New Years Resolution? Whats Wrong With This Year?

I've never been one to make a "New Years Resolution."  The turning over of one year to the next new year has held little sway over how I decide to change habits or decide to tackle a new skill, however I can see the appeal from a mindset point of view.  Its a new year, after all and all 365 days of the last year, whether they were full of procrastination or success, are over and the slate, at least mentally, can be clean.  Which is total bullshit.

Hear me out;  there's nothing new about the new year except for a new calendar, one different digit and the last time a new year held sway over the public in any meaningful way was 1999, everyone was partying like Prince and come midnight there was going to be a global computer failure or something (that was a long time ago, so I don't remember all the things that were supposed to happen but fixing it was part of the plot for Office Space, so I can at least thank Y2K for that.)  In reality, the new year means you are still you, your plans, habits and behavior is largely the same from 2014 into the first few minutes of 2015 and beyond.  The calendar doesn't hold such a monumental sway over your dedication that the passage of one year to the next can drastically change the way you think; these things don't happen so suddenly unless you have a Jamestown level of devotion to a moment, which is admirable unless you like poisoned kool aide.

You are the sum of all your mistakes and successes, bad habits and good, the lies you tell yourself and the truths you celebrate and a simple ticking of the clock isn't going to suddenly change that because if it could, you wouldn't wait for a new year to make it happen.  Changing your behavior isn't like changing a diaper, you don't have to wait for a reason, you can do it right now, any time you wish.  The idea of a landmark to wait for change is appealing because it gives us time to continue doing exactly what we want to be doing versus what we think we should be doing instead.  Thats right; if you think you need to change your habit of watching 8 hours of TV a night and instead get in the gym, think about why you watch 8 hours of TV a night.  You do it because its what you want to do.  If you wanted to be in the gym, you would be.  There is nothing so pressing on TV to keep you from that goal, even binge watching an entire season of House of Cards is no excuse, and may actually be the reason Kevin Spacey still has a career (great show, shift fire).

Think about it, when you want to do something, anything, you have all the motivation you need to do it.  From running to the store for a new thingymajig to starting a family, the motivation is reason enough to make it happen.  Oh, the more complex the want the more difficult the path to making it happen but it all starts with honest motivation, which shouldn't be calender dependent.  Is there some ethereal force in December, some chronological specter that will suddenly not be there in January?

Motivation is nice, discipline is better.  We need motivation sometimes to get us to discipline, which is why the idea of a resolution appeals to some people, hell, a lot of people.  In January of 2014 the gym looked like a Roman Ludus; hundreds of extra bodies exploring gym equipment for the first time, getting a feel for the tools used to sculpt themselves into whatever image they had in their mind.  They had all the motivation, nothing could stop them, with resolution in mind they set forth to become something better.  As January fell into February, the motivation was gone and all that was left was those who had found discipline and discipline does not emerge from the cocoon of motivation, it something you have to forge yourself with sweat, time and resolve.  The idea of what you want has to be powerful enough for you to suffer adversity (no matter how difficult) to achieve your goal and the closer you get to that goal, the less the goal matters.  The goal falls away and the lifestyle is all that is left; instead of getting a new version of yourself to fit into your existing patterns and habits, you change the way you think about those patterns and habits, you toss out the patterns and habits that don't fit with what you want.  Its not just a gym thing, its a way of life thing, an approach to all things.  Training to finding a new job to writing a novel or building a bird house.  The more difficult the task we have in mind, the harder it will be for us to find a reason to start it.  We are comfortable in routine, in what we know; the new and what we think of as hard leaves us with all sorts of reasons to not start right now, to wait a while, to set a resolution to begin soon.  We are creatures of habit, after all and those habits allow us to make excuses, to bemoan not having enough time or energy to do something, but the time is there and if it isnt, we can make the time.  We can stop filling an hour or two each day with sedentary entertainment and instead devote that time to our goal; nearly everyone has that time if they are willing to either move some things around or give up part of the time they spend doing other unimportant things.

