CNN Blames Licensed CCW For Philadelphia Crime Rate: On Thursday's
"Anderson Cooper 360," CNN's Randi Kaye filed a story in which she
promoted gun control as a solution for Philadelphia's crime problems, as
she pushed the argument that the city's high rate of gun violence was
the result of Pennsylvania state lawmakers voting to loosen gun laws in
the 1990s. And, as if criminals would bother to apply for a permit to
legally carry a concealed weapon, Kaye further suggested that the
availability of concealed carry permits has contributed to the city's
problems.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/10/06/cnn-pushes-gun-control-philadelphia-blames-concealed-carry-murder
---
Those Cold, Dead Hands: ...Who really are the real proponents of gun
control? The drug dealers, neighborhood gangs, the guys who burgled my
Mom's house, Leftists/Marxists, and about two-thirds of Hollywood. That
says something about gun control without even having a debate. If gun
control really worked then Washington, DC would be practically
crime-free, instead of languishing in violent assaults year-after-year.
If gun control really worked then Britain, which banned civilian
ownership of handguns and semi auto rifles larger than a .22, wouldn't
have their armed crime rate doubled since 1997. If gun control really
worked then you wouldn't see noticeable and verifiable decreases in
violent crime in every jurisdiction that has made it easier to purchase
and carry a concealed handgun...
http://www.commonfolkusingcommonsense.com/2007/10/04/those-cold-dead-hands/
---
Voice Of America On The RKBA and 2008 Elections: Gun control issues have
faded into the background of national politics in the United States -
since Democrat Al Gore lost a close election for president in 2000.
Many in his party blamed the defeat on a backlash from voters who
disagreed with the party's push for a few gun control measures in the
1990s. VOA's Jim Fry looks at the politics of gun control as America
heads toward another presidential election.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-05-voa34.cfm?rss=news%20analysis
---
From John Farnam:
2 Oct 07
More on rifle optics:
A student at an Urban Rifle Course last weekend in NV brought an RA/XCR
in 223. On the top rail, he had a close-eye-relief, 4X ACOG. It was
rear-mounted, and eye relief was less than two centimeters.
The XCR, of course, ran fine for the duration. The ACOG surely
functioned also, but the student had great difficulty finding targets
quickly, particularly when he was swinging the muzzle laterally. He
invariably overshot the target and then had to reverse direction and
come back in an attempt to find it in his scope.
When I used his rifle, I experienced the same problem! When engaging
multiple targets, I would swing laterally, but, by the time I saw the
target in the scope, I had already swung past it. In addition, the
scope was so close to my face, that nearly all of the downrange area was
blocked out.
By contrast, my Aimpoint-Micro-equipped DSA/FAL, with the optic mounted
far forward, allowed me to continuously monitor my flanks and rear, and
I was consistently able to swing laterally on targets and not swing past
them.
I know many like 4X, and even greater, magnification, because they can
make out detail not observable otherwise. One gets to see "a lot of a
little." However, when so doing, you better have someone else watching
your back!
My conclusion is that 4X magnification on a serious rifle may be
arguable when one is functioning as a member of a military unit, and
there is thus always someone watching your back. However, for
independent Operators, any optic with magnification in excess of 2.5X is
contra-indicated, in my opinion. Zero-magnification optics, like
Aimpoint and EOTech, are probably best.
/John
(Students and correspondents sometimes get frustrated with me when they
ask a question such as, "Which AR-15 variant should I purchase?" It is
unreasonable to attempt to answer such questions until the questioner
defines the intended role of the weapon. The issue of optical
magnification is one of those role-related ones - something which may be
a neat enhancement when seated at a bench at the range or when serving
as a sniper, with a spotter partner, may not be optimum when you come
under attack while alone in your own home or driving somewhere.
Similarly, spending additional money for a flat-top version may be a
poor investment if you do not intend to bolt on optical or electronic
sighting equipment.)
6 Oct 07
Sling Attachment Points:
For most serious uses, I prefer a two-point sling on urban rifles, with
attachment points on the top side of the rifle, rather than the
traditional, underneath arrangement.
