$250 - Illinois Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW/CCL) License Training Class
BRING A FRIEND TO CLASS AND GET $50.00 OFF YOUR CLASS FEE!!! ALL LADIES GET $50 OFF - 16 HOUR CLASSES ONLY!!!
VETERANS QUALIFY FOR THE 1-DAY (8 HOUR) CLASS - $100
Get your Illinois Conceal Carry License... Plus get 3 other CCW's licenses FREE! (Utah CCW, Arizona CCW & Florida CCW) - together safely and legally conceal carry a handgun in over 36 States...!!!
How To Carry While Being Scary: Tips for Carrying Concealed this Halloween
Oct 27, 2015 |
Halloween is the perfect time to spend time with your kids while having fun in costume. Defend and Carry wants you to have a great time but be aware of laws in certain states that could get you in trouble for practicing your Second Amendment on Halloween.
We know how vital it is to carry: at any time an emergency situation may arise where protection is needed.
First and foremost you need to know your state’s laws on carrying while wearing a costume.
If you live in the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C), Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia, you need to review your laws on wearing masks and disguises. Check out this link for easier access.
Some of them just prohibit masks or laws with common sense like ‘don’t disguise yourself with the intent of committing a crime’ yet others are a little hazy with legality such as ‘no wearing masks, hoods or concealing the face with the intent to intimidate any person.’ That might sound like something your crazy gun grabbing neighbor might call the cops for or try and get you in trouble for, doesn’t it?
Just familiarize yourself with your state’s laws to avoid any sort of trouble, and yet also know your rights to counteract someone who is disgruntled and misinformed.
Also of course if you are wearing a costume, chose something that is loose-fitting to not draw attention to the fact that you are carrying concealed. So think twice about wearing that speedo and cape, or that full body spandex costume… LOL.
Also make double sure the costume you are wearing doesn’t make it difficult to get to your weapon. Practice drawing your gun a few times to make sure. If you are carrying you want to always make sure that your weapon is available in a hurry.
Just like any other day, carry your weapon like you always would. Don’t incorporate them into yours or a friend’s costume, do NOT use them as an unloaded costume prop and make sure that if you or your child is using a fake gun for their costume it has an obvious orange tip. Not following these simple and common sense rules could have bad results.
If you are going to an event or party look up their weapons policy. Maybe that event isn’t worth going to if they don’t allow you to carry concealed and practice safety with the Second Amendment.
Bring a flashlight with you and your kids and use common sense per usual. If you find yourself being overly jumpy and losing trust in your own discernment and abilities, maybe its time to go home.
There are actually several pranks on youtube of idiots scaring and running at people on the streets with axes and such. If you are having trouble discerning, use your judgment. If you have distance between you and what could be just a prankster or real dangerous person and you feel yours or your family’s life threatened, immediately feeling the need to pull your gun, use gun safety before telling them very loudly and clearly your intent. It would be then that a prankster would stand down and an authentic dangerous person would continue to come at you, which would allow you to protect yourself.
Halloween is famous for pranksters and some of them are stupid teenagers who are unaware of what they are doing, use your judgment and be cautious. However just like any other day someone could chose to inflict violence on you which is why you need to always defend and carry.
At the Newtown, CT, vigil, Obama said, “if there’s even one step we can take to save another [life] … then surely we have an obligation to try.” The president reiterited this view, nearly verbatim, during the press conference announcing the 23 executive orders, saying, “if there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try.” Vice President Joe Biden also said during the press conference, “We have a moral obligation to do everything in our power to diminish the prospect that anything like this could happen again.”
This sentiment is often heard from gun control advocates. It’s sloppy – because it seems correct on its face, it doesn’t require you to do any thinking about it. This can be very dangerous. We ought to be thinking very critically about this idea and asking ourselves several tough questions: How many lives will it save – and at what cost? Will this policy endanger lives, and if so will it endanger more lives than it might save?
We ought to compare the potential for lives saved vs. lives endangered, and then weigh the cost we pay in exchange for any benefit or loss.
