Blog

Intent Matters

A disturbing trend is present in a couple of governmental agencies. The National Safety Council (NSC) and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) list firearm violence statistics divorced from intent. Furthermore, the CDC seems to be heading in the direction of combining firearm injuries and fatalities into a single category: firearm injuries (fatal and non-fatal). You can see my previous posts on the CDC and firearm suicides for more information.

Why is it wrong to divorce intent from statistics? First, you can’t solve problems. If you simply present firearm violence statistics without intent, you are simply trying to say “firearms bad.” As I explain in my book, 98.7 percent of injurious violent crime has limited firearm use (less than 15 percent for aggravated assault and robbery and almost non-existent for rape). Secondly, much of injurious violent crime has a disturbing trend – the victim knows the offender, and the crime happens at the home or near the home. Even for murder/non-negligent homicide being 1.3 percent of all violent crime from 2015 to 2019, 40 percent of that involved people that know each other. The other 60 percent is “relationship unknown” between the victim and offender.

What is the conclusion from these statistics around firearm violence? Well, we know that suicide is around 55 percent of firearm fatalities. I discuss this issue in depth in my post on suicides and firearms. I want to focus in on the remaining 45 percent.

What is the perception about this 45 percent? I would argue that the perception is that it is this 45 percent is the domain of mass shooters and violent criminals targeting civilians. However, this cannot be correct as mass shooter fatalities don’t add up to this 45 percent figure. When we look at the 60 percent “relationship unknown” of the 1.3 percent of murder/non-negligent homicide, we begin to get a clue. Injurious violent crime has key circumstances for civilians where, primarily, the victim knows the offender and the crime occurs at home or near the home. These facts mean that law enforcement would likely know who killed the victim.

What happens when law enforcement doesn’t know who killed the victim? Well, I would speculate these are criminals targeting other criminals, primarily due to the buying, selling, and distribution of illegal drugs (similar historically to alcohol prohibition). Of course, other statistics contribute to this 45 percent, such as accidents, justified homicides, and mass shootings, but these values are quite low in comparison. While I’m only talking about fatalities here, the same would apply to injuries. Law enforcement can figure out firearm injuries with civilians due to the circumstances involving injurious violent crime. They are not going to know anything about firearm injuries between criminals. If a criminal is wounded and goes to the emergency room, they most certainly won’t be detailing their criminal behavior to law enforcement.

For the Uniform Crime Reports, which would involve law enforcement in fatalities and emergency room firearm injuries, we need to have additional data gathered. Why this data is not currently gathered is beyond me (as law enforcement should have this data), but the following data would be a good start:

  • Was the victim injured?
  • Did the victim have a violent criminal record?
  • Did the offender, if known, have a violent criminal record?
  • Did the victim have an active justice status (probation, parole, bail)?
  • Did the offender have an active justice status?
  • What was the toxicity report on the victim?
  • What was the toxicity report on the offender?
  • In the law enforcement officer’s opinion, were the victim and offender engaged in criminal activity when the crime occurred?

Intent matters because if these crimes are committed by criminals targeting other criminals, gun regulation is going to be about as useful as drug regulation.

Police Marksmanship: Violence Skill vs. Firearm Skill

In a previous post, I discussed the difference between firearm and violence skill. I want to expand on this topic here. The driver is the article “Hitting (or missing) the mark: An examination of police shooting accuracy in officer-involved shooting incidents,” for which the citation is at the bottom. This document costs money to download, so I’ll summarize the basics here. Also, I would like to put in my two cents on variables I believe are missed in these studies. Lastly, I want to explore the ramifications for those who carry concealed firearms (CCF).

For those interested in more detail, please download the study for your review. The study has an excellent bibliography for future research as well.

Background

Before we get into the study itself, I will selectively quote from it to establish the background of police training and accuracy with a firearm in Officer-Involved Shootings (OIS).

  • “Vila and Morrison (1994) note that although the amount – and quality – of firearms training received by officers over the last century has increased considerably, there appears to have been little improvement in shooting accuracy.”
  • “[…] [B]elow-average police shooting accuracy has been consistently established in the literature […]”

In short, despite significant improvements in the quality of firearms training, there has been no measurable improvement in police skill when discharging their firearm in an OIS. Unfortunately, police are often below average, sometimes significantly so. This fact is very troubling, especially for civilians who CCF because the police will train more and have more sophisticated training than civilians. If police are inaccurate after such training, civilians will likely be as well.

Study Results

Here are a couple of notable quotes from the study.

  • “Therefore, while the [Dallas] police were accurate in 54 percent of shooting incidents, they were only accurate 35 percent of the time with respect to the total number of rounds discharged.”
  • “[…] [Dallas] officers were less accurate when discharging their firearm at non-white suspects, during nighttime hours and when the suspect’s weapon increased in dangerousness. Additionally, in analyzing hit rates, an increased level of visual threat increased the shooting accuracy.”

I must confess to being a little confused why there is so much emphasis on race and ethnicity over other variables. For example, Chinese people may be a minority in America, but they certainly are not when considering the world’s population. Chinese people may be well represented in California and even better in San Francisco. Further, there are certain areas in San Francisco where they are no doubt the majority. If the OIS occurred in such an area, what is the point of saying listing race and ethnicity (i.e., non-white, minority) if we aren’t going to provide a critical context?  I would much rather see the study describe a variable that indicated whether the suspect was moving or stationary when the firearm was discharged. That variable is way more important to understand. It may be that race and ethnicity correlate to a suspect moving or not, but who knows for sure. I don’t mean this as a criticism of this study but around the gathering of data.

In the study, the number of OIS incidents is much higher at night, at around two-thirds, compared to during the day. I certainly feel that night shooting is much more difficult; the study reflects that difference. This fact is also common sense. Certainly, distance plays a role as well, but it needed to be captured in the data.

Ultimately, if I were going to capture accuracy statistics about OIS incidents, I would require the following data:

  • Distance to suspect. This metric can also be influenced by whether the suspect and officer were moving.
  • Running, walking, or stationary suspect. This metric can be complex as the suspect may have started stationary, then ran. Alternatively, they may have run and then were cornered.
  • Running, walking, or stationary officer. Furthermore, was the officer tired or exhausted from chasing a suspect when they tried to shoot.
  • Day or night.
  • Presence of innocents.
  • Officer’s weapon type.
  • Shots hit / shots fired.
  • Previous Accuracy Standard (PAS).
  • Violence Skill Factor (VSF).

I’ll explain PAS and VSF in the next section.

Hidden Factors Hypothesis

In some studies, there is an attempt to capture an officer’s experience. However, I feel that there is more to it than that. Here is a quote from the study:

  • “Although existing literature suggests that the likelihood of an officer discharging their firearm throughout their professional career is relatively low (e.g., Smith, 2004) […].”

If that is true, we have a situation where the OIS incidents may constantly involve officers who had previously never fired their gun at a suspect.  This fact would be very similar for those who CCF. However, it is essential to know that there are officers who typically fire one round, hit the suspect, and never shoot again at the suspect. In short, we know that accuracy is obtainable in these situations.

What could account for this discrepancy? Well, I think there are two things:

  1. An officer isn’t going to be more accurate in a violent situation than they were in their firearms training class. We need to know how accurate they were before the OIS.
  2. How experienced an officer is at violence may be the issue. This experience is different from the number of years served.  

The first one is just a matter of data collection. The second one is more complex. Here is how I would approach it.

  • The number of arrests the officer has made (NA).
  • The number of arrests where:
    • The suspect was a previously arrested violent criminal. (VCA)
    • The suspect resisted arrest (VC-RA)
    • The officer used physical force to make the arrest. (VCRA-PF)
    • The officer used weapon force to make the arrest. (VCRA-WF)

We could calculate the Violence Skill Factor using coefficients (CE) to weigh the categories properly. Here is an example formula:

  • VSF = (VCA*CE1 + VCA-RA*CE2 + VCRA-PF*CE3 + VCRA-WF*CE4) / NA

I would also add: If VSF > 1, then VSF = 1.

Here is an example: NA = 500; VCA = 100; VC-RA = 50; VCRA-PF = 25; VCRA-WF=25; CE1 = 1; CE2=1.5; CE3 = 2 ; CE4 = 3.

  • VSF = (100*1 + 50*1.5 + 25*2 + 25*3)/500 = 0.6
  • 0.6 < 1, so VSF = 0.6

At this point, we will factor in the Previous Accuracy Standard (PAS) and try to get a metric for predicting the officer’s accuracy in an OIS.

  • Prediction = PAS * VSF

For this example, we would expect the officer to be about 60 percent as accurate as they were in firearms training.

