Advertisement

Stand Your Ground Laws and Firearm Homicides

We haven’t reviewed much research lately, which is DRGO’s raison d’être. So let’s take a look at a study presented in October at the American College of Surgeons’ annual meeting’s Scientific Forum. “Stand Your Ground: Policy and Trends in Firearm-Related Justifiable Homicide and Homicide in the US” by Marc Levy et al tries to show whether the spread of Stand Your Ground laws has increased even non-justified firearm homicides.  

The study methods seem superficially sound. The authors collected national statistics for each year from 2000 to 2017 from several government databases, and compared rates of justified firearm homicides (JHR) versus other firearm homicides (HR, excluding law enforcement actions) before and after enactment of SYG laws. 22 states became SYG states during the study period (from 2005 on, Florida first and from 2006-2011, the other 21 did). 28 remained non-SYG states. Because Missouri, Idaho & Utah enacted SYG statutes only 2017-18, they were considered part of the 28 non-SYG states.

Their conclusions broadly suggest problematic increases in both JHR and HR after SYG laws were introduced across all 22 states.

However, there are quite a few problems with their methods and analysis. In no particular order:

  • SYG is a rarely used defense, and JH is documented far more rarely than it is ultimately found. Statistics reflect only the first assumptions of police and prosecutors. Many JHs begin as homicide investigations that conclude, days or (if tried) months or years later with findings of JH. This inescapable under counting is an inherent major flaw in any study on JHR.
  • It does not appear that they correlated their findings on firearm homicides with overall homicide, violent crime and property crime rates. Part of the intent of freeing citizens to defend themselves anywhere is to reduce all those crimes, not just firearm-related ones. Because we know felons don’t want to be shot, and avoid suspected armed victims; this is a substantial rationale to the SYG idea, following up the Castle doctrine.
  • They point out that they did not attempt to correlate their findings with any other factors, such as “Other policies enacted in states during the period of this study [as well as] . . .  State poverty levels, population diversity, and firearm ownership.” Not to mention varying law enforcement practices, educational and political differences, ethnic disparities, etc. What about baseline crime rates? How about differences in law enforcement and prosecutorial attitudes toward self-defense outside the home, even if the state is non-SYG?
  • DRGO readers know that one of our biggest complaints about public health research into violence is the snapshot (or “case study”) approach comparing different places at a given time. This one is better, in that they report what happened before and after establishment of SYG laws in each state, which serve as their own controls. However, that is not the same as examining changes in trends before and after. An increased rate could actually be an amelioration of more rapid increase before; a decreased rate could be negative if the prior rate had been decreasing more slowly. Unless this is defined, overall changes in rates at a given point do not tell the whole story.

Examples of these problems can be seen in their data about New Hampshire, Alabama and Louisiana. New Hampshire had the lowest HR before and after its SYG law while Louisiana (New Orleans) had the highest HR overall. Neighboring Alabama categorized only two homicides as justified from 2009 to 2017 following its SYG enactment in 2008, despite reporting many more previously. SYG Tennessee reported the highest JHR all through the study, non-SYG Hawaii had the lowest. Nor do we yet know the way rates may change in Missouri, Idaho and Utah. And aside from Pennsylvania, with the Philadelphia metro area, all the SYG states are consistently rural.

Overall, JHR rose about 55% in SYG states over the study period, while HR rose about 11%. Meanwhile, JHR rose about 20% in non-SYG states with HR dropping about 2%. Because legally determined JH is still very rare, they cannot offset increases in HR. But any increase in JHR should be applauded.

They conclude, along with a number of predecessors on this topic, that SYG laws are a risk to public health that should not be adopted and should be removed where they have been instituted. But studies like this are riddled with inconsistent data collection and unanswered questions. They end up only echoing the pre-existing opinions of researchers who add one more low-quality paper to their résumés and to the rampant anti-gun, pro-control academic ethos.  

The cultural factors that drive violence and are different in different places were simply ignored. Culture and psychology are the main determinants of propensity to violence, not the means. Ignoring this is the greatest fault of their and virtually all such work.

.

.

Robert B Young, MD

— DRGO Editor Robert B. Young, MD is a psychiatrist practicing in Pittsford, NY, an associate clinical professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, and a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

All DRGO articles by Robert B. Young, MD

The “Big Guns” – Anti-Tank Rifles

Forgotten Weapons takes a look at the big bore blasters designed for use against early tanks. These weapons have been phased out for rockets today as, while they’re more expensive, they’re far more efficient against improved armor.

The anti-tank rifle has evolved into the “anti-material” rifles of today, a category dominated by .50BMG bolt actions and autoloaders like the McMillan TAC-50 and the M107A1. These weapons can efficiently, and at distance, wreck light vehicles. They can take out sensitive equipment. They can set off ordnance. And they can do so all much cheaper and usually safer than using shoulder launched rocket better saved for contact with actual armor or hardened positions.

In the video, Ian goes over why these were not employed as sniper rifles.

For anyone who doesn’t want to enjoy 12 minutes of technical discussion with Ian (shame on you) here are the highlights

  • Anti-tank rifles are designed to hit tanks
    • Tanks are big
    • Tanks are slow (unless they’re in full motion) and very limited mobility
  • The ammo is also designed to hit tanks and held to that accuracy standard
  • Anti-tank rifles are big and much less mobile than sniper rifles… because they’re for tanks

Now this isn’t to say that larger weapons aren’t useful against troops in the open under certain conditions but they aren’t mobile precision platforms. Snipers aren’t primary weapons that need this massive weapon for effect. They are, primarily, the eyes of a larger force and a special tasks asset to protect that larger force. A well placed sniper team’s most valuable tools are their eyes, optics, and comms to tell the larger force they’re supporting where to send all their much more substantial firepower.

That fancy TAC-50 or Mk13 Mod 7 might make a crucial shot, but the sniper might take their “shot” more effectively by using the 81mm mortar section to drop IDF on an enemy without compromising their ability to observe or move a fireteam, vehicle, or other asset to deal with it up close.

Combined arms is vastly different than video games like Modern Warfare have led us to believe. The MW sniper is just looking for some points to win the game. The real sniper is probably the eyes and part of the IDF fire control supporting 600 people in harm’s way. A critical, detail observing part of how a commander sees the space he is in charge of controlling.

Story Time – The XCR

When I was…

A young boy…

My father…

Took me into the city…

To see the gun store shelves…

And before 2003 they were a sadder.. darker place. Roll forward a few years into the SCAR competition, the sunset of the Assault Weapons Ban, and people were starting to find their way again in the world of modern rifles again. The SCAR competition kicked off that first great 21st century push into the market. A huge new expanded domestic market was awakening and companies were slowly figuring it out.

