Middle East Strategy and Obama

“You made some comments in the newsletter introduction last week about Obama’s speech at the UN. While there is no shortage of critics of Obama’s lack of a strategy in the region what I don’t see is anyone offering an intelligent alternative. What do you think we should do in the Middle East?”. ~ Don K.

Don, thanks for the question. First and foremost, as most of you are aware, I consider Obama’s foreign policy to be his largest failing and undoubtedly view our actions in the Middle East though a less then unbiased lens. I will attempt to explain a thought process I do not agree with, while pointing out competing opinions on the subject.

Obama’s actions and inactions have closed doors to potential options that were less costly in the past. It has also opened doors to potential options that, unfortunately, most observers like myself view as unlikely to bear fruit. Sadly, regardless of good or bad strategy, the end state of our current strategy in the Middle East is an all but certain degradation of our influence in the region. The degradation of influence ultimately paints us into a corner where the only remaining option to maintain U. S. interests in the region is military force.

Rebuilding our influence in the region will certainly fall to the to the next U. S. president. To save you the read, the short answer is all that we can do is wait until after the election. The current administration has set the course we are on, and Obama has proven stubbornly resistant to changing it. The most poignant evidence of that resistance is the revolving doors in leadership at the department of defense and intelligence communities. The course he is pursuing is a nearly 180-degree shift from the previous 35 years, and it will take time for us, our allies and our enemies to understand its implications. The best I can offer is to review the administration’s strategy and where it may leave us in a year because what we are currently doing is defining the options that will be available to us in the future.

The most common mistake I see when discussing Obama’s strategy in the Middle East is to claim that it does not exist. That is very different from claiming it is ineffective, poorly conceived, etc… Obama has a strategy, and that strategy largely consists of disengagement and Counter Terrorism. These are based on his perception that U. S. voters are more tired of U. S. casualties (military or civilian) then they are of a degradation of long-term U. S. interests. In this case, he has proven his strategy to be effective in that we re-elected him on that platform.

U. S. interests in the Middle East primarily consist of Energy Stability, Nuclear Non-proliferation, Counter Terrorism and the Expansion of Democracy. Traditional instruments of national power are Diplomatic, Informational, Military and Economic. We’ll take a very cursory look at the strategies Obama has employed, and what impact they have had in hopes of providing an increased understanding of our options and how they developed and have shifted.

During his second term, Obama has effectively limited our military engagement to Counter-Terrorism (CT). I have read a few pieces attempting to defend this decision as “the desire of the American people”, or “the only economically sustainable option”. Killing specific individuals that have the potential to coordinate and act in the United States is a very intelligence dependent operation. Using air power and drone strikes more broadly as this administration is prone to do has its own set of unintended consequences called “collateral damage”. The bottom line is that killing terrorists is a delaying action, which buys time to allow us to develop other long-term solutions. You cannot simply delay your way to any sort of victory.

As we disengage from the region, CT becomes more dependent on our partners to provide intelligence required to target specific individuals effectively. As we know, our alliances in the region are prone to shifting, and foremost driven by short-term self-interest. As power is consolidated in denied areas like ISIS controlled territory, we lose the ability to effectively employ a CT strategy. The real problem with a combination of disengagement and CT is the two approaches become mutually exclusive at a certain point. Very soon, we will be too blind to effectively employ a CT strategy under the current state of engagement.

When it comes to Nuclear Non-Proliferation, the treaty has all but wiped it from the list of U. S. concerns. The agreement provides an effective 150 Billion dollar stimulus package to Iran to support their sudden new desire not to become a nuclear power. There are some potential short-term delays in their ability to produce a weapon should they choose to, which are largely unverifiable. While we may have potentially extended their nuclear horizon by months or years, that extension is dependent on estimates based on the capabilities and facilities we are aware of. The lack of effective inspection makes this a dubious prospect at best. The strategy is ultimately based on an olive branch approach to trust Iran to change course.

The ultimate goal here is once again not a lack of strategy, but a diplomatic and economic strategy to entice Iran to join the western world on friendly and constructive terms. I consider this to be a naïve departure from the effective strategies that have kept the Iranian Theocracy in check for the past 35 years. It is, however, possible that Iran abandons its nuclear ambitions and partners with America making a legitimate effort to help it’s new partner with other interests in the region. While highly unlikely, that is the strategy we are executing under this treaty. The next president will have the task of dealing with the results.

Energy stability is the third piece of the equation. Here we seem to see the same strategy of diplomatically and economically enticing Iran to play nicely with the rest of the world. Effectively, energy stability means the ability to ship oil from the Persian Gulf to the rest of the world through the Straight of Hormuz. Iran has been the source of any disruption in the straight for the past 35 years. Having them as a legitimate friend vice a well-heeled dog may be of some intangible benefit in the future, but keeping them heeled has worked quite effectively. What exactly that benefit may be is impossible to know.

Russia is the largest beneficiary of disruption in the straight as it increases the price of oil to a point where they can cost-effectively export. The relatively recent Russian partnership with Iran on Syria, ISIS, and Iraq certainly shifts the incentives for Iran away from U.S interests in the region. Currently, Russia is using ISIS as an excuse to bomb U. S. trained anti-Syrian forces. Our response has been non-existent. Russia has effectively stepped into the vacuum we created and has aligned with Iran, Syria, and Iraq. What it will demand in return can be expected to be in line with Russian interests which are rarely in concert with U. S. interests.

Lastly, when we look at the expansion of democracy, we abandoned the fledgling democracy in Iraq in 2012 knowing full well what the consequences of that decision would be. We have diplomatically isolated Israel and put their long-term survivability in the region at risk. This is not unintentional, nor a lack of a strategy. This is rooted in Obama’s belief that U. S. exceptionalism is a counter-productive to global cooperation, and that non-democratic forms of governance like Iran and Syria have some undefined value to the global community. This view is not something we can change for the next year.

The real casualty of Obama’s policies and actions in the Middle East is U. S. creditability with both our allies and our traditional enemies. We see that lack of respect or fear from Israel to Moscow, and Tehran to Istanbul. Israel is now engaging Russia on the issue of regional stability at both the diplomatic and intelligence sharing level. America is no longer seen as a potential threat nor a reliable partner in the region. That is where the next administration will have its largest challenge is rebuilding American creditability.

What does a credible Middle East strategy look like a year from now? It depends entirely on the good graces of Iran and Russia to be responsible state actors in the region, or the alternative that they are not. We have largely succeeded nearly all influence in the region on the prospect of “Hope” that they will “Change”. My suspicion is that we will have to rebuild that influence largely by force.

What remains to be seen is the impact of diplomacy on Iran. I suspect this approach will be a catastrophic failure. I sincerely hope I am wrong, and we can make headway on stability in the region over the next year. Regardless, when we look to Putin and Khomeini, Assad, Netanyahu, and the rest of Middle East leadership, the U. S. disengagement from the region has put us on the bench as a bystander dependent largely on the actions of Iran and Russia.

Unfortunately, until Mr. Obama’s experiment has run its course, we have almost no ability to predict what avenues will be open to us, and which will be closed. Asking what we should do in this environment is an unanswerable question, because we are doing has no basis in traditional or historic approaches. Once we have an administration that defines regional stability in terms of U. S. interests vice a diplomatic experiment, then perhaps we will be able to make some assessments.

