California Gun Legislation 2014

As we approach the end of the session, some will be scrapped, but a few of these will make it to vote and will probably pass. You can influence those decisions by engaging with your legislators. Here is what you need to know at a minimum, but as always, don’t just take my word for it, the links to the text are included in the title.

Feel free to post any ideas, concerns about individual bills and thoughts others can use when writing their legislators. Remember, when writing politicians, use plain, simple English written at an 8th grade level. Remove the emotion and keep it very short or you will lose their attention. Five hundred one paragraph emails are far more powerful than 50 long winded diatribes that no one will read!

AB 48, Nancy Skinner, D – Firearms: ammunition: sales

This bill proposes that ammunition purchases be recorded and reported if they exceed certain volume requirement – currently at 6,000 rounds in seven days. Additionally, it bans high-capacity magazines and kits that hold more than 10 rounds regardless of the date of acquisition.

- There is no linkage between large purchases of ammunition and violence. There is no link between magazine capacity and violence. Criminals will easily circumvent both of these requirements and neither will improve public safety. This is yet another burden placed on lawful gun owners with zero impact on crime.

AB 169, Roger Dickinson, D – Unsafe handguns

This bill limits the number of private party transfers a person may be involved in, in a two year period. This will further limit California citizens access to firearms that have paid the state mandated testing fee’s and added state mandated features.

- None of these features or tests improve the safety of the firearm, and many of them actually detract from its functionality. All of them provide a false sense of “safety” that may actually result in unsafe handling procedures by untrained individuals.

AB 711 – Anthony Rendon, D - Hunting: Non Lead Ammunition

This bill makes it illegal to hunt with leaded ammunition.

- This will increase the cost of bullets and shot used to hunt and we can expect that it will be expanded if enacted to all ammunition sold in the state. I have mixed feeling about this. The main reason for denial of range construction is the California Environmental Quality Acts draconian lead standards. The elimination of lead from the equation will massively undermine that line of denial. That said, lead is some pretty bad stuff, but if you are so cheap that you choose to eat it, vice using steel shot – this is still America and I support your right to do so until it can be proven (which definitively has NOT been shown) that lead from ammunition is infiltrating water supplies.

SB 53 – Kevin De Leon, D – Ammunition:

This proposes to subject ammunition purchases to nearly the same level of ridiculous scrutiny of the purchase of a firearm requiring the vendor to be licensed by the state, the buyer to have been approved by the state and still require a background check and exhaustive list of information to be taken and retained by the seller for each purchase. Further it limits the internet and mail order shipments into the state.

- This will most likely be vetoed by Gov. Brown as it is similar to AB 962, which is currently held up in the courts (since 2009). Brown also vetoed similar legislation last year stating that additional ammunition restrictions were pointless until the resolution of AB962. This ludicrous restriction is one of De Leon’s many attempts to eliminate guns from every citizen in the state. Once again, this will be an administrative burden increasing the cost of ammunition for law abiding citizens, and will do nothing to stop criminal importation from neighboring states at better prices. It will likely result in increased funds for criminals via the sale of black market ammunition form neighboring states.

SB 374 – Darrell Steinberg, D – Firearms: assault weapons

This bill attempts to redefine anything with a detachable magazine or a tube magazine over 10 rounds as an assault rifle, requiring registration of all existing rifles and restricting sales in the future.

Detachable magazines and fixed capacity have never been linked to mass murder, and the underlying “logic” of this bill is that criminals will somehow feel bound to abide by it. It does nothing to promote public safety.

SB 396 – Loni Hancock, D – Magazine capacity

This is a modified defeated bill that used to propose to ban all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, regardless of the date acquired. It now appears to focus on something entirely non-gun related and it is not uncommon to modify bills that are impassable to quickly get a new topic on the floor for consideration.

- With 3 of these pointless magazine restriction measures on the books, I would expect at least one of them to pass.

SB 567 – Hannah-Beth Jackson, D Firearms: shotguns

This bill attempts to redefine semiautomatic shotguns with what is similar to the “evil features” list on AR platform rifles as assault rifles.

