…one could view the U.S. news information system as a sort of trough into which propagandists, calling themselves PR professionals, regularly dump information; journalists and news organizations nose in hog-like to feed at the trough. The notion of an independent and objective news system conducted by truth-seeking journalists is highly romanticized, exaggerated and self serving in regard to the actual role of mass media journalists in interpreting reality.” B.A.Patrick

 

I came across this quote in the above-cited article on Facebook today. This was the THIRD post I shared on my timeline this morning whose main theme was harsh criticism of the national news media and its abject failure to report the truth during the past election and its aftermath. 

Frankly, I've been appalled by the MSM's apparent abandonment of journalistic ethics in the past 25 years, and especially in the past 10 years. I guess I was somewhat ahead of the curve (as were many others, of course, including all 3 of my readers)  in recognizing this problem, but it seems to have caught populist fire in the past few weeks, and the fire is beginning to rage out of control. 

Consider this short damning video from Denzel Washington, a cultural icon who cannot be attacked by the MSM because he is a) black and b) a star (either attribute alone would be insufficient protection, but taken together, he becomes untouchable by the celebrity-loving and racist-supersensitized Media):

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=587384427

And the topper for the morning, which I found to be more of a wake-up than my first cup of coffee, which I was drinking as I read this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/12/the_revenge_of_sarah_palin.html#.WE_7FrZ6asw.facebook

Here's what Yours Truly posted in introduction of this piece on my very own Facebook page: 


"This is an interesting opinion piece. I have to say that the open malice of the Palin-hating infotainment industry appalled me at the time the events of 2008 were happening, but like most people the unprecedented fake news attacks on her from the all-powerful MSM were so stunning that no one knew how to counter them. In effect, the anti-Palin "narratives" (which is media-speak for "made-up story") were so egregious that they triggered a surge of support for alternative media sources. One could say that the media's unfounded excoriation of Palin fanned the flames of the alt-right news movement, and ensured the election of Donald Trump."

Now, I'm not saying that three solid "hit pieces" against the MSM constitutes a groundswell. I'm not saying that I think anything is going to change... yet. But I am saying... yet...

I believe that the Boardrooms of the news networks are in chaos. Their ratings are in free-fall, and all the bullsh!t they've been putting out to try to release their reserve chutes--like attempting to blacklist all the conservative news sites on the internet as "fake news"--is nothing more than a sign that they are in a blind panic. Like the man who is trying to shoot the police coming to arrest him, but his empty revolver won't fire, and just keeps pulling the trigger again and again and again---click-click-click--the MSM keeps trying to use the same ugly tools it's been using for years, and they can't believe that it's not working. 

I sincerely hope we are going to see a reprise of the Terror of the French Revolution in the news media over the next few months... a virtual Reign of Terror, in which producers and editors, newswriters and talking heads, are called to account by their Boards and fired ignominiously for their abject failure to adhere to anything resembling a journalistic ethic and their duty to report the truth. Please understand that I am not calling for the actual cutting off of people's heads here, my friends. But lest some undereducated Snowflake social justice warrior read this and misinterpret my intent, I am calling for the figurative beheading of all the TV news networks, and many of the nation's most egregiously left-leaning and egregiously socialist-run newspapers.  

"If it bleeds, it leads", and "first with the worst" have been bywords for over a century in the parlance of Established Journalism in their criticism of the tabloids and yellow journalism. But it's increasingly apparent in 2016 that yellow journalism has become mainstream, and there are no real journalists left. Or are there? Somewhere out there, is there still an honest news reporter who actually wants to report the truth on national issues? 

I don't know how this is going to get fixed, but I do know who is going to fix it (the news corporation Boards). And I do predict it will be fixed. 

And keep in mind, boys and girls, when you read that prediction... that I am one of those who predicted that Hillary would go down in flames even in the deepest, darkest days of the recent election campaign. 

Who's your daddy... <wink>

 

 

Share this post

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

I got a Facebook message from a very good young man I know, a friend of my son. He was responding to a post I had shared. It was a video from Prager University (not a real university at all, but a series of short lectures by academics explaining important stuff), in which a former Muslim woman explained why the West cannot "tolerate" Islam as it currently exists. 

My young friend was startled by this video. He thought he was doing well to "tolerate" Islam, because it is a religion, and we are supposed to be tolerant of all religions. My response is reproduced, verbatim, below:

 

Dear Peter: 

Thanks for sharing your email with me. I'll respect your privacy and not share it. Mine is apparently an open book for every email marketer in the world, but that's a whole nother story!

Islam is not the greatest evil in the world, as some would claim, but it's far from the benign religion that the "Committee on American-Islamic Relations" would have us believe it is. In fact, it's really not a religion so much as it is a theocratic sociopolitical system. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing: after all, the Judeo-Christian tradition is a theocratic sociopolitical system as well, and has been since Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century. 
Most Western statesmen and virtually all American journalists fail to grasp this crucial distinction. We have our Constitutional 1st Amendment, which is supposed to guarantee government cannot establish a "state religion"; but in fact, America did have  state religion when Madison wrote the Constitution: Christianity, with grudging tolerance of Jews. So this Judeo-Christian religion, which is the foundation of all Western civilization and the philosophical and ethical basis of our laws, our science, our morals, and our government, was taken for granted by the Founding Fathers. This supposition has become a forgotten cornerstone in America's (and the West's!) social fabric.
JudeoChristianity, since the Roman Empire, has always been a God-based sociopolitical system. Since the Reformation it's been a secularized system, but its bones are still J-C. But almost everybody in the West has forgotten that. 
 
Islam is a threat to the west because it is essentially a competing theocratic sociopolitical system. Islam will not tolerate Western law, because Islam can only accept Sharia law. And since law is the basis of sociopolitical order, the Islam cannot "assimilate" with the West's law, which is based on J-C principles. 
 
By not recognizing the inherent opposition of Islam to Western humanism (and our tradition of common laws that goes back to the Romans), our leaders are making a grave mistake. It may cost us the world. 
 
