The ARC by PHLster

By

-

June 7, 2019

The team over at PHLster and Steve Fisher of Sentinel Concepts have been teasing us with this little device for awhile now. This morning PHLster pulled back the curtain.

For years, serious shooters have been executing DIY modifications to their WML switches. Using JB Weld, putty, or epoxy, shooters have been improving their speed and consistency of WML activation by building up the small switch nubs on their lights. Drawing on those years of end-user experience, PHLster is excited to announce the launch of their ARC Enhanced WML Switches.

Shipping as a set of three pairs of switch enhancements, the ARC allows users to decrease the distance between activation fingers and switches, optimize their light for right or left handed use, improve speed and consistency of activation based on their preferred method, and reliably engage the WML switches with gloved or wet hands. Each set of switch enhancements includes a Large, Extra Large, and Extra Large Blank set of switches. The L and XL are both aggressively textured and the XL Blank allows users to shape, carve, and stipple the switches to fit their specific requirements, while remaining within a holster-friendly dimension.

If you have short fingers, are tired of compromising your grip to activate the WML, dislike grip switches, need more reach to activate the switches when installed on certain pistols, or just want to make WML activation faster and easier, the PHLster ARC is a necessary upgrade.

Switch installation is easy and requires no permanent modification. The stock switch nubs are easily removed with pliers or a small screwdriver and the enhanced switch endcaps press on to the switch armature bar. And, the ARC switch enhancements fit pretty much every decent WML holster on the market, including Safariland and many, many others.

At launch, the ARC is available at PHLsterHolsters.com and BigTexOutdoors.com for $24.99.

Trump on Silencer Ban: “I’m going to seriously look at it.”

By

Keith Finch

-

June 6, 2019

180220163143-donald-trump-bump-stock-ban-1280x720 — Image from CNN coverage of the speech

The President, speaking with Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain, has followed up his quick comments boarding Marine One with more that suggest he has banning firearm silencers on his table. Trump moved to ban bumpstocks in the wake of Mandalay Bay and moving on silencers would be in the same vein of activity, meaning the “the war on the 2nd Amendment is over” President would accomplish far more gun control than President Obama (although he told a series of lies in Brazil concerning U.S. Gun laws).

The real practical question will be, as an NFA regulated item already, what can he do?

The legal footwork that allowed the bumpstock ban used the NFA to classify them as “new” machine guns.

Silencers do not inhabit that same part of the National Firearms Act and aren’t subject to the same reclassification. Banning the devices would be an act passed through Congress. Such an act would certainly pass the House and could likely be passed in the Senate with President’s support. But will it get that far?

During the interview the President turned the questions towards knife violence domestically in London. His language suggests he has “a belief” at some level that supports the 2nd Amendment and self defense like he stated at NRAAM. His opinion didn’t include bumpstocks and apparently does not include silencers. A silencer ban could be okay in his mind, he stated however “I don’t love the idea of it.”

That statement may be in reaction to the highly negative response from the firearms community who could see this action as a pattern discrediting his vocal support of the 2nd Amendment. It would be seen as a hypocritical act and proof that he would move gun control after every remotely horrific act of violence. Trump has expressed support for concealed carry reciprocity, the AR15, and many other aspects of the Right to Keep and Bare Arms. However anything he personally does not like under the 2nd Amendment umbrella he seems to extend as unnecessary for all and that his opinion is the sole guiding arbiter.

We will see when this hits the courts.

VICE News No-Show

By

DRGO

-

June 6, 2019

(from vice.com)

[Ed: On May 2, DRGO received an email from a VICE reporter who said “I would love to tell you more about what I am working on and to hear your thoughts“ about a proposed documentary about “firearms and dementia”. Dr. Przebinda, our Project Director, replied offering to talk. No response. So I sent the longer reply below on May 9, taking the opportunity to point out some of the shortfalls in a documentary about women shooters, provided as an example of VICE’s work: Fear and Loading: Meet the NRA’s Most Wanted Customer. Still no response. but we always hope to educate someone a little bit more.]

Hello *****,

Glad you contacted us. We are always interested in communicating the facts about responsibly armed Americans who value the Second Amendment. I am replying on behalf of Dr. Przebinda and myself.

DRGO’s position on dealing with dementing gun owners is that families and caretakers, advised by their doctors, are responsible for ensuring relatives’ safety in every way, including by deciding whether to restrict access to firearms, cars, sharps, gas stoves, etc.—just like they should do for children. Is there any good reason to pass laws intruding in such private matters? No. How often do we hear about an elderly person with dementia shooting someone when there was no one previously in a position to have intervened?

I reviewed the video you linked Fear and Loading: Meet the N RA’s Most Wanted Customer. You clearly presented “both sides” of the question about women choosing to learn to shoot in order to protect themselves. It is unusual to see media present the pro- side first or at such length, and I am impressed by that.

Yet I also noted all the unchallenged misinformation included in the following segments with Susan Nelson:

1. Manisha Krishnan’s comment: “The NRA says to women that having a gun in your house will stop you from getting attacked.” You must know that’s not true. Having a gun (and knowing how to properly use it) is a way to defend against an attack. It won’t prevent one, and no one says that. (The converse is that labelled public “gun-free zones” do invite attackers, while places where people can carry almost never are attacked.) Of course, Nelson’s response is a complete non sequitur, telling her moving story of being shot years ago. But living “with a bullet in my brain” confers no expertise on public policy, let alone on firearms she has never learned to use.

2. She adds “More than likely, a gun’s going to be taken from you and used against you.” That’s absolutely the opposite of reality. It’s happening to her, again, is no reason to consider her knowledgeable about the subject. See “Myth: Guns are not effective in preventing crimes against women” with it’s well-footnoted references.

3. “Studies that show women successfully using a gun in self-defense are few and far between.” On my desk is a book I recently reviewed for DRGO: #MeToo: Women Who Shot Men in Self-Defense. That includes 257 incidents, nearly all from 2015-2018, derived from media reports. The greater likelihood of women being killed than successfully defending themselves is based on the fact that many more men have firearms than do their victimized female partners. Being “murdered by a gun” is no more murdered than by any other means, and only firearm possession and the skill to use it can equalize women’s chances against bigger, stronger, more aggressive males who mostly kill women by other means. About 75% of women killed by partners in domestic violence happen after they’ve left the violent partner. That is exactly when the women should have been armed. (Obviously, leaving is the first most important step.)

4. “Gun safety reform” is a gun control meme that has nothing to do with “gun safety”, which is actually about how you use a gun, not restrictive laws that dictate peripheral actions, e.g., storing it locked in one room with ammunition locked elsewhere. That’s typical and makes firearms useless in an emergency.

5. Krishnan states that “Texas has some of the loosest gun regulations in the country”–as if that’s bad. How about, alternatively, “some of the most reasonable”. Yes, a Constitutional right that “shall not be infringed” clearly must limit gun control regulations. Training is highly desirable, but exercising a right can’t be contingent.

6. Krishnan says: “FBI data, women are 100 times more likely to be fatally shot by a man than to actually use a gun in self-defense.” That’s entirely a result of who has the gun and the willingness to use it. Just having a gun in the home does NOT make it dangerous, and the early pseudo-research claiming that was long ago revealed as invalid data being manipulated into those conclusions.

7. Krishnan’s repeated reference to “the gun lobby” is disturbing. That lumps together half the American population, rights advocacy groups like NRA and many others, and the firearm manufacturing and training industries. “Gun lobby” has become an anti-gun meme that demeans all the people trying to protect their rights and their families from others who are ignorant about firearms and want to believe that laws restricting possessing and bearing guns would make any difference. Good research has shown that’s not true.

8. “Can women stand up to a $51 billion a year industry?” Excuse me, but that statement is utterly sexist. Women are for good reason (along with minorities) the fastest growing segment of our population choosing to own and use firearms. Women are also “the gun lobby.” “Targeting women because we’re weak and they’re going to save us” . . . that doesn’t even make sense. Gun rights organizations exist for one reason–not money, not “influence”, except in order to protect the imperiled civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If that were better respected, there’d be no gun rights “lobby”.

So, I am still concerned about the inaccuracies of that piece about women and guns, but recognize that it came out somewhat better than many. I’d be glad to talk with you about the possibility of an interview.

Again, thank you for reaching out to us!

Best regards,

Robert B. Young, MD
Editor, DRGO.us

.

— 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

Deer Vasectomy Boondoggle

By

Dr LateBloomer

-

June 5, 2019

Oh, Borough of Staten Island, why you have wandered into Crazytown?

