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