Weapon Caliber: Base your decisions on fact, not fantasy

I published this piece on 1/12/19 on the American Warrior Society website. I am republishing it here, with their permission, in the hopes of widening the reach of the information it contains.

I was working at the FBI Academy’s Firearms Training Unit (FTU) when we made the decision to go to the 9mm round, as well as for a few years before and after.  The FBI Ballistic Research Facility did the research and testing on the various rounds that led to this decision, with significant help from those of us in FTU.

We shot a lot of bullets in this process.  And got paid to do it.  Life was good.  But I digress…

The bonded JHP 9mm ammo the FBI is now using is some very, very cool stuff.  Internal and external ballistics are spot on, in that the rounds function very reliably in the duty weapons and are well within the consistent accuracy requirements of the Bureau.  When it comes to terminal ballistics, the news is even better.

Weight retention on the rounds AVERAGED over 95%, even through common barrier materials.  Given that the FBI is a national agency, it has to work in cities and out in the country, occasionally shooting through heavy winter clothes, car window glass, etc.  We called it “barrier transparent”, because it just hammered through stuff and did not often peel or fall apart.

This meant that the bullets tended to impact with all their original bullet weight.  When they hit their target, the bullets fully expand with boring regularity.  This would give it a consistent permanent wound channel along its path every time.  The Bureau wants 12”-18” of penetration, in order to ensure the rounds penetrate likely barriers, including clothes, as well as the targeted subject, to a point where vital structures are struck.  As you know, subjects tend to move when bullets fly and end up getting hit at odd and oblique angels, not to mention coming equipped with a very wide range of body types and clothing.  Penetration to a sufficient degree is important, while minimizing the risks inherent to overpenetration.

The permanent wound channels of handgun rounds in 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP are so similar that it is nearly impossible for surgeons or medical examiners to tell the difference.  A wider wound channel, of course, increases the chances of the bullet hitting something vital the subject’s continued misbehavior.  Given that all of the commonly carried bullets now being in “serious handguns” can be counted on to produce appropriate and similar depths of penetration and nearly identical permanent wound channels, it really makes them a wash in this department.

I have been asked about “knockdown power” and hydraulic shock, citing hunting experience and anecdotal information from another shooter.  Both are fairly common questions, in my experience, when it comes to self-defense handgun rounds.

Hydrostatic shock is an issue when firing rifle rounds, such as in the inevitable hunting scenarios people reference.  Rifle rounds hit hard, compared to handguns, tending to launch heavier projectiles at much higher speeds.  This can result is setting up a “wave” of force moving through impacted flesh, effectively creating a potentially devastating temporary wound channel that you do not see in handguns.  The long and the short of it is, you are not going to benefit from this when it comes to your handgun’s terminal ballistics.

Knockdown power, often also referred to as “stopping power”, is a short hand term that became very popular a few decades ago during the seemingly never ending arguments between 9mm fans and .45 ACP fans.  It’s a bit of a misnomer, in that nobody can really, accurately define it.  To my mind, it is a term that muddies the conversation.

Example, if I shoot a person at 5 yards during his violent attack, hitting him with a grazing wound across his ribs with a .22 long rifle and he immediately falls down and quits his attack, is that a demonstration of the amazing stopping power of the .22?  Or, if I shoot the same attacker at 5 yards directly through his heart with a .44 magnum, yet he goes on to fight effectively for another 2 minutes, does that demonstrate the terrible efficacy of the round?  You can probably imagine a plethora of other similarly confusing scenarios without my input.

Social use of a firearm, particularly a handgun, is much too complex to fit into such simple buckets and many of the relevant factors cannot be controlled by the shooter.  While you can control the weapon and caliber (within the bounds of local and federal law, of course) in the civilian world, you cannot control much else.  What the subject’s wearing, what their mindset and determination are, what form of mind-altering substances they might be on are all factors in this rubric.

What you can control is shot placement and the speed of your follow up shot(s).  If forced to use a firearm to defend yourself from death of serious bodily injury, you place the shots to the best of your ability in order to stop the threat.  And as they say, if at first you don’t succeed…

Split times (the times between shots) on 9mm rounds are, generally, faster than with larger calibers.  This means you can hit them multiple times in a shorter amount of time.  You also, generally, have more rounds available between reloads in 9mm vs. larger caliber rounds in comparably sized handguns. 

So, if the wound channels and penetration of the various rounds are similar, but one performs better in barrier material, recoils less and allows you more miles between fill-ups, the choice gets pretty clear pretty fast. 

Unless you get all emotional about your favorite caliber.  In which case, I wish you well.

May You Live in Interesting Times

I originally posted this on the American Warrior Society webpage on 1/27/20. I reprint it here now with their permission. I am sad to say, it has aged far better than any of us hoped.

What is going on here?

“It was not well to drive men into final corners; at those moments they could all develop teeth and claws”

            -Stephen Crane, The Red Badge of Courage

Can anyone now living in America remember a time when our society was as divided and angry as it currently seems?  It is bad enough that it is not uncommon for me to hear sober, intelligent people suggest that civil war is at hand.  That it is inevitable.  That it is just a matter of time.  Some have asked me what I think about the possibility: Is a new American civil war on the horizon?  Given the way things are going these days, instead of just dismissing such a suggestion as rhetorical, I have actually put some thought into it.

The fact that conversations like this are even being had says something.  It was not that long ago that the idea of another American civil war would have been unthinkable to just about everyone.  Laughable even.  Such an idea was the purview of the extremist verge of both white and black nationalist movements.  The thought of our own citizens shooting at one another over political disagreements seemed the stuff of action movies and late-night comedians.  American politics can be rough, but compared to some other very stable democracies (Israel?  England?), ours has always looked rather collegial.  Or it did. 

The most recent analogy to our current political and national landscape that I see is the 1960’s and early 1970’s.  While the public then was extremely polarized as well, governmental leaders were not nearly so, if the research is to be believed and living memory to be trusted.  Rioting and left-wing terrorists were rife in those days.  Long term riots are the “in” thing for some these days (seriously, riots that last MONTHS in some cases?!) but we have not seen the rise of organized, leftist domestic terrorist groups like we did in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s. 

Yet.

Our current situation begins at the top.  Our national leaders are openly opposed to one another like never before in my lifetime.  When candidates for president discard any semblance of interpersonal courtesy, it is a very bad sign.  When they also stoop to calling those who vote for their opponent names, we should all pause.  Not only does this pander to a party’s extremist fringe, it also signals the candidate’s willingness to simply abandon wholesale those who do not agree to a particular plank of their party platform.  It shows a desire to win an election without seeking even a semblance of consensus.  It is raw, naked vote chasing at its worst.  It also flows down the chain of command, with other politicians mimicking the behavior. 

Our political “leaders,” even in the tumultuous ‘60’s, have always tended to be studiously polite, even if only superficially.  They may not have all liked one another, but they were at least outwardly courteous.  I recall a comedian once saying that to an American politician, the phrase “My distinguished colleague” really meant “This asshole over here.”  People like President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neil, who were diametrically opposed politically and fought one another tooth and nail over legislation, yet would regularly dine together and tried very hard to forge what would become a deep friendship, all due to their professional responsibilities and based on mutual respect.  Such was the norm.

Now we see a sitting President refuse publicly to shake the hand of the Speaker of the House at the State of the Union address, followed by the Speaker publicly tearing up her copy of the President’s speech.  Rude, nasty interpersonal behavior and name calling by political leaders, and aspiring leaders, signals to their colleagues and constituents that it is permissible to denigrate those who do not agree with their political opinion.  It is a very small step from this kind of ad hominem attack to actual violence, as we have seen.  Those who seek political office in this country should know better and should never lower themselves to such a level.  In fact, they DO know better.  They are simply choosing to do otherwise in a clear attempt to garner enough votes to get or keep their job.  Doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing appears to no longer be reason enough.

The question then begs to be asked, is it working?  Is running down, insulting, and tacitly approving of even worse behavior by others accomplishing these politicians’ goals?  Given that the best information we have regarding the run up to the 2020 presidential election shows the candidates’ approval ratings were essentially identical at around 44% and that the election was a virtual tie in terms of both popular and electoral votes (anyone take a look at what the collective stance on repealing the electoral college is today versus six months ago?), I would say a strong argument could be made that it is not working. 

But perhaps it is.

With things so evenly split, and with a full 1/3 of the eligible voters not even bothering to exercise their franchise this year, every single vote counts.  In such a political environment, candidates need to get out the vote for their side as hard as they can.  It becomes less about who votes for which side than it is about who stays home.  The extremist fringes of each party are just not going to vote for the “other” candidate.  Can you imagine a Trump supporter wearing a MAGA hat into a voting booth to cast a vote for Hillary?  Or vice versa?  Probably not.  But if these voters do not like their candidate’s rhetoric because it is too soft on a critical issue or two, they might just stay home and watch Netflix.  That could easily cost an election.