According to this article the state of New York, which recorded an apparent record high deer harvest of 308,216 animals in 2002, contains a certain borough of New York City which in an effort to control local deer populations has now reduced itself to… buck vasectomies.

You read that correctly. Staten Island, New York has apparently spent 4.1 million dollars over the past three years to sterilize 1577 male whitetail deer. That’s $12,975 per buck. For cost comparison, I wasn’t sure what the average cost of a human vasectomy was, so I Googled it.

According to this reference, the average U.S. human vasectomy costs in the ball park of a couple or three thousand dollars, including follow-ups.

I don’t know the ins and outs of veterinary medicine, but I imagine the huge cost differential between a human and deer snip job is related to sentience and ability to cooperate. You can’t just invite a buck into the clinic and give him a local. And you can’t just send him home with a bag of frozen peas and instructions to watch basketball on TV for a few days. There is tranquilization involved. And transport. And behavior considerations.

I imagine that human costs would go up too if you had to dart Bro-dudes as they staggered out of the sports bar, drag them into a medical truck, make sure you hadn’t already snipped them last season, do the deed, tag their ears, drag them back to where you found them in front of the bar, and watch to make sure that they didn’t hurt themselves as they were waking up and trying to figure out what the eff just happened and why their privates hurt like the devil.

So, I get that deer vasectomy is expensive. But my question is why is this even considered a viable option? Especially in a state chock-ful of deer hunters.

It’s because of the Bambi-ization of city dwellers. These are people who purchase their meat precut, on shrink-wrapped styrofoam trays. This is, IF they eat meat at all, and not just super-pre-processed tofu burgers from Whole Paycheck Mart.

Controlled hunts provide high quality protein to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and food banks. And you can even sell licenses in a lottery to offset other costs. Hiring sharpshooters is another option, and although probably more expensive than a controlled hunt, would undoubtedly give faster deer population reduction for much less than the millions of dollars already wasted.

This boondoggle has resulted in a reduction of approximately 316 animals by last estimation. Over the course of three years. A well-executed controlled hunt could do that over the course of a few days.

But, the Bambi-ized citizens of Staten Island don’t see that hunting these animals – even if the meat is used to feed the hungry – is an option. No, they treat these wild animals as if they were human beings, and insist on projecting a human medical procedure as a “solution” to overpopulation of these anthropomorphized ungulates.

If they’re going to treat these deer like humans, they should do something useful. For $12,975 each, you could send all those young bucks to trade school instead. Get them out of the woods and into useful careers where they’re too busy earning high wages to waste time reproducing, I say. If you’re going to anthropomorphize, you might as well do it right.

Granted it’s their money. But I could think of about a million better ways to spend it than on deer vasectomies, couldn’t you?

“I Don’t Like Them At All” Silencers

By

Keith Finch

-

June 4, 2019

While boarding Marine One on his trip to the U.K our President, who so recently spoke at the NRA Annual Meeting, was quoted quickly as saying he did not like firearm silencers. “I don’t like the at all.”, President Trump stated amid a flurry of other questions on Mexico, the U.K., Australia, and other topics.

Does this mean action against the NFA regulated items?

Who knows… The President is certainly known for off the cuff remarks and for whatever his opinion is as he understands the topic the moment he is asked. His history on firearms items that generate controversy is not encouraging though. RIP bumpstocks.

The major difference is that silencers are National Firearms Act controlled items already, they fall under the strictest level of federal gun control. Silencer owners are taxed, they are are fingerprinted and tied specifically to the silencer, and they must wait months to complete their purchase as an investigation is conducted into their background. What more can you ask of them?

Ban.

Gun control proponents would love themselves a good hearty ban. It would accomplish nothing to improve homicide rates, violent crime, or mass shooting statistics but it would give them momentum in the legislative direction they would prefer.

It’s a little early to panic.. Never to early to pay attention.

It was one comment during the portion of the tragedy news cycle that has latched onto silencers as the item to blame for this workplace violence incident. That’s how we term these events right? Nidal Hasan? Oh wait no, he had a known motive when he attacked a government building full of soldiers whose care he was charged with as a Medical Corps. Officer.

As the President concludes his visit to the U.K. and returns we will see if he directs any actions against silencers or makes moves for gun control like he did with bumpstocks. But for now we wait.

Virginia Beach: The Silencer

By

Keith Finch

-

June 3, 2019

The silencer the silencer the silencer… oh, and the silencer. Talking heads are running hard on the National Firearms Act controlled items.

Silencers or suppressors are devices added to the muzzle of a firearm to reduce the extremely loud gas discharge of a gunshot by about 25-30 decibels. That is approximately the same noise reduction you get from putting in properly rated earplugs. The term is legally and practically interchangeable, either word means the same device.

AP News opened their analysis with this however…

It’s the nightmare scenario that gun-control advocates have warned about amid efforts in recent years to ease restrictions on the devices, which they say can help shooters escape detection and inflict more carnage.

“Nightmare scenario, escape detection, more carnage” all credited to the use of a suppressor. Yet Craddock (the shooter) didn’t escape detection at all, he died in a gunfight with the police. An attack on the workplace fits the ‘nightmare scenario’ descriptor entirely independently of the suppressor. The suppressor didn’t enable the deaths of 12 people, his actions with his access did.

What do we know?

Not as much as we would like. Confirmation on whether he owned the suppressor for his .45 legally under the NFA hasn’t been confirmed however the firearms were (as last reported) legally acquired. If the NFA paperwork were done there is no reason the suppressor wouldn’t be legal either.

We know Craddock was a public works engineer in good employment standing. That he tendered resignation with a 2 week notice earlier that same day for “personal reasons” and then attacked his place of employment killing 12 and wounding 4. He was very familiar with the building, the people there, and there was no known reason to bar Craddock from the premises as he was still employed.

Police response time was two minutes. The responding officers searched and four of them engaged Craddock in a firefight on the second floor, wounding him fatally.

Did the suppressor/silencer matter?

No.

“A suppressor does not alter the lethality of the weapon at all. All it does is just limit the noise it makes,” said Gregory Shaffer, a retired FBI agent who was a member of the bureau’s elite Hostage Response Team. “It doesn’t increase the rate of fire. It doesn’t do anything other than make it more comfortable to shoot because it’s not so loud.” – USA Today

In a broad analysis of the entirety of the situation a suppressor provides an immaterial advantage. The suppressor didn’t give Craddock access to the building interior, familiarity with the building floor plan, or a rapport with his coworkers. His employment did.

A suppressor on a .45 does reduce noise to a notably significant degree.

Because .45 ACP is a subsonic round (slower than the speed of sound) it already does not produce one of the two noisest factors of a gunshot, the sonic crack by breaking the sound barrier. The suppressor lowers the second factor, the noisy gas discharge at the muzzle. A suppressed .45 is a “quiet” firearm. Craddock, using the suppressor, limited one of his detectable signatures and that was the ‘advantage’ gained. This does nothing to limit any aware individuals from reacting to his actions or shooting back (as officers did).

Would a louder firearm have changed the building occupant’s reaction?

Possibly… but not likely. Those not immediately under attack, if they recognized the noise independently of other factors, could evacuate. There is nothing in an office building remotely like good cover. Looking at that factor alone the suppressor appears to be a lethality enhancement. Looking at the situation and removing the suppressor however wouldn’t have changed the access for, speed of, and surprise achieved for the attack.

While talking know-nothings may focus on the silencer, experts focused on those lethal modes of action.

Drawn Conclusions

Craddock’s attack on his place of work seems to be largely to totally without warning. No threats to his employer (the DPW), the city, or other motives are available at this time. There was no reason for DPW or Law Enforcement to consider him a special threat. This may end up being an unknown motive attack similar to Mandalay Bay.

If there are no warning signs there cannot be a build up or intervention beyond general active shooter/workplace violence preparation. Physical onsite security and individual response procedure for the DPW building is not known at this time: emergency medical preparedness, lockdown procedures, etc.

What is known is that Craddock had full access to the building as a badged and active employee. The majority of offices everywhere are woefully underprepared for this emergency. It is the Department of Public Works, not a forward operating base (those get breached too by the way).

After the initial emergency call was placed the response to site is listed at 2 minutes. That’s as textbook a perfect response time as could be asked for in any emergency. Officers entered, found Caddock, and ended the threat. Caddock died of his wounds.