My idea here would be to work on what values a given police department would have for the coefficients based on historical data. Then, when a new OIS happens, evaluate the prediction against the actual. If we get a reasonable prediction rate, this information may help police departments. On the other hand, if no good predictions can be made, we are missing other factors, or perhaps handgun accuracy cannot be predicted for violent dynamic events.

Difficulties With CCF

Civilians who CCF will likely never discharge their weapons in a Defensive Gun Use (DGU) situation. If they do discharge it, it may be the only time they ever will in their lifetime. Accordingly, if it turns out VSF is relevant to police departments, it won’t be relevant to civilians who CCF. Civilians will not get the experience necessary to excel in these circumstances.

What if VSF is not relevant to police departments? I think it points to a general issue of handgun accuracy, violence, and stress. Handguns are hard to shoot accurately at a distance and at moving targets. Throwing in stress makes it worse. Alternative ways of shooting a handgun may be required to achieve decent accuracy. For example, quickly deployed to a handgun, a separate pistol brace could improve accuracy substantially, turning the pistol into a Short Barrel Rifle (SBR). These options may be more suited to civilians who CCF than police departments. Unfortunately, the unrelenting focus on speed must be overcome to at least try these options out.

Another consideration is that these factors do not matter for most civilian DGUs. As most DGUs don’t result in the firearm being discharged and when the firearm is discharged, our best study shows that the distance between the victim and offender is approximately arms length. In short, it may very well be another difference between police and civilians regarding violent encounters.

Conclusion

For people who believe that police and civilians who CCF have the same threat types, police shooting statistics are bad news. Police have been increasingly well-trained in firearms over the last several decades and experience violent encounters much more often than civilians. Yet, their accuracy in OIS incidents has remained dismal. If I were a betting man, I would bet that civilians against these same threats would be worse.

All is not lost for the police though. Along with properly gathering relevant data, there may be two hidden factors – previous marksmanship and violence experience – that when properly compensated for, may give us a better accuracy prediction rate. More research is needed.

Ultimately, for people who CCF, the combination stress due to violence and the difficulty of handguns may be too potent a combination to overcome. Being open to additional concealable accessories that increase the accuracy of handguns at the cost of speed may lead to better marksmanship. However, our best data shows that civilians aren’t facing the same threats as the police, and because of that, perhaps OIS incidents aren’t a reflection of civilian DGUs where the firearm is discharged.

Citation

Donner, C.M. and Popovich, N. (2019), “Hitting (or missing) the mark: An examination of police shooting accuracy in officer-involved shooting incidents,” Policing: An International Journal, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 474-489. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-05-2018-0060

William English: 2021 National Firearm Survey, Updated Analysis

One of my biggest regrets in my book was stumbling across English’s research way too late. I was only able to mention it briefly. In fact it is worse than that, because I hadn’t heard of it, I had assumed that some of the Defensive Gun Use (DGU) statistics I referenced came from Kleck’s research when they may have come from English’s research. I hope to do a deep dive and issue corrections sometime this year. This mistake is embarrassing for me as I may be comparing English’s research to, well, English’s research. DOH! I hope to make some amends by looking at the updated analysis in this posting.

The paper is professional and is also an easy read. I would recommend that everyone take the time to read it (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4109494). I’ll focus only on those items that I think are significant that I did not have time to incorporate (purposefully or accidentally!) in my book. However, there is something that is important to mention:

  • In my analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey data, injurious violent crime had some attributes that deserve attention. The first is that the victim usually knows the offender. Second, the location of the incident is commonly at the home or the property of the home. Lastly, the offender doesn’t use a firearm often. I believe these attributes support and compliment the DGU work English has done. Based upon his analysis, most DGUs occur at the home or property of the home and the firearm is usually not discharged.

Some other interesting data from English’s paper:

  • 9.1% of DGUs occurred in public.
  • 48.8% of DGUs involved one assailant, 51.2% involved more than one.
  • 1.5 million incidents per year where the presence of a firearm deterred crime (i.e., firearm was not discharged).
  • 16% of gun owners carry a concealed firearm always or often. While English includes “Sometimes” as part of the concealed carry regime, I do not.
  • Around 44% of gun owners never carry a concealed firearm.
  • Using a firearm to defend against non-human animals was significant.

For my book and based on this research, I think the biggest area that needs improvement is researching multiple offenders. My analysis focused on a single offender. Additionally, I didn’t factor in using a firearm to defend against non-human animals. However, is suspect, much like violent crime, there are many things you can do to dramatically reduce your risk.

  1. In the city: A common theme in the city is that you are walking your dog and another dog gets loose from the backyard of a resident. These dogs are not familiar with other dogs and they could attack your dogs as well as you. Also, city dogs that are familiar with humans and are trained to attack strangers are very dangerous to other residents if they get loose. Additionally, dogs without a leash are always suspect. Finally, even if a dog is on a leash, they can get away from their owner. If you are enjoying time in the city, a JPX4 Compact or JPX6 will help protect you. These are non-fatal effective weapons that shoot pepper spray up effectively up to around 18 feet (see my book on these products). A cautionary note about using firearms in this situation is that you may find yourself in a gunfight if you shoot someone’s pet, even if their pet attacks you. There is an unnatural fixation with some pet owners who consider their pet their child, and even if their “child” is in the wrong, will consider lethal acts against them to be cause for escalation. In short, if you carry a firearm, you should also carry a JPX4/JPX6 (or perhaps bear spray) when walking in the city, especially when walking your dogs.
  2. For the rest of this list, I’ll focus on the country. Unlike the city, firearms are more appropriate for the country and animal attacks. I’m going to assume if you are hunting, you are prepared for animal attacks. However, if you are just out hiking or enjoying the woods, here are some questions to ponder.
  3. What animals have been known to attack humans in your area?
  4. Are these animals solitary or pack animals?
  5. What time of year is it? Are mothers with their young? The motherly instinct is alive and well in animals. Don’t mess with it. /
  6. What way is the wind blowing? Ideally, you’ll want animals to smell you before they see you. The wind at your back and blowing past you to trail ahead is best.
  7. Make noise. If that ruins the outdoors for you, check if you can get some device that makes noise that humans can’t hear but the critters in the area can hear.
  8. If you are walking with someone, like your spouse, recognize that a large animal such as a bear, will be throwing their prey around. If you are armed with a firearm, you may not get a clear shot until that someone is dead. If you are walking with someone, you can carry a firearm and they can carry a JPX4/JPX6, or bear spray if you are in bear country.
  9. While their is always a chance you will run into a starving/wounded/rabid animal, I suspect many attacks happen in “hold my beer” moments. Don’t be stupid with wild animals.

Let’s get back to William’s work. I think William’s did a lot of things right here. In addition, there is a good amount of information on weapon type and magazine capacity. For my book, this information wasn’t directly relevant to what I was discussing.

For future DGUs research, it would be interesting to learn the following:

  • Was your assailant or were any of your assailants armed with a firearm?
  • Was your assailant or were any of your assailants armed with a non-firearm weapon?
  • If the firearm was not discharged, did you report the matter to law enforcement?
  • If the firearm was discharged, did you report the matter to law enforcement?
  • If you did not report the matter to law enforcement, what was the reason? Too much hassle, not enough information to bother law enforcement, or afraid criminal charges would be weighed against you?
  • If you had a single assailant, was the assailant a stranger or couldn’t be identified (e.g., masked)?
  • If you had multiple assailants, were they all strangers or couldn’t be identified (e.g., masked)?
  • If your assailant (or at least one of your assailants) was identified and not a stranger, what was your relationship to the assailant? Former friend, ex-lover, ex-spouse, acquaintance, biological family, stepfamily, or in-law family.

Negligent Discharges

Formally known as an accidental discharge, a negligent discharge describes a human failure resulting in a firearm discharging unexpectedly. I guess it was renamed when most people realized human failures rather than mechanical failures cause them. However, mechanical failures that result in a discharge, such as a safety physically failing, are probably best described by the term accidental discharge (due to mechanical failure).

I’ve had two negligent discharges in my lifetime. No one was hurt, and the guns were pointed in a safe direction, but they both scared the living hell out of me. One was an old lever-action rifle where I was improperly clearing a jam. The other was due to improper trigger finger discipline when I was just learning to shoot a semi-automatic pistol (SAP).

It is essential to realize there is even more at stake with a negligent discharge. For instance, in Arizona, the unlawful discharge of a firearm in a municipality is a felony with a mandatory prison sentence. So, even if the bullet did no damage and just scared the hell out of you, your angry neighbor may call law enforcement, and you might get even more scared after talking with your attorney.

