Are We Too Self-Absorbed to Keep Evolving?

This is a correspondence between myself and a someone else within the shooting industry.  I chose as the blog post for this week to share it with you.

To give you a little bit of background: I teach Israeli Combat Shooting.  It's unique, different, nontraditional to those who are unfamiliar with it.  A video came up that demonstrated the skill.  It was a short 5 minute video of a skill that takes days to master.  However, many within the shooting industry immediately put it down.  I was amazed that people were so negative without ever trying it or understanding it completely.  I must also praise those instructors who chose to comment by stating that they would like to try it to better understand it...that is the attitude that I would expect from most people, specifically from instructors.

Before I get into the discussion you must understand the following:

• Not all tactics and skills apply for everybody.  But anyone should be able to get something out from anything they learn.
• In the full class we spend a considerable amount of time discussing why we do what we do in the manner we do it.  A luxury not available in the video.
• The video only shows a small portion of what we covered in the class.

My main issue wasn't with the criticism, I am used to that.  I was however surprised that so many "reputable" personalities within the industry were so judgmental without ever trying it.  

One of the expected results though, at least for me, was that I took many of the comments to heart and did an internal review of how we teach the skills.  Can I explain things better?  Can I modify the skill so it is more applicable to the vast majority of US Shooters without losing its integrity and purpose?  At the end of the day, we must evolve and become better.  I figured I can be better than all of those instructors and use new information (comments) to better myself instead of just sweeping it under the carpet as invalid.

So here you go...

My Email:

I have been following the various comments that came up as a result of the video.  At first I got frustrated with the feedback from people who never tried it or criticized the Israeli style of shooting with little understanding of the principles behind it.  I spent hours debating with many people and trying to explain why we do what we do in the way we do it.  Ultimately I tried to explain that different missions and environments require different tactics.  Many others liked it and provided positive feedback and expressed the will to try and learn more about it.
I realized that people fear or put down what they are unfamiliar with.  Keeping a narrow sighted view instead of trying new things and taking from it what may be beneficial for them.  I personally try to always learn from others.
With that, I learned a few new things from those discussions.  I learned what parts of the skills they had most issues understanding or applying.  I used that understanding to go to the range and see if there is a different way I can teach the skill, or maybe even modify it to accomplish the same goals yet not seem as “out of the box” as the original technique calls for.  I always pride myself in ever evolving, from the self-defense/Defensive Tactics we teach, to firearms and small team tactics, if we don’t evolve we are doomed to lose.
As of recent I have had the opportunity to teach the class with the new “modifications”.  I explain things a little differently, and I use different tactile points of reference to accomplish the same goals.  It has been received with overwhelming positive reviews and feedback..and even shot placements on targets reflect a better understanding of the skill.

The response:
It seems that the anonymity of the internet really allows people to be the jerks they always wanted to be in person but were afraid someone would punch them in the face. The Israeli method is very different than how we train here although the fundamentals are essentially the same. You are right that anytime you expose people to something different they are always resistant at first. I think you have the right attitude which is to take the criticism, filter out the garbage, and use what is constructive to alter and improve your own methods.
This highlights what I see as a big problem in firearms training (which I don't think applies to you). Each instructor that has his own method gets attention by being controversial and inflammatory (usually on purpose). They bad mouth other instructors and other methods as being ineffective or out of date and surround themselves with converts to their system who basically become yes men and toadies and who think their master can do no wrong and every other instructor is an idiot.
These schools basically become closed systems unwilling to try or learn about other methods except so far as needed to criticize them.
I attend  and observe a lot of different methods and schools from beginner civilian to military and law enforcement. I certainly don't always agree with everything that is taught but I see the value in all of it. The only real issue I have is that since I take all these different classes and since each instructor has different methods I never build much muscle memory in any one system. In my own personal CCW and training I do force myself to pick one way of doing things that is most comfortable for me and makes the most sense and stick with it for the sake of consistency.

My question to you is: are instructors really so retarded that they just sham everything else without trying it first?