Defensive response could be improved for the site in two ways. Dedicated armed staff or allowance of concealed carry by staff and contractors. Dedicated uniformed armed staff would be a priority target in an attack but their presence may further deter an attack and depending on their level of training and equipment they can survive the initial shots and respond. Concealed carry allowed on site undisclosed would mean any potential attacker is walking into a proverbial minefield of people who can shoot back without a reliable way, other than first hand knowledge from conversations, to target armed persons. This situation also produces a strong deterrent effect by shifting the survivability odds and theoretical time unopposed during the attack drastically against them.

This security theory vs security theater. Theater looks good on paper but is easily circumvented. Theory acknowledges limitations of all approaches and puts policies in place to best generate effective responses.

Final thoughts

12 people died in Virginia Beach because their coworker decided to take their lives. Not because of guns, silencers, the phase of the moon, high tide, or any other extrapolative backflip.

Presidential Candidate Cory Booker couldn’t answer a simple question when asked about this attack. Booker couldn’t name a policy change that would have prevented this, only trot out the asinine party platitudes of “thoughts and prayers aren’t enough!”

You’re right Cory, thoughts and prayers are not enough. Hope is not an effective emergency plan, so perhaps we start listening to people who are experts in the area of emergency planning. This dedicated cadre of professionals who don’t feel like lying about safety for the sake of feelings, bruised egos, or political points might have an idea.

Police Response Time – Why You Should Own Guns

By

DRGO

-

May 31, 2019

[Ed: Kevin Murphy said that our articles inspired him to write this. We said that we want to repost it. We are, with his permission, and hope he will become a regular contributor. First published 4/24/19, updated 5/21/19 on GunGoal.com.]

Suppose one is considering whether he/she should get a gun for home defense, disregarding all other factors such as 2A supporter and fun of shooting sports, one crucial determinant is how fast and reliable the cops could come to his/her emergency call.

Many scientific studies (and common sense) tell us that the shorter the police response time, the higher arrest rate¹, safety² and satisfaction.

In this article, I’ll be digging into data of police response time, factors that lengthen/shorten police response time, average time criminal took to complete a crime and lastly, is buying a gun for self and home defense a good idea.

Table of Contents

Time for Police to Respond to an Emergency Call

A Nationwide Study

Source : Police Response Times to Calls for Service: Fragmentation, Community Characteristics, and Efficiency – Daniel S. Bennett (Nov 2018)³

A dispatcher takes an emergency call at the Jackson, Tennessee 9-1-1 Dispatch Center. (2003)

Daniel S. Bennett, the researcher made a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to 249 different police and law enforcement agencies across the nation for every record of Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems during January 2015 to December 2016.

Though almost every agency responded to his initial request, only 57 agencies provided him with data citing technical limitations. Typical technical limitation is that their CAD systems were not designed to allow users to extract customized reports, and the default reports contained personal information, such as names, that would have to be redacted by hand and thus prohibitively expensive to assemble.

17 out of these 57 datasets were incomplete and were dropped from the study. Final sample of 40 datasets consists of 7.5 million CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) events, of which, 3.4 million were public calls for service.

Before we continue, let’s take a look at some definitions.

Police Response Time = The time between the call being created by CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) system and the first officer arriving on scene
High Priority – The researcher classified incidents into Priority 1, 2 and 3.
- Priority 1 = Calls that require an immediate response, which includes crimes in progress and some medical emergencies
- Priority 2 = Calls requiring an expedited response, which includes crimes that occurred recently, some traffic accidents, etc…
- Priority 3 = Calls that require a routine response, which includes crimes without a suspect, noise complaints, reports and patrols, etc..

Generally, police respond to Priority 1 calls faster due to urgent nature of the calls. For our purpose, we’ll be focusing on the police response time of Priority 1 calls of this paper.

From those 40 datasets, there are :

	Calls	Percentage
Priority 1	667,172	19.44%
Priority 2	1,608,127	46.86%
Priority 3	1,156,145	33.69%
Total	3,431,444	100.00%

Research findings

Police response time in minutes for each priority calls :

	Priority 1	Priority 2	Priority 3
Mean	24.8	37.8	94.3
Median	8.8	12.3	22.7
SD	81.5	93.2	175.9

According to this data, 50% of the time (Median), police can respond within 8.8 minutes for priority 1 calls. Average and standard deviation are much higher than median, suggesting much slower response time for other unfortunate cases.

Cumulative Distribution Function of Raw Response Times in Minutes by Priority

For Priority 1 calls :

Responded within	Probability	Cumulative Probability
5 minutes	20%	20%
5 – 8.8 minutes	30%	50%
8.8 – 12 minutes	10%	60%
12 – 18 minutes	20%	80%
18 – 60 minutes	15%	95%
More than 60 minutes	5%	100%

The above is a national data. Let’s take a closer look at police response time rate of each city.

Police Response Time by City

20 cities’ average police response time, land areas, population estimates and population density.

Rank	City	Data period	Average police response time (mm:ss)	2016 land area (sq mi)	2017 population estimate	2016 population density (per sq mi)
1	Jacksonville, FL	2017	3:13⁴	747.4	892,062	1,178
2	Chicago, IL	Jan 1, 2012 – Feb 12, 2012	3:28⁵	227.3	2,716,450	11,900
3	Allen, TX	2015	4:17⁶	27.1	100,685	3,715
4	San Francisco, CA	July 2017 – June 2018	5:30⁷	46.9	884,363	18,569
5	Houston, TX	Jan 2019 – Feb 2019	5:35⁸	637.5	2,312,717	3,613
6	Los Angeles, CA	Dec 2017	6:06⁹	468.7	3,999,759	8,484
7	New York City, NY	Jan 7, 2019 – March 25, 2019	6:18¹⁰	301.5	8,622,698	28,317
8	Seattle, WA	2018	6:20¹¹	83.8	724,745	8,405
9	Phoenix, AZ	Feb 1, 2017 – May 31, 2017	6:27¹²	517.6	1,626,078	3,120
10	Washington, D.C.	2017	6:41¹³	61.1	693,972	11,148
11	San Antonio, TX	2017	6:48¹⁴	461	1,511,946	3,238
12	Austin, TX	2018	7:09¹⁵	312.7	950,715	3,031
13	Indianapolis, IN	2011	7:12¹⁶	361.5	863,002	2,366
14	Boston, MA	2011	7:40¹⁷	48.3	685,094	13,938
15	Dallas, TX	Jan 1, 2019 – Feb 12, 2019	8:06¹⁸	340.9	1,341,075	3,866
16	San Jose, CA	July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018	9:12¹⁹	177.5	1,035,317	5,777
17	Detroit, MI	2018	14:18²⁰	138.8	673,104	4,847
18	Denver, CO	2013	14:18²¹	153.3	704,621	4,521
19	San Diego, CA	2018	16:30²²	325.2	1,419,516	4,325
20	Milwaukee, WI	2015	21:00²³	96.2	595,351	6,186

*Population and land area data is from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population²⁴

Correlation tests on these 20 data points reveal that police response time has :

-0.3 correlation with land areas
-0.21 correlation with population
-0.18 correlation with population density

Apparently, larger land area contributes to longer police response time. Next we explore some other known factors affecting police response time.

Factors Affecting Police Response Time

Police response time is faster during the night.

Perhaps the most obvious factors that come to mind are distance and traffic. Farther distance and traffic congestion would obviously delay police response time.

But guess what? There are tons of other not-so-obvious factors lying around such as race income, neighbourhood, crime frequency and more. Here are a list of factors with supporting papers:

Time of incidents

Police response time is shorter during night time than day time. (2001)²⁵

Calls for domestic violence made on weekends had significantly less response time. (2017)²⁶

Rush hour (0700-0900 and 1600-1800 on weekdays) did not appear to be associated with domestic violence call response time. (2017)²⁶

2. Distance from response station

Crimes further away from response station have higher average response time and lower clearance rate. Luckily, the study showed that farther distance from response station correlates with lower crime rate. (2015)²⁷

3. Traffic

Traffic slows down fire trucks arriving at the scene of an emergency and increases the average monetary damages from fires. (2018)²⁸

4. Weapon

Presence of weapon was associated with a lower response time for domestic violence calls. (2017)²⁶ (2008)²⁹

5. Neighborhood Characteristics

Hispanic neighborhoods enjoy faster police response time.