Training is what we do to become what we want to be with a skill or a physical way of life.  Its an idea that appeals to us enough that we make a plan to achieve it and that plan shouldn't be calender dependent.  Setbacks are coming, excuses for skipping a day or a class or to not even start are coming; be ready for the lack of motivation or the crunch of time when other life activities threaten to steal some of your time.  Every second spent working for a positive goal is better than letting that second go to waste.  Be it 15 minutes or an hour you can give each day, its going to be better than saying some day.   If you want to wait for January 1st to begin, thats fine, but just like January of this year, dont be the guy or girl who has given up before the month was over.  Grind hard, make time and crush all the excuses until that goal isnt as important as your new way of life.

Flashlights: Just do it one way?

There are enough opinions on any given piece of gear or technique that picking the right one comes down to either what appeals to you or how much research you are willing to put into it.  The thing is, there often is no "one way" but multiple ways and multiple tools that address the same job.  Opinion rules for the most part, hopefully its an informed and trained opinion.

I recently saw an exchange over handheld Vs weapon mounted lights and which to use.  My opinion is that the question was too broad.  Use for what? Should be included but that's just my opinion. Some spoke about weapon mounted being the way to go, others were all for a handheld and each side had reasons.  One of the most common detractors against a weapon mounted light is that it draws fire. It sure can; so can a hand held, a bic lighter, a cell phone screen or any other source of light in the dark.

Can.

I can get in a shooting.  So im not leaving the house.

Wait, I can get in a shooting at home, so im leaving the house.

Wait....

Just because something can occur does not mean it will, and throwing your hands up in the air when the can  realization strikes is the quickest path to being totally unprepared.  Training and proper practice help give us tools, not plans.  There is actually very little within our control when it comes to self defense but those few things we do control are some of the most important factors towards staying safe and effective.  Our gear, and how versatile we are in the use of that gear is one of the most important factors under our control.  I believe that the software is the most important part of self defense, but the software needs adaptable hardware.

Just a bit of history.

The Seely Light; available in
Call of Duty: Olde Tyme Warfare

So weapon lights can draw fire.  Despite this they are continually used by individuals who get into gunfights for a living (the military) and by individuals who may encounter a gunfight as part of their job (law enforcement).  The first handheld flashlight was patented in 1902 by Conrad Hubert, the first known weapon mounted light was patented by George Seely in 1911. Since then we have seen continued advancement in the technology; law enforcement has used weapon lights since the 1960s, the NYPD arguably being the first.  Today, mainly thanks to the innovation and miniaturization of the weapon light by Laser Products starting in the 1970s/1980s (which became what we know now as Surefire) the weapon light is common gear for the majority of work rifles and handguns.

So if the weapon light can draw fire, why is it used?  It sure sounds like its potentially a horrible idea yet its considered essential equipment to professionals and personal defense-minded individuals everywhere.

Doesnt need a weapon light, handheld or even a weapon.
Not because he was born in and molded by the dark
but because hes a fictional character.

Could the distrust of a weapon light be an issue of training? I would say yes.  We know that all light can draw fire, which is partially responsible for there being so many variations of handheld light use with a firearm; yet the potential catastrophic use of weapon mounted lights because they can draw fire has not caused the shooting world to throw them in the trash.  The fact is, proper light use minimizes the chances of the light being used against you in a use of force and the alternative is to...do what, exactly?  In low/no light situations, you need a positive target ID and you get it with light.  Just knowing how to turn a light on/off isn't being trained in how to use it for self defense.  I know which end the bullets come out of the gun, and how to make that happen, does that alone make me trained in self defense shooting?  No.

Doesnt need a light because he is the light.
Everyone else does.

Weapon lights are great tools for confronting known threats or entering into situation where there is a high likelihood of only encountering things deserving of gunfire.  Outside of that, the weapon mounted light is more decoration than help. A weapon mounted light only helps me when the gun is out and the gun is only out when there is a reasonable expectation of using it.  I can not deter a potential threat with a weapon light.  If I am standing in line at an ATM at night or walking to my car in low light and observe an individual lurking in the shadows with no obvious purpose, how does the light on my holstered weapon help me?  It cant.  How would the handheld light in my pocket or on my belt help me?  I can have it in hand, the light itself is not recognized by polite society as a weapon, and I can illuminate that questionable individual and ask a polite question:

"Do you need help with something, sir?"

