Friday, May 27, 2022

Submission vs. Abuse

Found online -
A friend shares a Bible verse. This friend does that a lot.  The verse is Ephesians 5:22-24 .

EVERY time I see this passage shared, some nasty woman feels an obligation to mention "abuse." This is wrong on so many levels!

Biblical submission = / =abuse.
The two are not similar.  The two are not related. The two are not close. Neither one leads to the other. Neither one allows for the other. To mention one in any context of the other simply doesn't make sense. 

This makes about as much sense. 

Submission is about love.
Biblical submission is how a woman is instructed by God to show love and respect for her husband. These nasty women know this.  They would rather submit to their boss at work.  They would rather hate their husbands and their children.  Feminism has so polluted their minds that they cannot form normal human relationships and attachments.  That's a big part of why so many need psychological medication. 

Refusing to submit is rebellion toward God.
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
1 Samuel 15:23
Not doing as God commands is the rejection of God. In the same way, putting one's faith in false gods (witchcraft) is the rejection of God. Stubbornness - defined as not changing one's attitude - is the same rejection. 

By claiming "abuse," these nasty women are copping out of their God-given duty.  This is rebellion and stubbornness. This is rejection of God Himself. This is why I call them "nasty women."

The "abuse" they claim, really isn't.
The ones claiming abuse are almost never really abused.  If they claim physical abuse, there is no proof, no police report, etc. There are, however, plenty of excuses.

If they claim emotional abuse, it's because they themselves emotionally abuse... usually their husbands.  If not that, then it is usually because their husband doesn't "provide" something emotionally. This emotional unobtanium would be obtainable if they would submit as God commands. 

If they claim psychological abuse, again, it is usually because they psychologically abuse... often their husbands.  Or, because their husband said "no" to an unreasonable request or demand. 

The word "no" is not abuse. 

And, as The Transformed Wife says,
Teaching women biblical womanhood and submission actually has a far better chance at preventing physical abuse rather than causing it. 

So, in all seriousness, if when someone mentions Biblical submission,  your first instinct is to cry wolf on "abuse," please go to the police immediately and report the crime.  If this will get you put in jail for filing a false report, then shut your mouth, keep your fingers off the keypad, and do what God says. 

Thursday, May 26, 2022

Well, That's A First


Yesterday, Joe Biden signed an executive order aimed at police reform. Per his tweet, pictured above, the EO will "increase accountability, ban chokeholds, restrict no-knock entries, and more for federal law enforcement officers — and it incentivizes state and local officers to do the same."

This is an excellent move and possibly the first time I have agreed with the potato. 

I can hear the wailing from the boot-licking right: "Oh, that's terrible! Stop the criminals! etc." But here are the facts. Police organizations have had years to fix these problems, yet they refuse to do so. 

Chokes, when properly applied, are one of the safest martial arts moves that exists. However, cops kill people with poorly applied chokeholds every year. We have had Gracie Jiu-Jitsu for 30 years... they have had more than enough chances to learn the proper technique. Heck, Rener Gracie just recently broke through red tape to make GJJ available for POST training. It is probably too little, too late. For years, cops REFUSED to learn the proper applications. Now, they begin to reap the rewards of their hubris. 

No-Knock warrants have their place, but for years have been abused. Couple that with Qualified Immunity, and the situation is ripe for total abuse. Add to the mix the fact that in many instances, police perform no-knock entry into the wrong addresses! Again, the police organizations have had a LONG time to fix this, and have shown absolutely no desire to do the right thing. 

Increased accountability - we can only hope that this rolls back some of the Qualified Immunity that police misuse to literally get away with murder (and many other crimes). Again, police have had many years to fix this problem, but they have outright REFUSED to do so. 

More is needed - but this is definitely a step in the right direction. 

Tuesday, May 24, 2022

Phony Experts

From a reader -
"You have told us you don't think military people should teach gun classes. But in my experience, they are really well trained."

