jr. says McGowan entered his home through a window.

Morgan Jr. says he reached for the spear which he keeps close to his bed.

“This door is open within five seconds, probably within three seconds; this door was open and he was standing no more than two to three feet away from me,” Morgan Jr. says. “I looked at him, I didn’t see any weapons however I was terrified.”

Morgan Jr. says he was able to stab McGowan once.

Polearms: fucking up people’s shit since forever. While a pointy stick may not be the epitome of weaponry today it can still wreck a day if you get within its range.

Oh, and to answer the question of why I’m learning how to use a katana, it’s because I’m a history nerd and the katana has always interested me as a weapon.

Be Afraid You Stupid Slaves

It’s been apparent for a while that the amount of gun-related articles on this site has decreased. Part of this is because I’ve already covered a lot of topics related to firearms and I don’t like to repeat myself. But the other part is because I’m sick and tired of the fear mongering common in many firearms publications. When making an argument for self-defense you don’t need to delve into fear mongering. Statistics and human behavior provide all of the reasons for legal self-defense that you need. Yet many people in the firearms community demand boogeymen and right now, as is so often the case, that boogeyman is who our masters are telling us to fear: Muslims.

Take this story of the Oklahoma man who entered his former place of work and supposedly beheaded one employee and stabbed another before being shot dead:

Sgt. Jeremy Lewis says the alleged suspect, 30-year-old Alton Nolen had just been fired when he drove to the front of the business, hit a vehicle and walked inside.

He walked into the front office area where he met 54-year-old Colleen Hufford and began attacking her with a knife.

Sgt. Lewis confirms the type of knife used in the attack is the same kind used at the plant.

Lewis confirms that Hufford was stabbed several times and that Nolen “severed her head.”

At that point, Lewis claims Nolen met 43-year-old Traci Johnson and began attacking her with the same knife.

Officials say at that point, Mark Vaughan, an Oklahoma County reserve deputy and a former CEO of the business, shot him as he was actively stabbing Johnson.

As with any story the important part of this one are the actions that occurred during it. Details about the attacker and his history are interesting but there’s seldom irrefutable proof that those details were what lead to his actions. In this case the attacker had a criminal record and was a Muslim convert. You know what that means, make the story about the dangers of Muslims because they’re the new boogeyman. And that’s exactly what some gun publications are doing:

We warned earlier in the week about the threat of “soft target” terrorist attacks by organized terror cells sweeping over our undefended southern border. What we forgot to mention in that missive is the threat of Islamic converts on our own shores, who seem every bit as zealous and dangerous.

Emphasis mine. That’s the opening paragraph to the article. The takeaway seems to be that we, as gun owners, should be afraid of anybody who has converted to Islam, which is a stupid thing to be afraid of. Let’s look at the statistics. There are an estimated 6 to 7 million Muslims in the United States. With such a high population you would think people would be getting murdered by Muslims in this country left and right. But they’re not because Muslims, just like the rest of us, are predominantly nonviolent. Just like any other major religious group, the number of violent individuals within Islam is a minority.

What proof does anybody have that the attacker’s conversion to Islam played any part in his violent actions? Unless concrete evidence exists showing the man’s religious conversion was the reason for his attack implying that it was is speculative at best.

So what should be taken away from the actual story? That predicting when violence will occur is very difficult. This is because violence is often immediate and can happen anywhere. Just because you’re at home or at work doesn’t mean you are shielded from violence. Likewise you usually can’t predict when violence will occur. Any self-defense plan you create should taken these points into consideration. Having a self-defense plan that doesn’t rely on accurately predicting when violence occurs or where it will occur will do you far more good than a plan that relies on such predictions (and that’s why a plan based entirely around avoiding certain areas isn’t very good). Fear mongering encourages people to focus on the details that are seldom useful when developing a self-defense plan. Self-defense plans, being risk management strategies, needs to be developed around solid facts not speculation.

Just Because Somebody Assaults You Doesn’t Mean You Can’t Be Nice

Just because some assholes was inconsiderate of your feelings and assaults you doesn’t mean you have to be inconsiderate to them. Old Hickory, Tennessee is home to an individual who knows how to let bygones be bygones after the dust settles:

The man, identified as Joshua Dobson, apparently got into an argument with his girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend, identified as Michael Young over the well being of the girlfriend’s child, of whom Young is the father.

That escalated into Young coming to Dobson’s home, with another man, identified as Troy Weiss. Weiss and Young assaulted Dobson. Fortunately, Dobson was armed and able to open fire on the pair of suspects, striking Weiss twice.

