CNN Blames Licensed CCW For Philadelphia Crime Rate: On Thursday's "Anderson Cooper 360," CNN's Randi Kaye filed a story in which she promoted gun control as a solution for Philadelphia's crime problems, as she pushed the argument that the city's high rate of gun violence was the result of Pennsylvania state lawmakers voting to loosen gun laws in the 1990s. And, as if criminals would bother to apply for a permit to legally carry a concealed weapon, Kaye further suggested that the availability of concealed carry permits has contributed to the city's problems. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/10/06/cnn-pushes-gun-control-philadelphia-blames-concealed-carry-murder --- Those Cold, Dead Hands: ...Who really are the real proponents of gun control? The drug dealers, neighborhood gangs, the guys who burgled my Mom's house, Leftists/Marxists, and about two-thirds of Hollywood. That says something about gun control without even having a debate. If gun control really worked then Washington, DC would be practically crime-free, instead of languishing in violent assaults year-after-year. If gun control really worked then Britain, which banned civilian ownership of handguns and semi auto rifles larger than a .22, wouldn't have their armed crime rate doubled since 1997. If gun control really worked then you wouldn't see noticeable and verifiable decreases in violent crime in every jurisdiction that has made it easier to purchase and carry a concealed handgun... http://www.commonfolkusingcommonsense.com/2007/10/04/those-cold-dead-hands/ --- Voice Of America On The RKBA and 2008 Elections: Gun control issues have faded into the background of national politics in the United States - since Democrat Al Gore lost a close election for president in 2000. Many in his party blamed the defeat on a backlash from voters who disagreed with the party's push for a few gun control measures in the 1990s. VOA's Jim Fry looks at the politics of gun control as America heads toward another presidential election. http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-05-voa34.cfm?rss=news%20analysis --- From John Farnam: 2 Oct 07 More on rifle optics: A student at an Urban Rifle Course last weekend in NV brought an RA/XCR in 223. On the top rail, he had a close-eye-relief, 4X ACOG. It was rear-mounted, and eye relief was less than two centimeters. The XCR, of course, ran fine for the duration. The ACOG surely functioned also, but the student had great difficulty finding targets quickly, particularly when he was swinging the muzzle laterally. He invariably overshot the target and then had to reverse direction and come back in an attempt to find it in his scope. When I used his rifle, I experienced the same problem! When engaging multiple targets, I would swing laterally, but, by the time I saw the target in the scope, I had already swung past it. In addition, the scope was so close to my face, that nearly all of the downrange area was blocked out. By contrast, my Aimpoint-Micro-equipped DSA/FAL, with the optic mounted far forward, allowed me to continuously monitor my flanks and rear, and I was consistently able to swing laterally on targets and not swing past them. I know many like 4X, and even greater, magnification, because they can make out detail not observable otherwise. One gets to see "a lot of a little." However, when so doing, you better have someone else watching your back! My conclusion is that 4X magnification on a serious rifle may be arguable when one is functioning as a member of a military unit, and there is thus always someone watching your back. However, for independent Operators, any optic with magnification in excess of 2.5X is contra-indicated, in my opinion. Zero-magnification optics, like Aimpoint and EOTech, are probably best. /John (Students and correspondents sometimes get frustrated with me when they ask a question such as, "Which AR-15 variant should I purchase?" It is unreasonable to attempt to answer such questions until the questioner defines the intended role of the weapon. The issue of optical magnification is one of those role-related ones - something which may be a neat enhancement when seated at a bench at the range or when serving as a sniper, with a spotter partner, may not be optimum when you come under attack while alone in your own home or driving somewhere. Similarly, spending additional money for a flat-top version may be a poor investment if you do not intend to bolt on optical or electronic sighting equipment.) 