Police response time is shorter in neighborhoods with low income and a high level of minority population. (1978)³⁰

For domestic violence cases in Houston, Hispanic complaints experienced significantly faster police response time. (2017)²⁶

A study in 1997 suggested the opposite, that police response time was longer in socially and economically stressed neighborhoods. (1997)³¹

6. Crime Hotspots

Police agencies deploy more patrol units during certain times and days and in areas which generate high demands, contributing to more efficient, quicker responses and fairer officers’ workloads. (1992)³²

A study in 1997 suggested the opposite, that police response time increased after responding to repeated Calls For Service from a high crime neighborhood. (1997)³¹

Quite a number of factors contribute to police response time. But to determine whether the waiting time is long or short, we need to know how much time criminals need to conduct their evil deeds.

Average Crime Duration:

Burglary

According to a 2013 research by SECURAMERICA³³ :

Average burglary duration is 8 – 12 minutes.

Average burglary duration is 8 – 12 minutes.
Most burglaries occur during 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. since that’s a prime time frame where many homes are not occupied.
Average dollar lost from a burglary in the US is just over $2,000.
Cash, jewelry, guns, drugs and small electronics (smartphones, tablets) are the most common items stolen due to ease of carrying and ease of turning them into money.
Burglaries typically spike during the summer months (July and August).
Regionally, the south accounts for 47% of burglaries (the relatively warmer weather is a key contributor of this). The Midwest and West each account for 21% of burglaries, and the Northeast accounts for the remaining 11%.
The State of Ohio experiences the most burglaries in the country.
Only 13% of burglaries are arrested on average, resulting in low chance of recovering your stolen possessions.
Burglars want an easy target where they won’t likely be seen and can get in & out fast.
Although burglars are typically not prone to violence, when surprised or confronted by an occupant, they could attack.

Another research in 2012 by University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology³⁴, employing survey data on 422 incarcerated burglars from North Carolina, Kentucky and Ohio, found that :

Most burglaries are finished within less than 10 minutes (although some lasted over an hour).
Top cited reason s for engaging  in burglary are :
- Foolishness
Female burglars prefer home and residence targets in the afternoon time frame, while male burglars focus on business targets in the late evenings.

If the majority of burglaries were done within 12 minutes, and 60% of Priority 1 police response time are within 12 minutes, we can conclude that even if victims dial 911 immediately at the beginning of burglaries, the police didn’t arrive at the crime scene before burglars fled for at least 40% of the cases.

Obviously, there are cases where victims were not at home, or did not notice the invasion immediately. Thus, cases where police could come to prevent and protect victims from burglaries are even less than 60%. Luckily, most burglars aim for monetary gains and hurting victims aren’t their primary goal.

FBI data indicates that there were 1,430,698 burglary cases in 2017

2. Sexual Assault

According to Siskiyou Domestic Violence & Crisis Center³⁵, average sexual assault lasts 4.5 hours. Some sexual assault cases span over a period of days.

Data from RAINN.org³⁶suggests that :

On average, there are 321,500 victims (age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault each year in the United States.
People age 18-34 have the highest risk of sexual violence.
1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime.
90% of rape victims are female.
Transgender students are at higher risk for sexual violence
Sexual violence can have long-term effects on victims
American Indians are twice as likely to experience a rape/sexual assault compared to all other races.

Since average duration for rape is 4.5 hours, police response time is fairly good for this type of crime.

3. Murder, Nonnegligent Manslaughter and Aggravated Assault

There are 16,617 cases of Murder and non-negligent manslaughter in US 2017. u

Criminals armed with guns, knives or other weapons can seriously injure victims within seconds.

According to “Murder and Medicine : The Lethality of Criminal Assault 1960-1999”³⁷, a 2002 study :

Injured victims from aggravated assault and homicide cases in St. Louis has 4% mortality rate if they arrived at a hospital within 20 minutes of their injury.
If victims arrived later than 20 minutes, mortality rate jumped to 20%.

Data from “Office for Victim of Crimes”³⁸ regarding Homicide shows that :

In 2016, there are 5.3 murders and non-negligent homicides for every 100,000 people.
Main homicide victims are male and female age between 20-29 and female age above 50.
Black male and white female are more riskier to be homicide victims.
The majority of perpetrators are Non-family acquaintances.

For assault cases, data from “Office for Victim of Crimes”³⁹ indicates that :

There are 11.8 and 3 cases of aggravated assault and simple assault per every 1,000 people
In 2015, 33% of aggravated assault victimizations were committed with a knife, 23% with a firearm, and 11% without a weapon.
More than half of aggravated assaults were committed by acquaintances of the victims.
“At or near victim’s home” is the aggravated assault hotspot for female victims. While commercial place, parking lot and public areas are hotspots for male victims.
People age above 35-49 have the highest risk for aggravated assaults.

Since these types of crimes are done within matter of seconds while the police are minutes away, you certainly need some form of self-defense mechanism.

Conclusion

During January 2015 to December 2016, national average police response time is within 8 minutes 48 seconds. Police response time differs greatly between cities due to factors such as traffic, distance, neighborhood and weapons involved. Thus it would be wise for you to check average police response time in your area.

Comparing average police response time with average crime duration, police won’t be able to arrive in time to catch burglars at crime scene for at least 40% of the cases. For sexual assaults, police response time should be adequate.

However murder, manslaughter and aggravated assaults are types of crime where police response time falls short, and you’d need to depend on your own defense mechanism.

“As the old saying goes, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.”

Sources

Relationship of Response Delays and Arrest Rates – C Clawson; S K Chang (1977)
Response Time and Citizen Evaluation of Police – S L Percy (1980)
Police Response Times to Calls for Service: Fragmentation, Community Characteristics, and Efficiency – Daniel S. Bennett (Nov 2018)
https://www.jdnews.com/news/20180715/calls-up-response-times-down-for-local-law-enforcement
https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/chicago-police-response-time-is-down-in-2012/6f6f56c9-ff77-40ca-ab47-737f0c31e81f
https://www.cityofallen.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=1323&ARC=2406
https://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Auditing/FY18%20Annual%20Performance%20Report%20FINAL.pdf#page=11
https://www.houstontx.gov/police/department_reports/operational_summary/FEBRUARY19.NIBRS_Monthly_Operational_Summary_FINAL%20032019.pdf
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/LAPD-Pulling-Out-of-LAX-Narcotics-Task-Force-as-it-Works-to-Boost-Patrols-503166701.html
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/911reporting/reports/end-to-end-detail.page
https://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/calls-for-service-dashboard
https://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/phoenix-police-taking-longer-to-respond-to-911-calls-despite-adding-officers
https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/MPD%20Annual%20Report%202017_lowres.pdf
https://report.sa2020.org/community-safety/
http://www.austintexas.gov/budget/eperf/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.PerfMeasure&DEPT_CD=POLIC&DIV_CD=5OPS&GP_CD=21AA&MEASURE_ID=6689
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wthr/PDF/impdreport.pdf
https://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/Police%20-%20FY11%20Q1%20Web_ver2_tcm3-21707.pdf
https://www.dallaspolice.net/resources/CrimeReports/New%20Response%20Time%20Report.pdf
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/81795
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2019/02/04/detroit-police-response-times-questioned/2744186002/
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/741/documents/Audits_2016/FollowUpReports_2016/Police-Response-Time_FollowUpReport_August2016.pdf
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/fy18pb_v2police.pdf
https://milwaukeenns.org/2018/08/06/special-report-mpd-slow-to-respond-to-violent-crime-calls-police-data-shows/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
L. Blake, R. T. Coupe, The Impact of Single and Two-Officer Patrols on Catching Burglars in the Act: A Critique of the Audit Commission’s Reports on Youth Justice, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 41, Issue 2, March 2001, Pages 381–396, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/41.2.381
Lee, J.-S., Lee, J., & Hoover, L. T. (2017). What Conditions Affect Police Response Time? Examining Situational and Neighborhood Factors. Police Quarterly, 20(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611116657327
Blanes, Jordi & Kirchmaier, Tom. (2015). The Effect of Police Response Time on Crime Detection. SSRN Electronic Journal. 10.2139/ssrn.2630987.
Beland, Louis-Philippe & Brent, Daniel. (2018). Traffic congestion, transportation policies, and the performance of first responders.10.13140/RG.2.2.10201.42088.
Kernsmith, Poco & Craun, Sarah. (2008). Predictors of Weapon Use in Domestic Violence Incidents Reported to Law Enforcement. Journal of Family Violence. 23. 589-596. 10.1007/s10896-008-9181-8.
Mladenka, K. R., Hill, K. Q. (1978) The distribution of urban police services. The Journal of Politics 40(1): 112–133.
Klinger, David. (1997). Negotiating order in patrol work: An ecological theory of police response to deviance. Criminology. 35. 277 – 306. 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1997.tb00877.x.
Walker, S. (1992) The police in America, New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill.
http://www.jsu.edu/police/docs/Schoolsafety.pdf
http://airef.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/BurglarSurveyStudyFinalReport.pdf
https://sdvcc.org/sexual-assault
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence
http://www.universitychurchchicago.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Murder-and-Medicine.pdf
https://ovc.ncjrs.gov/ncvrw2018/info_flyers/fact_sheets/2018NCVRW_Homicide_508_QC.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/ncvrw/2017/images/en_artwork/Fact_Sheets/2017NCVRW_Assault_508.pdf

.