First off - read the article. The phrase you are looking for is that military credentials do not a firearms instructor make.

But, more to what we will presume is the intended point.

This comment on a recent ad illustrates the point perfectly.  you will also see the picture in question for full transparency. The comment:
"Well, the first person to be trained should be the shooter in the photo. Get the charging handle out of their mouth and get some eye relief from the rear sight. Get the heels down flat. Move the left hand a little further away from the ejection port and turn the hat around to help eliminate glare and hot brass from the shooters around them. But that's just me and I'm grumpy today."

Classic response from someone who was probably INFANTry and thinks he knows all. Let's break it down -

Well, the first person to be trained should be the shooter in the photo. Get the charging handle out of their mouth and get some eye relief from the rear sight.

- The shooter (this author) is using a nose to charging handle approach to cheek weld (sometimes also referred to as stock weld). The military not only teaches this, they also have an acronym for it. NTCH. This is not only military standard, it is also what is taught in most major tactical schools when they teach iron sights, taught by Appleseed, and used by NRA High Power and service rifle competitors. Not sure where this yahoo is getting his information. Probably from the 31 he got on the ASVAB.

Get the heels down flat.

- Flat heels is taught by the military (at least he got that part right).  The shooter pictured is not physically capable of doing so. The alternative, being used in the photo, is to have what jiu-jitsu calls "live feet." In this position, the feet can dig in to help steady the position and make elevation adjustments to the shooter's NPOA.

Move the left hand a little further away from the ejection port and turn the hat around to help eliminate glare and hot brass from the shooters around them. But that's just me and I'm grumpy today.

- Why move the left hand forward? To what purpose? It is not occluding the ejection port. Not ironically, many major tactical schools teach this hold for prone unsupported to assist with precision.  Tactical Response, Valor Ridge, and Sage Dynamics among others. 

The hat being turned forwards is the only bit of advice that might hold water... except... this photo was from a demo and the class instructor (pictured) was using the backward hat so that the students could see the NTCH position. 

The reaction to the suggestion to take the class takes the cake. No expert says they have "trained enough," even if they have enough training for several lifetimes.  Anyone foolish enough to make that statement immediately outs themselves as not being an expert.  The online request for the credentials of the instructors is also a dead giveaway. 

Monday, May 23, 2022

They Still Don't Get It

Was doing some consulting recently for a church security team. The head of the team is former law enforcement. The person assisting him is a firearms trainer for a major law enforcement department. The trainer wanted the church security team to have a firearms qualification. He drew inspiration from the quals that his department runs. I spoke matter-of-factly about running a qual that was not sanctioned by a "higher" body - it is a situation ripe for a prosecuting attorney to pick apart and cast as evil - "teaching people to kill!"

His reply? "Oh, I've testified plenty of times, I'm not worried." 

We had to stop at that time, and I had to have a kind, but firm heart-to-heart talk with the man. He missed the mark so badly on that comment that it had to be addressed. It had to be approached kindly, because he was so very wrong and didn't even know it. 

First things first, I had to explain to him that no criminal defense attorney worth his salt would allow any of the security team members to testify... so his willingness is great, but should never come to fruition. 

The next most major issue I had to clear up for him was the fact that while he is acting on the job as a police officer, he enjoys the benefits of Qualified Immunity. While we can debate the finer points of QI, that is best saved for another post. Instead, I focused on the fact that most of the security team there would not enjoy the protections of QI, as they were not LEO. A civilian's actions must be 100% defensible, and there will be no QI. 

The next major issue was the fact that he was trying to reinvent the wheel. I suggested he use the FBI qualification. It is not easy - so someone who passes has had training and has practiced. 

The last point that I made that will be discussed on this post was the fact that of the 15 or so members of their team, my prediction was that fewer than 5 would show up for the qual. Three of the team showed up. 

We discussed some other finer points, including self defense insurance and other topics, but these were the ones that needed to be discussed the most. 