6 Oct 07 Sling Attachment Points: For most serious uses, I prefer a two-point sling on urban rifles, with attachment points on the top side of the rifle, rather than the traditional, underneath arrangement. Underside attachment points have been the norm since WWI, when rifles were routinely slung, muzzle-up, and carried that way. However, American soldiers soon found that getting the rifle into action from that posture was awkward, slow, and dangerous, as the muzzle invariably pointed in multiple unsafe defections during the procedure. During the Finnish Invasion of 1939-1940, Russian soldiers learned this painful lesson many times over, as they unhappily discovered they could not quickly unsling and return fire when attacked by rapidly-moving, Finnish Ski Troops. South Africans were the first, as a matter of policy, to abandon the practice in favor of muzzle-down carry. Most of us have now come to accept the inherent superiority of carrying slung rifles with the muzzle down. However, in order to sling the rifle with the muzzle down, sling attachment points need to be moved from the bottom, to the top, of the weapon. Otherwise (at least when slung, muzzle-down, in front) the rifle will hang upside-down! So, we find ourselves today in a classic "cultural lag," as the vast majority of rifles, even military rifles, are still being produced with sling attachment points only on the underside. The Vickers Sling, produced by Blue-Force Gear, and some others, now comes with a butt harness that instantly generates a top attachment point on the butt of nearly any rifle. No gunsmithing necessary. However, moving the front attachment point presents difficulties. Relocating the front attachment point to the top may occlude the sighting plane. Leaving it on the bottom makes it impossible to use a co-axial flashlight on the underside of the rifle, as the light will do little more than illuminate the sling! Thus, the best place for the forward sling-attachment point is on the side of the forend. With rifles like the RA/XCR, which come with mounting rails on the top, both sides, and the bottom of the forend, this is no problem, as an after-market attachment point can simply be plunked on the side rail at any point. Again, no gunsmithing necessary. To make this change on other rifles may indeed require the services of a gunsmith, but it needs to be done. Just a many new pistol owners never think about holsters and other carry options until it suddenly occurs to them that their shiny, new pistol will be a scant use if it is not with them constantly, urban rifle owners need to think about how they are going to comfortably carry their rifle for long periods, yet still have it instantly available when the need arises. Again, untested gear, great as it may look in the showroom, will be the source of monumental unhappiness after the fight starts. All tactical gear must be (1) carefully selected, (2) sternly tested, and (3) frequently exercised, if it is going to have any chance of serving its owner as intended. /John (I'm all for muzzle-down sling carry, so long as the gun is not long enough that the muzzle will poke into the ground if one squats. Curiously, most of the military personnel I see in photographs from the current combat zones, seem to favor the same sort of front-slung system I prefer for my home-defense carbine. With a telescoping stock on an AR-15 variant, TangoDown's PR-4 single-point sling mount, coupled with a Single-Point Sling from Wilderness Tactical, gives maximum flexibility for transitioning the gun from shoulder to shoulder, an important option when working in an environment where you could encounter corners on either side or might need to shoot from different sides of cover.) 6 Oct 07 Hypocrisy, the curse that haunts Western Civilization: In our Advanced Classes, I often find it necessary to remind students that many pay lip service to the Way of the Warrior, but few actually live it. Heaven knows, we've all fallen short, but professing one personal philosophy, yet living another, smacks of "Do as I say, not as I do. "No place is this more evident than among "professing" gunmen. Here is the way a great general put it: "You profess to have boldly claimed your own magnificence, yet you act as if you were worthless! Where are your weapons? Why do you wear them only when at the range? Why does your professed "plan" include things that you won't have? You profess to be the proud protector of your family, and that they can all count upon you in an emergency, yet you act is if they were all expendable! Are you really in a position to protect them? How? You profess great faith, yet you act as if God has abandoned you! Warriors are dashing and daring, animated by unshakable belief and righteous elan. But, you are fearful and confused. Instead of acting boldly, with strength and audaciously, you exhibit only timidity and disarray." Again, when we think wrongly, we will act poorly, no matter how thoroughly we've deceived ourselves. "Self-esteem," when it has no legitimate foundation, is little more than groundless arrogance. It will fall apart when the first shot is fired. /John (In southern California, I had many students who would take the training