Our American tradition of tolerance of other religions is fine, as long as everyone is playing by the same rules. Jews, Christians, Hindus, Shintoists, etc, ALL believe in tolerating someone else's beliefs... you know, live and let live. Islam/Muslims DO NOT believe in tolerance. Their holy writings say all other religions must be destroyed, and all who do not believe as they do should be killed or forced to convert at the point of the sword. 
 
Fully 25% of Muslims worldwide believe their religion should be forced on the rest of the world. I'll give you some links that demonstrate that. The remaining 75% are less comfortable with that, but like Americans who sympathized with the IRA in the 60's and 70's and 80's, they support the radicals who want to kill all non-Muslims.  
 
Western statesmen recognized the dual nature of Islam several hundred years ago, and warned of its dangers. Thomas Jefferson was notable in his accurate prediction of the perils of "tolerating" Islam, because as he correctly noted, Islam will never "tolerate" us. 
 
 
Islam may be able to reform itself, as the woman in the video says. After all, the Jews were commanded in the Old Testament to do some pretty weird and violent shit, too, and they eventually got over it. Islam might be able to do the same. But if they don't, the rest of the world is in for a beating! 
 
Sorry to go on so long about this. Here are some links you can start with. Use your Youtube and Google search functions to learn more. 
 
Start by watching this one:  Dr. Warner really condenses a vast amount if information into a 45 minute lecture. You can use this link to find more, similar videos, but this will give you more information on Islam's fundamental tenets and writings than I got in 2 full university courses on Islam. BTW, Warner is a bona fide academic, not some crank Christian fundamentalist preacher. 
 
If you follow Dr. Warner's Youtube lectures from this one, you'll get a lot more information.
 
Also from Dr. Warner, this is a nice visual depiction of the spread of Islam by violent jihad, beginning in the 7th Century, and looking at the Crusades in perspective to the scope of Jihad:
 
 
 
Another perspective on the Crusades, which is part of a series that you might find really enlightening:  
 
 
Looking at more modern issues, here is a video exposing Islam's attitude and actions toward women, and that led to the Dutch film-maker's murder (by Muslim Jihadists). It's long and plodding, but it exposes much of the horrific way women are subjugated by Muslims.  
 
 
 
This is a broader documentary, but long. It is well worth the time spent watching it. The violent and murderous history of Islam is explicated here. 
 
 
 
You should also look at facts regarding the attempts to reform Islam in the modern era, and why it is not gaining any traction. 
 
 
 
So, I'm sure you're wondering, why is Doc spending so many pixels on a "tactical" website to a history/sociology lesson?
 
The answer is simple: I believe that war between the West and Islam is inevitable. It's already breaking out in bits and pieces here and there, but so far the leaders of the West haven't grasped the fact. I expect that they will only recognize that War is on when Iran, or one of its proxies, deploys a nuclear device against a Western city.
 
Those of us who have spent much or most of our lives learning the Warrior mindset, training in the use of arms and in tactics, may well find ourselves enmeshed in that War well before our national governments wake up. So we owe it to ourselves to wake up, to be educated on who and what we are likely going to have to fight against for our very lives and the survival of our civilization.
 
THAT is why Doc spent so many pixels this morning on a history lesson.  

Share this post

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

Today's Tactical Anatomy post on Facebook cites a crucial illustration of the need for unfettered citizen access to firearms. It's a simple anecdote describing one woman's lawful use of a firearm (called a DUG, a Defensive Use of a Gun, which I'll explain in more depth shortly). There's the teaser, and the ostensible reason for my blog post today. I'll get back to you on that in a moment, so please bear with me here. 

The current presidential election campaign is shaping up as a battle between diametrically opposed ideologies. It appears to me that never, never, NEVER in my lifetime has so much been at stake. On the one hand, we have a political outsider who has seized the Republican nomination from the Party bosses, and is running a ramshackle campaign that despite its lack of sophistication is competing very well against a slick and professional campaign run by its opponents. On the other hand, we have a political insider who received her Party's nomination as a quasi-coronation, and is running a very expensive and tghtly controlled campaign that should, according to the jaded political commentators of the media, be ahead by double-digits. 

Both candidates are deeply flawed individuals. I don't want to vote for either of them, and most of my friends are saying the same thing. This is a national embarassment, and should trigger a wholesale overhaul of our presidential selection process, otherwise known as the Primary System. I doubt that will happen, but that's not the subject of this blog. 

No, the subject of this blog is "gun control". Again.

Yet again, America is under assault by the Democratic Party's fixation on "gun control" as the single solution to violent crime in our nation. Bernie Sanders--a communist in all but name--was the first to raise the issue during the primaries, but Hillary Clinton's campaign saw that "gun control" appeared to be a great boost to Sanders' campaign, so Team Hillary usurped the issue and made it hers.  She did this despite the lessons learned by Bill Clinton and the Democrats after the Clinton Assault Weapons ban of 1994, which was perceived as the primary cause of the Democrats' electoral battering in the 1996 election. 

The Democrats avowed in public to stay away from "gun control" as a political platform plan, as it was considered to be electoral poison. Apparently, they have decided they were wrong, and Hillary is running strongly on that very platform today. She's gambling all her chips on her gut instinct that the national conscience has shifted far enough left since 1996 that she can risk this move. 

I sincerely hope she loses. Not just because I oppose "gun control" (which I do), but because I hope this defeat will hammer a death-blow to the Democratic Party's fascination with disarmament of the public. 

The post by Kelsie Lee Evans that I shared on Facebook is a striking example of the reason Hillary Clinton is wrong, and why she MUST be defeated in this election. 

Dr. Gary Kleck, a criminologist in Florida, published a landmark study on Americans' use of firearms for self-defense back in 1996. It was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, of all places. JAMA is a notably gun-unfriendly journal, and the scientific voice of the AMA, which is a decidedly anti-gun organization. Kleck's article cited his research, which demonstrated that Americans use firearms in defense of person and/or property 2.5 million times annually. 