- Restricting characteristics vice capability has proven expensive to litigate, easy to circumvent and been grossly ineffective at the intent which is limiting the availability of the “evil features” to the public.

SB 755 – Lois Wolk, D – Firearms: prohibited persons

This bill expands the list of misdemeanor convictions prohibiting firearms possession and add in numerical limits on total misdemeanors.

- I am not a fan of arming people who have criminal records, however, misdemeanor offenses are defined as “minor wrongdoing” and I do not support limiting my fellow Americans constitutional rights based on minor wrongdoing…

***I would however support the above bill if it was coupled with an equivalent lifelong restriction on their ability to vote. Only because we would remove 90% of the names of bill sponsors on this article in the next election cycle by eliminating their political base from the equation. Do not use that as a basis for your argument against the bill….

As the legislative session comes to a close on August 31, it is time to start paying attention to what is happening. Many of these will end up in the hands of the governor for veto or signature by Sept. 30. Your voice, or email may very well be the one that puts a stop to these pointless and ineffective laws. Take a few minutes to get familiar with the key issues, and draft a few points to send to the appropriate senator, assemblyman or to the governor when the time comes.

You can find more credible reading on these and other gun related legislation at the National Rifle Association Institute of Legislative Affairs and CalGuns Legislative forums.

Stay informed and stay free – Ignorance and complacency are the keys to the socialist agenda!

About Author

 

Patrick Henry - President & Firearms Instructor at Aegis Academy

 

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

Travel Safety – Is the world getting more dangerous?

In the past two decades, we have seen Islamist successfully destabilize Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and much of Africa, as well as seen them making significant gains in support globally. We need only look to ISIS and Hamas to see the impact of Islamist control of failed states. Additionally, we are starting to see the impact of mass immigration into Europe, the most visible example of which is the public support and legal acceptance of Sharia Law in some previously exclusively western nations. The reality is that the expansion of Islamist principles places additional risks on Americans (and westerners in general) when travelling abroad.

Terrorism is not the only travel safety and security risk that has become more heightened in recent years. The problem in Crimea and the Ukraine was not an Islamist originated problem, but the result of a weak or grossly ineffective foreign policy on the part of the United States and its allies. Violence in the former soviet bloc has largely been crime related. With the unchecked expansionist goals being demonstrated by Mr. Putin, we can expect that to take on a considerably more militant nature. The downing of Malaysian Air flight 17 is an example of the lack of control that Russia has over the separatists it has chosen to train and arm. This support by Russia has put skills and weapons in the hands of people who will cooperate while their interest align, but who will eventually break off and pursue their own goals. For the most part neither entities’ interests will be aligned with American traveller safety interests in the near future.

While drug cartels have largely been the source of violence in Latin America, they have until relatively recently avoided attacks on U. S. citizens. The past ten years have increasingly shown this traditional taboo eroded. What kept the deterrent effect in place was the U.S. response to the torture and murder of Kiki Camerana (a DEA agent) in 1985. It would appear that that type of intervention is no longer a credible threat to the cartels.

Politically, even our traditional allies (like Mexico), seem to be disinclined to expedite the judicial process. We see this in the case of our repeatedly denied high-level diplomatic requests for the expeditious release of a Marine arrested on weapons charges. That would not have been the case 10 years ago. What this tells us is that even governments that have traditionally depended on American economics and support, no longer see that as enough of an incentive to do us any favors.

Globally, much of this is due to the economic reality of the United States being on the path to a point where we are no longer the dominant economic force on the planet. More significant is the fact that the entire world views America’s foreign policy as lacking a stick. We may be able to provide a few incentives, but when it comes to use of force we have been shown to be lacking. When “red lines” are drawn, the U.S. has clearly demonstrated that we actually mean those are suggestions, and that the ramifications of ignoring our suggestions is that we will claim that we did not make the suggestion in the first place. Not exactly a recipe for credible or predictable actions on the part of the United States.