A quick flash to their face, then pulling the beam down to their chest.  I have already done much to control the situation and diffuse a potential violent encounter.  I no longer look like food.  I am alert and the potential bad guy knows this.  By pulling the beam out of his face I am aware but not confrontational and I am leaving them with an out.  Mindlessly drilling them in the eyes with the beam during the exchange could actually cause an escalation.  A purposeful flash of his eyes ruined his night vision and gave me a second or more of superior situation awareness.  This can easily be apologized for while I maintain ready light control.

No...just dont.

Already, the handheld light is a superior tool.  If I need my weapon, the handheld doesn't suddenly lose its usefulness.  There are issues with shooting grip while using a handheld just like there are issues using a weapon mounted light while shooting.  Its a more complicated procedure that is made easier through practice, not academic debate on this vs that.

Circa 1965 Breeding weapon light; we
have been doing this for a while now.

Any and all light can draw fire, supposing there is fire to be drawn.  Not all bad guys use guns just like not all situations escalate to a point where things can be predicted.  Some assaults are literal surprises and very little can be prepared for.  Personally I prefer a handheld light because in my every day carry world I use that light for many administrative and deterrence tasks.  The weapon light is there, waiting, but the handheld is helping me not to need it.  I guess I will never know how many (if any) violent situations the use of a handheld light helped me avoid.  I'm good with that.  At work, its mostly a weapon light affair because my intent changes.

There are a few things where one way is the best way, maybe even where one tool is the best tool.  Light isnt one of those situations.  Have both, or at the very least a handheld.  The only situation I could say where a weapon light is far superior is home defense and only then because of the situation.  For those that say you cant illuminate an unknown threat with a weapon light without muzzling that unknown person I would suggest a reality based low-light class focused on self-defense, not burning ammo.  Splash lighting, especially indoors, is a very useful technique that keeps us from muzzling things with WMLs until we want/need to.  Its a trained technique and there doesnt seem to be much knowledge of it outside of those who have been trained how to do it, which means those of you who have been trained how to do it are letting your buddies/loved ones down by not passing it along.

So weapon light or handheld?  Both.  Do flashlights draw fire?  They can.  The risk far outweighs the reward when used correctly.

If you want to read more on my approach to weapon/light use you can check out the two part series I did for Breach Bang Clear: Part 1 and Part 2. Or the two part I did for Monderno Part 1 and Part 2.

And since the question has been asked, here is my feeling on the Taurus Curve.

Just dont.

10 Books That Made Me a Better Shooter: Mindset Edition.

If you dont read, I feel sorry for you.  I'm not talking about articles like this (only, anyway) or the latest gun porn magazine, I mean actual books (even in electronic form).  Books, after all are the place where a society chooses to store its greatest lessons and knowledge and knowledge really is priceless (though some knowledge ends up in the discount bin, even better for you).

The firearms and training industry occasionally produces a great work of sound advice, but sometimes they read more like instruction manuals on "if A happens, you must do B" which can turn a lot of readers off.  Now, self-defense is a wide ranging topic that doesn't begin at violence, thats where it ends.  Because of this fact, I tend to read outside of the topic on things that relate to it in ways that can make me a better teacher, shooter or help me more effectively shape a self defense mindset.

I know, I know here we go with the mindset thing again.  Well I have a secret about mindset, take all the academic color codes and states of awareness and throw them in the trash, because thats a borrowed mindset.  The information is useful in an academic sense, but it doesn't help establish a new method of behavior without you first accepting that a new behavior is needed.  These neat little graphs also do little to change your mindset because they are someone elses mindset, not yours.  You are getting the end result of someone elses train of thought instead of taking the journey yourself.  The best way to validate (or ignore) the academics of the color code or whathaveyou mentality is to dive into it yourself as a topic.  So, this post is only for the most interested of readers because there will be no memes, little satire and probably way more words than usual.  Buckle down or close the window.

"10" is an arbitrary number, I could have went with "20" or "100" but I wanted to highlight my 10 personal favorites in hopes that you pick up one and it takes you down the rabbit hole.  I have no suggested destination, no color code or awareness diagram, just a sincere hope that you learn something new. Oh, and these are not actually in order of most favoritist to least.


1: Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century Howard Bloom (2001).  Link.

