How To NOT Get Shot by Responding Law Enforcement

Here's a topic that comes up quite a bit in our firearms classes, and sometimes in discussions that we have with fellow gun-carrying civilians.  Once people get serious about training/carrying and they start to give some thought to real-world potential situations, they start to play through scenarios in their mind.  They see reports of soft targets (malls, movie theaters, schools, etc.) getting hit by active shooters.  So they give significant thought to how they might respond in a similar situation.  It's not that they want to find themselves in a deadly-force fight for their lives.  They're not day-dreaming about being the hero that saves the day.  They're just being realistic about the modern dangers of our world and they want to be as prepared as they possibly can.

If you're smart, you're playing through scenarios in your mind everywhere that you go.  You're developing plans and trying to identify potential threats.  Ask yourself, "who in this theater (or wherever) is a potential threat to me and how would I respond to terminate such a threat?".  Some in the industry call this "playing the game".  And I'm sure you've read all of the silly cliché sayings that get spread via social media memes and say things like "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody that you meet".  Such sayings are usually spread by new-comers to the gun world who are more into bravado than they are into serious training.  These guys serve as more of a caricature that makes it easy for the other side to stereotype and criticize us.  And I'd strongly advise you to scrub your public image (social media presence, bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc.) of anything that projects such rhetoric.  If you ever find yourself in the unfortunate position of having to defend yourself with deadly force, some prosecuting attorney is going to dig up all of that stuff and easily convince a jury that you have been itching to fill somebody full of lead as soon as you got the chance.

But I digress... the focus of this post is avoiding being seen as a bad guy after you defend yourself (or somebody else) when the cops get on scene.  We (the INPAX firearms instruction team) discuss this topic in great detail as part of the "Aftermath" lecture portion of our concealed carry instruction courses.  But if you haven't yet had an opportunity to take one of our classes, you may not have heard what we have to say on this subject.  So I'll discuss a small portion of that here.

The first thing to keep in mind is that when the cops show up, they have no idea who you are or what role you played in the events that just took place.  Most of the time, all they know is that there's been a shooting.  They may not have a description of the shooter and they may not have a description of the "good guy" (you) or even know that such a person exists.  Regardless of whether or not they know about you and the fact that you just stopped the threat, you must be aware that they are going to approach the scene with the mindset that EVERYBODY is a potential threat and even if they know that you're a good guy, you're going to get treated as a potential threat.  That's especially true if they know that you have a weapon.  So even if they do know that you're a good guy, it's safer for them to proceed as if they don't know.  So what do you do?

First and foremost is situational awareness & compliance with law enforcement commands.  Those may seem like two unrelated concepts, but allow me to explain how they go hand-in-hand.  It's important to understand what happens to you physiologically under stress.  Among other effects, you can expect to have some level of sensory limitation.  You are likely to have some degree of target fixation (tunnel vision) that could take your peripheral vision from its normal ~160-degrees down to somewhere between ~6 and ~60-degrees.  That's a huge impact!  In addition to vision limitation, it's also somewhat common to have a degree of auditory exclusion - where sounds can become muffled and isolated.  There are biological reasons why these things take place and their role in our survival is important.  But I don't want go down a rabbit hole by getting too deep into that subject in this article.  Right now, just understand that those are two of the common effects of stress & adrenaline.  Now... imagine not being able to see a full field of vision and not hearing much around you.  Then the cops show up and start yelling at you to put your gun down.  Do you see them?  Do you hear them?  Or does it just blend in with the other background noise?  And what are the potential consequences of you failing to comply with those commands?  All of the sudden, you go from the hero to the seemingly incoherent guy with a gun who's not following law enforcement instructions.  You are about to have a very bad day!

As responsible gun owners, our training has to extend well beyond target practice at the range.  You have to take all of these factors into consideration and incorporate them into your training.  Since we know how we are likely to be impacted under stress, we have to work that into the equation and train to overcome those added challenges.  And our training must be robust enough to inoculate us from stressors to whatever extent possible.  This is one of the reasons why scanning & assessing before/after engaging is a skillset that we work to develop & maintain.  There are techniques that we can use to mitigate the effects of adrenaline.  When we talk about our (INPAX) training offerings being "full spectrum", we mean that in the most thorough sense imaginable.

So if you can maintain awareness and comply with law enforcement instructions, your chances of being seen as a threat & subsequently shot are greatly decreased.  Believe it or not, the cops don't want to shoot anybody either.  And when they do, they are subject to the same level of scrutiny that the rest of us are - even if they are engaging an active threat.  People often assume that cops can shoot a bad guy, no matter what the circumstances are, and then they just go about their lives.  That's not true.  A police officer involved in a shooting will have their weapon removed, will be placed on leave, and an investigation (sometimes multiple) will take place.  They, just like you and me, will likely have to go to court and defend their actions too.  And in today's political & social climate, there may be public protests, and calls for their resignation.  So believe me when I tell you that these guys aren't looking for a gun fight any more than you are.  Their training does not instruct them to show up and shoot the first guy they see, even if that guy happens to be in possession of a gun.  In fact, they're trained in de-escalation tactics and methods of gaining control via verbal commands & other non-lethal/less-lethal options when possible.  Don't do anything stupid, and listen to what they're telling you to do.

Ideally, you'd already have your firearm re-holstered prior to law enforcement arrival.  If at all possible, I'd recommend doing so.  Unless there are verified active deadly-force threats that warrant continued deployment of your firearm, then it should be secured in your holster.  Do you think that maybe you'd be much less of a threat if your gun is in your holster under your shirt instead of in your hands when the cops show up?

But that's not always possible.  Maybe they show up before you're able to re-holster and you do have a gun in your hand.  The first command that you're likely to hear is "PUT THE [expletive] GUN DOWN!".  Guess what you should do?  If you guessed anything other than "put my gun down", then please send your carry permit back to the state and sell your gun today.  Also, it's important to note that "put the gun DOWN" does not mean "put the gun in your holster".  If you start reaching somewhere that they don't want you to reach, you're in for an unpleasant surprise.  But let's take a slight pause for a second and break down a critical point that must be understood.  Regardless of the specific command that you receive, when you are being yelled at by the police, you are likely to instinctively re-direct your eyes/head to visually identify the source of those commands.  It's an automatic function that we've instinctively done since birth.  When we hear/see something, we turn towards it.  Unfortunately, that may also mean that our bodies turn along with the head to see what's going on.  And that single action is likely to take an already tense situation to an explosive application of force by the people that you're turning towards.  I can't stress this enough... you cannot direct your gun towards the police unless you want to be shot.  That means that your training has to include drills that de-program this instinct!

It kind of goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway.  The police are going to be expecting very specific body language that indicates compliance or lack of compliance.  And whether they realize it or not, they are continuously evaluating your body language and interpreting it.  Your body language is actually much more important as an indicator, than your spoken language.  You could be yelling back at them "it's cool man, I'm not the shooter and I'm going to put my gun down now".  But if your body language says otherwise, they will be able to process that much more quickly and will act upon that data.  That's a nice way of saying that they are probably going to shoot you if you make any movements that appear to be threatening.  Do what they say, no more, and no less.

But here's one more added complication.  What if several cops are yelling several, perhaps conflicting, commands to you at the same time?  Maybe one guy is telling you to drop the weapon while another guy is telling you to get on the ground and a third guy is saying "show me your hands"?  How the heck do you process that?!  Well, there's nothing wrong with asking for clarification, if the situation allows you an opportunity to do so.  A simple shout of "WHAT SHOULD I DO FIRST?" should help re-synchronize their effort and point out to them that you're receiving conflicting information.  Any communication in a situation like this needs to be crystal clear and very succinct.  Keep it brief and leave no room for ambiguity in the meaning.  In absence of an opportunity to seek clarification, you have to be able to prioritize these commands on-the-fly.  Their biggest threat in this case is the gun, so ditch it ASAP.  I'd probably opt to just drop it rather than gingerly setting it down, because at least one of these guys is expecting you to put your hands up and if your hands travel down, that could be seen as a red flag.  After getting rid of the gun, open your hands and make sure they're visible, then await further instruction (which would probably be to move away from the gun in a very specific direction).