But what about that vast number of people in the center?  You know, the “regular” folks, the silent majority we always hear about, the ones who lean a little left on some issues and a little right on others?  These days, candidates seem to be ok with taking a very cynical approach, one where they try to be just palatable enough to get their share of those voters.  The stance too often seems to be one of “I may not be perfect for you, but I am easier to stomach than that jerk I am running against!”

This results in elections like we have seen in the last two runs for president.  In both of those, almost every person I have spoken to has said some version of the same thing.  Few, if any, it seemed, were voting for someone because of their policies and ideas so much as they were voting against someone because they really could not stand the other guy (or girl, as the case may be) and/or their platform. 

I have had a couple people tell me that they voted for Hillary in 2016 because she was a woman, pure and simple. (I did not point out such an inherently sexist approach being taken in a fight against sexism was a bit paradoxical, if only to avoid getting smacked).  By and large, however, most folks I have come across have had very strong feelings against one candidate or their party.  That was motivating them to go to the polls.  It was a hostile attitude in 2016.  It seemed to be rage inducing for many in 2020.

We now have a country where only about 19% of people approve, and a whopping 77% disapprove, of the way Congress is doing their job.  Congress reads these same polls and, to this point at least, their actions show them to be completely unconcerned about these numbers.  In some ways, President Trump’s election can be seen as a reaction to the deep dissatisfaction much of America has with our political class.  The rejection of Hillary Clinton, the ultimate “Beltway Insider,” in that same election is easy to view in the same light.  Regardless, our presidential leadership is chaotic.  Nobody, neither the chief of the executive branch nor our entire national legislature, can legitimately claim to have a mandate from the electorate. 

The Media is Not Helping

“The people will believe what the media tells them they believe”

            -George Orwell

As if that is not enough, toss in a mass media that seems to have completely given up on even the pretense of being an impartial reporter of fact.  Around 60% of Americans no longer trust the media at all.  And the media, like Congress, just does not seem to care.  The objective apparently is not to report the news so much as it is to generate advertising dollars.  The news is merely the story they tell to keep us in our seats between commercial breaks.  To do that, the media needs interested eyeballs glued to their product.  They have figured out anger, crisis, and tragedy does that best.  So that is what they report.  If a little biased sensationalism, creative editing, and poetic license helps, well then, by all means.  Yellow journalism has such a rich history, after all.  Walter Cronkite would starve to death as a newsman in this environment.

People do not seem to choose their preferred media outlet based on the reliability of the information provided any longer.  Such is an outmoded concept.  They pick it mostly based on political affiliation.  Once chosen, they rarely drift about and are instead marinated in information, or propaganda, that speaks to their already held notions, with commercials to match.  I would suggest that this does not often result in an informed populace so much as an inflamed populace.  Regardless, it certainly produces people who consume more of what the media is pushing, generating more advertising revenue.  Which, as noted, is now the driving force behind almost all of what the “news” media does.

 Then there is the explosive growth of social media in the last decade.  Touted as a way to increase communication and bring people together, it has clearly done so.  Just not always for the betterment of mankind.  These platforms have grown far faster than any kind of legislation could follow, resulting in a massive data mining, money making, influence wielding machine that is almost completely unregulated.    

This gives the owners of such platforms an unprecedented capability to shape and edit public discourse and opinion.  At the same time, social media is providing every outlying opinion on any topic a vastly outsized impact on the national and global stage.  It serves to validate any perspective one has on pretty much any subject.  No matter how bizarre your point of view, there is someone out there in the vast cyber world who agrees with you completely and is willing to tell you how right you are.

Of course, in addition to lauding the opinions and actions found agreeable, public and private media are equally quick to judge, decry, and punish those whose actions are not acceptable.  “Racist” is a very popular pejorative these days, though its precise current definition has become rather fuzzy.  Everyone from the current president on down gets slapped with the label of racist at the slightest provocation, which appears to be feeding into an increasingly anti-white public rhetoric (strangely, this is often led and encouraged by white people).  This is often just a fast, and lazy, way to debate, debase, and marginalize a person’s actions.  Doing so can easily lead us away from any kind of meaningful discussion and resultant improvement.  Once a person is labeled a racist, accurate or not, the verbal, social media fueled assault begins.  The “racist” is marginalized, any response they make is immediately dismissed.  The original transgression, even if it had nothing to do with racism in the slightest, is forgotten and drown in the tsunami of righteous indignation and virtue signaling that follows.

It is not so much to the victor the spoils as it is to the loudest.

For example, President Trump is often called a racist by his detractors.  Personally, I do not see it.  I find him to be an unrepentant “America First” nationalist, sure, but not a racist.  I am willing to admit I might be wrong, but I have seen scant evidence of actual racism in his words and deeds.  Quite the opposite.  If you are an American, of any color or background, he does not seem to have a problem with you, politics notwithstanding.  If you are not an American, well, that’s a different kettle of fish entirely.  Regardless, a hard right nationalist president of the United States should give us all pause.  If that is what President Trump is, then that should be the focus of discussion.  Finding his desire to, say, build a wall along our southern border may be easy to label as racist, but that is just intellectual sloth.  Such an effort is much more clearly and precisely labeled as “nationalist,” or even xenophobic, and should then be debated in that sphere.

This kind of lazy discussion can be applied to both sides of the political divide.  I merely use the president’s alleged “racism” as a foil with which to make a point.  His negative characteristics receive an oversized amount of media attention, and have for the last five years, but both sides of the aisle have them.  Politicians do themselves no favors by not addressing them directly and unequivocally, but if the media does not put their message out, the impact is minimal.  Extending this same example, the president is accused of being racist.  He largely ignores the insult.  He is then accused of tacitly supporting violent racial extremist movements.  He denounces them and moves on, but his denunciation is not messaged as strong enough, so it is glossed over by his detractors and ignored.  His supporters see such spurious accusations, coupled with the media’s lukewarm response, as another in a never-ending stream of “anti-Trump rhetoric” and cling to him even harder.  The gulf between the sides widens. 

This favoritism and slanted approach by mass media is hugely impactful.  Take the civil unrest that has rocked 2020.  ANTIFA and BLM come out and violently riot for months on end in several major U.S. cities throughout 2020.  People are hurt and killed, property damage runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars, yet prosecutions are few and far between, while the mass media soft sells these “misunderstood protesters.”  Their violent actions are regularly downplayed and excused.  Those state level prosecutions that are to be had, short of murder, are regularly dismissed by activist district attorneys who are clearly playing to the sympathies of the mob.  Those mob sympathies are trumpeted by a media industry that at least appears complicit.  Left leaning Democratic leaders, including president-elect Biden, do little or nothing to denounce and condemn anyone involved.  The right then accuses the left of doing precisely what the left has accused the president of doing.  It’s dizzying.

Result?  Both sides of the political aisle feel disenfranchised and deeply incensed.  The truth is that none of our American politicians are condemning any kind of political violence in strong enough terms.  The media makes the most of the whole situation.  Violence in furtherance of a political objective is the very definition of terrorism and should be a hard no from all political leaders and the media elite.  Yet in some cases, local and state officials are siding with, even marching with, rioters.  News outlets excuse and obfuscate.  Forget condemnation.  The message from those in the public eye should be clear and unmistakable, regardless of political party: violence in support of an opinion is not acceptable and will not be tolerated in a nation under the rule of law.  Period.

Send in the Clowns

“Democracy is the opposite of totalitarianism, communism, fascism, or mobocracy”

            -Frank Llyod Wright

In our present environment, it is no wonder that the larger segments of the U.S. population are gravitating more towards the extremist fringes of their respective political positions.  That is, those who remain involved in the process at all.  Many are so disgusted with this mess they have withdrawn completely from any sort of political involvement.  When elected officials make no attempt at all to listen, let alone give a voice, to half the population that disagrees with them, nor to even improve their job performance in the face of such massive disapproval numbers, is it surprising that people feel disenfranchised?  Why talk when nobody is listening?  Are we to be shocked that, when these same people who claim to be leaders and who will insist that they know and act with “the will of the American people” actively denigrate and insult those who did not vote for them that huge swaths of the population respond in kind?  And once civility disappears from the public ranks of those holding public office, is it really a far step to see it vanish quickly from the public en mass?  Or to see the numbers of those participating in our democratic processes continue to plummet?

