Social Media and the Firearms Training Industry

Social Media in the Personal Security and Firearms Training Industry

Many in the personal security and firearms training industry are still living in the cave where social media is known to be responsible for the downfall of society. The question for many in the industry who are learning to walk upright is how can we leverage social media? For the record, I am still learning, but these are my observations over the past three years or so of trying to pick up my knuckles and embrace the future. I did not have a personal Facebook account when we opened Aegis Academy to the public. I did not have a LinkedIn account. I didn’t know how to use instant messenger, or have any idea why anyone would send a 140 character tweet into cyber space on what they happened to be thinking of at the moment and even less of a clue as to why anyone else would care. Here are a few of my takeaways on the process of trying to develop an effective marketing strategy that leverages social media in the personal security training industry.

Email lists are critical. Depending on the goal you are trying to achieve, you may need to use different channels, but lets start with a few basics. Your opted in email list (not something you can purchase – you have to build it yourself) is the most valuable digital asset you have. We use a weekly newsletter, but there are certainly those who communicate with more or less frequency and are effective. Your email list is your means of staying in contact with your clients, keeping them up to date on what you or the company is doing and staying visible to them. Use it too frequently, put irrelevant or poorly formatted material in your newsletter, or make people upset and they will unsubscribe – and sometimes accompany it with an “I hate your last article” or even better “I hate you” comment – both of which are great feedback. At least it is not apathy and we know we are reaching people on an emotional level! We add specials from partner retailers or our own discounts on certain courses as a benefit to our clients and readers.

Blogging is important. Your next best friend is the content you create, meaning the articles you write and post. Unlike some of what I see out there, simply picking a key word and using it eight times in a poorly constructed document is not helping you out any more. The search engines are much more finicky about measuring how long people stay on your page once they search for a term. If that metric is low, you are punished for it with lower search rankings. Relevant, engaging content is critical to your search rankings. Making engaging social media content is critical to getting in touch with and maintaining contact with the younger generation who like it or not are the future of the industry.

Images and how you label them matter. Every article should have a relevant image associated with it (preferably one of your own). If not, check the copyright information in the metadata and use Google’s search by image to try and find the original owner to ensure it’s not copyrighted before you use it. Your photo gallery of images of you and your clients, properly labeled with relevant key words also matters significantly. Google indexes every single image with your brand name on it and relevant key words in the title. When your image is tagged, shared or copied by your clients and their friends, your brand appears more relevant to Google for the keywords in the image title.

Google plus is a necessary evil. For the most part, Google employee’s, bloggers and businesses are the only people using Google plus. Your business (and you) have to be on Google plus. Not because you will connect with a large user base, but because of authorship, which is complicated and somewhat difficult to set up, but it is absolutely crucial to your search rankings on Google. If something is worth doing, its worth doing right and Google plus is no different. Set up a sloppy page with poor images and mediocre content and you’ll get exactly what you put into it. Fail to set up authorship and your articles and content are far more likely to be relegated page 142 of the search rankings.

Twitter is probably not useless… Maybe. Twitter is still a bit of a mystery to me, but here is how we are handling it (and admittedly we are lacking here). The difficult part for education and training on twitter is more contextual than practical in that twitter is all about what is happening now. Education and training is more about what you’ll be able to do if you show up so the two are not easy to merge. We are turning to a “look what we did today” strategy. Hash tags are how you can search and see what people are talking about right now or what is “trending”. We add two to three potentially relevant hash tags to our articles that we post so that should those tags start to “trend” or become popular, we are already indexed by Google for those terms, which may result in increased search rankings.

LinkedIn company pages are a showcase of what your organization does. It is a decent place to post articles like this, which are largely business related, but technical articles will perform better elsewhere. LinkedIn is a way to connect with business people, and potentially organizations, but is less likely to directly translate to training course registrations. Your personal LinkedIn page should showcase your background as well as what you want the public to see about your organization. It is more or less a free advertising tool for both you and your company. From a brand awareness perspective, this is great. From a local business perspective, this is not particularly relevant so if you are not catering to a national market, I wouldn’t spend a lot of time here.

Pinterest looks like art because it is. The key to Pinterest is having high quality images that people will want to share and post to their boards. (Hash tags and keywords are important in how you title theses photos as well). Because Pinterest is really centered around the visual experience, posting poor images here is a bad idea. You may only have one or two images worth posting each month or maybe none. Better to post quality than quantity here. (That is the opposite of your photo gallery, which should have all of your images which do not embarrass a client or show something you would not want seen).

