Month: November 2008

Firearms in the workplace

Posted by Mostly Genius – November 23, 2008

receptionistLet us begin with a scenario:

The receptionist at the office has a stalker ex-boyfriend. The receptionist says that he has made threats against her life, and that he has a criminal record for violent offenses. She is afraid of him and has gotten a restraining order.

Now as the employer the practical, yet immoral (and possibly illegal) thing to do is to get rid of the receptionist. You certainly don’t want an incident at work and additional security is probably not in the budget. Another option for the employer is to simply ignore the problem. Hopefully there won’t be an incident, and if there is it will probably only involve the receptionist. Maybe the employer already has some kind of in-house security and they can be notified of this heightened threat. Beyond this there isn’t much that a typical employer can do. All of these options are little comfort if you happen to be the receptionist.

Firearms are not all-purpose self-defense tools. Less than lethal threats are not appropriately addressed with a firearm so other skills and tools are probably more applicable normal self-defense issues.

It is entirely too common for an employer to have a “no weapons” policy in the workplace. Their argument is that this makes the workplace safer for their employees or customers, but in reality it is simply a measure to reduce their liability. If fist fights between coworkers are rare then there is no reason to believe that permitting firearms would suddenly have employees shooting it out.

It is important to remember that a corporate policy prohibiting firearms is not a law. Assuming you have the legal ability to carry a firearm (such as a concealed carry permit), and your workplace is not a prohibited area (like a federal building) then you are not breaking any laws for carrying a firearm to work. Your employer may fire you on the spot and demand that you leave immediately should you be discovered.

Firearms are not all-purpose self-defense tools. Less than lethal threats are not appropriately addressed with a firearm so other skills and tools are probably more applicable normal self-defense issues. With that being said here is how you carry a firearm at work without the blessing of your employer:

Concealed means concealed. Nobody needs to see that you have a firearm. Nobody needs to be told. Carrying a firearm is not an exercise in ego, it is preparation for the possibility of a dangerous confrontation. Ensure that when carrying the gun it doesn’t print through clothing, or become exposed.

Secure means secure. You must restrict access to the firearm at all times so that it is only available to you. Generally the best method is to keep the gun on your person, but some circumstances might prevent you carrying the gun undetected. In these cases a locked briefcase or drawer are your only other options.

Consider the situation where the firearm will be used. If you work in an area that the general public doesn’t have access to it is probably not paramount that the firearm be instantly available. Should a disturbance occur you might well have a few seconds to access the firearm. If this is the case optimize for concealment and security. If this is not the case then the only solution is to conceal the firearm on your person.

Consider other options. A firearm will only help in the face of deadly threats. Pepper spray and combative skills are useful in dealing with less than lethal threats. Verbal deescalation skills may be sufficient in some circumstances.

Make use of all security precautions made available by your employer. Lock your office door, have security escort you to your vehicle, etc. Consider changing the hours or location that you work in if possible.

Make use of all legal and law enforcement precautions available. If you have a specific threat get the police involved. Get a restraining order against the person threatening you. Make sure that you are follow all of the laws regarding your firearm.

The Fighting Stance

Posted by Mostly Genius – November 23, 2008

shootingMany physical endeavors begin with a “stance.” Martial Arts have dozens of stances, as do many sports. All stances are a compromise between being mobile and being stable. Generally stances are optimized for movement in a particular direction or to resist force in a particular direction.

What is lost is that a stance is a position that is occupied for a moment in time. Generally something is called a “stance” when the practitioner is static, or rooted in place. If a practitioner changes from one stance to another what is that transitional position called?

Because a stance is a compromise, stances change with the task at hand. For example the boxer in his ready position is standing differently than a boxer who is throwing a committed punch with his trailing hand. His shoulders, hips, and feet are all optimized to deliver as much power as possible in that punch and he is sacrificing his ability to move in another direction or to absorb the impact of a strike from a different set of angles.

The pistol doesn’t care where your feet are, it will put the bullet where the sights are aligned at the moment the trigger breaks the shot.

Shooting also has a number of stances (sometimes called positions.) Prone, supine, kneeling, and sitting all completely sacrifice movement to gain maximum stability and/or better utilize available cover. Handgun shooters once spent a lot of time debating the merits of “weaver stance” vs. “isosceles stance” but it doesn’t have much relevance to real-world, force on force shooting. The pistol doesn’t care where your feet are, it will put the bullet where the sights are aligned at the moment the trigger breaks the shot.