— 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 Remington/Bushmaster ACR: How well has it aged?

By

Keith Finch

-

May 31, 2019

The Remington/Bushmaster Adaptive Combat Rifle (ACR) is a modular semi-automatic rifle designed by Magpul Industries, known initially as the Masada (not to be confused with the developing handgun from IWI of the same name) the ACR was to be a cutting edge modernized service rifle.

The ACR, like the SCAR, H&K 416, XM8, and X95 was an early 21st century venture into modernizing small arms technology. Magpul was a much smaller entity at the time and could not bring the rifle to market in the way they wanted and so they partnered with Bushmaster and Remington to do so…

This would not turn out in the rifle’s favor…

The Dark Times…

Magpul had voiced a number of promises with this new rifle. The chief two among them were reasonable cost and lightweight. Bushmaster failed delivery on both those critical accounts and did so far behind schedule. Bushmaster was plagued with utterly ridiculous quality control concerns on a heavier than promised rifle that was priced at twice the original estimate.

Magpul had stated the Masada would come in near the cost of a high quality AR like a Daniel Defense or LWRCi DI, topping out at the most near something like the X95 for the (E)nhanced model. The extensive use of polymer, components from the AR15 platform, and the miracles of modern industry were going to make this the 21st Century Everyman’s Carbine.

The ‘Everyman’s Carbine’ it was not, that honor is the AR15’s for the whole of the foreseeable future.

What We Received…

Instead we, the excited consumer public, were handed a rifle selling for nearly $3,000 for the basic model. No quad rail or adjustable stock, just an MOE inspired handguard and a fixed length of pull MOE stock, both of which could be had for the AR for less than $100… Oh, and a safety selector that didn’t stay selected to actuate a very very rough mil-spec trigger.

The Enhanced model was even more expensive, if you could find one at all. Bushmaster chose 1:9 twist barrels for some incredibly head scratch inducing reason, putting such a barrel on a rifle that was clearly designed for a military 1:7 seemed lazy and out of touch. The slower 1:9 twist, while useable, was a hallmark of ‘budget’ rifles of the era and was never seen on high end carbines. This fact further cheapened the felt value of the far higher than promised priced rifle.

The most svelte version of the ACR weighed in the same as the SCAR17 for very nearly the same dollars on the table. Bushmaster had delivered none of the Magpul promises… and the rifle was far from flawless, it wouldn’t outmatch the M4A1 as released.

On these dark chapters for the highly hyped rifle… I spoke with Remington. Why these issue occurred came down to one very simple thing. Logistics. This was a project that didn’t get the attention it needed at the time it needed it. Remington higher couldn’t pick where to build it, where to source or manufacturer parts, or nail down crucial details on QC with all of its other acquisitions and projects also running simultaneously.

As for military contracts only Poland bought a few and then proceeded to reverse engineer it (or it certainly looks that way) into the MSBS to produce domestically as their service rifle. They even made a neat bullpup kit for it.

However, Fans Persisted

A group of enthusiasts still purchased the rifle. Some early adopters were disappointed by the teething and QC concerns, they moved on while others remained. The ACR developed a sort of pop cult enthusiast culture and is well liked overall by the owners who kept it. By many reports it makes a wonderful SBR and a great host for a suppressor. The Call of Duty series cannot do away with it, it’s almost a franchise brand item and it makes appearances in most shooter games today. So…

The Adaptive Combat Rifle – 2019

I had never fired an ACR until this year. It was always the rifle that seemed to have been passed by for shooters. Surpassed due to its own production problems and lack of serious agency adoptions. However, Bushmaster is still producing the rifle and I decided to indulge my nostalgic Modern Warfare 2 fanboi and see if the kinks were gone.

I picked up an ACR-E, black, and had it shipped to me. While ACR variants of the past had a myriad of options, often hard to distinguish, including various stocks, handguards, calibers, and barrel twist rates, Bushmaster has cleaned up the categories to align with the industry at large, Basic and Enhanced.

The ACR-Basic comes with the Magpul MOE style handguard that supports M-LOK attachment and the ACR-Enhanced comes with an aluminum forearm in MIL-STD-1913, Keymod, or M-LOK.

Caliber options include 5.56mm, 6.8 SPC II (for those shooting the exotic ammo), 300 Blackout, and 450 Bushmaster (both calibers developed under Remington). The typical commercial variants have 16.5″ barrels with the 10.5″, 14.5″, and 18.5″ available aftermarket. I will note that the aftermarket barrels for the ACR are far less expensive than SCAR barrels, 46% of cost comparing MSRPs. The barrels are cold hammer forged, chrome lined, and quick replace. This is what makes the platform such a potent candidate for a From 1 SBRing.

Muzzle to stock, the ACR of today is a put together and fairly forward thinking platform. It supports suppressor use right out of the box with an AAC 51T three prong flash hider (yes, it rings). Standard muzzle threads allow you all the flexibility in the world to replace it. The gas system and short stroke piston are integrated to the barrel assembly. Gas blocks are two position, (S)uppressed and (U)nsupressed. The barrel nut and handle for changing the barrel are also part of the assembly, all one neat package.

There was some talk about the return to zero capability of the rifle and this barrel change system, but let’s keep that in operational perspective.

An absolute return to zero on this system is not a necessary feature. You are not going to quick change your barrel in a gunfight, not on your carbine. Even though the ease of the system makes it an operator/user level task the process will require you to confirm zero again when you change operational configuration. Every time you mess with zeroed portions of a gun you reconfirm zero, period. Return to zero makes this process easier, it is not a substitute for it.

The quadrail handguard of the ACR is a monster. It’s also short. The design supports the SBR 10.5″ barrels. I swapped it for the M-LOK 12.5 from Midwest Industries. The MI M-LOK felt lighter, more comfortable, and is a more rigid handguard. The system mounts via one captured push pin, easy off and on, and tracks into a pair of receiver cuts on the front. The tradeoff picking this design for the ACR is that no zeroed equipment can mount to the handguard, there is far too much play. Anything that retains a zero, a PEQ or DBAL, must mount to the top rail on the receiver. This is notable on both the factory and MI handguards.

Midwest Industries Handguard and Combat Sights

The factory stock Enhanced handguard supports QD sling swivels at the 3 and 9 o’clock positions. These mounts are removable via a couple small hex screws. It is necessary to remove them if you want to utilize the front portion of the picatinny rail. Two additional QD’s at 3 and 9 are on the receiver near the barrel lock up and one reversible QD is on the adjustable stock. The design allows you to set the rifle up comfortably in a number of two-point sling configurations. My preference has the stock QD in the right side/3 o’clock position and wrapping around to the 9 o’clock QD on the receiver.

Of note, the fact that the QD’s are not rotation limited is less than ideal and one of the features I most dislike on the rifle overall. The sling twists and binds. The positions are excellent but not having them limit rotation is a detail that shouldn’t have been missed at a rifle this price and trying to compete this late in the game.

To be fair the SCAR doesn’t have rotation limited QD’s either. The factory configuration is for HK clips by SOCOM TPD. The ACR does have a rear receiver HK style sling hook, similar to the SCAR.

The charging handle is non reciprocating and well placed. There is an ambidextrous option available from Bushmaster that adds the capability to charge the ACR from either side. The bolt catch is a mirrored design next to the trigger guard and useable with your index finger. Magazine release and 90 degree throw safety selector are equally ambidextrous and mirrored.

The ACR is legitimately a paragon example of ambidexterity, especially adding the dual charging handle. About the only thing I wish they would have done or updated on the control suite is AR grip compatibility. MOE style isn’t bad but I prefer K2 or BCM Mod 3 and I do not have that option.

The stock is 7 position, foldable, and with a cheek riser for optics. The design is so well liked it’s available for several other rifle systems, including the SCAR. Other than wanting the QD point to be rotation limited it is a fantastic stock.

The ACR comes “Optics Ready” which is a polite way of saying no iron sights. I chose a set of MI Combat Rifle Sights. Lightweight, lo-pro, a middle diameter rear aperture. The MI CRS keep a perfectly acceptable group at 50 yards, printing about 2 MOA with M193 ammo.