Given the safety and legal concerns, I prioritize safety over speed and simplicity over capability regarding firearms and ordinary civilians. Furthermore, I feel that civilian defensive gun use (DGU) statistics show that you won’t be at a disadvantage with this prioritization. This background will inform the list that follows.

How To Dramatically Reduce Your Chances of a Negligent Discharge

Guiding Principle: Formal Instruction

  1. Take a Firearm Safety Course. For many of us, our first firearm safety course came from our father or grandfather. Then, when we applied to hunt for the first time, there was a mandatory safety course. However, the number of hunters is likely down, and the number of people who carry firearms is up. Many people may have never had formal instruction in proper firearm safety. If that is you, change that.
  2. Take a Private Lesson from an Instructor Who is a Weapons Expert with Your Firearm. Many training facilities offer private lessons. In Arizona, C2Tactical and Independence Training are the ones I’ve used. The benefit of this approach is an expert can break down the various safety features of your firearm. For instance, you may be surprised to learn your SAP has a magazine disconnect safety. Other ways the expert can help you is to show you how to properly clear jams with your SAP, check for a loaded chamber with your SAP (both in the day and at night), and so forth.

Guiding Principle: Simplicity over Capability

  • Use a modern-day Single Action Revolver (SAR) or Double-Action Revolver (DAR). A SAR is fine if you don’t plan on carrying a concealed firearm and will use one just for home defense. Ensure your SAR has a transfer-bar safety mechanism. If you plan on carrying, there are several good modern DARs available to try.
  • If you are using an older SAR or DAR that does not have a safety mechanism (e.g., the firing pin is on the hammer), you must carry with the hammer down on an empty chamber. I still load five rounds even in my modern revolvers simply because it is my ingrained habit. Five rounds are still fine based on civilian DGUs statistics.
  • Some people put their pistols in their pockets with no holster, and almost everyone I know that has a fast-access safe doesn’t use a holster in the safe with a round in the chamber (you should use a holster regardless). If you will carry a gun or have one in a fast-access safe, always use a holster that protects the trigger. If you carry a SAP with a round in the chamber, your holster should cover the trigger and controls. A holster is essential, especially in stressful situations, as it guides your hands so you may grip your firearm properly and safely (see my post on fast access safes for more info).
  • The most dangerous thing you can do with a SAR or a DAR, if you have manually cocked back the hammer, is to lower the hammer on a live round. Sometimes, this situation is unavoidable. Perhaps you were hunting, thought you had a shot, but no longer do. Now you have a cocked gun that you aren’t going to shoot. I think most people deal with this situation as in the western movies, one-handed. I would recommend something else. Use your offhand to go across the top strap and place your thumb between the hammer and the frame. Then, with your shooting hand, use your thumb to grasp the hammer, then press the trigger with your trigger finger. When you feel the hammer release into your hand, immediately release the trigger (for modern revolvers, this will let the transfer bar drop). Ease the hammer down with your shooting hand, gradually moving your offhand thumb until it is out of the way at the end of the cycle.
  • I never liked the “traditional” way of loading an older SAR (i.e., no transfer bar safety), where you place one round in the cylinder, skip one, then load the rest. When you can’t load another round, you cock the revolver and lower the hammer on the empty chamber. I never like to cock a revolver that I’m not going to shoot. There are a couple of ways around this. One, verify the six-shot cylinder is empty, then place exactly five rounds in your hand and load them one at a time. Two, a gunsmith can modify your SAR so the cylinder will turn both ways when loading. Load normally, find the empty chamber, and reverse one, so the empty chamber is under the hammer. Three, you can designate an empty chamber – this chamber will never have a round in it. A gunsmith can dimple either side of the cylinder on the chamber that will be empty and even color the dimple a bit. You’ll want to place the dimples so that you can see them looking down from the top strap. Load normally, skipping the designated empty chamber and aligning the dimples to either side of the top strap. If you are using a DAR, there is no need for these techniques. Simply dropping the cylinder and aligning the empty chamber with the hammer is all you need to do.
  • Don’t mix and match revolvers with different capacities, safety mechanisms, and loaded rounds. If you have modern revolvers, make sure all of them have a capacity of six rounds and load six rounds. If you have a mix of older and newer revolvers, make sure their capacity is six but only load five rounds in all of them.
  • Some people have terrible habits with SARs and DARs. They will attempt to avoid the muzzle end of their revolver to get a glance at the end of the cylinder to see if they can see the bullets in the cylinder. That way, they know if they have a round coming up. However, if you are shooting a large caliber revolver and the cylinder moves clockwise from the shooter’s viewpoint, simply use the tip of your pinky finger to feel the top of the bullet. Not that this procedure may not work if you are shooting shorter ammo in a large revolver, such as a 45 ACP in a 45 Colt conversion. 

Guess what? If you are using a revolver, you can stop reading now. You may only want to practice misfires, but misfires with a revolver are pretty easy to get around safely. In general, in the event of a misfire, I would wait a few seconds for safety reasons in case of a delayed ignition. With modern factory rounds, misfires are pretty rare once you have verified your gun likes those factory rounds. You may want to forgo the delay if you practice combat shooting with a random chamber loaded with dummy ammunition.

Guiding Principle: Safety over Speed

  • If you use a SAP, carry in condition 3 (hammer down, chamber empty, loaded magazine). Remember that you’ll handle your firearm far more than you are shooting it. If speed is a priority, learn the Israeli method. If you are a law enforcement officer, SWAT, or special forces, you have different threats, and you will likely be carrying in condition 1. For ordinary civilians with standard threats, condition 3 is fine.

Guiding Principle: Sometimes Getting There is the Tough Part

  • If you use a SAP, never put the hammer down on a loaded chamber unless your pistol has a de-cocking lever. With the 1911, some people would carry in condition 2 (hammer down, loaded chamber, loaded magazine). Putting the 1911 in condition 2 from condition 0 is the problem as that is very dangerous because 1911s do not have de-cocking levers. It will hurt at some point, so don’t do it.

Guiding Principle: Don’t Put Your Fingers Where They Don’t Belong

  • Trigger finger discipline is removing your trigger finger from the trigger guard when you don’t want to shoot. It sounds simple, and in most cases, it is. However, people can run into problems with operating controls or the slide. If there is any resistance to those controls or the slide, you’ll instinctively want to hold the handgun more securely. In short, your trigger finger will want to drop and try to grasp the handgun better. Unfortunately, that often involves your trigger finger getting way too close to the trigger. The easiest way to see if this is happening to you is to video yourself on a typical shooting day (you may want to drive out to the country and find a safe place to shoot instead of the range for this process). Finally, go back and watch what your trigger finger did during reloads, engaging the manual safety or racking the slide. This process will help you correct any mistakes. For me, I went to always using two hands, and my offhand works all the controls. While I can shoot one-handed fine, I rarely do and prefer using two hands for control and safety. Two hands should be fine for civilians.
  • Clearing Jams. Jams are unexpected; because they are unexpected, people often do strange things that are not part of good gun safety. Furthermore, to manipulate the slide, you need a good grip on the pistol, which means the grip safety is depressed (deactivated). Also, the manual safety is disengaged so the slide can be manipulated. If the slide unexpectedly releases and either picks up a round or a round is in the chamber, and your trigger finger discipline is bad, you’ll have a negligent discharge. You’ll need to practice this process, and I’ll try and give you an idea of what to do. You must be a handloader or know someone who is a handloader who is willing to help you.
  • Assuming you practice with one magazine in the pistol and two magazines in a holder, you’ll want to create several dummy cases based on the number of rounds you load in the magazine. For instance, if you carry 14 rounds in the magazine, you’ll want to create about four dummy rounds per magazine, or 12 rounds total.
    • Your dummy round’s foundation is a resized deprimed case. You’ll want to use a glue gun and fill the primer pocket with glue. Once it dries, shave the primer flat with a box cutter. The dried glue will protect your firing pin.
    • Misfires: The first dummy round creation simulates a misfire. Simply seat one of your customarily used bullets in your empty dummy case so that it feeds fine.
    • Failure to Feed: The second dummy round requires some trial and error. You want to find a bullet that will jam while feeding. In many cases, bullets with a unique ogive may be the ones to try. Once you find one, seat it in your empty dummy case.
    • Stovepipe: This round will not use a dummy case. It will simply be a light load that almost functions the slide, but the empty case gets stuck. This load will require some experimentation. You will always want to stay within the powder guidelines of the load as too light of loads can have erratic pressures. You may need to move to a slightly heavier recoil spring as long as this spring still functions with your standard ammunition.To make things more interesting, modify three magazines, so they do not hold open the slide.
    • Needless to say, you’ll want to store these rounds and magazines entirely and separately from your other gear. A big sign on it saying “Use Only For Jams – DO NOT USE NORMALLY” would be recommended.
    • You’ll want to do your regular shooting practice, but video yourself doing this drill. You may want to drive to the country and find a safe place to shoot for this drill. Concentrate on safety first; you can work on speed later. Review your video to see if you have any bad habits. Okay, you’ll need a friend or spouse for the following process. They will go through the following procedure, where they will load the magazines while you are in another room.
      • Get two six-sided casino dice.Roll the dice. If snake eyes come up, that magazine used will be one that doesn’t hold back the slide when empty. For any other values, use a standard magazine.
      • For each round in the magazine, roll the dice. For example, rolling snake eyes indicates that you would use a misfire round. For a 2:2, use a failure to feed round. For a 3:3, use a stovepipe round. For any other combination, use a standard round.
      • Repeat until all three magazines are full. Next, your friend or spouse will place a magazine in your firearm and your magazine holder. This way, you will not know what the first round is.
      • With this process, a 1/36 chance the magazine has something wrong with it. Each round has a 3/36 or 1/12 chance that something is wrong with it. This rate should get you enough regular rounds to make the failure unpredictable. As you get better, you can add another 6-sided die and make the process 1:1:1, 2:2:2, or 3:3:3 so that the failures are much rarer. Also, you can say: 1:1:Odd, 2:2:Even, or 3:3:Odd to get a little more failures than the three dice.