The far left in this country seems to be chasing, from urban centers (the traditional nursery for Marxist-Leninists thought and action), the idea of utopian socialism.  Knowing that “communism” is still a non-starter for a huge majority of the American population, it goes by less offensive, easier to swallow names, such as Progressivism and Socialism.  Blurring the lines between these separate and distinct political theories is done by both sides, for their own reasons.  It does not really matter though, since our schools make very little effort to teach people the difference. 

Whatever title this effort goes by, it amounts to the same thing in modern usage.  A massive and growing “nanny state” federal government, one that controls more and more of both our lives and our livelihoods. Because the government can do it better, you understand.  An end of the private ownership of those means of production classified as “necessities.”  Of course, the party, er government, leadership will then get to define what constitutes a “necessity.”  All for your own good, as defined by those who feel they know what is best for you better than you do.

Socialism, in the end, is also far more loyal to the idea of socialism than to a place for it to occur.  International socialism, and the worldwide spread of its ideals, has been a hallmark of the movement since its inception, national borders and identities be damned.  In what I suppose is an attempt at marketing, you can often hear people in this camp tout the Scandinavian nations as shining examples of successful socialist countries that the U.S. should immediately emulate.  Forget the fact that none of them are true socialist countries.  Ignore the fact that, combined, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark have a population of around 27 million (smaller than Texas) and combined defense expenditures of about $20 billion USD in 2020 (the state of Georgia has a 2021 budget of $25.9 billion).  To use them as an example of how the U.S. should operate is juvenile and completely ignores the geopolitical realities of the world we live in, not to mention basic math.

Naturally, to gain all of these wonderous benefits inherent in a socialist utopia here in the U.S., some freedoms and profits will have to be given up to the state, but we are told this is all for the “greater good.”  All this free-market stuff is just being misused and abused by greedy racist profiteers anyhow, right?  You want things to be fair, right?  Socialism, we are told, will allow the government to do it all better.  Our public education system largely seems to support this idea across the country, resulting in people in their 20’s who honestly believe that socialism is a better way than capitalism, having never been taught (let alone experienced) the abject horrors that true socialism results in.

The left also seems to equate equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.  Government should certainly try to create a level playing field, where opportunities are not denied to particular classes or groups of people.  No argument there.  It is distinctly American to give everyone a shot.  However, providing everyone with the same outcome?  That’s a real stretch.  Human variability alone is going to prevent that.  I can simply not think of any field of endeavor, from gardening to building a Fortune 100 company from scratch and everything in between, where one person is not going to excel compared to another.  To tell them both that they are going to now grow world class orchids or found the next social media juggernaut because “it’s only fair” is ludicrous.

But let’s not let the far right off the hook. Oh, no, no.

To the extreme right, this all appears to be an effort to destroy our traditional way of life here in America.  It is an approach that they refuse to reconcile with their own realities.  From their perspective, America may have issues, but they can be corrected without the wholesale destruction of American culture and way of life.  They see no need to throw out the baby with the bath water.  The idea of having a large, inevitably intrusive, federal government taking control of huge portions of their lives is an idea that, to their way of thinking, must be crushed.  Especially if it is championed by riotous criminals.  The government, to their way of thinking, is already way too big. 

The right places a high value on personal independence, responsibility, and the ability to make their own choices, without seeking governmental approval.  Growing the government, in any form, and the resulting dependence on that government, is at the heart of their disagreement with socialism.  Any attempt at a massive push for additional government involvement and control of their lives is maddening for them.  For example, they already see taxation at current rates as a necessary evil, bordering on theft.  The idea that the rate could double to fund all of the programs touted by socialists puts many over the edge.

Nationalism is traditionally much more geographically centered, focusing almost exclusively on the “homeland” and the people who inhabit it.  It is not the same thing as patriotism and national identity.  Historically when these things are taken to an extreme, however, we have seen the rise of truly fascist, totalitarian nation-states and that has never worked out well.  In the last hundred years, we have seen extreme nationalism couple with racism in the Italian fascists, the German National Socialists, and the Japanese empire to name but a few.  The havoc those nations were able to create in a relatively short period is truly stunning. 

An obviously racist, nationalistic federal government is harder to do in the U.S. these days, due to a largely heterogenous population and the laws enacted over the last 50 years or so, not to mention modern American sentiments surrounding racism.  This despite what the popular media might have been screaming for the last four years.  We must, however, still guard against a “hyper-patriotic,” nationalist sense of superiority.  Given America’s position on the world stage, even if we did not fall into a totalitarian government willing to resurrect the Monroe Doctrine worldwide, a simple movement back to our isolationist past would have a catastrophic impact on the world as we know it.

Here in America, we have made it over two hundred years, based on a national identity and set of agreed upon rules put down by some impressively intelligent (if clearly imperfect) men.  (Yes, Karen, men. The fact that we have moved on does not change history.) Men who truly understood government and the excesses it could lead to if unchecked and unconstrained.  From them we have inherited a set of founding principles that have stood the test of time, thus far, and that have shone as a beacon for people around the world.  The idea of individual rights, liberty, and natural law.  A limited government constrained by an immutable set of checks and balances.  One that recognizes the positive impact of religion, without enshrining any one over the other.  Popular rule, without a “folkstadt” government run by any one class or creed.  This has provided us with a civil society with a variety of public and private institutions designed to temper our republic, preventing a fall into the excesses and extremes complete freedom can bring.  We have even been able to self-correct when we have gone astray, which is practically unheard of historically.

Of course, most of this is either no longer taught in schools or is largely done so ineffectively.  The collective concentration seems to be teaching students what to think instead of how to think.

Taken as a whole, the two political viewpoints, socialism and nationalism, are incompatible.  They are also the foundation of uncounted street battles and riots around the world in the 20th century, not to mention many of the large scale hot and cold wars we have been plagued with for the last 100 years.

Likewise, our current politicians seem equally intractable.  The two sides of our increasingly opposed political landscape see no reason to compromise and work towards a common solution or goal.  Forget the fact that it is their job and their responsibility.  Nobody else can fix this problem they have created.  Neither side of this political coin recognizes any common leadership that might be able to broker such agreements that might reverse this trend.  There are, however, plenty of leaders on the outer periphery of both parties who will cultivate disaffected followers.  The national race to pander to the political fringe of each party is on.

We have these two competing, incompatible political viewpoints growing and running into one another in America now.   It seems likely the media is playing with the precise numbers, making things look more horrendous than they actually are in some cases, much less significant in others.  Regardless of the reality, the perception is that things are bad and getting worse.  It is not the first time these perspectives have come into conflict here in America, just the first time they have been this bad in 50 years.  It is amazing to me how quickly we forget such things.  We forget, or were never taught, how devastating political violence can be.

The idea often gets floated that ANITIFA/BLM work at the direction of left-wing political leaders and that the right-wing extremist groups like the Proud Boys work for right wing politicians.  I doubt that this is the case.  I do not see Nancy Pelosi meeting with Patrisse Cullors in some underground parking garage to coordinate their efforts, nor was Enrique Tarrio being shuttled in the service entrance of the Trump White House late at night.  The risks are just too great for the politicians to be directly associated and they know it. 

But if the violence and outrage work to further the designs of the politicians, well, isn’t that just a happy coincidence?  It is an idea that both the politicians and the group organizers can certainly come to on their own.  We have seen many public statements of tacit and direct support of these organizations and their violent actions by sitting political leaders in the past several years.  Those statements make it difficult to avoid concluding some level of cooperation, or at least a common set of goals, exists between some of these groups.

After all, extreme political movements have a long, effective tradition of association with “active” (read: violent) movements with similar aims.  The IRA and Sinn Fein, the Nazis and the Freikorps (later the Sturmabteilung), Italian Fascists and their Blackshirts, these are just in the last century.  Mao Tse Tung said, “While military action and political affairs are not identical, it is impossible to isolate one from the other.”  It’s difficult to argue that he did not know what he was talking about on the subject. 

In a nation torn by violent strife, it is easier for the political party not in power to say, “Do you see what a mess these other guys have made?  This kind of thing wouldn’t happen if WE were in charge!”  In a very real way, chaos helps those on the political “outs.”  It is a powerful political tool if one can control it.  Once the “outs” are in power, violence can be then be tamped down or ramped up, as need be, in order to support political maneuverings.  If a violent, extra-governmental group supports the party in power, it can act on a leader’s desires while providing plausible deniability.  “I condemn this violence and we are trying to stop it, but they are not government actors.  They are just regular folks fed up with the other side’s excesses!”   