Historically American military power and the willingness to use it, has placed the concept of attacking Americans in the category of unacceptable. In the past when it has occurred, foreign military and police forces reacted swiftly and typically in draconian fashion to send the message to attackers that attacking Americans on their soil would not be tolerated. That made our intervention in many cases unnecessary, but the threat of it ultimately translated to a generally safer environment for Americans travelling abroad. That exceptionalism is no longer something we can expect or should rely on.
If we, as Americans no longer enjoy the deterrent effect of a strong foreign policy, then we must seriously reconsider the risk metrics we apply when travelling overseas. The most significant impact on American travellers is not that the world is becoming more violent or more dangerous (although that is certainly the case in many countries). The increasing crime and violence globally more significantly impacts Americans because we now are more likely to receive our portion of the attacks in general.

Additionally, we have far less diplomatic influence than we used to when America carried a big stick. We need only look to Edward Snowden in Russia, Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi in Mexico, and FBI Agent Robert Levinson in Iran to see the grossly ineffective results of our diplomatic efforts. Without the credible threat of force, there is no incentive for compliance with our interests. The decline of diplomatic influence has further degraded “American Exceptionalism” significantly.

To make it worse, we make good targets. The reality is that even poor Americans are rich by most of the developing worlds standards and without a credible deterrent in place, Americans on average are likely to yield a higher return on invested criminal effort. We are, and always have been, dependent on host nation security services to make the point that “attacking Americans will not be tolerated” to criminal and terrorist organizations in their countries. Clearly, that is not something we can rely on for the foreseeable future. We are left with the reality of an increasing risk for U. S. citizens travelling abroad. That risk is increased across the spectrum from random crime, organized criminal entities, as well as terrorism.

Our educational institutions and corporate entities that send students and employees overseas, are just now trying to determine how to effectively deal with the increasing risks. Unfortunately, those risks are already posing a significant threat. The fact is that American travellers have been sheltered by a significant deterrent effect that has allowed us to remain reasonably safe despite the complacency in our approach to travel safety and security. Fortunately, some corporations, educational institutions and private citizens are starting to do something about it.

Our travel safety and security workshops and lectures were nearly exclusively requested by the military and security based organizations that were travelling to high threat regions in the past. That has dramatically expanded into the private sector in recent years. The good news is that the early adopters are starting to learn how professionals evaluate risk, and keep themselves safe. The sad news is far too many Americans are still living in a world where American Exceptionalism protected them.

The increased risk to travellers is something that can be successfully managed and effectively mitigated. The tools and techniques we will discuss in this series are not skills that are reserved for intelligence agents or super spies. It does not take super human abilities to mitigate risk, even in high threat areas. What it does take is an honest evaluation of the risks you face, the impact of political influence on your plans, and the education and training to know how to improve your travel safety and security.

Next months article will cover evaluating international travel risk, and provide some tools and resources to use when creating your own travel risk assessment.

Travel safe and have fun!

About Author

 

Patrick Henry - President at Aegis Academy

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 III – Understanding Trajectory

Thank you for returning to our third and final discussion on External Ballistics. In this article, I will discuss the elements that affect projectile trajectory, such as sonic vs. sub-sonic velocities, ballistic curve and “zeroing” the firearm. This last article on external ballistics ties other articles in this series together in order to provide you with an understanding on how to leverage trajectory and consistently place your shots where you want them. This also establishes a solid baseline for the following articles on terminal ballistics, which describe projectile effects on impact.

Trajectory

Trajectory is simply defined as the curved path a projectile travels from point of initial velocity to impact. As we discussed in previous articles, upon exiting the firearm bore, the projectile’s initial velocity, momentum, and direction are affected by the external forces of gravity, air resistance, yaw, precession, and nutation. These external forces combine in a unique way to send the projectile along a relatively predictable path. Understanding the effects of these forces provide the shooter with the ability to combine accuracy with mechanical precision.