Jesus Christ, this guy blew my mind when I read his first book, The Lucifer Principle and Global Brain kept it going.  Global Brain from a self-defense position teaches us some interesting occurrences in the old fight or flight model and pounds the second "O" in OODA, Orient.  I read Global Brain when it was still a new release and have read it 3 times since then.  I thought I knew Orient until I read this book.  Want to know what makes you, you?  This is a damn good place to start.


2: The Information: A History, A Theory, A Flood James Gleick (2012)  Link.

I was trying to find out more about Claude Shannon and stumbled upon this book.  I read it, and I have to say that Claude Shannon's information theory  (all information exchange should remain as simple as possible at all times I wrote about it here and here.) is just the tip of the communication ice berg.  Is communication important to self-defense?  Yes; not just the verbals but the physical cues.  This book talks about "information glut" and how we can lose the most important bits of information by viewing them emotionally instead of on their merits alone.  Taking Shannon's theory to a whole new level, this work helps you better understand OODA, Hicks Law and helped me shape my teaching methods when it came to confronting potentially violent threats.  reading this book also gives you new mindset into the Internet Troll and lazy commenters in general.


3: Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain David Eagleman (2012)  Link.

So you want a better understanding of how the brain works, what limitations it puts in our way and how to decrease reaction time and fine tune your methods, this is a damn good place to start.  I really thought I had a firm grasp on reaction time and startle responses until I read this book.  How reliable is your short term memory, long term memory?  How do you harness the power of unconscious competence?  If they made this book into a movie it would star Johnny Depp and probably gross $10 billion dollars; forget what you think you know and go into it thinking this the brain named itself. 


4: Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are Joesph Ledoux (2003)  Link.

I really don't even know where to start with this one, Someone recommended I read The Gift of Fear so I did.  Dont get me wrong, its a great book but its not going to make this list.  If The Gift of Fear is a trickle of information, Synaptic Self is a world-changing-fundraiser-with-Bill-Clinton-Asking-You-For-Donations-Nuclear-Reactor-Destroying-Clint-Eastwood-Movie-Featuring-Matt-Damon-Making-Tsunami of biblical proportions.  Diving feet first into the emotional and deductive activities of the brain, Synaptic Self forces you to look to your own memories and see your responses to fear, anger and other stimulus in a new light.  Not only that, it will help you recognize and call bullshit on hokey/gimmick self-defense techniques as soon as you see them because you, if nothing else, will come away with a great understanding of how the brain processes threat stimulus and what we can and cant do to change its method.


5: Arresting Communication: Essential Interaction Skills for Law Enforcement Jim Glennon (republished 2012)   Link.

This fucking guy.  Jim Glennon is a cops cop and no matter your feelings on cops, hes been interacting with, fighting and arresting violent felons longer than many of us have been alive.  I had the pleasure of listening to Jim speak at a Street Survival seminar and bought his book because he was hilarious.  So is the book, but its a candid, layman-esc look at conversations with criminals and the clues they give you to help predict their intentions, diffuse a situation or avoid them all together.


6:  Just Two Seconds Gavin De Becker (2008)  Link.

The Gift of Fear is De Beckers most well known book, and one that was very successful outside of the "shooting community" though Just Two Seconds is directed at the armed (and sometimes unarmed) protector and takes a look at over a thousand violent encounters to glean the anecdotal commonalities in violent encounters and potential violent encounters.  This book doesnt have a specific mission, rather its a clearing house of data that presents a very unique picture of the problems we face as shooters when "planning" for an attack.  Theres what you can and what you cant control and this book does a great job of showing the differences.  A warning, this book is George R. R. Martin long and its unlikely that HBO will make it into a show staring Peter Dinklage so you will have to read its 650 pages or not get the information at all.


7: Once an Eagle Anton Myrer (1968) Link. 

This is a work of fiction, but so what?  Once an Eagle follows the Army career of a fictional Sam Damon and it is an epic story of leadership, dedication, humility and resolve that spans over 800 pages.  Despite this length, ive read it twice and each time I find unique lessons in personal discipline in the character interactions.  The bad guy (or antagonist, if you want to be literally literal)  is a scum bag officer that Sam cant seem to get away from and one who tries to manipulate, subvert or destroy each chance he gets.  I cant really do the book justice in a paragraph or ten but I can say that if you want to read one work of fiction that will get your synapses firing and make you genuinely angry at situations that never happened and people who never existed, this is it.  this book was (maybe still is) required reading at the Army Staff College and for a reason.  Speaking more to the esoteric nature of mindset than directly to its plan, Once an Eagle is well worth the time to read it.  Easily in my top three favorite books eva'.


