New Arizona Law Aids Ill Kids: A new law in Arizona authorizes
compassionate transfers of hunting tags to children who are battling
life-threatening illnesses.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0807newlaws-hunting07.html
---
Time To End National Park Gun Ban: Article describes the hazards of
conducting scientific research in National Parks and National Monuments
in the vicinity of Arizona's border with Mexico.
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/news/87558.php
---
NRA Has First Jewish President: Jewish News Weekly of Northern
California offers an interesting view of Sandra Froman, an Arizona
resident who was born and raised in San Mateo County CA.
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/26571/format/html/displaystory.html
---
From The Fifty Caliber Institute: FCI disputes JPFO's concern about
armor-piercing ammo restrictions in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in
Arms Act.
http://www.fiftycal.org/news.august.2005.php#s397050805
---
From Force Science Research Center:
I. NEW FINDINGS EXPAND UNDERSTANDING OF TUNNEL VISION, AUDITORY BLOCKING &
LAG TIME
Brain researchers at Johns Hopkins University have shed new light on the
auditory blocking and tunnel vision officers often experienced during
deadly encounters, while researchers at the University of Utah have
surfaced new information related to lag time.
In both cases, the findings will help advance studies at the Force Science
Research Center regarding officer behavior during shootings.
The Hopkins study, led by Dr. Steven Yantis, a professor in the Dept. of
Psychological and Brain Sciences, tracked how the human brain handles
competing demands for attention.
In a neuroimaging lab, adults ranging in age from 19 to 35 were asked to
view a rapidly changing computer display of multiple numbers and letters
while listening through headsets to 3 voices simultaneously speaking
numbers and letters. This was intended to simulate "the cluttered visual
and auditory input people deal with every day." Using sophisticated imaging
equipment, Yantis and his team recorded the subjects' brain activity.
They found that when the subjects directed their attention to visual tasks
("tunneling in" on the computer screen), the parts of the brain that record
auditory stimuli registered decreased activity. By the same token, when
they focused on listening to spoken messages, brain areas that respond to
visual images showed diminished activity.
In effect, when a subject concentrated on one source of sensory
input--looking at something, in this case--that essentially "turned down
the volume" on the part of the brain that monitors hearing. And vice versa.
As Yantis puts it:
"When attention is deployed to one modality, it necessarily extracts a cost
on another modality. The brain can't simultaneously give full attention to
both."
Yantis uses this finding, reported in last November's issue of the Journal
of Neuroscience, to explain why cell phone conversations diminish a
driver's visual acuity for what's happening on the road. But Dr. Bill
Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at
Minnesota State University-Mankato, sees important law enforcement
implications.
"This explains why officers defending themselves in a shooting may not hear
things accurately--or at all," he told Force Science News. "Their intense
focus on a powerful visual stimulus--a threat to their life--causes their
brain's hearing receptors to shut down.
"We've known for a long time that shooting survivors often don't hear their
rounds going off, can't remember hearing their partner screaming in their
ear, may have perceived their gunshots as puny pops and so on--many sound
distortions or omissions. Now we know why this so-called auditory blocking
takes place.
"Likewise, we understand why they may not see something within their field
of vision--where their partner was standing, where civilians were--when
they are focused on listening to audible stimuli. And we know that these
phenomena are real, an unavoidable part of the human condition, not just
something cops imagine."
In a web-posted video explaining his experiments, Yantis references work at
the University of Utah that, like his study, would seem to most civilians
to have primarily road safety implications.
(The video can be accessed at:
www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/audio-video/brain.html.
You can click on the photo of Professor Yantis to launch the video or click
the link at the end of the printed news release.)
At Utah, researchers monitored subjects talking on a cell phone while
"operating" a visual driving simulator. This study measured reaction time
and found, for example, that a driver's reaction to the brake lights of a
car ahead is "significantly slower" if he or she is engaged in a phone
conversation.
Lewinski believes this finding, too, "has important law enforcement
implications, concerning the impact of distraction. In this case, if you
are listening to something (a cell phone conversation) it will delay your
reaction to something that occurs in your visual field."
But distractions within a particular sensory realm--within your visual
field, say--will produce delays, too, he points out. "If you are focused on
watching one thing you won't detect changes as rapidly in the other parts
of your visual field that you aren't concentrating on.
"For example, if you are intently watching a suspect's right hand because
you think he might produce a weapon there and instead he comes up with a
weapon in his left hand, your reaction time will be significantly impaired."
In the practical world of the street and in court the ramifications of
these perceptual studies are "profound and wide ranging," Lewinski stresses.
They show, for instance, how "dealing with multiple suspects in a
high-stress encounter presents an extreme challenge to you as an officer.