Endangered lives: the D.C. gun ban
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, a former Washington, D.C. prosecutor wrote in the Wall Street Journal about the endangered lives and risks, stating: “a nationwide firearms crackdown would place an undue burden on law enforcement and endanger civil liberties while potentially increasing crime.” He would know something about it; as prosecutor, Shapiro enforced firearms and ammunition cases during D.C.’s gun ban. Though he dislikes firearms, he is skeptical of benefits “many imagine will result from additional gun-control efforts” (emphasis added).
Chief among the dangers to the people of D.C. is that the gun ban had unintended consequences. “It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves,” Shapiro continued. He states that violent crime and homicides increased after the law was enacted, with homicides going from 188 in 1976 to 369 in 1988. By 1993, annual homicides reached 454.
Civil liberties were also endangered and police efforts wasted – leaving citizens with less police protection. Legislative changes empowered judges to hold gun suspects in pretrial detention without bond for up to 100 days. There were also efforts to enact curfews and seize automobiles found to contain firearms. Police cracked down on guns, creating a special Gun Recovery Unit in 1995. It was disbanded two years later in 1997 having been found ineffective, so more uniformed officers could be assigned to patrol the streets. Police periodically tried other gun crackdowns over the next decade, all with little effect.
Contrary to gun control advocate worries, after the gun ban was struck down, homicides in the D.C. have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012 – the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976.
Kennesaw: To save a life, allow more guns?
Kennesaw, GA is among the safestplacest in the United States. The violent crime rate for Kennesaw in 2010 was lower than the national violent crime rate average by 85.16%, and the city property crime rate in Kennesaw was lower than the national property crime rate average by 46.46%.
This chart shows violent crime over a 10 year period, comparing Kennesaw against the state of Georgia, and the U.S. national violent crime incidents per 100,000 people (to get an accurate apples-to-apples comparison, adjusting for population size).
This chart shows various violent crime offenses for just 2010. Remarkably that year, Kennesaw had zero murder or manslaughter crimes.
What may hold the key to Kennesaw’s secret? In 1982, Kennesaw passed a law requiring“every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition.” After passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw declined and still today, Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County.
Trampled liberty, endangered lives of average people
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. This is a parapharse (with “liberties” added) to what Benjamin Franklin actually said, but regardless I believe it holds true. It certainly has bearing in our quest to answer the question: “How many lives at what cost … to liberty? to other lives?”
Often lost in the debate is that homicide and violent crime in the U.S. are at a 20 year low or longer. (Homicide numbers are actually the lowest on record since at least 1976, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a DoJ agency). Mass shooting homicides have qualitative differences from “plain ol”” homicides that elicit an emotional response from us; that response is valid. However, when all is said and done – for all the media coverage these shootings receive – mass murder accounts for a fraction of 1% of homicides.
How many lives are we talking about saving? And at what cost to our liberty? Some may scoff at the question of “liberty,” but some are quite alarmed at calls to confiscateweapons, as well as calls for a national registry – fearing if not today’s administration, perhaps a future administration could abuse such a list and confiscate citizen’s guns. What cost to liberty will we accept when homicide is the lowest it’s been in decades?
“Lost in the debate is that average people use guns to defend themselves”
Lost in the debate is that average people use guns to defend themselves; that average people are victimized by criminals – sometimes in their own homes – and want the means to defend themselves secured. These stories often don’t make headlines, as most homicides don’t make headlines, but are a part of us nonetheless.
One story that has made headlines involves Melinda Herman, a Georgia mother who shot an intruder while protecting her kids in their own home. Fortunately, she didn’t face more than one attacker as her 6-round revolver was empty after confronting a single attacker. In the Pacific Northwest, a group of masked men, one of which had an AR-15 rifle, tied up a family in their home during a home invasion. This home invasion also involved multiple attackers. The video below shows an average citizen confront a thief with his shotgun (also note this is a solid argument against those who claim “guns only purpose is to kill” – he points his shotgun at the criminal and holds him until the police arrive; no shots fired – no one killed, just an average guy protecting himself and his loved ones their home).