I realize that provides no firm answer, but I see no strategy that Obama is willing to employ that has traditionally been used to enhance U. S. interests. Answering what we should have done is an exercise in futility at this point because those opportunities are relics of the past. I hope this at least provides some insight in the processes at play in the formulation of a strategy in the Middle East.

Author ~ Patrick Henry

Source: http://aegisacademy.com/community/middle-east-strategy/

Violence in America

Scholars, pundits, and activists have been more and more frequently mentioning the decreasing homicide rate in our society while the media paints a very different picture. We are at the low point of a near twenty-year decline in violent crime in America. Despite this quantifiable decrease, American perception stubbornly holds on to the idea that America has become a more violent and dangerous place. While in some major cities we can see evidence that trend is potentially reversing, the bottom line is America in much safer then it was twenty years ago.

Much of that perception is based on the frequency of reporting of violent crime by our media. The statistics are well documented and present a grossly inflated view of crime as a percentage of other events. As we look at media over time, we can see a steadily increasing diet of violence, crime and social unrest fed to the American public via movies, TV shows, gaming and the news. Unfortunately, the reporting percentages have no correlation with the incident rates and are purely providing programming based on what American viewers choose to watch.

The American Psychological Association has published study after study finding that violence viewed on TV and in person, is associated with increased aggressive behavior. The classic example of these types of experiments is the Bobo doll experiments conducted by Albert Bandura in the early sixty’s. In two subsequent experimental iterations, Bandura deliberately exposed children, ranging from two and a half to six years old, to adult acts of aggression directed against a Bobo doll. The first exposure was in person and the second iteration was exposure on television, but the results were the same. Exposure to violence results in increased violent actions.

From the results of these studies and many more like it, many Americans make the claim that we are raising an ever more violent generation of young American. This reasoning fits with our predisposed notion that society is becoming more violent despite evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, our perception often has little to do with reality. The average age of violent offenders has actually increased, and not decreased over the past thirty years. Sixteen to twenty-four year-olds have always accounted for the lion’s share of violent crime. As the boomer generation ages, we are at the end of a historically rare reduction in the youth bulge in America. Despite that fact, the demographic shift alone is insufficient to account for the decrease in the violent crime rate.

Two factors are easy to quantify and simple to explain. First is the massive expansion of our judicial system. We have increased spending by nearly 171% over the past 30 years. That spending has increased the number of police on the streets, the number of judges and the number of jails. As a proportion of GDP, which has remained pretty flat over same period, we have massively increased the percentage of resources dedicated to security services. Continue Reading...

Author : Patrick Henry

Inequality For All

With the constant media blitz of crime, racist cops, transgender harassment, and corporate scandal, you would think America had completely derailed. Inequality has become the popular defining measure of our society. While there is room for improvement on some fronts, America is by almost any measure one of the most tolerant, opportunity-laden and transparent nations on the face earth. You would not believe that if you picked up any major newspaper or turned on the network news, but compared to the racial divisions, class divisions and risk of citizens in other societies, America is exceptional. We have somehow transitioned national interest from maintaining ourselves as the land of the free to focus on a perception that we are the land of the oppressed.

The real tragedy of the media’s fixation on violence, crime, scandal and bigotry is the national reputation in the eyes of young Americans. In Milwaukee in 2008, at 43 years old, Michelle Obama, a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School announced, “for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country “. Many young American college students echo similar sentiments from the cafeterias of some of the greatest educational institutions in the world. This loathing is not exclusive to Ivy League institutions, and is rampant in our entire education system. It follows them into the workforce, and permeates every segment of our society. Somehow, over the course of the past 50 years, we have lost the conviction that America is the bastion of freedom and the land of opportunity for the modern world.

When the rights of the few, derail the liberty of the many, it is time to consider whether or not “the few” really have cause for separate laws. There are no means by which we can protect every individual’s freedoms in every circumstance with a specific set of regulations that apply to that one person. The law is designed to provide a framework for our judiciary to make judgments about how they should apply. As we codify new laws protecting classes of people, individuals or institutions as worthy of special protection or exemption, regardless of how noble the cause, we segregate that class of people from the rest of society.

Treated differentially under the law is a recipe for enhancing the social exclusions that invariably accompany special treatments. We need to look no farther then hate crime legislation as a prime example. Why is murder treated differently depending on the racial or social opinions of a theoretically free human being? Is murder some more significant, and deserving of special punishment because an ignorant racist committed it? From politicians exempting themselves from the laws they pass to long-term subsidization of business and from the exemption of religious organizations from taxes to the special protection of individual fetishes; we can find numerous laws on the books that apply only to a small subset of the American population.

In protecting a business, we make it less subject to competition and subsequently less efficient over time. This inefficiency invariably results in underutilized resources and waste. Charles Koch and I do not agree on many social issues but his take on corporate welfare is dead on. Corporate welfare is eroding American competitiveness as surely as long-term welfare is eroding the competitiveness of the individuals receiving it. When we exempt institutions from paying taxes, we burden other productive enterprises with making up the difference, which removes resources that productive enterprises could use to create jobs and opportunity.

When we protect even the most helpless class of mentally competent, adult citizen, we do the same to our society. When we look at affirmative action, we see an entire class of American being told that since they cannot compete, they will be given an opportunity they don’t deserve. That is absolute corrosive to that individuals well being – because the reality is they can compete if we provide the opportunity to do so. Further, we deny that same seat to a potentially better-qualified candidate because they do not fall with the protected class. That is pretty far from equal treatment under the law.

Lately, we seem to be applying special circumstances to smaller and smaller subsets of the population. A high school boy who has decided to dress like a female and use the women’s bathroom is now the national rallying cry for transgender “equal rights” in Hillsboro. Why should the biological females have to share a bathroom with a biological male when our social norms dictate otherwise? If we agree that social norm is unfair, and this particular transgender boy’s request is reasonable, then the correct response is to allow the entire population of high school age children to choose to shower in a locker room of their choice rather then one associated with their biological identity.

If a restriction or subsidy does not make sense for the whole, then we need to take a thoughtful and serious look at the long-term impact on the class of people or organizations that we are segregating. The impact of ever expanding protected classes on the competitiveness of our future generation is catastrophic. Our society needs to convince the future generation of Americans that they have the confidence, strength and skills to look not to government and legislature for protection, but to look to themselves to create the world they want to live in. With every protected class, every restriction, every exempt organization, and every handout, we are chipping away at the ingenuity, creativity and work ethic that made this nation exceptional.

Our founding fathers were brilliant, but, in this case, they got it wrong: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are not unalienable rights. Those concepts are incomprehensible to much of the world’s population who are simply content to avoid conflict and do only what they are told. That incomprehensibility applies to many of our citizens right here in America. What makes America Great is that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are privileges that each American has access to, and the opportunity to put to use every day of his or her life. Segregation, special treatment and exemptions are eroding the value of those ideals.

I see very little empowerment in the candidates of either party vying for leadership in the upcoming election cycle. We opportunity by empowering the American people, not by restricting and segregating us.

Author: Patrick Henry

Source: http://aegisacademy.com/community/inequality-for-all/

Front Sight Focus

This article will answer a reader’s question debating the importance of front sight focus. While addressing this topic, I’ll also cover the mechanics of the human eye and the different types of pistol sights.