Dobson then grabbed a medical kit from his home and began performing first aid on Weiss. Once he was stabilized, Dobson drove him to the hospital.

Now that’s a great example of not letting your anger get the best of you. And rendering first aid to an aggressor would be interesting from a judicial standpoint. I’m curious if it would help you case since one could argue that you were likely a reluctant participant on account of your lack of desire to see the guy dead. Obviously I’m not a lawyer and don’t even play one on TV, I’m just tossing the thought out there.

Either way it was very kind of Mr. Dobson to get his attackers to the hospital. I commend those who show great mercy to their foes after the threat has ceased.

My Anachronistic Self-Defense Tools

When you discuss self-defense tools it’s inevitable that what you use is wrong. There is only one valid set of self-defense tools and that’s the set I personally use! At least that’s how the conversation usually goes whenever I see it crop up. A recent blog post explaining why the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) chose the 9mm has rekindled the defensive caliber wars. Once again we have the “Why carry anything other than 9mm” crowd arguing with the “Everybody should carry a caliber that starts with .4” crowd.

I got drawn into this conversation because, well, I like to troll. My daily carry gun is a Glock 30SF, which is Glock’s sub-compact .45 for those who don’t know. When I mentioned this in the conversation somebody asked why I’m stupid enough to “carry a 100 year-old round?” Setting aside the fact that the 9mm is older than the .45 I fully admit that my choice of defensive rounds is anachronistic. Resources for handgun ammunition research and development is predominantly going towards making a better 9mm. If you want the best modern research can provide in your handgun then you should go with 9mm. Combine this with the fact that handgun ballistics suck regardless of the caliber you use and it’s much smarter to have more small rounds in the gun than fewer larger rounds (to a point obviously, a .22 wouldn’t be my go-to defensive caliber).

So why do I carry a .45 when I admit that a 9mm would be a better choice? Because I like the .45. It’s that simple. And since I’m not constantly involved in gunfights or am likely to be in a situation where having 16 rounds instead of 11 rounds will be the defining factor in whether or not I survive I feel as though I can choose my caliber based heavily on personal preference. While the 9mm is a great handgun cartridge, one that I would argue is superior to the .45, it just doesn’t have that timeless feel, at least for an American like myself, as the .45.

The bottom line is I like anachronisms and combining old with new. I wear mechanical wristwatches, my go-to rifle is an AR chambered in .308, most of my code is written with command line tools, and my toothbrush isn’t electric. On the other hand my wristwatches are made of superior modern materials, go-to rifle is chambered in .308 but based on a more modern platform, code is written using a modern computer with a modern operating system, and manually operated toothbrush has been designed for superior plaque removal. Likewise I choose to carry a .45 but have it loaded in a more modern tactical Tupperware pistol (I like the 1911 but it’s heavier, more expensive, and has more sharp angles to dig into my side).

This justification throws most tactical Tommies into a fit of impotent Internet rage and that amuses me. I guess the fact that my defensive plan doesn’t revolve around what is objectively best and instead takes into consideration what I personally prefer is some kind of mortal sin. And admittedly my plan is unlikely to save my life if the Golden Horde invades the Twin Cities. But I’m happy with what I carry, like to shoot it and therefore practice with it regularly (huge plus side to carrying what I personally prefer), and am covered for a vast majority of defensive situations I’m likely to encounter. Life is too short to throw personal preference to the wind and one can strike a balance between the bestest tools evar and the tools they prefer for reasons unrelated to self-defense.

I also realize that this post, along with other self-defense posts I’ve written, will been seen as bad self-defense advise by many others. Let me make a preemptive rebuttal to those people. Nowhere have I ever claimed to be a good source of self-defense advice. I’m not a certified anything outside of the computer industry and have never claimed to be. The number of defensive situations I’ve been involved in can be counted on the fingers of a double arm amputee. And I’ve never claimed this blog to be anything other than a giant opinion piece. What I offer here is an insight into my thought process when developing a defensive plan in the hopes it helps others think about their defensive plan from a different angle (because the more angles you approach something from the better the overall plan is likely to be).

Why I Like Night Sights

Somebody went and did it. Somebody upset the cosmic balance in the gun community by questioning ancient scripture. Via the Firearm Blog I came across a post that argues against night sights being a necessity. This is much more interesting than the caliber wars because you don’t often see people arguing over whether or not night sights are a must, their necessity is usually taken as a given. I encourage you to read it and keep an open mind because the author makes some good points. With that said, I’m going to explain my primary purpose for having night sights on my defensive firearms.