Whether the individual chooses a revolver, a shotgun, or an AR-15 rifle (should there be multiple assailants to defend against) – shouldn’t the law-abiding be able to decide how to defend their lives and their families in their own homes?
The rebuttal is often: “Would you just do nothing? Gun rights advocates never want to budge on any reasonable gun laws.” Of course, every gun control advocate thinks their version of new guns laws are simply “common sense.”
The truth is though, there are many gun rights advocates that do advocate some changes, such as stronger background checks, fully funding NICS (the background check system), stronger prosecution of those who falsify background check forms – which the Justice Department rarely prosecutes, as well as stronger enforcement and prosecution of straw man purchasers and illegal gun trafficking.
Gun rights advocates want safer streets, homes, neighborhoods, and schools too. Many of them have families of their own and want to be able to defend and protect their lives should the police be minutes away when seconds count. They want to put the emphasis on enforcing existing laws, which our government is not doing fully. Washington D.C.’s residents fought a long battle and suffered high crime for many years – as well as restricted liberty. We shouldn’t make the same mistake nationally. Restricting gun rights of average, law abiding folks, puts us all in danger.
This article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original publish date Jan 17, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.
Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States.
A study by Lott, Whitley and Riley that you can download here.
Since President Obama’s election the number of concealed handgun permits has soared, growing from 4.6 million in 2007 to over 12.8 million this year. Among the findings in our report:
-The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever-increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued – a 15.4% increase in just one single year. This is the largest ever single-year increase in the number of concealed handgun permits. -5.2% of the total adult population has a permit. -Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed handgun permits. -In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing so much faster than the number of permits. -Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by 156%. -Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites. -Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 178%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.
12.8 million people with concealed carry guns in the US of A. I am going to say it again:
12.8 million people with concealed carry guns in the US of A.
Mind blown yet? No? Now for argument’s sake let’s say that those 12.8 million have at least 100 rounds of ammunition at home for defense and practice. That comes to 1.28 billion rounds of ammunition in civilian hands.
This is a questions that often comes up; do you fire warning shots or do you shoot to kill? The legality of shooting to kill or firing warning shots in a life or death situation may surprise you. Today you’ll hear from this defensive tactics instructor and competitive shooter. Defend and Carry’s Annie Stonebreaker and Toby Shell take on an important defensive gun use issue in this episode of Gun Tips.
Firing waning shots can be extremely dangerous in most situations. It’s illegal to discharge your firearm within city limits unless there is a direct threat to your life or to those around you.
This gun tips video explains to viewers how important it is to know what’s near and behind your target before shooting. If you were to fire a warning shot, Toby says that you would have no idea as to where that bullet could end up. It has the potential to kill an innocent person.
You should never shoot to kill, according to Toby. Instead, you should shoot to stop the threat at hand. The only case you should shoot another individual is if that person threatens your life or someone’s life around you.
This defensive gun use video will explain to defensive gun users that warning shots or shooting to kill are both unnecessary ways to counteract a threat.
Next time on Defend and Carry’s Gun Tips, we will be tackling the debate: concealed or open carry? Be sure to tune in for information on the pros and cons of these two defensive carries, and learn which one would be optimal for you.
Check out Defend and Carry’s sponsor, Alien Gear Holsters, for all of your concealed carry holster needs. You will find the most comfortable, concealable holsters on the planet at http://AlienGearHolsters.com/
Also be sure to check out Toby’s website, http://armedandprepared.us/ This website features tips and techniques for all those supporting the Second Amendment.
$250 - Illinois Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW/CCL) License Training Class
BRING A FRIEND TO CLASS AND GET $50.00 OFF YOUR CLASS FEE!!! ALL LADIES GET $50 OFF - 16 HOUR CLASSES ONLY!!!
VETERANS QUALIFY FOR THE 1-DAY (8 HOUR) CLASS - $100
Get your Illinois Conceal Carry License... Plus get 3 other CCW's licenses FREE! (Utah CCW, Arizona CCW & Florida CCW) - together safely and legally conceal carry a handgun in over 36 States...!!!
