John Farnam - Training thoughts

JimConway

Instructor
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
946
Likes
92
Location
Pepperell, MA
Feedback: 2 / 0 / 0
30 Nov 10

Upside-down?

From a friend who carries regularly:

"Yesterday, while preparing to put a string of Christmas lights on my front, roof border, I placed S&W M&P into my ky-dex/IWB holster.

Spare magazine in my left, front pants pocket, warm coat, warm cap, glasses. Ready to go!

Through experience on previous Christmas seasons, I've discovered the easiest way for me to attach the lights at the roof's gutter, is by laying on my stomach and side-crawling on the roof.

So, there I was, laying angled downward, head slightly below my feet.
Suddenly, I felt a cold, heavy object moving downward, through my coat, toward my neck!

I gently located my errant pistol, retrieved it discretely, and placed it in the bag of lights that I had on the roof with me, so it remained out of sight.

All of this was done so that my nosey neighbors, who were probably already enjoying my graceless crawling act, would not see a pistol in my hand.

A guy on a roof, with a string of lights, this time of year, is not particularly suspicious. A guy on a roof, with a pistol in his hand, surely is!
And, the last thing I wanted was for my well-meaning neighbors to call the 'unnecessary police.'

I then noticed at least a dozen other (less critical) items that had begun a downward migration from my pockets.

In the end, I recovered most of it, finally got the lights installed, and managed not to break my neck in the process.

But, it struck me how, with virtually all our weapons training done while right-side-up, I had been altogether ill-prepared to confront an upside-down world!"

Comment: Just as we like to do all our weapons training on bright, sunny, warm days, we also like to do it all while upright, and on our feet!

Fighting for your life in the cold and dark, on slick, uneven ground, in the rain, laboriously slogging through mud, broken glass, and dog-shit, while wearing heavy clothing... is bad enough. Now, imagine yourself simultaneously hanging onto something in order to keep from falling and finding your body angled downward, as in the above illustration.

Perhaps we need to test our emergency equipment carry strategy now and then, by at least assuring that it will stay in place during a backward roll, as will likely happen the next time you're unceremoniously knocked on your fanny.

When we train, sometimes we're too interested in "looking good," rather than "training good," by strenuously testing ourselves and our equipment.

/John
 
The thoughts that John mentions are exactly why I have and continue trained in the rain and snow.
I have even trained in both high and freezing temperatures and at 100% humidity.
 
5 Dec 10

Temperature!

This weekend, we just completed a Cold-Weather, Urban Rifle Course in IN.
Four inches of snow on the ground, biting wind, and temperatures never getting above twenty-nine degrees. Spotty sunshine, but mostly overcast. A half-dozen gallant students, and four determined Instructors!

I used my Barrett REC7, which ran fine for the duration. There were two Kalashnikovs (7.62x39). Both ran fine also.

Two M1 Carbines. Both had problems with sluggish operation. Grease
became stiff, and short-cycles plagued both guns. We removed as much grease and oil as we could, and both rifles began to run normally.

One SIG 556, normally extremely reliable, started to short-cycle also, again due to stiffened grease. We performed the same treatment as with the M1 Carbines, and the SIG, too, began to run normally, and continued to do so for the duration.

Balky guns, heavy clothing, general discomfort all conspire to generate unwanted surprises during cold weather!

The point is that it is good to test your gear, and yourself, in a wide spectrum of conditions/circumstances, not just in pleasant and comfortable surroundings.

We have control over some things. Over most things, we don't!

"Drudgery, calamity, exasperation, and want, are instructors in eloquence and wisdom."

Ralph Waldo Emerson, from "The American Scholar"

/John
 
Jim,

I see an opportunity for new classes here:
-Upside-Down Pistol 101
-Upside Down Pistol while moving
-Negative G Pistol
-Handguns in an non-gravity environment ( that new spaceport in NM claims 4 mins of Zero-G for $200K! Sign up now before your spots are gone!)

;)

Andy
 
11 Dec 10

"Other" weapons?

Among trainers, there has been much discussion with regard to the definition of legitimate self-defense, as it applies to all weapons, not just guns.


An attorney, who has much experience in this area, makes these sage
comments:

"In one case I reviewed, an Appellate Court observed that a woman, who used
a knife in desperation to defend herself against a rapist, 'may have been
negligent' in inflicting wounds serious enough to cause her attacker to
die.

Curiously, this same language is conspicuously absent in a nearly-identical
case, and from the same jurisdiction, where another woman used a firearm
to kill an attacking rapist!

Visceral, illogical reaction, even on the part of 'objective and impartial'
judges. Apparently, you can shoot the miserable bastard with impunity,
but shame on you for carving him up!

So, the real juice of the case is going to be whether the individual
facing charges wielded the knife, cane, shovel, or whatever, in a way that
applied only a 'reasonable amount' of force. And, an inescapable fact is that
knives in particular are messy, and repugnantly intimate. The average juror,
judge, and even police investigator, is going to be
instinctively/impulsively repelled by even an innocent and desperately-fearful, knife-wielding
citizen, who cuts and stabs a violent attacker."