From the perspective of force-on-force: if you aren’t moving you are doing it wrong. Unfortunately shooting on the move has to be taught after the fundamentals of marksmanship, to do otherwise doesn’t produce very good results. Since the basics are taught from a static position, this generates a bunch of confusion later because a student will believe that the stance is somehow connected to fighting rather than learning to shoot.

This problem is quickly compounded when a situation requires inter-disciplinary skills like both shooting and physical combatives. If you need to strike some targets and shoot others you either have to apply combatives from your shooting stance or shoot from your combatives stance. This tends to trip up the traditional martial artists that need to change their orientation to the target (switch their feet) to apply a strike. Likewise try punching a heavy bag from your weaver stance.

Your default position (another way of saying ’stance’) should be consistent across weapons systems, it should be optimized for movement but able to withstand some amount of impact. Statically this is the “modern isosceles” or “boxers stance”. From that basic platform we deviate as the situation requires. By way of example: a target at more than 45 degrees on your non-dominant side and your arms begin to move into a weaver position (unless you orient your feet with a pivot.)

All of the folks who are “cross-eye dominant” (Eye Dominance and Shooting Positions) are making this really complicated once you add handgun/long gun transitions into the equation. If you shoot hand guns left handed, but rifles right handed you are constantly going to need to be changing your feet.

Guns and Martial Arts

Posted by Mostly Genius – November 22, 2008

Easy, Quick, Simple, Effective (Hell in a Handbasket)

One reason that firearms are absent from most martial arts is the same reason that firearms are absent at piano lessons. They aren’t related. Most martial arts are older than commonly available firearms, thus guns are just not part of their traditions. We assume that martial arts are designed to fight-off modern muggers rather than the muggers of ancient history.

Another reason is ignorance. Many martial arts instructors spent a lot of time on learning their art and don’t really know anything about firearms.

I don’t believe it is economic. Most martial arts schools are hobby businesses that don’t really provide a living for the instructors. I know a few people that are highly ranked within their systems and teaching is still a labor of love rather than a profit making enterprise.

Finally, while firearms are “easy, quick, simple, and effective” they are not applicable in all situations. A non-lethal threat that doesn’t respond to pepper-spray is going to require some other skill set to deal with. Martial artists who believe they are teaching self-defense are wrong not to cover firearms, but Shooters are wrong not to cover unarmed skills.

Who benefits from a high crime rate?

Posted by Mostly Genius – November 21, 2008

L.A. Bank RobberyThe politicians benefit. As the crime rate goes up the politicians get more of a mandate from the people to pass more laws, levy more taxes, and spend more money. The passage of a new law is equated as being “tough on crime” come election time, regardless of if a new has any effect on crime at all.

Here is a prime example:

…Democratic leaders said they will continue to build on a foundation of strong sex-crime policies, including involuntary civil commitments and tough criminal sentences.

…Lawmakers also pledged to put money behind their demands for increased police emphasis on sex offenders — something that hasn’t always been done in the past.

…The largest piece of sex-offender spending discussed Thursday is Gregoire’s request for a $5 million grant program to pay police to conduct in-person visits with sex offenders. Low-risk offenders would get annual checkups under the plan, with the highest-risk sex criminals being seen four times a year.

Instead of a jury trial for a crime, sex offenses can be reclassified as mental illness and the involentary civil commitment process can be used. Additionally I am not sure what an annual (or quarterly) police visit to a registered sex offenders home is going to do to prevent further offenses, but Washington state was considering spending $5 million on it.

If we look at the “war on drugs” we see a massive expansion of government control, imprisonment, asset forfeiture, and government spending. I do not know any other crimes where if convicted the government can seize your home, car, and financial assets and you are forced to sue to get them back.

The question is do any of these laws and policies make the citizens safer? No rational citizen wants sex offenders or drug dealers walking the streets, but if we allow the expansion of government control and continue to hand them a blank check to “do something” we rarely get what we were hoping for.

My prediction for the next round of gun control is that the crime rate will go up because of citizen disarmament and the cycle will continue. We know this is a failed policy. Look across the Atlantic you can see where this expansion of state power will ultimately lead.