Thoughts On Situational Awareness And Guns

In and amongst all of the other distinctions we gun owners like to discuss is that of situational awareness, most commonly as that concept applies to our potential for having to use a gun in self defense. I want to propose the adoption of a three-stage classification of SA to better distinguish between the options available.

[Now that I've done all this, someone point out how long ago someone else did it much better. :)]

In reading a recent blog post by Rory Miller, he was making the point that there are visual cues related to detecting a physical attack specific to short range encounters:

There are ranges and positions where someone can stand and hit you without any telegraph. The threat has to be in range (drop-step exception) and have their limbs in certain positions. This is a code red thing, or what Marc calls "1". The bad guy can hit you in one motion.


For the most part that's not true. Even in range, most positions require you to shift your center of gravity (CoG) before delivering power (again, there is an exception for the drop step. I love the drop step). Marc calls this a "two". It will take two motions, a precursor and the attack itself, to do you any harm.


"Three" means the threat has to change his foot position (and the drop step, in certain positions turns all three to a one... very cool) as well as shift CoG.


I spent a lot of time in close proximity to very bad people. More than a few commented on how relaxed I was. It's powerful. Relaxation can be disconcerting, it makes the criminal think that you know something he doesn't. This was why I could do that. Not only could I tell if the bad guy could reach me, I knew, in advance, exactly what he would have to do or where he would have to shift his center in order to attack. I knew when I was safe and I knew exactly what to watch for should the threat try to move.

This is close range, from a maximum of 3 yards/10 feet to handshake distance. Any attack initiated within these distances simply cannot be reliably defeated by resorting to a holstered gun, whatever it's condition or method of carry. For the determinedly argumentative amongst my gunnie bretheren and sisteren, I will happily stipulate that an exception is indeed possible to almost any given general postulate such as the one offered herein. I simply am not agreeable to staking my life or anyone else's on the likelihood of such appearing just when needed most, thankyouveddymuch.

At the other end of the scale is long range - for the design of pistol/revolver one is likely to attempt to carry (commonly concealed) on their person. This is when "strategic thinking" comes to the fore; how attractive a target are you relative to others, is this an actively disputed part of town by rival gangs, any recent "social actions" (read: riots or demonstrations) in the area? Things of that general nature, factors not directly related to you necessarily, but relevant to the decision-making process. Go/no go, alone or in a group only? You can't completely predict specific occurrences, but you can develop techniques for measuring the relative likelihood of extreme events occurring in a general locale during given times or other metrics.

The local Walmart parking lot at 9:30 am on a Sunday morning? Almost certainly too early in the day for most of the criminally inclined segment of the populace as well as the - how shall I put this? - the more socially restrained segment of the Walmart clientele? The exact same terrain at Midnight Friday night watching the drunk college chicks stop in to make a quick purchase? Much more entertaining (ask me how I know :)), but also more likely to attract others willing to seize the opportunistic moment as well. Same business locale, same basic social function taking place, entirely different levels of threat involved. Long range SA, assessing and identifying the conditions that contribute to a threat of violence being more or less likely at a given place/time of day, and that can be accounted for and efforts taken to negate.

For the purposes of this proposal, I'm going to stipulate that these are threats of attack that can be identified from a minimum physical distance of 15 yards/50 feet away, regardless of the time of day or locale. That's a distance of 5 to 6 cars parked side-by-side or three or more aisles away in a store setting. Plenty of distance to physically escape or create a defensive or hide position (with greatest emphasis on the first of these - RUN).

Scenario.

A carload of rowdy individuals get out of their car(s) in the same parking lot aisle you are walking down towards your car. You immediately walk between parked cars to the next aisle over, keeping track of them while not making direct eye contact. If they follow into your new aisle, change to the next, now openly watching them. Consider beginning a trot/side-step/backpedal towards the store entrance instead of your car. If they continue an aggressive advance, dump the groceries and sprint for the store entrance (or car if that should actually be closer at this point). Draw your firearm only if you have no other alternative and aim center mass at the nearest target until they retreat or they overwhelm you (an event not to be ignored - but your gun might be more effective as a hammer at that point). Never threaten, never try to intimidate; if someone intends to attack you it won't stop them and might attract the attention of the one who hadn't quite decided yet.