Don't expect to be treated nicely.  You may be tackled, you may be placed into extremely uncomfortable (painful) positions such as arm bars & other joint locks.  You will likely be handcuffed and you may be "escorted" to a cruiser in a stress position.  Don't take it personally and don't be a prick about it.  It'll all get sorted out later.  They're operating on high adrenaline too and they're having the same physiological challenges that you are.  These guys are just trying to make sure that they make it home to their families and your side of the story just doesn't matter yet.  It will once they get a handle on the situation and start collecting data (eye witness statements, etc.).  Your gun will be taken into evidence (you may eventually get it back).  And you will be interrogated at the scene and if/when taken to the police station.  There are differing opinions about what you should say to the police at this point and I won't get into it in an article.  We do discuss this in classes however.  Apart from providing the required self-identification information, I'd request an attorney before making any statement to law enforcement as a general rule.  You may even have to post bail.  You will definitely need an attorney and you should ideally already have one on retainer or at least have a plan to contact one in such an event.  Even if your actions are ultimately determined to be a justifiable application of force, you are likely in for a long and expensive legal process.  In some states, you may be clear of criminal charges but subject to potential civil litigation.  Some states have protection against this but that doesn't pertain to every situation.

One other side topic that applies to all encounters with the police... if at all possible, you want to be the person that calls the police, or at least among the first people who do.  If you have an opportunity to call them and describe your role & appearance, they will know ahead of time to keep an eye out for you.  There is sufficient data to support the fact that the person who calls the police first has a distinct advantage.  I have some specific cases that I can point to, but I'm trying to keep this article brief.

There's a lot more to this subject and I've just scratched the surface here.  What are your thoughts?  Do you have anything to add that I may have missed?  Let me know.

Please note that I consulted with several friends who are Pennsylvania police officers when I wrote this.  That includes one of my partner instructors at INPAX, who is a municipal police officer, and several friends who are state troopers.  One commented on the conflicting info that they often receive over the radio when the situation is still ongoing.  He stressed the importance of not having a gun in your hand when they arrive if at all possible and pointed out that ANY object in your hand could prove troublesome.  Another stated that it is a good idea to not only call the police, but remain on the line and keep an open dialog with police (through dispatch) so that their approach and can be more controlled.  That way, they can work out a plan to approach you and they can be given a heads up on actions such as you exiting a residence, etc.  Having an open dialog with the police as they approach can completely change the dynamics and provide for a less hostile encounter.

Another one of my (Ohio) police officer friends, Greg Ellifritz, of Active Response Training and Tactical Defense Institute chimed in with an additional recommendation - one that I don't think I've heard before.  Greg recommends to his students that they designate somebody to "stand between you and the likely location of the arriving police officers.  That person's job it to visually block you and to intercept the police and tell them what's going on... i.e. that you are the good guy."  I think that's a great piece of advice, if the situation allows for it and you have time to coordinate something like that.  If you don't know Greg, he's a fantastic resource of information and a highly accomplished instructor.  He's also a very prolific writer who posts some great instructional articles, etc.

The Woes of Handgun Choices…

The following is an article that I wrote a year or two ago and posted on Facebook.  I'm just re-posting a slightly updated version of it here for wider distribution...

As firearms instructors, we really try very hard to not sway somebody’s opinions or influence their choice in firearms unless they specifically ask us for advice.  In INPAX Defensive Handgun classes, we have a policy of working with whatever a student brings to class.  If they have a gun that they like or have some attachment to, we’ll train them to use that gun safely and as effectively as possible.  Many students choose to take that route, while other students who are new to shooting come to class with no gun at all – they rent one of ours (Glock 17) and ask questions prior to picking up a gun of their own.  We encourage everybody to try as many different options as they can before making a handgun purchase.  Handgun selection is a very personal choice and there are many important things to consider prior to making a purchase such as (but not limited to):

• What do you plan to do with the gun, how will it be used?  Is it a home defense gun only?  Is it something that you plan to carry – and if so how?
• How does the gun fit your hands?
• How small/large is the gun and how easy will it be to manipulate?  What about manipulating it under extreme duress, high adrenaline and possible sweaty/bloody hands?
• What type of sight configuration does the gun have?
• What caliber ammunition does the gun use?
• What is the ammunition capacity of the gun?
• What type of action does the gun have (single/double)?
• Does the gun have a manual safety and/or other controls such as a decocker?
• Quality of the gun
• Cost (of course).  Are you paying for a name or are you truly buying a high quality and practical tool?  Similarly, a price that’s “too good to be true” usually is.  Steer clear of deals that you just “can’t pass up”.
• Etc., etc., etc.

We see many trends in firearm selections that are reflected by what people are bringing to class at any given point in time.  Typically, this is directly related to what gun shop employees recommend to new shooters as a “good gun to start out with”.  Unfortunately, those recommendations are rarely given by a professional trainer/shooter and are quite often influenced by an illogical and unrealistic set of reasons for the recommendation.  We don’t mean to put down anybody who sells guns for a living (thank God we have those people who help support the industry and encourage people to exercise their right to self protection). But nonetheless, it’s worth pointing out that we see trends developing over time and people often tell us that they made their firearm selection based on the strong recommendation of “the guy at the gun shop”.  They are often told things like:

• “These guns are highly reliable and extremely popular due to the quality and accuracy“
• “This is the gun that all of the police officers carry off duty“
• “A smaller gun is better for women or for somebody who wants to carry concealed“
• “You can shove this gun in your pocket/purse/bag and not even notice that it’s there“ (I can’t stress enough how stupid/dangerous this comment is)
• “.380 is just as effective as any other caliber“
• “You’ll never need more ammo than what this gun carries.“  You’ll often hear dumb cliché variations of this such as “If you can’t get the job done in [X] number of shots, then you can’t do it at all.”
• “You definitely want/need to have a manual safety”
• “Revolvers are king because they never jam”  You’ll often hear variations of this such as “Semi-autos aren’t as reliable as revolvers”
• “Plastic guns are more susceptible to damage than a metal gun”
• “Revolvers are better guns for women”
• “You want a long, heavy double action trigger so that you don’t accidentally fire when you don’t intend to”

While the people giving such advice may be giving it with the best of intentions in mind, all of the above is terrible advice and often leads to inexperienced shooters making expensive decisions that they learn to regret once they receive practical shooting instruction.

Again, we don’t mean to villainize the guy at the neighborhood gun shop.  People get bad advice from all sorts of places – family members or friends who are “experts”, Internet discussion forums, magazine articles, the local gun club, or even the elite tactical operator who served a dozen tours (supposedly) in a theater of combat.  The bottom line is that nobody can tell you which gun is exactly right for you, given the variable factors that go into such a decision.  And here’s a shocker for you… that includes us.  We don’t claim to be the be-all/end-all source of expert information that should influence your decision.  At the end of the day, you will probably discover that there is no one-size-fits-all firearm choice that will address all of your needs.  Just like any other tool, there are some that are good for a certain function and some that are good for others.

So what does all this mean?  What DOES INPAX recommend and what are some of the platforms that we’ve seen people show up to class with that they usually end up regretting?  Which types of guns often prove to be troublesome and difficult to train people on?

Well… we see lots of tiny little .380s (or similar) guns being pushed these days.  These guns are almost never a great choice as a primary weapon system and especially for a new shooter.  They are often too small to load safely/quickly under stress.  The safety and other mechanisms are often very difficult to manipulate and introduce safety concerns of their own.  The same is true for the tiny little slides on these guns.  They often have lousy sights and a very short sight radius.  They often don’t fit some people’s hands/grips very well.  And of course… they shoot .380 rounds.  We are lumping all tiny little “pocket guns” into this category.  Generally speaking, small/light guns are not wise choices.  People often assume that these guns will be easier to shoot/control and exactly the opposite is true.  Larger/heavier guns absorb recoil more effectively, are easier to hold with a proper grip, hold much more ammunition, are easier to load, have a more effective sight system, and usually support accessories such as lights.