What were your experiences?

As always, stay safe and watch your six.
BK Blankchtein
Masada Tactical Protective Services

The Catch 22 of Effective Security

I wrote before about my belief that most security professionals unfortunately focus too much on the reactive nature of security, rather than the proactive aspect of it (Check that blog post here).  Aside from the fact that the reactive part is more tangible (more on this soon), it is also without a doubt the “sexier” aspect of security.  After all, it is much more exciting to go in guns blazing and engage a threat than it is to prevent the threat to begin with.  Example: how many people took dignitary protection courses where the emphasis was on the firearms training?  That is obviously the wrong approach as the whole goal of a protective detail is to avoid threats to begin with (via proper advance work, counter surveillance initiatives, proper intelligence gathering, and adequate security posture).  If handguns come out during a security detail then we must assume that some big mistakes occurred leading to it.  Another example would be Active Shooter Response: police and first responders train heavily on how to respond to an active shooter/threat situation.  However, by the time they respond they are already behind the 8-ball and are fighting a losing battle.  Even if the shooter managed to shoot only one round, he (the shooter) has already won.  A better approach would be to not allow the shooter in to begin with.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am as much of a proponent of making sure that if you are in a position where you must engage a threat than you have to make sure you do not lose.  That is one fight that you MUST win and decisively so.  Be it addressing an active shooter or an potential assassin on your dignitary.  If forced to react skills must be sharp and effective.  But…it should be secondary to effective deterrence and detection skills and tactics.

During my career as a security consultant I found out though that being good doesn’t always pay off.  If performing your duties effectively, a security professional should mitigate risks to such a level that nothing happens.  Unfortunately that is often times interpreted by the organization or individual who hired you as a reason to not need you any more.  After all, nothing happened for a while, so your services are obviously no longer needed.  Their narrow sighted view of the picture prevents them from seeing that it is because of your efforts that nothing has happened.  If you do your job right nothing happens, and if something happens you must suck at your job.  Either way you lose.

Back to being tangible, or measurable variables now.  One can quantify and qualify hits on targets, or operationally hits on bad guys.  What one cannot quantify is all the catastrophes that were potentially averted by implementation of proper security measures.  How does one measure something that didn't happen?

Reality is that it doesn’t have to be this way.  As threats are becoming more apparent, global, and capture more of the public attention, it is becoming easier for security professionals, from Chief Security Officers to dignitary protection specialists, and even police administrators, to justify their existence and their value by contrasting their work with the cost of liability and damages associated with a potential threat.  In other words, by showing what a realistic and probable threat would cost the organization/individual, the security professional can better articulate the cost of his efforts (from salaries to implementation of security initiatives).  Nowadays, security professionals who effectively do their job, can justify a seat around the table at the C-suite, and increase value by demonstrating how much money their efforts are saving the organization.

Ultimately though the decision is one: a security professional must do what is right.  And the right thing to do is prevent and mitigate threats and risks to the best of their ability.  Failure to do so is not only a blemish on their reputation (and by association, that of other security professionals), but it may also cost lives and money, none of which is acceptable.   All we can do is be professionals and improve the way we present our value to those who hire us.

As always, stay safe and watch your six. 

BK Blankchtein

Masada Tactical Protective Services    

Tacticool

Fabs are great. God knows they keep me in business. You saw a cool new holster on TV? sure I can get it for you. That new fancy gun? Yeah, but it'll cost you. And what about that new takedown technique? It has to be the best if (insert name here) does it!