End of story. Maybe.

A common enough situation that might degenerate into violence and taken to it's ultimate point of potential conflict. I hope the many steps available to avoid or escape are self-evident.

So, that leaves the mid-range of situational awareness, something that makes itself apparent between 3 and 15 yards away. These are the toughest to defend; the least amount of time/distance within which to make an assessment and decision before the attacker's action makes the choice for you. Even someone like myself, who determinedly carries a 1911 in Condition 3 (Yo, Weird, pffffft! :)), has time to draw, cycle the slide to load a round in the chamber, aim and deliberately fire OR make an effort at escape, but not to think about it much. Mid-range threats aren't those that transition from further out (like that illustrated above), but only appear after you are too close to easily decide on a response and take the action. If the threat is directed at another you might have some additional time to make a judgement in, but you can't count on it. This is gun range, but that isn't a cut and dried option to choose.

I've got no advice to offer on this particular circumstance except to note that, absent some legislative mechanism specifically exempting you from it's application, it is a tenant of American law that no one can pre-emptively defend themselves (or some other person or property). There has to be an after-the-fact demonstrable direct threat of physical violence or death being imminently offered to justify a ruling of "not guilty" (or a Grand Jury "No Bill") if you kill someone. Most especially if you offer the spontaneous confession of homicide that is the plea of "self defense", which are the last words you ever want to come out of your mouth should you become involved in a shooting.

If you say self defense at any point during the investigation, you just freely confessed and the po-po are released from any further consideration of Miranda (or pretty much any other rights you had up to then) as regards the admissibility of any questions asked of you, any answers you might make or evidence gathered from you thereafter. Let me be clear on this, if you make a claim of self defense you just confessed to homicide, and assert that the evidence the cops gather will support your additional claim of an absence of any criminal guilt on your part.

I will offer this advice, surrender to the law peaceably, present your identification willingly, and then decline (politely) to answer any further questions without the advice of your legal counsel. Oh, and memorise your lawyer's phone number; Officer Friendly won't be at the crime scene, or during the booking process, and your cell phone will be taken into evidence and unavailable to you once the cops arrive on-scene.

If you doubt any of this last bit, rent your own lawyer and find out for yourself.

It Isn't Just For Gun Control

..., now socialist production planning is for farming too. RTWT for yet another example of the tactic say the same thing in a slightly different application approach to government (mis)management.

Comes in for a good kicking in the comments too, which Watts Up With That is usually good for in these circumstances.

He's A New Jersey Rebublican

Headline NBC New York: Chris Christie To Endorse Mitt Romney Today.

Which is to say that he is only notionally to the right of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Anyone who thought that R = Conservative needs to adjust the ol' pharmacope settings towards something closer aligned with reality.

h/t Drudge Report

And That Gives Me The VC Trifecta

Heard about the Kilted To Kick Cancer hem liftingfund raising effort? If you've got a prostate you ought to be digging deep ... err, lending a hand ... no, that's not right. You ought to be spending money now since a pinch of prevention is better than having your ass ripped out of you later!

Anyway, I put $10 in Stingray's collection plate on Sept. 9th. Me being me (and living in Texas and all), I figured it would be fun to goad JayG a little about the lack of accoutrement's his kilt had. He really is a sucker for a challenge, so that was another ten spot down for the cause. After that, I pretty much couldn't pass up the (help me out; honor isn't really quite the word I'm searching for here) ... opportunity to claim the bragging rights so, third time's the charm if a day late for all that.

Best $30 I ever spent, now cough then get out your wallet and get up off some money too.

More Getting There From Here

[Now with update!]

The future is always just around the corner, and it seems the promise is always outweighed by the challenges of making the turn. The objections range from "how do we learn to do ..." to "what will we do for jobs?" and always seem to wind up with the perennial "what happens to the people who can't do it?". As if I had answers for questions about things that haven't even happened yet ...

One of the regular dismissals of proclamations about the future has to do with how a given technology will be adopted by industry and just people in general. Take for instance the future technology of 3D Printing. This is the stuff of Star Trek, right?