Comment: Don't expect a great deal of "logic" from our criminal-justice
system. Those less-than-honorable members, who care more about promoting
themselves than promoting justice, will invariably misuse emotion as they
hyper-dramatize the facts, all in an effort to prevent others from thinking
clearly and logically.

One can accurately describe our System as "the best of the worst."

/John
_________________
 
Justification

21 Dec 10

This is an Excellent analysis of "justification," paraphrased from a seasoned Investigator.

"The core legal construct in verifying 'justification' is 'restraint.'
Restraint in action, with the appearance that you have inflicted no more harm than was necessary, is imperative in establishing justification in the minds of both investigators and jurists.

Hence, finders of fact, who look at the actions of a professing 'defender,'
and sense a lack of restraint may well decide to apply sanctions.

There is a critical difference between mere 'case facts' and the texture of an actual event. The law presumes that a person who played no conscious role in attracting, nor causing, criminal violence to be thrust upon him, may 'justifiably' employ necessary force to repel that violence, with the intent only of keeping himself and other innocents from harm. Conversely, when the defender's actions appear 'vengeful,' 'excessive,' 'hateful,' '
wanton,' 'out-of-control,' or 'unrestrained,' and appear to go beyond legitimate self-protection and turn into 'punishment,' the defender's subsequent claim of self-defense will be weakened considerably.

Over the decades, I have heard a lot of 'case fact' horror-stories. You have too, and Heaven knows our Criminal Justice System is far from perfect!
However, a careful examination of the details in the vast majority of these cases reveal 'unrestrained conduct' indigenous with the defender's response.

And, I promise you that the familiar refrain of, 'I was just following my training,' does not automatically represent a persuasive defense to criminal charges. Techniques may indeed be 'effective,' but, when they don't render the appearance of at least some 'restraint,' in the end they have served you poorly!

We Students of the Art select our tools, techniques, and teachers, using whatever criterion appear sound and correct. After the fact, don't whine and snivel when your choices are confronted by sober, even naive, finders-of-fact who don't find them nearly as 'cool,' 'sexy,'
'cutting-edge,' nor '
flashy' as you once did!"

John Farnam
http://www.defense-training.com/
 
Last edited:
25 Dec 10

Violent Crime Prevented! From an Instructor in TX:

"One of our DTI graduates was involved in an 'incident' here in south Texas yesterday, Christmas Eve. Relying on his training, he engineered a good result! Our student is a forty-ish male. As with all our students down here, he has a current TX CHL, and carries regularly.

Yesterday morning, he was fueling-up at a local convenience store. We've
both been to this same store many times. Nice part of town. Bright
sunlight. Lots of traffic.

A car-full of youths pulled into the parking area, very fast, and then came to a sudden, screeching halt. They did not pull up to a gas-pump, nor into a marked, parking place. Our student noticed and immediately alerted.

One of the vehicle's slovenly occupants leaned out an open window, made eye-contact with our student, and said, in broken English, '... hey mister, give us some money.'

Adhering to his training, our student turned to face them, briefly glanced back over his shoulder, and replied, 'I'm sorry, Sir. I can't help you.'
Another youth then exited the vehicle, slammed the door, and said in a loud, gruff, and threatening tone, '... you don't understand. You ARE going to give us your money!'

Our student gracefully assumed a classic Interview Stance, side-stepped, threw back his CCC cover-garment, and obtained a master-grip on his G23, although the pistol was not visible to the suspect doing the talking.
Pointing at the suspect with his support-hand index and middle-fingers, he said, clearly, and in perfect English, "No! YOU don't understand, Sir. I can't help you!"

The suspect, who, moments before, had been so intimidating and cocksure, glanced away, drooped his shoulders, mumbled incoherently, and then quickly turned and re-entered the vehicle, which precipitously departed as quickly as it had arrived.

No license plates on the suspect vehicle.

Our student then experienced an adrenaline dump, and noticed that his heart was racing. However, he knew from his training, that this was all perfectly normal He took a few deep breaths, and soon regained normal composure.

Police were not involved, and our student finished fueling his car and then went his way, in peace."

Comment: A violent crime was probably prevented, due to competent training, alertness, and adequate preparation. In this threatening situation, my student knew what to do, stayed in control, didn't panic, and was fully prepared to go "all the way," when necessary.

The hoodlum got the distinct, and correct, impression that he wasn't kidding!

Like all bullies, when his bluff was called, this sleazy punk promptly "
folded his hand" and slunk away. They usually do!

This "happy ending" will never be reflected in any statistic, nor will it be part of any news story. Nonetheless, training, alertness, and preparation, once again, combined to keep a good person from being harmed by evil
ones.

And, that's what it come down to: Good and Evil. Good people need to be armed, aware, competently trained, and prepared to successfully confront evil, when necessary. This world does not deal kindly with people, even "good"
ones, who are clueless, naive, and willfully unprepared

"Second-place doesn't exist"!

G Pate

Merry Christmas to all!