This may be a good time to dispel a common myth. Many have described projectile trajectory as “rising” during its flight to target. Although the projectile travels in a modified parabolic arc, the myth of projectile “rise” is not true in relation to the bore axis (line from the bore to the target). The projectile initially exits the bore in a straight line. The moment gravity and air resistance act on the projectile, it is “pulled toward the earth” and the projectile follows a downward arc. Yaw, nutation, and precession guide the tip of the projectile in the direction of this downward arc which keep it oriented toward the target. Therefore the projectile never “rises” above the line of the bore axis. The line of sight and the bore axis are NOT parallel. The bore axis and the line of sight are offset to compensate for projectile trajectory. Although subtle, the line of sight is a straight line between the shooter’s dominant eye and the target… but the bore axis is tilted slightly upward to ensure the projectile trajectory terminates on the intended target. Herein lies the source of the misperception: the projectile never “rises” above the bore axis… but it most certainly rises above the line of sight.

Also, note that I’ve described projectile trajectory as a modified parabolic arc instead of a true parabolic arc. If gravity was the only external force acting on a projectile, then it would travel in a true parabolic arc. However, air resistance causes drag on the projectile and “slows it down” throughout its travel to the target. The further the projectile travels, the longer air resistance affects the projectile and thus decays the parabolic path to target and increases the bullet drop.

Sonic vs Sub-Sonic

“Sonic speed,” or the speed of sound in the atmosphere is of particular interest to shooters. The speed of sound is the rate at which small pressure disturbances will be propagated through the air and this propagation speed is solely a function of air pressure. The speed of sound is directly related to temperature and air density at altitude. In general terms, sonic flight is 1,125 feet per second (f/s) at 68 degrees F at sea level (767mph, or 1 mile in 5 seconds). The speed of sound increases as the temperature increases, and decreases as temperature decreases. In most cases, we can use 1,120 f/s as sonic flight for a projectile.

So why is this important to shooters? We’ve discussed how air resistance creates drag, slows projectile velocity, and decays the parabolic arc. At velocities below the speed of sound, air is considered incompressible. Therefore, air resistance simultaneously builds at the tip and along the entire surface of the projectile (laminar flow). However, at supersonic speeds (above the speed of sound) there is no build-up of air resistance at the tip of the bullet and the projectile travels with greater efficiency. Projectiles traveling above 1,120 f/s maintain greater aerodynamic efficiency. When drag eventually reduces this velocity below 1,120 f/s, aerodynamic efficiency is lost, parabolic arc decays, and trajectory drop increases.

Ballistic Curve

Now that we have solidified the fact that the projectile does not “rise” in relation to the bore axis, but it does, in fact, follow an arc from the point of origin to the striking point in relation to the line of sight, we can now confidently describe this as the ballistic curve. From the shooter’s point of view with the sights aligned to the target, the upward orientation of the bore in relation to the sights or scope sends the projectile in an arc that “rises” along an ascending branch, reaches its maximum ordinate (max ord) and then follows a downward path along the descending branch until it reaches the point of impact on the target. The constant effect of gravity combined with the varying effect of air resistance (in relation to projectile velocity) alter the path of the descending branch in relation to the ascending branch… i.e. the drop on the descending branch is more dramatic than the rise on the ascending branch. Note that high velocity rifle projectiles fired at long range can experience trans-sonic ascending branch decay as they transition from efficient supersonic aerodynamic flight to less efficient subsonic flight. Altogether, this describes the ballistic curve.

Firearm Zero

A rifle or pistol is “zeroed” when the point of impact matches the point of aim. Most pistols are zeroed at 25 yards. Rifles can be zeroed at any distance in relation to the intended target. Applicability: Once a pistol or rifle is zeroed at a distance, engaging a target closer or farther than the zero can alter the point of impact in relation to the point of aim. Above, we discussed that the projectile follows a ballistic curve in relation to the line of sight. If a pistol is zeroed at 25 yards, which means that the point of impact matches the point of aim at this distance, and a target is engaged at 10 yards, the point of impact can be “higher” than the point of aim due to impact at the ascending branch of the projectile’s flight. If the same pistol engages a target at 50 yards, the point of impact can be “lower” than the point of aim due to impact at the descending branch of the projectile’s flight. Similar principles are true for rifle shooters and the difference between point of impact and point of aim are more pronounced due to the greater distance traveled, higher max ord, and greater effect of arc decay on the descending branch. In practice, shooters should know their firearm’s zero and make either sight/scope adjustments or apply the proper sighting “offset” to ensure the projectile hits the intended point of impact.

