This is why you should always carry a big boar handgun. Seriously though, this is a failure at every level, even of the innate sense of danger posed by wild animals. It’s a good thing no children were present.

Opinion on South Carolina Stand Your Ground, Source:

As a martial artist, I am passionate about the right of people to defend themselves. And in my years of teaching the martial arts, I have had a number of students tell me about how they have had to use force to protect themselves and loved ones from harm. But they always tried to avoid using force, because martial artists know how precious life is — even the life of an aggressor.

Martial artists believe that one should always walk away from conflict, if possible. This is why we only use force reluctantly and only as a last resort.

Also, if force must be used, we know we should use only the amount of force necessary to end the threat and allow us to get to safety.

These principles are dear to me, which is why I oppose stand-your-ground laws.

These laws allow those who use deadly force to be exempt from criminal prosecution, even if they could have easily and safely retreated from what they perceived to be a threat.

Before Florida passed the first stand-your-ground law in 2005, the United States legal tradition already protected the right to self-defense, but only after a person had done all that he or she could to avoid conflict, including backing away from the aggressor and attempting to retreat to safety.

Using deadly force to defend oneself in a public space was only allowed after one first tried to retreat or if retreat was simply not possible.

Stand-your-ground laws differ from what is known as the castle doctrine, which applies to people dealing with an intruder in their home. I do not believe anyone has an obligation to retreat from a home intruder.

The author uses a lot of the word but after claiming to believe in armed self-defense. His argument is, in one way, correct. Avoidance is always the best choice; avoiding crowds is solid advice. But he goes on to wrongly claim a difference between Castle Doctrine and self-defense anywhere. If you have the right to defend yourself in your home, you carry that right anywhere. It’s your right and does not belong to a location. Locations don’t have rights people do. We acknowledge here that the home has a degree of expected sanctuary in the Bible, but men also have to defend their life right anywhere they may be, thus the right.

The object of self-defense is to get the assailant(s) to disengage. If not being where you shouldn’t solves a threat problem, don’t go. If leaving solves that, then leave. Nothing in the Stand Your Ground Doctrine allows the offensive use of weapons or tactics, which is the argument against Stand Your Ground that always shows the ignorance of the man making the case. His opinion, as stated in this piece, is no different.

And he makes the proportional use of force argument. There’s no way to know what would have happened if X or Y, or Z. Proportional use of force is an impossible standard that will get people killed. But the evidence of either murder or self-defense can be determined. Proof is required, not a would have-should have. Arguments against Stand Your Ground also wrongly assume that turning your back is wise. It’s not; never turn your back on a threat.

Again, getting the assailant to disengage is the proper self-defense training standard to teach.

In response to the headline: perhaps not, but homeschooling sure enough is.

Photo from the article: attributed, artfulblogger/Flickr/cropped/ CC BY 2.0

From the article:

The only thing more predictable than boys being fascinated with weapons is them eventually sketching one in class. But that’s not allowed anymore. What is it that makes a little boy — practically straight out of the womb — take an interest in weapons and emulate gun-toting, swash-buckling heroes? Even doctors aren’t sure. As one pediatrician told me about my then 16-month-old son who turned every stick into a sword, “We don’t know why. They just do it.”

Doctors don’t know why because they are almost exclusively Godless servants of money, turned agents of the State for profit. But “we” do know. In a post here at TCJ, Ignorance, Feigned or Real, we show that inherent sin is provable, both in nature and from Scripture.

Now, weapons are not evil, sinful, or a sign of sin, but necessary for living in a world overtaken by the results of the fall of man into sin. Sin entered into the world through Adam’s disobedience to God, and all men inherited this sinful nature from him (Romans 5:12). Seemingly, the Holy Bible being its own authority and believing what the Bible says about inherent sin upset some lurkers. Oh well. Jesus loves me; this I know because the Bible tells me so. If the Bible is good enough for God, it’s good enough for me. Where were we?

All men are sinners. As one does not have to teach a child to strike another child and steal his toy, so too, the very need for self-defense is evident, even inherited knowledge in an infant. If the child will commit assault and theft quite without any training in the matter, why should he not, evidently in his nature from Adam, recognize the need, yay, the divine right of self-defense to preserve life and immediately, even as an infant, undertake to train himself in this requirement? We see no discontinuity in the idea.