You can see why SAPs require a lot more work to use safely. The “problem” is that modern-day SAPs are very reliable, and operators don’t get much practice when things go wrong! As I said before, when things go wrong unexpectedly, people seem to do some strange things that go against common sense gun safety.

Guiding Principle: The Grip Safety is Your Friend

Okay. I will say something that will make you say, “No S**T, Sherlock!” Many negligent discharges happen when you are never planning to shoot your firearm. Well, DUH. What I mean by that are times like cleaning your gun. When you decide to clean your gun, you are starting a process with the firearm, and you never plan on shooting it during the entirety of that process. Another process like this is when you do a function check of your firearm before holstering it for the day.

There are two techniques I will share to drastically reduce your chances of a negligent discharge in these situations. However, they require a grip safety. If your firearm does not have one, these tips won’t help you. 

  • Modify your grip safety. I have a gunsmith drill a precise hole in my grip safety. The purpose is to insert a pin and block the safety from depressing. When I’m going to perform a task where I will not be shooting the firearm, I first place a small hitch pin through it. This pin blocks the grip safety and prevents it from being deactivated. The pin is obvious, so it isn’t like you will accidentally leave it in the gun. Importantly, the pin doesn’t replace the safe handling of the firearm. See the photos.

  • Gun Cleaning. The first thing I do is put in this pin. The last thing I do is take it out.
  • Function Check. This process is one I would do if I were going to carry a concealed gun for the day. Also, there is an additional tip for those who carry in condition 3.
    • Open the fast access safe. (NOTE: if you are storing firearms in a regular safe, they should be unloaded, and the ammunition stored in a different safe).
    • Insert grip safety pin.
    • Remove magazine.Because I carry in condition 3, I always mark the first bullet of the magazine with a dot using a sharpie. When doing this function check, I ensure the magazine’s first bullet has a dot. If there is no dot, this tells me someone has accessed my firearm.
    • I leave the full magazine in the fast-access safe.
    • Remove the gun from the holster and keep it pointed in a safe direction.
    • Check the loaded chamber indicator (if you have one).Rack back the slide and lock back. Once again, verify no round is in the chamber.
    • Move to a work area that contains no loaded ammunition.  
    • Optional: place the firearm on magwell vice; the firearm should be pointed in a safe direction.
    • I use a small bore light to ensure the barrel is clear and the bolt face has no apparent problems.
    • At this point, you have verified the operation of the mag release and slide stop.
    • Remove from mag vice if you used one. Keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
    • Ease slide forward.
    • Load in an empty magazine.
    • Rack slide and verify slide stops.
    • Remove the magazine, and ease the slide forward.
    • Hold the hammer with your offhand and attempt to fire the unloaded firearm normally. This process ensures the grip safety pin is doing its job. If the firearm can’t be fired, it is doing its job.
    • Remove the grip safety pin.
    • Proceed with your routine function check (verify grip safety, manual safety, and so forth).

The last thing I’m going to discuss is the press check. It is unfortunate how much ink has been spilled on this topic. It would be much easier if every SAP had a loaded chamber indicator that could be seen and felt. The latter is crucial in darkness. Also, it is challenging to add this functionality to a firearm that does not have it. In short, a recessed area should be designed for the firearm. That area has a loaded chamber indicator that can be visually seen and physically felt. The recessed area is required, so this indicator will not snag on anything. This design would prevent the need for press checks.

  • Press Check #1. One of the more dangerous press checks you can do is to be holding your gun one-handed, insert your offhand thumb into the trigger guard, wrap your offhand fingers around the rail in front of the chamber, and then use your thumb to press against the trigger guard, using it as leverage to pull back the slide just enough to see or feel (with your shooting hand) whether there is a round in the chamber. This process will get you a negligent discharge at some point. Why? The grip safety is depressed, and your manual safety is off (so you can manipulate the slide). It doesn’t take much for your thumb to push against the trigger (especially if you have a big thumb or have gloves). Before beginning this press check, you can make this process safer by removing your shooting hand off the grip safety, just by lowering it and holding on to the bottom of the grip. If your gun has no grip safety, do not do a press check like this one. This press check is also difficult to accomplish on smaller handguns as you’ll likely have a finger close to or blocking the muzzle because there is not enough slide to grasp. A negligent discharge happening at this point may cost you a portion of your offhand.
  • Press Check #2. This press check involves hooking your thumb on the top of the grip safety and using your fingers to grip the slide behind the chamber. The leverage from your thumb allows the slide to be pulled back, revealing whether a round is in the chamber. Because the top of the grip safety is used, it may not be depressed. In any case, there is no thumb or finger in the trigger guard. As a result, this press check is much safer to perform. You can see this stylishly done in the second John Wick movie.

Capacity and Reloading Speed versus Simplicity

My book and blog posts are for ordinary civilians who may not have any firearm experience or self-defense experience. As such, I prioritize things like safety over speed (see a previous post). In this post, I will prioritize simplicity over things like capacity and reloading speed. As such, I will recommend certain types of revolvers over semi-automatic pistols.

My book references a civilian Defensive Gun Use (DGU) study where the firearm was discharged. One of the data points was that the average number of rounds shot is two. This data point shows that capacity and reloading speed should not be prioritized as high for a civilian’s defensive firearm as, for example, a law enforcement officer or SWAT team member.

What if your revolver will be your Every Day Carry (EDC)? As you know from my speed versus safety blog post, I’m a fan of secure vehicle storage. When I carry a firearm, I carry a 1911 in condition 3. I can separate the magazine from the pistol and put each in a separate secure storage lockbox. This process makes me legal to transport and makes law enforcement interactions much safer. Yes, it will take me several seconds to ready my pistol, but I feel the tradeoff is worth it based on how most civilian DGUs occur. Certain double-action revolvers would make this process a bit harder in a couple of ways:

  1. For rimmed cases, like a 44 Special, you have to deal with individual rounds when you remove the rounds from the cylinder. This process is cumbersome.
  2. For rimless cases, like a 10mm, you use moon clips that clip the rounds together in a circle, so the process is almost as easy as a magazine.
  3. For rimless cases in a moon clip, the width is bigger than a magazine, so you would need a deeper lockbox for your ammo.

In short, for civilians, a double-action revolver with a rimless chambering compares well to a semi-automatic pistol carried in condition 3. Of course, the next question is: What are the advantages and disadvantages if you choose to use a revolver?