It would be folly to think that politicians and violent activists on both sides of the political aisle here in America do not know this and have for generations.  Unlike in years past, however, we now have activist prosecutors, mayors, governors, and police chiefs/sheriffs gaining these positions, taking sides, and providing overt support for their “team.”  Not all of them are on the side of law and order.  Some are so enamored with the power of their current or future political office that they are willing to ignore, encourage, and even support political violence.  They are often ignoring their own sworn duties, not to mention making a mockery of state and federal law, in the process.  There is a movement towards the real Balkanization of our legal system by such people, where some behaviors are allowed in one jurisdiction while being aggressively prosecuted in others.  All in support of political ideas and opinions.

That’s bad.  Really bad.

Where is this all going?

 “I cannot get any sense of an enemy – only of a disaster”

            -D.H. Lawrence

We are already seeing wildly different enforcement with laws surrounding immigration, drugs, and guns around the nation.  You can literally get in your car with a gun or a joint or your Mexican cousin and be fine in your driveway yet be a felon as soon as you pull into traffic, let alone drive to an adjoining state.  Where does it stop?  How is a lay person to be expected to know the nuances of every law they may run afoul of in such an environment?  How do they catalog the eccentricities of every prosecutor or city council whose crosshairs they may find themselves in, regardless of what the law says?

It is now developing with the treatment of police officers and convicted criminals. Attacking police officers and their agencies is the same kind of ignorant that led people in the 1960’s to attack returning veterans from Vietnam.  Worse than merely stupid and insulting, it is a path that quite literally puts us all in danger.  If you do not like what the police are doing in your community, or anything else for that matter, an intelligent response is what is called for.  Violence, emptying jails wholesale, vilifying dedicated police professionals, and enacting radical budget cuts with no plan beyond “sticking it to the man” is not just ignorant, it results in an immediately predictable skyrocketing of crime rates. 

This kind of misguided action drives people not only out of the police department that employed them, but out of the profession completely.  All while putting the entire community, particularly those with lower income, at increased risk for criminal victimization.   How are the cities and states that are actively hostile to law enforcement officers going recruit for and police their jurisdictions?  Certainly you can always find people who will wear a badge and a gun.  The question becomes, are they always the people you want to have that authority?  The risk of creating the precise situation they claim to want to cure is massive and unavoidable.

The overall effect of this mess is to begin to sunder our national unity by confusing and frustrating pretty much everyone.  It undermines public confidence in our most important institutions.  People start thinking of themselves less as Americans and more as members of subgroups, like Democrats, Republicans, racial and ethnic groups, etc.  Even within these groups, people are polarizing from moderates to extremists.  This has further encouraged politicians to cater to vocal fringe elements and the cycle continues to deepen.  We become less and less “Americans” and more and more a collection of hostile cliques of people who live in America.  The “us versus them” dynamic bubbles closer and closer to the surface, making hostility and violence towards one another easier and easier.  We are seeing it and its corrosive impact play out all over the country.

By eroding the confidence in our institutions and the dependable rule of law, we risk destroying the social contract that holds our nation together peacefully.  We are currently policed by consent, with the majority of the population happy to let the government and the rule of law dispense justice on their behalf.  What, I wonder, happens when the government institutions and political leadership stop holding up their end of that bargain?  When their shameless pandering for votes lead them to completely ignore the precepts of justice, but only when convenient for them and their personal agendas?  When they abandon their obligation to provide the citizenry with a safe environment to live and work?  When they refuse to recognize the legitimate need for punishment of criminal transgressions owed to both victims and society as a whole?  If the government will not provide this service, I feel certain that the vacuum will be filled by someone.  Frustration will inevitably lead to still more anger.

Let’s not forget this also opens the door more widely for other nation-state actors to influence the internal workings of the United States.  The U.S. has a long history of working to destabilize other nations.  There is no reason to suppose that other nations would not try the same thing in reverse.  They need not try this route to destroy the U.S., of course.  Merely fostering civil unrest keeps the country focused on its own internal problems, leaving less band width and national will to meddle in the activities of others.  Lessening the American presence on the world stage is a good thing for some countries.  Funding some American dissidents (on both sides, since the goal is chaos more than anything else) is a cheap and easy way to help that along.

With the changing of residents at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, much of the political violence will drop off.  While the violent actors are still out there and organized, a big chunk of their funding is going to dry up.  With no need to create violent disruptions in order to weaken the incumbent, wallets on big money, politically motivated donors are going to snap shut.  Less funding makes it difficult to maintain the support train of long-term, national protests and riots like we saw throughout 2020.  Less money means less bail available for arrested protesters.  Fewer high-priced lawyers for their defense.  No money for signs, transportation, food, water, and all the other things needed to keep an army of rioters in the field for months on end.  Logistics is a harsh mistress.

When taken as a whole, the rise of such extreme positions should give us all, regardless of political affiliation and especially those of us in the middle, a great deal of concern.  Because in those extreme positions lie true existential threats to our nation.  Seeds of a full-on civil war?  Possibly, though I doubt it.  If it did come to pass, it most certainly would not resemble the “War of Northern Aggression,” as my southern neighbors refer to the cataclysm of 1861-1865.  The genesis of a limited, urban guerilla war?  This is the more likely result.  If there is to be a second civil war, it will be a low intensity guerilla war.  A civil war implies a battle of insurrection against the government, though by strict definition it is a war between citizens of the same country.  A guerilla war might involve the government, as it is a viable way for small, fast moving forces to fight superior military and police.   In our case, it might just be two small warring factions and a feckless government in the middle.

No, if there is to be any kind of a shooting “war” in our country, as things stand now, it will be a limited scale guerilla war, fought largely in urban and sub-urban areas.  Increased civil unrest, riots, street brawls, bombings, and arson.  Perhaps various right- and left-wing lone wolf terrorists or the occasional “death squad,” like those that seem to flourish in Central and South America.  Think Weather Underground in the 1970’s or The Order in the 1980’s.  Raids on rural farms, like the criminal depredations so popular in South Africa, would be very unlikely.  

The reality is that Americans are comfortable, and our law enforcement agencies are, for now at least, very good at what they do.  Nobody is starving, by and large.  The economy is, despite hiccups, humming along and rebounding from the recent unpleasantness quite well.  And, unlike much of the rest of the world, our populace is armed and are (mostly) allowed to defend themselves from violent attack in their homes.  As long as people remain armed, comfortable, and their children are not going to bed hungry, the extremists are going to have a very difficult time getting enough people to put down their beer and get up off of the couch to throw their war.

Instead, we will see a continuation of the current course, though with a drop off in raw numbers for the short term.  We will have explosions of protests, riots, looting, and violence in various cities because some have gotten a taste for it and the personal repercussions have been shockingly small.  We will see an increase in organized counter-responses, where those who are politically opposed will come together to combat one another.  Some members of these violent groups may find things are moving too slowly, which might result in the occasional spike in the intensity of the violence by individuals and small sub-groups. 

The impacted cities are largely predictable, based on past political and law enforcement response.  We know where it will happen later because it is happening in these cities now.  Where such actions are tolerated, they will continue.  These “autonomous zones” will pop up where they are allowed and the local citizenry, who largely just want to live their lives in peace, will have to endure the violence, filth, and disruption such actions incur.  Other cities, the ones who crack down on violent, lawless behavior, may see rare and brief incidents, but will not be inundated with this kind of criminal activity like the more permissive cities are.

For those of us who default to hoping for the best but preparing for the worst, just wanting to be left alone, it will be an interesting time.  As for me, I will be avoiding any place where large numbers of people gather.  My vehicle stays in good condition with never less than half a tank of gas.  I never drive away from home without considering the possibility that I might have to walk a few miles from my car, so I dress and pack accordingly.  I have trained my entire life to defend myself from others and ensure I am always properly equipped to do so.  I try very hard to maintain a general posture of low visibility coupled with a high state of alertness and readiness.  You might consider something similar going forward, to better ensure your own safety and well-being in these interesting times.

I have not gone so far as to buy a dedicated rifle and ballistic vest with SAPI plates for my car, but I can certainly understand that thinking of those who have.  A large canister of bear spray in my car fills the space between surrender and deadly force, should I stumble into a riot or roadblock.  I hit the gym regularly and keep my self-defense skills sharp.  The consistent level of civil unrest in America these days is historic and worrisome, but a very far cry from an all-out civil war.  A reasonable level of awareness and preparation can go a long way towards avoiding problems or dealing with them if it comes to that. 

The wise will prepare and conduct themselves accordingly.  After all, I might be wrong and things could be worse tomorrow.

Improvement is a process

We need to improve our method of teaching people how to administer deadly force when it is called for.  A good place to start is with the training of police officers.