One captured pin “shotguns” the receiver open for maintenance. 4 pins and the whole rifle can separate into its assemblies.

Conclusions on the ACR

Is the ACR worth considering as carbine?

Yes.

The rifle’s performance was more than enough to justify its consideration as a service rifle or defensive rifle.

Personal protection, patrol rifle, multi-gun, or CoD WM2 Cosplay. The ACR sends 55gr and 62gr ball ammo wherever I asked it. The manual of arms is easily translatable from the AR and SCAR. It is a maintenance light piston system with a fair amount of aftermarket support. It’s a great SBR host as the conversion is far less expensive than an X95 or SCAR for rebarreling.

It’s detracting factors are minor, but present. The stock handguard, 9lb weight, and QD sling points are less than ideal but solvable aftermarket. A new trigger and new handguard do the rifle justice.

At an MRSP of $2,249 and available in the much more reasonable $1,700-$2,000 range the Bushmaster Adaptive Combat Rifle has come into its own as a contender. Better late than never.

I like it.

New Zealand Ban Nabs 530 of 300,000 Now Illegal Firearms

By

Keith Finch

-

May 30, 2019

From The NZ Herald. Title Image from Travis Pike

New figures show gun owners are holding back on handing in their firearms, because they’re waiting to hear how much the Government will pay for them

I suspect, as with most “buybacks”, it will be for dramatically lower sums than the firearms are worth. I distinctly remember a recent one here in the states that gave $50 for a handgun, $75 for a long gun, and a whopping $100 for an “assault weapon.” Even at PSA AR prices that’s a heavy loss.

Figures released to Newstalk ZB by the New Zealand Police showed that, as of Sunday night, only 530 guns had been handed in since the ban on semi-automatic guns was finalised in early April.

There are around 250,000 licenced firearm holders in New Zealand and it’s estimated as many as 300,000 guns could now be illegal.

New Zealand does not have a 2nd Amendment. They don’t have “2nd Amendment” rights to be violated. Self defense is a human right, however no nation enjoys as robust a tradition of civic arms as The United States.

The make or break point for the New Zealand ban will be how much cash will the government fork out. The ban is going to be either a partial failure or a colossal failure and the dollars going to owners will be telling. I have feeling that even with the much more casual attitude towards firearms held by New Zealanders the non-compliance rate is going to be directly correlated to just how over the coals they’re being raked.

Police Minister Stuart Nash said in April that regulations, including a price list, would be considered by Cabinet by the end of May.

Nicole McKee, Secretary of the Council of Licensed Firearm Owners, told Heather du Plessis-Allan that there had not been any communication from Government about prices for the buyback.

Well we are at the end of May…

McKee expected most people would comply with the laws, but she said that there was no trust in the system whatsoever among firearms owners, and that people felt blindsided and blamed. [Emphasis added]

“We are effectively being punished for the acts of a foreign terrorist, and we want to make sure that our personal and private property is adequately compensated when it is confiscated.”

Just how badly this goes? We will see. I honestly don’t see the NZ government ponying up the cash to make this happen fairly. If you roughly estimate each banned firearm at $800 this program will cost a quarter of a billion dollars at minimum, assuming that only 4% of the money spent is on administrative costs. This “moral imperative” handed down by a reactionary government could come with a ten figure price tag without trying too hard.

And it still won’t stop the next one…

Emotion as Law – The Blood and Tears Strategy

By

Dr LateBloomer

-

May 30, 2019

058FD52A-AB4C-4E04-B423-7A015457026F — Vial for collecting liberal tears

We need to start a new political party – the Emoticratic Party – which governs entirely upon the emotion the party members feel that day.

Oh wait – we already have that. I wish I could claim credit for that moniker, but it’s been floating around the dusty corners of the internet for years. I just felt that it needed to be given more use. (I “felt” – see what I did there?)

Democrats newly in the majority in the House of Representatives have wasted no time in throwing just about anything in the way of gun control against the wall to see if it sticks. And they’re trying to make it extra sticky – with tears and blood.

The justification for even more incursions upon the rights of law-abiding Americans is “safety” and “saving lives” – *sniff, single tear*. Senator Kamala Harris is even advocating waving the bloody shirt in front of legislators just before a vote. Never mind that every previous emotionally-driven piece of anti-gun legislation has done precisely zero to affect violent crime rates. I’m looking at you, Chicago, California, et al.

The mayor and city council members of Pittsburgh were willing to actually violate Pennsylvania state law by imposing their own city firearms restrictions in the wake of the synagogue shootings. Because feelings. Now millions of taxpayer dollars will be wasted because they are being taken to court and will have to defend their emotion-driven (and also craven political) actions.

The only thing that apparently matters to these politicians is power and using emotional manipulation to get that power and keep it. They know this is an effective strategy because once the limbic juices are flowing, rational thought is dead. Anyone who opposes them can be painted with the brush of “wanting more dead kids”. (I had that one thrown at me personally. I am a pediatrician, recall)

But the Founders were nothing if not intellectuals. They crafted the entire Constitution very carefully. They knew the damage that the inflamed masses could do to governance, and thus did everything in their power to put roadblocks in the way of rash emotional action on the federal level.

Unfortunately that hasn’t stopped gun-grabber politicians from the erosive destruction of Second Amendment rights – one teardrop at a time. They cravenly waste no opportunity to use the blood and tears of their constituents to increase the rate of corrosion.

As we enter the choppy waters of a new election season, let us do everything in our power to resist and expose the agenda of crocodile tears. Facts, not feelings are what should underlay enduring governance – especially when it comes to the Constitutional Rights of every American citizen.

Continuity of Training

By

Keith Finch

-

May 29, 2019

What it our training responsibility? How many courses are enough? What level of course work covers what we need to know?

The answer is ludicrously simple.

More.

Continuity of training is imperative to continue the learning process and keep fresh on a skillset. Taking a course over again, especially one that you enjoyed, is easily among the best ways to accomplish that.

“No two courses are the same.” – Tom Alibrando

Tom going over the integral BUIS on the Tavor X95

I recently attended IWI’s Tavor Operator I, the same course I took and reviewed last year. I went back to bullpup school basics.

I also didn’t bring a bullpup.

I have attended four Tavor/X95 courses and still do not technically own the rifle. I have purchased the rifle, I ordered the variant as soon as it was announced. However, thanks to a series of unfortunate acts (the NFA and government shutdown) my lawfully purchased property is not mine yet.

That’s not our topic though.

The purpose of training cycle continuity

Continuity in training is about immersion. If we keep jumping in the pool to swim laps regularly, even at the shallow end, we don’t lose all the little microefficincies and gains that we make when we take developmental classes. Taking T1 again was a no brainer. You catch up with friends, you meet new ones, and you shoot guns in a structured learning environment. Also really cool guns usually make an appearance… #FullAuto

When you’ve taken time off from a skill set you do not go right to the hardest tasks you spun up to complete at the peak of your last training cycle. You worked to get there and you will need to work back to get there again. LEO and Military units do the same thing, they work up for a mission or deployment from the base tasks to the final mission requirements. When they go home, relax, complete other work and then get tasked with a new mission they spin up the training cycle again from the ground up.

You’ll see that in these courses too, as the student body reaches standards they move forward. Starting from the fundamental base means nobody gets left out to rot in confusion because something was skipped and they went too far too fast.

Fundamentals and Functions
Malfunctions and Positions
Problem Solving

T1 in three phrases.

Picking up a class taken previously is illustrative, the most notable item is how much you forget. The fundamentals are an immersion skillset and they will slip when you stop practicing regularly (and you will). Putting yourself into that student learning environment, where you aren’t driving your own practice schedule, checks your homework as it were. Objective standards of performance graded by a third party who is there to help you improve.

IWI Galil ACE 5.56 with SB Brace and TA50 ACOG

Taking a course again is like rewatching a good movie, you lock onto your favorite spots and you pick up on some of the little items you missed. Often there are new anecdotes for teaching, new things learned since last class, and new experiences to apply.

No two classes are the same. Learning how to fight the gun better than last time and checking those standards again to see where you’re at.

Fighting Gun Fundamentals

The full course curriculum: 1, 2, 3, & new this year TNOC (which you can sign up for after completing T1, I am heading there) is developing the shooters ability to use a rifle as an individual in a gunfight. Citizen, Cop, Marine or Soldier, Mom or Dad, those roles are on equal footing in the course design. The individual running the rifle is protecting their life, the focal point of the whole system and the perspective being learned from.