Not only will you be able primarily to see only what you are focused on at
any given moment but your own brain may sabotage or delay your ability to
perceive and react to threats outside your immediate focus. If you're not
anticipating a threat from beyond your point of concentration, you can be
caught flat-footed and be way behind the reactionary curve when a threat is
presented."
Moreover, you may be held to unrealistic standards in court or during
departmental investigations after a major use of force if the persons
probing or judging your actions don't understand the psychological
influences involved. "People questioning you are seriously deluding
themselves if they think you can perceive, pay attention to, react to and
remember everything with clarity and precision, even if it happened
directly in front of you," Lewinski says.
"The reality is that most of us are pretty poor-in fact, incapable-of
perceiving and recording everything that occurs to us at any particular
moment. Not perceiving the totality of an event is how we normally operate.
Even in non-stress situations, not to mention a life-threatening
confrontation, once we focus on anything, even if it's a thought in our own
head, we significantly compromise our ability to perceive and remember what
else is occurring around and to us.
"The uninformed person will wonder why in a lethal situation you can't
remember how you moved or shot or how many rounds you fired or the movement
of the very person you are shooting at to save your life.
"The bottom line of Dr. Yantis' work is that the brain has limited capacity
for paying attention and recording what it perceives. It shifts among
competing stimuli to accommodate what seems most important, and blocks out
the rest.
"In reality, you may be capable only of vague generalizations after an
experience like a shooting. Those investigating or judging you need to
realize you are not feigning lack of memory. Details that were not
important to your survival during the microseconds of a shooting may not
have been recorded. You will simply remember what you were focused on at
the time, not what someone who was not there at the moment of crisis may
think later is important."
Part of FSRC's mission is to research how officers can cope with the
phenomena revealed in the university studies cited above. A number of
experiments are underway or planned at the Center to explore perception and
reaction time in complex new ways, Lewinski says, and these latest studies
will assist in that research. "Later," he says, "we will investigate how
training can best be designed to help officers better overcome the
challenges they face."
For a more complete discussion of the recent university studies and their
implications for law enforcement, go to:
http://www.forcesciencenews.com/visuals/newdev.pdf
There you'll find a special report Lewinski has prepared, including a
detailed examination of one reaction-time challenge in particular, the time
it takes officers to respond to a change in circumstances and stop shooting
at a previously perceived threat.
II. FORCE SCIENCE NEWS MAILBAG
We've received considerable feedback from FSN readers about Transmission
#23, in which we reported on the analysis of officer-involved shootings and
firearms tactics by trainer Tom Aveni, a member of FSRC's National Advisory
Board. Representative comments include the following. The views expressed
are those of the writers and are not necessarily endorsed by FSRC.
Training Officer Mike Rayburn of With Saratoga Spring (NY) PD writes:
I've spoken to over 100 officers who have been involved in a shooting, some
in multiple shootings. About half had their flashlight with them, yet it
was never used. I believe this falls back to training, in that the
flashlight techniques we are using are not instinctive and there is no way
to make them instinctive no matter how many repetitions you perform.
FS News Member Norman Goldberg writes:
What an eye opener! I once got chewed out for using my flashlight too much.
I would rather replace batteries than get shot or shoot for no reason.
FS News Member John Bonner with Los Angeles Co. (CA) SD:
We had a low-light shooting a few years ago, where a suspicious person was
lit up by a vehicle-mounted spotlight. The suspect turned and began
shooting at the light and continued to shoot at that as a target as the
deputy bailed out of the vehicle. Light can be and is a safety issue.
Tim Houghtaling, a retired agent from INS observes:
When I went through the Detroit Police Academy in 1977 most departments
trained their recruits to use a pistol in what was akin to the Camp Perry
style of shooting: sight alignment, trigger control, hit the center of the
target (not anywhere on the silhouette). Most also participated in Camp
Perry-style bull's-eye target competitions. Rumor had it that even the hot
shots in California were known to use a bull's-eye to separate those who
talked from those who shot well.
That course of fire included rapid-fire strings, mostly single handed.
Accuracy was the key to success.
My friends and I would go to the range and practice shooting in "totally
dark" conditions. Hitting "the one on the right" rather than the "innocent"
target was the goal. I felt and still feel that it was the "muscule memory"
gained from hours of Camp Perry-style shooting that allowed proper sight
alignment and trigger control without seeing the weapon.
Now we've all transitioned into "combat style" shooting, with small group
or scattergun being okay. I believe the foundation provided by those early
Camp Perry courses would have increased our successful hit rates. It may be
worth the time and effort to reconsider "basic training" in firearms
possibly saving a life--or ten.