  In America, as in many nations, the single most likely group to be called upon to lawfully administer deadly force is law enforcement.  We have armed our police forces here since the people of Boston founded the first professional police force in America in 1838.  We have done so with the tacit understanding that the weapons are there for a reason.  If a society arms its police, it does so with the understanding that the officers may well be called upon to use those weapons, lawfully, to visit potentially lethal force upon other people.

  In the modern era, we understand (or did until recently) that the police are, generally speaking, the good guys.  In turn, their use of deadly force on occasion, while regrettable, was seen as inevitable.  Such use could be lawful, unlawful, mistaken, maybe even malicious.  As a society, we accepted this as the price of doing business and built organizational structures to investigate and deal with any such usage.  We knew that it is an imperfect world, that deadly force was being implemented by actual people in the real world, and being done so in what the US Supreme Court recognized as exceedingly difficult circumstances.

            Most famously, in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in saying that any use of force by law enforcement must be reasonable, wrote in the majority opinion:

            “The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgements – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

            While the courts have long recognized the difficulties and imperfections inherent to the implementation of deadly force by police officers, society today is increasingly less likely to accept anything less than perfection in these situations.  To make matters worse, the definition of “perfection” is a moving target, currently all too often dependent on wide-ranging social pressures and political aspirations.

             As a society, we have a general duty to make certain our officers are as well-trained as we can make them before we ask them to go into harm’s way.  We must constantly strive to improve the way officers are taught to administer deadly force.  They are doing so in our collective name, after all.  I would argue that deadly force application is the single greatest responsibility we burden our police officers with.  To do less than our very best when it comes to training our officers in this area is nothing more than an abdication of a supreme moral duty.  If we are going to ask an officer to deliver a level of force, on behalf of society at large, that can reasonably be expected to cause death or serious bodily harm, we owe it to them and everyone in the community to train them to the best of our ability.

            We have come a very long way in this realm over the last century, to be sure.  Deadly force training today, versus where it was in the early 20th century, is excellent.  That is not to say it is perfect or that it cannot be improved.  And since we CAN do better, we MUST do better.

            Naturally, that is not as easy as one might think.  Cops, in my experience at least, tend to be fairly hidebound, set in their ways kind of people.  This is true from the administrators and law enforcement leaders who approve training, to the law enforcement instructors who provide that training, to the individuals who receive the training.  By and large, as a profession, we do not happily or readily adopt change.

            However, if we are going to bring about real improvements in this area, one key group of stakeholders is the police themselves.  They are the pointy end of this metaphorical stick, after all.  It is they who have to take the training, they who have to internalize the training, and they who are the ultimate policy actors who must implement the training.  If they do not buy off on changes and improvements, the status quo will continue to blunder forward.

            Should the officers support the training improvements, making those changes and seeing them put into practice outside the training environment will be a much smoother process.  Change implementation is difficult in the best of circumstances, which is arguably not what we have on our hands today.  The difficulty of the endeavor, however, should not bar the attempt.  We have to try, and we should start by discussing just what it is we want to do.

            Since we accept the idea that police will occasionally be forced to implement deadly force in the course of their duties and that they must therefore be instructed on all the complexities thereof, we need a starting point.  When it comes to deadly force instruction in the United States, this usually means firearms training.  If deadly force is called for, the law does not presume to instruct or dictate how it should be administered, but firearms are the most often accepted methodology and current training supports this position.

            As a general statement, firearms instruction in law enforcement academies teaches officers to handle their firearms safely and to pass the departmental qualification courses.  Due to very real-time and budget constraints, few departments can teach beyond this basic level of instruction at the academy level.  The law and policy surrounding deadly force usage is often covered in a legal training block.  This is, by and large, about it when it comes to deadly force training for the vast majority of law enforcement officers during the academy.  Some organizations do a bit better, some do a bit worse.  Naturally, within even this basic level of instruction at a given academy, quality can vary from class to class, depending on numerous factors.

            When it comes to fighting with a firearm, however, there is so much more involved.  This is the firearms equivalent of teaching someone to get a small plane off the ground, circling the airfield a few times, and then landing it safely again.  An impressive feat, to be certain, but then saying this person is now a combat pilot and ready to get into a dogfight on their own is ludicrous.  We need to teach our officers to fight, and win, with their firearms because that is precisely what we expect them to do when we arm them and send them into the streets.

            The foundation of law enforcement gunfighting training should be taught in a unified block of deadly force instruction starting at the academy.  Anyone who has attended a police academy in the last 50 years is familiar with the instructional block concept.  We teach blocks of instruction on just about everything we instruct police officers on.  Car stops?  Domestic violence intervention?  Report writing?  There’s likely a block of instruction on these in just about every police academy in the country.  A deadly force instruction block?  Not so much.  This is even though the use of deadly force, in the moment and without prior judicial review or sanction, is arguably the single greatest responsibility we place on our officers.

            What would such a deadly force training block look like?  I suggest that it would encompass the mechanics, law, ethics, and psychology of deadly force employment, taught as a holistic, interwoven block of instruction.  Each could then be taught as part of the whole, complementing one another, working to support the high-stress, high-stakes, high-speed critical incident judgment and decision-making that goes into any use of deadly force, as well as mere firearms accuracy.

            That decision-making element of gunfighting is absolutely critical, by the way, though it is very rarely given nearly enough time in training.  Officer Tony Peterson is quoted in Deadly Force Encounters, a book by Dr. Alexis Artwohl and Loren W. Christensen, as saying, “Pulling the trigger is the easy part.  It’s making the decision to shoot that’s hard.”  Our training on deadly force should recognize this fact and address it.

            Along the way, improvements to each block could be made and implemented, both when originally established and as relevant improvements are made as time goes on.  Let’s take the easy road and look at firearms instruction as an example. 

As a profession, we do a pretty great job of teaching pure marksmanship.  At the same time, we do a less stellar job of teaching gunfighting to new officers.  This is a subtle but critical distinction.  Like I mentioned above, it is the difference between teaching someone to fly a plane and teaching someone to fight with a plane.  There is a huge gap between the two.

Typical law enforcement firearms qualification courses are performed in relatively benign weather, on safely run, dedicated ranges with specific firing points, and known target locations.  The course of fire and the actions of everyone involved, including the targets, are well-known and rehearsed extensively beforehand. Officers are usually well-rested, uninjured, and thoroughly briefed before taking to the field.  There are no uninvolved people on the range and certainly no live humans between the shooters and their targets.  All actions on the range are tightly controlled and dictated by dedicated safety officers who are present to ensure the range is operating as smooth and safe as possible.  Everyone knows when the shooting is to begin and when it is to end.  If someone has a weapon malfunction or fails the course of fire, they are generally allowed to try again in order to pass with the required score, possibly after some remedial training and practice.  Targets may remain stationary or move slightly, albeit in a very specific, largely predictable place, speed, and time.  The entire activity is closely akin to a line dance in which everyone present knows the steps and how to perform their specific tasks. 

This has very, very little to do with how we know gunfights actually happen.

Given the vast disparity between how law enforcement firearms qualifications are typically currently conducted and the known realities of a gunfight, the question that begs to be answered is why do we do it this way?  If we know that we test firearms skills in a way that bears little resemblance to how those firearms will be used to defend an officer’s life, then why are we doing it this way?  My theory is that we conduct qualifications the way we do largely to insulate the parent agency from costly lawsuits more than to ensure the survival of our individual officers.  That is not good enough.

While every aspect of the “average” gunfight cannot be mimicked in the training environment, we can certainly get closer than we are now.  And we should.

Why is this still a debate?

            When was the last time you heard of a school fire killing anyone, let alone 10 or more people?

            I did a little bit of research, and it turns out that it has been a rather long time since such a tragedy struck.  According to the National Fire Protection Association (www.nfpa.org), it was December 1, 1958 when 95 students and teachers were killed in what is known as the Our Lady of Angels School fire (https://olafire.com/FireSummary.asp).

            In the first half of the 20th century, school fires were sadly common and the numbers of dead were sizable.  Extreme examples include the Lakeview School fire in Collinwood, Ohio in 1908 killed 172 students and two teachers (https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/394) and the Consolidated School fire in New London, Texas in 1937, which claimed 294 souls (http://nlsd.net/index2.html).  Beyond these notably large school fires, other fires occurred with alarming regularity.

            Things changed after Our Lady of Angeles.

            From 2009 to 2013, the NFPA reported that about 1% of all building fires in the US each year occur in educational properties.  That’s about 5,100 structure fires a year.  These fires cause an average of one death per year.  You read that right: 5,100 fire incidents in a year, resulting in a single death on average.

            About 80% of these fires occurred in daycare centers, nurseries, and elementary, middle or high schools.