  1. Advantage: training. You can learn the basics of a double-action revolver quickly. After learning firearm safety, drop the cylinder, eject any rounds, load in your moon clip, shut the cylinder, point, and pull the trigger. Rinse and repeat.
  2. Advantage: simplicity. You pull the trigger again if you have a misfire with a double-action revolver. With a semi-auto, it is a process. The process can be practiced and put into muscle memory, but a civilian doesn’t need this complexity.
  3. Disadvantage: accessory rails. Many revolvers do not have an accessory rail for a flashlight or a Mantis trainer to help you learn to shoot more accurately. Whether or not that is important to you is an individual’s decision.
  4. Advantage: multi-caliber. I used to own a Ruger GP100 in 40 S&W and 10mm. You can practice with cheaper ammunition and more expensive ammunition for self-defense. You, of course, need to compensate or adjust for any point of impact changes. However, you may be perfectly fine for typical civilian distances in DGUs.
  5. Advantage: multiple revolvers. If you stick with the same manufacturer, you can have a revolver for hunting, one for home defense, and one for EDC. Your training is the same; everything would be familiar except for the revolver size. If you choose this route, I recommend talking to a reputable gunsmith before purchasing to ensure similar trigger actions. For example, with Ruger, the Super Redhawk and GP100 are more similar than compared to a Redhawk.
  6. Advantage: easier gunsmithing. For a civilian, the most important thing you’ll need gunsmithing on is a smooth, predictable double-action trigger pull. But, again, talking to a reputable gunsmith can get you insights on which revolvers can achieve that trigger pull.  
  7. Advantage: one can do it all. If God came down and told me I could only have one handgun, I would get a Gemini Custom GP100 in 10mm/40S&W. I would then also chamber it for 10mm Magnum. So now I have a pistol I can confidently carry in the woods of North America with a 10mm Magnum. I have a self-defense pistol using the 10mm. I have a practice pistol using 40S&W. They aren’t three different pistols, just one pistol using different ammunition. Not to mention, I would own one of the finest custom revolvers ever made.

For a civilian, the advantages of a revolver seem to be very clear compared to a semi-automatic pistol. Unfortunately, the pushback always comes from capacity and reloading speed. Unfortunately, I don’t know any statistics to support that assertion for civilian DGUs. In addition, any statistics around the death or injuries of concealed carriers would need to be reviewed. For example, if you were injured by a criminal and you were carrying a semi-automatic pistol, what does that statistic say about your choice of weapon? Should you have been carrying a short-barreled shotgun or AR pistol? Comfort is not an excuse, as you should prepare for the threat. Thus, arguments can be used against your favorite semi-automatic concealed pistol just like they can be used against a revolver.

After decades of hanging out with people who shoot guns, I will lay down an uncomfortable truth: Many people who own semi-automatic handguns do not put in the time and effort to be proficient with them in self-defense if something goes wrong.

Case in point. You discover a violent criminal in your home. You are about 10 feet apart. The criminal is armed with a double-action revolver, and you are armed with your favorite micro semi-automatic pistol. Regarding proficiency with weapons, you and the criminal are identical in every respect. He intends to victimize you. You both pull your guns. Here are two different scenarios:

  • Both guns initially misfire.
  • Both guns get a round off, but the next round misfires. Note that for a semi-automatic pistol, a few things can happen here where the next round doesn’t go off (e.g., mag not fully seated, jam, or misfire)

The guy with the DA revolver is going to win these battles. He would win even if he were half as proficient as you with a handgun. Even worse, a criminal proficient with a single-action revolver will win these battles against many semi-automatic pistol owners I’ve met.

Is this scenario realistic? Yes. It is much more in line with civilian DGU statistics: you are at home, two rounds or less are fired, and the distance is close.

This fact may be troubling. I understand. It is incredible to put a lot of ammunition downrange quickly, banging steel. When you start getting good, it is addictive fun. As long as everything goes right and you are mentally prepared, you are a formidable adversary against a criminal. But if something goes wrong, you may be incredibly disadvantaged against someone with a more “primitive” handgun.

The CDC’s Web Page – Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention – A Critique

Risk Management

In one of my first blog posts, I talked about risk. Any self-defense tactic or methodology you employ is a risk management decision. However, where we get our information around risk is often suspect. Many of the providers of this information have conflicts of interest. We must sort through a lot of information via good critical thinking, which usually requires background knowledge. Unfortunately, “background knowledge” has been called the dirty secret of critical thinking instruction. Even the appropriate amount of background knowledge is not enough. Critical thinkers also need to be “street-smart.” Money, power, prestige, and sex are powerful motivators for action and have existed since civilization began. You can see many of these influences in the book Empire of Pain (NYT Review), about the Sackler family and the drugs leading to Oxycontin.

With that background out of the way, I want to examine the CDC’s firearm violence page. Here are the questions about risk I highlighted in my first post.

  • Who is responsible for determining risk?
  • Who is responsible for conveying risk?
  • What happens if there are mistakes in determining risk?
  • What happens if risk is expressed misleadingly?
  • Who benefits if mistakes are made?
  • Who experiences the harms if mistakes are made?
  • Are there other influences besides risk that may influence a person’s choice?

With this background in mind, let’s dive into the CDC’s webpage on firearm violence

The CDC’s Web Page – Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention

Here is the CDC’s firearm violence prevention page. Based on the title, this page aims to list ways to prevent firearm violence. Since some background is necessary, they start with a definition.

What is a firearm injury?

A firearm injury is a gunshot wound or penetrating injury from a weapon that uses a powder charge to fire a projectile. Weapons that use a power charge include handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Injuries from air- and gas-powered guns, BB guns, and pellet guns are not considered firearm injuries as these types of guns do not use a powder charge to fire a projectile.

I don’t see anything too controversial about that definition. My only thought is that it implicitly defines what a firearm is. Next, the CDC lists the types of firearm injuries.

What are the different types of firearm injuries?

There are many types of firearm injuries, which can be fatal or nonfatal:

Intentionally self-inflicted

Includes firearm suicide or nonfatal self-harm injury from a firearm

Unintentional

Includes fatal or nonfatal firearm injuries that happen while someone is cleaning or playing with a firearm or other incidents of an accidental firing without evidence of intentional harm

Interpersonal violence

Includes firearm homicide or nonfatal assault injury from a firearm

Legal intervention

 Includes firearm injuries inflicted by the police or other law enforcement agents acting in the line of duty

 For example, firearm injuries that occur while arresting or attempting to arrest someone, maintaining order, or ensuring safety

The term legal intervention is a commonly used external cause of injury classification. It does not indicate the legality of the circumstances surrounding the death.

 Undetermined intent

 Includes firearm injuries where there is not enough information to determine whether the injury was intentionally self-inflicted, unintentional, the result of legal intervention, or from an act of interpersonal violence.

Let’s discuss these two sections.  

Injuries: Fatal and Non-Fatal?

First, the CDC says that a firearm injury can be fatal or not fatal. That is rather odd, as you would usually speak of fatalities and injuries separately. Does the CDC combine injuries and fatalities into just injuries for anything else? Let’s look at other issues the CDC handles.

Oddly, the CDC appears to separate fatalities from injuries if you go through the webpage. However, based on the definition, they may combine them, which is a crucial point regarding the definition. Deaths in the United States are seriously investigated and documented. They are the gold standard for data. On the other hand, injury data is in its infancy regarding how the CDC gathers it. Mixing two very different data sources with different reliability could cause massive misunderstandings. As such, I recommend separating fatalities differently from injuries.

Firearm Deaths per Day

Let’s look at the next section:

How common are firearm injuries?

Firearm injuries are a serious public health problem. In 2020, there were 45,222 firearm-related deaths in the United States – that’s about 124 people dying from a firearm-related injury each day. More than half of firearm-related deaths were suicides and more than 4 out of every 10 were firearm homicides.

Here is the WONDER report from 2020 (the columns are number, population, and rate):

Accidental discharge of firearms (W32-W34)   535  329,484,123  0.2

Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms  24,292  329,484,123  7.4

Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms (*U01.4,X93-X95)  19,384   329,484,123        5.9

#Legal intervention (Y35,Y89.0)                        611         329,484,123        0.2

Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent (Y22-Y24)    400   329,484,123        0.1

The total is 45,222 (out of almost 329.5 million). There are two big areas the CDC mentions: Suicide and Assault. Let’s look at the percentages:

Suicide 24,292/45,222 = 54%

Assault: 19,384/45,222 = 43%

These two items make up 97% of the total.

The CDC also states, “that’s about 124 people dying from a firearm-related injury each day.” We want to try and establish context for numbers that appear out of the blue. Let’s look at the CDC’s mortality report for 2020 for all deaths.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/deaths.htm

Total Deaths:     3,383,729

Number of days in 2020: 366

3,383,729/366 = 9,245 deaths per day on average.

If we subtract firearm deaths (124) from the deaths per day average (9,245), we get 9,121 deaths per day. To calculate a percentage difference, we use the following formula:

Percentage Difference = (9121 – 9245)/9245 * 100

That is about a -1.3% difference. What happens if we subtract out suicide by firearm?

24,292 / 366 = 66

That would be 124 – 66 = 58. We say that 58 people die per day from assault with a firearm. So, we would say the total deaths per day minus the deaths per day from firearm assault would be:

9,245 – 58 = 9,187.

Which would be a -0.63% difference.