Reality is that often times it is hard to say what came first, the chicken or the egg. Is reality fed by these fads, or is pop culture imitating reality? Truth is that it doesn't matter. What people must understand are too things:

1. No gear, regardless of how impressive it looks, will ever be substitute to quality training and efficiency with said gear. 
2. What you choose to use (from gear to tactics) must fit your individual needs, mission, likes and dislikes, budget, SOPs (if applicable), etc.  what seemed to work great for one person may be completely inappropriate for you. Here are a few examples that I came across recently:

Fixed blades for cops:  We teach edged weapon tactics for police.  At the end of the day, most will carry a “Rescue tool” regardless of policies, so we may as well provide them with the training of using that tool as a last resort defensive tool.  We also help them develop policies for their agencies for carrying and using these blades.  A common consequence is that officers want the biggest knife out there to carry on their belts or thigh rigs.  That is inappropriate for their daily mission, may actually increase officer’s risk due to fear of easy access by an assailant and losing that knife to them, and of course the good old reception by the public.  The only ones who should possibly carry fixed blade knives, in my opinion, are members of tactical teams, EOD, or other specialized units with specific needs for such a tool.

Holster types and holster equipped jackets/shirts/etc.:  This is probably the one aspect that prompted more discussions than any other fab.  Especially rookies, but by no means limited to them, get caught up in the “I want what he is using” mentality.  I agree that a learning process must be implemented and people must find what works for them…and the only way to effectively do that is by trial and error.  With that said, several things must be kept in mind: if you carry a certain way on duty, than shouldn’t your off duty carry at the very least mimic the same movement pattern?  Meaning, if you carry on your hip, than would putting an off duty gun in a jacket’s side pocket, ankle holster, or any other “cool” contraption be beneficial? Or would you set yourself for failure due to muscle memory confusion under stress?  On a current TV show agents carry their sidearms in a Small of the Back holster.  Not sure how many of you tried it, but it is not the most comfortable way of carrying (specifically when driving or sitting at a desk), the draw is awkward, and the shooter ends up flagging many non-target areas before pointing at the threat.  But, because it is done by these agents on TV than it must be good.

back heel spinning triple kicks:  Man, do those look cool when Chuck Norris does them.  But then again, that is Chuck Norris, and unless you were part of Delta Force, a Texas Ranger, and a Karate Champion, you probably have no need for it.  They look fancy, but there is nothing about them that would be more effective or easier to execute than a good kick to an opponent’s groin.  Period.  Most fancy kicks far exceed normal human physical abilities, and when we add gear carried by police, military, or even the average civilian, we see how these kicks will most likely result in you being on the ground getting your behind handed to you.

In conclusion, do not get hooked on what looks good on TV, magazines, or by your neighbor next door who claims to be a secret special agent.  Do your homework, find out what works for you, and make sure it fits your needs and abilities.  And for god’s sake, get some good quality training to supplement your chosen gear.

As always, stay safe and watch your six. 

BK Blankchtein

Masada Tactical Protective Services  

Opacity: It's What They Think They Know

This is the old debate about whether one, who is legally allowed to, and in a jurisdiction that permits it, should carry his sidearm concealed or openly.  Both have merit, and both have their drawbacks. 

Open carry allows one to project the fact that he is arm, thus hardening himself and his environment as a potential target. A would be criminal seeking a quick victim may be deterred by the sight of a handgun on his would-be-target and force him to go look for a victim who represents a lower risk to his own well being. After all, most of these criminals are cowards and try to avoid engaging those who would potentially fight back. On the same token, if said criminal is determined, or maybe the armed individual is just an obstacle on the way to bigger things, such as a mass casualty incident (active shooter), one can argue that carrying openly would elevate that person to the top of the "must be eliminated" list, after all, he represents the highest risk to the criminal and he may try to neutralize that risk as soon as possible. 

We live in an era where elderly people and children are targeted for their relative inability to resist, AND police officers are targeted for no other reason than wearing a uniform and carrying a gun. Open carry is sometimes a good option.

The opposing argument for carrying a legally owned firearm is carrying it in a concealed fashion. Proponents of concealed carry take the approach of lowering the risk of having a Bullseye on one's back by virtue of not showcasing the fact they are armed, yet maintaining the ability to respond and utilize the element of surprise when doing so. This group prefers the reactive (in a defensive sense) measure rather than the proactive (deference) measure.