Now, don't gloss over that number, because it's important. TWO POINT FIVE MILLION. That is a LOT of people who used firearms for self-defense. If you add that up over the 20 years since Kleck's study was published, that means FIFTY MILLION people need a gun to stop a crime being committed against them since 1996. That's 15% of Americans, folks. 

Now, if you compare that number to the number of homicides over the same period, we're not even close. America experiences something north of  10,000 homicides annually, although that number is steadily declining. In 2013, the last year of FBI data I seriously looked at, 69% of those homicides involved use of a firearm, or about 8454 homicides. Some of those were justifiable homicides, by the way. (If you want to look at the data yourself, you can start here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide ) And of those 8454 homicides, 183 were considered justifiable self-defense homicides. 

Now, think about these justifiable homicide statistics in light of Gary Kleck's estimated 2.5 million defensive uses of a gun (DUG) annually. If a firearm is used to kill one's attacker in his attempt to commit a crime, at most this would amount to 0.007% of the cases where someone used a firearm to defend herself. The corollary is that in 99.993% of cases, the would-be victim stopped her attacker by brandishing her firearm or by shooting at her attacker without killing him. 

But Hillary Clinton thinks this is not sufficient justification for American's to continue to arm themselves for self-defense. Hillary apparently thinks that it would be better for America if 2,500,000 people who successfully fought off an attacker in 2013 would instead become crime victims in 2017. She thinks that the 183 lives "saved" by banning our means of committing justifiable homicide are worth the 2,499,819 law-abiding citizens' lives crippled or lost in the exchange. 

As Kelsie Lee Evans' story illustrates, it is the women of America who will suffer. On that fateful evening when Kelsie simply showed her firearm to a would-be attacker (that's the definition of brandishing, folks), despite having done a whole lot of things wrong leading up to that moment, she was able to prevent being assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered.

But Hillary Clinton wants to take away Kelsie's ability to do so. She wants to take away your right, and my right, to do the same. "Not so!" Cry Hillary's supporters. "She never said that!!"

Oh, but she did. This is her comment on the Supreme Court's Heller decision: 

“I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them,” said Clinton.

“We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton continued. “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

Here's where I got that quotation: http://freebeacon.com/politics/leaked-audio-clinton-says-supreme-court-is-wrong-on-second-amendment/ .  Yes, I know that's a "right-wing" internet news page. But it's backed up by the Washington Post, which is a decidedly "left-wing" newspaper, here:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/06/hillary-clinton-on-guns-and-the-second-amendment/?utm_term=.435c2d60d0b7 .

In case you didn't get the memo on Heller, it was the landmark case in which the Supreme Court decided that the individual's right to possess and use personal firearms for purposes of self-defense was our Constitutional right. Hillary Clinton has stated unequivocally that she holds the opposite view on this crucial court case, and that if elected to the presidency, she intends to go after that decision and other rights granted under the Second Amendment "every chance [she can] get."

In the Post interview, which was written by a strongly anti-gun reporter (Jonathan Adler), Hillary's words are "nuanced" away from the stark reality of her anti-gun position. She cites "reasonable, commonsense" gun control measures, which is the Left's way of hiding their true agenda (registration and confiscation of privately-owned firearms). 

Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton wants to tear the guts out of the Second Amendment of the Constitution (as well as the First and Fourth Amendments, just in case you were keeping score) to achieve political goals that we can only guess at today. If she is elected, I have no doubt she will at least partly succeed, and as her Supreme Court and other Federal court appointees take over the bench in our nation, she will eventually succeed in whole. America will be disarmed.

I am betting that Hillary Clinton and her slick campaign have misjudged Americans. I'm betting that We the People will hand her a resounding defeat in November, and the Democrat "gun-control" juggernaut will collapse in a heap of electoral rubble. Unfortunately, I'm a lousy gambler, and I lose more often than I win at games of chance. In this ultimate game, I fervently hope and pray that my bet comes in. Seven, come eleven!

Share this post

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

My good friend Eric, who I refer to in this blog as Bluedreaux, is a kind, polite, gentle, and thoughtful man. He brought this article (click on the link at the bottom of this blog entry) to my attention.

Bluedreaux is a guy who thinks a lot. He comes up with different ways of looking at things, and I appreciate that about him. But he's also a practical man. And he is also a violent man at times. 

You see, violence is part of Bluedreaux's job. He is a police officer. Like all cops, he's learned how to employ violence to bring people who choose to act in violation of Society's laws back inside the bounds of those laws. He does so at Society's behest, with Society's permission; in fact, he is obligated to do so!

The idea that violence is sometimes necessary to the preservation of one's life or the preservation of social order is ancient. NO society that has ever survived long enough to have records of its existence has ever pretended otherwise. But we have a growing sentiment in America (and to a lesser degree, western Europe as well) that pretends to believe that violence is always bad.  

This alarms me. For people to actually believe such a thing, they have to commit the most incredible contortions of logic and understanding I can possibly imagine. Yet they are doing it, in increasing numbers, and their viewpoint has become a serious factor in social discourse in our day and age. 

Now, my regular readers (all 3 of you, thanks for that!) know that I am a physician. My training and temperament, unlike Bluedreaux's, are not geared toward rapid deployment of force or violence when a difficult situation arises. (And believe me, such situations are not uncommon in the ER!) My first instinct in such a situation is to try to de-escalate the situation as rapidly as possible so we can make sure that people who need care can get it in a timely manner. Almost all the time that works. But sometimes it doesn't, and in those circumstances, I call the police to settle it down. 

But if the police can't get there before some bad stuff is going down, I will not stand down nor run away. If my people are at risk, I have to act in my (and their) own defense. I once had to fetch a loaded rifle from my car and bring it into the ER--thank God I didn't have to use it, but if the situation had devolved as I felt it was likely to, it was either send rounds downrange or die. Fortunately,  none of my staff mentioned my action to the Corporate Pukes who ran that hospital, or I'd likely have been fired and God knows what other bad things might have happened (even though at the time I was a sheriff's deputy, you never know with Corporate Pukes!)  But my staff made it clear that they appreciated my willingness to face the wrath of the CP's in defense of their lives, so that was nice... but truth to tell, I could not have done otherwise and continued to look at my face in the mirror every morning. 