Why YouTube? The metrics are higher by 10 to one. If I write a post like this one and post it, 100 people click on it. If I add a relevant image, 300 people click on it. If we post a video, 1000 click on it. Our Youtube channel is in need of a make over, as we originally set it up to house video content used by the website. (That is not a good YouTude strategy, but it is better than nothing). People found it, and liked some of it and started subscribing to it. It drives a small, but not insignificant portion of our website traffic. What the future of the channel looks like is instructional snippets from the course material, and examples of course content. Recording and processing video is time consuming and resource intensive – but make it a point to start collecting video footage and periodically putting it to work for you. Once it’s there, it just keeps going…

You should waste some of your time with Facebook. Every thing mentioned previously is indexed by Google. Email, Articles, Websites, Pinterest, LinkedIn, Images and Twitter all contribute to associating your brand name with the keywords that are relevant to your users. Facebook is barely indexed by Google and almost nothing you do there will matter for search rankings. What Facebook provides that the others really haven’t cracked the code on is two-way interaction. People like things because they want their friends to see what they found. They post comments because they are interested or engaged, and they share content because they are connected to it (good or bad) in a personal way. The key to Facebook is that you already created content, posted it to a suitable location, and this is one more place for people to see it and interact with it. Writing an article on Facebook is meaningless. Creating Facebook only content is a waste of time. Posting a link in Facebook to your article (housed on your website or blog) drives Facebook fans to your content where Google can measure their engagement.

What are “Good” metrics? The short version is – it depends. You cannot expect that every person who goes to your blog page will intently read every article. We average 3 minutes 23 seconds per page overall. Our articles are higher, our webpages are lower, and some things like our schedule and waiver pages are high, but only because people have to use them to register and it takes about 5 minutes, but I don’t delude myself into believing they are interested in the content on the registration page! Our email list has a 32.4% open rate and a 6.2% click rate. We have an email subscription growth rate of about 2% a month and our unsubscribe rate is about .5% a month. Those are metrics that are exceeding industry averages significantly according to the relevant benchmarks I can find.

Should I advertise? The first thing to note is that it takes time to build a user base. There are a number of options out there to purchase fans, or likes, etc… however, what you have purchased is an uninterested user base who will ultimately hurt your ability to measure engagement with your prospective clients. Purchasing fans is different than advertising. Advertising can be effective at building a relevant user base. I spend about $100 a month between all of our social media platforms to advertise posts and put them in front of very specific groups of people. That is the beauty of social media advertising. I can target my competition’s clients; I can target my own base of users, or I can target nearly any group on the planet if I know enough about who they are. Last quarter was focused on Facebook. This quarter is going to be Twitter and Pinterest focused. Where you choose to advertise and who you advertise to is virtually limitless, and pretty cheap from an exposure perspective.

Read a book on Google Analytics. It is the system by which you can measure your effectiveness. If you are simply throwing things against the wall and hoping to notice what sticks, you are going to have a very hard time in the social arena tracking what works and what doesn’t. Google Analytics does it for you and it’s free (except for the time you invest in learning how to use it). For those still on AOL, Yahoo, Bing, Etc… they do not matter at all in global search, Google is the only thing you need to worry about measuring.

Blending Social Media and the Firearms Training Industry is not really a significant challenge. We in the industry need to do a better job of engaging the next generation, because they are future of personal security in this country – and we can! For those in the industry, I hope this helps give you a framework and some ideas to avoid mistakes and chart a path to engaging with the next generation of shooting and training enthusiasts. For our clients and every one else who is still reading – Thank you! Please go read another article, post a comment, or share something on your social media pages; search your inbox for that newsletter you didn’t open and click on a link, or go follow our Twitter page – we sincerely appreciate your time and your engagement!

Interested in potential security risk posed by social media? Check out Social Media and the Attack Cycle Here!

Have fun & stay safe!

About Author

- Patrick Henry

President

Patrick Henry received his operational training and experience from the U.S. Government, 22 years of which were spent in the Marine Corps where he served in the Reconnaissance, Infantry and Intelligence fields. During his active service, he spent more then seven years deployed overseas in combat, operational and training assignments. After the military, Pat worked as a contractor and as the Director of Operations at a private paramilitary company, specializing in training special operations forces and providing protective services to select private clients. His education consists of an MBA from the University of Southern California (USC), and a BS from San Diego State University with an emphasis in Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular Biology and a minor in Psychology. He holds an extensive list of security and training related certifications from a variety of government and nationally recognized entities. He currently sits on the advisory committee at USC’s Master of Veterans Business Program, and is an active member of Infraguard and the American Society of Industrial Security (ASIS). He has been a guest speaker at ASIS, the San Diego Industrial Security Awareness Council and other private organizations on physical security, travel security, and competitive intelligence collection counter-measures.

