Circa 2500 years ago, a Greek fellow by the name of Heraclitus, observed the following:
Why, in 2020 AD, does that matter? It matters because, for all our advancement over the last two and a half millennia, the world is still a dangerous, unpredictable place and, as a result, bad things happen to good, innocent people. And, when they do, the good and innocent still need warriors to stand between them and danger. Willing, able, properly equipped and trained, warriors.
Training matters. Proper training matters more. Because when the balloon goes up, you will not “rise to the occasion” as many would have you believe. You will, however, default to your level of training. Warriors are not born, but trained.
Business Enterprises and Community Organizations do a fantastic job of convincing themselves that they are safe and secure because they have engaged in “Awareness” training, or “Active Shooter” training… or worse yet, that “it can’t happen here”. Yet, invariably, when the unthinkable happens and a violent attack occurs on premise, what happens? Best case… a handful of employees, customers, or community members are injured or killed. Why?
Because, the “training” those enterprises bought and participated in via death by PowerPoint, isn’t training at all. The preparations made, cameras bought, policies written, and signage hung don’t save a single person.
Running away is hysterical. Hiding under a desk, wrapped in terrified prayer is ineffective. Fighting back, armed with office supplies, is asinine and suicidal. And, all cameras do is record where the bodies fell. That’s not security or safety.
Most folks in any given organization have no business in a fight for life. But, someone ought to be trained to effectively respond… Right? Maybe a few someones. Trained to capably mount an Active Defense of life and property, giving Law Enforcement the time they need to respond and intervene.
Coming back to our friend Heraclitus… those aforementioned “someones” are the warriors. The one percent built to keep the other 99 safe.
So… What’s the punchline? Simply this: You and your organization do not have to remain helpless in the critical gap between the inception of a violent threat and Law Enforcement response. There are answers. There is training. There is “Heraclitus’ Niche”. There is Distributed Security.
On 5 AUG 19, in the wake of the El Paso and Dayton active shooter events, Sean Hannity recommended a volunteer initiative of former military and law enforcement officers deployed to schools and other vulnerable public areas to defend against future violent threats.
While that thinking is a step forward on the conventional thought spectrum, the team at Distributed Security, Inc (DSI) is actively training school staff and other civilians for the necessary and immediate response to threats in the critical gap between the onset of an attack and effective intervention by police.
We want to correct the fallacy that only law enforcement or ex-military can perform this task. As trainers, who have trained the highest level military, contracting and law enforcement, we can definitively state that private citizens can be trained to be safe and effective defenders of business, school, church and community. In fact, in most cases, private citizens who go through our training are better prepared to deal with an active threat than most police and military veterans. Any smart, fit, dedicated citizen can be trained to the necessary standard for the defense of innocent life. Prior military or law enforcement experience is not a requirement, and is not a guarantee of success.
In a world that is increasingly fractured and unpredictable, DSI draws heavily from the strategic ideas of William Lind’s 4th Generation Warfare theory and the OODA Loop methodology of John Boyd in our efforts to assist individuals, communities, enterprises, churches, and schools defend themselves in the event of violent threat.
In short, we begin training where many other organizations leave off. And, we train our clients to best practice, SWAT-level proficiencies in handgun, rifle, shotgun, tactical communications and tactical medicine. Our offerings are tactical and holistic. And, we actively engage and manage the necessary consistent, follow-on training beyond initial certification.
We do not believe that having had training at some point in the past is enough. Simply possessing a prior military or law enforcement credential does not keep one sharp. Threats evolve, tactics develop, and technologies advance after one leaves the training and operational world. The active shooter environment is a dynamic and asymmetric one, and those who would respond should have the benefit of appropriately dynamic and asymmetric training to meet the challenge.
In all, the most effective public safety strategy is for community organizations to insource their security capabilities as “quick reaction force” to manage emerging threats, real time. There is certainly a law enforcement role in an active shooter scenario, but as Hannity noted in his monologue, the police cannot be in all places at all times.
commend Mr Hannity for his forward thinking comments and for raising
awareness that there is a better way. Meanwhile, Distributed
Security, Inc has developed and is executing a plan that exceeds his
suggestion in breadth, depth, and effectiveness.
When I was a younger man, still in the Army, I had the opportunity to participate in the annual Nijmegen March. Nijmegen happens as a commemoration of the US’s role liberating the Netherlands in World War 2’s Operation Market Garden and was immortalized in the movie “A Bridge Too Far”.