Underside attachment points have been the norm since WWI, when rifles
were routinely slung, muzzle-up, and carried that way. However,
American soldiers soon found that getting the rifle into action from
that posture was awkward, slow, and dangerous, as the muzzle invariably
pointed in multiple unsafe defections during the procedure. During the
Finnish Invasion of 1939-1940, Russian soldiers learned this painful
lesson many times over, as they unhappily discovered they could not
quickly unsling and return fire when attacked by rapidly-moving,
Finnish Ski Troops.
South Africans were the first, as a matter of policy, to abandon the
practice in favor of muzzle-down carry. Most of us have now come to
accept the inherent superiority of carrying slung rifles with the muzzle
down. However, in order to sling the rifle with the muzzle down, sling
attachment points need to be moved from the bottom, to the top, of the
weapon. Otherwise (at least when slung, muzzle-down, in front) the
rifle will hang upside-down! So, we find ourselves today in a classic
"cultural lag," as the vast majority of rifles, even military rifles,
are still being produced with sling attachment points only on the
underside.
The Vickers Sling, produced by Blue-Force Gear, and some others, now
comes with a butt harness that instantly generates a top attachment
point on the butt of nearly any rifle. No gunsmithing necessary.
However, moving the front attachment point presents difficulties.
Relocating the front attachment point to the top may occlude the
sighting plane. Leaving it on the bottom makes it impossible to use a
co-axial flashlight on the underside of the rifle, as the light will do
little more than illuminate the sling! Thus, the best place for the
forward sling-attachment point is on the side of the forend. With
rifles like the RA/XCR, which come with mounting rails on the top, both
sides, and the bottom of the forend, this is no problem, as an
after-market attachment point can simply be plunked on the side rail at
any point. Again, no gunsmithing necessary. To make this change on
other rifles may indeed require the services of a gunsmith, but it
needs to be done.
Just a many new pistol owners never think about holsters and other carry
options until it suddenly occurs to them that their shiny, new pistol
will be a scant use if it is not with them constantly, urban rifle
owners need to think about how they are going to comfortably carry their
rifle for long periods, yet still have it instantly available when the
need arises.
Again, untested gear, great as it may look in the showroom, will be the
source of monumental unhappiness after the fight starts. All tactical
gear must be (1) carefully selected, (2) sternly tested, and (3)
frequently exercised, if it is going to have any chance of serving its
owner as intended.
/John
(I'm all for muzzle-down sling carry, so long as the gun is not long
enough that the muzzle will poke into the ground if one squats.
Curiously, most of the military personnel I see in photographs from the
current combat zones, seem to favor the same sort of front-slung system
I prefer for my home-defense carbine. With a telescoping stock on an
AR-15 variant, TangoDown's PR-4 single-point sling mount, coupled with a
Single-Point Sling from Wilderness Tactical, gives maximum flexibility
for transitioning the gun from shoulder to shoulder, an important option
when working in an environment where you could encounter corners on
either side or might need to shoot from different sides of cover.)
6 Oct 07
Hypocrisy, the curse that haunts Western Civilization:
In our Advanced Classes, I often find it necessary to remind students
that many pay lip service to the Way of the Warrior, but few actually
live it. Heaven knows, we've all fallen short, but professing one
personal philosophy, yet living another, smacks of "Do as I say, not as
I do. "No place is this more evident than among "professing" gunmen.
Here is the way a great general put it:
"You profess to have boldly claimed your own magnificence, yet you act
as if you were worthless! Where are your weapons? Why do you wear them
only when at the range? Why does your professed "plan" include things
that you won't have?
You profess to be the proud protector of your family, and that they can
all count upon you in an emergency, yet you act is if they were all
expendable! Are you really in a position to protect them? How?
You profess great faith, yet you act as if God has abandoned you!
Warriors are dashing and daring, animated by unshakable belief and
righteous elan.
But, you are fearful and confused. Instead of acting boldly, with
strength and audaciously, you exhibit only timidity and disarray."