Nazzo fast, Guido.

A little segue here, to take another look at those questions that keep getting asked. I tend not to get all worked up about the how's and what's that always accompany change; people have been successfully adapting to changing circumstances for as long as there have been people. Now, because it's all of a sudden us having to make the change, we've somehow forgotten how? I don't buy it, and we would all be better off trying to find a way to incorporate whatever opportunity we can into out lives instead of objecting to others doing the same. No one is able to be successful at everything - and some of us seem incapable of mastering anything - but the more of us who do succeed at doing so, the more of us there are who are able to help the rest along. Which is pretty much the same messy way humans have adapted and developed throughout our history.

One of my principal hobbies is shooting (and generally spending money on) firearms. It's an American thing. I spent much of my teen years shooting 1903 Springfield-pattern rifles and 1911-pattern pistols and have taken every opportunity that came along to try my hand at whatever firearm I have been presented the chance to shoot in the years since. I'm well aware that the shooting sports and industry is steeped in the traditions and technologies long since refined to achieve the degree of finish and performance now regarded as routine and normal, so imagine my pleasant sense of surprise to read this and this and not watch the blogger have to wade through a storm of objections and dismissal by others. Those old reactionary American Gunnies slipping into the future like it was scripted by John Moses Browning himself.

Actually, I submit that the culture and mental attitude that is fundamental to modern ownership of firearms in America has much to do with why such fantastic-seeming technology, and the individual empowerment it provides, seems so readily accepted. The near-universal acknowledgement of The Four Rules (enthusiastically encouraged by the showers of scorn heaped upon those who publicly violate them) along with the widespread practice of personal licensing for private concealed carry of handguns (in 49 of the 50 US states) has, I contend, nurtured a somewhat self-reinforcing atmosphere of accentuated personal responsibility among gun owners, especially notable within the online members of the gun owning community, that exceeds anything experienced by our gun-toting ancestors. I expect the historically recent efforts to exile guns from private hands, and the apparent rejection of those efforts by our fellow citizens, has had much to do with the psychological attitudinal change that has accompanied the shift away from the "group rights" mindset toward that of individual rights common today and has also contributed to this willingness to consider the unorthodox as well. Whether or to what degree I'm right about any of that, I do think that gun owners seem better prepared to accept and adopt potentially disruptive technologies that offer the potential to expand their capability to participate in gun ownership then other sub-sets of the American populace have so far demonstrated. No doubt the historical attitude of self-sufficiency and independence associated with gun ownership strongly contributes to this willingness to accept the challenges that accompany untried opportunity as well.

What this instance also provides is a real-world example of how disruptive technology gradually transitions from threat to routine practice. Go read that wikipedia link to 3D printing in closer detail; the boys and girls at Cornell University can print food? When is that home appliance going to be for sale at Walmart?

One of the regular objections raised in discussions of this type of technology relates to education. At Phil Bowermaster's site Transparency Revolution I've recently participated in a discussion on a variant of this concern; here, here, and here, with a related post here. How we gain knowledge and experience in using it for some practical purpose isn't only a matter of having it presented to us in a controlled fashion within a regulated and structured environment (to the extent our public schools ever really were such a thing), especially now that the capability to obtain the information is literally at almost anyone's fingertips.

An example of what I mean can be read here. World of Warcraft is certainly one of the most popular time sinks online multi-player games in the world today (can you tell I'm one of the few to have successfully resisted the allure? :)). It is also the forum of choice for a presentation of the latest research findings into individual and group cognition by a research group at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. If that topic of research is of interest to you, and you can gain access to "... the Ironforge Library on the Saurfang server", your attention and contribution will likely be welcome.