Violence--or the threat of violence, the willingness to use violence--is not always the answer. But sometimes it is the only answer. And when it is the only answer, no other answer will serve. 

 

http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/03/violence-is-golden/

Share this post

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

Greetings from the surface of the sun! Well, maybe not exactly, but late July and most of August in west Texas feels like it could be... 

So, in my Kit-Derp blog a while back I promised to write about the whole competitive shooting vs tactical training issue. Looks like it's still pretty much a hot topic, judging by the bullshit being spouted by internet ninjas on various websites lately! Not to mention what I hear from cops I hang out with here and there. 

Speaking of hanging out... I have to say my choice of people to hang out with lately has been gravitating toward a very different demographic... they're not just folks who like to shoot guns, but people who like to shoot who also like to fly airplanes (they're called pilots).  Part of the reason I think I like hangin' with pilots is that the bullshit level is REALLLLLLLLY low. And I've concluded that part of the reason for that is that you can't become a pilot by reading books and magazines and by hangin' out on the internet. You actually have to DO stuff. Stuff that's pretty hard to do, that requires critical thought, coordination, planning, and expenditure of your hard-earned cash. And after you do all that stuff, you actually have to PROVE IT. You have to pass a series of really difficult examinations to demonstrate that you can actually fly an airplane competently, safely, and not kill yourself or your examiner. 

Funny thing: having to do all that stuff seems to reduce the Idiot and Bullshit Factor  (which I will hereafter refer to as the IBF) by about 99% in any discussion I've had with pilots, not just on the internet, but also in Real Life.

Now, I'm not saying that we should have a federal regulatory body like the FAA to regulate all gun owners and firearms users... but if we did, I expect the IBF would go waaaaaaaaaaaay down on internet firearms discussion boards!

But to get serious for a moment here, there is a parallel to this pilot competency reducing IBF in the shooting world as well, but among my tactical friends it's not recognized very well. It's called competitive shooting

"Nonsense!" my tactard acquaintances bark, puffing out their kevlar-clad chests. "If you shoot competition, you'll do that same stuff in a real fight and get yourself killed!"

Uh-huh. I see that happen all the time, folks.

NOT!!

Despite the fact that I hear this criticism almost every time the competition discussion comes up, I've never once seen a tactical shooter get into a jam because he did something stupid in a real fight that he'd learned in competition. On the other hand, I have seen (and heard of even more) cases where a tactical operator made a blunder in the Hot Zone because he had a training deficiency and/or an equipment malfunction that could have been eliminated easily by regular shooting "under pressure" (i.e., shooting in competition). 

Here's a short list of things that competitive shooting will do for you as a shooter:

1. It will make you shoot more.  Totally true, bro. If for no other reason than to avoid looking like an idiot in front of "civilians", everybody who shoots competitively practices more. Maybe not regularly, but 3 or 4 days before the match you've committed to, you'll drive out to the range to put a couple boxes of ammo thru paper just to shake the cobwebs out. If you do that, even if it's only 4 matches a year, you'll likely double the round count of the average cop in America.  And guess what? Shooting more is good for your competency with your firearms!

2. It will make you shoot faster and more accurately.  Nobody who ever got into a gunfight said, "Man I wish I'd been slower and more inaccurate when I returned fire on that wannabe cop-killer." And while folks sometimes quote Bill Jordan's "Speed is fine, but accuracy is final," quip. Which is true, but remember that he was the guy who could put a bullet in the bull in 0.27 seconds! Listen up: the guy who shoots fastest and most accurately wins every match. EVERY MATCH. Even if you don't want to win the match, the atmosphere of competition rubs off on everyone, and so everyone strives for faster, more accurate shooting. You can't help it... it just rubs off on you! And when you couple this desire to be faster and more accurate, guess what? You will actually get faster, and more accurate.  Which means that if you ever get caught up in a gunfight--God forbid, you should strive to be in an Officer Involved Shooting, not a gunfight, every time--you'll default to your baseline level of training, which will be faster and more accurate than it was before you got into competitive shooting. 

3. It will make you "one with your gun".  Shooting in competition trains you to deal with gun-pukes under stress. Listen, if your gun malfs when you're out plinking with your buddy on the back 40, you can say to hell with it, throw the thing in the bed of your pickup and get out another gun to play with. In a gunfight, not so much. And ditto in competition. Example: I took my Remington 11-87 tactical shotgun to a 3-gun match one time and it "larned me a lesson". The ammo I'd brought was the new low-recoil stuff my agency had just issued us. I loaded up and started runnin' and gunnin' with my pistol, then my rifle; I was smokin' the targets and feelin' fine. Then I picked up my shotgun, chambered a round, nailed the first target, and had a jam. Wham-bam, I cleared it, fired again, and it jammed again... the gas generated by the low-recoil shells wasn't sufficient to cycle the action fully, and I was stuck with a single-shot shotgun, and 6 more shotgun targets remained! What did I do? I dealt with it! After each shot, I rolled the shotgun, cleared the stovepiped case, manually loaded a fresh shell, blasted the target, rolled the shotgun, cleared the stovepiped case, etc. When I was done, I had cleaned all 8 targets with 8 shots, and my time was still faster than some of the guys in that match. (Needless to say, I switched back to regular shotgun loads after that stage!) Talking with my buddies after that stage was done, we were all asking ourselves what might have happened if we took that ammo in our shotguns on a hot entry? Can you imagine the pucker factor, trying to clear that jam in a narrow hallway with bullets flying at you? My point is this: every gun is capable of puking, and they tend to do it when you really need them not to. If you learn how to deal with gun-pukes under the stress of competition, you're far more likely to be able to deal with a gun-puke in the middle of a firefight. 