/John
 
The pain of change

4 Feb 11

The pain of change, versus the pain of staying the same

Many students express concern over our doctrine that all pan-handlers, aggressive or passive, should be politely dismissed and separated from, immediately and with minimal verbal interaction. Some well-meaning students would actually like to "help" these individuals, with food, cash, etc.

As always, it's your call, but consider this:

Most people are "where they are," because that is where they want to be!
Put another way: in their lives, the pain associated with change continuously exceeds the pain of staying where they are.

How many times I've heard, "I hate my job, marriage, family, church, routine, et al. The logical response is, of course, "Well, why don't you quit your job, get divorced, change religions, move away, and start a whole new life somewhere else? Is there something stopping you from doing that?
The feeble excuse is, invariably, "... Oh, that would all be too inconvenient...," ad nauseam.

The stark fact is, as painful as he claims his life to be, the pain of change is even greater. And, so long as that is the case, no purposeful change will ever take place, his ceaseless whining not withstanding.

The only way any of us ever move forward and improve our lives, is when the pain associated with our current lot exceeds the pain of moving on. It's a universal formula, and it applies to all of us. Life is motion.
Stagnation is always associated with wretchedness and mental illness. For the sake of our own mental health, we have to move on, no matter how painful it is!

Back to the itinerant pan-handler:

Yes, he claims to be miserable, hungry, homeless, et al. Yet, regardless of what you do, or don't do, he'll surely be back on that same street corner, with the same hand-scribbled sign, next week, and the week after, in perpetuity. As miserable as he claims to be, the pain of self-improvement perpetually exceeds the pain of staying where he is.

So, in giving him cash, or even food, you are "easing his pain," and thus assuring that he will never change. There is only one thing he really lacks, and that's ambition, and well-meaning enablers virtually insure that ambition never rears its ugly head!

Pain is firmly attached to all our lives, and pain is a relentless headmaster. Thus, in forestalling anyone from the full enjoyment of the logical consequences of their own carelessness, stupidity, vanity, sloth, naivety, and bad habits, we ultimately do them, and society, no good service. "Giving " cash to someone who has done nothing to earn it, is ultimately destructive of their mental health. In fact, you're doing little more than supporting a drug habit!

This Civilization already has far too many healthy, able-bodied, yet sleazy and willfully-unproductive cowards. Preventing them from ever growing up, from ever squarely confronting their own shortcomings and moving forward, is ultimately a crime against humanity!

For one, I won't participate.

/John
 
9 Feb 11

We're making progress, even within the USMC! This from a student, currently on active duty:

"I considered myself an Operator and Professional Gunman long before I put my feet on the yellow footprints at Parris Island. I discretely carry personally-owned weapons, including a pistol, anytime I have trousers on.
Then, and now!

When assigned, my squad leader, platoon sergeant, and first sergeant progressively became aware, at least in theory, that I was always armed.
However, they actively turned a blind-eye towards this Lance Corporal's deliberate 'disobedience' with regard to base 'rules,' because they knew I was in a position to protect them too. I earned their trust and confidence as an honorable Marine and competent Operator.

While I was in the shower one day, a NCO from another squad was searching the pockets of my unattended flak vest, claiming he mistook it for his own.
In the process, and to his horror, a fully-charged pistol magazine was discovered. My pistol was secured elsewhere.

During the subsequent 'office hours' hearing, presided over by our Battalion CO, I acknowledged that the magazine and ammunition were mine. I was reduced in rank by one grade and given one week of 'extra duty.'
Honorable behavior is never risk-free!

One night a few weeks later, the duty-NCO hurried into my squadbay and said that the our First Sergeant was holding on the phone and needed to speak directly to me, right away! It seems this First Sargent's daughter was being aggressively stalked by an ex-boyfriend. The First Sergeant himself was deployed at a distant school at the time, and his family lived off-base.

He instructed me to get in my car, head to his house, and park outside.
He then told me to maintain a continuous overwatch until relieved by Sheriff's Deputies.

After a pause, he added, '...if you went through a metal-detector right now, you wouldn't get past it, right?'

I thought for a moment, and then answered, 'First Sergeant, you can be absolutely sure that I would set off a metal detector!' He replied, 'Good!
Now get down there right away.'

Out of the two-hundred Marines in our unit, he called upon one particular Private First Class in his family's hour of need. As it turned out, the VCA never showed up, and the night passed without incident. My First Sergeant and I never discussed, nor even acknowledged, the incident after that phone conversation.

However, the first morning after he returned, my First Sergeant successfully pushed through a warrant for my promotion back to the rank of Lance Corporal (Second Award, with Oak-Leafs, Swords and Diamonds). Shortly thereafter, he wrote a letter of personal recommendation to be included in my OCS application!

That all took place several years ago. I still have my pistol, a 1911.
My uncle carried it in Vietnam, and I took it to Grenada and other places.
After 5k rounds, and three wars, I think it has been adequately broken in.
It still runs fine, and I still carry it, every day!"

Comment: Many active-duty students are now adhering to this practice, particularly in light of the Ft Hood incident.