The more general education point of the linked post by Labrat at her personal blog Atomic Nerds (and you too should contribute to her husband Stingray's efforts to help raise money for prostate and testicular cancer research) can be summed up best in her own words:

The thing is, though, that what game developers are essentially in the business of is making learning such a fun and organic activity that people pay in real money and real time in order to do it. It doesn’t matter how basic the game is, all that any of them offer is a chance to master an activity at progressive levels of difficulty; Tetris is a spatial puzzle that speeds up. You can see rotation of objects through space as a challenge on many, many different IQ tests. Pac-Man is another spatial puzzle- track yourself and several other moving objects through a maze, complete the maze within a time limit and without running into any other moving object. Any of the original simulation genre is complex systems manipulation and mastery, and the flight simulator became so detailed that its devotees can spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on equipment and the software to do something that has no game goal but is just as complex and difficult as flying a real plane, minus the g forces and fatal consequences. The later Sims games are a combination of resource management, virtual architecture, and learning how the AI works. Portal is another spatial puzzle, speeded up and with extra dimensions and physics problems added.

MMOs take things to the next level; something like Portal is meant to be played out over a certain number of potential gameplay hours, but an MMO developer has to make the game interesting enough, and content extendable enough, that players remain interested and engaged with the game for years. Depending on the game and the size of playerbase it’s looking to command, there are usually multiple layers of gameplay to learn and potentially master; a developer’s challenge is to make the transition between “kill ten rats, get ten silver” to “level up (gradually increase in complexity)”, to “master your class and take part in competition demanding great knowledge of the game and your role in it, teamwork, practice, and research” fun enough to be worth paying money for- and the fun is in the learning process; even very achievement-oriented players walk away if there’s no challenge to it.

EVE Online is probably the most extreme example; the point of the game is participation in a player-driven economy, which rather than being centrally controlled by the parent company is entirely player-organized and run, to the point where fantastic acts of economic sabotage that nearly any other gaming company would put their foot down on is merely part of the game experience. It’s also the only game with a player-created and elected governing political body, the Council of Stellar Management, which exists to represent the playerbase to the developer team. It is, in essence, a virtual state with virtual corporations and virtual militaries and mercenaries who do what is in nearly all respects work, with the difficulty curve to match and little effort made to make it more accessible to newer or more casual players. The work IS the point of the game. In essence, people pay real money for a non-real job with far fewer protections and benefits than a real job, except for the freedom to experiment.

One more link to consider before you dismiss all this as wishful thinking. Al Fin is one of the more consistently well written and wide-ranging of topic blogs I'm aware of. S/He and/or they recently posted about an interesting educational practice the Israeli's have developed called Talpiot. From the Al Fin post:

Talpiot is a program for bringing the best of the best of Israeli youth together into an intensive mental, physical, and military training regimen. 5,000 youth apply every year, and 50 are accepted. Out of those 50, only 40 will complete the training, and be commissioned as lieutenants in the IDF. They spend 9 years total, including education, training, and military commitment ...

... Talpiot is run by the Israeli Defense Force with the aim of creating an elite officer corps which is capable of responding to any threat by the innovative use of the most advanced technologies -- or any tool within reach. If these elite soldiers later become leaders in business, technology, finance, and other vital areas of society, it should come as no surprise to anyone who is paying attention.

Consider if you will an online game community structured much like the EVE example from Labrat's post, that begins at the basic levels of academic instruction and proceeds ultimately (and only really expected to attract the most fractional percentage of the total player community) to some reasonable facsimile of the Israeli Talpiot program structure (or at least it's academic/intellectual content), that is available to anyone who can gain online access at whatever schedule s/he requires and at the pace of advancement they are capable of achieving.

Think it could never work? From Labrat again, consider this Proof of Concept:

More accurately, this would be titled “clever biochemists induce a population of people who do spatial reasoning puzzles for fun to solve their spatial reasoning problem for entertainment and bragging rights”.

If American business entities large and small were to jointly create a mechanism (a straight-forward trust fund to finance purchase/maintenance the servers, etc once the game itself was written would accomplish this - look at the EVE model, management and repair/expansion of the game is a player responsibility), they could fund this EVE-like online educational game to their - and our - mutual advantage. If their HR departments could track at least some of their individual employee's achievements within the game, and a financial benefit for the individual employee was offered for success achieved in stipulated courses of instruction, the pending skilled/educated employee crunch that gets much moaned about might become a non-issue and the question of where the jobs will come from become self-evident. Players would probably have to roll their eyes at the inevitable product placement, but whatta ya gonna do?