Many online resources provide ballistic calculator software. Some of them are free and some incur a charge. In many cases, you get what you pay for. Hornady’s web site provides a free ballistic calculator which calculates basic data points that many shooters could find useful. Just as a test, I entered my AR-15 data into the calculator. Using a 69gr hollow point boat tail .223 projectile with an initial velocity of 2,700 f/s zeroed at 100yards, the Hornady ballistic calculator computed the following.

Range (yards)	Velocity (fps)	Energy (ft.-lb.)	Trajectory (in)	Come UP in MOA	Come UP in Mils	Wind Drift (in)	Wind Drift in MOA	Wind Drift in Mils
Muzzle	2700	1117	-1.5	0	0	0	0	0
100	2409	889	0	0	0	0	0	0
200	2136	699	-4.5	2.2	0.6	0	0	0
300	1882	542	-16.7	5.3	1.5	0	0	0
400	1649	416	-38.8	9.3	2.7	0	0	0
500	1441	318	-73.8	14.1	4.1	0	0	0

What this means is that at 100 yards, the projectile would impact the target at the point of aim at a velocity of 2,409 f/s. At 200 yards, it would impact 4.5 inches lower than the point of aim at a velocity of 2,136 f/s and would require a sight/scope adjustment of 2.2 minutes of angle elevation. At 500 yards, the projectile would impact the target 73.8 inches lower than the point of aim at a velocity of 1,441 (approaching trans-sonic) and would require a sight/scope adjustment of 14.1 minutes of angle elevation. NOTE: these are simply computer calculations and should be tested to verify and add to a comprehensive data book.

Using the same calculator, I entered my 1911 data using a 230gr lead round nose .45ACP projectile with a ballistic coefficient of .207 and initial velocity of 772f/s. The Hornady calculator computed the following:

Range (yards)	Velocity (fps)	Energy (ft.-lb.)	Trajectory (in)	Come UP in MOA	Come UP in Mils	Wind Drift (in)	Wind Drift in MOA	Wind Drift in Mils
Muzzle	772	304	-0.5	0	0	0	0	0
25	760	295	0	0	0	0	0	0
50	748	286	-3.3	6.2	1.8	0	0	0
75	737	277	-10.4	13.2	3.8	0	0	0
100	726	269	-21.6	20.6	6	0	0	0

Although the table doesn’t calculate any distances closer than 25 yards, you can surmise that the point of impact would be higher than the point of aim at distances closer than 25 yards, match the point of aim at 25 yards, and fall below the point of aim by 3.3 inches at 50 yards, 10 inches at 75 yards, and 21.6 inches at 100 yards. Since this pistol has an adjustable rear sight, I can either add elevation at the rear sight or leave it zeroed at 25 yards and elevate my point of aim corresponding to the degree of total elevation required to hit the target. Both require practice!

An internet search for the term “ballistics calculator” or “ballistics software” will produce a rather extensive list of resources. Hell, there are even smartphone apps for “handy” ballistic calculations. For the example used above, Hornady’s ballistic calculator can be found at the following link: http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator

Conclusion

At this point, we’ve debunked the myth of the “rising” projectile and honed our understanding of trajectory. Come back next month when we put it all together and discuss range estimation, wind deflection, ballistic slope error (shooting uphill or downhill), and defining minutes of angle. In the mean time, stay safe and shoot straight!

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.