First Published at Aegis Academy

External Ballistics Part II – Flight to Target

Thank you for returning to continue our study of ballistics. In this article, I will pick-up where we left off from our previous discussion of External Ballistics and focus solely on the projectile’s flight to target. Before introducing the key concepts of kinetic energy, gyroscopic stability and ballistic coefficient, I will provide a brief review to fully set the stage.

During our discussions on Internal Ballistics, we focused on firearm function, reliability, safety and mechanical precision. The complex sequence of interactions that initiate a projectile’s movement from the cartridge case to the end of the barrel. Essentially, it helped us understand how “our” interaction with the firearm affects its function and the start of the projectile’s travel to target.

During our first discussion on External Ballistics, we focused on the principles of Newtonian Physics and the short period of projectile instability caused by Yaw, Precession and Nutation as the projectile transitions from controlled force and rotation in the bore to environmental forces (gravity and air resistance) during free rotation. As we continue this discussion on External Ballistics and analyze the factors that affect the projectile’s flight to target, we need to concede that “our” part as a shooter has ended and all of the forces acting on the projectile are out of our control.

We need to understand these external forces, however. They allow us to “back plan” by choosing the correct firearm, cartridge, aiming solution, etc. Understanding the principles in this second article on External Ballistics will not only set-up the following articles on Trajectory and Terminal Ballistics, it will allow you to make the right mental and physical preparations to consistently place the projectile on target with the desired ballistic effect.

Regardless of the shooting discipline (target shooting, competition, hunting, self-defense, etc.), the terminal ballistic effect can only be accomplished if the projectile arrives where it is intended and with sufficient energy. Target and competition shooters need to ensure their projectile retains enough velocity and stability to optimize their accuracy with the firearm’s mechanical precision. Hunters and those using a firearm for self-defense need to ensure their projectiles retain enough energy to expand and produce the desired terminal ballistic effect.

So, let’s continue with our discussion on External Ballistics.

Velocity and Kinetic Energy

I’ve grouped these two measurements together due to their interrelated nature and role they play in terminal ballistic performance.

Velocity: This is the measure of an object’s change in position relative to time… or how fast a projectile is traveling in a specific direction. Since it is a measure of position and time, velocity can be expressed in many different units of measure, such as feet per second, miles per hour, kilometers per hour, etc. The most common measure of velocity in regard to ballistics is feet per second (ft/s).

• With the right devices and instrumentation, velocity can be measured accurately anywhere along a projectile’s trajectory from its initial velocity (or muzzle velocity), summit velocity (at the highest point in its trajectory), and striking velocity (projectile velocity as it impacts the target). Note that I used the term striking velocity instead of the more commonly used “terminal velocity.” Terminal velocity has an exact and specific meaning which describes the greatest velocity that an object can acquire by falling freely through the air.
• Although velocity can be measured anywhere along the trajectory, it is costly andimpractical to take this measurement anywhere beyond the muzzle. Many shooters will use a chronograph placed just a few feet in front of the muzzle to measure a projectile’s initial velocity. Chronographs are rather simple devices that are made up of sensors and timing devices. As the projectile passes over the first sensor, the clock “starts” and runs until the projectile passes the last sensor which “stops” the clock. Since the sensors are placed at a known distance, the time measured between the first and last sensor calculates the velocity. Chronographs are commercially available for between $100 and $600.
• Applicability: Measuring initial velocity is required to calculate other important ballistic factors such as kinetic energy and bullet drop. Also, since consistency and repeatability are key factors in mechanical precision, measuring initial velocity can demonstrate how consistently (or inconsistently) a specific cartridge performs in a specific firearm.
  

Kinetic Energy: All objects in motion have kinetic energy. Newton’s fundamental law of Conservation of Energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Since all objects in motion possess kinetic energy, this energy must be transferred from the projectile into the target on impact. By measuring the kinetic energy of a projectile at the muzzle, we can calculate how much energy will be transferred into the target at a certain distance.