Gun laws across U.S. in balance as Supreme Court considers Chicago case - LA Times
Gun rights advocates are urging the Supreme Court to strike down a local Chicago ordinance prohibiting semiautomatic "assault weapons" that can carry more than 10 rounds.
The justices on Friday were to consider the appeal in Friedman vs. City of Highland Park. If they refuse to hear the appeal, the announcement could come as early as Tuesday morning. Such a decision would signal that cities have the authority to restrict high-powered weapons.
But if the justices vote to take up the case, it would put in doubt the constitutionality of laws in other places, including California, that prohibit semiautomatic weapons.
"These are some of the most popular firearms commonly used by law-abiding citizens in America," said David H. Thompson, a lawyer for the Illinois gun owners who are challenging the assault weapons ban adopted in the North Shore Chicago suburb of Highland Park.
They lost before a federal judge and in a decision from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Now they are asking the high court to hear their appeal.
At issue is the scope of the 2nd Amendment and its right to keep and bear arms.
While the Supreme Court has struck down ordinances in Washington, D.C., and Chicago which prohibited residents from keeping a handgun at home for self-defense, it has not said whether the 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry a gun in public or to own more powerful and sophisticated weapons.
In the meantime, the increase in mass shootings in recent years has revived interest in laws that forbid the sale or possession of rifles and handguns that are capable of rapid fire. In defense of their ordinance, officials in Highland Park cited the mass shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.
Seven states--California, Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Hawaii--have similar bans, as does Chicago and several surrounding cities.
In upholding the Highland Park ordinance, the 7th Circuit cited the Supreme Court's statement that "dangerous and unusual weapons" may be restricted.
"Assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster, and thus can be more dangerous in aggregate," said Judge Frank Easterbrook in April for a 2-1 majority. "Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings? A ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines might not prevent shootings...but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs."
In dissent, Judge Daniel Manion said some homeowners want to keep a semi-automatic weapon at home for self-defense. "Ultimately, it is up to the lawful gun owner and not the government to decide these matters," he wrote.
The National Rifle Assn. and the chief attorneys for 24 states joined Dr. Arie Friedman of Highland Park and the Illinois State Rifle Assn. in urging the justices to hear the case and to strike down the bans on semi-automatic weapons. They say these weapons are hardly unusual. They include "some of the most commonplace firearms in the nation, including the immensely popular AR-15, which is the best-selling rifle type in the United States."
In response, city officials pointed the potential danger at shopping malls or music festivals if a shooter appears with a rapid-fire weapon. And who really needs a rapid-fire weapon with a large capacity magazine for self-defense at home, they ask.
For its part, the Supreme Court has steadily refused, without comment, to hear appeals from gun-rights advocates in recent years. It has turned away several challenges to state and local measures that strictly limit who may obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public. In June, over dissents by Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, the court refused to hear the NRA's appeal of a San Francisco ordinance which said handguns kept at home must be stored or disabled with a trigger lock.
There are at least two possible explanations for the court's actions. One is the court's traditional caution. Unless the lower courts are split on a significant issue, the justices usually refuse to intervene, and in this instance, local and state governments have been winning steadily in the lower courts.
The other possibility is that one or more of the five conservatives who voted to uphold a 2nd Amendment right to have a gun at home are not willing to go further to strike down other gun laws.
"It may be they are not certain how Justice (Anthony) Kennedy will vote, so I imagine they will not be eager to take up this case," said UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler.
Gallup: Majority of Americans Say More Concealed Weapons Would Make U.S. Safer
Image via Screenshot
According to a recent Gallup poll, a majority of Americans (56 percent) believe that if more Americans were allowed to carry concealed weapons, the country would be safer.
Gallup reports,
“In the wake of mass shootings at schools and other public places, some have argued that the shootings could have been stopped if any of the victims had carried weapons.Others argue that having more citizens carrying weapons can lead to more violence and accidental shooting.
[...]