We also see some revolvers come through classes.  Not a high percentage – maybe 10% or less.  A revolver can be a good firearm for certain applications and may have some points of consideration that deserve attention.  Every platform has pros & cons.  But this article is focusing specifically on gun choices based on bad advice.  Unfortunately, revolvers sometimes fall into that category.  These days, people who enthusiastically push revolvers as a wise choice for a primary weapon system, are usually operating off of a very old and out-dated set of opinions and largely inaccurate data.  Yes, revolvers CAN and DO jam.  They are not immune to such problems.  And clearing such a malfunction in a revolver is not always as simple as pulling the trigger again – as the so-called “experts” would have you believe.  A jam in a revolver could render the cylinder inoperable in such a way that it won’t rotate until carefully (slowly) cleared in a way that would essentially take the gun (and possibly you) out of the fight.  Revolvers are typically heavier than most modern semi-autos.  They carry a much lower ammunition capacity than most modern semi autos of similar physical size.  They are more difficult and slower to reload than a semi auto.  Yes, you can learn to do it quickly but it takes much more training/practice and will probably require the use of speed loading devices.

Then there are the guns that people bring in and say “this was my grandfather’s gun”.  These are often in poor condition, use an uncommon ammunition caliber, and are manufactured by a company that’s no longer in business.  These guns often have control mechanisms in non-standard locations and are difficult to manipulate safely/quickly.  We see a lot of malfunction issues with guns in this category.

The purpose of this article isn’t to insult anybody giving advice, put down anybody’s choice of firearm, or infer that only our choices/recommendations are what you should consider.  It’s simply a summary of observation based on what we’ve seen students struggle with when they come to class with various types of guns.  We didn’t cover everything that we run into – just hit some of the major trends.  We are more than happy to work with whatever you bring and will train you on whatever platform you choose.

That being said, people do often ask us what we recommend.  The INPAX firearms team members all carry Glock 9mm firearms as our Standard Operating Procedure.  There are many reasons for that selection that we can’t cover comprehensively here in this article.  We’re not trying to turn everybody into a Glock fan or a 9mm enthusiast.  But we do have some general recommendations that we cover in more detail during our Defensive Handgun classes.  Our high-level recommendations for defensive handgun features are:

• 9mm or above.  Obviously, we’re not recommending that you carry a.44 magnum.  9mm, 10mm, .40, .45, .357 SIG are all good choices.
• “High capacity” magazines.  This term is a bit of a misnomer and reflects the current state of politics concerning firearm ownership/rights in the U.S.  What is often referred to by the media as “high capacity” actually means standard capacity.  Our advice on this is simple… you can never have “too much” ammo.  Nobody ever survived a gun fight and said “man, I wish I didn’t have all of that ammo on hand.  Next time I think I’ll cut it in half and see how that works out”.  Choose a platform that affords you the most ammunition that you can realistically carry.  If it’s a home defense gun that you won’t be carrying, why would you not choose a large high capacity platform?  If you are more worried about fashion than having an effective practical defensive concealed carry firearm platform, perhaps it’s time to reconsider your priorities.
• Double action only.  Yes… we know that this one will draw some heat because people have their own preference on this.  If you do, that’s great and it probably means that you’re an experienced shooter who is proficient with a particular platform.  Stick with it if that works well for you.  But we often see people struggle with double/single action guns that have two different trigger experiences to deal with.  This is not a good platform for building muscle memory and conditioning.  We recommend guns with a consistent double action trigger pull that is present in many modern semi auto platforms.
• No manual safety.  It would be unwise to delve deeply into this particular topic in this article.  My advice to you is to join us for one of our training sessions to learn more about this specific recommendation.

Do you have an opinion/recommendation of your own?  Let us know.  We are not opposed to differing opinions and we welcome friendly discussion.  Whatever you happen to choose, we strongly recommend that you train extensively with it and remain proficient.  And MAKE THAT TRAINING COUNT!  Practice doesn’t necessarily “make perfect” – but it does “make permanent”.  Make sure that you seek professional training, preferably with INPAX, to ensure that you’re building proper skills and not reinforcing poor/dangerous technique.

"If there’s a shooting, I’ll just run out to my car and get my gun"

Does that statement sound familiar?  Is it your plan too?  I’ve heard people say that before, when they discuss the possibility of a shooting at their workplace, where they are not permitted to carry a firearm inside of the facility.  Many companies have policies that prohibit firearms in the building.  Some of them allow (or are unable to legally prohibit) the storage of firearms in your vehicle though.  That will vary from state to state and the type of organization that you work for.  For example, if you work for a government entity, they may be able to prohibit it anywhere on the property including parking areas.  There was a big court case in the state of Utah with a major corporation (which I won’t name here) that originally prohibited firearms in vehicles in the parking area.  The corporation was sued and the court ultimately sided with the employees and ruled that companies within the state cannot enact such a policy.  So now, employees of that organization and any other organization in that state are permitted to store guns in their vehicles.  But again, this will vary depending on a number of factors and you must know the law and seek professional legal guidance from a qualified person (which I am not).  I’m not an attorney and am not qualified to give you legal advice, so get it from somebody who is.  And here’s a hint… it’s not anybody on an Internet discussion forum.

But let’s get past all of that for a minute.  Let’s assume for a minute that you are legally permitted to have a firearm in your vehicle, even though you are not allowed to have it in your office.  That’s somewhat common.  I’ve had discussions with people about active shooter response tactics and I often hear people say that when the “shit hits the fan”, they plan to retrieve their gun from their car and subsequently engage the attacker(s).  In fact, a good friend of mine who is a highly qualified shooter told me exactly that just yesterday.  Well I’m here to tell you why I believe that’s a plan that is unrealistic and likely to fail if you are even able to attempt it.

First let me say that it is NOT my plan to comment on every single idea that people have about active shooter incidents.  I don’t like to nitpick and I don’t mean to criticize.  The tactics and methods that my organization teaches in our active shooter trainings are one approach, but there are certainly other things that may work in certain circumstances.  I'd also like to say that I'm not faulting people who have this idea.  These guys aren't wanna-be bad asses.  They are regular guys like you and me who just want to help.  They are compliant with laws and their corporate policies and are trying their hardest to come up with a way to adhere to those parameters and still aid their fellow man in a time of need.  On this particular point though, I think their plan has some holes and I'd like to bring them to light.

The Breakdown:

• You’re pre-assuming that you’ll even be able to make your way to an exit.  How can you guarantee that without knowing the nature of the attack, the position of the shooter, etc.?
• You’re wasting extremely valuable time.  In the amount of time that it takes you to run to your vehicle (you did remember to grab your keys first, right?), retrieve a firearm, and return to the scene, the shooter has killed another 15 people.  If you had taken more appropriate action that would have neutralized the threat, some of those lives may not have been lost.  That’s not to imply that you are responsible for those lives lost.  I wouldn’t impose that burden on you.  I’m just saying that there are other, more appropriate actions that you could be taking.
• Once you’re out, you’re out.  You’ve left the hot zone and your life is no longer in immediately danger.  Does it make sense, and can you guarantee, that under the stress & fear of the event that you’d go back into the hot zone?  You’ve just saved your life.  You have a wife & kids at home.  You aren’t a cop and you are under no obligation as required by your job to function as an emergency responder.  Turning around and heading back in may be something that you’re not quite prepared to do.  Many conditioned and hardened soldiers have abandoned the battle field once they faced the realities of combat.  And those guys were prepped for it ahead of time.

And by the way… do you know if your state has a duty to retreat if you’re able?  What that means is: Are you required by law to avoid the application of force if you are able to take another, safer (for you AND the aggressor) course of action and avoid the use of force.  This concept is called preclusion and our prisons are filled with people who failed to gain an understanding of it before they took a course of action that included the use of force.  Now I know... a duty to retreat probably wouldn't apply here because other people are at risk of death or serious bodily injury.  But each state has subtle differences in laws that define the justification of deadly force.  And there's always some lawyer out there who's gunning (pardon the pun) against guys like us and looking for some way to prosecute people who take action to save themselves & others.  And I wouldn't put it past one of these slime buckets to use a technicality like the duty to retreat in a situation like this.  I know what you're thinking: "surely there wouldn't be an attorney who would stick up for an active shooter!".  Well, you're wrong.  In fact just last week, hours after the San Bernardino, CA terrorist shootings, two attorneys (who were apparently on retainer?) crawled out of the gutter and started making excuses for the murderers.  It's disgusting, I know.