It’s my sincerely held opinion that, in addition to far too little range time, the military and LEO organizations move towards team tactics far earlier than they should before competence on the weapon as an individual is reached. They assume, wrongly, that adding the new tactics, techniques, and procedures into the mix also somehow redundantly practices the basic fundamentals.

I honestly wish more courses were taught on IWI Academy’s format. Any rifle, handgun, shotgun, or long gun/handgun system benefits from the format. The course is on the X95 but my proficiency on my Galil was the developing skillset.

Enhancing the total student comprehension of the rifle system. The individual can actually fight the gun because they know what is happening and can figure out what has gone wrong if the rifle stops. Instead of just parroting motions and punching paper or ringing steel, the whole system makes sense to the system operator.

It’s a chronic problem within military and law enforcement circles, parroting in place of comprehension. Continuity of training drastically increases the comprehension and eliminates the parroting. By regularly entering the learning circles we recheck the skills we know but haven’t touched in a minute.

Revisiting the Basics

What are those basic concepts that you haven’t checked off in awhile?

When was the last time you zeroed? Actually zeroed and confirmed at distance? A good basics course will get you back on the gun and on target, checking all the things we simply tend to assume are on and “close enough”.

“Close enough” starts falling apart as soon as 50 yards. It tells no lies by 100 yards. Go zero your rifle if its been minute.

8″ group at 100 yards out of an 8.3″ barrel dropping to prone unsupported (USMC Rapid Fire style). The Galil is an accurate little package.

The quick zero I had prior to class, shot with about 15 rounds at 50 yards and declared good enough, was not. When starting the process anew it was fine at 25, as expected, but we adjusted for a theoretical 100. At 50 I adjusted again for a windage correction and when confirming it was dead on center mass at 100. Distance tells, check it.

Even just the proper mechanics of loading. All the little steps to get it right and check that your weapon is up and running. Errors were made. Errors were corrected. The learning environment exists to comprehend the machine, it’s mechanics, it’s possible faults and how to correct them.

Do you remember how the gun feels when it goes to bolt lock? How does an empty chamber or misfire sound and feel? How does the dead trigger of a “Type 2” or “Hard” malfunction (double feed, usually) feel?

The most common bubble I saw busted was actually “I’m going to run the gun dry and see how it does.” That was an easy test. The guns got hot, the guns got dirty, the guns had stoppages a few hundred rounds in. The hot dirty guns that were running lubricant didn’t have stoppages. Lube the bolt carrier = Fewer problems.

So what’s your plan for Continuity of Training?

The curriculum for T1 wasn’t altered, the instructors were different so the experience was different. Every time I attend a course I can see how I’ve improved and where I need to improve. I dust off skills, sometimes years untouched, and I develop new ones from good instructors and students.

I don’t run my M16 like I did as young Marine in 2007. It’s faster now, more efficient, with many lessons learned and a better ancillary gear list. It’s still ultimately the same rifle. The foundations of that Marine are still there. But I am a vastly superior shooter now compared to then and it is all thanks to guys like Tom, Yossi, and Steve running courses to provide that continuity.

They haven’t stopped, I haven’t stopped, you shouldn’t stop.

If you haven’t started now is the time.

Grab the ammo.

Find a course. IWI Academy comes highly recommended. I’ll be back with them and Sentinel Concepts in a few weeks.

See you there.

Oh… and readers. It’s pretty much a vacation all about guns too, so go have some fun already. This is the best money you can spend on guns and gear.

2019 United States Concealed Carry Association Expo

By

DRGO

-

May 29, 2019

(from usconcealedcarry.com)

I drove down to the 5^th annual United States Concealed Carry Expo which took place over the past weekend (May 17-19) in Pittsburgh.

We routinely attend and speak at the Gun Rights Policy Conference each September, someone gets to the NRA Annual Meeting in April, and we’ve seen a member visit and review the National Shooting Sports Federation’s SHOT Show the past two Januaries in Las Vegas. This was the first DRGO visit to this relatively new event.

NRA and SHOT Show can be overwhelming, both in merchandise on display and in the number of attendees. GRPC is very different, with hundreds of the most motivated gun rights advocates speaking and listening to each other, but little stuff to gawk at.

The USCCA Expo is a perfect mix of these. It’s solely focused on all things concealed: weapons (certainly), ammo, clothing for women (and men), tools, training, techniques and advocates. Concealed carry is USCCA’s sole mission—the organization takes it very seriously, and knows and shares everything about it. It has published Concealed Carry Magazine since it was founded in 2003 by Tim Schmidt, who is its President still. It introduced its Legal Protection plans in 2012. (Don’t call it insurance—USCCA had to pull out of New York and Washington on the heels of the NRA Carry Guard problems). I’ve been an enthusiastic member since 2009.

Our parent organization, the Second Amendment Foundation was there, with Mark Walters (Armed American Radio, sponsored by USCCA) and Andy Hooser (WQAM Radio’s “Voice of Reason” in Kansas) manning the booth. Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center joined them with books for sale and shared his encyclopedic knowledge of all good things firearm related. That was DRGO’s base.

Good time was also spent with Mike Piwowarski, host of Arms Room Radio; we had an interesting chat that will come up on the podcast shortly. And to this first-time visitor, Pittsburgh was an attractive, action-packed city that our family will visit sooner than later. So action-packed that a Garth Brooks concert downtown drew 75,000 people along with some college graduations, which made it almost impossible to get lodging nearby.

Pennsylvania had long been firearms friendly, but since 2015 the state government has been led by unfriendly Democrats, who limited reciprocity to 27 state’s resident-only permits. However, rural counties in western Pennsylvania want outdoor tourism and some make it quick and easy to pick up a Pennsylvania non-resident permit, which I did on the way down from New York State. The Expo, the David L. Lawrence Convention Center and Pittsburgh in general were quite congenial for carrying, with nary a “No Guns” sign to be found.

There were, as advertised, hundreds of exhibits with products beyond count, a variety of shooting activities (including live-fire tryouts of many handguns), and continuous seminars (most free, some at a fee) running all afternoon Friday, and all day Saturday and Sunday. Everything was discounted from website prices, which I’ll quote here. Here are some of the things that caught my fancy:

In the training department, dry-fire practice at home can be made more realistic. DryFireMag is “The Trigger Reset Magazine”, which goes for $90 to $110, depending on the model. It’s a magazine shaped device with a spring at the top that resets the trigger with each pull, so racking the slide isn’t necessary between pulls. Each feels and sounds normal, while not even using the firing pin, which permits unlimited repetitions. It is so far available for most striker-fired Glocks, Smith & Wesson M&Ps, and Springfield XDs. It does not work with laser inserts that operate with the firing pin. It also will not drop out to mimic tactical reloading but must be pulled. My only complaint is that mine sticks well out of my Glock 26, so doesn’t feel identical in the hand. However, the company is developing models for more and more firearms, and you can request yours go in their queue.

Speaking of laser training, there is a new device in town, “Recoil Laser Training” by Laser Ammo. This does it nearly all. It comes as various models of handgun simulacra, that feel and weigh about what yours does. Like the DryFireMag, it allows repeated dry fire with a realistic trigger feel and (louder) sound, as well as a degree of recoil. It comes with laser targets that light up when tagged. It doesn’t have the full sound or kick of a real pistol, but it is as close as you’d want when dry firing indoors. A set costs from $250 to $400 depending on the model and accessories chosen, so I denied myself that.

The BodyGuard Belt is a new, improved classic belly band, costing $59, in black or beige (the website says “white”). I grabbed one of each. This is made of neoprene, so feels comfortable (though a bit sweaty). It’s special in that it can hold a handgun vertically or horizontally (or at an angle), with extra magazines on either side. So you can carry in any waist position, under an arm, or in between. A bonus zipper pocket can be positioned front or back, depending on the carry spot. You’ll want something between your skin and the part of the handgun projecting above the waist.

Another purchase for me was the NexBelt. This is a stiff gun belt with a leather (or nylon) exterior and synthetic interior. The trick is the way it buckles. The interior has a strip of ratchet-like cogs toward the end which NexBelt’s buckle grabs. This makes the belt continuously adjustable, a real advantage with different layers and holster options. There were just a few when I looked, but I was impressed enough to buy one. Later I found literally scores of belts and buckles on the website and ordered just a buckle I preferred. The buckle end of the belt can be cut to fit your range of sizes, and is held very tightly by a clamp and 2 set screws.