4. It's a great way to make sure your kit works.   Most tactical guys who refuse  competition will sooner or later give me this line: "That's game-gun gear. I use real-world gun gear." Well, duh, Fred Flintsone! There's nothing in the rule book that says you can't shoot with your duty rig. One sport, IDPA by name, has a special category for cops who shoot their duty rig in matches, and I've seen guys in both 3-Gun and IDPA matches do it! When I shoot a 3-gun match, I usually use the same guns I carried on duty, set up the way I carried them when I wore a SWAT uniform.  I wear a chest-rig that duplicates the magazine placement of my tactical armor vest. I've even shot a couple matches in full SWAT gear. And by doing so, I learned in a hurry what kit and which modifications were good, which were bad, and which were going to get folks killed. A couple of these lessons I learned were passed on to the other cops on my SWAT team, and after they tried them out, they spread to the entire department. 

There's more, but I won't labor the point any further. 

Here's the take-home message, boys and girls: people who do real stuff in real time when there's real consequences on the line tend to learn very quickly what is IBF versus what truly works. It applies to FAA-certified pilots, and it applies to firearms professionals. The Derp-addicted wannabe's will never get this. 

Do yourself a favor: if you haven't tried competitive shooting, give it a shot. You won't lose anything, and you just might gain a whole lot of knowledge, experience, and competency. It's a win-win!

Share this post

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

In association with David Maglio's Concealed Carry Associates LLC I am pleased to remind y'all that we are holding a Shooting With Xray Vision class at Range of Richfield, Richfield, Wisconsin, on Saturday July 9.

If you live in the Midwest and you've been thinking about taking this class, now is the time to sign up. Don't cheat yourself by saying you'll take it next year. There is no guarantee I'll be able to offer this class outside of Texas after this offering. Given the strident anti-gun political climate in much of the USA right now, there are no guarantees that guns, ammo, or training will be as freely available in the near future as they are today.

And believe me when I tell you that every armed citizen needs this training. Knowing where to shoot the bad guy is as critically important as knowing how to shoot your defensive firearm. Ask any successful hunter whether knowing where to shoot his quarry is important, and s/he'll tell you how critical knowing critical anatomy is to his or her success. Ask any police department that has incorporated SXRV into their training how this has helped their OIS outcomes.

Tuition is $150.00, which is ridiculously cheap for such critical training. Contact David at CCA to register.

Share this post

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

Hillary Clinton's run for the White House scares me. 

I know I'm not alone in making that statement. But I suspect that most of the people who make that statement don't make it for the same reason I do. 

Most anti-Hillary voters "hate" Hillary at a visceral level. They haven't really looked all that hard at her, but they've read enough about Benghazi and the email scandal to have a vague idea that she did some really bad things, and that's enough for them. On the basis of this limited information, they will vote for  ABC (Anyone But  Clinton). Okay, I can get behind that. Because not everyone has the reading ability to sift through hundreds of pages of confusing information, or the critical intelligence to reach the logical conclusions there. And the plain truth as I see it is that, yes, she did commit felonies in both of those scandals, so I basically agree with these folks, even though I consider them low-information voters.

And by the way, if you read the article I posted, you will see that the two scandals are unquestionably related. If you haven't read the article I linked on the Tactical Anatomy Facebook page this morning (May 22, 2016), you should. It will explain the connection, and the felonious acts underlying both scandals, in crystal clear prose. The only catch is that you will have to spend at least an hour reading it, and longer than that if you look up the author's reference articles. 

But that's not why Hillary Clinton scares me. 

Hillary scares me because she has told the American public that she intends to destroy the Constitution

Ten years ago, I would have been laughed off the internet for making that statement. Even staunch Republicans would dismiss me as a kook. We all thought the Constitution was sacred, unassailable. But in 2016, after nearly 8 years of watching Barack Obama run roughshod over American law with complete disregard for Constitutional restraints, and 8 years of watching the Watchdogs let him get away with it, I don't think anyone who reads this blog would dismiss my fear of Hillary as ridiiculous. Barack Obama has gotten away with his outrageous and illegal Constitution-violating behavior for nearly 8 years simply because he is a black man. And in post-modern America, nobody can criticize a black man for fear of being labelled a "racist". 

The "racist" label has incredible negative impact in our day, in which the debate on every public issue is dominated by sound bites and Twitter "tweets". Substantive discussion of issues is rare, and even when it does occur, the venue and rules of debate are controlled by the mainstream media (MSM). The MSM has transmogrified in the last 30 years from an instrument delivering information to a conglomerate owned by large for-profit corporations that deliver a product best described as "infotainment". A little information, delivered in a highly entertaining format. As such, there has been no real criticism in the MSM of serious issues affecting the fabric of American society and the Law is largely dismissed as an unnecessary burden, except when it favors one's own side of an issue. 

So we now have a nation where black men can call upon other black men to murder cops, and they can do so without any fear of prosecution. Because the Obama administration refuses to prosecute them for uttering deadly threats, they continue to do so. We are told that a black man can't be a racist, and can't be prosecuted for uttering hate speech, simply because he is black. Only white, hispanic, or asian people can be so prosecuted. Same thing for Muslims, and for "transgenders" (a term that has almost no meaning in medical or any other credible discipline's terminology.)  

Whether you have identified this as a violation of the Constitution yet or not, you must come to do so. These precedents violate the principle that all people are equal before the law. The idea that a black man can say he hates all white people and they all should be killed is protected under Obama's administration, but a white man saying the same thing about black people is likely to be prosecuted as hate speech by the same administration. The attorney general of the United States can say for the record that she will prosecute non-Muslims for stating facts about Islam and Muslims as hate speech, and not be held accountable for this anti-Constitutional dictum by the MSM. In point of fact, the current administration is shredding the Constitution on a daily basis, and nobody is fighting them! Not the MSM, not Congress, NOBODY! 

We can all see the damage this attitude has done to our society in the past couple of years. But it will get much worse if Hillary Clinton is elected president. Because Hillary has made it clear she will use this same specious argument--i.e., that an oppressed person can say and do things without consequence that a non-oppressed person cannot--to apply to women against men.