•  This next one is where it really falls part.  This is where it becomes obvious that people with this plan have probably never done any realistic tactical training.  And that’s perfectly fine.  You’re not a cop and nobody expects you to have that training.  It’s not a criticism.  But… any cop will tell you that there’s no way in hell they’re going to enter a structure without an entry team or at the bare minimum, another officer to provide backup.  Active shooter incidents are extremely dynamic.  The state of the scene when you left is very likely to have changed dramatically in the time that you were gone.  Assuming that the shooter is exactly where he was when you left, is a dangerous calculation.  You may be re-entering through a point that you assumed was safe but is now his area of focus.  The scenes are so dynamic that law enforcement has even transitioned away from a previously-used tactic that involved taking your eyes off of the scene for a mere second or two.  They used to peek into a room (maybe shine a light if necessary), and pull themselves away from the door so that they aren't seen.  Then, based on what they saw during their glance, they'd enter the room and assume that the bad guy was where they saw him a few seconds ago.  The problem with that approach is that in those two seconds, the bad guy has likely moved and what the cop saw two seconds ago is no longer valid.  So if those two seconds are deemed too dangerous for the police, how dangerous was your two-minute absence?  How much more has the scene changed in that time?

This particular point warrants a little more discussion… working an area (engaging a threat) that you are already in is entirely different than making entry into an area.  There’s a reason why law enforcement spends so much time training to enter & clear rooms.  It’s not as simple as opening the door and strolling in.  You can certainly do it that way, if you want to get killed.  But the method of entry and the movements that are made to secure an area (not even talking about actually shooting) are so critical that it takes extensive training and a tight integration of the entry team so that everybody knows their assigned tasks.  When these guys enter, they know exactly who’s going where based on their position in the line.  They do it with what’s called “violence of action” that allows them to dominate and control the scene, and they know how to adapt their plan based on the dynamics of the scene.  They don’t know what’s on the other side of that door either.  They don’t know where furniture is, how many people they’ll encounter, etc. until they bust through the door and it takes countless hours of training to learn how to do that.  If you go in, as a single unit, without having that training, no matter which way you turn, you are exposing your back to a zone that you have not yet cleared.  A single person cannot clear every direction horizontally and vertically simultaneously.  There simply is no way to do this safely.

I can’t stress this point enough.  I could write another 15 paragraphs on this particular point alone.  When we train civilians to work their way through a building, it’s with the mindset of getting you OUT of the building or getting you to your kids & safe room - and only if staying where you are is more dangerous than moving.  It is never with the intent of attempting to train you to clear a building.  We provide that training to law enforcement professionals only because they have the resources to devote to development of the skillset and they work with teams that support the concept.  You do not.

Have I driven that point home yet?  OK, moving on…

•  Let’s say that somehow you’re able to guarantee that you can enter the building safely (again… impossible) and you’ve now got your gun from the car and are making your way through the parking lot towards the building.  Meanwhile, 20 people have called 911 and here comes the cavalry – 15 police cars from 3 responding municipalities and 30 cops all raring to go.  They’re in SWAT gear, they have an AR strapped to their body and a Glock on their hip.  But that’s not all they have.  Now they have YOU in their sights.  They just arrived at an active shooter scene and you’re the first guy they see, running like a maniac with a gun in your hand towards the the people that they’re trying to save.  You have no vest on that says “POLICE” on the back (don't even think about it, it's illegal to impersonate an officer).  You are conducting yourself in a non-professional manner and they have never seen you before.  Guess what you look like to them?  I would give you three guesses, but you’re already dead and now your name & face are already on every news station being labeled as somebody associated with the attack. 

I’m sure I could add another 5 or 10 items to the list above, but you get the point and I’m often told that my writings are too long-winded anyway.  I hope that with this perspective, I’ve dissuaded you from your ill-conceived plan to run to your car, then return to the scene.  This ties in with my post yesterday about investing the resources to get good, quality active shooter response training.  Don’t cook up a plan yourself, I guarantee you it’s doomed to fail.

At the end of the day, realistically, you are going to fight with what you have readily available.  So your plan must be based on that.  Anything else is a useless fantasy.  You should always be thinking about your plans and tweaking them.  But let's also not forget the old and accurate saying that "no plan survives first contact".  In other words, having a plan is essential.  But don't expect anything to go according to your plan and make sure you develop the skills necessary to adapt & overcome.



Related article:
How To Get Yourself Killed In An Active Shooter Incident

How To Get Yourself Killed In An Active Shooter Incident

Pardon the bluntness of the title.  This article is in response to the countless articles, news segments, and videos offering fly-by-night style survival advice for active shooter events.  After every one of these incidents, as the media hype is in full swing, there are always subject-matter "experts" who are interviewed to provide guidance to people regarding active shooter response.  A good bit of this advice is usually pretty solid and well-founded.  Usually that's the common-sense stuff though; the easy stuff like maintaining situational awareness, identifying points of egress ahead of time, etc.  But there's a lot of really bad and in my opinion, very dangerous advice being offered that borders on extremely irresponsible.

In full disclosure, my organization (based in Pittsburgh) provides active shooter trainings to schools, businesses, and individuals, in the local region and nationally.  It's just part of what we do, but it's a big part and it's a program that we take very seriously and have devoted a great deal of resources to its development.

So you may be thinking at this point that my beef with the high-profile advisers is simply turf war bickering.  But I assure you, that's not the case.  In fact, I think it's great that there are serious organizations out there who fight the good fight and help to empower people to protect themselves.  We're all on the same team.  My problem with the advice basically boils down to this:

1. The media considers anybody who's ever worked for any government entity, written a book, or claims to know what they're talking about to be an expert.
2. The techniques that are offered are never vetted for validity before putting them out there to the public.
3. The format in which it is presented lacks the full context that's required to properly absorb and retain the training material.
4. Quite frankly, as the title suggests, a lot of is more likely to get you killed than it is to save your life.

This week alone, following the San Bernardino, CA terrorist event that left 14 innocent Americans dead at the hands of two crazed Islamic nutjobs, I have probably seen about 30 articles (blog posts, etc.) come across my computer via social media or email that have all had the title "How To Survive An Active Shooter Event" - or similar.  And every time I turn on the news, some self-proclaimed expert is putting in his two-cents.  I usually just let it go and figure people will be smart enough to wade through it and make sense of what's valid and what isn't.  But today I heard a piece of advice that sent me over the edge.  On a major cable news network, the on-air expert instructed people to "run in a zig-zag formation" as they are evading the attacker(s).  For a moment I thought: "now hold on Dan... maybe this guy is confused and he thinks we're talking about getting away from an alligator or something".  But sadly no, this was legitimately his active shooter advice.  In a way, I suppose I can understand how somebody might arrive at that piece of advice.  But only if they have never done any kind of training before, have never shot a gun, and have no grasp on the dynamics involved with an event like this.  The basis of the theory is that if you are changing direction, the shooter won't be able to track you and fix his sights on you.  But let's break down how this one falls apart:

1. The most important thing you can do when you're on the defense, is to "get off of the X", which means getting out of the direct line of sight/impact of the attacker.  That applies to any kind of attack.  By zig-zagging back & forth repeatedly, you are repeatedly re-entering the direct line of sight of the attacker.
2. Every time you change directions, your movement will pause and you are wasting very valuable time that could be spent on increasing the distance between you and the threat.  You are prolonging your time inside of the kill zone.
3. You're adding physical and cognitive complexity to a situation in which you will have capacity for neither.  I won't get into all of the physiological effects of extreme duress during a violent encounter.  But basically, under an adrenaline dump, you can expect degraded fine/complex motor skills and you can expect your ability to perform complex thinking to be diminished.  You're in survival mode.  The last damn thing you're going to be able to think about is "ok that's ten steps to the right, now switch again."
4. And finally, it's simply not necessary to change directions to make it difficult for the shooter to hit you.  Here's a question for you: Have you ever tried to hit a moving target?  Maybe you have, but I'm betting that most of you have not.  Hitting a target standing still (especially with combat-effective accuracy) is not an easy thing to do to begin with.  When we add the dynamics of a moving shooter and moving target, it becomes extremely difficult.  The very fact that you're on the move, already gives you an advantage.  Changing directions actually devalues that advantage and gives the shooter an observable pattern that may make you EASIER to hit.