We are looking forward to the day when, as a matter of official policy, all officers and S/NCOs are routinely armed, on and off-duty, within CONUS or deployed overseas, on or off-base, in or out of uniform. It should be a matter of honor!

In the interim, no matter what organization you may be part of, you have to take personal responsibility for your own safety. Lethal, defensive capability is something you should never be without, no matter where you are, nor whom your with, nor who supposedly has an obligation to "protect" you.

In the end, you're on your own!

/John
 
10 Feb 11

Rabid gun-phobia is, unhappily, not restricted to the military. These comments from a friend who is a sworn special agent, with many years of service, with a prominent, federal LE Agency:

"Having just returned from our National Training Academy, I can tell you that it is still 'official policy' there that all firearms, including personally-owned ones, be secured in lockers, to which rightful owners have no access, prior to entry onto campus.

All this, despite Ft Hood, and despite the fact that our Academy grounds are littered with 'vetted' (whatever that means) foreign nationals, including Afghans, and others from nations not necessarily friendly with the USA.

However, I can tell you that this ridiculous 'policy' is vigorously and enthusiastically violated by me, and all serious Special Agents. Why we are all suddenly untrustworthy the moment we step onto campus grounds has never been adequately explained to me!

For one, being treated like a clueless infant insults my intelligence, and makes me very angry. Only naive flower-children, who never should have been hired in the first place, pay any attention to this half-witted 'rule,'
nor any number of other, equally stupid, ones.

We regular violators of this policy may be in line for a forced career-change. However, for one, I was looking for a job when I got here!

Easier to find a new job, than a nearby supply of O+, eh?"

Comment: In this life, there are no risk-free choices. Risk attaches to every option we consider. For one, I'll not be tranquilly herded into a gas-chamber. I'll go down fighting. But, that's my choice. Far be it from me to tell people what to do!

"Good enough" never is!

/John
 
16 Feb 11

"... the world's gone mad today,
and good's bad today,
and day's night today,
and wrong's right today,
and all the guys today,
who women prize today,
are just silly gigolos"

Composed by Cole Porter, for the 1934 Musical, "Anything Goes"

In 1970, when I became an LEO, a five-shot snubby revolver was considered adequate for concealed carry. Actually, it probably was no more "adequate"
then than now, but we naively went forward, not realizing the dangerous direction in which world history was taking us.

In fact, in the black-and-white TV era, I remember watching NYPD Chief "
Peter Clifford" (played by JD Cannon) lecturing displaced NM police officer Sam McCloud (played by Dennis Weaver of "Gunsmoke" fame) about the impropriety of carrying his (McCloud's) 45Colt SAA in NY City!

"This is all you need... ," screeched the Chief, as he waived his own S&W
M36 in the air.

On a different channel (also black-and-white), Defective Sgt Joe Friday (played by Jack Webb) and his loveable partner, Bill Gannon (played by Harry Morgan), on the Dragnet Series, both carried S&W snubbies also. I ever wished I could be as clever and articulate as Sgt Friday!

Today, S&W still sells lots of five-shot, snubby revolvers, but most of us consider them suitable only for back-up. Most of us now, even for routine concealed carry, want a high-capacity autoloader, and at least one spare magazine, all fully-charged with high-performance, controlled-expansion ammunition that represents a quantum leap forward, with regard to terminal performance, over what was the accepted norm just a few decades ago.

I even remember when "hollow-point" pistol ammunition was piously banned within many police departments, particularly big, metro areas. I also remember it becoming incrementally, ever so slowly, accepted for regular police service. NYC was one of the last departments to go over.

Today, "hardball" ammunition is considered acceptable only for practice.

This all happened within a single LEO career!

The real question is, "Are our policies and procedures keeping pace with our technological advances and with the precipitous decline of our civilization?"

Our officers, imitating what they see on TV, are, even today, endlessly command gun-wielding felons to "drop your gun," as the felon points his gun at officers multiple times! When the felon ultimately surrenders without further incident, the naive officer gets congratulated, instead of fired, as he should be!

Today, during an LEO Class here in CO, when asked why they carry a gun, most officers in attendance had no answer, other than "... because they make me." When asked why "qualification" was important, most responded that it was important only because passing is required for them to keep their jobs.

We, for the most part, got away with attitudes like that in the 1970s. We lived through it, through no fault of our own!

Those idyllic days are gone forever! Today, alertness, incisiveness, surgical skill, and, yes, even ruthlessness will be required of all of us, in spades!

If you're not willing to face the challenge squarely, get out now.

"The battle has begun, gentlemen. It's too late to change our dispositions!"

Confederate General Albert S Johnston, at the dawn of the Battle of Shiloh, TN, 6 Apr 1862

/John
 
Unarmed in Mexico, or "Nothing is too good for our men!"

20 Feb 11

Unarmed in Mexico, or "Nothing is too good for our men!"

It has just be confirmed that the two American ICE Special Agents, who were ambushed last week in Mexico by members of a local drug cartel, were both unarmed!

One agent was killed. The other badly injured, sustaining multiple gunshot wounds.

American law enforcement agents assigned to Mexico are apparently all unarmed, as a matter of policy!