Executive Officer Dominic Chan of the Human Rights Dept. of the Bar Council
of Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur writes:
This article is good enough to warrant research that could shed more light
on accidental shootings of unarmed suspects by police.
There is a case like that going on now in Malaysia. One of the questions
that has been raised is whether the officer was afraid. Obviously when a
person is in fear and his own life is at stake he may overdo things, like
firing a weapon inappropriately. Adrenaline starts pumping, the heart beats
faster, the officer starts sweating and there is the confusion of multiple
decisions to be made. Officers who are unconfident or fearful bring risk
not only to others but to themselves.
The officer in the Malaysia case was removed from active field duty because
of poor judgment. If the situation on the streets is war, can we afford to
lose soldiers because of poor judgment?
EDITOR'S NOTE: In Transmission #22, we included a letter from an inspector
at a police academy in Canada which referenced a "natural flinch reaction"
as a successful tactic for countering a spontaneous, close-quarters attack.
Several readers pointed out that this tactic appears to mirror the research
of Trainer Tony Blauer of Montreal, developer of the Spontaneous Protection
Enabling Accelerated Response (S.P.E.A.R. system). However, Lt. J.T.
Goodman of the High Point (NC) PD, for one, cautions that Blauer's flinch
technique, while constituting "a missing link in officer survival," is more
complex than suggested by the inspector and that to attempt it without
proper training could be dangerous.
For more information about Blauer's training, consult the website of our
strategic partner PoliceOne.com [www.policeone.com] where Blauer conducts a
column on defensive tactics issues.
Finally, Mailbag received this from Trainer Ron Borsch, of the SEALE
Regional Training Academy in Bedford, OH, on the subject of tactical
retreat:
Discretion being the better part of valor, there is of course a time and
place for retreat. But the manner in which one retreats is important.
We should avoid more than a couple of steps directly backwards since there
is a serious risk of tripping and falling. The danger from this
self-created hazard seems to increase with our rearward speed.
In speed trials measuring the time difference between forward and rearward
speeds in the combative distances between 6 and 21 feet, we found that
in-service officers range between 17 and 25 per cent slower going rearward.
The longer we remain on the "railroad tracks" by moving straight back, the
more likely our attacker is to catch up to us.
Our unanticipated discovery was the serious risk of falling. Our floor is
smooth and uncluttered. There was no stress other than that of competing
against the clock. Yet stumbling and falling was so frequent that we
discontinued the rear timing for safety.
I am certain if that if a serious threat (even simulated) were the
stimulus, officers retreating by rapidly backing up directly rearward would
unintentionally worsen the threat by inviting disaster.
We tend to project our upper body further backward than can be supported by
our leg speed. Without support, we fall, and the faster we are traveling,
the harder we fall.
The earlier one breaks the back-pedaling for lateral movement, the less
likely they are to fall.
================
(c) 2005: Force Science Research Center, www.forcescience.org. Reprints
allowed by request. For reprint clearance, please e-mail:
[email protected]. FORCE SCIENCE is a registered trademark of The
Force Science Research Center, a non-profit organization based at Minnesota
State University, Mankato.
================
---
From John Farnam:
1 Aug 05
Speaking of clothing... Comments from a friend in SA:
"Drawstrings and toggles on overgarments are gadgets that sell clothing
without contributing to the health of the wearer. Recently, when hunting
in the mountainous portion of the Karoo, I sat on huge rock. When I
subsequently tried to get up in order to get a shot at a springbuck I
had just spotted, I discovered, to my unhappiness, that my jacket was
stuck. A toggle had found its way into a crevice in the rock, and I
could hardly move! Fortunately, I managed to dislodge the toggle
without disturbing the buck. Happily, I made the shot and took the
animal cleanly. I also found that yet another toggle was swinging
against my holstered pistol, making an irritating and unnecessary
noise. These things we can live without!
As is the case when we buy weapons for serious purposes, when we buy
clothing, we should make sure that it serves the real purpose (and that
is not "to be fashionable") and remove whatever is defeating the real
purpose, while adding whatever may be necessary to serve that purpose.
As you are aware, this is a philosophical point is made only with
extremely difficulty when training some women (some men too!), as
fashion is often foremost in their minds. Advising them on choosing
between fashion and personal victory often falls on deaf ears."
Comment: My friend is an experienced, professional gunman. His advice
should not be taken lightly!
/John
1 Aug 05
Retort from a female colleague:
"Okay Farnam, now you've hit on a sore spot. While we gun-carrying
girls are hulking around in bulky shirts and jackets that smother all
our curves, our gun-carrying guys are checking out the less encumbered
beauties dressing in ways that 'accentuate the positive.' We are not
naive about readiness, we're just constantly trying to contend with
basic, and conflicting, issues. I am frustrated by the lack of selection
of ladies' clothes, accessories, and carry methods that allow us to look
stylish and smart, yet be prepared to defend ourselves. I really don't
want to have to dress like a dyke just because I want to carry a gun!