I’m not a fan of spending more money for night sights. But I have a condition which makes night sights handy. That condition is shitty eyesight, namely myopia. Without corrective lenses I can’t see fine detail out further than six or so inches. The notches that make up my rear sight blur together to create a rectangular blob sitting on top of my handgun, which makes picking out a black front sight practically impossible. But make the sights glow, specifically make the rear sights glow a different color from the front sight, and I can distinguish front from back and do a halfway decent job of aligning them. While my nearsightedness makes it practically impossible to distinguish the black rectangular blob on the rear of the gun from the black rectangular blob on the front of the gun I can distinguish the two orange blobs from the green blog.

Fortunately my nearsightedness doesn’t make seeing gross detail nearly as difficult. I can see well enough to determine if the person in front of me is holding a weapon and acting in a threatening manner. My low light vision is also surprisingly good (the light from a digital clock is usually enough for me to make out notable detail in a room). So my primary limitation in a low light self-defense situation is seeing the sights because they’re really tiny.

I do carry a flashlight on me because being flooding an aggressor with a 200 lumen light will probably blind him for a bit and will certainly make him very visible to me. A good flashlight or weapon mounted light is more valuable, in my opinion, than night sights when dealing with low light defensive situation. Laser sights are also good tools in my opinion since I can see a green blob on a target even better than two orange blobs and one green blob on top of my gun. The only reason I don’t have a laser/light combination mounted on my defensive firearm is because I can’t find a combination of a holster and sight with a green laser that I like (and I need green specifically because my eyes don’t pick up the wavelength most red lasers use very well). For my needs night sights are very useful, green laser sights are greatly appreciated, and really bright lights are awesome. But as always your situation probably differs from mine and your mileage will vary.

Trunk Guns

I recently had a conversation with a fellow gun nut in which the topic of trunk guns came up. He asked me what kind of gun I have in the trunk of my car and I replied that I didn’t have one. This was apparently the wrong answer as I was informed that having a gun, namely a rifle, stored in my trunk is critical to my survival. Without a long gun sitting in my trunk there is no way that I will be able to survive major civil unrest such as rioting. And he topped it off with the famous line, “A handgun is for shooting your way to your rifle.” He must have attended the My School is the Only Valid School of Gun Fighting. I hear it’s quite popular but most of the instructors and students that I have met from that school are assholes, which has dissuaded me from seeking training there.

Instead of telling you what the one and true proper self-defense plan is I’m going to explain how self-defense plans vary from person to person based on criteria unique to each individual. I will do this by explaining why I don’t have a trunk gun and why I don’t feel as though I’m going to die a horrible death due to my lack of preparation. As always your mileage will vary. Your situation is almost certainly different than mine and therefore requires a different set of plans. Don’t take this post as me saying trunk guns are stupid and nobody should have one. What I’m trying to explain in this post are some of the criteria I use to develop some of my self-defense plans and why I have come to the decisions that I have.

It’s no secret that handguns, in general, suck when it comes to stopping power. To compensate for lack of stopping power most schools of self-defense recommend firing two shots into a target immediately and then assessing whether or not more are necessary. Seeing this it’s pretty easy to understand why military personnel rely on rifles for their primary weapon and have a handgun as a backup. It’s also easy to see why people would prefer a rifle over a handgun in a self-defense situation. Needless to say a rifle in your trunk is much closer than one in your safe at home.

Let me first say that I live in the Twin Cities, which is Minnesota’s largest metropolitan area. Obviously that has a lot to do with my situation and shapes my self-defense plan. The chances of me getting mugged are higher than somebody living in a rural area but the chances of me encountering a large (relative to Minnesota) animal such as a black bear are practically nil. Another factor worth mentioning is that periods of civil unrest in this area are rare. That brings me to my self-defense plan. Statistically the defensive scenarios I am most likely to be involved in are immediate in nature. Things like muggings, drunken assholes looking to start a fight, or getting stuck in the middle of two gang members’ relational issues. In these scenarios my ability to access defensive force must be immediate and if I’m able to get to my car I have most likely escaped the danger. And if I haven’t the time it takes me to access my trunk, retrieve my rifle, and continue the fight isn’t that dissimilar to enter my vehicle, start my car, and get the fuck out of there. For me the mobility my car offers almost always outweighs the firepower a rifle brings to the table.