Even a heathen doctor could have told this mother; we do this because we are men, and we must keep you from harm. It is our duty. Seems simple enough even to somebody who’s never read the word of God. Now, as we know, this duty of men comes from God and is evident in nature. Woe to them who makes the State or women rulers of households and keepers of men as chattel.

You can read the rest of the sad tale of child abuse at the hands of government communists indoctrinating children in the ways of sinful effeminacy if you desire. Get your children out of government-run schools!

Hint: The solution isn’t politics; it’s you. Source:

There are the solutions we should use, the solutions we could use, and the non-solutions that politicians have used already. Let me bring you up to speed in a hurry.

The bad news is that we built this problem of mass-murder and celebrity-murderers. The good news is that we can fix it. Society changed in significant ways over the last 5 decades. We destroyed families so many young men grew up without fathers. No one taught these young men how to control their strength and their anger. We closed our mental-health facilities and put mentally ill patients out on the street. Recently, we refused to prosecute, convict, and incarcerate violent criminals. Each of those factors certainly contribute to our problem of mass-murder today.

We can disagree about what we meant to do as we changed our public policies but there is no argument about the resulting outcome of increased mass-murder in the last several decades.

Each of those are contributing factors, but they are not the main cause of the increase. We have to address the elephant in the room.

Something else changed in our society. We’ve read the journals and the interviews of mass-murderers and they told us exactly why they kill. They are willing to die so that they can be famous. The biggest problem is the dozens of 24-7 news channels who now give each mass-murderer a 10-million dollar publicity campaign if the murderer kills enough innocent victims. Those are not my words, but theirs. You don’t have to believe me but you should believe them. We created celebrity-murderers, and we should demand that the news media stop turning these mass-murderers into instant celebrities.

The media isn’t the source of the problem. Is there insufficient evidence that “News” is simply government propagandist information of questionable validity and almost zero usefulness? If the government and its media wanted to censor mass shootings and broadcast 24/7 every self-defense firearm use, they could. But that wouldn’t help the long-term plan of keeping people in fear, so they support civilian registration and disarmament.

It isn’t obvious yet, but we are closing the chapter on the brief history of mass-murders in the United States.

We stopped them. Ordinary people like you and I stopped mass-murderers. We learned to attack the murderer if he attacks us in a bar where we are disarmed. We learned to shoot the attacker if we are armed. We found out that shooting back works really well.

Where we are allowed to go armed, ordinary armed civilians stopped attempted mass-murderers over 104 times since 2004. An armed citizen isn’t there at every attempted mass-murder. If he is there, the armed citizen doesn’t choose to intervene every time. In the last few years we were effective at stopping mass-murderers 94-percent of the time when we tried. We stopped more than half of the attempted mass-murders where we were allowed to go armed.

Other than the gradual expansion of carry rights, the people are fighting against mass murder without any establishment support whatsoever. He offers many points, good details, and plenty of data. Read the rest.

Related: Not surprisingly, there is more than one gun news story out today about Chicago residents fighting back against gangs and other criminals with their own firearms. Good for them.

This one looks like murder. She had the chance to leave and didn’t but stopped, opened the door, and shot.

We’re speculating but strongly suspect that she drew a handgun in the few moments when she first pulled away. Also, it appears that they may have known each other. Extracting yourself from a situation is preferable to what was done. The object of self-defense is to get the assailant to disengage; this was accomplished had she kept driving off.

Takes her time. Makes sure of a clean shot. Well done.

I don’t think this is the US, but it doesn’t matter; the lessons you can learn are what’s most important.

CQC on the Move,  Ken Hackathorn

Ammunition required: 50 rounds, Target: IDPA silhouette, Time Limits: Basic time limits as noted. As shooter skill increases, either shorten the time limits or increase the distance to the target.

Stage 1 — 3 yards/Close Combat Shooting is done from a close combat/weapon retention position, with the weapon already drawn. Fire 2 rounds in 2 seconds. 3X total of 6 rounds.