"A lot of instructors, including you, stress the absolute importance of sharply focusing on the front sight when shooting a pistol.  You also put a heavy emphasis on the importance of shooting tight groups in your articles and gun reviews. However, I attended some other courses and read a ton of other articles that downplay both the importance of front sight focus and shooting tight groups. In these cases, they emphasize gaining only 'flash front sight' to achieve ‘combat accuracy’ as the key to effective defensive shooting. I’m inclined to side with the latter because if I’m going to have to use my gun to defend myself, I’m not going to have the time for a sharp front sight focus and won’t need to maintain a tight group to stop the threat.  The only ‘score’ in a defensive shooting is defined by who is left standing.  So, why are you so insistent on establishing a sharp front sight focus and shooting tight groups?" - William in Poway, CA

William, thank you for the email and your question.  You bring up a good point regarding the different types of shooting which require varying degrees of front sight focus and accuracy. In general, bulls-eye and target shooting require a very high degree of focus and accuracy.  Conversely, rapidly reactions under extreme stress in a defensive scenario will typically allow for only the 'flash front sight' you mentioned.  However, regardless of the situation, you are morally and legally responsible for ensuring where every projectile lands.

Trigger control and aiming are the determinants of where your shots land. If you train to master these elements, you’ll not only build a solid foundation for gaining and maintaining true proficiency, you will be just as fast and considerably more accurate than those who aspire to only be good "combat shooters." Those who train to consistently accept a "flash front sight focus" are not enhancing their ability to shoot accurately, nor are they faster, and there is no practical benefit to training to a lower and less effective standard. Proficient shooters didn’t get fast by accepting sloppy sight alignment, they got fast by developing myelin along the appropriate neuromuscular pathways that resulted in consistently shooting fast and accurate groups over thousands and thousands of correct (perfect) repetitions. Combat accuracy is "good enough" in combat, but it should not be the standard by which you train.

To a certain degree you are right in stating that no one will be "scoring" your shots in a defensive scenario, but mastering the fundamentals and training to higher standards of proficiency will greatly increase your odds of being "the guy left standing" without injuring yourself or innocent bystanders.

In the following paragraphs, I’ll provide a more in-depth answer by covering the mechanics of the human eye in regard to front sight focus, different types of front sights, and conclude with considerations for training.

Aiming (sight alignment/sight picture)

By now, most of us have learned in basic pistol instruction that sight alignment is required to ensure the pistol is properly oriented to send the fired projectile in the desired direction. When combined with sight picture, the projectile consistently lands where it is intended.  While a minor error in sight picture may place the projectile in the wrong part of the target, a similar error in sight alignment may contribute to a missed shot.  Once proper sight alignment and sight picture are attained, effective trigger control ensures that neither the sight alignment nor the sight picture are interrupted when initiating the firing sequence.

Sounds easy, right?  Not so!  Too many shooters try to analyze and correct this myriad of variables simultaneously.  So, let’s break this down one element at a time.

The Mechanics of the Human Eye

Although the eye is an astounding sensory organ, it has a limited depth of field which allows for focusing on only one image at a time.

Light enters the pupil which acts as an aperture controlling the amount of light passing through two lenses which posit the focused image on the retina.  This image is then sent via the optic nerve to the brain.  The light passing through the eye is "focused" or sharpened by the two lenses. The outermost lens is the cornea, which is fixed, and the innermost is the crystalline lens, which is variable.   Altering focus from near to far objects requires a change in optical power which is controlled by the crystalline lens.  In order to focus on a distant object, the ciliary muscles relax and flatten the curvature of the crystalline lens.  Conversely, the ciliary muscles contract to create a bulge in the crystalline lens which causes greater refraction allowing focus on close objects.  Thus, it is impossible to focus simultaneously on near and far objects.  Establishing a sharp focus on one object renders all other objects in view in varying lesser-degrees of focus. Continue Reading »

Author: Howard Hall

Resilience – Why it Matters!

Resilience ~

: the capability of a strained body to recover its size and shape after deformation caused especially by compressive stress

: an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change

When we look at business, psychology, or sociology the concept of ‘recoverability’ is a key component in measuring the health and effectiveness of an organization, an individual, or a society. In dealing with unpredictable or unexpected events, the most successful organizations, people, and societies are those able to adapt and create novel solutions to novel circumstances. Elements of the successful actors are creativity, commitment, confidence, experience, and talent but in the case of shocking events the most common term for this collection is resilience.

When we look at business, psychology, or sociology the concept of ‘recoverability’ is a key component in measuring the health and effectiveness of an organization, an individual, or a society. In dealing with unpredictable or unexpected events, the most successful organizations, people, and societies are those able to adapt and create novel solutions to novel circumstances. Elements of the successful actors are creativity, commitment, confidence, experience, and talent but in the case of shocking events the most common term for this collection is resilience.

The black swan is the typical example of a completely novel event. European explorers had never seen a black swan as that genetic mutation did not exist in Europe. In 1697, when Dutch explorer Willem de Vlamingh discovered black swans in Australia, it was something
never before considered. This term has come to be used to describe unpredicted events ranging from natural disasters to terrorist attacks and is used extensively in the risk management field. Detection and deterrence in personal security, and prediction and risk mitigation to businesses are very different from the ability to react effectively to novel inputs.

This phenomena of extraordinary shocks to business systems is studied extensively in risk management with supply chains being the primary target, and easiest to quantify metric, of redundancy and alternate capabilities. When an 8.9 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Japan in March of 2011, Honda, Toyota and Nissan were all forced to shut plants in the affected region. While Honda and Toyota were massively impacted well into the fall, Nissan had recovered its production capability largely by April, and completely by July. They had invested in redundant production capability and created a globally dispersed, redundant product sourcing and assembly capacity. Ultimately, Nissan gained a long-term increase in total market share. It is largely considered the model for effective supply chain resilience.

At an individual level, it is usually studied by psychologists looking at the impact of traumatic events after the fact; most frequently in the study of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. More recently, organizational psychologists are starting to attempt to develop quantifiable programs to develop resilience in a variety of aspects including management and leadership. Military training has been attempting to build resilience into tactical leaders since the dawn of armies. From a general security perspective, we are not at great risk from what we can predict, we are at great risk from what we cannot predict. The only mechanism we have to defeat black swan events is resilience. From an individual security perspective, what we should be concerned with is how we can create resilience in individuals.

As we look at the ability to forecast or predict events from an individual perspective, the concept of detection and deterrence can become even more challenging. Organizations have the ability to hire professionals to evaluate supply chains, identify critical risks and develop plans and take action to mitigate those risks in an academic setting. Most private citizens do not have a full time security detail conducting the equivalent of those skills for them, and further, the consequences are personal. It makes us even less likely to account for the potential black swans in our personal lives then in our professional.

Worse, we tend to overestimate our abilities in the personal security arena where we are rarely measured. While the risk of being fired is substantially stressful, it is not the same as the risk of being injured or killed. That fear often translates in to denial. Despite the fact that most citizens have little to no experience or training that enables them to be more effective then “average” in avoiding or deterring threats, when polled, most consider themselves “above average”. We see this common belief in a variety of skills and most drastically in that 85 - 90 % of Americans believe they are an “above average” drivers… Worse, our misconceptions are reinforced that we are superior in our ability to avoid violence due to the relatively infrequent occurrence of violent attacks (or car accidents) that would provide us evidence contrary. 2/3’rds of our society will never have their assumption challenged, but more then 32% will…

If we consider the skills required to deal with expected scenarios, they are quite different then when dealing with novel scenarios. It is the difference between being taught what to think as opposed to being taught how to think. Expected scenarios are studied, quantified, and measured. The inputs and outputs can then be evaluated and placed on a scale of positive vs. negative consequences and those inputs prioritized accordingly to maximize positive outcomes and minimize negative outcomes. We can then teach people what to do when they see relevant inputs; in other words, what to think and do.