Again, when we think wrongly, we will act poorly, no matter how
thoroughly we've deceived ourselves. "Self-esteem," when it has no
legitimate foundation, is little more than groundless arrogance. It
will fall apart when the first shot is fired.
/John
(In southern California, I had many students who would take the training
but not carry a firearm outside the home because they could not obtain
the permit to do so legally. In Arizona, and with some students from
similar jurisdictions, where open carry and/or licensed CCW are
feasible, I am more accustomed to the sort of student who shoots a
monthly match with something like a 1911 or S&W 625 revolver yet
actually carries a S&W J-frame or Colt D-frame revolver, which he can't
really shoot well. I learned many years ago, after shooting an
embarrassingly low score with a backup gun in a course at a training
seminar, that my range time should focus on the guns I actually carry.)
From Force Science Research Center:
Force Science News #82
October 5, 2007
Three studies that will explore certain subtleties of force encounters
in hopes of improving safety on the street are underway at the Force
Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato.
One is expected to provide insights into a phenomenon that has not
previously been analyzed in detail, says FSRC's executive director, Dr.
Bill Lewinski. That's how-and how fast-wounded suspects fall down once
they've been shot.
A second project involves extending earlier research into the nature of
verbal commands that law officers give in life-threatening situations,
and the third will measure the potentially dangerous time cost of visual
distractions when officers are trying to focus on a suspect's
threatening behavior.
"These investigations will help us understand more fully the true
dynamics of lethal confrontations," Lewinski told Force Science News.
"The more we can expand our knowledge, the better equipped we'll be to
help officers react appropriately and effectively to threats against
them and also help those who judge officers' actions to properly
evaluate controversial encounters."
For example, he explains, when suspects collapse after being shot, they
sometimes fall through an officer's continuing field of fire. "This can
result in wounds in the top of the head and other locations that in
retrospect may look suspicious and may be misinterpreted as 'execution'
shots that were delivered after the subject was down.
"Knowing more about how suspects typically fall could be critical in
accurately re-creating some encounters, particularly in pinpointing the
timing and sequence of shots fired."
In gathering resource material for both the falling and the commands
studies, FSRC enjoyed the generous cooperation of In the Line of Duty,
the independent law enforcement training organization that is well-known
for its real-life, "lessons learned" video programs.
With the help of ILOD researcher Julie Van Dielen, 3 FSRC
representatives spent nearly a week reviewing all of the hundreds of
camcorder tapes of officer-involved shootings archived at the company's
headquarters in a St. Louis suburb. "Their eyes were glazed, their
tongues were hanging out, and they couldn't wait to get the flock out of
here," says ILOD president Ron Barber.
He was joking-but barely. The team returned to FSRC with more than 260
video clips that reflect officers issuing commands to confrontational
suspects, wounded suspects falling, or both. [For a steady posting of
police-related videos and law enforcement information, see ILOD's
website, here.]
The clips depicting falling subjects are now being transferred to a
time-coded format that will allow for minute scrutiny. "We'll be looking
not only at how long suspects take to fall but also analyzing why they
fall the way they do, which may involve their physical dynamics at the
moment they're shot, as well as environmental influences," Lewinski
explains. "Right now, such information is essentially unknown."
This study will dovetail with findings from a previous investigation of
how long it takes an officer who is firing rapidly to stop shooting once
he perceives that the threat has ceased. Correlating this data in a
given controversial shooting situation may help knowledgeable police
investigators establish that "suspicious" shot placement was more likely
the result of uncontrollable physiological phenomena than of malice,
Lewinski says.
[For a report on the previous study, go to:
www.forcescience.org/articles/ and click on "Reaction Times in Lethal
Force Encounters-the Tempe Study".]
Analysis of the ILOD tapes that include voice commands will expand a
small study conducted in 2006 by Dr. Daniel Houlihan of the MSU-M
psychology department. As FSN reported previously [read it here],
Houlihan and his research team concluded from a limited sampling that
when officers sense that confrontations are slipping out of control,
their commands to resistant subjects tend to deteriorate, changing from
clear, specific, goal-directed orders ("Alpha" commands) to statements
that are repetitious, confusingly vague, and highly emotional ("Beta"
commands).