Friday, May 13, 2022

More Training

From a reader:
"You imply and suggest that police are not well trained with firearms. What would you suggest for them?"

Great question. 

Let's start with the premise. The police, like any other cross-section of Americans with significantly large enough numbers from which to extract data, are not firearms experts. Even their instructors pale in comparison (of skill and teaching ability) to instructors teaching commercial classes. On rare occasion, one will be a really dedicated individual, seeking out knowledge for his own betterment - but that is no different than the general population as a whole. 

Police, like military, carry guns for a living. As such, their respective sanctioning bodies have mandated a minimum skills proficiency. This, like any other minimum, is just that - a MINIMUM. Many civilians look at this skill level as being "expert" when, in fact, it doesn't come close. 

Chris Costa, firearms trainer extraordinaire, recently commented on a YouTube video that Fighting Pistol by Tactical Response covered more topics in two days than all the pistol training he got in the military did. If Chris Costa is taking a "basic" pistol class, every cop on the street needs to do so at least once every year or two. Trainers even more frequently. 

Every top level instructor I've ever heard of takes training seriously, and takes classes frequently. Why should we not expect our police - who are "held to a higher standard" - to do the same?

Thursday, May 12, 2022

No Compromise

Speaking with an individual who lost a primary election in my area recently. This person ran in the Republican primary and lost by a fair margin. As we discussed what some of the contributing factors were, something became quite evident to me. 

This person, as a "Republican," firmly believed in "coming together for compromise" on most topics. 

This is why they lost. This is why so many lost in this election locally. Supporting mask mandates did not fare well, in most of the races. Supporting masks in schools overall did not fare well. Supporting compromise with insane Democrats (but I repeat myself) in a 70% Republican county did not fare well. 

"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." 
- Ayn Rand. 

Wednesday, May 11, 2022

Held to a Lower Standard

Diving deeper on a conversation mentioned previously with a friend who teaches at a police academy, this individual stated that "civilians get way more leniency (in justified use of deadly force) than police officers do." Based on this statement, and another conversation with a different law enforcement officer, it got me thinking. 

These police officers will most often say that they are held to a higher standard. But it is not reflective of what happens in court. Cops charged with murder / manslaughter are convicted about 30% of the time, often of reduced charges; while civilians in the same boat are convicted 54% of the time. So why do so many believe that police are held to a higher standard? 

It must be that police are told this by their departments. 

This false propaganda has the effect of sheltering these police officers from the realities that civilians face in the "criminal justice" system. Perhaps this is a contributing factor as to why police officers often act the same as other individuals who are sheltered from reality. 

There is also another contributing factor: Police simply do not know the law. 
A police officer of high rank in this author's city of residence recently stated in a meeting that a person in Tennessee had to have a "license" to carry a firearm. This is not true, and hasn't been since July 1, 2021. And the "license" is called a carry permit - and Tennessee has two levels of permit: "Concealed" and "Enhanced." 

Tuesday, May 10, 2022

More On How To Street Fight

Ramsey Dewey has some thoughts on how to end fights quickly in self defense. 
Some good points he makes:
  • MMA fighters ARE trying to end the fights as quickly as possible!
  • Krav Maga excels... at selling the power-fantasy of self defense ending a fight as quickly as possible. 
  • If a "my style trains to end fights as quickly as possible" practitioner did meet a trained combat sports athlete "in the streets," it WILL end as quickly as possible. But not as the power-fantasy person believes. 
  • Evil Troll Elmo is hilarious.

Monday, May 9, 2022

Positions Matter

Discussion with a friend recently. He is a police academy firearms instructor. For the record, he has worked in law enforcement less time than I have been a professional firearms instructor (that is pertinent here). 

My friend advocated for the instruction of new shooters to use a compressed-ready position. My counter-suggestion was high ready. Please see the difference below:

His point being that compressed ready is more advantageous if a person is within arm's reach. My position being that high-ready is better for a church safety team member who is moving to respond to an active shooter in a church. 