So if you're going to run, JUST RUN!  Do it efficiently and tactfully... get out of his direct line of sight, don't run straight away from him if you can avoid it.  And get your ass to cover.  Then, immediately start looking for better cover.  And make sure you understand the difference between cover and concealment.

But the zig-zag advice isn't the only thing that alarms me.  There are lots of examples.  One very popular system that's being rolled out to school districts includes a component that advises stock-piling canned food products and having the kids throw them at an attacker.  Again, I understand the underlying theory and it's not all bad.  But there are a few problems with this one too.  First of all, we (INPAX) believe that it's generally a bad idea to include school children in the response model.  One reason is that kids are unlikely to be able to process & perform as expected in such a stressful scenario.  The big 250-pound football player is going to be cowering behind the 110-pound Spanish teacher asking her to save him.  These are not adults and we can't expect them to behave & perform as adults.  But another reason is that one of those kids may be a potential attacker themselves and it's a bad idea to compromise the security infrastructure by revealing portions of it to a potential threat.  Not to mention the fact that the kids won't have the opportunity to train for what you're expecting them to do.  "Training" doesn't mean telling somebody something.  And it doesn't mean rehearsing something once or twice.  Training, of any kind, takes repetition and refined development to become properly conditioned to perform a task.

And I actually have another problem with this advice.  It ties in with other types of advice that people are receiving.  At one of the schools that we recently trained, it was mentioned that the school district had previously advised teachers to just "hit the attacker with a nearby fire extinguisher".  Could that work?  Maybe.  Is it likely?  No way!  Expecting somebody to use an improvised impact weapon in an effective way with zero training, is the epitome of unrealistic.  But a bigger problem is that they've been given no "tools" (knowledge via training) to capitalize on that kind of defense technique and follow up with actions that would actually terminate the incident.  In other words, you might get a few good hits in if you're lucky.  But if you don't know what to do after that, you're as good as dead.  Sorry.  Most of the systems that I've seen, give people a few things to try, but leave them hanging if/when those things don't work.  The goal of all training (of any kind) is to get you to a point where you can continue to think on your feet in a dynamic situation.  We're not trying to turn you into a ninja, you just have to be able to think, and keep thinking, so that you can execute effective countermeasures.

Which brings me to my next point... I need to be careful with this one because I don't want to leave the impression that I'm criticizing other, perfectly legitimate, systems & approaches.  But in my opinion, if your goal is to terminate a violent incident that involves a force multiplier like a gun/knife/etc., and your first steps involve anything other than neutralizing that threat (the gun/knife/etc.), then I believe your approach is flawed and dangerous.  In fact, I just recently saw a video that was a great example of this: In the video, a guy took down his attacker and put him into an arm bar restraint.  The problem... the attacker followed up by using his other arm to repeatedly stab the good guy in the stomach as the good guy wasted defense resources on addressing something other than the immediate threat.  Most systems that I've seen, advise techniques that arrest the movement of an attacker, and only discuss weapon neutralization as an after thought.  That's completely backwards from what you should be doing.  Get the damn gun off of the attacker.  Once he's disarmed, he's just a guy and YOU have the force multiplier.  That being said, you have to be properly trained to do this safely and effectively.  If you don't do it right, you could get yourself killed.  Weapon disarming is complex and dangerous.  It has to be taught under controlled conditions by professionals.  A prime example of how this can succeed, but still go wrong if done without training is the 2004 rock concert shooting where Pantera guitar player "Dimebag" Darrell Abbott was murdered while onstage.  The shooter was subdued and disarmed, but 3 additional people died during the scuffle as they disarmed the attacker (one person died while administering aid).  Going back to the soup can and fire extinguisher points, the same concern applies.  Hitting somebody with a fire extinguisher might hurt him.  But he's still got a weapon and he's still pulling the trigger.  Your inefficient response is helping him increase the body count and is likely to make you his next target.

Bad advice doesn't just come from the civilian world though.  Unfortunately, it also sometimes comes from the law enforcement side as well.  And that's hard for me to say because I'm pretty much the biggest supporter of law enforcement that you'll ever meet.  I rarely criticize anybody in that community.  But, my wife is a public school teacher and her district has received several trainings from a law enforcement agency and I'm also privy to training material offered by other law enforcement organizations.  In every case that I'm aware of, law enforcement active shooter training to civilians basically goes like this:

1. Here's what gunshots in the hallway might sound like
2. Here's how you implement a lock-down procedure (shelter in place)
3. Here's what it looks like when we show up on-scene and start making entry to secure the facility
4. Here's how we want you to comply with instructions to evacuate as we clear the building
5. And "if" you happen to encounter the shooter, "don't be a hero" and just "try to talk them down if you're going to do anything".  If they address making contact with the shooter at all, the material is limited and the techniques don't serve to effectively neutralize the threat.

I put those segments in #5 in quotes because those are real pieces of advice that my wife's district received.  And generally, if reflects the training approach that most law enforcement and school districts provide for this type of scenario.  It's presented in a very legally-safe "cover our ass" (from a liability standpoint) position, and what it essentially teaches the would-be victims is that they are helpless.  It teaches them that there's nothing that they can/should do to save their lives and the only people who can do it are the professional responders.  The problem with that... first of all, it's completely false.  But beyond that, the police are almost never on-scene in time to terminate the event as it's in-progress.  Most of the damage is done in the first few minutes and they often terminate prior to law enforcement arrival.  The best chance that you have of saving yourself and others, is acting decisively and immediately to terminate the incident, or at least minimize the carnage until law enforcement can respond.  I don't give a damn what the school's attorney's opinion is on this.  Even the FBI states (in the concluding statements of a recent report) that the actions that civilians take in the first 3 minutes are what is most important in determining the outcome.  When law enforcement shows up, most of the time, it's over.  It's time to count bodies and conduct an investigation.  Like it or not, you are your own first responder.  Start acting like it!

Regarding the "try to talk him down" advice: I think this is one of the worst pieces of advice put out there.  An active shooter isn't a guy on a bridge threatening to jump.  He's WAY past talking and he's declined so far down a path that he's decided this is the end for him and he's taking you with him.  There's a time and a place for psychology & negotiation and this isn't it.  If you try to talk him down instead of TAKING him down, you may as well be trying to use cash to bribe a shark that's biting your leg off.  I'm only aware of two school shooter incidents where the attacker was talked down by school staff.  And the second one wasn't an actual shooting, it was essentially a recent hostage situation that happened to involve a gun, but no shooting.

There's a pseudo-model that government entities try to utilize to teach active shooter training to civilians.  It's the "Run, Hide, Fight" model.  But the problem is, they don't teach you how to fight, not effectively anyway.  Lock-down drills are great and they're often the best thing you can/should do.  But if you don't have a choice, you better have other tools in your bag and they damn well better be the right ones.  Leave the Campbell's tomato soup in the kitchen pantry, get some real training instead.

So what's my point with all of this?  Am I saying that the INPAX system is the only legitimate one and all of the other's are garbage?  Absolutely not!  I meant what I said earlier, we're all on the same team and I think it's great that we're all working towards solutions.  At the end of the day, we just want to save lives.  We have many differing approaches to it, and in some ways that's a good thing.  But you have to be able to identify faulty advice and spend your time on valid approaches.  If the stakes weren't so high, I wouldn't care this much.  If we were talking about something like bad financial advice, I'd mind my own business.  But lives are being lost due to bad advice.  Teachers (for example), are being taught to line their kids up along the back wall of a classroom, which effectively creates a shooting gallery for an attacker to pick off people one at a time.  They're being taught to position themselves in non-advantageous locations that place them at increased danger if a shooter makes entry into their room.  People are being taught to play dead and do other things that are likely to be ineffective.  And for some reason, the public is just eating it up and so is the media.