The annual event is
a 100 mile march (25 miles a day) in and around the town of Nijmegen,
Holland. Troops are invited from around the world to participate,
but the vast majority of marchers are from US Army units.
Each morning, around
4 am, our team would get up, ruck-up, and begin the daily walk. We’d
finish and get back to our sleeping accommodations late morning,
shower, sleep for a couple hours, and then we’d hit the town to
party with the locals until, 1 or 2 am, ready to rinse and repeat.
Each morning, the roads we marched were lined with locals. Predominantly, young women. And, they would cheer and make a hell of a spectacle of themselves. Throwing flowers, paper slips with phone numbers and addresses, and various pieces of clothing at the American Paratroopers. You see… we had a reputation. While Operation Market Garden was not a complete success, the Nijmegen operation was. We were the direct descendants of those paratroopers from WWII who had walked in, smacked the Nazis in the mouth, rescued the damsel in distress… and, bedded her.
We were Kings. We
were Rockstars. We were Men among men. And, we were desired.
Around the world,
many American men had that sort of reputation and aura about them at
one time. Not so much any more.
I’m looking for a
word… Bland. No. Vanilla… mmmm… Ice Cream… Milquetoast?
Too British. Neutered? Close…
the word I’m looking for. Eunuch.
a castrated man, especially one formerly employed by rulers in the Middle East and Asia as a harem guard or palace official.
Why am I kicking this word around? Because, the vast majority of supposed 2nd Amendment “advocates” I speak to (you know… the guys who talk about being citizens as opposed to subjects) seem to be Eunuchs. Every one of them seems to have had his daddy-tackle removed.
Sure, there’s lots of tough talk. There are promises that eventually “We” (you know, the royal we) are going to cross some notional Rubicon regarding our rights and these nutless wonders are going to spring into action, locked and loaded. But… are they? Really?
Because, entire revolutions have occurred, blood in the streets, kings toppled, governments converted, borders changed, for far less than the infringements we’re currently watching occur before our very eyes. And, when you start to talk nuts and bolts with the 2A crowd, when you really start to press them about the plan, or the training, or where that line in the sand really is… it all falls apart. We’ll just rely on voting the bastards out and pay lobbyists to tell the gov’t that we’re really upset.
In a country with a God given, Constitutionally affirmed right to arms (the 2nd Amendment for the new guys), we rely on the lobbyists, lawyers, and politicians to do what men should be doing. There are a number of implications in that last sentence, and I want you to consider all of them.
By delegating our responsibility to actively preserve our rights, we are abdicating them. It is not necessary, and certainly not desirable, to lobby (i.e. beg) for our rights to be observed, honored, and respected by the Crown. They are not the Crown’s to give, much less to take away. The rightful remedy to government over-reach is to exercise our rights, forcefully if necessary. Not to grovel and whine.
Why is it, then, in the United States
of America, a country founded on the premise that Citizens possess
the right to be armed and to be able to respond violently if a
government were to attempt to deprive them of that right… Why is
it, that we are actively losing the 2A war? Why is there a battle?
Why even a debate?
Because we American (formerly) men, have traded our balls and guns for loafers and ballots. Because we’ve decided that lawyers should do the heavy lifting. Because all that training and preparing shit is hard and expensive. Because we’ve convinced ourselves that being “civilized” and soft is a good thing. Because, American men act like neutered, flaccid house cats. We act like eunuchs. As a culture, we are kept men.
Rights, particularly gun rights are maintained by unapologetically training and exercising those rights. Lobbying for them is the equivalent of sitting in a drum circle, contemplating our collective navel, and hoping for the best.
We don’t lack for good, historic role models. We American men were pioneers, mountain men, gunslingers, and war heroes. Now, we won’t even exercise our own rights, seemingly for fear of breaking a nail or offending some blue haired, female soccer player.
How’s that going for you? And, what are you willing to do about it? What’s your birthright? When will we reach our “Bridge too Far”?
In 2019, we see socialists outnumbering Republicans on the Chicago city council. The Democratic party, once the noble opposition, has been hijacked by socialists and special interest groups shredding the constitution. The public education system has been infiltrated from top to bottom with socialist/communist sympathizers indoctrinating our children with their collectivist propaganda. Polls are indicating that small majorities of millennials now favor socialism over capitalism.
