RECCE ROOM

From a reader of   this article - "Aren't you being too harsh on the police?" First: Noted firearms instructor Greg Ellifritz had this to say: This is looking worse and worse. They let the guy go for up to 90 minutes because they said they didn't have a key to the classroom door that the killer locked. This is the prime example why I no longer train police agencies or write articles about best practices in police response.  The cops don't care and refuse to learn lessons from past tragedies.  We've long known that cops responding to school shootings need breaching gear.  This became apparent after the 2006 Nickel Mines school shooting (link in comments). I wrote about cops needing breaching tools in the first month I started my website.  That article (linked in comments) was in 2012.  Since then I have written 18 different articles on my site about the importance of breaching capability for responding cops. We've known since Columbine (1999) that ...

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.  Refus...

  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 to...

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 - ...

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 wo...

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 YouTu...

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. 

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 oft...

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.

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...

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 justifi...

Last week, The Transformed Wife shared this post. As with the vast majority of what she shares, it is absolutely true.  As with the majority of what she shares, it triggers many "woke" women. On this one, there are a couple of things to add, just for the sake of clarity. First - how does a woman "stay married" to a man? How does she "fight for her marriage?" These questions have a simple answer - Just don't divorce him, and don't give him a reason to divorce you! And yes, this is simply a choice and is nothing more.  Women file 80% of divorces.  If a woman chooses not to do this, then that means 80% of broken marriages go away.  For the remainder - the divorces that men file - 80% of those are filed for reasons of infidelity. So a woman can choose not to cheat.  It really is that easy.  Yes, if you did the math, 80% of divorces are filed by women and 16% are filed by men due to her infidelity.  That's 96% of divorces are the woman's f...