In dealing with completely novel scenarios, by definition, we will not recognize the inputs, and will have no idea what the most likely outcomes to our actions will be. Time and time again, in studying responses to novel events, we find that people, organizations, or societies that have a broader scale or wider range of abilities and skills to call on, perform better. The simplest example is the supply chain as discussed with Nissan. They had more diversity in production, and were able to leverage that to recover quicker, ultimately achieving a long term advantage over their competitors.

On the individual level, psychologists have proposed that developing strengths are a more useful endeavor in determining the long-term success of individuals. The thought is that individuals will gravitate towards fields in which they are competent, and be judged as successful based largely on their ability to apply that core competency. In dealing with predictable environments like employment, developing strengths is a more productive allocation of time than attempting to improve on irrelevant shortcomings. The problem arises when confronted by novelty. Those with a broader range of experiences have proven to be clearly superior in finding solutions to novel challenges then those with more specific skill sets.

As we look at threats to organizations or individuals, we see a list of potential inputs, appropriate responses all with the goal of mitigating the risks we know about. Those are not the risks that tend to cause truly negative outcomes. It’s the ones we didn’t see coming that consistently take the largest toll. Developing resilience requires a commitment to the development of individuals in skills and experiences that may not directly impact their day-to-day activities. For an organization to justify that type of investment is rare, and individuals are equally unlikely to decide to improve skills they have yet to need and see no short-term benefit to developing.

The reality is that as we look across existential threats to organizations or individuals, resilience is the key determinant of survival when these novel events occur. Next month, we’ll take a look at exactly how critical resilience is to personal security. Further, why it so difficult for us to predict negative outcomes in our personal lives; and we’ll take a look at how we can build resilience into individuals, leadership teams, and organizations as whole. Resilience is a key component to the safer communities we all desire to live in!


Author - Patrick Henry

Source: http://aegisacademy.com/community/resilience/

Thalys Train Attack – A Cultural Bias for Action

In France this past week, we saw the actions of six people thwart what would mostly likely have been very severe on the Thalys Train traveling from Amsterdam to Paris. There were over 500 people on the train, and yet only six acted. Undoubtedly, there were others in the vicinity who could have acted, but they choose not to, or chose instead to distance themselves from the attacker. Conversely we saw employee’s of the company that operated the train lock people out of cars in a desperate attempt to save their own lives, even though their actions clearly increased the risk for those who could not have escaped the gunman. What is interesting, is that undoubted, Americans were in the minority by a substantial percentage, and yet four of the six who acted, were American.

One of the Americans involved in thwarting the attack was quoted as saying “Do something! Once I started moving, all the fear left me” or something to that effect as I have seen about four different variations of his exact “quote”. There is actually a biological basis for his feeling. The body has a natural programmed response of the autonomic nervous system in response to stressors frequently referred to as the fight or flight response.

The fight or flight response is common across species and evolved as a means of increasing the chances of survival during violent or life threatening experiences. The trigger for the autonomic nervous system in response to stresso is recognition that an organism is in a stressful situation. Most of us have felt some version of this response at some point in our lives in response to an unexpected stimulus. In the case of an existential threat, the autonomic nervous system dumps a combination of cortisol, epinephrine, norepinephrine and dopamine into the blood stream.

We aren’t going to get into the physiology of fight or flight but the impact of this chemical cocktail on the body is decreased sensitivity to pain and increased muscular performance which can be used to fight or run, or anything else we choose to do with it. Many on the train choose to sit and stare, others to hide or run, but only a handful to fight. The biological response to stressors is pretty standard across the human species. In the case of this attack, everyone who was aware of the situation was most likely physically primed to act, but the decision to act aggressively, and solve the problem, was only made by six.

The primary driver of what we decide to do with our genetic abilities and limitations is based on our environmental or cultural influences and is less influenced by genetics. In fact, you can condition people to be more or less prone to act through training. That is exactly what the training for military and some law enforcement personnel entails. It is called by a number of terms, but a bias for aggressive action is an apt description of the end goal of military training programs.

We do this by placing candidates in stressful situations and critiquing their response. One common principle in elite units is that bad decisions are not great and good decisions are preferred, but a lack of decision and action is a reason to be removed from the the unit. The bottom line is that a bad decision may result in a catastrophe, but no decision places you at the whim of the attacker, which will result in a catastrophe every time. Some combination of positive and negative reinforcement is used to instill a bias for doing something aggressive in the face of negative stress.

Many Americans respond well to this sort of training because it is in fact quite similar to what they are culturally used to. Conversely, most of the Arab militaries I have worked with do not have the cultural ability to act with out direct instruction and intense supervision. This is not, as far as we know a genetic limitation as there is no “bias for action” gene that we are aware of. There are certainly examples of Arabs who can learn to function in this type of environment, and many Arab Americans who serve in elite American military and intelligence assignments very successful. This further leads us to the conclusion that it is not a genetic limitation, which means it is likely environmentally induced.

Anyone who has worked with a nations military that comes from a culture of dependance will tell you how very different it is to working with Americans. You can see the culture of dependance result in an almost innate desire to have some else, anyone else make the decision for them. This delay is grossly ineffective in violent encounters. The question is what are the environmental conditions of American culture that lends itself to producing a predilection to act aggressively in the face of stress? Continue Reading>>

Author ~ Patrick Henry

Bullet Set Back

In his book, author, firearms instructor, and former Marine Paul G. Markel succinctly describes the journey through firearms proficiency from novice through “expert.” More importantly, he describes the attainment of "expert" not as indicative of the end of the journey, but a firm commitment to being a life-long student. Through my personal journey, I’ve had the opportunity to train, compete, and instruct in firearms disciplines… and there are still many things I learn every day. Although I’ve studied and written extensively on ballistics and considerations for personal and home defense ammunition, I recently "re-learned" a valuable lesson on bullet set-back that I’d like to briefly share with you.

For a number of years, I’d kept a 1911 in .45ACP as my home defense firearm and loaded it with 185 grain jacketed hollow-point cartridges. During this time, I’d followed the advice that I’ve often dispensed to “routinely train with the firearm, firing the personal defense ammunition to ensure 100% reliability and then thoroughly clean the firearm and the magazines."

Well, in the last two years, I switched my home defense firearm to a Sig P227 in .45ACP for the higher capacity (14 versus 8), the integral light rail, and the choice of Double Action or Single Action. Feeling confident with the 185 grain jacketed hollow-point cartridges, I kept the P227 loaded with this ammunition as well. At first, I routinely trained with this handgun/ammunition combination and found it to be as reliable as the 1911 that formerly held this role.

Another Step in the Journey

However, I "fell behind" on training with this system as often as I had in the past… opting to just unload the firearm and the magazines, clean and lubricate both, conduct a non-live-fire function check, re-load, and replace.