A younger me followed it all with unbroken attention as the industry giants Colt and FN went in. The FN SCAR ended up in Battlefield 2 in its goofy very fishlike early variant for the expansion pack. What a time to be alive.

Alive and a poor kid.

$500-600 for a PSL or a WASR rifle seemed like decadence. Units with a $2,000+ price tag were mythological level wants… But still wants.

And then I read about this small company in Utah that threw in with the heavies to design a rifle for SOCOM. This crazy guy named Alex Robinson thought he could pull a Gaston Glock and *boom* new service rifle.

I loved it. A small innovator solving a problem by building a worthy machine. Pure Americana.

Alex didn’t win.

FN did.

Old SCAR17s with Picatinny rail extension. Have done a few updates since.

That did nothing to stop me from wanting Alex’s new rifle. I was hooked by the core concept of the system, which in hindsight was a little overambitious and unnecessary from all the submitters.

Quick change barrels in the field! Go from CQB to DMR in XX seconds… nah, we went to far.

But at an armorer level that’s all we could ask for in life. Easy change barrels with easy tools and easy torque specs… sing the praises!

Anyway, the XCR was a platform that bit high but didn’t make the cut. It also had issues. You can dredge the internet to find them, they’re out there.

But Robinson Armament kept grinding and grinding. They didn’t stop improving their gun. They quietly kept on doing their thing while the AR Market exploded and then sifted into its component factions.

When Keymod hit, RA cut Keymod.

When 6.8 SPC II was the hotness they did it.

This has evolved into five receiver lengths. Six calibers options. M-LOK or Keymod in a number of finishes. All wrapped around an adjustable gas, full stroke piston, side charging, non-reciprocating, ambidextrous operating system.

Words. Lots of them.

In short, Alex Robinson and the team slogged through the trenches of keeping a product supported, customers supported, and continuous improvement on a system that launched and had to hold its own in an uphill field. A small team did what companies like Sig Sauer have veritable armies to accomplish. The XCR has survived in an unforgiving market that has silenced hordes of small products the couldn’t make it on merit.

The Kid in Me

I couldn’t be more excited. This is the first gun I wanted hard.

Disaster Math – Prepper Science

No matter where you hunt, hike or just go for a stroll; you need to be prepared.

I’ve wanted to point this article out for awhile now.

The Surprisingly Solid Mathematical Case of the Tin Foil Hat Gun Prepper

BJ Campbell is a hydrologist. A stormwater hydrologist to be precise. He studies water cycle patterns related to extreme (and rare) weather events that are likely to cause equally extreme flooding and damage. He then gives this data to planners who use it to determine how to take care of flooding within a given community.

How does this relate to mass unrest or a mass shooting event? The answer is in the mathematical application of risk.

To determine a floodplain boundary, we first identify a “storm event” that concerns us. We use historical rainfall data and some statistical magic to calculate the worst storm event a place is likely to experience in a 100-year time span, probabilistically speaking, and we call that the “100-year storm.” There’s a push in the field to quit calling it that, because it confuses the muggles, so now we often say something like “the storm which has a 1% chance of happening in any given year.” Then we take that rainfall data, judiciously apply more math, and turn it into a flow rate in a river. Then we do hydraulics (more math) to determine how deep the river will have to be to carry that much water, and we draw a line on a map.

The “100-year storm” is a low probability/high impact event. The event planners must anticipate is the extremely damaging one, not the average flood. Anything above average will overwhelm the plan if you plan for the average rvrny. The same approach must be taken with other safety precautions. You don’t plan for the average, you plan for the extreme that covers all the lesser events impact up to the point of incredibly resource heavy diminishing return.

Now back to Campbell.

We don’t buy houses in the floodplain if we can help it, because we are risk averse, even though the chance of it flooding in any given year is only 1%. Why? We will live in the house longer than one year. Over the 30-year life of a mortgage, the chance of the house flooding at least once vastly exceeds 1%, because every year is another roll of the dice. It’s not cumulative, though. The mathematics for back-calculating the odds is called a Bernoulli Process. Here’s what it looks like:

These same formulas can be applied on an event/time scale to assess basic parameters of civil unrest risk on local and national scales. It doesn’t take into account every variable that would tip the scales of probability, but the math is solid even on a broad basis.

Let’s look at Campbell’s “Revolution” math. It’s the same basic formula of analyzing events over time.

Now click through for the breakdown

No, seriously. Go. Understanding this event probability theory allows for well grounded risk assessment. The events Campbell uses are the two nation spanning civil wars domestically. The math could easily expand to other violent events that the US was witness too or participated in

And then check your logistics. Make sure you have that rifle.

The Kung Flu got Brandon

Brandon Herrera lives… for now. He brings us the spicy memes we so crave for our time on the internet. This also may be his last will and testament so we should give it its due deference.

The Patent Pirate invasion at SHOT was real and many of my industry compatriots have been struck down by an especially potent brew of SHOT Crud this year. The memes have kept up.

So come with me my reader friends, do as Brandon wishes and bump his view numbers.

One…

Last…

Time…

Speaking of the Corona Virus with Lime, however. Make sure you click here and do your part to mute the spread. Regular Flu is still out there doing its damned best so.. pay attention.

Gun Control is Bad Medicine

[Ed: This was originally published at Bearing Arms January 27 & reposted by permission. Minimally edited for DRGO.]

Dr. Patrick Neustatter recently penned an op-ed for the Fredricksburg Star supporting typical “common sense” gun control legislation.  I feel for my colleague because I too once believed the medical mythology that guns were bad and needed to be “eradicated.”  Over the past year — I celebrate my first guniversary next week — I’ve opened my Hippocratic eyes to actual facts and figures and have reached the conclusion that “Guns save lives.”

Here’s my rebuttal to the points people like Dr. Neustatter make:

“Gun violence” isn’t a public health problem, it isn’t even an actual thing.  Like “gun sense” and “assault weapon” it is a made-up phrase designed to do one thing:  facilitate disarmament. “Gun violence” consists of two parts suicide and one part criminal homicide, the latter largely limited to inner-city gang and drug-related warfare, and, according Giffords, is perpetrated by 1% of the population.  Unsurprisingly, it doesn’t even make the CDC’s top ten list, and Virginia is the fourth safest state in the Union.  Here are some additional facts to disarm the disarmamentarians.

Shootings cause 100 deaths per day.