But let’s discuss the primary justification for trunk guns: civil unrest. History shows that civil unrest in Minnesota, and the United States as a whole, is pretty rare. The chances of me being stuck in the middle of a civil unrest situation are much smaller than, say, my car being stolen or broken into in Minneapolis. A regular auto theft sucks but it sucks a whole lot more if the thief not only gets a car but also a loaded rifle. Furthermore, in a time of civil unrest, I believe you’re highest chance of survival comes from not drawing attention to yourself. There are two risks when you draw attention to yourself, which toting a rifle does in a metropolitan area, rioters and police. Rioters act in a slightly more random nature than police but as a general rule it’s best to not stick out if you want to avoid being targeted for violence. In fact it’s probably a better idea to attempt to appear to be a rioter when rioters are near than it is to be toting a rifle. Police, on the other hand, are less random. During a time of civil unrest they’re looking for people that appears to be rioting or otherwise acting dangerously. Carrying a rifle is likely to raise red flags with local police officers and those red flags will likely increase the chances of them shooting you first and asking questions about your innocence later. After all the words “office safety” justify almost any violent action taken by police and the fact that you were visibly in possession of a weapon during a riot will give them the ability to claim their safety was in jeopardy.

As I said earlier, the most common self-defense situations I am likely to encounter are immediate in nature. If somebody pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet I don’t have time to get to my car, pull my rifle out of the trunk, and shoot the mugger. Periods of civil unrest usually have a lead up time to them. Consider the events that occurred in Ferguson. Riots didn’t break out immediately after the shooting. There was a lot of news coverage of the shooting beforehand as well as signs that the local population was very upset by it. The best way to survive a period of civil unrest is to be elsewhere. Pay attention to your local news. If there are signs of impending civil unrest in an area make sure you’re not in that area. While I do understand that that’s not always possible in most cases it is. Being somewhere else will increase your chances of survival much more than being near the unrest with a rifle in your trunk.

There you have it, some insight into why I don’t have a trunk gun. Let the ridicule from the students of the My School is the Only Valid School of Gun Fighting begin (which is to say let the impotent rage flow through their keyboards)!

Low Speed, High Drag

I spend a lot of time making fun of the high speed, low drag crowd. Some might be surprised to learn this since everything I wear is “tactical” (which means operator who operates and areas of operations to some but means lots of useful fucking pockets and light-weight materials during the summer to me) but I find most of the firearm advice from the Super Awesome Operator (SAO) crowd to be stupid at best and dangerous at worst. Thankfully I’m not alone:

Something else that disturbs me is the desire to look cool while shooting. Way too many shooters are learning their skills from You Tube from people who have a particular look versus having skill and experience. Just because an instructor has a beard, wrap around glasses and tattoos does not mean he is an “operator” even if he does talk the lingo. Nonsense cool sounding terminology does not mean the instructor has greater skill or insight, it just means he/she spends time making stuff up. A “non-diagnostic, linear stoppage manipulation” is still just a “tap-rack” and giving it a cool sounding, complicated name does not make it better. In reality, it makes it more difficult and if you take the time to truly study armed conflict you will understand that simplicity is often times the key to prevailing in the pandemonium that results. It is not “dumbing down” training to try and make it simpler and easier to accomplish.

This is one of my biggest gripe with the SAO crowd. A large majority of them choose form over function. You can go on YouTube and find any number of people wearing a tactical vest covered in AR-15 magazines with a sidearm in a drop-leg holster doing fancy transitions, Captain Kirk rolls, and absurd shooting drills. These SAOs will wax on about how important the skills they practice are and why you should pay them money to teach you. What they almost seem allergic to is the concept of simple is generally preferable. Yes, you can Captain Kirk roll between targets to engaged them. Yes, doing so will keep you on the move. But doing so will also cause your barrel to cover a lot of things it shouldn’t be (because if your muzzle should have been covering them they would be threats you were engaging not space you were transitioning the point of impact through). It will also increase the amount of time it takes for you to aim your firearm at the next target since the motion of rolling is pretty jarring and requires the entirety of your body to move. Meanwhile a simple turn will allow you to cover less unintended space (since you can just aim your gun towards the ground during the turn) and increase the speed of target acquisition since you don’t have to realign every fucking muscle and bone in your body. Turning doesn’t look as cool though so SAO shy away from it.

Furthermore most people aren’t going to be wearing a tactical vest cover in AR-15 magazines while carrying a rifle. And most of us aren’t going to be in a situation where we have to engage the entire fucking Mongol Horde (not to mention few people survive an encounter where it’s just them versus ten or more opponents). Shooting drills that involve a bunch of targets are fun but they serve little practical purpose for a majority of people who carry a defensive firearm outside of a war zone.

As a general rule when seeking firearm instruction try to find an instructor who uses plain English, focuses on simplicity, and spends more time teaching you how to property operate a firearm than performing acrobatics. In other words if an instructor looks low speed, high drag they are more likely to teach useful skills than if they look high speed, low drag.