Recently, when I conducted this routine, I noticed how the Sig P227 failed to feed the first cartridge into the chamber which jammed the gun out of battery. Whereas a “tap” to the rear of the slide would normally return to the gun into battery, chamber the cartridge, and lock the slide and barrel to the frame, this cartridge was firmly jammed against the barrel’s feed ramp. For a home defense firearm that must be 100% reliable, I found this to be discomforting.

When I unloaded the gun, the cartridge in question fell free from the magazine and I noticed that it looked “a little different.” Well, it looked a lot different… and so did the second cartridge in the magazine. THEY WERE SHORTER!!!! This different dimension, the overall length, is one of the contributing factors that led to the jam. Other than the obvious concern that these cartridges could potentially jam my firearm when I needed it the most, I wondered how many other cartridges in the magazine were "shorter?"

With a digital caliper, I measured the overall length (from the end of the cartridge rim to the leading edge of the projectile) of the ammunition from the box which had not been chambered into the Sig P227 and they measured 1.206 inches. This measurement was consistent with all other un-chambered cartridges.

The measurement on the “short” cartridge was 1.103 inches! Although this is only about one-tenth of an inch, it was enough to jam the gun. So, I did a quick test with a “good” cartridge and chambered it repeatedly while taking a measurement between each iteration. I had found that each time I chambered the same cartridge, the bullet “set-back” about five thousands of an inch (0.005?). This could be caused by an insufficient crimp (pressure from the inside of the cartridge case against the outside of the projectile), the edge of the blunt-tipped jacketed hollow-point impacting the feed ramp, or both.

The bullet set-back was not only altering the external geometry of the cartridge as it fed from the magazine into the chamber which increased the potential for a jam, it was also changing the dimensions within the cartridge itself.

Internal Ballistics, Pressure, and Bullet Set-Back

If you recall from the Ballistics Series, there are four components to a metallic cartridge: the case, the primer, the propellant, and the projectile. Ideally, the composition/density of the propellant fills the otherwise empty volume of the cartridge case for a uniform ignition. Continue Reading »

Author: Howard Hall

An Alarming Trend – Women Are Shooting

A couple of years ago, a news reporter at a Detroit television station announced that people using guns to defend themselves from marauders may be the beginning of “an alarming trend.” Brace yourself, as the state of the Union may have further deteriorated since. In a related conversation, one of my training industry colleagues asked me if I had also noticed a similar trend – an increase of women in participation of more-than-cursory firearms training.

The answer is a resounding “yes!” The professional firearms instruction community is indeed witnessing more and more women of all demographics arming themselves in America. As a personal security educator, whose job it is to transform his clients into hard targets, this brings a tear of joy and inspired me to dig deeper. Inquiring of other professional educators plus a little snooping around the net for more detail, this turned out to be quite the hot topic. Although many reasons were suggested, the three most common out there seem to be: the need to independently defend oneself (self-reliance), current events, and the fact that it has never been easier to get involved.

But why now? It makes sense that more women seek to be individually armed as they become increasingly independent, but the number of female shooters has skyrocketed in just the past decade. The “Changing Gender of Permit Holders Data” for seven states shows a general upwards trend in the percentage of permit holders who are women. Florida: the percentage of permit holders who are women rose from 18% in May 2012 to 23.1% in June 2015. Indiana: from 18.0% in June 2012 to 22.7% in March 2015. Louisiana: from 18.3% in 2009 to 24.8% in 2014. North Dakota: from 11.2% in 2010 to 24.9% in 2014. Tennessee: from 23.3% in 2008 to 29.3% in 2014. Texas: from 17.26 in 2004 to 26.7% in 2014. Washington State: between 2005 and 2014 with the growth rate for women getting new permits is twice as fast as that of men. Assuming that these changes in the shares of permits held by men and women for these seven states is similar, the number of permits since 2007 has increased by 270% for women and by 156% for men. (Source: Crime Prevention Resource Center http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2629704 )

Most of us are familiar with the 19th century quote “God made men, but Sam Colt made [them] equal.” Firearms are the great equalizer. The average woman is not as physically strong as the average man. In a violent hand-to-hand physical struggle against one or more male attackers, even if she goes to the gym five days a week, pumps iron and runs marathons, the woman is probably going to lose – unless she has a gun – and knows how to use it. According to Jason Hanson, a former CIA Officer and the author of “The Covert Guide to Concealed Carry,” the bottom line is, “a gun is without a doubt the best way for a woman to defend herself in a worst-case scenario.”

Armed and well-trained women are a predator’s worst nightmare. As such, it may be no coincidence that between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 156%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time. (Source: Crime Prevention Resource Center http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2629704 )

It’s important to approach this topic from the bottom line: in a life-or-death defensive situation, a firearm operated by a qualified user is the most effective hand-held protection tool available to immediately stop a physical attack – bar none. This same premise explains why the majority of my clients – male and female military, law enforcement, and armed federal agents, are required to carry firearms and why they are also required to qualify with them regularly.

Even for those who don’t carry a weapon for a living, owning a gun satisfies only one aspect of personal protection with a firearm. Quoting another of my colleagues (USMC Colonel and competitive shooter) “The belief that owning a gun makes you safe is as absurd as believing that purchasing a scalpel makes you a qualified surgeon.” In both cases, the blind act of owning these tools alone without professional firearms and defensive mindset training, and preparation for their use, actually makes you less safe. The two other critical requirements for personal protection with a firearm include professional training and weapons maintenance as you are responsible for safe handling, accurate round placement and appropriate storage.

It seems that this “alarming trend,” as gleaned from interviews with female graduates of defensive firearms training from all over the country, provides a means of leveling the playing field, ensuring personal safety, and a sense of being in control. That sense of control is empowering, and is something firearms-trained women often seek in other aspects of their life. The personal confidence and self-assurance that is a by-product of firearms training, lends itself to a more positive self-image. An image that when observed by a predator hunting for his next victim, may cause him to realize that he may be the one in harm’s way.

About Author- Steve Tarani

 

Firearms Instructor, Unarmed Defense Program Manager
Serving the federal training community for more than 25 years, Steve is a respected Protective Programs subject matter expert (SME) and service provider to numerous high/ low-profile US federal agencies and the private sector. Specializing in operational readiness, he is actively contracted by the US Department of Defense, National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, Drug Enforcement Administration, and many others. Steve is himself a former US Defense Intelligence employee (CIA), Protective Programs Educator and formerly on staff at the US DOE National Security Institute (Security Force Training Dept.) at Kirkland Air Force Base (NM). At the time of this writing, he is a published author of seven books and remains an advisor to the US Department of Justice (USDOJ) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). He is additionally a knife designer and the architect of IACP Model Policy on the carry and usage of knives by federal, state and municipal peace officers.

First Published at Aegis Academy

What Cyber Attacks Say About Our Values

Two weeks ago we saw United Airlines grind to a halt for well over an hour due to technical challenges with the booking system, so severe that at one point they were forced to issue tickets by hand.
This ultimately led to many being people having travels delayed, missing flights, and having to be rescheduled. Later that same day, trading was halted on the NYSE due to a "technical glitch". The nations pundits started screaming "We’re under Cyber Attack!"