Humans cause death, and nothing makes this clearer than research that shows that confiscation reduces gun-related suicide, but the suicide rates climb nonetheless.  Why? Because people kill themselves and others, not guns, and when people are literally left to their own devices, they find another way.  This is why red flag laws are terrible ideas.

“Gun deaths” per 100,000 in Australia, Canada and the U.K. are 0.9 , 2.0 and 0.23, respectively, compared with 12.21 per 100,000 in the U.S.

Cherry-picked numbers do not advance the discussion.  The U.S. ranks 30th worldwide for gun-related homicide, and the rate of gun violence per gun, since that’s what others want to focus on, is about 37,000 gun-deaths divided by roughly 420,000,000 guns for a rate of less than 0.01%.  This means that Americans are astonishingly “well-regulated,” or “in good working order,” with their guns.

The U.S. government will never be so authoritarian that guns will be needed to fight off its agents.

I’m sure Venezuelans thought the same thing when they disarmed in 2012, but I bet they changed their minds when armored personnel carriers ran over their own people in 2019, and their doctors were hauled off by thugs for protesting the lack of basic medical supplies in their hospitals.  Guns are about deterrence, and an armed population provides a necessary reminder to the government that its officials govern with the consent of the governed.  Human nature hasn’t changed much since the Bill of Rights was written, and history proves over and over what happens to unarmed civilians.

The Washington Post reported the percentage of people who have used a gun in self-defense “is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens.” Also, a survey by the Harvard School of Public Health said, “The National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss” . . .

I wouldn’t trust my life to the Washington Post or the Harvard School of Public Health.  I’m not a fan of the CDC either, but when it reports, begrudgingly, that guns are used defensively 1,000,000 times per year, I’ll believe it.  I don’t have Bloomberg’s armed security detail, and I don’t work for the Virginia Legislature on the other side of metal detectors and armed Capitol Police, so I’m concerned about criminal humans, not aliens.

 . . . and the firearms industry supports this fear.

The gun industry provides “We the People” with one means of self-defense.  Those of us that carry guns do so not based upon fear, but concern. I’m don’t tremble when I holster my gun, but I’m fully conscious of the need to handle the gun safely and I’m aware of the types of situations that I might face and how the gun I’m carrying may or may not play a role, based upon many hours of ongoing training and practice.

Confronted with the carnage caused by guns, which have no purpose beyond killing, unlike other things we regulate, we must take precautions. 

I agree with precautions, just very different ones.  If you’ve read this far and follow the numbers, these suggestions make perfect “gun sense”:

  • Ban gun free zones.  Any left must have armed perimeter defense and compensate for injuries suffered within.
  • No early release for violent felons.
  • Free concealed carry training for any victim of any violent crime.
  • Expansion of concealed carry by law into places of worship.
  • Send “gun safety” (control) legislation to the dustbin of history.

.

.

–Dennis Petrocelli, MD is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist who has practiced for nearly 20 years in Virginia. He took up shooting in 2019 for mind-body training and self-defense, and is in the fight for Virginians’ gun rights.

All DRGO articles by Dennis Petrocelli, MD

Gynecology and Gun Control

Bloomberg, not actually a participant in this particular story but I'd bet he supports it.

I’ve learned something new today, readers. I have learned that we should listen with rapt attention to the opinion of anyone who holds the title doctor. They are the wizened and learned ones from which only good advice can ever flow.

“Even if that doctor is speaking well outside their field of expertise?”, you may ask.

Well… Yeah, no.

Paul Manganiello: Gun legislation needs action this session

This lovely piece of… well, something… comes from Vermont and Dr. Paul Manganiello. Dr. Manganiello is an emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology. His expertise is women’s reproductive organs and child birth, so now let him speak on violence in society and why guns are bad.

In its last session, the Democratic Legislature failed to get any significant legislation passed addressing the issue of firearms and public safety. The only bill, attempting to reduce the risk of suicide by gun, that was submitted to Gov. Phil Scott would have imposed a 24-hour waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. The governor claimed that such legislation would be ineffective and sent it back to the Legislature. The governor also claimed that he wouldn’t be averse to signing firearm legislation if he thought that the legislation would be effective. We need to take him at his word.

I don’t believe any Governor would be averse to signing effective legislation. We just have very different ideas of what the word ‘effective’ means under these circumstances. Gun Control proponents have consistently held that effective means ‘sounds good’. With only vague evidentiary backing at best and the briefest, nearly insubstantial, regard for an individual’s rights.

However, I am not a gynecologist so what could I possibly know?

Death as an endpoint is only part of the story of suicide. In 2017, the most recent year for which we have data, there were 112 deaths by suicide in Vermont. More than 60% of those deaths — 66 — were firearm-related; there were approximately 1,100 injuries from attempted suicides. Firearms were responsible for only 1% of these reported self-inflicted non-fatal injuries, i.e., poisoning, cutting, suffocation, etc. Due to the inherent lethality of firearms, those who chose suicide by firearm rarely have a second chance.

Ah, guns are bad because firearm suicides are more likely to succeed. 66 suicides and 11 attempts with the method being firearm. Yet we are dismissing over 1,000 other individuals who tried to take their lives or succeeded. And we’re doing it because their suicides were safer, less effective, resulted in fewer successes. We’ve co opted the individual mental anguish of these people and are almost congratulating them because at least they didn’t use a gun.

I find it fascinating that, despite the prevalence of firearms in the nation and their alleged ease of acquisition, only 6% of suicides and attempts were made with a firearm by Dr. Manganiello’s stated numbers. Given the stated effectiveness rate of 86%, I would expect a higher percentage of method.

But given we know that suicide rates are independent of method and that the motivations for taking one’s own life are a complicated amalgamation of stresses and anguish, usually with a final triggering stress, it is not something to be overly summarized.

Suicide occurs along the entire life spectrum. Interventions to reduce the incidence of suicide by gun needs to be targeted and comprehensive if we hope to have any meaningful impact. 

Agreed, in a sense. Tracking suicide by age group yields a dataset that is varied as the age bracket we are looking at. Suicides start increasing as brain development increases so we see a jump in instances starting in the teens and then we see motivations shift throughout the periods of life. Suicide is complex. Yet interventions to reduce suicide by gun, which accounts for only 6% of attempts and incidents must, be “targeted and comprehensive”…

Those are fine buzz words but what are you talking about specifically, Doctor?

If you are trying to have an impact on risk reduction for those under the age of 21, when it is illegal to purchase a firearm, waiting periods to purchase a firearm will be irrelevant. This is also the case for individuals who are over the age of 21 and who already have a firearm accessible to them. The duration of a waiting period is also crucial. Suicide is oftentimes impulsive, and studies have shown that a 72-hour waiting period in an acute crisis allows more time for the at-risk individual to receive needed help. Waiting 72 hours to take ownership of a firearm should not be seen as a hardship, but a public health benefit.