• Kinetic energy is simply calculated by multiplying ½ times the mass of the projectile times the square of the velocity… or KE = ½ * MV^2.
• While projectile velocity is typically measured in feet per second (ft/sec), Kinetic Energy is typically measured in foot-pounds. For those interested in calculating kinetic energy for themselves, KE = ((projectile weight in grains)*(velocity in feet per second)²)/(450,400). The number 450,400 combines the conversion from grains to pounds with the ½ required to calculate kinetic energy.
• For example, I recently chronographed a few of my hand-loads in my rifles and pistols. In my Remington 700 in .308cal, I fired a series of 175 grain hollow point boat tail projectiles and calculated an average muzzle velocity of 2,762.4 ft/s. Using the formula for kinetic energy above, KE = ((175)*(2762.4)²)/(450,400) = 2,964.92 ft/lbs of kinetic energy.I conducted the same test with my AR-15 in .223 and my 1911 in .45ACP. In the AR-15, the 62gr projectiles averaged 3,036.80 ft/s and resulted in 1,269.48 ft/lbs of energy. In the 1911, the 230gr projectiles averaged 772 ft/s and resulted in 304.34 ft/lbs of energy.
• The important concept here is that velocity plays a greater role than projectile weight when it comes to kinetic energy. Notice how the .45cal bullet is clearly the largest projectile fired in my test, but its low velocity resulted in the lowest kinetic energy. Also note how the weight of the .223 projectile was just over one-third the weight of the .308 round, but due to the fact that it was nearly 300 feet-per-second faster than the .308 round, it possessed just under one-half of the kinetic energy at the muzzle.
• For a very loose comparison, scientists have “estimated” that a professional boxer’s punch delivers 330 ft/lbs of kinetic energy. (note, this is a very rough estimate because the boxer’s fist is attached to the body which is not “limp” on impact. A boxer can continue to “thrust” a punch following impact whereas a firearm projectile is left with only resultant mass and velocity). For the purposes of this argument, compare the 330 ft/lbs of a boxer’s punch to the muzzle energy of the 175gr .308 (2,762.4 ft/lbs), 62gr .223 (1,269.48 ft/lbs), and 230gr .45ACP (304.34 ft/lbs).
• Applicability: Even with the considerable kinetic energy of the 175gr .308 projectile, there is really no such thing as “knock-down power” in regard to human or large animal targets. Granted the projectile’s kinetic energy will puncture paper or knock-down certain steel or wooden targets that are designed to fall, the energy transferred from a projectile into a human or large animal target will not knock it down from impact alone. The kinetic energy transferred will, however, contribute to penetration and/or expansion. Therefore projectile performance and shot placement play the greatest role in ending the threat or taking down the game animal. This will be discussed in greater detail in my forthcoming articles on Terminal Ballistics.

Gyroscopic Stability

If you recall our discussion in External Ballistics Part I, there is a moment when the projectile transitions from controlled movement in the barrel to free-rotating travel outside of the barrel when Yaw, Precession, and Nutation cause it to “wobble” in a helical pattern.  You may also recall how these forces quickly dampen the “wobble” into a predictable and stable flight.  This is due to the fact that All spinning objects possess gyroscopic properties.  In a firearm projectile, these gyroscopic properties contribute to a principle called “rigidity in space” which creates the gyroscopic inertia required for the projectile to travel along a predictable trajectory.

• In general, a heavier projectile is more resistant to disturbing forces than a light mass… i.e. heavier projectiles maintain a greater gyroscopic stability and are less affected by wind, and incidental contact than lighter projectiles.
• The higher the rotational speed (i.e. faster rifling twist), the greater the rigidity, gyroscopic inertia, and resistance to deflection (wind).
• Applicability: in theory, a heavier projectile with a higher rotational speed will maintain its gyroscopic stability better than a lighter projectile with a lower rotational speed.

Ballistic Coefficient

As we covered in External Ballistics Part I, gravity and air resistance immediately exert force on a projectile the moment it leaves the barrel. So far in this article, we’ve covered muzzle velocity, kinetic energy, and gyroscopic stability en route to understanding our goal - how to ensure a projectile retains as much muzzle velocity as possible for both predictable ballistic flight and to ensure effective terminal ballistic performance. This leads us to the term Ballistic Coefficient, which is a measure of how well a projectile can overcome air resistance and maintain flight velocity. Mathematically calculating the characteristics of projectile weight, diameter, and shape, the ballistic coefficient measures the projectile’s ability to conquer air resistance. This mathematical equation produces a number between zero and one. The higher (closer to one) ballistic coefficient is preferable as this indicates it will maintain its velocity better than a projectile with a lower ballistic coefficient (closer to zero).

• Shape - the third factor in determining ballistic coefficient is the shape from theprojectile tip through the ogive to the surface area of maximum diameter combined with the shape of the base. In general terms blunt tips with flat bases have the least efficient form factors whereas sharp tips with long ogives and boat-tails have the most efficient form factors.
• Weight and diameter - These two measurements combine to determine sectional density of a projectile. Sectional density is measured by dividing the weight by the square of the diameter. SD=w/d². Heavier projectiles possess greater gyroscopic stability and resistance to wind. Large diameters, however, incur greater air resistance. Therefore, the most proficient projectiles are those that are the heaviest in proportion to their diameter (caliber).
• Applicability: the most common way to design a heavier projectile of the same caliber is to make it longer.