First Published at Aegis Academy

How to Build a Firearms Training Course

“To know what you know and what you do not know, that is true knowledge.” – Confucius

As a firearms instructor I consider myself a mentor or guide and I believe a great amount of thought should go into creating and implementing a firearms training course. If you are an experienced shooter or an instructor, the ability to shoot is not often the problem. Sharing your experience or knowledge often is. It is not just the physical action of shooting, but the organization, logistics, safety and small details required to successfully run a course. Setting up drills is easy. My intent is to provide you some guidance on how to begin and what subjects you need to consider. If you look online for how to build a firearms training course, you will see a plethora of “courses if fire”, drills or target schemes and little or nothing on why, how and if you should set it up. The targets are a training aid and not the focus of instruction. Four main points should be considered to provide a well-organized class or range day. Use this as a guide and starting point.

First you need to understand and be proficient in the subject. You must be able to explain information and answer questions about the skills you are teaching, as well as properly demonstrate them. Especially with firearms, instructors are expected to show that they are more capable than the students. If you are afraid to demonstrate a drill because you may “mess up” then you may be missing more than just the point. I personally have messed up more than once on a demo. I do not set the conditions in my favor to make myself look good. I demonstrate exactly what I want them to do. I explain to the students that even after 25 years I still have a bad day and they will to. Practice beforehand so nervousness does not get the better of you. If you screw up, own it. Do not make excuses. Study the material the night before, research and make sure your information, technique or skill is up to date. I will cover a few teaching points later on in detail.

You need to understand what the firearms training course is for. Define its scope and objectives. Set up a lesson plan with distinct goals. Who is the intended audience? Are the students’ beginner shooters, experienced law enforcement, military or competitors? Build a timeline that is realistic and allows you time for breaks and questions. Many times instructors start off with a large elaborate plan with too many training objectives and the point of the class itself gets lost in the process. Having a well thought out timeline allows you to pace the training objectives. I am a firm believer that keeping to the basics and practicing over and over fosters a client who can adapt to new situations quickly.

Third, make sure you coordinate the training area. Make sure that the range facility can support your plan, targets and angles of fire. How does your course of fire affect other shooting bays? Believe it or not, many instructors seem to think bullets magically stop once they go near a target, and have little knowledge of ballistics. A 9mm round can travel a mile under the right conditions and a .223 round twice that. If your range does not have strict regulations and lateral limits posted, then coordinate with the facilities Range Safety Officer (RSO) or Range Master and other shooting bays before going live. You, as a firearms instructor/RSO should ensure your evolution is safe as well as confirm that the training facility can support your objectives. If you can organize for other staff members to set up the range while you teach a class, even better. Having the clients stand around unoccupied while you set up targets or training aids wastes time and makes you seem un-organized. Additionally, not much can start the day off bad if the classroom is not set up or your computer is not working. Give yourself extra time before class to set up your computer, dry erase board or other teaching aids. Always wait on the clients rather than have them waiting on you. Create a checklist with all required equipment, a range set up schematic and outline to refer too. Know what materials you need prior and have them available or order them.

Fourth, You need to have a well thought out safety plan and range safety brief. I have attended too many competitions with short, quick, very general safety briefs. Even worse half the competitors are barely paying attention and more concerned with getting ready. I always read the printed safety brief verbatim at the start of each live fire training day, period. No one out ranks “Captain Safety” and bad things do happen, so having a plan is a necessity. Have a first aid kit appropriate to deal with gunshot wounds, as well as minor injuries. Have trained medical staff on hand or an emergency action plan in place. Take the extra 5 minutes and do it right, include everyone who will be on the range and ensure you brief any stragglers or late additions. Do not assume experienced shooters cannot make mistakes. Your clients should not feel like they are being treated as novices, but that you care about all their safety. Make sure that all staff as well as clients know what to do in the case of emergency.

Some tips below may help you in building your own firearms training course:

 

Teaching:

• Always have a “what’s in it for me” (WIFM). This is what the student is supposed to learn and why.
• Explain the concept, demonstrate it and have them practice, then demonstrate.
• No more than 1 hour of lecture with out a 5 minute break and keep lecture time down to the least amount possible, keep “Death by Power Point “ to a minimum.
• Keep explanations short and to the point on the firing line, I am terrible at this as I love explaining things, so if your long winded, be entertaining! If there is 5 minutes between live fire relays, keep them occupied and attentive.
• Know when you have reached a point of diminishing returns. Sometimes less is more.
• Greet each student and remember their name, have them express their goals and expectations for the training.
• Provide meaningful input on their progress and have them provide an evaluation of your performance.