Wait… you just said, in so many words, waiting periods are bullshit. They have no influence on the under 21 group or the over 21 group with any form of access. But then go on and say we need a 72 hour waiting period in acute crisis so a 72 hour wait on firearms purchases “should not be seen as a hardship…”

So it doesn’t work but let’s do it? How many of those 66 deaths purchased their firearm within 72 hours of their suicide? Why will burdening the whole population, some of which have their lives immediately under threat of violence, with this delay work? That does not sounded “targeted and comprehensive” at all. What tangible improvement will it grant for the harm it can cause? Who among those 66 would this rule have saved and who could it have harmed?

Harder question isn’t it.

Our legislators need to enact legislation that addresses the whole of life’s spectrum as it relates to suicide. We can look to other states for best practices. For those under the age of 21, a child access prevention law; for those over the age of 21 wanting to purchase a firearm, a 72-hour waiting period; and for those who already have access to a firearm, a strong extreme risk protection order. All three have been shown to be effective at reducing death by suicide.

I notice he says death by suicide and not death by firearm suicide, which leads me to the theory he was looking at bracketed information. States with these rules happened to have overall reductions in their suicide rate. But when looked at more in depth, these rules fail to establish causation and the rates don’t drift outside normal variances when all influencing factors are considered.

Last year I testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s public hearing in Randolph. There seemed to be misconceptions voiced surrounding child access prevention laws. In those states that have strong CAP laws, criminal liability only occurs to the owner of the firearm when someone is injured or killed as a result of the firearm not being properly secured (locked and unloaded). Police cannot perform random checks on the homes of gun owners to make sure that a firearm is secured. The law doesn’t forbid a gun owner from carrying a loaded firearm, it is only when a mishap occurs and the firearm is not in the possession of the owner and the firearm hasn’t been safely secured, that criminal liability is a possibility.

Again I must ask, of those 66 suicides which one(s) would have been influenced? Which had someone who was negligent and would have been criminally negligent under such laws. Would that law have reasonably altered those circumstances? This feels like a convoluted form of victim blaming to be honest. That man or that woman’s son or daughter commited suicide, off to jail with you. Should we place equal liability on other dangerous substances and devices likely to be used in a suicide attempt to cover more ground?

At that same hearing, some voiced opposition to the waiting period legislation, since it might prevent an individual who feared for their life by an intruder from being able to obtain a firearm for personal protection. On the surface that might seem like a real “protection” but a person who is inexperienced in handling a firearm is statistically more at risk of injuring himself or herself, or a family member. In Vermont, you are not allowed to hunt without a license, which requires proof of completing a gun safety course, why would anyone want to have a gun in the house without becoming proficient in how to use it? You should purchase a firearm when you are calm and not during a crisis. For self-protection, you need to know how to handle a weapon safely.

That hunting license is for tracking and regulating the harvest of game in the state, good try though.

On the surface it is a real protection. Firearms save lives daily at much greater numbers than they take. Can you assure those allegedly novice persons that they are safer without the firearm? How about if they voluntarily learn about the firearm while they purchase it, are they now exempt from waiting?

What authority are you on a defensive device that is designed to be simple to use properly during person under duresses need? Can you assure law enforcement will intervene in a timely manner and prevent the threat? No? Then let’s stop speculating ourselves into circles of bad outcomes when good ones exist too and occur on the regular.

You can no more predict the good or bad outcome of an individual purchasing a firearm than I can, but based on the number of people who buy a firearm for protection vs. number of accidents due to mishandling I’ll hazard favorable odds to a positive outcome.

Attempts at suicide reduction have nothing to do with the Second Amendment but everything to do with our public health. Contact you Vermont state representatives and senators asking them to pass effective, meaningful and comprehensive legislation which will address a realistic approach to suicide reduction. Come to the Vermont Statehouse Jan. 29 to support decreasing access to lethal means on Mental Health Advocacy Day, beginning at 8:30 a.m.

Brilliant deflection, just state it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment and *poof* it is so. Marginalize the complexity of this topic so that your solutions can be termed ‘common sense’ and it is so.

I don’t want to diminish anyones efforts in reducing both suicides and homicides. I don’t want efforts to reduce violence to be kept from getting their due. But there is a drastic difference between efforts and effective efforts. Don’t diminish the complexity of the problems to make their solutions sound better.

That is something I believe the firearm community does well. Guns aren’t magic talismans, they give you a tool and a chance to sway odds in an emergency situation. It’s like a first aid kit, fire extinguisher, or a spare tire. It’s not for every situation but in the circumstances it can help, it does so immensely.

But, again. What do I know… I am not a gynecologist.

The Curious Sig Hybrid Ammo

Hybrid: Mix, Blend, Amalgamation

Sig Sauer’s new Hybrid Ammunition is born of their NGSW development and parallel DoD requests to make ammunition lighter. By mixing materials and putting them where they would be most useful Sig has come up with a very simple solution to several problems. Three, to be precise.

Problem 1. Weight

One of the requirements within the NGSW, and listed in several solicitations and goals from the Department of Defense, was to lighten the ammunition by 20% over legacy brass systems. Other companies have taken this challenge and radically changed material composition to accomplish this.

Sig, very simply, just used less brass. The complex geometry of the base of a solid brass case is what necessitates the brass thickness of ‘normal’ pistol and rifle brass. Forming just the cylindrical/conical portion of the case out of brass makes for a thinner wall on the hybrid. Thinner wall equals less weight. The brass itself doesn’t have a thickness requirement for strength, it’s supported under pressure by the steel chamber wall. As long as the case wall material (the brass) doesn’t deform during chambering it will be fine.

Problem 2. Case Durability

The most likely part of a case to take damage during firing is the base. The rim, where the extractor claw is twisting on it and ripping it out of the chamber, is subject to an array of changing forces.

Enlarged cutaway of the stainless steel base merged with the brass case wall and sealed with an aluminum washer

Brass can and does occasionally rip under these stress. Stainless steel was chosen by Sig to drastically reduce that possibility. The brass wall still provides the hybrid with the advantages it has under heat and pressure with its elasticity. The stainless provides the durable base that’s getting yanked around by the extractor. The washer inside seals the two together, a seal that strengthens under pressure.

Simple. But for the reloader crowd, sorry… one time use.

Problem 3. Cartridge Power

The final and primary goal of the NGSW ammo selection was Overmatch, a buzzword that pretty much means shoot further effectively.