"Among key subgroups, Democrats and those with postgraduate education are least likely to believe that more concealed weapons would make the U.S. safer. Republicans and gun owners are most likely to say it would make the nation safer. Younger Americans are more likely to choose the "safer" option than those aged 30 and above.”
Other findings include strong support among Americans (86 percent) for a law requiring universal background checks for gun purchasers, but great uncertainty over whether such a law would reduce or prevent mass shootings.
What started out as an act of valor turned into an act of murder, investigators say that Edward Bushnell intervened in an altercation between William Poindexter and his girlfriend. Police say Poindexter was assaulting his girlfriend on the sidewalk along Altamont street in Spokane Washington on Tuesday when Bushnell came along and tried to stop the assault. There was a physical altercation between Poindexter(armed with a small bat) and Bushnell(armed with a knife) which left Bushnell injured, at that time Poindexter grabbed his girlfriend and continued along the sidewalk, Bushnell then walked over to his backpack which was not in his immediate vicinity and took out his handgun and shot Poindexter twice in the back.
Police said in a statement “We don’t want to say that what he did by trying to stop the assault was wrong, we’re not going to say that. Where it went south was after the confrontation happened, he had a telephone with him we would urge people to call police.” Defensive gun use is an important, valid deterrent to crimes like this but it crucial to know the laws in great detail in your own state and always keep you wits about you.
Nothing can make up for training with firearms and with self-defense situations, when these situations become heated people are in a state of mind that they are not familiar with and can quickly lead to a situation where our judgement is clouded. Bushnell should have led with his handgun in this situation, detaining Poindexter and asking one of the many witnesses to call the police. If this had been the case and Poindexter came at him with the bat then Bushnell would have been justified in shooting him.
Here Are 5 Times Concealed Carriers Have Stopped Mass Shootings
We’ve seen our fair share of tragedy over the last decade. Mass shootings, the loss of life, the cracking of the very fabric of society… Sometimes it’s hard to come up with solutions to these problems. But what if a solution already existed — and best of all, it worked?
It does. It’s called carrying a concealed firearm every day.
In this article, we’re going to highlight just five recent situations that could have resulted in far worse violence had a concealed carrier not been present and able to defend himself and others. These situations all highlight a simple truth: the best response to a mass shooter is a well-armed, law-abiding concealed carrier.
CASE 1: Winnemucca Bar Shootings
In May of 2008, a 48-year-old patron was frequenting his favorite bar some 160 miles northeast of Reno, Nevada, when a disgruntled Ernesto Villagomez, 30, entered the bar and opened fire indiscriminately upon an estimated 300 people. Two people were immediately struck by the gunfire and fell. The valid concealed carrier took out his pistol and fatally shot Villagomez before the gunman could proceed any further. He was initially taken into custody but later released after the Humboldt County District Attorney determined it was a justifiable homicide. Both shooting victims were able to be evacuated and receive life-saving medical care.
CASE 2: Uber Driver Critically Wounds Chicago Gunman
In a story we covered earlier in the year, a Chicago Uber Driver saw Everardo Custodio, 22, open fire on a crowd milling about Logan Square. The driver, 47, took out his concealed carry pistol and judiciously hit Custodio several times — disabling him from further engaging bystanders. Chicago police arrived to find Ernesto struck several times from gunshot wounds originating from the driver. The driver was released without charges. No bystanders were hit by bullets and no other injuries were reported in connection with this event.
CASE 3: Philly Barbershop Under Attack — Concealed Carrier To The Rescue
Another “concealed carry in action” story we covered involved a concealed carrier who came to the rescue after a man took out his gun and opened fire on customers and barbers. The fight was the result of an argument which spiralled out of control and the man who took out his gun and opened fire in an establishment which also had children inside. A concealed carrier heard the gunshots and fatally shot the gunman in the chest. No one else was injured due to gunfire.
