In the last installment of Phillip Van Cleave’s force-on-force training report [not shown], the gun guy’s active shooter exercise followed the accepted police protocol. A group of three or four shooters teamed-up to take on the bad guy, moving as a unit. Robert Duncan [not shown] recently wrote in to the Force Science Research Center to report his tactical findings. The active-shooter instructor for the Waterloo (IA) Police Department reckons that forming a three or four-man team—or a CF like the one shown in this video—is not as effective as sending in two-man teams from different directions . . .
Ask a random sampling of citizens why they’re packing heat. Chances are someone will use the word “parachute.” It’s a lousy metaphor. Other than skydivers and the 101st Airborne, who wears a parachute in a modern airplane? You’re a lot more likely to need a concealed carry gun than a parachute. Second, a parachute is relatively passive device. A concealed carry gun’s effectiveness depends entirely on its owner’s judgement and ability. And third, a parachute doesn’t lose utility over time. A concealed carry gun is useless the moment you run out of ammunition. Which raises a life-or-death question: how much ammunition do you need when you’re carrying a concealed weapon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klxPyme4dqQ Pity the poor fourth rule of gun safety: Identify your target, and what is behind it. That’s gun guru Jeff Cooper’s terminology, and it lacks any of the clarity of gun safety’s Big Three. (All guns are always loaded; Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy; Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target.) There’s got to be a better way to tell shooters to make sure it’s safe to shoot at their target ’cause there might be behind something behind it you don’t want to shoot. See what I mean?
This website has highlighted the monumental stupidity of gun buyback programs (a.k.a. gun crime theater). We will continue to do so, wherever this “I know! Let’s get broken ass weapons off the street while flirting with the possibility of creating a black market for functional stolen weapons!” idea rears its taxpayer-bilking head (or something like that). Heres the trick to reducing gun crime: take guns away from criminals. Note to gun control advocates: it’s illegal for convicted criminals to possess firearms. All you have to do is yank their chain. Like this . . .
Yesterday, we reported that Smith & Wesson’s profits have cratered. The gunmaker’s bean counters fingered a general decline in gun sales. TTAG was born on a Thursday, but not last Thursday. In fact, we’ve been seeing stories around the ‘net indicating a slow, steady growth in gun sales. And now this from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF): “The FBI has released its National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figures for August 2010. NSSF-adjusted figures (718,971) show a 4.6 percent increase over August of last year (687,252) . . . Though not a direct correlation to firearms sales, the adjusted NICS data provide a more accurate picture of current market conditions.” We “blame” liberalization (liberation?) of the concealed carry permitting process across the country.