Easily the most egregious example of just how entrenched socialism has become is a new media group dedicated to promoting socialism to millenials. The group, called Means TV, was a key driver of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign win. Promoting themselves as “anti-capitalists”, the group just launched a new video attacking capitalism:
While a video attacking capitalism is not new news, what is new, is the ignorance demonstrated by the writers, producers and actors in their description of capitalism. I intentionally did not use the word “lies” because a lie indicates that the speaker at least knows the truth. Like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, this is group is so blindingly ignorant that your first reaction would be to ignore them. Nobody will listen to them.
But that’s the problem. A majority of our millinials will listen to them and do their bidding. We’ve created several lost generations of programmed idiots just waiting to be filled with this type of propaganda. Too harsh, you say? Just listen to the current ring leader as she makes the rounds of late night TV soaking up the attention of the adoring hosts and audiences while speaking total gibberish.
Remember, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not an overnight sensation. She is the culmination of 100 years of battlefield preparation aimed at destroying America.
And we have let it happen on our watch.
Folks, it’s time to choose a side. Or one will be chosen for you.
I started a house painting business the month house prices peaked. I had planned on using the profits from painting to fund my film projects, but that was assuming home values weren’t going to fall 30 percent. My timing couldn’t have been worse.
Everything the Federal Reserve did to cause the housing crash was done on a much larger scale, not just in 2008, but in every year since. But while I was experiencing the unwinding of the housing bubble, I stumbled across a free audiobook of Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. I was literally painting a house when I heard the words of a man in the 1940s describing our boom and bust perfectly. I immediately knew what documentary I needed to make. To make sure we didn’t fall for the next bubble, I needed to interview people, like Ron Paul, who predicted the crash and ask them why it happened. I needed to find out what would come next.
“Moreover, the nice thing about having our individual rights codified in the Constitution is that Americans, unlike most others, don’t (or shouldn’t) have to explain ourselves to government officials. Though many Americans use ARs to hunt, I’m certain nothing in the Second Amendment (or the debates surrounding the Constitution) mention “hunting,” because the right to self-defense—both as an individual concern and a buttress against tyranny—had nothing to do with bagging deer. It was about the state taking away firearms.”
Political efforts to ban the AR-15 are part of an incremental movement by gun controllers to ban all semi-automatic guns.
Jon Alexander has raised some serious challenges to the concept of “arming teachers” to strengthen security in our schools. Allow me to shift the debate somewhat by adjusting its fundamental assumptions.
Speculation isn’t necessary
In the U.S. today, at least fourteen states have laws on the books which allow school boards to authorize concealed carry of firearms by school staff, under various conditions, while ten more states do not restrict concealed carry to school staff members only, although most of them still require specific, individual permission of the governing school board. The number is growing every year: last year, Wyoming joined; this year bills are pending in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Meantime, in Ohio alone, over 1,000 trained school staff members are carrying concealed handguns in more than one-quarter of the school districts in that state. In South Dakota, Texas, Colorado and other states, significant and growing numbers of school staff members are already legally carrying concealed firearms – while Utah has allowed anyone with a state concealed carry permit to carry a firearm on school property for going on 19 years.
So, this is not a new idea; quite the contrary. We have a considerable amount of experience with it, and because of the decentralized approach, wherein state laws and school board policies differ, we have quite a variety of experiments underway.
How is it working out? Famously. While mass shooters have not been particularly deterred by the presence of uniformed School Resource Officers (Columbine High School and Parkland, Florida being particular examples), there is no evidence of a single school shooting taking place in any district across the country where trained, non-law enforcement school staff members are carrying concealed weapons. Correlation is not causation, but that fact cannot be easily dismissed.
There are also zero examples of injuries resulting from the kind of mishaps commonly predicted by the skeptics: no accidental shootings, no rowdy students shot by frustrated teachers, no gun take-aways by students. They’re just not happening.
Away, way back in 1977, when I began writing my first novel, _The Probability Broach_ (still in print, after four decades), I was regarded as something of a nutcase because I argued that American society would be a much better, safer place if everybody who wanted to, carried a gun. I was by no means the first to do so, nor was I the only one at the time, but, except for Robert A. Heinlein, Elmer Keith, and the ghost of H. Beam Piper, I often felt very much alone in my simple, straightforward, common-sense advocacy of exercising one’s natural rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Now, of course, forty years later, armed self-defense has become a social movement. The degree to which I share responsibility for that is debatable, but I am proud of any part I may have had in it.