All such US agents in Mexico are there on diplomatic passports, so they could be armed. But, those up the food-chain, safe and sound back in the plush, heavily-guarded offices within CONUS, have insured that their agents operating in Mexico are completely defenseless, as a matter of "policy."

I wonder whose job it is to inform widows and orphans about this "policy!"

"The only vice that cannot be forgiven is hypocrisy. The repentance of the hypocrite is itself hypocrisy!"

William Hazlitt

/John
 
TV "Cop Shows

19 Feb 11

These sage comments about TV "Cop Shows," from a renowned trainer:

"When training LEOs, both recruits and experienced, I ask them:

'You are behind cover and involved in a shootout with a single VCA. You
fire several shots, and he goes down. What do you do next?'

The most common TV-inspired response is, '... immediately break cover, approach him, kick his gun away, and then check his condition.'

We all take a breath, and then discuss why and when one would ever break cover in such a situation, and how naive script-writers are infinitely more interested in fabricated drama, and ratings, than they will ever be in the survival of real police officers.

Teaching officers what actions are in their best interests and are likely to prolong their lives, rather than place them in mortal danger, is a formidable task, as you can see! I need to overwrite all programming done by years of watching fictitious 'cop shows.'

My second challenge is testifying in front of grand juries regarding the actions of bona-fide police in life-and-death situations. Non-police, serving on juries, have spent a lifetime in front of those same TV sets, watching the same sewage! In a short time, I must assist them in understanding that their perception of lethal encounters is entirely inaccurate and based upon manufactured fantasy, not reality. Loosely translated, I must persuade them that virtually everything they 'know' about this business, is wrong!

When I am unsuccessful, a competent and courageous officer will face years of litigation for only doing what was moral, right, good, and true... for not choosing to commit suicide!

All martial arts skills, armed and otherwise, no matter how refined, mean little when the individual officer does not have personal victory as his primary motivation each time he confronts dangerous situations and individuals.
"

Comment: "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

Ayn Rand

"Cursed be the social wants that sin against the strength of youth Cursed be the social ties that warp us from the living Truth Cursed be the sickly forms that err from honest Nature's rule Curse be the gold that gilds the straightened forehead of the fool!"

Tennyson

Cursed indeed!


/John
 
On reloading quickly

23 Feb 11

"Leisurely" reloading?

An important lesson I was compelled to re-learn today!

This afternoon, I was upland bird hunting at a private club here in CO.
Of course, this is "recreational" shooting, but I still take it at least a little seriously.

Our quarry was Pheasant and Chukker Partridge. From past experience, I know that Partridge almost always spring in twos, either simultaneously or just a few seconds apart.

I was using a Browning over/under, 12ga. These shotguns are set up so that the Operator can use the manual, tang safety lever to select which barrel fires first, since there is only one trigger. The usual strategy is for the bottom barrel to fire first. A second press of the same trigger will subsequently fire the top barrel.

The bottom barrel is "improved cylinder." The top is "modified." So, the tighter choke is reserved for when the bird if further away than when the bottom barrel fired (either at the same bird that was missed with the first shot, or at the second bird that has had additional time to gain distance), or at least so goes the theory.

In any event, there I was when a wile Partridge jumped just a few meters to my left and flew straight ahead. I mounted and fired, taking him down with my first shot. I knew I had to replace the expended cartridge in the bottom barrel, so I broke open the shotgun, and the fired case ejected, leaving the top (unfired) round in place.

As I was mentally patting myself on the back for such marvelous shooting, while simultaneously, in a lighthearted way, groveling around in my jacket pocket for a fresh round, a second Partridge sprung from almost the same place and flew at me, just three meters directly over my head!

I dropped the round, closed the shotgun, turned in place 180 degrees, got
on the bird and pressed the trigger. Of course, the hammer struck the firing pin on the bottom barrel, with a deafening "click," as the happy bird

flew away, chuckling to himself, I'm sure!

The story could have had a happy ending, had I only:

(1) Simply waited a second or two. I could have then taken the second bird with the top barrel, which would have fired normally.

(2) Reloaded promptly, rather than consuming valuable seconds congratulating myself!

The painful lessons are obvious:

There is no such thing as "leisurely reloading" of any gun. Reloading always needs to be practiced as an emergency procedure. Don't dither!

And... don't relax too soon. They'll be ample time to congratulate yourself later!

/John
 
Interacting with local police

26 Feb 11

Interacting with local police. This narrative from one of our students:

"We have sophisticated electronic security on our home, per your recommendation.

At 9:45pm Tuesday evening, our alarm went off. Both my wife and I were in our house at the time, watching TV. I was carrying my pistol, as I do throughout my day, even when 'at home,' again, per your recommendation.

We live in an isolated, rural area, and we thus never know how long police response is going to take. Our alarm company called our County SO, per instructions they have on file for our account. They also called us.

My wife and I ensconced ourselves in our bedroom and waited. The siren
continued to wail, but we were able to hear nothing else. I activated an
emergency light-switch which lights-up the entire outside of our house, so arriving Sheriff's Officers can clearly see the exterior.