Some disclaimers; I don't play electronic games, online or otherwise; there's only so many hours in a day, and so much money to be extracted from the wallet, so I'm all too aware of just how far all this strays from an personal expertise I can claim. That said, I've repeatedly learned new (to me) skills and knowledge throughout my life in order to continue some semblance of gainful employment. If I can pull this off for going on six decades now, pretty much anyone who can see the screen and hit the keys can too.

I will also readily admit that some better mechanism for gaining practical expertise to accompany all the theory needs to be developed along with the educational game I suggest here too. There's always going to be some problem needs solving. Indeed, this may not prove to be a practical mechanism at all, but I contend it does illustrate that a solution to being able to take advantage of the opportunities the disruptive future will present are available to us now. It only remains for us to make the effort to begin the gradual process of preparing ourselves to overcome the risks that are always associated with opportunity.

UPDATE 9/27/11: RobertaX takes a look at this too.

10/07/11: And Clark at Popehat gets all linked up on the details.

10/10/11: Phil at Transparency Revolution points out yet another application for educational games.

Bullet Point Fodder*

Some strategy-related thoughts.

It has been said that Principle determines Strategy which in turn determines Tactics. Yes and No, I think. Better I think to phrase it as: Principle modifies the relative value placed upon the available Strategies, which in turn influence the valuation of the Tactics to be selected among. It isn't quite as straightforward as the first aphorism makes it seem. Strategy isn't determined only by what is acceptable or desirable to the strategist, but also by what the various allies expect/require as well, and all parties are ever subject to the demands of circumstance. Tactics are boring since they don't really change, there are only three basic options anyway: defend, attack or avoid. Admittedly there are several options within each of these but they aren't mysterious either; tactical surprise is achieved through successful misdirection of an opponent as to one's immediate intention(s). Rommel knew exactly what Eisenhower was going to do and had covered all the options quite well. Students of history are aware of the role Patton played as Ike's misdirection of Rommel's preparatory concentration.

Jobs, and Presidential policies to create them, are much in the news in recent months. The influence on employment that presidents or state's governors policies can have is more akin to the influence Principle has on Tactics, I think. There is a link, of course, but it's so indirect that it's essentially impossible to determine a specific tactical outcome from a given policy/principle statement prior to the event. What any leader must do is delineate the boundaries within which all must participate (or suffer "the consequences") as well as to ensure that transgression is swiftly and publicly rebuked. Beyond that, any attempt to influence individual Strategies that conform to the general principle(s) defined serves only to inhibit action being taken at all - IOW, remedial tinkering with policy to influence results inhibits normal market activity due to uncertainty as to boundary placement and infringement enforcement. Opportunity always entails risk, but an uncertain policy principle increases the degree of risk unmeasurably which results in depressed market activity and increased unemployment.

The more extensive a business structure is, the more important it becomes for close adherence to the precepts of classical Strategy. If the CEO is "the Prince", then the corporation division heads are most closely akin to the role of "the General". The CEO coordinates the individual contributions by each of the Generals separate "army" toward achieving the agreed-upon strategy of the corporation. While attention must be paid to the methods utilized by each "army", once again the degree of influence a CEO has over the tactics chosen by a division's subsidiary department is just as ill-defined as a president's is at a national level.

I think most American companies would benefit from a deliberate policy of devolution of authority so long as the corporate statement of principles made clear the limits and the degree of responsibility such authority conferred (read: imposed) upon the individual. It's a very different corporate culture that has a department shift team leader (commonly, an hourly employee selected to coordinate his immediate colleagues activities during the course of a work shift) determining work schedule fulfillment priorities based upon the logistical realities of the circumstantial moment as opposed to the do whatever is necessary to make the scheduled production target regardless of circumstance that is more usually the norm today. The latter results in production runs of defective product and inventory stocking levels that don't reflect current market demands for only two examples. The former requires a more intuitive grasp of the corporation's strategic environment at a much greater depth than is currently the case. It is also fair to say that the latter business model inflicts a much greater false sense of control and understanding than does the former.

Enough for now, and just my view from the factory floor anyway. What do I know?