            So what changed?  How do you go from fire being a common, deadly occurrence in school settings to having them nearly vanish?  What happened?

            Simply put, people got serious about protecting their children from a clear and present threat to their lives in schools.  New building codes were implemented, and old ones were enforced.  Sprinkler systems were installed and are now universal.  Fire extinguishers were installed and maintained in all schools.  Students and teachers were required to perform fire drills regularly, to the point that they became boringly routine.

            Problem largely solved.

            Now we have a new threat killing our kids.  Spree killers are invading our schools on a far too regular basis.  Whether such an attack results in no injuries or in a large number of dead and wounded is not really the point.  It is the choice of victims.  Children.  Kids.  Students.   Thanks these attacks, names like Blacksburg, Columbine, Newtown, Parkland, Ulvalde and others are permanently burned into our collective memories.  The body counts grow, but as a society we seem to be locked into a spiral of disagreements as to how to fix this problem, dwelling on the details of how to move forward and what to do rather than seizing on the central issue:  People are shooting children in schools.

            Why is there still a debate? 

            What are we doing?  Why have we as a society not looked at this and acted with swift, positive action?  I confess to being confused about this issue.  Kids are dying in schools.  Mull that over for a bit.  Children, our children, are going to school and are being killed by deranged classmates while we adults argue, largely about arming teachers and outlawing guns, and do almost nothing substantive.

            While I support giving teachers the option of being armed (more on that later), it is only one element of hardening our schools against such heinous attacks.  There are other steps, ones that do not involve bickering over whether Junior’s music teacher should carry a concealed handgun.  Why are we not advancing those steps?  We can debate the firearms issue at length if we must but let us have some solid action now.

            Just as the successful defense against school fires involved a layered approach, so should our defense against spree killers.  We must structure our schools not only with fire defense in mind but now we must consider how to thwart the mass killers when they target students.  The killers have given us no alternative.  We have a moral obligation, if not a biological imperative, to act.  To do otherwise, to my way of seeing things, is an indefensible abdication of one of our most critical responsibilities: the protection of our young.

            So what do we do?  How do we tackle this problem?  How do we maintain our schools as the open, inviting places of learning that we want them to be, while ensuring the safety of the children studying there?

            First of all, we decide to act.  We collectively make the decision to get something done now. Communities and governing bodies can then discuss details, but the first thing we have to do is decide to stop dithering, to stop fiddling while Rome burns, and get on with some positive steps to protect our children at school.  What are some of those steps?  I have some suggestions.

A more robust mental health and counseling capability in our schools seems like a clear requirement to me.  Getting out in front of these incidents with kids who need help and solving the problem before they start shooting is the best thing to do.  Obviously, it will take making available to schools an increased number of trained, capable professionals to do it.

Add required active shooters drills to the school calendars and increase teacher training around the issue.  This is a step that already has some traction around the country.  We already have fire drills, earthquake drills and tornado drills.  Many of us remember a time when we conducted nuclear attack drills.  Schools must create plans that work for their own circumstances, train all school personnel on these plans and practice them.  Teachers, who are the pointy end of the spear (or perhaps the solid edge of the shield is a better metaphor) in this battle, must be trained and supported on this issue.

We need to increase our security presence in the schools, both in order to deter and prevent attacks, but also in order to respond effectively should an attack occur.  Cameras, access control, hardened classrooms, strong lighting, and all the other details, active and passive, attendant to making our schools more difficult to attack must be installed immediately.  This also means armed security, whether it is private or law enforcement.  Unarmed security is security in name only and is no deterrent to an armed, determined attacker bent on destruction.  Unarmed security guards are simply additional potential victims should an attack actually occur.   

Having trained, armed and capable professionals on campus is not only an effective deterrent, it is also adds an immediate response capability in the event of an attack.  Seconds count in these situations and having an armed response capability on campus, one which does not need to respond and travel to the campus, can save lives.

This may be costly, but do we really need to quibble about the price here?  Is this the place to skimp and save money?

Forcing teachers to be armed when they do not want to be is a non-starter.  First of all, it is a worthless, silly idea.  I have a long history in my own family of teaching, including three cousins who are currently teachers.  While I believe they should have the option of being armed, the idea of any of them actually carrying a firearm in order to use it to stop an attack on their students is laughable to me.  They want nothing to do with carrying a gun and if the state tried to force them to, they would not, legal consequences be damned.

In my experience, the vast majority of teachers take the safety and security of their charges incredibly seriously.  Most will move heaven and earth to protect “their” kids, in some cases of these mass murderers laying down their lives while attempting to do so.  It is just that some simply will not, or cannot, countenance the idea of using a firearm to do so.

But some will.

Giving teachers the option of carrying a concealed firearm in school, after appropriate state-mandated vetting, training, and licensing, is another story.  John Lott’s ground-breaking research, published in “More Guns, Less Crime” makes it clear that merely allowing a given population the option of carrying concealed firearms has a dramatic, statistically significant impact on incidences of violent crime.  It is a layer of defense that we are foolish to ignore, yet we willfully enter into long-winded philosophical debates about it.  We seem more concerned with philosophy than practical defensive measures.

Politicians seem disinclined to make immediate, substantive investments in this arena.  Indeed, none have even taken this up as “their” issue.  I can only conclude that it is a cynical way to motivate their individual constituents into donating money and voting for them as long as it remains an issue.  If the problem is solved, the votes and money evaporate.  After all, nobody is getting campaign contributions to help combat the school fire issue anymore.  I suppose I can understand that, even if I find the very idea reprehensible. 

Of course, this entire thing is ridiculous.  The idea of putting children in schools at increased risk of death or serious bodily injury, because some people are afraid of inanimate objects, is nothing short of asinine.  We have a real-world problem here and we must address it.  We are no longer in a position to ignore the fact that armed, trained professionals must be stationed in our schools as part of a larger defense plan.  I do not like that fact any more than anyone else, but there it is.  The battle has been brought to us and we cannot simply pretend it will go away because we want it to. 

We can afford mere philosophical debate no longer.  We must act.

Rumination on the 2nd

            I own several guns. For a bunch of reasons, I believe I have an informed opinion on the topic of firearms and am happy to discuss it with anyone who wants to have an actual conversation.  Knowing that not all of the people who read this may know me, I shall try to establish some level of bona fides on the topic before moving on. 

              I am the guy who watches the evening news and laughs when police clean out some felon's house and the media cries about how heavily armed he was.  Inevitably, I find myself saying, “He did not have THAT many guns.  Piker.”  Judge for yourself if I am to be taken seriously.  I have been around guns my entire life, despite growing up in California.  It was a better place in the ‘70s.  I fired my first gun when I was 6 (a Browning A-5 semi-automatic I could barely lift; it was my father's and grandfather's before me, which I now own and still use).  That was ugly.  I bought my first gun at age 16 (a Ruger 10-22 I still own). 

               I served in the Army for 12 years, including nine as an infantryman.  I led a mechanized infantry platoon during the First Gulf War.  I served over 20 years as a federal law enforcement investigator, literally carrying a gun every day of my professional life in that time.  In that capacity I also served in Afghanistan, going into harm's way often, but doing so armed rather more heavily. 

                I have taught firearms to my own colleagues, as well as at a state law enforcement academy and as a full-time firearms instructor at my own federal academy, for several years.  I was certified by my agency as a Firearms Instructor, a Defensive Tactics (read: hand to hand) instructor and as an Advanced Instructor Development Course instructor (read: I taught our people HOW to teach).  I am a life member of the NRA.  I have trained with some of the best private firearms instructors and competitive shooters in the U.S., several of whom I consider personal friends.  I wrote a both a master's thesis and a doctoral dissertation on the topic of improving the way we train law enforcement officers to administer deadly force.  I published a book on the same topic in 2015, then rewrote and rereleased it in 2023.  I am a competitive shooter, holding two Master class certifications from the International Defensive Pistol Association, an organization I first joined in 1998.  I have competed at the local, state, regional, and national levels.  I self-define not only as a student of the gun, but also as a practitioner who has “seen the elephant” and is still here to discuss the matter.  I say these things not out of a need for self-aggrandizement, but to establish the aforementioned bona fides.  Take what I say for what it is worth.

                On a personal level, I simply enjoy shooting. I prefer handgun shooting, as it is the kind of challenge I appreciate for reasons of my own, but I have happily fired everything from a BB gun to a howitzer.  The simple act of trying to place a projectile into a target, precisely where I want it to go, at speed, is enjoyable to me. I would imagine those who play golf or darts or Frisbee golf or any other such sports might feel the same way about their chosen pastime.