Last weekend (no, I am not changing the subject) was a pretty lousy one for peace and civil order in the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Egged on by various evil shamans (one of them in the States), Islamic terrorists employed an automobile and big knives to wound and murder dozens of innocent individuals who were trying to enjoy a warm summer evening—in a near-Arctic climate that doesn’t offer many of them—and whose only “crime” was that they did not choose to follow the benighted religious precepts of a 7th century Arab merchant-trader.
Once of the reasons that tax increases in Washington are such a bad idea (and one of the reasons why a value-added tax is an especially bad idea) is that the prospect of additional tax revenue kills any possibility of genuine entitlement reform. Simply stated, politicians won’t do the heavy lifting of fixing those programs if they think can use a tax hike to prop up the current system for a few more years.
However, if we don’t fix the entitlements, the United States faces a very grim fiscal future regardless of new revenue because the burden of government spending will be expanding faster than the growth of the private economy.
Indeed, tax hikes presumably will accelerate the problems by weakening economic performance, creating an even bigger gap between the growth of government spending and the growth of productive output. Sort of a double violation of my Golden Rule.
Billionaire Softbank Group Chairman and CEO Masayoshi Son revealed Monday (Feb. 27) at Mobile World Congress his plan to invest in singularity. “In next 30 years [the singularity] will become a reality,” he said, Tech Crunch reports.
“If superintelligence goes inside the moving device then the world, our lifestyle dramatically changes,” he said. “There will be many kinds. Flying, swimming, big, micro, run, 2 legs, 4 legs, 100 legs,” referring to robots. “I truly believe it’s coming, that’s why I’m in a hurry — to aggregate the cash, to invest.”
“Son said his personal conviction in the looming rise of billions of superintelligent robots both explains his acquisition of UK chipmaker ARM last year, and his subsequent plan to establish the world’s biggest VC fund,” noted TechCrunch — a new $100BN fund called the Softbank Vision Fund, announced last October
Second, it would replace depreciation with expensing, which is a very desirable change that would eliminate a very counter-productive tax on new investment outlays. This is basically what makes the plan a “cash-flow” tax.
Third, any income generated by exports would be exempt from tax but the 20-percent tax would be imposed on all imports. These “border-adjustable” provisions are what makes the plan a “destination-based” tax.
I’m a big fan of the first two provisions, but I’m very hostile to the third item.
Seems rather desperate when one is forced to use the same regurgitated, unpopular, and failed arguments one has used in years gone by.
I do recall the same reactionary types calling Florida the “Gunshine State” because its citizens had the gall to support giving themselves more control over their own security.
This repeated itself time and time again, as it will continue to and should.
You can’t defeat a distributed threat by centralizing the response… most people sense this intuitively, hence the resistance to centralize.
“In the aftermath of the deadly Orlando nightclub and Fort Lauderdale airport shootings, two Republican lawmakers in Florida are pushing to eradicate the Sunshine State’s “gun-free zones” in a move that would put more guns in public areas. Sen. Dennis Baxley, of Ocala, and Rep. Don Hahnfeldt, of The Villages, want to allow people with concealed weapon permits to carry a deadly firearm nearly anywhere, including local bars, voting booths, courthouses, public schools, colleges and university campuses, airport passenger terminals and maybe even a Miami Dolphins game.”
Remember, you are the “first responder,” by the time the police and emergency medical services arrive, it can be too late for someone who is bleeding.
Learning the basics needed to save lives during the “golden hour” isn’t rocket science.If a private can be trained in the proper application of pressure dressings and tourniquets, you can bet you can learn these simple skills yourself.
If a private can be trained in the proper application of pressure dressings and tourniquets (and they are), you too can learn these simple life-saving skills yourself.
Butler is part of the national campaign and its work to train first responders and civilians about what to do in the moments after a mass-casualty attack… “You have to think of an active shooting as a military action. The casualties are essentially combat casualties,” Butler said… More difficult is getting the message out to untrained civilians who could be in a position to stop bleeding during an attack. Butler hopes tourniquet use will eventually become a basic part of first-aid teaching like CPR and the Heimlich maneuver.
This type of technology will revolutionalize the way the world works, and what money is.
The more competition, the better, the more secure your funds will be. The market (now able to react at the speed of light) will find the value as long as no one owns a monopoly on what people want to use.
Lets go ahead and list the pros and the cons and why I suggest this as your next AR build! Pros follow. Lightweight, it weighs on average about half what an aluminum standard lower will weigh. Remember, ounces are pounds and so on. I like having an AR that is capable of 200- 300 yard shooting that weighs 5-6lbs loaded. Its NICE! Strong, I was unable to break it with standard drop testing and even some minor use of it as a hammer with the butt stock as the handle.