but not carry a firearm outside the home because they could not obtain the permit to do so legally. In Arizona, and with some students from similar jurisdictions, where open carry and/or licensed CCW are feasible, I am more accustomed to the sort of student who shoots a monthly match with something like a 1911 or S&W 625 revolver yet actually carries a S&W J-frame or Colt D-frame revolver, which he can't really shoot well. I learned many years ago, after shooting an embarrassingly low score with a backup gun in a course at a training seminar, that my range time should focus on the guns I actually carry.) From Force Science Research Center: Force Science News #82 October 5, 2007 Three studies that will explore certain subtleties of force encounters in hopes of improving safety on the street are underway at the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato. One is expected to provide insights into a phenomenon that has not previously been analyzed in detail, says FSRC's executive director, Dr. Bill Lewinski. That's how-and how fast-wounded suspects fall down once they've been shot. A second project involves extending earlier research into the nature of verbal commands that law officers give in life-threatening situations, and the third will measure the potentially dangerous time cost of visual distractions when officers are trying to focus on a suspect's threatening behavior. "These investigations will help us understand more fully the true dynamics of lethal confrontations," Lewinski told Force Science News. "The more we can expand our knowledge, the better equipped we'll be to help officers react appropriately and effectively to threats against them and also help those who judge officers' actions to properly evaluate controversial encounters." For example, he explains, when suspects collapse after being shot, they sometimes fall through an officer's continuing field of fire. "This can result in wounds in the top of the head and other locations that in retrospect may look suspicious and may be misinterpreted as 'execution' shots that were delivered after the subject was down. "Knowing more about how suspects typically fall could be critical in accurately re-creating some encounters, particularly in pinpointing the timing and sequence of shots fired." In gathering resource material for both the falling and the commands studies, FSRC enjoyed the generous cooperation of In the Line of Duty, the independent law enforcement training organization that is well-known for its real-life, "lessons learned" video programs. With the help of ILOD researcher Julie Van Dielen, 3 FSRC representatives spent nearly a week reviewing all of the hundreds of camcorder tapes of officer-involved shootings archived at the company's headquarters in a St. Louis suburb. "Their eyes were glazed, their tongues were hanging out, and they couldn't wait to get the flock out of here," says ILOD president Ron Barber. He was joking-but barely. The team returned to FSRC with more than 260 video clips that reflect officers issuing commands to confrontational suspects, wounded suspects falling, or both. [For a steady posting of police-related videos and law enforcement information, see ILOD's website, here.] The clips depicting falling subjects are now being transferred to a time-coded format that will allow for minute scrutiny. "We'll be looking not only at how long suspects take to fall but also analyzing why they fall the way they do, which may involve their physical dynamics at the moment they're shot, as well as environmental influences," Lewinski explains. "Right now, such information is essentially unknown." This study will dovetail with findings from a previous investigation of how long it takes an officer who is firing rapidly to stop shooting once he perceives that the threat has ceased. Correlating this data in a given controversial shooting situation may help knowledgeable police investigators establish that "suspicious" shot placement was more likely the result of uncontrollable physiological phenomena than of malice, Lewinski says. [For a report on the previous study, go to: www.forcescience.org/articles/ and click on "Reaction Times in Lethal Force Encounters-the Tempe Study".] Analysis of the ILOD tapes that include voice commands will expand a small study conducted in 2006 by Dr. Daniel Houlihan of the MSU-M psychology department. As FSN reported previously [read it here], Houlihan and his research team concluded from a limited sampling that when officers sense that confrontations are slipping out of control, their commands to resistant subjects tend to deteriorate, changing from clear, specific, goal-directed orders ("Alpha" commands) to statements that are repetitious, confusingly vague, and highly emotional ("Beta" commands). "Issuing effective commands in a rapidly unfolding, life-threatening