Men, and particularly white men, have been under an organized and pervasive negative publicity campaign since the rise of radical feminism in the 1970's. This is only going to get worse under a Hillary Clinton administration. Hillary has railed against an alleged "war on women", implying that American men have been systematically destroying women for a long time. She has vowed to correct that. We have to ask ourselves how she might do that. 

Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that she can and will do so by following the Obama model: by issuing executive orders that violate the Constitutional rights of men in favor of women. 

Not that men have much protection left as it stands today anyway... but you can count on those few protections being sliced to ribbons in a few short years under Hillary. Men today are held as guilty until proven innocent if any accusation of sexual misconduct is levelled against them. You don't have to look far to find ample evidence of this. Start with Tawana Brawley and work your way down to the noxious University of Virginia-Rolling Stone rape fabrication. Why women bring false allegations in the first place is a bizarre and disturbing investigation to begin with. Sometimes there are issues of secondary gain: a woman tells a man who has something she wants that unless he gives it to her, she is going to "cry rape". This works often enough that a lot of women consider this a realistic way of getting their way, whether it's custody of their children in a divorce, or a raise in salary at work, or some other dishonest of advancing their position in life. In other cases, it has little rational basis: such as Tawana Brawley's case, where she faked her rape to get out of being punished by her parents for breaking curfew. The closer you look, the uglier it gets. 

What makes it worse is that these increasingly common fake complaints makes it harder for women who have actually suffered sexual assaults to be taken seriously. Let's be honest, everyone in America is aware that a lot of women have lied about sexual assault for reasons of personal gain. But the so-called campus rape crisis--which is, in my opinion, a serious problem if not an actual crisis--is proving to be much harder to address than it should be because of the persistent perception that a lot of women lie about sexual assault for personal gain. 

The list of men whose lives have been uprooted, trashed, and destroyed by false allegations of sexual misconduct in the media is staggering... and all of these occurred even with the protections of the Constitution in place. The women who bring these false accusations receive little or no punishment for the damage they have done to the men they have falsely accused. But it's going to get worse. 

Under a Hillary Clinton administration, I think it will be safe to assume that women will be even more encouraged to bring false accusations than they are presently, the same way black Americans have been encouraged under the Obama administration to commit and  incite crime. Look at the people she has surrounded herself with so far: a veritable feminist dream team of far-left feminists. You think these people are going to fight for a fair and balanced approach to dealing with relations between the sexes? 

Hillary has vowed in public to repeal, remove, or otherwise gut the Second Amendment of our Constitution. There is no reason to doubt that she will try. It's a major plank in her election platform. After watching Obama get away with flagrantly flouting the Constitution because he is black and nobody criticizes him for fear of being labelled "racist", it is reasonable to expect that Hillary will get away with the same behavior because she is a woman and nobody will criticize her policies for fear of being labelled "sexist". The last 8 years have showed us that this is clearly possible. Hillary and her supporters could well get away with abolishing American's right to keep and bear arms. She could accomplish it easily by playing the sexist card, and the checks and balances that should curtail her lawless actions will roll over and play dea. 

If Hillary succeeds in destroying the Second Amendment, what's to stop her from repealing, removing, or gutting any other one of the Bill of RIghts? The First Amendment is clearly under attack; free speech is limited if it's deemed "hate speech", and nowadays even if it offends someone. Given her statements and track record so far, what's to say that she doesn't repeal the 1st, 2nd, and 4th, and then add new Amendments giving women (or Muslims, or blacks, or any other group she is being paid by) rights that do not apply to anyone else? It seems to be her goal to do so. 

A Hillary Clinton presidency could very well lead to the swift and terrible demise of the American republic and our cherished rule of equality under the law. 

And that's why Hillary scares me. 

Share this post

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

A couple of months ago I found this little meme on Facebook, copied it, and set it aside. I stumbled across it yesterday, and on the spur of the moment I plastered it up on the TAS Facebook page, and then went out to do some Real Life. You know, that thing you do when you go outside, and shoot Real Guns? Yeah. I did that. Twice.

So imagine my surprise when I checked in on the TAS FB page and found that my throwaway post from yesterday is the most widely viewed/shared FB post I've ever put up, and it's still climbing. I guess that's what you call viral? Dunno. I'm a real-life guy more than cyber-guy.

 

Guns training

 

 

Pretty funny, right? I thought so too. And I really like the actor, Sean Bean (is that pronounced "SEEN BEEN", or "SHAWN BAWN"? Ahem. Sorry. Just kidding.) The guy's a great actor, even though he played the wannabe ex-SAS stolen valor guy in everybody's favorite merc movie, Ronin

But I have to admit a couple of things here.

First thing, I have been buying/trading a lot more guns lately than I usually do, and what with one thing and another (mostly that Real Life shit getting in the way of having fun, i.e., having to work to pay bills)  I haven't been getting to the range much at all for the past 6 months. Ugh. I hate to admit it.  But it's true. Yesterday and today were the first times I did any kind of workout with my daily carry pistols since last summer, before I went to Africa to shoot Cape Buffalo and such. 

But I rectified that. I went back and did one of my basic 250-round pistol routines, which includes strong hand only, weak hand only, simulated barricade shooting, and freestyle (2-hand isosceles) shooting at 4, 7, 10, 15, and 25 yards. I hate shooting at 25 yards, just in case you wondered if you were the only one. But it's good for you. Sort of like doing your 3X weekly gym routine. Which most of us hardly ever do, but we say it like we really DO do it, to make other people feel guilty. Anyways, I shot some at 25 yards. I did a 250 round workout with my daily carry pistola, and then did a 50-round BUG routine with my S&W J-frame. Finished up with a couple of Bill Drills, then a slow-fire sequence on target heads at 15 yards to finish up with some good marksmanship, as my old mentor Bob Houzenga used to teach us to do. 