• Applicability: A projectile with a high ballistic coefficient will travel to the target with a flatter trajectory, will spend less time in flight, and be less influenced by air resistance and wind deflection… therefore, it will arrive at the target with the greatest amount of residual velocity and kinetic energy.

Wow, that was quite a ride. Just remember: measuring muzzle velocity allows you to determine the consistency of your cartridge selection and calculate bullet drop and kinetic energy; velocity has a greater effect on kinetic energy than projectile weight; heavier projectiles with a higher rotational velocity are more stable and less affected by wind; long, heavy, and sleek projectiles with boat tail bases travel along a flatter trajectory, spend less time in flight, and arrive at the target with the greatest amount of residual velocity and kinetic energy.
With all of this knowledge in hand, we will be ready to discuss bullet drop, wind drift, and trajectory calculations in the next article. Until then, stay safe and shoot straight!

About Author

- Howard Hall 

Range Master

Howard has served for nearly 20 years in the Marine Corps. He has served as a Platoon Commander, Company Commander, Battalion Executive Officer, Regimental Operations Officer, and Battalion Commander. He has multiple combat tours to include serving as a military transition team member in Fallujah. He is an NRA Certified handgun instructor and holds numerous Marine Corps training credentials.  An active competitor in action pistol (United States Practical Shooting Association), long range rifle (NRA F-Class), and shotgun (Amateur Trapshooting Association, National Skeet Shooting Association), howard has earned numerous accolades and medaled during DoD competitions with the 1911 platform in bulls-eye shooting.

Source: http://aegisacademy.com/community/external-ballistics-part-ii/

California Assembly Bill 1014 is nothing to get in a tizzy about – Yet…

While the wasteful allocation of $24 million to seize the private property of gun owners is a sad indication of lack of respect for the rights of private citizens, the 4^th and 5^th amendment challenges to California Assembly Bill 1014 are just in the beginning stages. The cost of litigation and damages will likely make the $24 million pale in comparison. Based on the initial reports, the lack of a warrant in the attempted seizure is also causing significant problems. Rather than letting that make them stop and think, the usual suspects are trying to create a new law.

Nancy Skinner and Das Williams are at it again with their most recent attempt at gun control. As usual, these bills are thrown into the hopper and signed off based on an emotional knee jerk attempt to “do something” rather than an attempt to do something that will actually reduce crime. In this case the academic rigor applied to writing California Assembly Bill 1014 is shockingly lacking. The short answer is the ACLU and liberal left will kill this bill faster than anything the pro gun lobby could possibly do. Here is the play by play for those who do not want to read the entire California Assembly Bill 1014.

“This bill would establish a procedure to obtain a gun violence restraining order and, when applicable, a firearm seizure warrant, when a person poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself or herself or others by possessing a firearm.”

“If it is determined that the person poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself or herself or others by possessing firearms, this bill would require law enforcement to retain the firearm for a period not to exceed one year, would make ownership or possession, the purchase or receipt, or attempted purchase or receipt of a firearm by that person a misdemeanor for a period up to one year, and would require the court to notify the Department of Justice, as specified.”

The first portion of the California Assembly Bill 1014 that makes this unlikely to pass is it creates a state mandated program that local law enforcement must carry out. That requires the state to reimburse local agencies for the cost of enforcement. Adding unknown and substantial expenses to the state budget is truly challenging at this point. That by itself is not the deal killer, but unless a funding mechanism can be identified, it is very unlikely to pass appropriations (which is not indicated as necessary at this point, however, that oversight is highly likely to be rectified if this ever gets to a final draft).

Section 18100 defines a gun violence restraining order as an order by the people of California that a person may no longer possess a firearm. It further defines a firearms seizure warrant as requiring local law enforcement to seize any firearms in the possession of the subject of the warrant.

Section 18101 allows “Any Person” to submit the application for the gun violence restraining order by signing an affidavit. The order shall be issued if the standard “to the satisfaction of the court” is met stating “the named person poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself or herself or others by possessing firearms.”

Section 18102: In considering the validity of the request here are the general things that the magistrate has been directed to consider:

1. Recent threats or act of violence by the named person.
2. Violation of existing protective orders.
3. Violation of any firearms related offense.
4. Reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm.
5. History of use, attempted or threatened use of physical force.
6. Substance abuse, felonies & past convictions
7. Recent Acquisition of Firearms.

So here is a knee jerk evaluation of what the left will have to deal with to pass this through their side of the legislature:

Fourth Amendment case law has been pretty clear that probable cause is established by the totality of the evidence and not any one specific item, however there are exceptions. Any property, which is to be seized, which is protected by the first amendment (i.e. books, papers or films) has a laundry list of special restrictions. Would second amendment property not also reasonably be expected to have an extensive list of requirements prior to it being seized?