Neither group is wrong and each person acts based on his training, environment, legal restrictions (for example, many states allow open carry without the need for a permit, thus making it the preferred legal manner of carry), and moral/ethical view of the role of the defender. 

For myself, I like being more like Israel's nuclear program. For years the existence of such program was denied and any mentioning of it was preceded by the term "alleged". Today, Israel practices what is called the "Policy of Opacity", in which the official government of Israel does not confirm nor denies the existence of a nuclear program, or the extent of any would be such alleged program. The goal of the Policy of Opacity is to essentially say: "We have the nukes.  You know we have the nukes. You are not sure about the fact or the extent to which we have the nukes. Therefore you will think twice before attacking in case our nukes are much more advanced and numerous than you think"...only, without actually saying all of that. 

The way I choose  to carry my handgun is similar in its approach. I maintain a high level of awareness when in public. I carry myself as someone that would possibly be carrying a handgun. I may even be dressed as a professional gun-totter (wearing a suit for dignitary protection, or in Tactical attire for training sessions).  But you won't see the gun (it is concealed). Thus, I hope, I convey a certain level of deterrence, and some confusion/uncertainty amongst any would-be assailants, without exposing what I truly have, or how well I can use it. 

As always, stay safe and watch your six. 

BK Blankchtein

Masada Tactical Protective Services    

Technology: Is it the bane of our existence?

I wrote a piece about this issue for a law-enforcement publication recently and thought it to be an important enough issue to write about it again.

What prompted the original article was a discussion about the proliferation of red-dot sights for handguns.  There is no doubt that we cannot fight technological advancements, and that the use of tools will only become more common.  After all, look at optics for long guns as an example.  Not too long ago riflemen only used iron sights, today optics cover the spectrum from holosights to precision scopes, and even a new generation that would track a target and make adjustments for you!

No doubt an advantage on the battlefield.  However, my issue with technology is two-fold:

1. technology fails, and
2. often times technology is used to mask a problem, not to solve an issue.

I won't spend too much time discussing the first point: Technology fails.  Anyone who has done this long enough will admit that Murphy is a pain in the behind, and when you need that piece of equipment, be it an optic, communication device, navigation tools, even a vehicle, or anything else, to work, you can almost bet that it won't.  Therefore, being able to use "old-school" equipment and methods become paramount.  Unfortunately the art of navigating and orienteering by use of a map and compass for example is all but gone.

When one becomes dependent on technology he may find himself ill-prepared when the situation truly requires use of that tool.  Redundancy is key in assuring success in executing a mission.

The second point is far more important in my mind.  Using the handgun optic is a perfect example.  if you think about it, handguns are deployed in close distances and grave situations.  There is a trade off when using a handgun: precision versus time.  Faster shots give up some precision, and precise shots take a little longer.  I would assume that the red-dot adaptation for handguns was designed to make shots fast AND accurate.  What bugs me is that we prefer spending the money on outfitting officers, soldiers, security professionals etc. with more gear (which takes more space, adds weight, requires more maintenance, and as discussed before...may fail) instead of spending the time and effort to better train them!!!

I bet that every proficient shooter can hit a target 5 feet away in fractions of a second.  Does using a red-dot optic really going to improve the shot that much?  Doubtfully.  Arguably, the despondency on the use of the optic may cause the shooter to take more time to properly acquire the red dot and place it on target, which may in fact cost the shooter valuable time.  Unfortunately we are creating a generation that is incapable of properly executing a basic task but doesn't even recognize because technology allows them to marginally complete it!

One more issue with technology, specifically social media and text messaging: people are losing their ability to communicate in person.  Social interaction is limited to social media and face-to-face is almost shunned upon.  Younger generations can't spell right because they are so used to short-hand text messages.  When it comes to saving lives, the ability to communicate is paramount.  Are we heading down a downwards spiral?!?

The list of course goes on and on.  

I am a big fan of technology, and will be the first one to admit that I try to take full advantage of what it has to offer.  That said, I try to not let it overshadow the basic skills that I need to improve on, and use it as a back-up to my abilities, not the other way around.  Seek the training to improve your skills, and use to technology to fail-proof it...not to do it for you!