Your understanding of the OODA loop and having the appropriate respect for this theory will allow you to critically build on a solid foundation which will, in turn, allow you to vet ideas based on their merit, not on their popularity.
Pressing towards a tighter or more controlled OODA loops will guide you in selecting appropriate techniques and actions that will give your efforts real power.
While OODA loops are relevant in all three levels of warfare (strategic, operational, and tactical), in this section we will continue or discussion of the OODA loop and how it functions at the tactical level of gunfighting.
As we mentioned in the definition section above, the “decision making process can be seen as a time competitive observation, orientation, decision, action cycle or ‘OODA loop.’ Each party to a conflict begins by observing… To win any conflict, you need to get inside the adversary’s OODA loop (their decision making process). You can either go through the OODA loop cycle faster than your opponent or you can vary your tempos and rhythms so your opponent cannot keep up with you.”
In order to highlight the above concepts and in order to be able to see the accumulative effect one’s actions can have on the situation, let’s pretend we have a god’s eye view of a gunfight developing on a city street.
The strategy for winning a defensive gunfight is converting disadvantage to advantage.
Let’s clarify what we mean by defensive combative firearms training.
Because you are not the one instigating the confrontation, you will initially be at a disadvantage and in a reactionary and defensive state because you are behind in what John Boyd called the decision making process or the “OODA Loop”.
Conversely, because your adversary is selecting the time, palace, conditions, and weaponry for the confrontation – he will initially start with the initiative as the causal factor in your situation because he has already completed may OODA Loops before you ever even knew of him or his intent.
While starting in a reactive state is an initial disadvantage; proper training can teach you how to convert this initial reactive and disadvantageous situation to your advantage and to the disadvantage of your adversary.
Solid training programs can teach you how to react in a manner that will cause your adversary to react to your actions, and exploiting this initial success can allow you to then wrestle the initiative away from your adversary and then keep him in a reactive state so you can end the with a more favorable outcome for yourself.
The key here is for you to become the causal factor to your adversaries plan for you, and thereby placing him in a disadvantageous reactive state, and the more solid your skills are, the easier it will be for you.
Obviously, converting the initial disadvantage to advantage is key, and this key does have a price, and that price is effort in training.
“There is only one principle of war and that’s this. Hit the other fellow, as quick as you can, and as hard as you can, where it hurts him the most, when he ain’t looking.” – Field marshal William Joseph “Bill” Slim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Slim,_1st_ Viscount_Slim)
What is tactics and why should I care?
In short, tactics is “the art and science of winning engagements and battles. It includes the use of firepower and maneuver, the integration of different arms, and the immediate exploitation of success to defeat the enemy… the product of judgment and creativity…” FMFM 1
I will flesh out the above paragraph shortly, but so as not to string you along, and answer the question about why you should care about the study of tactics I can think of a few compelling reasons.
Of the 86 fatal shootings involving imitation firearms since 2015, the most common theme was mental illness: 38 of those killed had a history of it, according to their families and police reports. Fourteen of the calls were domestic disturbances. Ten others began as robberies. The remaining circumstances range from patrolling neighborhoods to serving arrest warrants to making traffic stops.
Are more laws needed to make a fake gun look fake to protect the person wielding it inappropriately?
Is the problem fake guns that look too real (whatever that means), or could other factors be at play?
Since people under a life or death situation (such as those described in the article) naturally achieve a sympathetic nervous system or (SNS) response which includes the loss of color vision; what modifications will be demanded when simply coloring guns differently doesn’t fix the problem?
It seems to me that the real problem is that some people choose to intimidate, coerce, or otherwise threaten other innocent people, and then other people react with appropriate levels of counterviolence when faced with someone acting in a manner that suggests that they or others are in immediate jeopardy of loss of life and limb.
As my friends in law enforcement say “You do stupid thing, you win stupid prizes.”
Using the force multipliers of shock, speed, and violence of action, a Georgia woman quickly routs the armed miscreants. Well done, we love it when the victim isn’t.
In Georgia, three armed would-be home invaders surely picked the wrong house when a woman came barreling in with her firearms, killing one of them. Security camera footage captured the attempted home invasion, showing the men flee as shots rang out. Two of the men are still at large. The local police department said this was a clear-cut case of self-defense. The men were shown to be carrying firearms when they entered her home (via WSB-TV):