These differences do not seem large enough to denote a public health problem. Let’s look at the CDC data table for the top 10 causes of death in 2020. 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db427-tables.pdf#4

We can all agree that COVID was considered a serious public health problem in 2020. COVID is number 3 in the top ten list. Let’s see what the deaths per day of COVID are:

350,831/366 = 959

This number is almost eight times higher than firearm deaths per day.  

Non-Fatal Injuries, or rather, just Injuries

Let’s go to the next section on the CDC’s web page

More people suffer nonfatal firearm-related injuries than die. More than seven out of every 10 medically treated firearm injuries are from firearm-related assaults. Nearly 2 out of every 10 are from unintentional firearm injuries. There are few intentionally self-inflicted firearm-related injuries seen in hospital emergency departments. Most people who use a firearm in a suicide attempt, die from their injury.

Here the CDC indicates that unless you tried to commit suicide with a firearm, you are far more likely to be injured than killed. Of those non-fatally injured, not quite 20 percent are from accidents. A bit more than 70 percent is from “firearm-related assaults.” We are unclear if firearm-related assaults are criminal activity or justified (i.e., self-defense, law enforcement, etc.). Herein lies another problem: the CDC cannot distinguish between criminal activity with a firearm and non-criminal activity with a firearm. Although the CDC has a category of Legal Intervention, the definition states that the legality of circumstances is not determined.

The Top 5, Age Range 1-44

Let’s go to the next section:

Firearm injuries affect people in all stages of life. In 2020, firearm-related injuries were among the 5 leading causes of death for people ages 1-44 in the United States.

Dying aged 1-44 isn’t common; otherwise, life expectancy would not be very high. Here is the report from WONDER in 2020 for ages 1-44 (number, population, rate):

#Accidents (unintentional injuries) (V01-X59,Y85-Y86)     80,208   187,319,938        42.8

#Intentional self-harm (suicide) (*U03,X60-X84,Y87.0)    22,431   187,319,938        12.0

#Assault (homicide) (*U01-*U02,X85-Y09,Y87.1)            18,838   187,319,938        10.1

#Diseases of heart (I00-I09,I11,I13,I20-I51)                    17,310   187,319,938        9.2

#Malignant neoplasms (C00-C97)                                16,708   187,319,938        8.9

#COVID-19 (U07.1)                                                      8,902     187,319,938        4.8

#Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis […]                      6,620     187,319,938        3.5

#Diabetes mellitus (E10-E14)                                      4,445     187,319,938        2.4

#Cerebrovascular diseases (I60-I69)                            2,927     187,319,938        1.6

#Influenza and pneumonia (J09-J18)                          2,100     187,319,938        1.1

#Congenital malformations […]                                    2,031     187,319,938        1.1

#Chronic lower respiratory diseases (J40-J47)             1,579     187,319,938        0.8

#Septicemia (A40-A41)                                               1,549     187,319,938        0.8

#Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) […]                 1,291     187,319,938        0.7

For now, let’s talk just about Assault (I’ll discuss suicide later in the post, also, see my previous post on firearm suicide). The top 5 are accidents, suicides, assault, heart disease, and cancer. The assault rate (which includes all deaths by assault, not just firearms, but firearm use is very high) is slightly higher than “disease of the heart” or “malignant neoplasms” (cancer) for the age group of 1-44. These are hardly diseases you associate with this age group, yet they are in the top 5. Accidents were four times more likely to kill a 1–44-year-old than assaults. Be aware that accidents, as they are defined, include drug overdoses. In short, you could have a “top 5” causes of death for any age group. It doesn’t mean that they are common or concerning. If heart disease and cancer are not “public health problems” for the 1-44 age group, one must scratch their head to determine why assault is.

Race, Ethnicity, and Age

Let’s check the next section:

Some groups have higher rates of firearm injury than others. Men account for 86% of all victims of firearm death and 87% of nonfatal firearm injuries. Rates of firearm violence also vary by age and race/ethnicity. Firearm homicide rates are highest among teens and young adults 15-34 years of age and among Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Hispanic or Latino populations. Firearm suicide rates are highest among adults 75 years of age and older and among American Indian or Alaska Native and non-Hispanic white populations.

Essentially, we are already dealing with a small population, and the CDC narrows it down even more:

  • Men, just like in violent crime, are implicated.
  • Young adults 15-34. As an aside, when does someone become an adult as opposed to a young adult?
  • For a long time, crime researchers have known that homicides are usually within groups – I.e., whites kill whites, and blacks kill blacks.
  • Firearm suicide rates are highest in adults 75 years of age and older. The rate may be relatively high, but the population isn’t large due to the life expectancy in those groups based on the race and ethnicity highlighted by the CDC. See the CDC’s table here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr71/nvsr71-01.pdf. These are likely people dealing with problems due to age, such as terminal disease or being severely crippled, and are likely past their average life expectancy for their race and ethnicity.

DGUs (again) 

Let’s go to the most interesting section in the firearm violence prevention section:

What is defensive gun use? How often does it occur?

Although definitions of defensive gun use vary, it is generally defined as the use of a firearm to protect and defend oneself, family, other people, and/or property against crime or victimization.

Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to study design. Given the wide variability in estimates, additional research is necessary to understand defensive gun use prevalence, frequency, circumstances, and outcomes.

I covered the CDC and DGUs in a previous post, but there is one aspect I want to cover here. I’ll quote from the article at https://thereload.com/emails-cdc-removed-defensive-gun-use-stats-after-gun-control-advocates-pressured-officials-in-private-meeting/

Gary Kleck: “You can’t understand any significant aspects of the gun-control debate once you eliminate defensive gun use,” he said. “It becomes inexplicable why so many Americans oppose otherwise perfectly reasonable gun-control measurements. It’s because they think it’s gonna lead to prohibition, and they won’t have a gun for self-defense. It’s not complicated.”

Herein lies a problem. Let’s say all your measures of success are around firearm injuries. If the CDC convinces Americans that firearm violence is a public health problem, new firearm regulations will be passed. These regulations result in a decline in DGUs because American citizens cannot procure firearms for self-defense. However, the CDC’s measure of success is the number of firearm injuries. If firearm injuries decline, then the regulations that were implemented are successful. However, from my book, we know that most injurious violent crime doesn’t involve firearms, so a victim armed with a firearm can defend themselves, usually without discharging it. But, they can become victimized if they can no longer wield the intimidating firearm. Since the offenders don’t usually use firearms in injurious violent crimes, there is no increase in firearm injury statistics. In short, injurious violent crime victimization would increase, but the CDC wouldn’t see it.

This problem is no different than the Federal government believing that alcohol Prohibition was successful because their only measure of success would be the reduction of alcohol consumption. Gang wars do not count against the “success” of Prohibition.

Firearm Violence and Safe Storage

The CDC has a section on the consequences of firearm violence, which I discuss in the book extensively, so I won’t repeat it here. The rest of the web page is not specific to firearm statistics. The CDC does mention, toward the end, the safe storage of firearms. But, again, I cover this in far more detail in my book than the CDC, so I’ll skip it here.

Evaluating the CDC Firearm Violence Prevention Page

Definitions matter

There are several problems with the CDC’s page. I’ll go through them one by one.

  1. “Firearm Violence” is never defined.
  2. Firearm injuries are set up to be combined with fatalities.
  3. Firearm injuries are divorced from intent.
  4. Firearm injury tabulations are the only measure of success.

For many Americans, the everyday use of the word violence implies criminal intent. Let’s go through some examples to see what I mean. You are having a friendly conversation with your neighbor across the street in all these examples.

  • He says: “Drug violence is getting out of hand. My uncle went home and deliberately overdosed on his prescription medication.”
  • He says: “Vehicle violence is getting out of hand. My uncle was driving, turned the wrong way down a one-way road, and got into an accident.”
  • He says: “Gun violence is getting out of hand. My uncle is a law enforcement officer and had to shoot a knife-armed domestic abuser yesterday.”

I doubt whether you find your neighbor’s comments intuitive. What is worrisome is that, based on the CDC’s web page, the implied definition of firearm violence is:

Firearm violence is defined by the total amount of firearm injuries (fatal and non-fatal) divorced from intent. Therefore, successful prevention of firearm violence involves the reduction of firearm injuries.

If you care about the ability to defend yourself, my speculation on the CDC’s firearm violence definition should send chills down your spine.

Suicide

The most significant contributor to firearm violence is suicide by firearm. In 2020, 55 percent of firearm violence, as the CDC defines it, is suicide by firearm. This percentage leads to the question: What is the suicide prevention working group of the CDC working on that is different than what the firearm violence CDC working group is tasked with solving? After all, if you had a problem and could solve 55 percent of it, you would be thrilled. But let’s discuss what this means. If the CDC implemented changes to somehow limit firearm access to suicidal individuals, but those individuals chose to commit suicide with something other than a firearm, firearm suicides would drop by 55 percent. Still, the number of people who committed suicide would remain the same. Is that success? I would say no.