To do that the US Army selected a 6.8mm round with a superior ballistic profile to 5.56 and 7.62. It will fly better than both increase mathematical effective range of troops equipped with it. We’re essentially going back to a battle rifle concept but forward in precision tolerances and listening to people who know what they’re talking about ballistically.

Sig again to an easy practical solution to this problem. Thinner brass walls gives them more internal capacity for the powder charge behind a lighter narrower projectile that flies better. They choose a powder that’s optimized for the shorter barrels (13″) and will generate the range and energy they want.

With that blank slate, the NGSW solicitation gave them freedom of movement. They weren’t limited to 5.56 so they engineered simple solutions to tackle simple problems (when not restrained by the limitations of a chambering). They did work with widely available and proven hardware in the 7.62×51 dimensions and on a successful operating system, the MCX.

That rifle is going to feel and operate like the M4, a factor I cannot overstate the value of since it is an international standard service weapon.

But back to the ammunition.

Big Cutaway

Sig’s Hybrid ammunition is a materially simple solution that will allow us to play with rounds in a new pressure and velocity category. Will it help them win NGSW? We will see. The USMC just picked up poly-cased .50 BMG but .50 has always been a whole different animal. Could we see a similar format with a polymer case wall? Again, maybe.

The brilliance with Sig’s whole NGSW solution is working new ways with known quantities, all because a few key restrictions were removed.

New Lumens for Pumps. Streamlight lets the Gospel of Gauge Shine. TL-RACKER.

STREAMLIGHT® INTRODUCES NEW MODELS OF TL-RACKER® SHOTGUN FOREND LIGHTS WITH INCREASED LUMENS

EAGLEVILLE, PA, January 29, 2020 – Streamlight® Inc., a leading provider of high-performance lighting and weapon light/laser sighting devices, has increased the lumen output of its TL-Racker®, an all-in-one shotgun forend light designed to fit on Mossberg 500®/590® and Remington® Model 870™ pump-action shotguns, to 1,000 lumens. The company also introduced two additional models of the light, including one for the Mossberg 590® Shockwave and a Less Lethal Orange model for Remington® Model 870™ and 870 TAC-14 pump-action shotguns. All four models now deliver 1,000 lumens.

With its increased brightness and sleek design, the TL-Racker is ideal for door breaching, close quarter maneuvers and other tactical operations, as well as for home defense needs. Its large, ambidextrous switch pad provides easy access for both momentary and constant on functions, and accommodates virtually any hand size. The elongated switch pad allows for thumb or finger activation with no changes in grip; both left- and right-handed shooters can use it without having to make modifications to the light or gun.

“We’ve increased the brightness, reach, and run time of this lightweight, integrated shotgun forend light, while also offering a new model to fit popular Shockwave shotguns, as well as a Less Lethal Orange model for easy identification,” said Streamlight President and Chief Executive Officer Ray Sharrah. “Each features our innovative, ergonomic design that maximizes grip and switch access, while providing extremely bright 1,000 lumen light, all at an affordable price point. It’s the ideal choice for use with Mossberg and Remington shotguns.”  

Powered by two included CR123A lithium batteries, the TL-Racker features a customized optic that produces a concentrated beam with optimum peripheral illumination. Offering a high setting only, the TL-Racker delivers 1,000 lumens and 20,000 candela over a 283-meter beam distance, with a 1.5 hour run time. It is available in several models, designed to work with either Mossberg 500®/590® with either a 6 ¾ or 7 ¾ action slide, or the Remington® Model 870™ and 870 TAC-14 pump-action shotguns.

With a body constructed from super tough, impact-resistant engineered polymer that is virtually indestructible, the upgraded TL-Racker measures 8.00 inches in length and weighs 12.1 ounces. The new model also now features an IPX7-rated design for waterproof operation.

The TL-Racker has an MSRP of $225.00. Each includes Streamlight’s Limited Lifetime Warranty.

TL-Racker for Remington 87- Mossberg 500 590 and Mossberg 590 Shockwave

All Rights Reserved. Mossberg 500® /590® and Remington® Model 870™ are registered trademarks of Mossberg® and Remington®. Streamlight has not sought endorsement of this product from O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc., or Remington Arms Company, LLC.

About Streamlight

Based in Eagleville, PA, Streamlight, Inc. has more than 45 years of experience making tough, durable, long-lasting flashlights designed to serve the specialized needs of professionals and consumers alike. Since 1973, the company has designed, manufactured and marketed high-performance flashlights, and today offers a broad array of lights, lanterns, weapon light/laser sighting devices, and scene lighting solutions for professional law enforcement, military, firefighting, industrial, automotive, and outdoor applications. Streamlight is an ISO 9001:2015 certified company. For additional information, please call 800-523-7488, visit streamlight.com or connect with us on 
facebook.com/streamlight; twitter.com/Streamlight; instagram.com/streamlightinchttps://www.linkedin.com/company/streamlight-inc./; and youtube.com/streamlighttv.          

The Vz. 58: Proof the Czech’s were always hipster

The Vz. 58 is one of the Cold War classic service rifles. During the Soviet era, all the various states were required to standardize on the 7.62x39mm. Like NATO did with the 7.62x51mm and later 5.56x45mm, this would give the Soviet militaries common ammunition for their forces to use against NATO.

A NATO vs Soviet Union conflict was seen as inevitable during this time period. Now, most nations just choose to license or buy the AK47/AKM rifles to equip their militaries. The Czechs weren’t about that life though. True to their trend defying hipster origins the went a different way. They built the rather fantastically engineered Vz. 58.

Now externally the two look somewhat similar. Wood furniture and the extreme curve of the magazines to accommodate the ammo gave them a similar profile. But nothing is interchangeable between the two guns except that ammo.

The Vz. 58 made it onto the US market and world markets in great and affordable quantity. Their quality, accuracy, and durability were impressive and it was one of the best kept secrets of the mil-surp days of gun buying. They could be purchased dirt cheap back in the day.

How cheap?

Image, Lord of War.

When the Lord of War production team needed props for this scene they got 3,000 real Vz. 58 rifles because they were the most affordable option.

I miss those days. I regret not picking up a few. I could have bought a crate of the Czech Comm-Bloc Hipster Specials for what I have into one of my Belgians. Oh well, I should have jumped on the $500 PSL train too in hindsight.

Oh, and as always, like and support the 9-Hole guys!

“A gun bill with holes moves forward” – New Mexico

Image via National Geographic and New Mexico travel guide

Nowhere, absolutely nowhere is safe from the mindless blitz rush of the ‘Red Flag’ brigade. New Mexico is the up next with a terrible bill being pushed through that they promise to ‘fix’ later.