8:  Shooting to Live W.E. Fairbairn, E.A. Sykes (republished 2008)  Link.

Before Forward Isosceles was a thing, Modified Weaver ruined self defense shooting for a few decades and Kinesthetics was a science applied to self-defense, there was Fairbairn and Sykes. Shooting to Live is a book on handgun combatives written on first and second hand experiences from the 1930s during Fairbairn/Sykes time with the Shanghai Municipal Police, now before you discount it based on where the experience was gained, Shanghai in the 1920s-1930s was more wild west than our exaggerated history of the actual wild west.  Fairbairn is (rightly) critical of taking too much from the lessons of competitive shooting and trying to fit them into self defense shooting and he lays the foundation for which the modern fight pistol training is built on.  In today's world, the instructors with actual gunfight experience come from the military (not quite the same thing as citizen focused self-defense training) or law enforcement (a bit closer).  Fairbairn/Sykes gained combat-like experience in the urban environment armed with (arguably) less than the average CCW carries in the way of gear.  This one is a must read, some of the lessons are period dated based on the technology at the time but many of its lessons are timeless and show just how forward thinking Fairbairn and Skyes were.


9:  The Gun C. J. Chivers (2011)  Link. 

Unlike Presidents, books still win internationally recognized and prestigious awards based on their content.  The Gun is about the history of the AK-47, but so much more at the same time.  From the reason why the Army went .45 (hint, it had nothing to do with the Moro rebellion and everything to do with John Gatling, a basement and some hanging pigs) to the how and the why of the M16 debacle.  This is a book about gear, and the only one i'll put on this list.  I put it here because it gives a great account of gear focused behavior and how the mindsets behind the weapons drove their successes and failures, adoption or ignorance.


10:  Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies Jared Diamond  (1999)  Link.

Oh look, another Pulitzer winner.  Jared Diamond is probably my favorite anthropologically focused writer and with good reason, Guns, Germs and Steel gives a great account of how society created the warrior class, fostered the warrior mindset and how society works to destroy that which it creates.  A historical tale of winning the geographical lottery and how being in the right place helped historical empires come to power.  More of a broad focus on societal mindset than individual, this book will answer questions you didnt know you had about the myth and fact of power.  More academic than directly useful information, its still an excellent read for those interested in the history of the fighting mind.


I only gave myself room for 10 books, so a lot of books didnt (and wouldnt) make the cut but any one of them can take you down a road that will help you fine tune your approach to mindset.  Books specifically about self-defense are fine, though they lack the depth of knowledge that history and the sciences can give us.  As the mind is the true weapon, it needs just as much focused training as the tools it uses to fight.

As always, if you like it, share it, comment, give it a +1 below and train accordingly.

Co-Witness: How to Most Effectively Negate Your Optic

Red dot/holographic sights are pretty much a requirement on the modern fighting rifle, You really aren't going to get any respect from the internet by posting photos of your high end AR with a simple set of folding irons, or worse, committing the sin of having fixed sights and a parade sling.  Just as important is setting up the best possible photo setting to really capture the essence of how awesome your gear is.

But in all seriousness, the red dot has a place on the modern rifle and that place is mounted without the interference of iron sights.  The first known use of a red dot sight in combat was the Son Tay Raid in 1970.  The Optic was a Single Point Occluded Eye Gunsight and for 1970 they were the cutting edge in communist shooting optics.  Its also interesting to note that the OEGs were used for props in Star Wars, which makes them hard to come by now days.

who wore it better?

It was not until 1997 that the US Army adopted a red-dot for widespread use (the Aimpoint Comp M2 or M68 CCO) and co-witnessing was something that was not optional because of the rifle at the time (mainly the M16 A2 ) did not have removable/foldable sights.  Another reason (one that is more of a point of contention) is that the red dots were not considered reliable enough and co-witnessing was done so that the irons could be used the second the red dot failed.  We have come so very far from the early days and optic reliability is to a point where they are just as durable and reliable as iron sights.  This is more of a personal belief for me, though I can say that in my career I have broken two front sight posts and zero Aim Points, so there's that.

get to the point.