After a few minutes, I asked my wife to call 911, which she did. The response was, as expected, '... ______ County Sheriff. What is your emergency?'


My wife identified us, our address, and described what had happened, and
indicated that the alarm company had called also.

The very next thing the dispatcher said was, '... are there any guns in
your house? Are either one of you armed?'

My wife handed the phone to me, and the dispatcher repeated his questions.
I answered that we were indeed armed. I then asked if deputies had
arrived and if they were deployed outside our house.

He ignored my question and said sternly, '... put your guns away now!'

I replied that there could be armed burglars in my home, and, accordingly,
I didn't think putting my guns away right now was in my best interests!

He became very angry! '... our officers will be in a heightened state
when they arrive, and your guns will make it worse!'

I calmly tod him that, as soon as his officers arrived, we would put our
guns away. He didn't like my answer, and re-insisted that I put all guns
away immediately.

I reiterated that disarming myself right now would be unsafe and
ill-advised. I stated that we were in fear for our lives and that we had no idea
when officers would arrive. I added that I had a current concealed-carry
permit.

He then got really angry, going on about how dangerous gun were and how no
one should be allowed to own them. I finally interrupted his political
diatribe and informed him that I had completed a search of our home, myself,
and that I was persuaded it was a false alarm, that there were no burglars,
and that I was returning my pistol to its place of storage, which, in my
mind was, of course, the holster I was wearing.

He then calmed down enough so as to be understood and asked where my pistol
was stored and how many other guns we owned.

At this point, I was fed up! He obviously couldn't care less about our
safety and only wanted to know about our guns. I took a breath and told him
directly that I was declining to answer his questions with regard to guns
we may own and how we kept them. I continued that we would meet his
uniformed officers at our front door, which we did.

It then, at least in his mind, became an obvious 'power-struggle.' He
insisted that he had the absolute right to know anything about us he wanted,
and that I was legally obligated to answer any question he asked, and that I
would be arrested when I didn't. I again took a breath and retorted that
all of that was rubbish, and that he would be continuing this discussion
with our attorney, who would be contacting him, and the Sheriff, the very
next day.

Suddenly, he fell silent! After he mumbled incoherently, I informed him
that his 'services' were no longer required, and hung up.

When uniformed officers arrived, I related to them my 'conversation' with
the dispatcher. They looked at each other and said, '... it had to be
______.' They both then laughed and indicated that this particularly
dispatcher was indeed, and idiot.

We invited them in, and they searched the house, with, our course, our
blessing. Afterward, they indicated that we had done everything right and
that it was obvious we were well trained and knew how to handle situations like
this one.

They further indicated that they would have words with this particular
dispatcher!

Even so, true to my word, our attorney did contact the Sheriff personally,
the next day, and we filed a formal complaint against the dispatcher in
question."

Comment: "Response time" is something over which police have little
control. We may brag that our "average" response time is mere minutes, but, in
your particular case, it may still be hours when there is a lot of other
stuff going on, and we are short-handed. In the interim, you're on your
own. Do what is in your best interests!

There are governors, mayors, county commissioners, police chiefs, and
individual police officers with personal, anti-gun agendas, along a host of
other political agendas. None should carry such personal opinions/agendas
into their jobs, but some do. Shame on them. They need to be remediated, or
fired!

Some civil "servants" think we citizens exist only to serve them! They
have forgotten who is working for whom. They need to be reminded now and
then!

/John
 
For those of you that bitch about gun laws

27 Mar 11

"... and I wonder, still I wonder, who'll stop the rain"

From "Who'll stop the rain," written by John Fogerty in 1970. Sung by Ceedence Clearwater Revival in the 1978 film by the same name, staring Nick Nolte.

From a friend in Canada:

Heaven save us from this!

"Here in Canada our government does not have a monopoly on justified self-defense, but they sincerely believe they should have a monopoly all effective tools of self-defense!

While we ostensibly have here the legal mechanism for the carrying of a pistol to be allowed, only fourteen such 'carry permits' have ever been actually issued in the entire country, with a population of over thirty million!
Virtually all such applications are arbitrarily rejected by isolated bureaucrats, with never an explanation.

There are some permits issued for 'wilderness carry,' but only to licensed guides, and, even then, they have to endure their own bureaucratic circus.

For us peons, one not only needs a licence to possess a 'restricted firearm,' a category which includes all pistols and many rifles (all ARs, for example), the applicant must, in excruciating detail, chronicle to the government such irrelevant facts as his personal romantic history and also go through an interminable approval process prior to taking delivery of the gun.

Still with me? We're not through yet!

He must also be a member, in good standing, at a 'club,' and be vetted for an 'authorization to transport,' which allows him to take his pistol between his house and the range 'via a direct route,' unloaded, and secured in a double-locked box.

The most minor, insignificant infraction or paperwork glitch, your fault, their fault, doesn't matter, and you will find yourself charged with a criminal offence. Your home will be invaded, all your firearms will be seized, and the crown attorney will enforce a lifetime firearms prohibition against you, even when you are found not guilty!