Lesson Plan:

• Break down the critical skill you are teaching (Trigger control, Manipulation, etc.) and teach that to the audience.
• Set realistic goals for that skill and who need to apply it.
• Keep it simple.
• Make sure that your training aids and target scheme support your drill.
• Be realistic with your time line and do not over load the clients with drills.

Range/ Drills:

• How does the drill itself support or demonstrate the critical skill?
• How many rounds are required to learn the skill?
• What targets are required to learn the skill?
• Does the targetry require rehearsal to function? (Movers, turners)
• What other training aids do you need, such as timers or safety cones?
• Does the targets or drill meet the range safety requirements?
• Always practice the course of fire yourself, make sure there is a purpose and not just “cool”. Make sure your students can accomplish the task.
• Know the minimum safe distance for steel targets.

Resources:

• The NRA has many courses of fire, lesson plans and outlines already made, and are a great way to create your own version. Vet online or YouTube drills a bit before you make them yours. Save drills or classes you have taken from other courses, but teach to the level of student.
• If you think that an idea is original, you haven’t looked hard enough, someone smarter and more experienced set the path for you already.
• Research what your teaching! Learn who has done it before, why and how. For skip loading, read about Larry Mudget. If you teach the Weaver grip and stance, find out when Jeff Cooper first saw it used and why he adopted it.
• Always be a student of what you are teaching, you are never too good to learn something new.

With some good preparation, a little practice, research and a good plan, you can build and host your own firearms training course. You are teaching a valuable and relevant skill to people who may need it to defend themselves. You may be the first introduction to firearms training for some, and instilling good habits and a life long respect for safety will positively affect the training community.


Posted by Aegis Academy Staff.

The Impact of Concealed Weapons on Crime

The impact of concealed weapons on crime is a largely ignored element of the gun control debate. In More Guns, Less Crime, John Lott laid out the statistical effect of restrictive vs. non-restrictive concealed weapons carry policies on crime. Specifically he focused on violent crime. Despite numerous attempts to discredit it, not one study has found a statistically significant different result. That result is in non-restrictive cities, counties and states we see about a 4% reduction in the rate of violent crime.

The Pro-Gun Control Lobby has put a number of arguments forward in search of data to subvert the findings of the study. They were unable to find any statistical problems with study that would have resulted in a different outcome. Since the original release, John Lott has reworked his data multiple times, and more pointedly any time that a valid critique of statistical methods was presented over the last 18 years. The results have not significantly changed.

The real question is, how much more of a decrease in crime can we expect by an increase in concealed weapons carry in the population? Certainly the percentage of the population that carries guns has an impact on the violent crime rate, but it also has an impact on the accident or non-violent crime rates as well. At some point we will start to see diminishing returns. Most likely with some percentage of the population armed; the accidents (which are likely to increase with more gun handling) will start to diminish the effectiveness of arming more people. Regardless, of what the limits are, what we know is that less restrictive concealed weapons carry laws are associated with less violent crime. The question is, how does that occur?

The answer is a textbook case of the economic theory of substitution. A good example of this is bread. Let’s assume there are only two choices on the market for bread. White bread and wheat bread, which are evenly priced, and the demand in the market is 50/50. If we raise the price of wheat bread by some amount we can expect the demand for wheat bread to decrease, and the demand for its only comparable substitute to increase. Applied to criminal behavior it looks like this.

People choose to be criminals because the likely hood of being shot is very low. As the likely hood of being shot increases, people will choose to substitute criminal behavior for behavior less likely to get them shot. Adding more concealed weapons carry holders to the mix of unarmed citizen’s forces people to make that choice. Reducing them makes that choice more favorable. In the extreme, if there were a 100% chance of being shot, we would have no crime. The percentage of increase or decrease is based on the elasticity of demand, which is not really germane to the concept we are trying to relate.