Second thing, I did some rifle work. Not AR-15 or M4 or other tacticool shit. I did some basic work with  a couple of real rifles, a pair of Savage 99's: one in 308 Win and the other in 358 Win. Worked some from the bench, then some from a barricade position, and then some from prone. Just FYI, shooting a steel-buttplate 358 Winchester prone is not comfortable. I just bought that rifle, and collector value be damned, I'm putting a Limbsaver recoil pad on that mofo before it kills me. 

The cool thing was this. The cool thing was that despite having almost 6 months off pistol shooting, and 3 months off rifle shooting, I got back in my groove in a surprisingly short time frame. And that is something I have to give credit to all the men and women I've trained with over the past several decades. Folks who have pushed me, made me a better shooter. Pat Rogers, David Maglio, Bob Houzenga, Dennie Reichard, Mas Ayoob, Steve Denney, Henk Iversen, Dennis Carroll, Tim Lau, Dave Elderton, and many, many more. And I have to give credit to IDPA and IPSC for giving me incentive to shoot better, not just to win matches and trophies, but to be a better combatives shooter. You know, in case some day I would actually have to fight with my gun(s). 

And a whole bunch of that has stuck with me. Even through a long hiatus, through the wrecked shoulder I tore up in my motorcycle wreck 2 years ago, through my knee replacements, through all of it. The point is clear: if you shoot enough, if you shoot properly enough, it will stick with you. You won't have to work as hard to come back to your basic standard if you've put in the years of training.

So... am I back to my State-Championship winning form? Not hardly! I'll have to put in the 10,000+ rounds I 've put in every year I've been "competitive" if I want to get there. But what today told me was that, yes, my past training has not left me. I can still do this, with a little discipline and a lot of diligence.

But here's the kicker, boys and girls:  if you haven't taken all that training, you can't do what I did yesterday and today. You can't get back to a place you've never been. The only way to get there is to suck it up, pay the bill, and take the training. And take some more. And then take some more. And then shoot a lot on your own, and then go back and take even more training. 

So yeah, I 'fessed up that I messed up. I bought a bunch of guns, and I didn't shoot them much. And I didn't take any training. And now I have to get back to my center and stop buying new guns and shooting the lights out with the guns I've got.

I like that challenge.

Oh, and yeah, I did have an uncle in the military. Seven of them, actually. Three Air Force, 2 in the Navy, and 1 Airborne Infantry.  Two of them gave their lives for King and Country, one in 1941 and one in 1944. All the rest save one have passed on. I cherish and honor their memory and their service. But I don't lean on their reputations when it comes to my own competence at arms. 

Share this post

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

Last week I shared a post on Facebook by Massad Ayoob in which he stated that your choice of defensive handgun caliber does matter.  I strongly agree with Mas on this, and said so, which caused heads to explode all over the interweb... so as promised, here's the full explanation.

First, this is what I have been saying in my lectures/classes/training (and in my book) for 16 years: "If you are putting your bullets into your adversary's critical anatomy, it doesn't matter whether you're shooting a 9mm or a 45."  This is NOT THE SAME THING as saying, "a 9mm is as good as a .45 any day, any way," which some people claim I have said.

I'll tell you how this misunderstanding came about.

In the late 90's, most PD's were transitioning from 9mm handguns to .40 caliber or even .45 caliber. The thought process was that bigger had to be better, because the results in officer-involved shootings with 9mm handguns were so appallingly poor. Rather than blame bad shooting--which comes from bad training--these departments blamed the 9mm cartridge, and hoped to fix the problem by changing hardware. Such thinking is sheer lunacy, and the results have been predictably poor! 

I have always maintained--and the data bear me out--that the caliber you shoot the bad guy with is far less important than what part of the bad guy you shoot. Shot placement trumps caliber, when we're talking about service caliber handguns. Rather than investing in new guns chambered for a bigger cartridge, I have continually advised PD's (and civilians) to invest their money in better training so that the guns and bullets you've already paid for will be more effective. Unfortunately, the general mentality among PD's and most gun-carrying civilians fails to acknowledge the need for good training.

In other words: if you are highly and effectively trained, it doesn't matter a whole lot what caliber of handgun you're required to carry for duty or personal use. Unfortunately, a whole bunch of people have ignored the first half of that statement: "if you are highly and effectivley trained..." The corollary is this: if you are lazy and untrained, your performance in a gunfight will suck no matter what caliber you're using.

Anyways, the upshot of all this nonsense is that now we have folks saying that the experts (which apparently includes me) say there's no difference between a 9mm and a 45 ACP bullet/handgun. Which is a huge misrepresentation of the case!

Look:  there are very real differences between the more powerful handgun calibers and guns and their less powerful brethren, and if you ignore those differences, you may do so at your peril. It is simply nonsense to say that a 9mm is equivalent to a 45 ACP, or vice versa. The physics alone should tell you that. And there are significant differences in performance between them which are very real.

For example, I have known for years that, generally speaking, a heavier .45 caliber bullet will perform much better than a lighter caliber/bullet after passing through a hard intermediate barrier than will a lighter 9mm bullet. The greater momentum of the heavier 230 gr bullet, among other things, is the main reason for this performance difference. This is one of the reasons I hunt deer, feral hogs, coyotes, and other critters with a .45 caliber handgun: they punch through hair & hide better than lighter, smaller bullets. I've proven it to my satisfaction on game, and on the firing range, shooting water jugs through windshields, and paper targets through automobile doors and windows in law enforcement firearms training.  And I've seen it demonstrated by ballistics experts in the lab, too.

A few years ago I was at the annual SOTA (Special Operations Training Association)  conference in Minnesota. Federal/ATK had sent their ballistics testing guru, Johann Boda, to offer a class in ballistics testing, and the conference organizers asked me to sit in as adjunct instructor. We had a lot of fun busting caps into gelatin blocks, and more than a few eyebrows were raised by some of the results. (Just as an aside, I refuse to recommend any 380 ACP pistol at any time for personal defense, largely on the basis of the appalling performance of EVERY factory round I've ever tested, and all of those we ran in that class.)  We shot gelatin blocks under all manner of circumstances that day, including intermediate barrier tests. By the end of the day, it was readily apparent that while some smaller caliber bullets will pass through tough intermediate barriers and still do the necessary ballistic work on a gelatin block on the other side, all .45 caliber projectiles tested (200 gr and 230 gr) performed to the FBI standard every time.