Thirty sheriffs, four Democratic state senators and a cast of hundreds faced off Tuesday in a 90-minute debate that had only one piece of common ground.

Everyone agreed the government taking away someone’s guns can be a matter of life and death. After that, the sheriffs had no use for the Democratic lawmakers, who advanced a bill they admitted was half-baked.Santa Fe New Mexican

I have to wonder, like seriously wonder, if these folks have ever tried advancing a very well fleshed out bill just to see what would happen? I can’t fathom where the tactic of cobbling together a pile of ‘do something’ held together with some discount packing tape became effective policy writing, but here we are.

The proposal, Senate Bill 5, would enable a family member or law enforcement officer to obtain a civil court order authorizing police to confiscate the guns of someone accused of posing a danger to himself or others.

Senate Bill 5 – ERPO Bill

Even some of the senators who voted for the proposal said it needed to be amended for clarity and fairness. The sponsor, Democratic Sen. Joe Cervantes of Las Cruces, said one section should be removed altogether. It grants immunity from civil or criminal liability to those making the allegations.

But instead of attempting to fix the bill’s deficiencies, the Senate Public Affairs Committee voted 4-3 to send it unchanged to the Judiciary Committee.

Cool. Why fix a bill just waiting to be abused with no due process and no legal recourse against false accusers. That can’t possibly go wrong. Remember, its for gun violence which is extra special bad violence and logic, reason, and standards of proof and effectiveness can all be suspended in its name.

New Mexico has 33 sheriffs, 30 of whom oppose this bill. They complain it could spark violence, that it allows for illegal seizure of property and that it denies due process to the accused.

“Essentially you are being deprived of your property rights under the Constitution for something somebody says you might do,” said Sierra County Sheriff Glenn Hamilton, a Republican.

He ridiculed Cervantes’ bill as wrongheaded, likening it to towing all the cars of people parked at a saloon and then requiring them to prove their sobriety before they can get back their property.

When 91% of your top law enforcement officers tell you its a bad idea… it might be a bad idea.

Welcome to the circus, New Mexico.

STREAMLIGHT® LAUNCHES TLR-9™ RAIL MOUNTED TACTICAL LIGHT

EAGLEVILLE, PA, January 23, 2020 – Streamlight® Inc., a leading provider of high-performance lighting and weapon light/laser sighting devices, introduced the TLR-9™ rail mounted tactical light, designed for use with full frame handguns. Featuring a slim, compact design, the new light offers ergonomic rear switches with either a low or high position to match users’ shooting styles, while providing 1,000 lumens for a variety of tactical and home defense uses.

“This lightweight new tactical light is engineered to be both sleek and powerful, featuring a high power LED for extreme brightness and extensive range, as well as good peripheral coverage,” said Streamlight President and Chief Executive Officer Ray Sharrah. “It also features an ambidextrous on/off rear switch with low and high positions to suit user preference. And it fits a wide variety of full frame handguns, making it an ideal light for first responder and tactical applications.” 

The TLR-9 uses a power LED to provide 1,000 lumens and 10,000 candela over a 200-meter beam distance with a run time of 1.5 hours; the light’s strobe mode offers 3 continuous hours of run time. The light is energized by two 3 Volt CR123A lithium batteries.

Securely fitting to a broad range of weapons, the TLR-9 features a one-handed, snap on and tighten interface that keeps hands away from gun muzzles when attaching or detaching it. The light also includes a Safe Off feature, locking it to prevent accidental activation. A key kit is included to securely fit the light to a broad array of handguns.

Constructed with durable 6000 Series machined aircraft aluminum with a black anodized finish, the TLR-9 weighs 4.26 ounces and measures 3.87 inches in length. 

With extensively live-fire tested, impact-resistant construction, the new model features an IPX7-rated design, making it waterproof to 1 meter for 30 minutes.

The TLR-9 is packaged as the TLR-9 FLEX that comes with a High switch mounted on the light, plus an included Low switch. It has an MSRP of $240.00, and comes with Streamlight’s Limited Lifetime Warranty.  

About Streamlight

Based in Eagleville, PA, Streamlight, Inc. has more than 45 years of experience making tough, durable, long-lasting flashlights designed to serve the specialized needs of professionals and consumers alike. Since 1973, the company has designed, manufactured and marketed high-performance flashlights, and today offers a broad array of lights, lanterns, weapon light/laser sighting devices, and scene lighting solutions for professional law enforcement, military, firefighting, industrial, automotive, and outdoor applications. Streamlight is an ISO 9001:2015 certified company. For additional information, please call 800-523-7488, visit streamlight.com or connect with us on 
facebook.com/streamlight; twitter.com/Streamlight; instagram.com/streamlightinchttps://www.linkedin.com/company/streamlight-inc./; and youtube.com/streamlighttv.          

The AK-12, Prototype to Service Rifle with Garand Thumb

Garand Thumb’s latest video jumps into the modern service rifle of the Russian’s. The evolution from the AKM to AK74M to the modernized AK-12.

You can see the parallels when looking at the AK74M/AK-12 and the original M4 into the modern M4A1. Modern optics and ancillaries are accounted for. Customizing the rifles to the users are accounted for with the stock and LOP adjustment. Everything is pulled to the 21st century picatinny standard.

Why not one of the negative space attachment methods? M-LOK and Keymod are the way? Right?

Because those aren’t a standard yet, not like 1913 rail is. M-LOK is still a very American development. European nations are still largely using picatinny or H&K’s keymod variant in a few militaries. Every optical platform still uses picatinny as the standard. The AK-12 is a recognition, like the M4A1 of what the modern state is, not the near future state.

That, in my opinion, looks like this.

SIG MCX SPEAR NGSW AR
MCX is the way.

Seeing Red in Virginia

(from preparedgunowner.com)

[Ed: Dr. Petrocelli plans to write Virginia state legislators along these lines about the perversions inherent in Red Flag laws. This is a good example of necessary citizen involvement with otherwise clueless and self-absorbed government representatives.]

I am writing to you to ask that you consider the following information before taking action on any so-called “Red Flag law.” 

No one wants “dangerous” people armed. I have worked as a forensic psychiatrist in maximum security forensic psychiatric hospitals and prison special housing units, and am well aware of the harm persons with or without mental illness can do with guns. As I’ve written before, the aspirational goal of violence risk assessment—to identify persons who are likely to act violently—is laudable.  Red Flag laws are offered to intervene with such individuals who cannot be identified through either the criminal justice system or the mental health system. 