Last week it was the Office of Personnel Management. They are a government agency that investigates people’s backgrounds for eligibility for security clearances. My personal data and literally everyone who has ever held a clearance since 2000 was compromised – most likely by China. This week it seems to be that Ashley Madison (the online dating site for people looking to cheat on their spouse) is the latest victim of an attack.  An anonymous hacker conducted this one as he has an axe to grind about the company making false claims about the security of the data its customers enter.

From national entities, to private companies, and professional services to interpersonal relationships, we have become seemingly dependent on IT infrastructure. I can’t remember the last time I actually walked into a bank, and I’m fairly certain Ashley Madison has streamlined the process considerably for those too busy to search the physical world for a fellow adulterer. Hand written airline tickets? My guess is they are still trying to figure out who was really on what plane. The impacts of disabling the NYSE for even a few hours are severe. Yet, we managed to build all of these systems without that technology in place.

A "cyber attack" is a disruption to the convenience-based technology on which we have become dependent. In most cases, it is that and nothing more. We used to dispatch everything from police to ICBM’s without computer systems. Certainly it was not as efficient as it is today, but we managed to get things done. Slower and less efficient, but still functional. I am confident that the Nuclear Command Structure has the ability to work around "Cyber Attacks" and cell phone outages, as do most police and emergency services. I am equally confident that most Americans would be incapable of functioning without those conveniences for an extended period of time. (Culture of Dependence?)

Regardless of how inconvenient it becomes, the shutdown of the entire electronic system on which we survive causes zero casualties. It is the civil unrest, looting, and rioting that is generally associated with prolonged power and convenience outages that get people hurt or killed. Over longer periods, it is the inability to get food and clean water. Rest assured that FEMA and state agencies have a plan to deal with this potential as well… We need only look to Katrina to see how effective we can expect that plan to be.

I am not trying to minimize the real impact of a long-term network shut down. We would expect that there would be many casualties from the ensuing civil unrest. Corporations spend billions on cyber security. Their profit margins (the reason they exist and can provide jobs) depend on it. When we compare that to the expenditures to prevent workplace violence, physical security threats, and threats to the people they employ, those expenditures are minimal.



Strangely, in the pre-computer based economy, people were the source of mission critical functions and transactions, and pencils, paper, and smoke signals were simply commodities used to pass that information. In the automated world of today, the system operator and maintainer is the commodity, it is the ability to transfer relevant information that has become the mission critical link.

Cyber Security is the mission critical function and what we as a society place value on because of the impacts on our economic engine. When it comes to your personal safety and security, you are now and really always have been on your own. At least I haven’t seen the app that will take care of that for you. Yet…

Author – Howard Hall

Patrick 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. Patrick has worked as a contractor and as the Director of Operations at a private paramilitary firm specializing in training military 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 in Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular Biology and a minor in Psychology.

He holds an extensive list of security and training related certifications. He 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, The Counter Terrorism Symposium hosted by New York’s Mobile Trauma Unit, and other private organizations on physical security, travel security, and competitive intelligence collection counter-measures.

Source: http://aegisacademy.com/community/what-cyber-attacks-say-about-our-values/

Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm

Many recent judicial rulings enabling a citizen’s lawful right to carry a concealed handgun coincide with the ever-present threat of violent criminal attack and a newer threat of terrorist activity in the homeland have greatly increased interest in sub-compact pistols. So, I will add another pistol for consideration and review the Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm and provide my observations of the handgun’s fit, function, and finances. I’ll also incorporate some useful accessories, such as the CrossBreed MiniTuck inside-the-waistband holster and Tractiongrips pre-cut grip enhancing tape.

A Little History

 

Following the immense popularity of Glock’s entry into the U.S. law enforcement and civilian firearms marketplace, Smith & Wesson introduced the polymer-framed Sigma in 1993. However, S&W’s design was so close to a Glock that a copyright infringement suit ended the Sigma’s run in 1997. Ten years later, S&W re-entered the polymer-framed striker-fired pistol market with the M&P (Military and Police) line. The 4.5 inch barreled .45 caliber M&P won Handgun of the Year in 2007 and it’s popularity spawned mid-sized and compact versions of the venerable .45ACP as well as 9mm chamberings in 2008. Later, in 2011, Smith & Wesson produced the M&P 22, chambered in .22 caliber long-rifle.

Also similar to Glock, the standard M&P line of handguns had wide-body frames which could contain “double stacked” magazines… and were somewhat difficult to conceal. So, in 2012, Smith & Wesson introduced the M&P Shield in 9mm and .40cal with a thinner slide and frame, and thus “single stack” magazine to enhance concealability. In 2014, Smith & Wesson introduced the M&P Bodyguard chambered in the diminutive .380ACP.

Initially, the M&P design incorporated only two “passive” safeties (a striker block to prevent inertial movement from striking the primer and a “hinged” trigger design which prevented trigger movement unless it was firmly pressed by the shooter). However, many shooters who wanted to use the M&P pistols for concealed carry or a back-up gun desired the addition of an “active” safety (which requires the conscious activation and de-activation on behalf of the handler). Thus Smith & Wesson incorporated an active “thumb safety” as a factory option in their M&P line.

In addition to client requests for training with a sub-compact M&P Shield, I too wanted to learn more about this handgun and considered it for my personal concealed carry. So I took advantage of a Father’s Day sale this past June and purchased a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm for training and personal protection.

Introducing the Smith and Wesson M&P Shield 9mm

 

By the numbers, this pistol has an overall length of 6.1 inches, width of 0.95 inches, height of 4.6 inches, and barrel of 3.1 inches… all weighing-in at just 19 ounces. It ships with two magazines… a “flush” magazine that holds seven 9mm cartridges, and an extended magazine that holds eight. The “three dot” fixed-sights present a clear picture and seem durable. For the most part, the operating surfaces mirror the full-size M&P line. However, the Shield does not include the interchangeable back-strap common to its bigger sibling. The advertised trigger pull of 6.5 pounds was verified using a Wheeler analog trigger pull gauge. With considerable “free travel” the pull weight rapidly progresses to the 6.5lbs and lingers there for a slightly “creepy” sear disengagement. Some of this perceived “trigger creep” may be due to the unique striker action inherent to the M&P design. While most striker-fired pistols are considered single action (slide action retracts and holds the striker fully retracted until sear disengagement releases the striker for full forward motion), the M&P line is technically considered “double action” since slide action retracts the striker to 98%. Trigger movement retracts the striker the remaining 2% until the sear disengages and sends it forward.

With its aggressive and “forward facing” slide serrations, he M&P Shield is easy to clear, manipulate, disassemble, clean and re-assemble. It breaks-down into the basic elements similar to other models… slide, frame, barrel, and recoil spring captured in the recoil spring guide. Some owners complain about alleged safety implications stemming from the requirement to pull the trigger in order to accomplish full disassembly. Other than adding one more step, I’ve never had a problem with this. I believe that following the basic safety rules and ALWAYS ensuring the firearm is unloaded prior to disassembly and cleaning will avert any safety hazards. However, apathy and carelessness pave the way to negligent discharges.

Impressions, Fit, Function, and Finances

 

Eager to evaluate this pistol and test its “out of the box” reliability, I took the Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm directly from the store counter to the range and put it to the test by firing 300 rounds of 115 grain Full Metal Jacket ammunition from various distances. I’m fairly impressed with the ease of operation and comfort in this small and affordable package. In the following paragraphs, I’ll evaluate its fit, function, and finances along with a full range report. Continue Reading »

Article by – Howard Hall

Shotshells in Revolvers

In this article, I’ll answer a reader’s question regarding shooting Shotshells in Revolvers for personal defense. Specifically, I’ll discuss the difference between revolver shotshells meant for pest control and shotshells designed for personal defense.