After all that, getting your guns back from the police is nearly impossible, even with a court order. When you do finally re-claim them, they will be little more than a pile of rusted junk!

Even carrying a knife can make one vulnerable to charges of 'weapons dangerous to the public peace' or 'carrying a concealed weapon.'

OC is prohibited, at least for the purpose of use against humans. It may be carried for use against animals. Here, it is always called 'dog repellent,' by law.

Tasers and other ERDs are strictly verboten.

Our gun laws are, in fact, based on fat politicians, sitting safe and secure behind an army of personal bodyguards (all heavily armed), intently watching cheesy Hollywood movies! In fact, many firearms are prohibited by '
order in council,' and, when you read the list, it is painfully obvious that such prohibitions are based solely on appearance. That is why we can't have AKs, FALs, ARs, and AUGs, but XCRs and Tavors are okay, at least for now, since they've come on the scene relatively recently."

Comment: The foregoing is the kind of "reasonable" measures liberal
politicians constantly push for. They never get specific, of course. Autocrats
never do! But, this is the practical result of their never-ending assault on our personal freedom. When they can't prohibit the private ownership of guns outright, they'll, in effect, have the same practical result through bureaucratic regulation.

They love to hypocritically talk about our "right to personal, unilateral, self-defense," but then deny us any possibility of exercising that right!

They live to lord it over people. That is the only thing that really motivates them, and ever has!

/John
 
Canada Part 2 - Light at the end of the tunnel

28 Mar 11

My Canadian friend continues:

"However, there is some good news:

We are turning things around up here!

The draconian, failed-at-every-level, 'system' we currently have in place was put there by governments of the 80s and 90s, consisting mostly of elitist, geriatric, flower-children who, like Socialists/Communists everywhere, never earned an honest dime in their lives!

Back then, gun owners did not have a strong voice. The by-word in Ottawa was 'social engineering,' as they attempted to smother the life out of us us with interminable laws and 'regulations,' enforced by an army of erstwhile unemployed bureaucrats who worried infinitely more about keeping their jobs than they ever did about doing them.

Things have changed! Debate about the private ownership of firearms has
become the most polarizing issue in our current political landscape. Our
side is now politically active, alert, and has excellent communication. We are now a powerful symbol for the new direction in which our Country is heading.

Virtually all current Leftists in government are still overtly in favor of yet additional restrictions on private gun ownership, in spite of its amply demonstrated failure to reduce violent crime, or, for that matter, even to be administered intelligently.

Last Friday, these very Leftists were toppled in a non-confidence motion, which automatically triggered an election. This spring, we are likely to see a Conservative majority government that has promised to turn Canada away from the Liberal/Socialist/Communist trend that began in the 1970s.

We have promised to hold their feet to the fire!"

Comment: The biggest problem Leftists have, no matter where they are, is personal vanity and arrogance! They invariably think they deserve to be kings, and that we peons exist only to serve them. They just can't admit to themselves that they're wrong, have always been wrong, and have never been anything but wrong.

They will accept no species of correction. The are absolutely incapable of repentance. They would rather die!

/John
 
26 June 11

"Categories," from a friend and student:

"There are differing views on armed self-defense. Most are neither honest, nor honorable, but frequently articulated anyway. The following litany is an effort to put differing views into perspective:

1) Gun-Haters. These are the hyper-naive. While basking in the mantel of safety and freedom provided by better men than they, who are armed, they piously claim that they are personally too good and pure to ever touch a gun themselves. 'Guns-bans will result in an end to violence,' they foolishly claim. They conveniently never mention clubs, knives, hammers, screw drivers, and big, bad, hairy criminals who can physically dominate. We had a world without guns once. It was a good deal more violent than the one we enjoy today. How quickly they forget!

2) Sheep. Probably the biggest category. 'Violence? What violence?"
they cry. 'Violence' is something that happens to others. They willfully
ignore what is going on around them, because they are permanently in denial of the facts of life. We call them VBCs (Victims, by Choice). They would rather die than be compelled to confront enlightenment. Unfortunately, many get their wish!

3) 'Conscientious objectors' A small number believe they must never defend themselves, nor resort to force in any form, because of fuzzy and confused religious 'convictions.' They can safely function in our society, at least for now, only because armed police are there to protect them.

4) Apologetic Gun-Owners. They own guns, but say stupidly naive things like, 'I'll never have to shoot anyone, because the sight of my gun will cause bad guys to run away!', 'I carry my pistol only when I go to the bad part of town (it's never loaded anyway)', and 'I may shoot, but I don't want to hurt anyone' They consider shooting five rounds a year 'training.'
This 'logic' would have you believe that when you pick up a violin, for the first time, you're ready for the concert hall.

5.) Competitors. This is the group that is all about shooting guns strictly for recreation and self-aggrandizement. They look upon their gun the same way they look upon a tennis racket or a golf club. It is purely a means for attaining a high score at some race or contest. They shoot a lot, but few even carry a gun, and the gun they do carry bears not the slightest resemblance to the one they compete with. They endlessly confer swaggering titles upon themselves. They can, at least, operate guns, but they give scant thought to any practical use to which a gun might have to be put.