In the abstract, this makes sense: there must be persons who are dangerous but not mentally ill and have not yet committed a crime. Without these laws, they could fall through the cracks and commit atrocities.  Those of us who oppose these laws realize that this abstraction doesn’t play out so neatly in reality, and are accused that our opposition means we want to arm dangerous persons.

The most solid argument against the red flag laws lies in the fact that there is no widely accepted, scientifically validated procedure to make such a determination. Don’t take my word for it—instead, take it from anti-gun David Rosmarin, MD, in his presentation to the Massachusetts Medical Society (emphasis added):

“While the base rate for violence may be 20% for forensic populations, the 6-month incidence of violence in even urban populations is closer to 6%. This yields a positive predictive value of .14, which results in a false positive rate of nearly 90%.

“Even a test with an impossible 0.9 accuracy for both true positives and true negatives will be wrong more than nine times out of ten at a base rate of 1% for severe violence.  Even with a 5-10% (hypothetically high)base rate of violence, the clinician who always predicts “no violence” will be more accurate than the clinician who identifies 20% as ‘violent’.”

We simply do not have methods of accurately assessing peoples’ risk of violence.  This gets worse when trying to predict rare events, for example, mass atrocities. In fact, our methods are so poor for uncommon events that our predictions would be wrong more than nine out of ten times.  This fits with the rest of the literature, which indicated that guns have to be removed from ten to twenty people to prevent one gun related suicide, notwithstanding the fact that once the guns are removed, suicidal people find other ways: “Connecticut’s estimated reduction in firearm suicides was offset by increased non-firearm suicides.”

Although there is great debate over how to approach risk assessment, it is generally agreed that the evaluator ought to use some structured method:

“Over the last two decades a number of actuarial formulas have been developed to predict various types of risk. Some have been the subject of extensive research and active debate in the field. Respected researchers have opined that risk assessment should be totally based on actuarial formulas, and asserted that such a procedure is superior to any clinical judgment (Quinsey et al., 1998). Others have decried reliance on these methods, saying that the day will never come when clinical judgment can be replaced by statistical calculations (Litwack, 2000). Still others have suggested that an integration of the two approaches may produce the most valuable results (Hanson, 1998).”

What do red flag laws offer in this regard?  Virginia’s Senate bill offers nothing of the sort.  Instead, it merely requires the court to entertain evidence of risk: 

“In determining whether clear and convincing evidence for the issuance of an order exists, the judge shall consider any relevant evidence including any recent act of violence, force, or threat as defined in § 19.2-152.7:1 by such person directed toward another person or toward himself.”

There is no guidance as to how to reason about that evidence, or whether that evidence is outweighed by protective factors that mitigate the risk of violence-protective factors do not even have to be considered at all.  The irony of all of this is that the law requires the court to make a determination that, if offered as testimony by an expert, would fail to meet the requirements of admissibility, because the finding would not be based on any method commonly used by experts in the field. Nor would its reliability (or error rate) be known.  This is probably why New Jersey eliminated the rules of evidence for its red flag hearings.

Having established that risk assessment isn’t up to the challenge presented by red flag laws, these proceedings are an affront to the concept that underlies procedural due process:  fundamental fairnessFundamental fairness has been defined as the “most comprehensive protection of liberties,” and “the trenchant commitment to fair play and civilized decency in the relations between the state and the individual.”  How can there be “fair play” and “decency” towards red flag respondents when the arbiters of the fate of their inalienable rights have no scientifically valid procedure to apply to the evidence presented to them?

The Virginia Senate falsely compares its oppressive Red Flag law with Virginia’s civil commitment statutes because both begin with ex parte actions—so red flag laws’ must be constitutional. This is absurd, because what civil commitment lacks in front-end procedural due process it makes up for with fundamental fairness and decency. 

Virginia’s mental health commitment scheme has three parts. The first, the Emergency Commitment Order, is issued ex parte, and orders law enforcement to bring a person to a place of evaluation for a short period of time. The subject is evaluated by a mental health professional authorized by the Commonwealth to perform assessments to determine whether or not the person is mentally ill and if so, on that basis, a danger to themselves or others.

Only then can the person be brought to a psychiatric hospital under a Temporary Detention Order (up to 72 hours). During that time the hospital staff evaluate whether or not the respondent needs commitment for treatment, can sign in voluntarily or should be released. 

A full hearing, with counsel provided, is held before a Judge or Special Justice to determine whether or not the respondent should be committed for up to 180 days if that was recommended.  In summary, although civil commitment begins ex parte, two professional evaluations are done and a formal judicial hearing with the subject present with representation is required if further commitment is recommended.

Red Flag laws so far provide none of this. They require no expert evaluation before property is confiscated:  police arrive, announcing they have come to remove the respondent’s guns, and need not provide any additional information. This triggers notification to the NICS database that the respondent is now a prohibited person. Red flag laws do not permit the respondent to voluntarily and privately relinquish their guns once confronted. Instead, after two weeks of the seizure of their firearms and without mandatory counsel, a hearing is held to determine whether the guns should be returned or held for an additional 180 days.

Perhaps the greatest distinction between red flag laws and civil commitment is that civil commitment provides treatment under the doctrine of parens patriae—the State as parent to those who are in need of protection or care. The deprivation of rights that accompanies civil commitment is balanced against the need for that deprivation along with the treatment available to remediate the condition that led to the action in the first place.

Red Flag laws provide the respondent nothing: not counsel, not professional examination, and no intervention intended to restore the rights taken from them.  The importance of this divergence cannot be overstated. The courts have consistently held that intended purpose of civil commitment laws—provision of treatment—balances any up-front procedural deficiencies:

“The judicial approval of involuntary commitment rests upon the assumption that the state is pursuing beneficent purposes for the general society and for the person committed.”

Grafting procedural due process on to Red Flag laws does not rehabilitate them in the slightest.  Consider a pop culture analogy, Agent Smith’s interrogation of Neo in The Matrix. Just apprehended and facing a host of charges, Neo replies to Smith’s litany of allegations by saying “You can’t scare me with this Gestapo crap. I know my rights I want my phone call.”  Agent Smith replies, “What good is a phone call, if you’re unable to speak” and he disrupts the Matrix so that Neo cannot speak. In this scene Neo’s procedural rights are preserved—he is offered a phone, counsel, and presumably the opportunity to rebut the charges—but he is rendered unable to use them.