CASE 4: Gunman Shoots Patrons, Runs, Returns To Concealed Carrier
In a vicious case involving the death of one man and the critical injury of another, a Luzerne gunman was sentenced to serve 25 to 50 years only after he was stopped by a concealed carrier in the bar. According to court records, William Allabaugh was asked to leave a Plymouth bar in September of 2012, after he was spotted with a gun. He shot a man in the bar and then ran outside and fatally shot another. It was then that video surveillance shows he turned around to go back inside. Thankfully, there was a concealed carrier there waiting to take him out — and that’s precisely what happened.
“The video footage and the evidence reveals that Mr. Allabaugh had turned around and was reapproaching the bar. Mr. Kiter [the concealed carrier] then acted, taking him down. We believe that it could have been much worse that night,” [Luzerne County A.D.A. Jarrett] Ferentino said.
CASE 5: Churchgoers Stop Gunman Before He Can Do Harm
This is what all concealed carriers hope for — the peaceful resolution of a potentially violent conflict. In March of 2012, 38-year-old Jesse Gates showed up to the South Side Free Will Baptist Church in Boiling Springs with a shotgun after having left the church earlier in the morning. Aaron Guyton, the pastor’s grandson and a concealed carry permit holder, noticed Gates’ pickup truck return to the parking lot. He saw him take out a shotgun from the back. That’s when he alerted other members of the church and went out the back. Church members locked the doors and sheltered in place while Guyton moved around the periphery to flank Gates. According to Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright, Guyton operated clearly by the book.
“He locked the door, and they were calling 911 at the same time. He didn’t draw his weapon or make any actions towards this gentleman until he forced the issue,” Wright said.
Gates was successfully taken down by the pastor’s grandson and several other churchmembers without any shots being fired. No injuries were reported as a result of the incident and both Gates and his sister were charged with aggravated assault.
This is just a small sample of a number of situations handled successfully through the use of a concealed carrier in the right place, at the right time, and with the right mindset.
While it’s impossible to know when and where danger will rear its ugly head, this much is certain: you can either leave your life to chance or you can be willing to take an active role in protecting yourself and other members of your community.
Concealed Carry Myths: Can You Shoot Fast Enough to Beat the Other Guy?
So, what exactly do concealed carry and tailgating have in common?
Remember Driver’s Educaiton? If your class was like mine, you learned about the dangers of tailgating. You know, following the car in front of you too closely.
If you do that, and the driver in front slams on their brakes, you might rear-end them. In fact, given the right conditions, there is a 100 percent chance you will rear-end the car in front of you, no matter how much you stomp on your brakes. While you may think you can stop fast enough to avoid a crash, you cannot, no matter how good your reflexes are.
There are a few variables at play that can make collision a certainty.
First, there’s your reaction time. How fast can your brain process a signal from your eyes that says, “Hey wake up! The guy in front of you just stepped on his brakes!” Your eyes have to see it, and then send a fax to your brain. Your brain has to think about this and retrieve from its memory banks the correct response. “Oh yeah, I need to tell right foot to move off the gas and step on the brake.” Then your brain has to send that message through your spine down to your leg. Your leg muscles have to wake up and start the process of moving to the other pedal.
Second, your brakes require distance. They’re designed to bleed off energy and turn your car’s forward motion into friction and heat, so your car will cover a certain amount of distance while this happens.
Check These Out
Last, the speed at which both cars are moving changes everything. The faster you’re both going, the farther away you have to be. When going fast, your car covers more distance while your brain figures out stuff and your brakes do that slowing down thing.
There’s a valuable concealed carry or self-defense lesson to be learned from the dangers of tailgating. It all boils down to the fact that action is always faster than reaction. This principle is the cornerstone of Colonel John Boyd’s OODA loop theory, originally developed for fighter plane dogfighting. OODA stands for Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. It describes the process I laid out above with deciding to stop your car when the dude in front slams on the brakes.
In a self-defense scenarios, when your assailant acts, there’s a certain amount of time required for your brain to observe what’s going on—that’s the first “O.” The orient stage is more complex and varies with one’s prior experiences, beliefs, and genetics. In this stage, your brain is filtering what it sees to develop context. Based on your experience, does your brain assume you’re being attacked when someone makes a certain type of move? If you fight a lot, your orient stage will be quicker for a certain stimulus. If not, your brain has to sort out what that move really means. The next stage is decision. What will the brain tell the body to do? Last, of course, it the action itself.