This is a very real difference in performance, my friends. It's not made-up internet mall ninja bullshit. It's real, it's verifiable, it's reproducible. But the crucial question that begs for an answer is this: will it make a difference to you should you get into a real-world deadly force situation?

And that, my friends, is anybody's guess.

Because, as a friend of mine who has been to "the dance" more than a few times, you get the gunfight you get, not the gunfight you'd like to have. You have to fight with what you've got, no more, and hopefully no less.  

There are obvious advantages to carrying a 9mm pistol rather than a 45 caliber pistol. A small 9mm pistol can be really, really small, and really, really concealable. My teeny-weeny 9mm "always" gun is a Kahr PM9, which is so small and light I don't even pay attention to it, the same way I don't pay attention to my belt or my shoes after I put them on in the morning. Also, the 9mm will hold more rounds in the same weight/size gun as a larger caliber pistol, which means you can fire more times without reloading if necessary. This won't matter in the "average" defensive shooting, which supposedly involves one good guy, one bad buy, fewer than 5 bullets, and elapses in about 3-5 seconds. Under such circumstances,  just about any ol' gun will do. The problem is that in this day, the age of terrorist action,  the likelihood of having to defend against multiple assailants, at variable distances, with the possibility of having to fight through intermediate barriers, is a lot higher than it used to be. So most of us are making the decision to carry something better suited to a complex tactical situation than a 5-shot pocket revolver.

Whether you choose a hi-cap 9mm, a single-stack 1911, or something else in between (or outside the box entirely!) is, in the year of our Lord 2016 in America entirely up to you. It's up to you to know the strengths and weaknesses of any weapon system or ammunition you might choose to carry, and since it's your life on the line should the flag go up, I strongly urge you to study hard and choose wisely. Pick a platform that works for your real or anticipated mission profile, then train to use that platform/system to the highest standard of proficiency. Whether it's 9mm, 40 S&W, or 45 ACP, take your pick and live with it.  

So let's recap.

The most important weapon you have is your defensive mindset. Second priority is to ensure you're trained to a level of at least conscious competence with your chosen defensive weapon(s). Choice of weapon and caliber is your third priority.

The first and second priorities boil down to training. You need to be trained at the beginning of your defensive life, and you need periodic retraining to stay current & proficient. Know the circumstances under which you might anticipate an attack, and have a pre-planned defense in place to meet it. Know your adversary's vital target anatomy, so you know where to place your bullets. And be proficient with your firearms, so you can reliably place your bullets where they count.

Only after these priority challenges have been met should you concern yourself with what firearm, caliber, or ammunition you will carry.  

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

Unbelievable. 

Apparently there is some mall-ninja bad-ass-wannabe out there in cyberland, tapping away at  his keyboard in his Mommy's basement, making claims that snipers should deliberately target the kidneys of their targets. I've run across references to this claim here and there, but this morning I was blown away by the following email:

Dr. Williams:

I am a nursing student  and one of my assignments is to explain why a sniper would want to shoot the kidneys (keeping the focus on the short term). My research has revealed that hemorrhage and pain are the major reasons to target the kidneys directly, with cavitation of the abdominal cavity as a secondary effect. If you have any input on the matter it would be greatly appreciated.

J.A.

Yep. That's a real email. Somebody actually sent that to me. I won't print the writer's name, in case he isn't just some internet whack-job, but is actually a real nursing student who is honestly seeking knowledge. But I will print my reply to this young seeker of knowledge:

J.A.:

I have no idea who would advise making the kidneys a target for snipers. It makes no physiological or tactical sense whatsoever, and as such I suspect it's a fiction made up by poseurs who have little or no tactical training and almost certainly no actual killing experience, either animal or human. 

Military snipers train to incapacitate their targets with a single shot. Incapacitation on the battlefield is highly congruent with rapid death of the target. Centerfire rifle bullets are designed to produce incapacitating injury as quickly as possible. Incapacitation by GSW entails putting the bullet into the primary or secondary target anatomy. The primary target is the CNS, and the secondary target is the cardiovascular system that supports the CNS. The kidneys are part of neither. The kidneys are small, deep in the body, and in anatomic locations that medically-untrained snipers would have significant difficulty visualizing in the 3D human body. As such, deliberately targeting the kidneys is so far from practicable I actually laughed out loud in disbelief when I first read your email. 

Let me be perfectly clear: shooting an enemy combatant anywhere other than the CNS/CV bundle target zones would be, first, a failure to fulfill the tactical mission (incapacitate your target asap), and second, wanton cruelty. This is at best comic-book mall-ninja material, and should be rejected out of hand. 

I strongly urge you to tell whoever gave you this "assignment" that it is nonsense and should be rejected as complete and utter bovine excrement.

Sincerely, etc. 

Now, I do not believe that J.A. is actually a nursing student, nor that s/he was given this assignment by an instructor. I expect that in most non-violent gun-free-zone universities in the USA today, giving such an assignment would get an instructor shit-canned by the Dean of Faculty in record time.

But since there are untrained wannabes running around the internet advocating "the kidney shot" as a legitimate tool for the tactical toolbox, let me underscore my letter, above, once again:  THIS IS UTTER BULLSHIT.

J.A., tell your pals to buy a copy of my book and read it. If you have any questions when you've done that, I strongly urge you to go down to your nearest U.S.M.C. recruiting office and enlist. Complete a 4-year tour of duty, and when you get back home if you have any further questions feel free to come to one of my classes and ask me face to face. Until then, stop propagating bullshit.   

 

Share this post

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
December  2017
S M T W T F S
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            
Screen shot of Dr. Williams being interviewed by Police One TV