So what is co-witnessing?  Well its basically having fixed rear/forward traditional sights with the red dot optic in the middle.  Why is it bad?  The advantage to a red dot optic is simple; it reduces the number of focal planes needed to shoot accurately.  With a red dot I superimpose the dot over my desired point of impact, use my mechanical fundamentals and boom, four more and I get a drone strike (well, it was a drone strike in my day, I don't know what the kids are getting these days).

When using iron sights I must focus on the rear, align it to the front, confirm my POA on the threat, then go back to focusing on the front sight, thats three focal planes.  When it comes to shooting, 2 is better than 3.

So if I am co-witnessing, what am I really doing?  Using 4 focal planes.  I have a rear, a red dot floating in the middle, a front sight post and then my target/'threat.  While I can ignore the rear sight reasonably well, that front sight is still in my field of vision and the entire package makes the eye work way harder than it should.

Yes, Xibit, you are on now.

Back up iron sights are just that and should be folded down when not needed.  This isnt an epidemic, as the newer generation of shooters who may have never used a fixed sight rifle are coming up with the red dot being the primary experience (which means their iron sight skills may be less than adequate but that's a conversation for a different time).

Now, we have become confident in the red dot sight for rifles just in time to not trust them on handguns.  The red dot is becoming more popular for range toys and as a realistic carry option for your EDC, however the co-witness problem is ever present as the common configuration places the red dot right back between two fixed sights.  

AYFKM? I thought we were past this.

When a slide is milled to accept a reflex sight (red dot) the pistol generally needs suppressor height sights to make use of the iron sights possible. that rear sight is not only much more pronounced and in your field of vision, it is also something we are hard wired through years (or decades) of pistol shooting to pick up on unconsciously.  

The common configuration, beard not included.

By placing the rear sight forward of the optic you will still have use of the iron sights if they are needed but you are able to pick up the dot in the optic first, as the optic is the first object your eye will track to as the pistol comes into your field of vision.

Like so.  its hipster because you probably havent heard of it.

This rear-sight-forward configuration is given sideways glances by some because they feel as if they are sacrificing a great deal of sight radius and therefore accuracy when using the irons.  It is true that you are giving up alot of sight radius, a Glock 17 in this configuration has less of a sight radius than the compact Glock 26, though does it affect accuracy that much?  In my experience, no, it doesn't. Practical accuracy remains unchanged and the average shooter can still get respectable accuracy at distance, though realistically do you really think you are going to need your irons for 100 yard self defense shooting?  Highly unlikely.   The Reflex style red dots popular for handguns are durable, none more (in my opinion) than the Trjicon RMR.  I have been using the RMR on pistols and rifles for a while and have yet to break one despite running my guns pretty damn hard.

like so.

So until someone invents a set of folding pistol sights, I will continue to run my rear sight forward of the optic to prevent the focal plane confusion and avoid co-witnessing all together.  Just something to think about.

As always, if you like it, give it a +1 below.

Home Defense, Crystal Balls and Time Travelers

So there I was, perusing the morning news feeds as I usually do (you may picture me doing so in a stately smoking jacket if you wish) and I came across an article espousing the new Sig Sauer MPX over the shotgun for home defense.

Yes, the author made some reasonable points to why the shotgun isnt for everyone and how something smaller, with a larger ammunition capacity would serve a better purpose.  I do not disagree.  The author, in case you didnt click on the link, is Robert Farago of The Truth About Guns...I have agreed (at least in part) with Robert Farago....didnt see that coming.

....Anyway, the article isnt what bothered me.  Despite some contextual issues with his reasoning behind choosing what is basically a handgun with a stock over a shotgun, it was the comments on the article that got my attention.  More pointedly, comments that leads the reader (me, in this case) to believe the writer has a plan and that plan is based on what they think is going to go down when someone kicks in their door.  As some of them are written, these men/women are obviously one of two things:

1) From the future

2) Clairvoyant

Below, for your reading pleasure are some of the more interesting comments.  

 The big takeaway I got from the article posted a few weeks ago by the combat medic was: A 12 gauge is the only firearm that will reliably incapacitate an attacker with just one shot.

dafuq?