Per the Fifth Amendment under the eminent domain clause, the state does not have the right to deprive citizens of their private property with out “just compensation” for which there is no language or mechanism to do so in the bill. This will be a not insurmountable challenge, but an expensive and time-consuming effort to define public safety as public use. Regardless, we can expect this oversight alone to tie this up in appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, and we have barley even left the opening paragraph.

What is disturbing about this is the consistent, ineffective and seemingly endless stream of ill-considered legislation that continues to be spawned by the extremist left legislators in California. These non-sense bills compound the simple fact that California Gun legislation has not contributed one tangible or traceable statistic to crime prevention, violence prevention – or even reducing “gun violence” in the state. Despite the sweeping and broad ranging restrictions, our statistics remain on par or worse than many of the states in the nation.

California Assembly Bill 1014 will have an uphill fight inside even the extreme left. If passed it will be tied up in appeals for years. I have little fear of this at this point, save the fact that the California legislature is writing blatantly unconstitutional bills that seem to be actually considered. Unlike this particular bill, that penchant is a cause for concern.

About Author

- Patrick Henry

President

Patrick Henry received his operational training and experience from the U. S. Government, 22 years of which were spent in the Marine Corps where he served in the Reconnaissance, Infantry and Intelligence fields. During his active service, he spent more then seven years deployed overseas in combat, operational and training assignments. After the military, Pat worked as a contractor and as the Director of Operations at a private paramilitary company, specializing in training special operations forces and providing protective services to select private clients. His education consists of an MBA from the University of Southern California (USC), and a BS from San Diego State University with an emphasis in Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular Biology and a minor in Psychology. He holds an extensive list of security and training related certifications from a variety of government and nationally recognized entities. He currently sits on the advisory committee at USC’s Master of Veterans Business Program, and is an active member of Infraguard and the American Society of Industrial Security (ASIS). He has been a guest speaker at ASIS, the San Diego Industrial Security Awareness Council and other private organizations on physical security, travel security, and competitive intelligence collection counter-measures.

Source: http://aegisacademy.com/community/california-assembly-bill-1014/

Common Sense Gun Control

As we look back at the locations mass murderers, or would be mass murderers, choose to attack, the number of times a "gun free zone" is chosen over an alternative location is staggering. This should not be a surprise to anyone with a basic understanding of human behavior. Do mass murders consciously choose to attack unarmed citizens? Of course they do! Why would anyone with any common sense and even a basic grasp of risk choose to attack armed citizens if they had an unarmed group that could meet their goals?

We like to write off mass murders as insane. Most likely they are, but that does not mean they are incapable of calculation and lack common sense. When we look at serial killers, we expect detailed and extensive planning to avoid detection, which is unfortunately too often successful for years. Mass murders are no less capable of rational thought and evaluation of risk. While the motivations of theses two different killers may be grossly different, insanity does not limit their ability to assess risk.

We see evidence of planning, collection of supplies and even evidence of surveillance and practice. To assume that the only random act in these people's repertoire is the choice of location is asinine. The chances of this many gun free zones being chosen over other available attack sites randomly – is as close to zero as probability will allow. Mass murders are attracted to gun free zones – period.

In John Lott's study and subsequently published book More Guns Less Crime, we see the statistical impact on criminal behavior of concealed carry. As concealed carry increases, violent crime is reduced. This study has been picked apart, reproduced and lambasted by a variety of economists on the other side of the argument, and not one has found a different result. Criminal behavior is impacted by the potential of armed citizens. The higher the probability a criminal has of encountering an armed victim, the less often they choose to commit crime.

The basic laws of supply and demand drive human behavior – even criminal behavior. While there has not been a quality study of the impact of open carry that I am aware of, you will not see the same result. If open carry were to increase, this merely gives criminals the ability to more accurately assess risk. This is highly unlikely to decrease total crime. It is the inability to accurately assess risk that reduces the incentive to commit crime.

The elimination of gun free zones, and increase in the volume of armed citizens carrying a concealed firearm will force potential criminals to accept more risk than they do now. That increased risk will reduce the incentive, which will reduce the incident rate. The time to argue against science is past. Despite Mr. Bloomberg's penchant for funding the fabrication of numbers to support his earth is flat gun agenda, the fact is that gun free zones attract mass murderers and unarmed citizens attract criminals.

This has only looked at the deterrent effect. We've seen that what stops active shooters is an armed person willing and able to confront them. Time and time again, they are shot, surrender or take their own lives in the face of armed resistance. Common sense? How about simply looking at the facts. How many more of our countrymen will be sacrificed on the altar of "common sense gun control"?