This parallels the problem with Red Flag laws. All the procedural due process in the world—being present for the hearing, confronting your accusers, etc.—does nothing to ensure fairness, decency or respect if the ultimate issue can be decided without the respondent’s participation in a meaningful evaluation or, perhaps even worse, by emotionally charged accusations of feared future violence.

Unfortunately, the fact that Red Flag laws do not function as billed is a feature, not a bug, because they are used as Trojan horses for even more infringement.  Consider Dr. Rosmarin again: 

“So in our state of 6.7 million — almost twice that of Connecticut’s — we are petitioning only one-fifth as frequently. In my experience as a forensic psychiatrist, I see two dozen cases meriting petition a year, easily.

“Massachusetts should modify our ERPO law to allow certain categories of licensed clinicians to petition the courts for an extreme risk protection order. Clinicians should be allowed to do so via a downloaded document, such as exists for initiating mental health involuntary commitments. This will allow clinicians to petition the court without leaving their clinical settings.

“Massachusetts should also enact a law that allows certain categories of licensed clinicians to report to the police chief where the patient lives and that the patient should not have gun access. This should be based on a judgment about dangerousness, not mental illness. The disclosure of medical information relating to dangerousness should be as narrow as possible. Something like:

“Chief, this is Dr. Rosmarin. In my opinion this person is dangerous and should not have a gun.

“The chief would then have discretion to interview the owner, revoke the license and to seize any guns.”

Are gun owners content with the idea that their clinicians can petition law enforcement online after determining them to be “dangerous”?  Will the police chief be more likely to phone the respondent for an interview, or conduct a no-knock raid out of “an abundance of caution” and a desire to “err on the side of public safety”? 

Let’s put all this in the context of the events surrounding the Virginia Citizens Defense League’s annual Lobby Day.  I was pleased to be able to speak directly with my Delegate and Senator before attending the rally. I was too late to enter the fenced in, gun-free Capitol grounds, as 10,000 attendees were already there by 9:30 am, so I participated from outside the fence.  I met people from all walks of life, all ethnic backgrounds and all political persuasions, who were united in advocating for their inalienable Second Amendment rights. 

Many openly carried the guns that our Governor seeks to prohibit. Despite the presence of all those guns, there was no violence. The Governor insisted that he and law enforcement “diffused a volatile situation” but the attendees were never “volatile.”  Criminals, not lawful gun owners, are the problem, and we were shocked that every real crime bill was left tabled in committee. This is an unconscionable response to the criminal homicide problem that exists in inner cities related to gangs and drugs.

The Virginia House of Delegates must recognize reality about Red Flag laws, and direct their efforts instead towards mental health and crime.  Red Flag laws address neither, and are an affront to the constitutions of our Commonwealth and our nation, and to the inalienable rights these governments exist to protect.

.

.

–Dennis Petrocelli, MD is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist who has practiced for nearly 20 years in Virginia. He took up shooting in 2019 for mind-body training and self-defense, and is in the fight for Virginians’ gun rights.

All DRGO articles by Dennis Petrocelli, MD

“Kung Flu” and Preparedness

The novel Coronavirus outbreak in China popped into the news while I was busy at SHOT Show last week. Since then it has become a “viral” news story (groan).

Regardless of the virus’s source (seafood market? Biological lab?), the bottom line is that it is transmissible among people and containment has not thus far been successful.  With today’s rapid travel, a local epidemic can shortly become a worldwide pandemic. That’s why this has been all over the news, and that’s why it’s making people nervous. But is it really a risk to YOU?

I’m here to say – don’t be jumping to push the Armageddon button just yet. But there is a wake-up call in here somewhere. I want to shake people out of their stupor about infectious diseases in general and their potentially serious social impact. I also want to remind people what their personal responsibilities are.

First of all, I need to say that if you are blasé about garden variety infectious diseases, but then are panicking about the Coronavirus, you are being stupid – sorry.

If you don’t make sure your vaccinations are up to date against the viruses and bacteria we CAN control, but then panic about a disease in the news, I have to question your good judgement.

CDC estimates there were over 61 THOUSAND deaths from Influenza just in the United States alone in the 2017-18 Flu season. Did you even give a flying fu__ -lly formed thought about that at the time? Did you get your flu vaccine THIS year?

No? Then why are you all wrapped around the axel about the novel Coronavirus outbreak and researching containment bunkers, if you didn’t even bother to protect yourself with what is already available against an existing threat?

The bottom line question I’m asking is – are you prepared for ANY infectious disease outbreak at home which might impact your family and interrupt public services for a few weeks – or longer? Not just some new virus overseas. Have you done what you can to protect yourself and your family from even local garden variety infectious disease outbreaks? (That includes vaccinations, hand washing, etc) 

Have you done what you can to help protect your community? (That includes staying home from work and school and sports when you are sick.) I know these aren’t popular things to say, but in my day job I don’t get paid to be popular. My job is to try to keep your kids and the community healthy, and tell you the truth. I’m saying take care of the more local already existing risks and own-up to your own responsibilities to your family and the community before you go getting all bent out of shape about a virus in China.

Now, I’ll step off one soap box and onto another. 

*Ditches stethoscope and dons camo “prepper” hat*

I have to ask – do you have a month or more’s worth of stored food in case the grocery store trucks aren’t allowed through a quarantine of any sort? What if it’s as simple as you and your spouse both being down with Influenza and can’t get to the store for several weeks? Can you get by without a grocery run? This is stuff to at least think about, if you haven’t already.

Do you have a thermometer in your supplies? How about basic meds like Ibuprofen and Acetaminophen? Can you take care of a basic case of regular flu or even viral diarrhea without leaving the house or running to the doctor? Do you keep basic care and recovery foods like bullion cubes, crackers, chicken soup, and oral electrolyte solutions on hand without a store run? If you don’t, why not? You should. 

If your child is sick you don’t want to drag him/her out to the store and expose everyone else in the public (Or him to them.) If YOU are sick, you shouldn’t be out in public either, nor will you feel like being there. And if there is a quarantine you may not be permitted to go out at all. You should plan ahead.

You are not being a crazy prepper if you simply have more food (and water and soap and medicine) in the cupboard than your neighbors. You don’t even have to tell them about it (and probably shouldn’t). 

You don’t need a worldwide pandemic as an excuse to stock up on basic supplies for a health emergency. You should be doing it anyway, and you should be prepared against the “boring” seasonal illnesses too – not just the Killer Zombie Virus.  The peace of mind provided by even basic preparedness will be worth it even in a normal flu and “daycare crud” season. 

Even without Kung Flu in the picture, being able to simply reach into the cupboard for Pedialyte – rather than being forced to drive to Walmart at 3am with a puking kid  – is simply priceless.