6.) Consciously Incompetent. They have had training at the beginner/intermediate level. Then, a fog comes over them, and they come to the table no more. They think of training as an event, rather than a process. In their mind, they have all the skills they'll ever need to get them through their next lethal encounter. They fail, at their peril, to consider the fact that these skills are all perishable.

7.) Consciously Competent. This is the group that has seen the light,
acknowledged their weaknesses, and resolved to never be a hapless victim.
They own and use guns for serious purposes. They train hard and regularly, and keep up on the latest equipment and trends. They understand the OODA Loop. However, they must still think their actions through. They are still at the mercy of their attention-span. However, it is from these ranks True Operators come.

8.) Unconsciously Competent. Operators! They have the ability to inst antly react to threats, with flawless precision and without wasted parts, nor wasted motions. Their conscious mind is involved with strategy, while their unconscious mind seamlessly runs bodily motions. Everything and anything that they have at their disposal will be utilized to quickly and decisively conquer their foes. In the moment of need, they are never found wanting.
This group continues to train and is always eager to enlighten. They stand ready to serve as required."

/John
 
Last edited:
Gun - Games

8 Aug 11

These comments from a municipal PD patrolman, and one of our Instructors, with regard to pit-falls inherent to "gun-games:"

"Last night, several other patrolmen and I were at our Police Range conducting live-fire drills, as we make it a point to do at least twice per month. A well-known, and generally disliked, city employee showed up immediately started running his mouth about how it endlessly annoyed him to have to rub elbows with Nimrods such as the likes of us. He then precipitously announced that he could '... smoke anyone here.'

In a moment of weakness, I challenged him to a duel on the plate rack.
First person to knock-down four, wins. My challenge was answered, '... in less than a heartbeat!'

At the time, he was carrying an expensive Nighthawk 1911, concealed under his shirt. I used my standard SIG/226/DAK (40S&W).

He asked for a short break, so he could go to his car and retrieve his '
competition gun,' a ten-pound, red-dot equipped, race-gun, with a one-pound trigger. I objected! 'Go with what you have on you right now, Hot Shot,'
said I! He sheepishly indicated that he 'wasn't ready.'

'I am!' was my smart-ass reply. Clearly embarrassed, he then reluctantly agreed to proceed, using the gun, holster, and ammunition he was actually carrying.

Well, after five attempts, he became red-faced, frustrated, angry, and gave up! In the first two, I was finished before he even got his gun out from under concealment. In the last three, he never got closer than two plates behind.

During the whole pathetic ordeal, this appalling blow-hard did a continuous, and convincing, BHO impersonation, blaming everything in the world, except himself and his own, personal incompetence. It was clear he had never drawn a gun from concealment before, and indeed never even carried a concealed gun until that day!

Here is the comical part: This pitiable pretender is an IPSC 'Grandmaster!'
(whatever that means). Like most such competitors, he doesn't even carry a gun!"

Comment: The trouble with con-men is that, without fail, they eventually end up conning themselves!

Genuine Operators are quiet, courteous, and generally acquiescent, having little interest in "proving" anything. Braggarts, boasters, cock-a-hoops, and assorted other vainglorious frauds are interested only in self-aggrandizement and penis-envy. They are most generally, like the one in the foregoing, a colossal bore. Their existence is probably predictable, but they do little to advance our Art.

"He knows not how to speak, who cannot be silent... Loudness is impotence!
"

Johann Lavater

/John
 
I suppose it is possible that if a grandmaster only ever shoots with a red dot race gun that they might suck with an iron-sighted single stack. But I have my doubts.
 
9 Aug 11

Alternate comments on competition, from a well-known Instructor:

"As a 'reformed' IPSC shooter, I, too, have little regard for the kind of pretentious, garrulous, wankers you described in the last Quip. They are found, in profusion, within any species of competitive activity you can name, from auto-racing to golf, and, like you, I take scant delight in associating with them. Competition attracts many shallow and self-centered, and they don't, as a rule, make enjoyable, nor particularly beneficial, company.

However (through no fault of their own) gun-gamers, over the years, have been the source of some useful techniques and technological advances. While most of what comes from these games are just tricks and gimmicks, red-dot sights, as an example, were developed, to a large measure, via demand from competitive shooters, as was back-boring of shotgun barrels, to name just two.

As shallow as they often are, gun-gamers sometimes serve as (involuntary) theoretic researchers. Once a potentially useful discovery is made, those of us in the real world can sometimes develop it into genuinely useable technology and technique."

Comment: Like my friend and colleague above, I have scant patience with blow-hards and pretenders, no matter the discipline in which they claim to be involved.

However, for the sake of the relentless advancement of our Art, we can never hesitate to take advantage of emerging technology and techniques when they clearly demonstrate a practical advance, no matter the source.

The few that have genuine value need to be extracted and developed, without apology, and no matter who thought of them first!

"The sun shines on a dunghill, and is not profaned"

John Lyly

/John
 
Back
Top Bottom