All of this stuff takes time, and every time your attacker makes an action, you have to go through the entire process again. In a fluid and sudden aggression, you’re in trouble because you’re constantly reacting as your assailant is starting multiple actions. You most likely keep starting your OODA loop without every finishing any.
Boyd essentially said you need to turn the tables, and by implementing your own action, you get inside your opponent’s loop and cause them to do all this response process to your actions.
Okay, enough theoretical science. What does this really mean?
If you have a gun pointed at a bad guy, they can still shoot you before you can pull the trigger, even if their gun is not pointed at you.
Don’t believe me? Consider an action/reaction study completed by Dr. J. Pete Blair, an associate Criminal Justice professor at Texas State University. At a SWAT conference, he assembled two groups of people. Twenty-four SWAT officers, with an average of 10 years experience, were the police officers in the exercise. Blair recruited 22 Criminal Justice students with an average age of 22. Most had no experience with firearms.
Blair had the police enter a building, where they would encounter a “suspect” (student volunteer) who either had their gun held at their side pointed at the ground or aimed at their own head in a suicide position. The police were instructed to command the suspects to drop the gun and do whatever necessary to protect themselves. The suspects were instructed to raise their gun and shoot at the police officer at a time of their choosing after they were commanded to drop their gun. Of course, all the guns in involved were non-lethal marking guns that leave a welt and glob of paint.
Just to be clear, in each case the officer had their gun aimed at the suspect with their finger on the trigger. The suspect, not experienced with firearms, had it hanging toward the floor or pointed at their own head.
So what do you think happened? Were the experienced SWAT officers able to shoot the suspects when they saw them starting to move? No. In most cases, the officer and suspect ended up shooting each other at approximately the same time. And when I say approximately, I mean the shots were fired within one-tenth of a second of each other.
“The miniscule edge did go to the suspects, technically,” the study reads. “Examined case by case, they shot faster than officers or precisely simultaneously in more than 60% of the encounters. Even in situations where the officer was faster, there was less than a 0.2-second difference, suggesting that the suspect would still get a shot off in most of these encounters.”
The action was measured with frame-by-frame analysis of the encounters. The suspects were able to raise their gun and fire in an average of 0.38 seconds. The officers were able to fire back in an average of 0.39 seconds.
What? You mean if I aimed my gun at someone with a gun that’s not aimed at me, they can shoot me at will, and there’s not a darned thing I can do about it? That’s exactly what I mean. Yes, you’ll end up shooting them too, but you’ll still have a brand new body orifice. It all boils down to the absolute science of action and reaction times. The suspects started the action of raising their gun to shoot, while the officers had to react to, process, and then act on that stimulus. The overhead of this process allowed enough time for the suspect to get their shot off first, although just barely.
Now there’s something to think about. This is exactly why keen awareness, at all times, is so critically important. You’re already being the eight-ball if someone attacks you, because they chose to act, putting you in a position where you have to react.
$250 - Illinois Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW/CCL) License Training Class
BRING A FRIEND TO CLASS AND GET $50.00 OFF YOUR CLASS FEE!!! ALL LADIES GET $50 OFF - 16 HOUR CLASSES ONLY!!!
VETERANS QUALIFY FOR THE 1-DAY (8 HOUR) CLASS - $100
Get your Illinois Conceal Carry License... Plus get 3 other CCW's licenses FREE! (Utah CCW, Arizona CCW & Florida CCW) - together safely and legally conceal carry a handgun in over 36 States...!!!
When Carly Fiorina offered some imprecise words about videos that uncovered the harvesting of body parts, she was subjected to weeks of semantic, nitpicky fact-checking that allowed Democrats and the media to portray her accurate characterization of Planned Parenthood’s practices as an outright “lie.”