Who was correct?
Both of us. 

If you are a police officer (like he is), then you have to get close to suspects with your gun drawn on the suspect. As a civilian, the need to do that is very, very slim. 

An additional point to ponder... 
Most people do not "rise to the occasion." Most people default to their level of training. You will not do something you have not trained your body to do. Further, when you have more options, the length of time it takes you to make a decision is longer than if you have fewer options. 

This author teaches high-ready as the default position. 
The police academy a friend works for teaches compressed ready. 

The disadvantages for each position?

High ready has a disadvantage if someone is within arm's reach. 
Solution: use retention position if the attacker is within arm's reach. 

Compressed ready - if it is the primary position the shooter uses - will result in a newer person flagging people if they are on the move in a dynamic situation. 
Solution: A different position must be used. 

Worthy of note: 
As a civilian, in the state of Tennessee, pointing a loaded gun at a person can result in felony charges, ranging from Reckless Endangerment to Aggravated Assault. 
As a police officer, one would be protected from these charges due to Qualified Immunity. 

Tuesday, May 3, 2022

How To - Street Fight Edition

Recently saw a question posed online that I have seen many times - "how to end a street fight the quickest?" Although I am sure the original poster did not intend to, the question asked has many different layers, and it would be imprudent to avoid addressing the most obvious ones. 

First - it is presumed that the "street fight" would be "bareknuckle" - in other words, no weapons. This is more fantasy than reality, though, because 97% of assaults include weapons. The quick answer to the question once you realize this fact is to carry a weapon - preferably a good pistol - and be expertly trained in the use of it. Also carry medical equipment and be extremely proficient in the use of it, as well. 

Second - it is presumed (or maybe not) that you will be assaulted by a single individual. FBI statistics say that you will face multiple assailants more often than single assailants. In most states, this is considered a disparity of force and lethal force is justified in return. Check your local laws, of course. 

But "one - on - one" fights do happen... albeit rarely. So, for that situation, let's address the factors you must possess to come out on top. First, let's define victory. Victory is survival. Many don't want to hear this, but it is the truth. Many want their "hand held high" to be the definition of victory. So let's narrow our focus even further to get to that. Understand, now we are at far less than 1% of all violent assaults. This is the exception, not the rule. 

If you watch fighting, and this author has watched a lot of it, you realize that the better trained person wins over 99% of the time. So the first step to "winning" is to find a legitimate combat martial art and train. Train religiously. Boxing, kickboxing, jiu-jitsu, wrestling. Your Kung-Fu, Karate, Taekwondo is simply not going to address these things - unless you practice Machida Karate (the only consistent exception I've seen). 

Mindset - You must be of the aggressive mindset. Almost "win at all costs." Definitely ready to take action. 

Tactics - You must fight "your fight." You must control the distance. 
  • If you are a striker, you will want to enter to striking range on your terms, keep punches straight, and kicks low. Disengage and re-engage on your terms. If he engages on his terms, disengage and reset.
  • If you are a grappler, you must stay out of range until it is your choice to close the distance. Take the fight to the ground with a takedown - no guard-pulling! Control the position. Submissions should be chokes. 
  • Preferably, you will be a skilled striker and grappler, and will gladly shift between these ranges as the natural flow of the fight dictates. 
If you are a person who "sees red and bodies start hitting the floor," you can expect one thing: PAIN. You are going to get your ass kicked. And you need it. There's no amount of "hulk rage" that will see you through this. In fact, the winner of the fight is almost universally the person who kept relatively calm. Go look into some of the training mentioned above. Be humble. Leave your ego at the door. Realize your instructors and coaches have all been at the same point as you are now, and they can guide you past the folly. 

If you are current or former military, and you firmly believe that "speed, surprise, and violence of action" will carry the day, understand one thing. It will carry the day... against an untrained attacker. If the opponent has any significant level of training, you are in for some PAIN and humble pie. Do as advised in the previous paragraph - seek out some legitimate training and get better.