Look, the reality is that there is no blog post, magazine article, book, or video that will properly prepare you to survive an active shooter situation.  In some ways, the media and other outlets are performing a disservice by giving bits & pieces of information, but not pointing people to where they can get real, proven, effective training.  If you're serious about this and you want to survive, you have to get your hands dirty and actually do some real training.  In fact, I'd advise you to get training from multiple sources.  As an instructor (firearms, etc.), I try to train with as many people as I can because I think it helps you master your craft.  I train with "competitors", as well as peers.  I study different systems and I do a lot of research.  Something this important, deserves that kind of dedication and scrutiny.  It's a different world now.  Terrorism IS occurring in our homeland.  Violence (terrorism or otherwise) occurs everywhere and effects people from all walks of life.  None of us is immune.  If you want to survive, you're going to have to put more into this than just reading a silly article or watching the evening news.

If you're interested in attending one of our trainings, I'm more than happy to provide info.  In my opinion, it is the most comprehensive and realistic approach to active shooter training that I've seen.  Sam Rosenberg (president and program developer of INPAX) has an approach to self defense and a grasp on the real-world dynamics of violence (as a threat and a tool) that is unmatched anywhere in the industry.  But I'm not here for a commercial.  I'm not trying to sell you our training.  I just want you to be on the look out for bad "training" and be able to recognize it.

One last thought to consider... people need to keep in mind that when the police show up to confront a threat, saving the wounded is a secondary priority and it may not happen in the time frame that you expect.  If you are under the impression that the cops will roll in and start caring for the injured, you're mistaken.  Emergency medical personnel won't even be permitted to approach the scene until it is cleared and determined to be completely safe.  They will stage up nearby and wait for the cops to address their first priority, which is neutralizing the threat and making sure there are no more threats.  If the active scene is large and complex, that may take a great deal of time.  In some cases, they may not even be able to start the process right away (if the shooter is well barricaded and still shooting for example).  So you may have severely injured people with fading vitals who are running out of time as they wait to be rescued.  This is another reason why the actions that YOU take early in the engagement are critical to saving lives.  It can save your life and save the lives of those around you.  The people on the inside, in close proximity to the threat when it begins, are in the best position and have the best situational intelligence to address the threat before it escalates any further.  If the threat is neutralized by the time the cops show up, the injured stand a much better chance of being rescued and receiving immediate care.  Incidentally, we believe that a truly robust active shooter response program needs to include emergency medical training as a key component.  None of the "expert" advisers that are dishing out advice even address this component.  We, however, do address it and offer medical training and emergency med kits.  It's something else that you should explore.  The bandaids in your first aid kit aren't going to do much for somebody with a gunshot wound resulting in a tension pneumothorax.  Again, you are the first responder.  The guys who show up in uniform are the second line, not the primary.


Related article:
"If there's a shooting, I'll just run out to my car and get my gun"

Weighing Compassion Against Public Safety - The Syrian Refugee Debate

At present, American politicians are moving forward with plans to import approximately 10,000 Syrian refugees. The governor of my state (Pennsylvania) and the mayor of my city (Pittsburgh) have both vowed to accept the refugees despite the opposition being voiced by a large percentage of their constituents (in full disclosure, I don't know the percentage of opposition at this time and that's why I didn't say "majority"). As usual, everybody on social media is having vibrant and heated debates about this policy, as if our opinion matters even a little bit.  I assure that in today's political climate, our opinion matters not.

However, I don't mean to imply that my opinion is the opinion of all. There are plenty of people (some of my friends & family among them) who feel that it's perfectly acceptable to bring the refugees into the U.S. This is despite the fact that Islamic terrorists in Paris France, who entered the country under the guise of being refugees, killed scores of people less than a week ago. Many of the dead aren't even buried yet. The bullet holes are still in the buildings and the scenes are still stained with innocent blood. Just yesterday, there was a breaking news story in the U.S. stating that 5 Syrian nationals have been caught trying to enter the U.S. with stolen/fabricated passports.   Another recent story, receiving almost no coverage at all, was about an investigation that has revealed that 73 TSA workers are on terrorism watch lists.  These are the people who are in charge of ensuring that you're safe when you board an airplane.  And they have links to the people who are hell bent on flying more airplanes into more buildings.  Who does that make sense to???

Look, I totally get why a lot of Americans are welcoming the refugees with open arms.  The stories of suffering are very compelling.  And it's human nature (at least for good-hearted humans) to reach out to help others who are in need.  I think the world needs a lot of more of that kind of attitude.  But this conflict boils down to a simple question:

Should our compassion be allowed to outweigh the obvious security risks?

I say "obvious" because we know for a fact, with 100% certainty, that ISIS (or whatever we call them today) does indeed plan to strike us here in the U.S. and they have already demonstrated that they will take advantage of our compassion and use the refugee crisis as a vehicle to facilitate that goal.  Those are their words (and actions), not mine.

It would be fantastic if we had a fully reliable system to weed out the bad guys from the good - if we could definitively verify the intentions of these people via background checks.  But that's far from the reality.  The government is not capable of conducting such flawless checks, nobody is.  The teachings of Islam instruct its followers to utilize deception as a means of compromising & infiltrating the enemy (that's you and me - we're on the same team here).  According to sharia, in certain situations, deception – also known as 'taqiyya', based on Quranic terminology, – is not only permitted but sometimes obligatory. For instance, contrary to early Christian history, Muslims who must choose between either recanting Islam or being put to death are not only permitted to lie by pretending to have apostatised, but many jurists have decreed that, according to Quran 4:29, Muslims are obligated to lie in such instances.  You don't have to believe me, you can research it yourself.

Regarding the background checks: we keep being told that there's nothing to worry about because the background checks are a lengthy (implied to be thorough) process.  I can tell you from my own experience, as somebody who had one of the highest security clearances obtainable by a citizen, that the process is indeed lengthy.  But not because it's thorough... it's because the government is extremely inefficient and lousy at their job.  What takes place during a background check could be done in a week instead of a year.  And I can guarantee you that no refugee will go through the level of checking that people like me go through.  They will be entirely different from the background checks that are conducted for security clearances.  They will be extremely shallow in their integrity and will no doubt be conducted by people who know little about security.  The background checks will do little to ensure our safety.  Especially since it will be impossible to verify even the identity of these people, let alone their past.

Those of you who know me, are aware that I work in the personal security industry as a firearms/self-defense instructor.  Anybody who's serious about this subject matter and wants to keep their skillset current and relevant, studies all aspects of violence extensively.  That means following crime trends and reviewing case studies.  It means an exhaustive examination of any & all information that you can get your hands on.  It means reading the reports and works of experts in the field.  It means breaking down incidents and following them back to their points of origin.  We are constantly asking ourselves "what specifically went wrong that led to [fill in the blank event]?".  And in studying violence, quite often (a HUGE percentage of the time), the single most common factor that led to somebody being victimized, was their willful suppression of intuition.  In other words, they had some indication (often just a "gut feeling") that they were in potential danger, but chose to ignore those primal warning signs.  There have been decades of extensive research done on this area of study and there are countless cases that can be studied.  In discussions with victims, researchers and investigators often hear the victims verbalize that they somehow knew that they were walking into a dangerous situation but proceeded anyway.  Why?  Because we are conditioned by experiences to dismiss these warning signs as mere paranoia.  Because the vast majority of the time, things turn out to be OK.  The "creepy" guy the elevator rarely attacks you.  The drunk homeless man ranting about nothing and invading your personal space rarely stabs you in the gut & robs you.  So, we learn over time to suppress intuition & instinct.  We become conditioned to err on the side of risk rather than caution.  This is especially true when emotions are dragged into the equation and we are made to feel like heartless monsters if we don't accept a risk to extend a helping hand to somebody who could potentially be a ticking time bomb, but could also just be a harmless soul in need.

One of the leading experts in the study of violence and how it can be successfully mitigated is Gavin DeBecker.  His #1-selling book, The Gift of Fear, should be required reading for anybody in the law enforcement or protection community and I highly recommend it to anybody who ever leaves their house.  All of the cases in the book are true stories.  It opens up with a horrific review of a rape case where a very security-conscious woman goes against her better judgement by allowing a charming stranger to help her carry her groceries to her apartment (you'd have to read the circumstance for full context).  She dismisses her intuition and misses several opportunities to avoid her fate.  Ultimately, it leads to her being raped for 3 hours and narrowly escape her murder.  And by the way... she avoided that murder, as the rapist/murderer was heading to her kitchen to get a knife, by finally paying attention to what the warning signs were telling her and acting on it.