Now, it would be a waste of time to expect comparable scrutiny aimed at Democrats who make unequivocally false statements about guns—a topic that elicits similarly emotional responses. But, for credibility’s sake, it’d be nice if once in a while someone would call out the president, or leading Democratic Party candidates, or the countless others who lie about firearms.
President Obama, who not long ago made the ludicrous claim that in certain neighborhoods it was “easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable,” now says, “It’s not just mass shootings. It is the daily shootings that take place in cities across America. It is easier to buy a gun than buy a book.”
Does anyone in the media believe it’s easier to purchase a Glock than it is a carrot or a book? Probably. I mean, why isn’t there a slew of concerned CNN panels parsing this fantastical statement—or the many others Obama makes about guns?
The president is supposedly referring to the lack of bookstores in low-income areas, but surely it isn’t the case there, either. Books can be purchased or borrowed through schools, libraries, community centers, bookstores, Wal-Marts, Targets, many supermarkets, and, most importantly, through something called the Internet—that not only allows you to download books almost instantaneously, but also allows you to buy used copies at very low prices. Let’s put it this way: even if you can’t afford books, they are surely far cheaper than any gun you could buy—even if guns were, as so many liberals incorrectly claim, something that can be picked off the shelf without any ID and walked home.
Yet folks like Virginia Gov. Terry McCauliffe regularly assert, as he did at a DC rally a couple of weeks ago, that it’s easier to buy a gun than beer in Virginia, because you have to provide ID to purchase alcoholic beverages. McAuliffe also claimed that gun shows have booths with signs that say “no background checks.” As my colleague Sean Davis has pointed out, the federal government has the statutory authority to define who does and does not qualify as an individual “in the business of selling firearms.” Since 1938, every gun dealer in the U.S. has been required to obtain a federal firearm license—whether they sell it in a gun shop, or a gun show, or from a shack in somebody’s backyard. (In some states, a private party firearm transfer between two residents of the same state is permissible without having to process the transaction through a federally licensed dealer.)
When this kind of thing goes uncorrected by media, it begins filtering into the ether and millions of Americans begin to believe it. Take CNN, which was hoping to pump up ratings for the Democratic Party debate yesterday by having celebrities ask the candidates questions.
A few months ago, I sent my 13-year-old son out to pick me up some Mucinex and Nyquil. The pharmacist wouldn’t give them to him because he’s under 16. Why is it easier for him to get a gun than to pick up medicine for his sick mom?
Maybe nanny-state, regulation-happy politicians should stop intruding into every aspect of American life, and kids would be able to buy medicine for their mommies without worry. But in California, and I’m just guessing that’s where Gold lives (if we’re talking about New York City, the process for buying a gun is even more difficult) a person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun and 21 years of age to purchase a handgun. A 13-year-old would never be able to buy a gun legally.
An adult would have to submit a Personal Firearms Eligibility Check application, along with a copy of her California driver’s license or a similar ID card to make sure they are eligible. That already makes it a lot trickier to buy a gun than to purchase Nyquil. The application needs to be notarized and must include an impression of your right thumbprint—which makes getting a gun, a right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, more difficult than it is to vote (one that is not). It can take up to 120 days for the state to get back to you. If you are eligible, there is the background check and a 10-day waiting period.
When this kind of thing goes uncorrected by media, it begins filtering into the ether and millions of Americans begin to believe it.
You might not ever know this if you listened to the Democratic debate on Tuesday or any of the commentary afterwards. When the candidates weren’t advocating that gun manufacturers be held accountable for every crazy person who uses a firearm for nefarious purposes, or blaming the National Rifle Association rather than the millions of people who support the Second Amendment, nearly every candidate repeated some egregious falsehood about guns. Most of the candidates spoke about “common sense” gun regulations.
Perhaps the Democrats were confused. There is no gun show loophole. There are straw purchases, which have been federal felonies since 1968. I understand that perpetuating these myths is necessary for liberals to create the impression that we need more laws, but the Fourth Estate—which, it’s probably safe to say, generally views the presence of guns as an unholy part of American life—has a responsibility to correct these wild exaggerations and untruths. Yet they rarely do.