                I do not force my hobby or beliefs down anyone else's throat, nor do I expect anyone else to agree with me, though I will happily speak with and/or help those who sincerely ask.  I do not tolerate others who do not show me the same courtesy.  I enjoy shooting, both simple target shooting and competitive shooting, and I abide by the laws of the land when going about my sport, even when I disagree with them. If you come to my home, you would not know about my weapons unless you knew me, as they are not tossed casually about the place. Of course, if you are a friend of mine, you will know I'm a gun owner through our conversations before you ever stop by.  At the end of the day, sport shooting is for me no different than bird watching or yachting is for others.  Perhaps a bit noisier, but beyond that…

                Professionally, weapons were tools of my trade. No different than a saw for a carpenter or a wrench for a plumber. I employed the weapons I had to accomplish a given mission when required. They were simply part of my professional attire and I had, and continue to have, them about for specific work purposes.


‪





                Because I have spent, and continue to spend, so much time around firearms and the people who use them, I hear a lot of comments on the 2nd Amendment, both pro and con.  It is a Constitutional amendment that seems to evoke the strongest emotions of late, whether one is a fan or not.  These days, few people can tell you much about the 16th Amendment without looking it up, but seemingly everyone I meet believes themselves to be a 2nd Amendment scholar.  And like everyone else, I have an opinion on it as well, though how I come to it often surprises folks. 

                To me, the 2nd Amendment speaks to private firearms ownership. Other well-meaning people disagree with me and that is certainly their prerogative. Go, USA. To me, it is like the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 13thAmendments: applicable to the individual. I have a very serious problem when the government starts picking and choosing which rights we can keep and which we can't, particularly when those rights are laid out in the supreme legal document of the land.  I am a small government kind of guy.

                At its heart, the Constitution is there to tell the federal government what it can do, not to tell citizens what they are allowed to do.  That basic premise often seems lost in the confusion these days.  Recall the first ten Amendments had to be added to get the various colonies on board with a federal government in the first place.  In creating them, the fine folks who wrote the document spelled out some very specific limitations on the government.  They had seen the abuses rampant in a supreme government unchecked and they fought a successful revolt against the strongest military power in the world to escape it.  It defies the imagination to suppose that they would be eager to establish a system that would place them right back in the situation they had just freed themselves from.

                In my world view, when you start to singe the edges of that document, you start down a very slippery slope.  You can argue the logical fallacy of the slippery slope all you like, but that does not change my point.  Once we lose one right, we are not going to get it back from our dear old Uncle Sam.  Ever.  Like my mother used to tell me about my favorite Otter Pops when I was a kid: When they're gone, they're gone.  And once we lose one Amendment, it is far easier to lose another.  And another.  And another.  Pretty soon, the 3rd Amendment is repealed and there are uninvited Marines sleeping in your master bedroom in times of peace... and nobody wants that!

                I am always amazed by friends of mine who would severely limit or abolish the 2nd Amendment tomorrow if they could, yet they then defend with enviable vigor and zeal the 1st Amendment.  As though the Constitution were a legal salad bar in which the individual gets to pick and choose the rights that apply and the legal protections thus derived.  Members of the press will man the ramparts en masse whenever someone looks askance at the 1st Amendment protections for a free press, while at the same time using that freedom to denigrate the 2nd Amendment.  Religious leaders of all stripes and descriptions will thunder from the pulpit against any move to infringe upon the promise of freedom of religion yet tend to present a more varied response to edits to the right to keep and bear arms.  I believe that a very strong argument could be made that speech and religion have killed exponentially more people over the course of history than firearms.  But I suppose anything is possible once you free yourself from the tyranny of logical thinking.

                I am very leery of well-meaning people who like some freedoms but don't like others. It is a dangerous road to say, "This is an acceptable freedom because I like it, but that freedom over there we can do without because I don't like or care about it”.  Take the 2nd Amendment out of these arguments and replace it with some other Constitutional right.  See how the process changes when the “common sense” regulations proposed for guns are applied to freedoms of speech or religion, just for fun.  It makes for an interesting thought experiment. 

                By way of example, I’m not a religious person, though I have no issues whatsoever with those who wish to peacefully pursue a faith of their own choosing.  So just for the sake of argument, let’s use religion.  The late ‘60s until the early ’80s saw a flowering of various religious cults in the United States, one of which ended up shooting a U.S. Congressman to death in a foreign jungle.  Suppose something like that happened today, resulting in a massive backlash against organized religion.

                Imagine the impact of a politician going on national television and calling for the permitting and training of anyone who wanted to attend any church.  Each state, in this argument, would then be free to regulate and control access to churches as it saw fit. 

                Some states could freely adopt a “Constitutional Prayer” approach, allowing one to attend any church that struck one’s fancy, as often as one wanted to.  Other, less religiously tolerant states, ones which were adamantly opposed to “religiously-inspired violence” and the “epidemic of morally questionable thoughts and actions” so often associated with particular religions, could impose strict laws around religion and the celebration thereof. 

                One could not attend any church on a government-created banned list, nor could one attend “high capacity churches”, the kind which can seat more than, say, 10 people at a time.  Naturally, every church would have to be registered in some states, but not with others.  Some states would require that every church pay to have an expensive state safety inspection, one which would review not only their physical structure but also the content of each of their liturgies.  Those sermons deemed “unsafe” by the state, based on rules drawn up by the state, would be illegal to give, or even possess, within the state.  Individuals would need a background check to attend any church.  They would have to have state-issued permits to attend church, with details of each church the individual wants to attend listed on the permit.  If found in a church not on their list, one would be subject to arrest and prosecution. These permits would then have to be renewed every few years.

                Some states would allow religious practitioners to do so privately, others would require they openly wear identifying garments.  When traveling through different states, such religious practitioners would be responsible for knowing the relevant laws in every jurisdiction they pass through, because as we all know, ignorance of the law is no excuse.  The carrying of a religious book of any kind would only be allowed in accordance with local, state, and federal laws.  Under this system, pray to the wrong god in the wrong place, and you go to jail.

                I can go on, but you take my point by now, I am sure.  One might say I’m overdoing it, but such is the system in place today as it pertains to our Second Amendment rights.

                Now, replace “religion” with “speech”.  Or “assembly”.  Or your Fourth Amendment protections.

                This is why I am such a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment.  Yes, I am a “gun guy”, a shooter both sporting and professional, and I enjoy guns.  But I am really a “freedom guy” and I really, really enjoy living in a free country, one where all of my freedoms are protected by the supreme legal document of the land.  I get very worried when people start nibbling on the edges of that document, for any reason.

                You should too.

We Can Do Better

     There are a lot of people “teaching firearms” in America, including your humble scribe. This instruction runs the gamut, in terms of just about everything.  Firearms instruction covers pistols, shotguns, carbines, rifles, and just about any other projectile launcher you can imagine.  What is being taught, as it pertains to firearms, also covers just about every aspect of them, from how to build and maintain them, to carrying them for defense, to legal offensive use, shooting clay pigeons, and all manner of other skills.  If my Google-Fu was better, I could probably find a school on how to build and employ a trebuchet for home defense.

     ‘Murica!

     These classes are largely being taught by people who were (or are) police officers, soldiers, Marines, and sailors.  And by people who never served in any capacity.  Men are teaching, women are teaching, gay/lesbian/transgender, and questioning folks are teaching.  Competitive shooters are teaching, as are those who will never compete.  People using strange pronouns are teaching.  Tall, short, fat, thin, young, old, Republicans and Democrats, instructors who come in all shapes, colors, sizes, and affiliations are out there teaching firearms.

     With the best estimates running to approximately 400 million privately owned firearms in the country, the fact that there are so many people out there trying to teach others to safely handle and use firearms is a good thing.  For those who are concerned and involved with such things, it is important to ensure solid firearms knowledge is advanced and propagated. 

     For those of us “in the industry”, it is critical that we not only instruct others in the safe, appropriate and effective use of firearms.  We must do this to the best of our ability, teaching efficiently and effectively those who seek out our instruction.  We must strive to constantly improve, both our content and our instructional craft.

     From my own admittedly non-scientific observations and conversations with others, the vast majority of people have generally similar experiences surrounding firearms instruction.  If they have any instruction at all. Certainly, there are exceptions, both in terms of those who carry firearms professionally and those who have not, but in general, it seems that we all tend to fall into a few buckets surrounding firearms instruction.

     The large majority of gun owners, even those who carry them for self-defense, have absolutely no formal firearms training.  None.  Zero.  Zip.  Nada.  The early experiences of most folks seem to start with a family member or friend taking them out to a field, quarry, or other “range” of some kind, running through some firearms safety rules, and presenting the day’s instruction.  From there, they are off to the races.  Sound familiar?