I am very fortunate to work under the direction of, and study under, one of the most impressive security professionals in the industry: Sam Rosenberg, founder and president of INPAX.  If you've never seen one of Sam's presentations or trained with him, you don't know what you're missing.  It is absolutely captivating and inspiring.  I've read lots of books and I've seen lots of professionals talk on the subject of violence. I've never seen somebody who has such a firm grasp and command of self defense topics.  The dude is an absolute bad ass.  Anyway... in the active shooter trainings that we conduct for schools and businesses, Sam explains how "violence is as predictable as boiling water, if you know what to look for".  That extends beyond the personal security construct and applies to public safety on a macro level as well.  We delve much deeper into this concept when we conduct more extensive personal training for individuals.

Most of the time, violence can be avoided or minimized by being properly prepared and by trusting your gut instinct.  It requires an unemotional analysis of available data and the willingness to act on that analysis no matter how uncomfortable or inconvenient it may be.  In the case of the Syrian refugees, we need to take the emotions completely out of the equation and ask ourselves the following questions:

1. Is this action going to actually address the root cause of the crisis and prevent it from getting worse?
2. Is this action consistent with the way that we've successfully dealt with similar crises in the past?
3. Given the data that we have on Muslims from the Middle East, is it reasonably safe to integrate them into our culture?
4. Given the direct warnings that we have from the terrorists, does it make sense to put our citizens (your kids, my kids, etc.) at risk of violent senseless deaths for the purpose of being the world's security shelter?
5. Should we be ignoring data, intuition, and common sense (which isn't so common these days) because it "might" be OK to do so?

One of my family members that I love and respect posted a picture today of a Syrian child (allegedly) sleeping in filth on a mattress in the dangerous streets of the middle east.  The wording of the post stated that fear is a good thing because it is an indication that you are about to do something brave.  I have a differing opinion.  Fear usually means you're about to do something stupid and dangerous, not brave.  It was an attempt to play on the emotions of Americans and encourage them to go against their better judgement and ignore the fact that the world around us is on fire right at this very moment as a result of allowing Islamic terrorism spread into the western world.  There simply could not be any more compelling data and warning signs to support the fact that it is too dangerous to proceed with such a reckless policy.

Dangerous times require an escalation of safety measures and a resolute focus on security and victory.  My friends, we ARE in the most dangerous times that we've ever been faced with.  The wolf is at the door.  We should be grateful that the terrorists are kind enough to announce & broadcast their intentions.  We could be in a much worse position of not knowing what they're going to do.  But we absolutely know.  If we dismiss that knowledge and continue down a path of self destruction, then we unfortunately deserve what's coming our way.

I respect your compassion and I think it's admirable.  But the stakes are much higher for me now.  I have two little girls at home that I need to keep safe.  So no... I'm sorry but your compassion and foolishness, as demonstrated by your willingness to suppress the warning signs, cannot be allowed to supercede the security of myself, my family, and all of the other innocent Americans that have a heightened sense of awareness.  If even an ounce of innocent American blood is shed as a result of letting in a terrorist who uses the cover of the refugee crisis, then the cost of your compassion is too high in this case.  And if my family's blood is among that of the fallen, then I will count you as an enemy along with the terrorists.

This isn't a republican/democrat or liberal/conservative issue.  It's a straight-forward common sense issue.  We have so much data to support a halt of this policy that it's laughable that we're even discussing it.  I'm all for helping the innocent Syrians (if we can identify them).  But we should be helping them OVER THERE.  That doesn't make me racist or bigoted.  It just means that I'm more in touch with intuition and data than other people are.  Let's help the Syrians.  Let's do what we can to make their homeland safe.  Let's fight the tyranny and oppression the way we always do, with military might and decisive action.  Heck, I'll even send food & money.  I'll buy a blanket for that poor kid who's sleeping on the mattress in the street.  I'll even send the bed frame for it.  But he cannot sleep in a bed in my house and I don't want him shacking up down the road from me either.  I know too much about the indoctrination of Muslims in the middle east that begins at birth.  I know too much about their intentions.  I know too much about their actions.  And I know too much about the innocent lives lost.

There is no ISIS

Let me ask you a question: How long has ISIS (called ISIL by the U.S. government) been in existence?  Do you know?  Here's a better question: What is ISIS?  Can you define them, other than by defining the meaning of the stupid acronym based on what your favorite search engine tells you?

Let me set the record straight in case you're confused by the title of this article: I am NOT some whacko conspiracy theorist here to tell you that ISIS is a made up entity used by the government to distract people as they (the government) stage elaborate hoaxes to further an agenda.  That's the kind of tin-foil-hat bat-shit crazy stuff that gets spread on the Internet every time there's an attack.  That's the kind of thing that's spread by people who call themselves "9/11 Truthers", believe that the arlines are systematically poisoning them via "chem trails" as part of a conspiracy, etc.  And that's not at all what the title of this article is indicating.  There really is a group of people who are actively slaughtering people by the hundreds & thousands simply because they follow an insane religion and have brains made of mush that have been filled with garbage since the day they popped out of their equally crazy mothers.

My beef, is with the use of the term "ISIS".  Not because it's an acronym (although I do hate acronyms).  But because these people are exactly the same individuals that were called Al-Qaeda only a few short years ago.  When's the last time you heard about Al-Qaeda, other than a historical reference?  And before that, we called them the Taliban, at least in Afghanistan.  And before that, the Mujahideen.  And before that, "freedom fighters" - but that's when we were foolish enough to think that they were our friends and their mission was honorable.

I know... some of you are jumping through the screen about to tell me that I'm wrong and that there are differences between these entities.  Well I'm sorry, but you're wrong.  Sure, there are some subtle geopolitical distinctions between these groups.  But the reality is that ISIS is made up mostly of people who were called Al-Qaeda as recently as two years ago.  They didn't switch teams.  They didn't form a new mission and set new goals.  They are the same exact crazy mother fuckers who have been shooting innocent people and lopping off heads their entire lives.  The term ISIS/ISIL is simply a marketing identifier (for lack of a better term) slapped onto them for their current campaign of violence.

The reason that you occasionally hear about old groups like the Taliban "making a comeback" is because, IT'S THE SAME FUCKING PEOPLE.  It's all one big group of goat-humping, camel-sucking nut jobs that all share the same insane ideology and all want exactly the same thing... the rest of us dead!

This silly divvying up of the crazies into easily identifiable little groups with fancy labels serves little purpose, other than as a mechanism for our government to dumb it down for the average American citizen who has the attention span of a fruit fly.  In other words, it helps to keep people engaged in the idea of fighting the enemy if the enemy gets a face lift every few years.

Frankly, I don't care what we call them or what they call themselves.  At the end of the day, they are who they've always been and they will never change.  Their tactics may advance.  Their weapons & methods may evolve.  They may (and are) advance deeper into civilized western territory.  But they are simply Islamists who are brainwashed from the get-go.

So... I guess it's time we discuss the terms "Muslim", "Islamist", and the use of the pointless qualifier: "Extremist" used by some to distinguish the actively violent ones from those who are not.

I once had somebody actually say to me (in a Facebook discussion), that I shouldn't use the word "Muslim" to describe people who are part of "Islamic" religion.  My head exploded with confusion when I read that statement.  Once I explained to them (probably rather abrasively) that the definition of a Muslim is a person who studies an adheres to Islam, they simply stopped responding because they realized that they are too dumb to continue the discussion.

So now that we agree Muslim = Islamist, what about the term "Extremist"?  This is what gets people all bent out of shape and why they jump on my shit every day.  Any time I (and others) criticize Islam as being the cancer of humanity that it is, people jump in with "you can't lump them all into one category.  Not all of Islam is bad, only a very few bad apples who give it a bad name".  Well my friends... that's BULLSHIT!