It's even worse for small women, like me. Recently I had to buy a gun
belt that is several inches too long, and I now have to spend more money
and time getting it shortened, because the best quality and most
suitable was only available in men's sizes. Even the smallest was still
way too long."
Comment: Absolutely right. Gun manufacturers have only recently
actively courted the female market. Accessory manufacturers are still
way behind. As I watch young women's public dress today (they all look
"young" to me), it strikes me that some compromise is going to be
necessary with the current generation of "painted-on" styles. However,
people who know how to design women's clothing need to get to work on
this issue. We need our female colleagues to be interested in guns and
to seriously contemplate carrying on a regular basis. When the issue is
portrayed as nearly impossible, they lose interest, and our side loses
another active voter!
/John
2 Aug 05
Relief for Women, from Gingee Brewer of Concealed Carry Clothiers:
"CCC currently features a women's concealment vest. In addition, we do
a significant amount of custom work for women, involving unique fabrics
and finishing touches that make vests stylish, yet practical and
comfortable. Our gunbelts are comfortable too. I wear mine regularly.
It features a feminine buckle that lowers its profile as a gunbelt.
As your colleague noted, there are lots of women who carry, and many
more who should! CCC is prepared to help anyway we can."
Comment: Gingee is a good friend and dedicated to the advancement of
the Art. You may get hold of her at:
Gingee Brewer
CCC
PO Bx 237
Saunderstown, RI 02874
888 959 4500
828 645 2130 (Fax)
[email protected]_ (mailto:
[email protected])
/John
2 Aug 05
I know little about dressing women, but here is some advice from a
female colleague in FL. She carries every day:
"Coronado Leather's 'Hobo' model handbag is suitable for most
circumstances. It has plenty of room, is smart looking, and provides
quick access to the pistol. Galco makes something similar, but
dressier. Expensive, like all of Galco's stuff, but top quality. I'd
rather have a pistol 'on' me, but sometimes a handbag provides the only
viable carry option.
I live in FL, and here is my usual uniform: I wear a version of what
guys do with 'Hawaiian' shirts. I get stretch jeans or chinos and a
suitable belt. The pistol goes on my waist, along with a single spare
magazine. I like Cambio jeans. They come in a variety of acceptable
colors and hold up well. Then, I get a tank top or t-shirt in a bright
color and wear a loose shirt/blouse over it. My blouses are long enough
to cover the gun. Floral designs provide camouflage, and the material
is light enough to wear indoors. Add some fetching jewelry, and one
doesn't have to look dour or grim. Check out Chico's (chicos.com).
Sales people are adept at helping you put together
complementary outfits. Jewelry needs to be creative, lively, and
coordinated with the clothing. My ensembles are stylish and youthful
without making me look as if I'm trying to play catch-up with Brittany
Spears.
Carrying constantly is surely more challenging for women than for men,
but it is a subject that has become suddenly relevant, and women
everywhere need to start thinking about it!"
Comment: It strikes me that all of us (women and men) who carry
regularly need to have a "dual personality." A "public" personality,
which is businesslike and detached, a persona that is not unpleasant,
but that does not encourage "congenial approach." Then, we need a
"private" personality that we reveal in circumstances where we have
control and are among people we know. In a private setting, women may
be comfortable wearing clingy, alluring clothing, high heels, and
dangling, expensive jewelry. Men may appear in stiff, formal wear. An
outfit like that is difficult to fight or run in, but, in a controlled
setting, it is probably fine. In public, however, where we have little
control of the setting, high heels need to be replaced with practical
shoes, and alluring, sexy, or stiff outfits need to give way to
methodical attire.
/John
6 Aug 05
Good News (for a change) from the Supreme Court:
In the latest in a series of decisions confirming the non-existence
government's obligation to provide protection for citizens, the
Supremes, in the Castle Rock v Gonzales Case, have reaffirmed that US
citizens have no right to expect any level of police protection, even
when a restraining order is in place.
Good news? Yes, at least from the standpoint that the stale "You don't
need guns, because the police will protect you" argument has now been
irreversibly discredited. The Court has proclaimed that no unit of
government is obligated to so much as lift a finger to help you, or
anyone else, even in an emergency. The Court has, in effect, said to us
all, "You're on your own!"
Of course, the smart among us have always known that, and have prepared
accordingly. Now, even naive grasseaters will have to face facts.
/John
--
Stephen P. Wenger
Firearm safety - It's a matter
for education, not legislation.
http://www.spw-duf.info