Clearly human behavior is more complicated. The opportunity for substitute behavior is the gun control lobbies against this simple argument. Billy didn’t have a choice except to be a thug due to the fact that Billy grew up in a neighborhood with a bad school. The answer by default is we should improve all the schools so Billy’s little brother will not have to be a thug and eventually we will reduce crime. That works to some extent as increasing complimentary options certainly affects the substitution theory and the choices people make.
My problem with that line of reasoning exclusively is that it leaves us stuck with Billy’s thuggery. It’s too late for Billy, so we just have to deal with him is the logical extension of that argument. That argument effectively means that some of you will pay the price of societies burden of responsibility for failing to provide Billy with better options by being a victim of Billy’s thuggery. Personally, I would rather see Billy shot than force any other member of society to suffer his inability to civilly compete in modern society.

Economic theory is an amazing predictor of human behavior. The more you study it, the more you see its tentacles reach deeper and wider across many fields of study. To me the theoretical question is not, should people carry guns, but how many people should carry guns to achieve the ideal balance of crime reduction while maintaining an acceptable accident rate? From a practical perspective, acting on that theory, even if we know the ideal number would once again saddle a portion of the population with victimhood.

In response to a lack analytical support for restrictions, the Pro-Gun Control lobby has resorted to shock value in an attempt to push what is largely an emotion-based argument. Before you write this off as a one sided argument, take a look at the wholesale fabrication of conclusions produced by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 18 months ago.

In a White paper from October 2012, titled “Concealed Carry Permit Holders do Not Make Us Safer, and Likely Increase Aggravated Assaults”. They make the following statement to support their claim:

“So-called right to carry (RTC) laws allow individuals who are not legally proscribed from possessing firearms to carry concealed weapons in public, either by making it easy to get a permit to do so, or by not requiring such permits at all. Arguments for RTC laws are premised on the idea that everyone who is eligible to legally own a firearm is law-abiding, and is at low risk for committing a violent crime. Research cited above concerning weak standards for legal firearm ownership calls this into question. A recent review of concealed carry permit holders in North Carolina examined criminal offending in the group over a five-year period. During that period, more than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of crimes (excluding traffic violations), including more than 200 felonies and 10 murders or manslaughters. An additional 900 had been convicted of a drunk driving offense, an offense commonly associated with substance abuse.”

The volume of crimes seems significant on the surface, but as we all know volume is meaningless with out its corresponding rates in the population. When we convert these crime incidents to rates of Concealed Carry Holder Crime we see a different result. North Carolina reported 228,072 concealed weapons carry permit holders in 2005. What we find is the Crime Conviction rate is 0.213%, murder rate is .001% and the rate of drunk driving convictions is 0.096%. Converting these to rates per 100,000 to compare to the corresponding conviction rates in the general public, we find the following rates of crime per 100,000 residents:

North Carolina Crime Rate per 100,000 residents in 2005

                           Concealed Carry Holders             General Public

Crime:                                    213                                         4622

Murder:                                      1                                            6.8 

Drunk Driving:                       96                                           330

Regardless of what you think of the arguments for and against gun control, this level of incompetence, or out right deception on the part of John Hopkins University is a stain on the reputation of the institution. This type of slipshod approach and outright fabrications are common in a number of published studies supporting reducing or eliminating concealed weapons. These are the types of reports that stop any productive conversation on the topic of reducing violence. When the base of your argument is founded on a study that a fourth grader with calculator and Internet connection can debunk, you have relegated yourself to a very low level of trustworthiness.

The bottom line on increasing concealed weapons carry is that it reduces violent crime. That is not a guess or a theory like the methodology behind why it occurs. The fact is we don’t really know why it occurs, but we do, thanks to John Lott, know exactly what occurs when concealed carry laws are made less restrictive. Crime is reduced. Arguing that they make us somehow less safe is simply a preposterous conclusion based on an emotional argument that guns CAUSE violence.

If you are going to argue for or against something, know the facts. I hope that helps!

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