The sound of me racking my Chinese pardner pump will scare the hell outa most lowlifes. $200…except I keep it ready to go with safety on 

He IS clairvoyant

The average, run of the mill home invasion will be committed by people with hand guns, just by having a long gun you will make them the limited ones.

 And nothing beats the sound of a shotgun being pumped for intimidation, especially if you follow this up with gleeful, psychotic laughter. Ham it up, go full Disney villain with it. The psychological effects of laughing at your assailants while preparing a ballistic eviscerator is unbeatable. Inspires confidence on your part, and nobody who grew up watching daytime television sticks around in a dark house with what can only be a heavily armed crazy person (this is supposed to be you).

Plus having a BG hear the cycling of a pump action as he’s in your house is unmistakable. So the butt pucker factor is well,,,,,,,Priceless.

Now, in all fairness, not all of the comments are like this, some are well educated, thought out, show obvious training/experience, or provide a common sense argument to common nonsensical arguments.  Also, some are just hilarious, like this one.

The shotgun is a fantastic HD weapon. But it has the most complicated manual of arms of any type of firearm. It requires much training to become and remain competent in its use. Have you practiced reloading it? In the dark? Covered in baby oil? On a boat with a goat? Have you, Sam I Am?

What I see most of all is people having a plan and their plan is based on what they assume will happen.  Some may envision themselves being instantly aware of a home invasion as soon as the dirt bag enters the home (see option 1, or option 2 as to how this would be), others have an idea about stalking through their home (perhaps in cammo, baby oil and vest like Dutch from commando) to confront and engage the intruder (who WILL be armed with a handgun, I hear).

And of course we have others who like the idea that simply racking the shotgun will scare off even the most brazen of stereotypical home invaders like some sort of reverse pied piper device.  the truth, of course is somewhere in the middle.  All of these fantasies/plans are possible, but how likely?  A plan is a thing to have no doubt, but that plan needs to be based on what a bad guy is capable of doing, not what you think they will do.

The fact is, many people dont interact with criminals, especially violent ones and because of this dont understand the mindset and motivations of such a person.  A criminal, a violent felon, is not some cardboard cutout Hollywood villain that is programmed with conditioned responses based on what someone wrote in a script. Many felons are not strangers to having guns pointed at them, even felons-in-training have likely been witness to more gun violence than the average person (veterans of course exempted).  What someone is capable of is almost impossible to know and all practice and training should be done with that in mind.

Pictured:  a high probability of zero fucks given when threatened with a gun

Firearm choice is an important decision.  Ive weighed in on the shotgun for home defense before and dont see any reason to beat that horse here.  Whats more important is planning of realities and those things you can control.  In a home defense situation there are far more things you cant control than things you can.  For example, heres just a short list of things out of your control:

Time of break in
Entry point of intruder
Your location when break in occurs
Your state (awake/asleep)
Number of intruders
location of family members at time of break in
Weapons intruders are armed with
Initial response of intruders to you

Your plan needs to account for these probabilities, otherwise its a horrible plan that will put you dangerously behind the power curve when what you thought was going to happen, doesnt.

Train accordingly.

Veteran Attitudes About Training: Some of you have it all wrong.

On a Cold day in September of 1999 I Joined the Army, went to Georgia and got a blue cord for a set of Class As I may have worn 4 times during my service.  I learned some interesting techniques for shooting people as part of a team, and a squad and so on.  I went from smelling like the PX moto section to being a seasoned grunt and then 9/11 happened and of course most of the techniques we learned quickly went out the window because that was the cold war and this wasn't.  Something about expectation versus reality.

I officially left the military in 2006.  Its now 2014, almost 2015 and honestly I dont have much knowledge of the day-to-day changes that have taken place in the Infantry since one day after I ETSed.  Unless you are still serving, neither do you.  Dont get me wrong, I take pride in my service but what I don't do is use it as a validation for why someone else is ate up because I know what the eggs taste like in the 30th AG chow hall (cardboard, they taste like cardboard).  I am a civilian.  I am a law enforcement officer, but that doesn't make me any less of a civilian.  If you aren't part of the active or reserve military, you are a civilian too.

I bring this up because I get some veterans belittling the training of guys who have never served.  Look, I get it.  The dude dressed up like Call of Duty doing a 50-pounds-overweight IMT rush is a bit silly.  I wont high five you over the observation but I get it.  I'm not talking about the COD live role players, im talking about what I see as the natural evolution of a pro-2A shooter.