confrontation is a tough challenge," Lewinski acknowledges. "Good commands can be given when an officer has time and some rapport with the subject. But there comes a point when he has to channel his resources toward his survival. He can't take the risks of expecting a threatening suspect to conform to verbal orders. It's hard-and potentially dangerous-to try to focus on effectively responding to defend yourself and simultaneously give great commands." With an estimated 100 ILOD tapes involving commands to analyze, Houlihan hopes to get a better feel for what works and what doesn't in threat confrontations. "Ultimately, the goal is to reach a more sophisticated understanding of the capabilities of verbal commands," Lewinski says. "Trainers need to know how to instill a mind-set that enables officers to issue commands that focus specifically on what they want a suspect to do, rather than just emotionally recoiling to the suspect's threat, but that also allows them to accurately read when the time for talking is over and it's time for emphatic, effective use of force to stop an imminent threat." Explaining ILOD's participation in the 2 studies, Barber told FSN, "We believe in the mission of the Research Center. Dr. Lewinski is a one-of-a-kind guy doing one-of-a-kind research that has already saved officers' lives and will save many more." FSRC's third current study has to do with the time it takes officers to shift attention during a confrontation, and the potentially ominous consequences of such diversions. Lewinski estimates that 100 officer volunteers will be recruited for reaction-time testing that will involve interaction with a computer-controlled light board and a special pressure-sensitive Glock pistol. One at a time, officers with the gun in a firing position will face the board and concentrate on a cluster of lights in their direct line of sight. At unpredictable intervals, other lights within their narrow visual field will illuminate. When the officers identify a certain predetermined pattern of lights, they are to pull the trigger, as if shooting at a suspect. The trigger is linked to a sensor embedded in the weapon that can measure trigger pull in 320 discrete increments, allowing position samples to be taken every 10 milliseconds, Lewinski says. The goal of the testing is to determine how much time it takes for the average officer to shift his or her attention from the "suspect" to evaluate the intrusive light patterns and recognize the prescribed pattern for "firing." "If the answer turns out to be 4/10 of a second, let's say, that's enough time for a hostile source to deliver 2 rounds at the distracted officer," Lewinski explains. "And that's even without a major attentional shift, because the distracting lights will be within just 5 to 7 degrees of the officers' direct line of sight." (Later, researchers will evaluate the attentional shift required to check on distractions within officers' peripheral range of vision.) "One practical implication of all this might be to underscore the importance of assessing a scene from the earliest stage of an encounter," Lewinski says. "If you wait until you are critically engaged with a threatening suspect to check for possible cover, for example, the time it takes for you to shift your attention even for a quick glance could cost you your life." Preliminary tests of the research equipment are underway now at FSRC. The unique sensor gun, being used for the first time in law enforcement research, was improvised by Dr. Bill Hudson, deputy director of the Center, and Andy Miner, a faculty member of the MSU-M Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Technology. "The special sensor mechanism can be embedded in any gun," Lewinski says. "It can withstand the shock and dirt of a live-fire weapon, and will undoubtedly play an important role in a wide variety of future experiments related to reaction time." Lewinski is hopeful that preliminary findings from at least some of the new studies will be available by spring, 2008. Visit www.forcescience.org for more information ================ The Force Science News is provided by The Force Science Research Center, a non-profit institution based at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Subscriptions are free and sent via e-mail. To register for your free, direct-delivery subscription, please visit www.forcesciencenews.com and click on the registration button. (c) 2007: Force Science Research Center, www.forcescience.org. Reprints allowed by request. For reprint clearance, please e-mail: info@forcesciencenews.com. FORCE SCIENCE is a registered trademark of The Force Science Research Center, a non-profit organization based at Minnesota State University, Mankato. ================ -- Stephen P. Wenger Firearm safety - It's a matter for education, not legislation. http://www.spw-duf.info .