Stay safe,

BK Blankchtein

Masada Tactical Protective Services

Contact!

Recently I had the opportunity to discuss with a few individuals the merits of hip shots at close proximity.  The people I was talking to were from a large gamut of professions and interests and included firearms instructors, reporters, students, and enthusiasts.  The main question was regarding my personal opinion about the "hip shot" when in close proximity.

Let me also state in advance, that I have personally taught this skill in the past.  But...in all honesty and practicality, I am a firm believer that one will never have the opportunity to truly execute this skill.

Let's break it down into the physiology and psychology of the skill.

From a technical standpoint, presenting a handgun requires the following steps:

1. Addressing the holster, this includes: accessing it (uncovering concealment), asserting a positive grip, and manipulating any kind of retention device that may be present.
2. Clearing the holster by drawing the handgun.
3. Orienteering the handgun towards the target.
4. Aiming (whether by using point-shoot mechanisms or sighted shooting).
5. Firing.

Every event that requires one to present a handgun is most likely a stressful, dynamic, and fast evolving incident that will cause one to lose performance ability to some extent.  The close proximity hip shot assumes that an assailant is literally "on you".  The chances of you being able to perform the above mentioned sequence while addressing a violent attack is slim to none.  Not to say it is impossible, but probably not the most realistic.  The way I have seen it done would most likely have the shooter strike at the paper target or cover his head as if addressing an assailant in extreme close proximity, and then drawing and firing from the hip.  Do you truly believe that it would be that simple when someone violently attacks you?

A better approach, at least in my mind, is to prioritize threats.  When being attacked at close range a better approach may be to utilize violence to create space.  Space equals time.  Time that can and should be used to introduce the handgun.  Often times the introduction of the handgun prematurely may result in handgun retention issues, failure to effectively utilize said handgun (i.e. missing the target and/or introducing malfunctions), and the risk of losing sight of the opponent while being focused on the handgun thus failing to see other risks that may cost one his/her life.  Once the handgun has been introduced, you can use your regular combat shooting style to address the threat without being dependent on the hip-shot.

Hip shots are fun and cool to execute.  No doubt about that.  And when striking at a paper target and then shooting it, it seems to have merit.  Reality is that the paper target is not actively attacking you, stressing you out, or otherwise going for your gun.  Put those variables in context and you may realize that drawing your handgun at that point in time may not be the best option.

In the event that your handgun was already in hand when attacked at close proximity, don't forget that you cannot always discharge the weapon.  Tactically, you may have a poor backdrop (other people for example), so you may want to use that handgun as a blunt object, once again creating space and time to better your position and re-engage the target as needed.

Some food for thought.

Stay safe,
BK Blankchtein
Masada Tactical Protective Services

A New Approach to Active Shooter Response

We have been facing a pandemic.  Not only are the incidents of "Active Shooter" been growing in frequency and in the toll these events claim, but just as disturbing are the many tactical response options we train our first responders in.  From the FBI's ALERT program, to various other schools that teach anything from a team response to a single (first responder) officer entry, all programs state they are the best and most suitable to address this tragic events.

I, for one, believe that all of these approaches are not only ill-perceived, but down right dangerous and counter productive.  Anyone within the security industry should be able to relate as well.  When developing a security protocol for a dignitary, an event, or a location we do not approach it with the mindset of what we will do when things go bad, but rather we think in terms of avoiding and mitigating possible threats to begin with.  In other words, we are proactive in our approach rather than reactive.  As we very well should be.  So why is this different when discussing Active Shooter response?

Security experts often times refer to the Four D's.  These stand for: Deter, Detect, Defend, and Destroy.  Active Shooter response as we address it today concentrates around the Destroying, essentially being reactive, with no real regard to the proactive measures of deterrence, detection, and defense.