Source: http://aegisacademy.com/community/common-sense-gun-control/
  

About Author

- Patrick Henry

President

Patrick Henry received his operational training and experience from the U. S. Government, 22 years of which were spent in the Marine Corps where he served in the Reconnaissance, Infantry and Intelligence fields. During his active service, he spent more then seven years deployed overseas in combat, operational and training assignments. After the military, Pat worked as a contractor and as the Director of Operations at a private paramilitary company, specializing in training special operations forces and providing protective services to select private clients. His education consists of an MBA from the University of Southern California (USC), and a BS from San Diego State University with an emphasis in Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular Biology and a minor in Psychology. He holds an extensive list of security and training related certifications from a variety of government and nationally recognized entities. He currently sits on the advisory committee at USC’s Master of Veterans Business Program, and is an active member of Infraguard and the American Society of Industrial Security (ASIS). He has been a guest speaker at ASIS, the San Diego Industrial Security Awareness Council and other private organizations on physical security, travel security, and competitive intelligence collection counter-measures.

The Solution to Elliot Rodger

What played out on Friday night in Santa Barbara was a deranged 22 year old carried out his plans for mass murder. He legally purchased three pistols and used one or more of them to kill three apparently randomly selected people and wound thirteen others. Prior to that, he also used a legally purchased knife to kill his three roommates. What ultimately stopped him was a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

As the national spotlight swings back to mass murder, we will bring up guns, drugs, psychosis, background checks, social engagement and the usual fare. We can look at each of these in detail and come up with some options that may in some ways improve our ability to prevent or mitigate (reduce) the effectiveness of a potential attack. Typically preventative measures catch most of the national spotlight in phrases like "Never Again", "Stop the Violence" or "Save our Kids".

Preventing Mass Murder

Prevention by definition means the attack never occurs. In order to do that, we have to stop the potential attacker from becoming a violent criminal. We can look at the mental health aspect, prescription drug use and on the surface, it would seem there may be some hope there. A majority of mass murderers seem to have been prescribed anti-psychotic drugs at points in their life, but this is a far cry from causation. Could it be that people in need of anti-psychotic medications are more likely than the general population to engage in these types of behavior?

Blaming anti-psychotic medication is akin to the left blindly blaming the gun for the act, and it gets us nowhere. Taking a legislative approach to mental health is even worse. The eventuality of this line of thought is it would put health care providers at odds with their patients and stop people who need treatment from seeking it out. Even if that were not the case, the concept that somehow our mental health professionals have the data and experience to determine who is a risk and who is not is flawed. Identifying criminals before they act has proven to be well beyond the capabilities of the existing system. Are we to therefore treat all mentally ill people as if they are a mass murderer waiting to emerge? There are no effective or good solutions in a mental health legislation approach to preventing violence.

Another popular axis of prevention is social intervention. Friends, parents, teachers and coworkers all educated on the signs and symptoms and willing and able to step in. We have seen a number of attacks thwarted in exactly this manner; however, we have seen a number of attacks succeed in spite of growing social awareness. This same approach can reduce crime in all forms, but it will not prevent determined attackers from carrying out a plan. Social intervention is a tool that should be used and pushed out as much as feasible, and while it deters, it does not consistently prevent.

Gun restrictions are typically proposed as a preventative solution. In this case, if there were no guns involved, there would very likely to have been less deaths and less severe injuries. That said it would not prevent attack. Gun control is a mitigation tactic, and not a preventative tool. We have some additional barriers to this mechanism of prevention as well. First is that pesky second amendment, which would require effectively rewriting a contentious and hotly debated portion of our constitution. The second is that this line of argument assumes that the potential criminals access to firearms can be legislated away. This seems fairly unlikely in a country with more firearms than automobiles. Ultimately, this attack shows exactly how effective California's gun laws (nearly the most restrictive in the country) were at prevention. They were not effective in the least.

Mitigating the Effectiveness of Mass Murderers

With a lack of effective preventative options on the table, we are left with mitigation tactics that reduce the effectiveness of the attack. In the vast majority of these attacks, the attack ended when the attacker was shot, either by someone else or by himself. From a pragmatic perspective, the sooner this occurs, the less victims there are. The longer an active shooter is shooting, the more victims we can expect. Physically stopping an active shooter, usually with a bullet has proven to be the most effective means we have available to us, bar none.

There are a number of structural mitigation techniques from bullet proof glass to hardened structures and entry control points that can reduce the effectiveness of attacks and provide deterrents. As we continue to expand the use of these items in schools, public buildings and private spaces, we can in some cases substantially limit the violence a criminal can inflict. Ultimately, these protective measures can be an effective means of limiting damage, and in some cases reducing access to other victims.