* An inside joke just for us insiders. ;-)

It's A Good Thing I Didn't Have A Love Life To Start With

Saves me having to choose between it and ... well, living.

Introducing my latest (and likely only) sleeping companion, The Snout, including the warm and wet option to complete the sensuousity of it all. With all the hangman's noose hose and filters, I just tickled the old health insurance for a grand, easy.

What's the sense in living longer if every woman that arouses your interest staggers off laughing hysterically once she catches a glimpse of your bedroom attire?

CPAP my ass; CRAP!

So Much Mis-Information And Confusion

There are two new laws concerning guns in personal vehicles due to take effect here in Texas tomorrow morning, Sept 1.

One makes explicit that anyone eligible to own a firearm may keep the weapon in a personal vehicle "out of plain sight", though with certain restrictions - not on federal property, not on state property used by the courts or prisons, not on schools and hospitals or private property as declared by the owner all being examples. This law replaces an old law that allowed Texans to keep a gun in their vehicle while "traveling" - the definition of which said law notoriously left decidedly vague. This resulted in numerous definitions being enforced in different jurisdictions within the state, but always allowed for property owners (to include businesses) to exclude personal firearms from their property at their discretion. The "traveling" stipulation has been removed and how the gun(s) may be carried within the vehicle clarified, but the exclusionary option remains in place going forward from tomorrow's date.

There is a second law taking effect tomorrow as well. This law (search: Texas Senate Bill 321) specifically identifies concealed handgun licenee's as being granted a limited authorisation to keep handguns (no mention is made of long guns in the act) "locked up" in their private vehicles within their employers parking lot irrespective of said employer's established policy regarding such*. Once again, this law specifies concealed handgun licenced employees as being the only employees subject to this act (there is some disagreement between Texas lawyers and the NRA's as to whether or not this act also extends to employees who lack a CHL ... my lawyers predict this point of distinction will go to the courts for resolution). There are enumerated classifications of business excluded from this act as well as specific requirements of compliance that employees with CHL's must conform to, prominent among these being that the weapon remain inside the vehicle at all times while on company parking areas and, again, stored "out of plain sight". Pertinent here, I think, is that Texas requires that concealed handguns be concealed from ordinary view by the concealing mechanism/clothing worn in the ordinary way, with no mention of "printing", and that "inadvertent exposure" is recognised as not violating the concealed stipulation of the law. Keeping this in mind (with the acknowledgement that there is no case law regarding any of this in the parking lot example), the informed opinion is that exposing the gun to someone else's sight while transferring it from a holster to another method of storage is allowed as being inadvertent so long as the gun never leaves the confines of the employee's private vehicle while the vehicle is in the company's parking lot.

There seems to be a common belief that these two laws are actually one and that the CHL requirement of the parking lot law doesn't apply because ... well, frankly, I'm not sure why it doesn't apply really. I've had several other employees with whom I work argue that "That's not true" or that "it's a constitutional right". I don't know. Added to that is the lack of specificity regarding the excluded businesses. As only one example, my employer uses a flammable gas as part of the manufacturing process of our product. Does this qualify for the exemption regarding having explosive liquids/gases as the primary purpose of the business? Does this particular exemption also rule out the common gas station as well? Don't know yet.

One thing I do know is that it seems to be the habit of the Texas legislature to write laws in such a manner as to permit the courts to define the specifics of application. Another thing I know is that I intend to be very circumspect as to how I go about my lawful activities for the immediate future. And that's all I have to say about that.

*The analogy I've settled on to describe this is a poker based example; the legislature wasn't willing to go "all in" on this first deal of this particular law, so they limited the number of citizens as well as the types of business participating. The "risk" is confined to people who have passed a criminal background investigation and who, as a class, have a documented history of compliance with the law generally and excludes companies with an obvious-seeming threat of potential mass disaster resulting from a firearms discharge in close proximity to the businesses facilities.

That's The Thing About "Target Rich Environments"

In the real world, the targets aren't static.

Or even especially obvious before the fact.

Goodness Gracious

If things get any more gracious around here I'll have to take out a patent of nobility to handle it all.