There is no doubt that training our police officers to response swiftly and effectively to these mass casualty events is paramount.  But I believe that efforts should be given to mitigate many of these events before they happen.

Perhaps investing funds in establishing relationships between schools/workplaces/industries and local law-enforcement in terms of sharing intelligence would be more beneficial.  Maybe, teaching security elements within these establishments to recognize suspicious behavior prior to an incident taking place could in fact expedite response and prevent the event altogether.  If we created safer and tighter security rings, meaning more effective security measures around our protected assets (most valuable of all our children's lives), we could mitigate the malicious actions of a potential ill-doer.

Lastly, the way we train those would be victims must change.  Shelter in place and barricade policies have proven to do little more than concentrate potential targets in one location, making toll of life much higher than it should be.  A better approach that has been implemented successfully by various organizations we work with is to teach these would be victims to fight back!  Nobel idea, isn't it?  And valuable because it accomplishes several important objectives:  it throws an attacker off his/her comfort zone because such attackers expect no resistance at all; it plays into the "numbers game" by engaging a suspect and making it harder for him/her to engage others; and lastly, it allows those who are already there to address a threat rather than just wait for the cavalry.  This approach has already been put to the test with much success (including averting one possible shooting situation) in local organizations.  In one such event employees of the organization overcame an armed suspect with no casualties!

I truly believe we need to overhaul the way we look at Active Shooter response.  Instead of just concentrating on what would the police do, we should stop worrying about public perception and outcry about "profiling", and begin implementing better screening and defense protocols to mitigate potential events to begin with.

Stay safe, watch your six, and stay vigilant.
BK Blankchtein
Masada Tactical Protective Services

Is the Government a Good Metric for Comparison?

I read a lot of opinion pieces, and recently within the executive protection community there has been a lot of discussion about the trespassing incident at the White House.  Comments were made about the performance of the Secret Service and other local agencies in dealing with this event.  It got me to think, are we correct in comparing the level of our training and performance to that of the government, be it local, state or federal?

Let's examine a few examples:

If you ran your business' fiscal books the way the government ran its, would that have been a good option?  Of course not.  As a business, or as an individual, we cannot afford the level of debt (even if you factor in proportional expenses) that the government does.  Some may argue not even the government can afford it...but that's a different blog post.  Reality is that if we ran our finances the way the government does we will be bankrupt and living on the streets in no time.  We must exercise better practices to assure we are profitable and can operate within certain fiscal guidelines.

The Secret Service has a specific mission and a tremendous budget to complete it.  Most corporate security entities have to deal with a much more diverse set of threats, higher sensitivity to public perception (We can't get away with some of the stuff the USSS would), and a much smaller budget to complete it with.  This typically translates to a more innovative approach, creativity, and the development of truly multi-faceted professionals.  Leaders and team players are the only ones who can succeed, while in the government one can pretty much cruise in the shadows until retirement if he just doesn't mess up too much...and sometimes even if he did.

Training is another aspect that I believe the corporate dignitary and executive protection community has an advantage over the federal government.  It is true that the government has a larger budget and access to some excellent trainers.  But with that comes a tendency to get stuck in a rut, believe that what worked forever will continue to work, and training is based on accommodating the lowest common denominator.  In the private sector, since we all try to better ourselves and "one up" the competition, security professionals are more likely to seek advance training, develop new sets of skills, and stay sharp and current on threats and means to address them.  It is the responsibility of the foot soldier just as much as it is that of the manager.  We are always training and improving...or at least we should be.

Those are only a few examples of why I believe the private sector is developing and producing higher caliber people.  Of course exceptions apply and we also have our share of "wannabes" and slackers, and by sheer numbers alone probably much more than the government.  But those who shine through, progress in the industry, and truly make the profession their own, are much better at what they do compared to the average government official.

So keep growing as a person and as a professional.  You may not be on government retirement plan, but you are probably just as good if not better than most government officials out there!

Stay safe,
BK Blankchtein
Owner, Masada Tactical Protective Services
www.MasadaProtection.com