The most readily available and effective means of mitigating the effect of an active shooter is stopping the attacker, which typically results in the death or severe wounding of the attacker. Law enforcement are the best suited to respond in mass and end an attack, but law enforcement and dedicated security have typically not been on scene when these incidents occur. The cost of a tactical response unit on every street corner is grossly impractical and furthermore, none of us really want to live in a police state.

The dedication of private security is an equally expensive mitigation option, that is being used in a variety of locations. We have yet to see the effectiveness on a large scale, however, it is plausible and even likely that we will see some type of deterrent effect. Additionally, we have seen armed private citizens end violent incidents in a number of cases. Nick Meli in Oregon last year is probably the best textbook example but there are several others. That said, we don't know how many private citizens stop what would have been a large-scale attack, when they defend themselves from what starts as a single attack.

The question quickly becomes one of training. How many private citizens are actually capable of making an accurate shot under extreme pressure, and the reality of that answer is very few. The qualification standards across the country for concealed carry are outright laughable. If that is the extent of the abilities of the average gun owner in this country, the public would be safer if they chose not to bring their weapons to the attack. In this country we rely on the individual to understand the requirements and train themselves to a reasonable level of proficiency. In many cases, that personally determined level of proficiency for firearms ownership has proven to be grossly inadequate.

This quickly puts us back to that pesky second amendment again and what the term shall not be infringed means. That is beyond the scope of this article, but the short version is it already has been, repeatedly since 1934, and we ignore the clear language in every state and federal piece of legislation on guns. These laws are clearly unconstitutional, but for what society considers the greater good, we ignore that reality. The social question we are struggling with is what is a “reasonable” level of infringement. Unfortunately, that has no reasonable answer depending on your background, experience and political leanings.

The Reality of Stopping the Elliot Rodgers of our World

While we may not be able to agree on what a reasonable level of infringement is, what we know is an armed and properly trained person in the vicinity of an active shooter is the best chance we have of mitigating the effectiveness of an attack. From a statistical perspective, the more armed and properly trained people in the crowd, the better our chances of one or more of them ending the assault. Conversely, untrained or poorly trained armed personnel in the vicinity who choose to use their firearms are likely to add to the death toll.
The problem of unbalanced people taking out their frustrations with their own inadequacies on the general public is unlikely to be prevented. A large body of competent, armed citizens is the best means of mitigating the risk that active shooters pose. Regardless of the legal wrangling around the second amendment, each of us has a personal role to play in our own safety and security. We don't have to choose to be a helpless victim in this country. In choosing not to be a victim, you may well be the person that saves others lives in the process of saving your own.

It is unfortunate that there was not one armed and competently trained person in proximity to the attack to bring an end to Elliot Rodger sooner. Six people are dead, thirteen wounded and we are no closer to a solution. Despite the dysfunction in Washington, each of you can make your community safer by doing your part to reduce the victims in your community by one. Learn what to look for, what to do and how to respond to an active shooter in your community. Take the next step and learn how to protect your person and your family. If you choose to bring a weapon in to that equation, then you also have an added responsibility of being proficient with it.

Psychiatrists, dedicated security and material solutions all play a part, but it's the community that will stop the violence, or choose to perpetuate it with poor decisions. Get involved and figure out what you can do to improve your contribution to the safety of the community you live in. If your choice is to completely abdicate that responsibility to police or dedicated security, you are a part of the problem. I sincerely hope each of you are willing to put forth at least some level of effort to be part of the solution!

Source: http://aegisacademy.com/community/elliot-rodger/
 

About Author

- Patrick Henry

President

Patrick Henry received his operational training and experience from the U. S. Government, 22 years of which were spent in the Marine Corps where he served in the Reconnaissance, Infantry and Intelligence fields. During his active service, he spent more then seven years deployed overseas in combat, operational and training assignments. After the military, Pat worked as a contractor and as the Director of Operations at a private paramilitary company, specializing in training special operations forces and providing protective services to select private clients. His education consists of an MBA from the University of Southern California (USC), and a BS from San Diego State University with an emphasis in Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular Biology and a minor in Psychology. He holds an extensive list of security and training related certifications from a variety of government and nationally recognized entities. He currently sits on the advisory committee at USC’s Master of Veterans Business Program, and is an active member of Infraguard and the American Society of Industrial Security (ASIS). He has been a guest speaker at ASIS, the San Diego Industrial Security Awareness Council and other private organizations on physical security, travel security, and competitive intelligence collection counter-measures.