Stage 2 — 3 yards/Retreating from the target On signal, begin backing away from the target. Draw and engage the target with at least 3 rounds while moving backwards. You should end the movement at the 10 yard line. 2X. Total of 6 rounds. Your goal is to rapidly gain distance from the threat while you are drawing and engaging the target. The greater the distance you are from the threat, the greater your chances of survival.

Stage 3 — 5 yards/Strong Hand Only On signal, draw and engage the target with 2 rounds in 4 seconds STONG HAND ONLY. 3X. Total of 6 rounds.

Stage 4 — 7 yards/Double Taps On signal, draw and engage the target with 2 rounds in 4 seconds. 4X. Total of 8 rounds.

Stage 5 — 7 yards/Lateral Movement How to perform this drill depends on the configuration of your range facility. The goal is to draw, begin lateral movement, and engage the target with three rounds. This should be accomplished moving to your strong side, and also to your weak side. 2X. Total of 6 rounds. This exercise increases your skills at placing your shots effectively while moving to cover or if your only path of escape is moving laterally. Go slowly at first, and then pick up your speed of movement only as fast as you can get good hits.

Stage 6 — 7 or 10 yards/Multiple Targets Facing three targets. On signal, draw and engage each target with two rounds, perform a mandatory reload, and re-engage each target with two rounds. Total of 12 rounds fired. Par time is 15 seconds for auto pistols and 18 seconds for revolvers.

Stage 7 — 15 yards/Single Target for accuracy On signal, draw and engage the target with 1 round in 3 seconds. 6X. Total of 12 rounds.

[Via handgunlaw us]

The below also applies to four-legged predators. Seems like common sense; head up, pay attention, move with purpose, and try not to look like such a sissy: i.e., situational awareness.

Source:

In 1981, a study was conducted which tested [Ted] Bundy’s claim that victims display characteristic body language, specifically in their walking style (Grayson & Stein, 1981). Essentially, inmates who were convicted of violent offences and incarcerated in Ontario Canada, were asked to look at video of people walking. Individuals scoring higher on the interpersonal/affective aspects of psychopathy (Factor 1) were more accurate at judging victim vulnerability simply from viewing targets walking than a sampling of people drawn from the general public.  To put psychopathy in perspective, a 1992 FBI study found that 44 percent of offenders who killed a police officer were psychopaths. Psychopaths compose 15% to 25% of a typical prison population and are responsible for 50% of violent crime.

PSYCHOPATHS EVALUATE VICTIM POTENTIAL BY ANALYZING GAIT

This study has been repeated numerous times with varying methodologies and these studies have all come to a similar conclusion. Violent individuals evaluate victims by the way they move, specifically by the way they walk.

So, specifically what are violent predators looking for? Submissiveness. A criminal wants an easy day. They want to get paid and they don’t want to get hurt or caught. “Paid” could mean many things from your cell phone to your injury or death.

Let’s focus on the fact criminals don’t want to get caught or hurt. If a criminal got hurt every time they “worked” they would have a pretty short criminal run. They want an easy score. They use surprise, violence of action, multiples, and weapons to overwhelm their victim. Criminals don’t want a fight, so they look for victims who they evaluate to as “soft” targets.

Soft targets display vulnerable body language: head down, smaller or constricted movement of limbs, jerky or uncoordinated movement, hunched shoulders, and shorter strides are all body language which indicates submissiveness.

People who display vulnerable body language were more likely to have been victimized in the past. Lack of confidence is displayed in body language. Victims are targeted due to perceived lack of confidence. Victimization causes lack of confidence and that lack of confidence is displayed in the past victims movement. This becomes a horrible cycle causing innocents to be re-victimized due to

Task fixation, such as texting or talking on a cell phone, mimic the body language of submissiveness, thus attracting violent predator attention. Victims of prior abuse also may display submissive body language due to lack of confidence.

A simple but temporary fix to attracting predators attention would be to avoid task fixation in public areas. Specifically, areas which crimes are more likely to happen. Stay off of cell phones, don’t listen to music, and don’t read when moving through a potentially dangerous area.