Somebody much smarter than me once put it this way: "A Muslim extremist is the guy who chops off your head.  A moderate Muslim is the guy who holds down your feet and lets it happen.".  You may think that's an over-simplification, but it's exactly right.  The reason that people get so bent out of shape about this is because they are confused (misinformed) about what it means to be a Muslim.  These are people who went to college with somebody who claimed to be a Muslim.  And that college buddy never blew himself up.  Maybe they drank alcohol and engaged in regular relationships with the opposite sex.  Maybe they listened to cool music and didn't seem to mind that the women around them weren't dressed like Casper the ghost.  Well I hate to break it to you and your college buddy, but that dude is not a Muslim.  He may think that he is, but he's not.  Here's a good test of that theory: ask yourself how long their head would remain attached to their torso if they moved to Syria.  Because those crazy fuckers in places like Syria (really all of the middle east), are the real Muslims.  They are the ones that follow its teachings & writings WORD FOR WORD.  They are the ones who understand that the religion is built on the concept of viciously slaughtering ALL non-believers, including those who don't fully commit to its teachings.  The Koran (Quran) has many many passages that provide clear instructions for them to kill us. If your college buddy doesn't subscribe to those instructions, then he's not a Muslim.  He may be a really good dude and he may practice a form of religion that is rather honorable and admirable.  Heck, maybe he should start his own religion.  But... he is not a Muslim.  And neither is the guy fresh out of prison who has reformed himself into a peaceful, tolerant pacifist.  Islam and peace are mutually exclusive.  Completely incompatible concepts that cannot coexist.  They tolerate only one thing - themselves.

I once used a Star Trek analogy to describe Muslims.  They are blend between the Borg and the Klingons.  The Borg are the singular collective of cyborgs who assimilate entire species and destroy anybody who refuse to be assimilated.  They are where the phrase "resistance is futile" comes from.  In their mind, you assimilate and become one of us, or you die.  The Klingons are the guys who are an ancient barbaric species of aliens who know only violence.  They speak of "honor" and use it as an excuse to drive an axe through the skulls of whoever pissed them off that day.  They fight for fighting's sake.  They want no alliances with anybody else and they look at every other way of life other than their own, as inferior and irrelevant.  Sound familiar?

Look, I don't care what we call these people.  They are a scourge on the human race.  Does Islam have some beautiful concepts and respectable elements?  Probably.  But in this case, the bad heavily outweighs the good.  And the way that it's actively practiced (the elements that drive its following) are directly responsible for the murder of millions of innocent people.  And it's no longer just "over there".  It's here in our homeland, in New York, Detroit, Washington D.C., Pittsburgh, Paris, Madrid, London, etc.  We no longer have the luxury of ignoring the true nature of these people and this religion.  We can no longer dismiss the fundamentalists as rare artifacts that don't represent the moderates.  The moderates really have no place in this discussion at all.  They are a side topic that has absolutely no bearing on the matter at hand.

If you're thinking of responding to this with some reference to times when violence was committed in the name of Christianity, save your breath.  The Crusades were a long time ago and were an isolated time in history.  Christianity, with all of its warts and rocky past, has reformed itself and flushed out its corruptive elements that detracted from its peaceful teachings.  Don't bother pulling out some Old Testament references.  Because that doesn't represent the way that Christianity is taught and practiced at all.  Everybody was nuts back in those days.  I think that two thousand years of a good track record pretty much clears the table.  Sure... every once in a while there's a nut job who claims to be Christian that does something crazy & violent.  The difference is that these are isolated incidents and that true Christians stand up against them and denounce them.  That's something that simply doesn't happen in Islam.

To sum up: ISIS = ISIL = Al Qaeda = Taliban = Mujahideen = Freedom Fighter = Islamist = Jihadist = Muslim = [Fill-in-the-blank identifier of the day]

You can only polish a turd so much.  It's still going to be a turd when you're done with it.  The only change will be that you're covered in shit.

To be honest, I hate blogs

I've decided that my first blog post will be about the fact that I hate blogs and have resisted them (as a consumer and a writer) for many years.

I remember when the term "blog" first started being thrown around and how much it annoyed me because it is basically just a new term assigned to an old idea.  Initially, the only people who used the word blog and who actually referenced them, were members of the media.  For some reason, the news media really wanted the blog concept to catch on.  And none of them had any clue that the term originates from the words "web log".  I doubt that most people today are even aware of that.

A blog is essentially just a journal - a poorly organized (in my opinion) collection of writings.  It's a bit like a forum, but worse and more boring because you generally have only one, or a small handful of contributors.

I waited many many years to dive into the blog world because I was really hoping that their format would improve.  It has not.  I find them to be stupidly organized and difficult to navigate & find old entries.  Unless of course, you know exactly what you're looking for.  I've always been a do-it-yourself kind of guy when it comes to software development.  And I've always been able to develop and implement more usable platforms for my needs.  To be clear, blogs are stupid!

Despite the fact that I've worked in technology for my entire adult career, I am usually a slow adopter of technologies.  And being about a decade behind on this bandwagon, is not unusual for me.  I'm kind of old fashioned.  A bit of a purist.  When the Internet started becoming popular, I can remember making fun of people who used their computers to get online.  To me, they weren't "real" computer users because they weren't writing code, getting actual work done, etc.  I was convinced that once the novelty of the Internet wore off, it would fade out or take on a more practical use, entirely owned by other computing purists.  I was wrong.

Another reason why I waited so long is because I know me.  And I know that I will sometimes write a bunch of stuff all at once.  Then I will go months and months without writing a damn thing.  I have waves of productivity, padded by huge chunks of uselessness & laziness.  I enter this endeavor knowing full well that I will probably forget to write blog entries for long periods of time.  With my goldfish memory (as my wife calls it), I will even forget that I have this site.  Then when I do remember, I will forget exactly which service I used and I'll spend hours BINGing my name trying to find the service that hosts my blog site. (I don't use Google.  Google is for communists, but that's a later blog entry).

The past few years, I have come to be a big Facebook user.  I wasn't at first (remember, late adopter), but then it finally got me.  Social media is a really strange and silly world.  There's a lot about it that makes me ashamed to even be a human.  But... it's provided a good forum for my rants.  However, I tend to be long-winded when I rant and Facebook is not good for long writings.  It definitely has a lot of limitations and restrictions.  I consider myself a "Seinfeld" type writer.  You know... the show about NOTHING.  There's no consistency or organization to my writings.  However, there is one constant: I accidentally offend over-sensitive people all the time.  I honestly don't mean to, it just happens.  I have set a record for the most un-friended person on social media.  Seriously, that's no joke.  That being said, I usually don't care when they get offended and part ways with me.  If they are that weak and insecure in their positions that they can't tolerate an opposing viewpoint, I say "good riddance"!.  It is notable, however, that the people who have trouble tolerating my viewpoints are always the people who claim to be proponents of tolerance & acceptance of everyone.  We call these morons: liberals.

But I digress... there's another reason that I hate blogs.  And I don't mean to offend anybody who writes blog entries.  A lot of my friends do.  But, generally speaking (I'm a big generalizer and it gets me in trouble), most bloggers are people who are full of themselves and just like to hear themselves talk.  I think that most blogs go completely unread, as I'm sure mine will.  Whenever I see a blog post, I always think "gee that's great... so you and your mom are pretty much the only people that are going to read your stupid post".  Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed reading many meaningful and well thought-out blog posts.  They're not ALL garbage.  But the vast majority of them are absolutely pointless.  Bloggers tend to be self-important douche buckets.  You can say that "yeah but... blogging is modern journalism and traditional journalism is a dying media".  Fine... but journalists have always been self-important douche buckets so my point is still valid.

But nonetheless, here I am... "blogging" if you will.  As silly as I think they are, it's hard to argue against the fact that they are very simple to use and provide a zero-effort turnkey solution.  I'm going to try hard to make this particular article the last time that I actually reference the term "blog". People often refer to my writings as "rants" so I'll use that more appropriate term.  You can expect my writings to be sporadic, often unrelated, and usually offensive to some people.  I am an unapologetic rabid conservative American.  I have strong views about just about everything.  But I'm told that it's entertaining to some.  If something I say makes you mad, don't take it personally.  I enjoy differing opinions and I'm always happy to help people understand how & why their wrong (relax, it's a joke).  If something I say doesn't make you mad, hang in there... you'll probably be next.

If you haven't caught on yet, I'm an asshole.  So let this first post set the stage for everything that I write going forward.