“I’ve been reading the Ballistics Series and your articles on personal defense with great interest. Good stuff! Where I live, there are many other people living in my home and there are other homes very close to mine. So, I’m very concerned about using ammo that would either over-penetrate an attacker’s body or go through walls if I miss. I’ve got a Smith and Wesson 686 4″ revolver in .38/.357. I practice a lot with the lighter .38 special rounds, but keep the gun on my nightstand loaded with .357 magnum hollow-points. I’m worried that using that much power may endanger my neighbors. Many personal defense articles highlight the benefits of using a shotgun for personal defense. I don’t have a shotgun, but I’ve come across a shotshell designed for revolvers. I think that I can get the best of both worlds by loading my .357 magnum with these shotshells that will do the job without worrying about shooting through walls. I’d appreciate your thoughts on this.” – Anthony

Anthony, thank you for the question. You bring up a lot of good points worth highlighting here and I’m glad you’re going the extra mile by reading-up on personal defense and asking questions. In the following paragraphs, I’ll address the different aspects of this issue one topic at a time.

Personal Defense Solutions

First, you’ve highlighted an important issue… firearm/ammunition selection. There are many different opinions on this topic available through blog articles, books, and classes. However, there is no single “ideal” solution that will fit every individual and every situation. Every person has a different level of body strength, visual acuity, and training. Every person also has a different home layout, both inside and outside. And everyone lives in a different area with varying levels of criminal activity and concern.

In the most general terms, rifles are terrific stand-off weapons that can deliver powerful projectiles with a high degree of accuracy at a number of distances. This high power may be counterproductive in an enclosed environment. Handguns, on the other hand, are easy to operate and to conceal (throughout the house or on your person), but the shorter barrels produce less velocity and accuracy. Shotguns with a regular stock or pistol grip are a bit more unwieldy in an enclosed environment, but they offer significant power, a wider variety of projectiles or shot choices, and are easier to aim and achieve the accuracy required for the situation.

Ryan Finn – The Truth About Guns.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com

In the photo to the right, you can see the results of a number of different results from ammunition that was fired through four layers of sheet rock. If you click the photo for a larger view, you can also see that only the #4 birdshot did not fully penetrate the 4 layers. Although the test does not describe how much energy each projectile maintained as it passed-through the fourth layer, it is clear that there was the potential for some degree of injury to an innocent bystander struck by a projectile that continued to travel through the walls. To read Mr. Finn’s article click here.

The bottom line is that there is an ideal firearm/ammunition solution available to meet the requirements of each individual to address threats in their environment. Since you own a .357 Magnum revolver, but are worried about over-penetration, you are making the right considerations for your individual situation.

Shotshells for the .357 Magnum

In this instance, you are both right and wrong. You are right in the fact that there are .357 Magnum cartridges that contain birdshot instead of a solid projectile. CCI/Blazer produces such a cartridge. It is the Blazer Shotshell #3738, which contains a total of 100 grains (about 150 pellets) of #9 birdshot in a small plastic capsule. CCI lists the muzzle velocity at 1,000 feet per second.

At first glance, it seems like shooting an assailant with this cartridge would create a nasty wound. Hell, 100 grains of shot traveling at 1,000 feet per second also sounds like it would produce the result desired. Quick math tells us that this produces 222 ft/lbs of energy… if it was a solid projectile! However, it is not a solid projectile, but a group of small projectiles that weigh about 0.67 grains each and would only produce any degree of damage if they remained clustered close together. Continue Reading »

About Author Howard Hall

Howard has served for more than 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.

A Semester Abroad: Arrogance, Apathy, and Ignorance, Part 4

Nearly a quarter million American students embark upon study abroad programs each year, and while most programs result in positive experiences and an expanded understanding of our world there are many study abroad programs that have a much grimmer and more costly ending. A 2010 article titled 7 Student Travel Nightmares paints a gruesome and vivid picture of how study abroad programs can go terribly wrong. From kidnappings to abandonment to murder cases, students have experienced an array of security disasters that have left families broken, higher education institutions writing big checks, and diplomatic agencies in a scramble. No country is without its share of security threats, no city is 100% safe, and no student is immune to becoming the victim of a life-threatening situation.

In the last three articles of this series, “Arrogance, Apathy, and Ignorance: What a Student Traveling Abroad Ought to Know“, I have candidly discussed my own experiences while studying at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, Russia. While I enjoyed many unforgettable times in Moscow, I also encountered many experiences that were quite un-enjoyable and unforgettable. At the conclusion of my last article, I left you all at the beginning of what I now call my ‘Taxi-Cab-Kidnapping’ story. I would like to tell the rest of my story, and I sincerely hope that by telling it some student will think twice about the seemingly insignificant decisions they make while studying in a foreign country. Because ultimately, when studying abroad things can go wrong and if they do it happens very, very quickly.

When the Unimaginable Happens

 

At first I could not believe that I was in a situation with an unknown attacker attempting to hurt me…again. Looking back, it seemed like a joke — surely this man knew that I had already been robbed, and surely he was just trying to ‘make a funny’ by driving me to the middle of a remote location before beginning his physical attack. In the moment, however, I had no time to think about the sincerity of his actions, I was simply in response mode, otherwise known as survival mode. As the driver of the taxi continued to wrestle with me for my purse (while driving down a deserted road mind you) I fought back, pulling and tugging on my purse. Without thinking, I punched the man directly on the right side of his face. Despite the likely weak punch I had delivered, he was even more mad and began to swerve down the road as all his attention was focused on forcing me to surrender my belongings. We were exchanging curses, grunts, and hits when all of a sudden the strap on my purse broke, leaving me with the body of the purse in my hands. We both stared at each other wondering what would happen next and at that exact moment, whilst still driving at a significant speed, the driver leaned over, opened my door, and kicked me out of the moving vehicle.

I would never recommend jumping out of a moving vehicle unless absolutely necessary…it hurts; however, this undoubtedly saved my life. Had he not ‘given up’ and kicked me out of his car I would likely be in a much, much worse situation than I am today with only road rash scars reminding me of this incident. After rolling down the embankment, I came to rest in what looked to me like the Siberian Forest.

My body was racing with adrenaline as I frantically searched for my purse and phone. Finding it lying in the leaves, I quickly called my friends back at the ex-pat restaurant in the heart of Moscow, hoping they could give me some direction as to what I was to do now. Not having any idea where I was, it being pitch black, and with absolutely no one around the only advice they could offer me was to stick my hand out in the road and wait for another ‘taxi’ driver to come. Yeah, right.

That is exactly what I ended up doing though, and eventually a foreigner came by and offered his services. This man from Pakistan actually knew some English, and reluctantly, through tears I asked him to take me to the nearest metro station. To this day I can see how I made one mistake after another, including getting in to that car with that man from Pakistan. Yet, despite all the risks and messy parts of this situation their was a silver lining. There are good people in the world — this man drove me straight to the front door of my building, offered to let me use his international phone to call home, and refused to take my money for his services.

My wild, could-be-a-scene-in-a-movie evening came to an end as I settled in to my dorm room to assess the damage. Besides some serious road-rash, I was alive and well.