Let’s reformulate this idea: A successful prevention program for firearm suicides would reduce the total number of firearm suicides AND correspondingly reduce the total number of suicides by the same amount every year OVER the course of a decade.

For example, assume there were 50,000 suicides one year, and out of that 50,000, there were 25,000 firearm suicides. As a result, a prevention program for firearm suicides was implemented, and it took a year to implement. To keep things simple, let’s assume a constant population over ten years. Here is the result over ten years:

  • Prevention Plan: Total suicides, 455,000; suicide by firearm, 205,000.
  • Expected If No Prevention Plan: Total suicides, 500,000; suicide by firearm, 250,000.

If you care about public health and suicides, you will use this definition of success. For example, if you simply count firearm suicides, you could have the following result and claim success:

  • Prevention Plan: Total suicides, 500,000; suicide by firearm, 205,000.
  • Expected If No Prevention Plan: Total suicides, 500,000; suicide by firearm, 250,000.

Here, it appears that suicide by firearm was reduced. However, what happened is the suicidal individuals took their life another way. Therefore, if you care about public health and suicides, you must use the first way of defining success.

Assault with a Firearm

The next big target would be firearm assaults. The methodology of how the CDC quantifies firearm violence should be evaluated on how it could solve known historical problems with known historical solutions. Suppose you took the CDC’s methodology and applied it to alcohol Prohibition in America. Would the CDC’s approach figure out that banning the legal purchase of alcohol was the cause of firearm injuries in that period due to gang-related activity around the buying, selling, and distribution of illegal alcohol? Clearly not, because the CDC doesn’t distinguish firearm injuries due to criminal activity from other forms of firearm injury. The inability to distinguish these two means it cannot detect a motive for criminal firearm injuries. If your methodology cannot solve known historical problems with known historical solutions, you have problems with your methods. Let’s fast forward to today. Once you factor out suicides with a firearm, a strong case could be made those firearm injuries are primarily due to criminal activity, which is motivated by illegal drug addiction and the business of buying, selling, and distributing illegal drugs. But, again, this fact cannot be ascertained via the CDC’s methodology. 

There is an additional problem with non-fatal firearm injuries. As most emergency rooms are required to report a firearm injury to law enforcement, the report law enforcement makes of this injury will not be from the crime scene. It is entirely dependent on the truthfulness of the injured. If the injured engaged in criminal activity, they probably wouldn’t be forthcoming to law enforcement. In short, criminal activity will likely be hidden as a source of non-fatal firearm injuries, just as it is in how the CDC tabulates firearm fatalities.

What about firearm injuries that are the result of self-defense? If the CDC counts DGUs, how many DGUs will be associated with firearm injuries and fatalities in the future? Currently, the firearm injury category of Legal Intervention only mentions law enforcement. The UCR already has a justified homicide statistic for private citizens, which is probably undercounted (see my book). Whether or not the CDC will incorporate those DGUs that result in non-fatal firearm injuries remains to be seen. However, we can see that the CDC includes law enforcement’s use of lethal force as a firearm injury. I suspect they would do the same for civilians too. Therefore, a possibility exists that the CDC will count DGU injuries, add those to the total of firearm injuries, and show an increase in firearm violence! That would be like adding up all the people successfully treating a medical condition with prescription medication and including that number as part of drug violence! Hopefully, that will never happen, but you can see the problems arising when you divorce intent from your measure.

Risk Part II

Let’s look at the risk questions that I enumerated at the beginning:

  • Who is responsible for determining risk? Who is responsible for conveying risk? Do the entities responsible for determining or conveying risk have any conflicts of interest or pre-existing biases that would prevent a fair and honest risk assessment?

Since the CDC has declared firearm violence a public health threat, they seem to determine firearm violence risk and convey it. The next question is about pre-existing biases or conflicts of interest. A series of posts (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) from Timothy Wheeler, MD, asks whether the CDC can give a fair and honest assessment of firearms.  

  • What happens if there are mistakes in determining risk? What happens if risk is expressed misleadingly?

These two questions are very similar in the CDC and firearm violence prevention case. The CDC’s approach allows ordinary civilians to error around their risk of firearm violence fundamentally. Part I of my book showed that injurious violent crime rarely involves firearms. I believe that criminal activity is present in many non-suicidal firearm fatalities and non-suicidal firearm injuries, primarily due to the number of “relationship unknowns” as the victim/offender relationship. Thus, to put it bluntly, let’s reword what firearm violence seems to be: “Firearm violence is a public health threat primarily for those who are suicidal and those who are engaged in criminal activity, particularly around the buying, selling, and distribution of illegal drugs.” In short, civilians have much to worry about other than firearm violence (e.g., opioid addiction, falling, traffic fatalities and injuries, etc.).  

  • Who benefits if mistakes are made regarding risk? These could be mistakes in the analysis, messaging, or the background biases that formed the original investigation.

This is a good question without a clear answer. We can speculate that the CDC developed a solution and then, based on the solution, created the methodology that would point to that solution. Unfortunately, that solution seems to be enabling federal government firearm regulation due to a public health threat. In short, the CDC appears to be a politicized organization not working in the public’s best interest.

How do you provide support for federal firearm regulation via public health? Well, you gather as many “firearms are bad” statistics as you can (and keep them general), and you do not talk about any “firearms are good” statistics like DGUs. Furthermore, you keep everyone in the dark about how most injurious violent crime doesn’t involve firearms. Up to this point, the CDC never mentions violent crime, the Uniform Crime Reports, or the National Crime Victimization Survey on their webpage. Shouldn’t you include something around violent crime if your page is about firearm violence prevention?

Unfortunately, it gets worse. We have seen how the Federal government worked with Big Tech to suppress critics of the CDC’s COVID policy. Worse, the CDC promoted bad studies that showed that Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) worked. In 2023, we have now seen a meta-analysis that shows that there was no proof that masks worked (NOTE: if you want to initiate a policy that can cause bacterial infections and hurt the learning and emotional experience of children (just to name a few), you should have a quality study that shows that policy works. The burden is on the designers and implementers of that policy to provide a quality study that proves it. It is not the burden of the people to disprove it before implementation). Also, we have clear data from other parts of the world that school closures were unnecessary. Sadly, we now have the Federal government stating things as true in 2023 that people were getting censored from social media in 2020 for saying.

Ultimately, the question will be: what happens to critics of the CDC’s firearm violence prevention program? Will they be heard? Or will they be censored? Unfortunately, based on the changes in the DGU section of this webpage and the Freedom of Information Act requests, censorship appears to be still in play.

  • Who experiences the harms if mistakes are made?

Ironically, the public is precisely who the CDC should be helping, yet the public would be experiencing any harms. Federal firearm regulations will do a lot to take weapons out of the hands of civilians but not out of the hands of criminals. These regulations could significantly reduce DGUs and likely lead to a significant increase in non-firearm violent crime victimization. Furthermore, the more criminals know that civilians aren’t armed, the more likely violent victimizations will be.

  • Are there other influences besides risk that may influence a person’s choice?

Virtue signaling and conformance were amazing to me in the COVID era. I recognized social media was a force, but I ultimately did not expect its mindshare. Although there was substantial evidence compiled over a hundred years against the use of masks to protect against a respiratory virus, everyone felt compelled to wear them. If you didn’t wear them, you were being selfish and killing the elderly. Sadly, the number of vulnerable people who genuinely believed their masks protected them, went out and interacted with people in enclosed environments, and then died of COVID is horrific. Let me repeat: The number of vulnerable people the CDC killed with its mask guidance is horrific. These are people the CDC should be protecting, not jeopardizing. Secondly, lockdowns of the non-vulnerable and social distancing in an enclosed area were again quite silly against a respiratory virus. However, if you did not support them, you were socially shamed. Only after two years is the mainstream media beginning to report the ineffectiveness of these NPIs. We haven’t even gotten to vax shaming yet; probably the worst social shaming in recent history. It isn’t just shaming as many companies and government agencies mandated vaccinations of a vaccine that wasn’t tested to the level of all other effective historical vaccines. People lost their livelihoods. With Elon Musk’s release of the Twitter files, we finally understand how much the Federal government was doing to censor debate and shame critics on social media. Progress in public health requires fair debate, not censorship.

Suicide and Firearms

I’m an existentialist philosopher, so I tend to have deep conversations with people. Unfortunately, a few of those people I had conversations with aren’t with us anymore.