Next, get training and carry pressure tested equipment. There are only two things you bring to a conflict, your tools (weapons, lights, medical gear and the method of carry) and your training. You do not pick the time, place, or nature of the conflict, you could only control your software and your hardware!

Having pressure tested hardware and appropriate training to deal with violent encounters will give you confidence. Confidence and training will show in your gate, making you less likely to be targeted by a violent criminal predator.

Source:

Mr. Weingarten locates another good self-defense against bear story.

On March 5, 2005, two people were attacked by a polar bear in the remote area of Kapp Lee, Edgeøya, in the Svalbard archipelago.

The .500 Smith & Wesson revolver had been on the market for just over two years when this occurred. The individual responsible for security had one of those big revolvers on his person.

This story was uncovered as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by AmmoLand. The names of the individuals involved were redacted. The original account is a translation with some grammatical and spelling errors.

Paul saw a polar bear coming at a constant pace along the beach towards the cabins.

He yelled that there was a polar bear and went immediately to the cabin door and met Sally.

He loaded the signal pistol with a red signal flare. From earlier experience, he had found that red flares are just as efficient as bangers to scare bears since the red flares are red and visible the whole way, compared to the bangers that are not visible before they explode.

Paul fired two red signal flares toward the bear with no apparent effect.

The first flare was fired in front of the bear 73 meters away. The 2nd flare was fired at 54 meters away. The bear continued towards them. Paul loaded and prepared to fire a flare/banger as the bear closed to 25 meters away.

He saw the bear was too close. The flare would explode behind the bear. He fired it toward the ground in front of the bear. The flare bounced over the bear and exploded behind it. The bear did not react.

Sally was standing beside Paul with the rifle. Paul took the rifle and chambered a round. He fired 2 warning shots right after one another as the bear closed to about 11 meters over the bear’s head.

The bear did not react to the warning shots. It continued at a quick, constant pace toward them.

After the second warning shot, Paul gave Sally the rifle and commanded her into the cabin.

He went to the door but noted that only the light was from the open door.  There was a lot of equipment in front of the door. Sally had managed to jump over the equipment. Paul turned around and tried to close the door. The snow made it impossible to close the door completely.

The bear was very close. Paul used the handgun to shoot two warning shots, in the air, over the bear. The dog was barking at the bear at the same time.

The bear did not stop or react to the shots or the dog.

Paul felt that the bear would get into the cabin if he did not shoot it.

He had trouble closing the door, did not know how to lock it, and did not know the inside of the cabin.

He waited too long to shoot. Read the rest at AmmoLand.

Basic Training CCW Skills Drills, Ken Hackathorn

3 yards On the signal draw keeping the gun in the retention position (Gun close to body) and fire 2 rounds center mass. Repeat twice for a total of 6 rounds.

5 yards On signal draw and fire either 1 round or dedicated pairs firing strong hand only. It is advisable to make some shots eye level point shots with hard focus on the target, not the sights. Fire a total of 6 rounds.

3 yards On signal back away from the target, draw and fire 3 rounds center mass while moving. Try to get to the 7 yard line by the time you fire your last round. Repeat once for a total of 6 rounds.

7 yards On signal draw and fire a dedicated pair center mass, slowly go to ready and scan the area and reholster. Repeat twice for a total of 6 rounds.

7 yards Move from center of target a few steps. On signal draw and fire 3 rounds center of mass moving laterally across the range. Repeat going in the opposite direction. Move only as fast as you can hit the target.

6 and 10 yards Draw and fire 1 round on each of 3 targets placed at varied distances on the range. Targets are placed between 6 and 10 yards, also vary heights of targets. Repeat using dedicated pairs on each target.

7 yards Place firearm on the ground, on the signal with your strong hand tucked into your belt pick up the firearm with your support hand and fire 1 round center of mass. Repeat once for a total of two rounds.

15 yards Draw and fire 1 round in 2.5 seconds. Repeat twice for a total of 3 rounds. These should be very precise hits. (Hack considers this long range for self-defense, however should be practiced.)

With additional ammunition repeat course utilizing your favorite flashlight technique, or add movement away from targets on all 10 yard or less stages.

[This week’s drill via handgun law us]