An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth A Pound of Cure

 

The worst part about the night that this all happened, is knowing how simply it all could have been avoided. On the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s “Safety and Security for U.S. Students Traveling Abroad” webpage the above quote about prevention is featured. Prevention, as a practical security maintenance and conflict avoidance policy, is not something that is to be minimized: experts agree — prevention is the best policy. Knowing prevention is the best policy, however, and enacting practices for preventing and minimizing security risks as a study abroad student are two entirely different things. Nearly all of the lessons I learned from the unfortunate circumstances I encountered while in Moscow could be understood as lessons in taking the proper time to prepare for and prevent risk.

For example, preparing for the realities of Moscow crime would mean keeping my arrogant attitude in check, listening to the warnings of my friends and family, and actually taking the advice listed on the U.S. State Department’s page about being careful of people who seem overtly friendly. Or perhaps I could have prevented hundreds of dollars of theft by leaving my valuable in a secure location in my dorm building; I also could have saved myself from a dramatic, near-kidnapping by never traveling alone and choosing to not become too comfortable. I could have, I should have, and I would have changed so many things about my time studying in Moscow — not only to experience a more enriching learning environment, but also because being the American girl that has her valuables stolen, is attacked at a piano bar, and narrowly escapes a taxi-cab kidnapping attempt is downright embarrassing. Not to mention, I helped to fulfill nearly every stereotype that many Russians have about ‘ignorant’ Westerners being unable to handle the harsh realities of Russian life.

Closing

 

Throughout this series I have been very honest about my own shortcomings while studying abroad; at the risk of sounding too self-critical, I was indeed wreck-less and arrogant.

As a result of my disregard for my own security, I walked right in to the schemes of criminals and exposed my self to unnecessary security risks. To the students who are planning to travel to a foreign country in the near future, or to the parents of those students: I survived these attacks narrowly and I know it could have been worse. Please take your security seriously — there is not an international task force ready to swoop in and save the day…that only exists in Hollywood. Please plan ahead — you will thank yourself later (and save yourself some serious money.) As the old saying goes, “Prior planning prevents piss-poor performance”. And finally, please go study abroad. In spite of all the mistakes I made, I would encourage anybody who has the opportunity to enroll in a semester abroad program of some sorts. Choose to be wise, but seize the opportunity to get out of your own little world. As always, be safe!

Author – Anna Johnson

First Posted on Aegis Academy

Gun Review: Glock 43 Singlestack 9mm

In this article, I will review the new Glock 43 Singlestack 9mm pistol. Through the course of the text and photos, I will provide an overview, discuss the Fit, Function, and Finances in regard to this model, and then conclude with a Range Report and personal observations.

Whether you love ‘em, hate ‘em, or have chosen to ignore them since their introduction in 1982, there is no doubt that Glock pistols have made their mark on the firearms and shooting industries. Designed in 1981 by Austrian engineer and polymer tool pioneer, Gaston Glock, the Austrian Army commissioned the 9mm Glock 17 in 1982. The venerable G17 was introduced into the U.S. in 1985 and its simple operation and extreme reliability immediately caught the attention of Law Enforcement and commercial markets.

However, it wasn’t until 1990 that the G17 gained near-instant fame when Bruce Willis (playing the role of John McClane in the second Die Hard movie) incited a myth when his character stated: “That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me. You know what that is? It’s a porcelain gun made in Germany. Doesn’t show up on your airport X-ray machines, here, and it cost more than you make in a month.” Although the dialogue is factually incorrect in nearly every account, it launched a legend. (there is no Glock 7, no parts are made of porcelain – the slide is steel while the frame and some small parts are polymer, it most certainly WILL show up in an X-ray machine, and even in 1990 dollars, it didn’t cost more than the other character made in a month)

Since the company’s founding in 1981, they produced their 5 millionth pistol in 2007 (source: https://us.glock.com/heritage/timeline) and it is estimated that Glocks dominate 65% of the U.S. Law Enforcement market (source: Sweeney, Patrick (2008). The Gun Digest Book of the Glock (2nd ed.).

Iola, WI: Krause Publications).
Built on a foundation of extreme reliability, affordability, and superior function, Glock expanded their line of pistols to include a myriad of calibers, slide lengths, and frame sizes to accommodate a wider variety of law enforcement, military, recreational shooting, personal defense, and competition markets. Although it is a fine handgun for personal defense, concealed carriers often lamented the sheer width of even the “smallest” Glock models. Let’s call it what it is… the majority of the line-up can be best described as “boxy” and difficult to conceal.

A New Era?

During this year’s SHOT (Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade) Show, Glock unveiled the Glock 42… a Single-Stack (read: thinner) sub compact handgun chambered in .380 auto. Many flocked to the new offering with abounding joy while others decried the marginally performing .380 auto designation while crying: “if they only made it in 9mm!”

Well… the shooting world waited 27 years for a single-stack Glock, so the mixed emotions stemming from the Glock 42 turned into rapturous joy a few short weeks later in mid-April when Glock unveiled the G43 at the NRA Annual Meeting held in Nashville, Tennessee. Finally, the shooting community had its Glock single-stack sub-compact chambered in 9mm!

Introducing the Glock 43

 

Even though the sub-compact carry-pistol (or pocket pistol) market left little room for another entry, the Glock 43’s introduction was heralded with fanfare and eager anticipation. For weeks after its introduction in Nashville, gunshops around the country were flooded with requests and inquiries: “so… when WILL you get one in stock?” In most cases, they departed through the front door of the shops within hours of hitting the receiving dock. A few internet entrepreneurs on Gunbroker and Gunsamerica were taking advantage of the flurry of activity by charging premium prices exceeding the $600.00 range.

Although I’m generally lukewarm to Glocks and use either a customized 9mm Glock 34 for competitions or the G17 and G19 for instruction, I was also caught-up in the excitement about the new single-stack offering. I managed to purchase a Blue Box (military and law enforcement sale) for a little over 4 bills and I’m impressed with its fit and function.

By the numbers, the Glock 43 has an overall length of 6.26 inches, barrel length of 3.39 inches, height of 4.25 inches, and width of 1.02 inches… all with an unloaded weight of just under 18 ounces. All other features of the Glock 43 remain both similar and true to the original design… including the plastic “front dot” and “rear U-notch” sights.

The traditional Safe Action trigger initially measured a little over 7 pounds using a wheeler trigger-pull scale. However, after firing 500 rounds and conducting a thorough cleaning, the same scale measured closer to the advertised 5.5 pounds. Trigger travel and positive re-set are similar to other Glock models.

The pistol ships in the standard hard case with a gun lock, polymer cleaning rod and brush, magazine speed loader, and two magazines. Both magazines can hold 6 cartridges, but one is flush and the other has a finger extension.

Taking a closer look

 

The Glock 43 both functions and breaks-down in a manner nearly identical to the flagship G17. Also, the internal parts are NEARLY identical. The two most notable differences can be found in the dimensions and shape of the safety plunger and the tip of the striker. The photos depict the visual differences. Continue Reading »
 
Author - Howard Hall

Disclaimer: I have no personal or professional connections to Glock or its affiliates and I was not compensated in any way by them for this review. I purchased the pistol through a military and law enforcement retailer. The observations and opinions expressed are mine alone provided for your information only.