I’d seen the ArachniGrip Slide Spider advertised in the USCCA magazine. I hesitated because I thought it was a sticky applique adding grip to the slide. I was glad to see it in person because it’s actually an abrasive (like coarse emery paper) which means it won’t stick in a holster and interfere with the draw. It is custom fit to just about any manufacturer’s pistol slides. It works, for just $20 a pair, with a cool red spider logo or in plain black.

An item falling into the “Why didn’t I think of that?” category were “Handgun Holster Mounts” from PUG Protective Gear. These are simple mounts belt-width that can be screwed in anywhere and accept the belt clip of holsters. They come with or without simple neoprene holsters, but the clip is the thing. Any standard belt clip holster (for a firearm, cell phone, whatever) will grab it just like a belt. Voilá—your pistol goes anywhere you like, never out of its own holster, no fancy grips or containers required. The clips alone go for $7, $12 for two. It’s a no-brainer.

Mike and I made sure to stop by Wilderness Tactical Products to say “Hi”. These folks have offered first aid and survival kits for some time that we’ve found well thought out. Turns out they’ll still sell red pouches of various sizes, but the demand for stocked expert kits (we’re talking clotting gauze and bandages, chest seals, tourniquets, etc.) isn’t high because docs and EMTs like to choose their own supplies. (Mine live in a pocket of my sling bag/laptop bag along with my exam tools. Dr. Edeen wraps his trauma kit around an ankle.)

There were new magazine loaders, neat knives and, of course, every conceivable hand-holdable firearm, from Ideal Conceal’s 2-shot .380 Cell Phone Pistol to Ruger’s Super Redhawk 5502 .44 Magnum single-action revolver. KelTec has ended production of its iconic P11 10-round 9mm pistol, but says something new is coming soon. Clothing designed for concealed carry abounded, with plenty of purses, packs and other creative ways to conceal firearms anywhere.

Seminar presenters included highly-regarded names like Rob Pincus, and of course Tim Schmidt, Kevin Michalowski and Beth Alcazar of USCCA. There were handgun, ammunition, and accessory giveaways all over. 5.11 gave out evocative caps depicting the number 93 superimposed on a red pentagon superimposed on silver Two Towers.

This was an event that could keep a body busy all 3 days without setting foot outside the convention center. Yet it was still small enough that with a bit of planning all the exhibits could be perused in one afternoon. Learning fundamentals of self-defense, live shooting with a variety of weapons, admiring the latest and greatest, and picking up a few bargains all went on together.

Check out the 6^th annual USCCA Expo in Kansas City, Missouri, March 20-22, 2020. It will be another great weekend!

.

— 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

H&K’s HK21 Modular Machine Gun

By

Keith Finch

-

May 28, 2019

Modularity is all the rage for 21st century weapons. Multi-caliber with multiple barrel lengths sporting multiple optical systems for multiple missions. Heckler & Koch is somewhere shaking their heads because they did this in the 50’s when they built their modular receiver and trigger group weapon systems. The belt-fed version is the HK21.

While the G3 succeeded the German adopted variant of the FAL and the MP5 has international worldwide success the HK21 didn’t see nearly as much service adoption. The German defense forces didn’t need the HK21, they just built a new version of the MG42 in 7.62 NATO dubbed the MG3.

MG3 with Schmidt and Bender Optic, via Pinterest

The HK21 was built for other clients, like Portugal, who didn’t have a domestic GPMG, whose soldiers were likely conscript level, and who were using the G3 as a service rifle. The commonality in the manual of arms and low level ease of maintenance allowed the beltfed to be easily integrated into existing services equipped with H&K roller lock weapons.

In the video above Ian (Forgotten Weapons) takes the 21 out to the range for a little time behind the trigger.

Personally, having a 21 would be fantastic fun from a full auto and historical standpoint. But we don’t have one…

We do have an 11 though, the magazine only fed sibling.

Flashlight Techniques – Handheld Light

By

Travis Pike

-

May 28, 2019

While weapon mounted handgun lights have shrunk to the point of being concealable many still choose to carry without one. There are a number of reasons, some want to reduce bulk or their carry guns too small for lights, or they can’t find a holster and light combo that works. There are plenty of valid reasons to carry a weapon and flashlight separate from each other, and numerous people and organizations have created a variety of different flashlight techniques.

I researched and practiced with numerous styles and techniques, and wanted to provide a good how-to, as well as the pros and cons of each.

The Grips

There are two basic grips with a flashlight. The sword grip, in which hold the light with the palm upwards. Your fingers are fully wrapped around the light with the lens on the same end as your thumb and pointer finger. Works best with flashlights with side switches. The sword grip isn’t used very often due to modern light design.

The Second is the ice pick grip. Your palm is facing downwards and your thumb is on the opposite end of the light. With modern light design, your thumb is positioned next to the light’s power switch and is a more common grip.

Harries Technique

The Harries Technique is an old technique that at the time of its invention was innovative. At the time it was invented lights were massive, think Mag-lite sized flashlights. It made more sense then, but can still work with today’s lights.

You hold your gun in your dominant hand and your flashlight in your offhand. Extend it into a Weaver shooting position with one hand. Your flashlight and the hand holding it goes underneath the shooting hand and you press the backs of both your hands together. This creates tension and aids in stability.

This works, but you do sacrifice some control with your weapon. You’re effectively using one hand and a little tension to engage a target. It will make shooting fast, accurately, or far difficult.

Cheek or Neck Index

Another option that utilizes one hand is the cheek or neck index method. This has you extending with your firing hand and bringing your light hand to your neck or cheek. It’s positioned at the neck or lower cheek to avoid block your peripheral vision.

It does position the light so you can always see where you are looking. This flashlight technique is very simple, and quick to assume. However, it does highlight your head as a target and only allows for one-handed shooting.

FBI Technique

As far as flashlight techniques go the FBI technique looks somewhat goofy. You extend your firing hand forward into a one-handed shooting position. Raise your light holding hand as if you were attempting to flex your bicep. Your arm is essentially at a 90-degree angle.

This holds the light away from your head and body and doesn’t draw fire to your vitals. However, you are still only shooting with one hand, and holding a light in this position is tiresome. It’s often a position you switch from cheek index too, and vice versa.

The Two Handed Techniques.

The above techniques are all unique, but also encourage one-handed shooting. More modern techniques have found methods that utilize both hands and your light. The Surefire, Chapman, and Ayoob techniques are very similar and seem to differentiate between how the fingers orient over the flashlight.

These flashlight techniques offer greater control over your weapon and are easy to use with modern shooting stances.

The Surefire

My personal favorite of all these flashlight techniques is the Surefire. The Surefire Technique is the most comfortable with modern lights and rear power switches. The Surefire technique has you position the light between your pointer finger and your middle finger. The rest of your fingers wrap around the grip of your handgun. Your light should not be touching the gun.

This technique is quick and easy to assume and comfortable with smaller modern lights only. With this grip, you have no problem activating a light with a tail switch. This modern technique has a learning curve but is well worth practicing.

The Chapman

The Chapman technique uses a modified sword grip. You wrap your thumb and pointer finger around the light. The rest of the fingers wrap around your firearm’s grip like a standard two-handed grip. The thumb of your firing hand adds additional grip to your flashlight.

This technique is very stable and you have a great hold on the flashlight itself. However, if it’s a flashlight with a tail cap you can only reach the switch with the firing hand thumb. As far as flashlight techniques go this one is certainly a bit outdated and designed for Maglites rather than Surefires, Streamlights, etc.

The Ayoob

The Ayoob is very similar to the Chapman. You use a grip similar to a sword grip. The flashlight sits on the pointer finger of your offhand, with the pointer finger hands wrapped around your gun’s grip if possible. This technique is again old and designed for use with big flashlights with side switches.

It’s comfortable and quick to assume. It takes very little training but doesn’t provide a ton of increased control compared to the Surefire or Chapman. This flashlight technique is the easiest to learn.

Flashlight Techniques

What I found so interesting is how these techniques feel like they were all created for the generation before mine. The only exception is the Surefire Method. It dawned on me that even 2 of the 3 more modern two-handed techniques are designed for Maglite style massive flashlights with side switches. We haven’t seen much innovation, and this is likely due to the fact that weapon mounted lights have shrunk, and become incredibly common.

Memorial Day

By

Keith Finch

-

May 27, 2019

Events at Arlington National Cemetery — Photo of events at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Va., May 17, 2013. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Bob Papp was in attendance as President Barack Obama laid a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknowns in honor of all those who have fallen during military combat. U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Patrick Kelley.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863