Given the time, the dedication and the money, any one can take classes and build their personal skills.  Perhaps it starts with the basics of the handgun and builds to the rifle; skills are added, refined and adapted and a natural progression begins, sort of like a self directed basic training. Men and women who, even though they have not served, reach a skill level equal or greater than that of your average infantry rifleman.  If that statement makes you mad, think about what it actually means.  I know I shot expert in basic, and so on and so forth every time I got my 40 rounds to do so.  Guess what?  I wasn't an expert, I just shot an arbitrary number of hits to have a sweeter looking rifle badge than the guy who pizza boxed it.  The Army did not give me exceptional gun handling skills, they gave me effective skills no doubt, but nothing to amaze the fan boys.  I was part of an effective element of average shooters.  The size and nature of the line infantry does not allow for exceptional gun handling training; units vary but by and large if you aren't in a specialized unit, you aren't specialized.  But what about those who were in specialized units?  Rangers, SF and the like?  Above average shooters no doubt, but what does that even mean?  To what standard?  Ive seen former Rangers out-shot by an active Air Force Security Forces officer, ive also seen an active SF member out-shot by an IT manager who's closest experience to basic training was being an Eagle Scout.  This may not be the norm but it can and does happen.

Here's the thing as I see it; skill on the weapon is an exercise of the fundamentals of the weapon.  All the dime drills from basic training wont do you a damn bit of good if you forget the lessons they taught you or, and this is far more common, assume that the training you had in uniform somehow remains current and timeless after you leave service.  Your prior training is no excuse for not training.
The very thing some vets make fun of civilians for doing (training) is something they don't bother to do any more.  Combat experience is just that.  Its validating of skills learned and teaches lessons that are unique to the individual and beneficial to a team; some lessons from combat cannot be taught on a square range and this is one of the reasons veteran instructors are coveted by certain training mindsets and shunned by others.  Getting combat experience isn't usually a volunteer decision.  Many people have served, even in war time, and never set foot on a battle field.  Some LEOs go their entire career without ever being involved in a shooting.  We cant always control the experience we get and looking for a gunfight is usually reserved to very specific military operations. If a veteran is looking down his nose at a civilian for being out there and training, I have to wonder what their motivation is, and then wonder if they are staying current on their training or simply spectating while others do...

So you see the dude in the class, the instructor probably has a beard, and there's probably some plate carriers present.  Obviously these civilians are just playing right?  Why would a civilian need to take a 1000 round class, run around in a plate carrier and learn skills that they will never use?  I am a huge supporter of the idea of training for the most to the least likely.  Meaning The rifle for the civilian is for self defense first and its a long road to get to offensive skills but those skills will still be taught at some point.  If there is a technique or skill that can be used to help them defend themselves, im going to teach it to them when they reach that point.  Plate carriers serve three purposes; they carry ammunition, they carry armor, and their appearance pisses off random people for different reasons when worn by someone who never served.

pictured: my favorite military meme, ever.  It really captures the experience.

I've talked about this before, but its something I continue to see, mostly on facebook posts of veterans I personally know and have personally witnessed them trash talk people training based on a few class photos while not doing any training themselves.  I guess the line of thinking is that some skills belong in the military and a civilian has no business knowing them...shit, where have I heard that before?  My time spent in the military gives me exactly zero rights to tell someone who hasn't served where their training needs end.  Where is the line?  At what point do I tell them that's enough, you don't need anymore?  Now if their basic gun handling skills are crap yet they are doing "advanced" training, they should probably dial it back and get their fundamentals in order...that's what a good instructor will tell them and that's what they should do, but it doesn't benefit any of us to rage poetic about it.  Same team, remember?

So to just come right out and say it, you don't really have any place judging the training desires of others, especially if you have stopped learning.  If you think you military service gave you all the gun skills and practice you will ever need, you are wrong.  If you think you are somehow more technically proficient for just having worn a uniform, you are wrong.  You may be able to out shoot a number of civilians, but there's just as many guys who never served who have put in the time to develop skills superior to yours and they keep training.  Its not about where you learned it, its about what you learned and your dedication to continue learning.

Second from the right, pre 9/11 when everything was made up and the points didnt matter.