"Issuing effective commands in a rapidly unfolding, life-threatening
confrontation is a tough challenge," Lewinski acknowledges. "Good
commands can be given when an officer has time and some rapport with the
subject. But there comes a point when he has to channel his resources
toward his survival. He can't take the risks of expecting a threatening
suspect to conform to verbal orders. It's hard-and potentially
dangerous-to try to focus on effectively responding to defend yourself
and simultaneously give great commands."
With an estimated 100 ILOD tapes involving commands to analyze, Houlihan
hopes to get a better feel for what works and what doesn't in threat
confrontations.
"Ultimately, the goal is to reach a more sophisticated understanding of
the capabilities of verbal commands," Lewinski says. "Trainers need to
know how to instill a mind-set that enables officers to issue commands
that focus specifically on what they want a suspect to do, rather than
just emotionally recoiling to the suspect's threat, but that also allows
them to accurately read when the time for talking is over and it's time
for emphatic, effective use of force to stop an imminent threat."
Explaining ILOD's participation in the 2 studies, Barber told FSN, "We
believe in the mission of the Research Center. Dr. Lewinski is a
one-of-a-kind guy doing one-of-a-kind research that has already saved
officers' lives and will save many more."
FSRC's third current study has to do with the time it takes officers to
shift attention during a confrontation, and the potentially ominous
consequences of such diversions.
Lewinski estimates that 100 officer volunteers will be recruited for
reaction-time testing that will involve interaction with a
computer-controlled light board and a special pressure-sensitive Glock
pistol.
One at a time, officers with the gun in a firing position will face the
board and concentrate on a cluster of lights in their direct line of
sight. At unpredictable intervals, other lights within their narrow
visual field will illuminate. When the officers identify a certain
predetermined pattern of lights, they are to pull the trigger, as if
shooting at a suspect.
The trigger is linked to a sensor embedded in the weapon that can
measure trigger pull in 320 discrete increments, allowing position
samples to be taken every 10 milliseconds, Lewinski says.
The goal of the testing is to determine how much time it takes for the
average officer to shift his or her attention from the "suspect" to
evaluate the intrusive light patterns and recognize the prescribed
pattern for "firing."
"If the answer turns out to be 4/10 of a second, let's say, that's
enough time for a hostile source to deliver 2 rounds at the distracted
officer," Lewinski explains. "And that's even without a major
attentional shift, because the distracting lights will be within just 5
to 7 degrees of the officers' direct line of sight." (Later, researchers
will evaluate the attentional shift required to check on distractions
within officers' peripheral range of vision.)
"One practical implication of all this might be to underscore the
importance of assessing a scene from the earliest stage of an
encounter," Lewinski says. "If you wait until you are critically engaged
with a threatening suspect to check for possible cover, for example, the
time it takes for you to shift your attention even for a quick glance
could cost you your life."
Preliminary tests of the research equipment are underway now at FSRC.
The unique sensor gun, being used for the first time in law enforcement
research, was improvised by Dr. Bill Hudson, deputy director of the
Center, and Andy Miner, a faculty member of the MSU-M Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering and Technology.
"The special sensor mechanism can be embedded in any gun," Lewinski
says. "It can withstand the shock and dirt of a live-fire weapon, and
will undoubtedly play an important role in a wide variety of future
experiments related to reaction time."
Lewinski is hopeful that preliminary findings from at least some of the
new studies will be available by spring, 2008.
Visit www.forcescience.org for more information
================
The Force Science News is provided by The Force Science Research Center,
a non-profit institution based at Minnesota State University, Mankato.
Subscriptions are free and sent via e-mail. To register for your free,
direct-delivery subscription, please visit www.forcesciencenews.com and
click on the registration button.
(c) 2007: 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.
================
--
Stephen P. Wenger
Firearm safety - It's a matter
for education, not legislation.
http://www.spw-duf.info