     Some folks attend concealed carry classes, either because it is mandated or voluntarily.  Those classes, often with a curriculum lifted from the National Rifle Association and mandated by the issuing state, usually center on the applicable laws (insofar as they can be addressed in the short time available) and, occasionally, a demonstration by the student of very basic skills with a firearm.  Rare are the examples where these classes are able to present actual shooting instruction.

    Should a person wisely desire to avail themselves of additional training, there is an industry full of instructors standing by to assist.  It is difficult to go far in this country without finding some level of “professional firearms instruction” (though how we define that term is another kettle of fish entirely).  In general, these classes break out into three types. 

     There are usually one- or two-day-long classes to be found at local ranges.  These classes are generally the aforementioned concealed carry course, as well as a smattering of day-long instruction on a few topics, such as introductory classes (including some designed specifically for women), competition “how to” classes, and perhaps “tactical” classes of some kind.

     Then there are the classes in which a range or a group brings a “big name” shooting instructor to town.  Lasting from a couple of days to a week, these are classes delivered by people who have a degree of fame or notoriety in the shooting community and some kind of established bona fides as a practitioner.  These classes usually involve a higher level of professional instruction as well as a higher round count.  Students usually get to shoot a lot in these courses, with intensive, focused instruction from the instructor.  Tuition climbs here, plus the cost of the required ammunition, so taking these classes asks the student to make a more significant investment in both time and treasure.

     Finally, there are the shooting schools.  These are fixed points on the map where professional instructors have established a school that does nothing but provide classes by a cadre of instructors.  Courses at such schools typically run a day to a week long and are not usually within commuting distance for most students.  As a result, prices for this kind of training rise.  Not only associated travel costs, but tuition, housing, and increased ammunition requirements drive the price for this kind of training up even more.

     Certainly, there are variations on these basic themes, but this is a decent description of the vast majority of instructional experiences in America.  This works, as far as it goes, and has for years, so it has become the norm.  I would suggest that we can do better.  Educational research provides us with a great deal of information that we, as firearms instructors, should make more use of than we do.  We can use this information to improve our methodologies.  And we should.

     When it comes to instruction having a positive impact on student outcomes, the literature is clear that long-term, continuous instruction and practice is far more effective than “burst” training.  We as instructors want the information we present to be useable at the moment or need.  For that to happen, it must be retained, perhaps for years until it is needed.

     Lecture retention rates, especially for adult learners, are terrible.  Hovering generally around 10%, the idea of using lectures to improve firearms skills is close to ridiculous.  Happily, the majority of firearms instruction currently available is light on lecture and heavy on experiential, in the “practice by doing” realm.  Here we see some real dividends, with retention rates running about 75%.  Coupled with the fact that we are talking about physical skills that are better taught by doing than by discussion and you see that our current methods are not bad, per se.  However, they can be better.

     Pick just about any other sport or physical activity and you see that they are taught through coaching.  Martial arts, tennis, golf, yachting, baseball, hockey, you name it.  By coaching, I mean that the students are presented with instruction and structured practice, under the mentorship of a skilled coach, on a regular basis for extended periods of time.  As in weeks, months, and years.  Students pay a monthly fee and attend regular practices.  Often, these regular practice sessions are occasionally augmented by a visit from some big-name practitioner or instructor in a seminar format, the lessons from whom are then incorporated into the continuing coaching long afterward.  Competition with other practitioners is also a regular part of such a program.

     If we are really, as a profession, interested in creating and fostering student excellence, we need to alter the current paradigm and move in this direction.  The educational research is clear on this front, as are our own anecdotal experiences.  Of course, student excellence is not our only concern.  Most of us are also trying to make a living and the overhead involved in creating something like I describe can be daunting.  It is easier (and more fun) to move around as an itinerant instructor, dispensing firearms knowledge on the move, or enjoying the benefits of economies of scale when creating a nationally known shooting school. 

     Creating a local shooting school, offering regularly scheduled classes and practice sessions, week after week, is not glamourous.  It is a path that is more readily available to a much wider number of instructors around the country.  Admittedly, it would be a difficult path, one that would be hard to build and maintain in the long run.  It would not be likely to make one wealthy.  But it would do wonders for student learning and improvement. 

     And after all, isn’t that the point?

The Best Holiday

     I have long maintained that the single best holiday of the year, and my personal favorite, is far and away Veteran’s Day.  I stand by that to this day.

     When I tell people my position on the top of the holiday of the year, I am invariably met with initial derision.  People think I am crazy.  Nobody believes me and when they find out I am a veteran, they nod with a knowing expression.  Suddenly, my madness makes sense.  “Oh, okay.  Of course you like Veteran’s Day as a holiday,” they say.

     Now, I will not deny that having served is a factor in my affection for the day, but it is a rather minor component.  There are other, more significant reasons that we ALL should love Veteran’s Day, whether you served or not.  Let me explain.

     For those who do not know, Veteran’s Day commemorates American military veterans.  It was originally Armistice Day, marking the end of World War I.  At the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918, the guns on the Western Front fell silent and the “War to End All Wars” ended.  In 1954, Armistice Day in the U.S. became Veteran’s Day, a holiday to honor all those who have served in the U.S. military.  This should not be confused with Memorial Day (at the end of May), which is a holiday to honor those who died in military service, and Armed Forces Day (also in May), which is a holiday intended to honor those currently serving.

    Okay, so, being a veteran, the day appeals to me.  But its many additional features make it THE best holiday for everyone.

     For most people, it is a day off from work.  Always a key feature of any good holiday.  It is not, however, a day off for everyone.  So most stores and shops are open.  This allows those who are given the day off (and those who just take the day off) to go shopping or run some errands if they like.  In many cases, those who do have to work get holiday pay, which is also nice.

     Nobody comes to visit you for Veteran’s Day, nor does anyone expect you to come visit them.  No in-laws coming in from out of town for a few days, no need to pack up your own family and fly to Boise.  In fact, I would go so far as to say if you did visit family in another time zone for a few days over the Veteran’s Day holiday, they would be rather surprised.  Nope, you get to just stay home and chill.

     You do not need to buy anyone a gift for Veteran’s Day, not even your spouse.  Think about this one for a second.  In a given year, you have at least two days requiring you to provide gifts for every person close to you: Christmas (or whatever secular or religious winter solstice holiday of your choosing that you observe or do not observe in the generally accepted calendar month of December) and birthdays.

     When it comes to your significant other, well, damn, you have all kinds of days to come up with “the perfect gift” over the course of the year, don’t you?  Birthday, Christmas (see above), anniversary, and Valentine’s Day at a minimum.  Add these to the days included for everyone else and all of a sudden, you are tossing out gifts like it’s your job every time you turn around and hemorrhaging money like your wallet has been shot in the femoral.

     But not on Veteran’s Day.  Nope, nobody looks at you expectantly on Veteran’s Day eve and asks what you bought for them.  No surreptitious trips to the mall, no dead tree in your living room, no time wasted wrapping presents and assembling a Radio Flyer at 0300 in order to surprise the kids.  At worst, your former Marine buddies will come by looking for a free beer and birthday cake while you sit around and watch a game. Even that is doubtful, because they are all probably still hungover from celebrating the Marine Corps birthday the night before.  Beyond that, there is zero requirement for any gift giving on this wonderous holiday.

     You do not have to make a big meal on Veteran’s Day.  Unlike so many other holidays at this time of the year, there is no social convention saying you have to break out your great grandmother’s good china, roast a massive dead bird for half a day and cook enough additional food to feed a small Central American nation for a week.  Those former Marines who showed up for your beer?  Give them some of last night’s pizza and they will sing your praises for generations.  Otherwise, you are completely off the hook for food on Veteran’s Day.  And if you actually ARE a veteran, lots of places give you free food and say “thank you for your service” on this greatest of all holidays!

     To sum up, Veteran’s Day is a day off.  A true day off.  A holiday.  If you have to work, you probably get extra money for doing so.  If you do not have to work, it is fantastic!  You do not need to travel anywhere, nobody is coming to see you, you do not have to buy anyone anything and you do not need to feed anyone.  You can go out and stores are open, or you can stay home and binge watch John Wayne movies.  If you do go out, and you are a veteran, you can get free food and people are nice to you.

     Is there any other holiday that can make all of these claims?  I think not!  No longer do I appear to be a lunatic for loving Veteran’s Day as a holiday, do I?  Spread the word:  Veteran’s Day is THE best holiday of the year.

     And if you are a veteran, thank you for your service.  May the rest of your days be peaceful and serene.  You earned it.