I didn’t know at the time of those conversations that, later in life, they would kill themselves. Suicide was never brought up. Instead, they seemed to struggle with meaning, battling inner demons, or just dealing with life. If I had thought they were suicidal, I would have tried to get them help. But, alas, I was just as surprised as anyone to hear the news of their suicide.

The other thing they had in common was that they all chose to use a firearm to end their lives.

Let’s go over some statistics from the CDC WONDER tool (I also cover these statistics in my book):

  1. Over 50 percent of all firearm deaths are suicides.
  2. Firearms are used by 50 percent of suicide victims.
  3. The age range for firearm suicides covers all age brackets reasonably evenly. For example, almost 75 percent are 35 or older, and over 25 percent are on Medicare aged 65 and older.

Common Arguments and Rebuttals

Without being insensitive to the people who have lost loved ones due to suicide, I would like to cover some common arguments that are made and rebuttals.

Argument: Firearms cause suicides. Rebuttal: Given the sheer number of firearms in America, well over 400 million, if firearms were an agent of cause, the population of America would have dwindled to almost nothing by now. In addition, other factors influence suicide. For example, the government’s response to the COVID pandemic created a period of isolation for our youth. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/doi/10.1542/peds.2022-058375/190657/Youth-Suicide-During-the-First-Year-of-the-COVID. Taking into account future suicides, missed cancer screenings, missed medical treatments, and other missed appointments, the government response to COVID will likely kill more people under 65 years old than the virus itself did.

Argument: Firearms, like cigarettes and opioids, are a public health problem primarily because of suicides and homicides. Rebuttal: Tobacco and opioid health impacts were known by the manufacturers and deliberately withheld from the public for as long as possible. In contrast, firearms are not, nor have they ever been, misrepresented as anything but lethal weapons.  

Argument: Firearms in the home dramatically increase the odds of a woman’s murder and the suicide of any family member. Rebuttal: This one gets things backward, like the O.J. Simpson trial. The prosecution in the O.J. Simpson trial argued that O.J. Simpson abused Nicole, and many abusers go on to murder their victims. The defense argued that wasn’t the case – most abusers do not go on to murder their victims. The defense was correct, but the prosecution didn’t offer a retort. The key is that murder is a rare event. So you have to frame the question differently: If a woman is murdered, what is the likelihood that her murderer was also her abuser? It turns out that percentage is relatively high.

Since suicide is a rare event, similar to murder, the question becomes this: For the people who commit suicide, why did they use firearms 50 percent of the time?

Cause versus Decision

For this question, the firearm is not the agent of cause; its use is the outcome of a decision process.

I think we will have a better understanding of why by asking a few more questions:

  1. Did the victim use an object to facilitate their death?
  2. Was the object obtained explicitly for that purpose?
  3. Was the object obtained legally?
  4. Was the object reasonably easy to get?
  5. Were there any special requirements needed to obtain the object?
  6. Was any knowledge beyond easily found public knowledge required to know how to use the object?
  7. Was the object easily capable of producing a painless death?
  8. Was the object easily capable of producing a quick death?
  9. Was cost a barrier that had to be overcome to obtain the object?
  10. Did the victim have previous experience with the object?

Compared to other objects, it is easy to see why firearms would be the top result of this decision process. However, it is also essential to understand the use of firearms would drop if another object had better answers. As a thought experiment, imagine a drink made of commonly available materials that resulted in a painless sleep within a few seconds and then death. If that recipe went viral and documentaries were made, the public would have common knowledge of it. One aspect of this thought experiment is that firearms use in suicides would be reduced, but suicides as a whole would stay the same or increase because victims would be choosing another object than firearms.

The real work, however, isn’t in thought experiments. It is by helping people overcome suicidal thoughts and to be able to lead an enriching and rewarding life.  

Questions About The Victim

A runny nose is a symptom of a common cold. You can choose to deal with a runny nose by using Kleenex. You can also take over-the-counter cold treatments that may dry up that running nose. However, the underlying cause, the common cold, remains there. In short, you treat the symptoms, not the root cause. Luckily, our immune system usually takes care of the common cold in a few days, and that root cause is removed. However, there are complications. For example, a runny nose may look like a cold, but you have seasonal allergies. I remember visiting Tombstone in 2021 and seeing a shirt that said (paraphrasing), “Don’t worry, pilgrim, it is only allergies.”

Given that almost 75 percent of firearm suicides are 35 or older, and over 25% are 65 years and older, it makes sense to ask questions about what life circumstances might trigger suicidal thoughts.

For 35 and older:

  • Loss of job
  • Divorce
  • Bankruptcy
  • Death in the family
  • PTSD
  • CTE

For 65 and older:

  • Terminal disease
  • A medical condition that dramatically impacted the quality of life
  • A disease where the treatment would kill the patient.

Readers may be surprised that I don’t mention depression. The problem with depression is that its so-called cure is for the patient to be placed on antidepressant medication. Unfortunately, these pills don’t seem to impact the quality of life of their users, not to mention they have side effects. https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-04-20/in-long-run-antidepressants-dont-improve-quality-of-life-study. Here are two good quotes from the article:

Almohammed said the findings suggest that clinicians “might be relying on the use of antidepressant medications, while underutilizing or underestimating the role and impact of non-therapeutic interventions.”

The study findings didn’t surprise Dr. David Katz, founding director of the prevention research center at Yale University/Griffin Hospital, and president of the preventive medicine advocacy organization True Health Initiative. […] Katz stressed that doctors’ understanding of how the brain works — and how best to treat mental health disorders — is still “quite primitive.” While he agreed the study findings are “not a reason for patients to renounce pharmacotherapy,” Katz also suggested that medications might best be thought of “as only one part — and perhaps not the most important part — of a more holistic treatment plan.”

A pill isn’t going to save us. We have to get our hands dirty.

Guns & Ammo: 2023 Annual: Touched by Tragic Loss

I was pleased to read what was going on around firearms and suicide prevention in a recent Guns & Ammo magazine. A guest editorial in this magazine by Russell B. Lemle and Jasper Craven was quite timely. They detail various prevention programs that attempt to reduce the number of firearm suicides. They start with Joe Bartozzi, President and CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and continue from there.

One organization that seems absent is the CDC. On their Firearm Fast Fact page, they do mention securely storing a firearm. However, given what the NSSF is doing in partnership with firearm manufacturers, you have to wonder: Shouldn’t the CDC be doing that? After all, here is what they say regarding their role in Firearm Violence Prevention (my emphasis):

“CDC’s approach to preventing firearm injuries focuses on three elements: providing data to inform action; conducting research and applying science to identify effective solutions; and promoting collaboration across multiple sectors to address the problem.” – https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html Accessed Feb. 2023

The CDC isn’t mentioned in the Guns & Ammo article, nor do the CDC mention any work they’ve done with the NSSF or any other organization around firearm suicide prevention. The CDC only notes secure storage as part of suicide prevention. As we’ve seen from the age range of firearm suicides, we shouldn’t believe that secure storage is a magical solution to the firearm suicide problem. It is, of course, a step in the right direction. However, it won’t prevent the suicide of someone who can legally go out and buy a firearm in any city in the state. Too often, it is assumed that most firearm suicides are children or teenagers caught in a difficult moment, and the availability of the firearm is what contributed to it. While this indeed happens, it is in the minority. Too often, I think, the people who consider firearm violence to be in the domain of public health don’t bother correcting that impression.

Sadly, I worry that the CDC already has a solution in mind for what they call firearm violence, and working with firearm manufacturers isn’t part of that solution. So, in my next post, I’ll subject the CDC’s firearm fast fact page to a critique.

CDC, DGUs, and FOIA

Time for the TLA decoder ring:

CDC: Center for Disease Control and Prevention

DGUs: Defensive Gun Uses

FOIA: Freedom of Information Act

With that out of the way….

I was working on my book in 2020 when COVID hit. During the year, I became extremely frustrated with the CDC. Their advice sucked, to put it bluntly. My mom was 88 then, and I was highly concerned that my ignorance of COVID would kill her. I had to put down the research and work I was doing on my book and spend 2020 researching infectious diseases. What a freaking pain!

Fast forward to now, mom is set to turn 91 soon. After a lot of tough family times in 2022, I’m hopeful 2023 will be better. However, the fact is that I never forgave the CDC for their bumbling COVID response (one that continues to this day). I almost want to yell, “You had ONE job….”

From 2021 to October 2022, my research into violent crimes and self-defense was completed, and my text was finalized. During this period, I noticed that the CDC was changing the DGU section of their Firearms Fast Facts page. They finally removed all the DGU statistics and said more research would be needed. I put that in my book as I thought it was odd.

There was a reason for it – pressure from groups with known anti-gun ties. I recommend that you read this article in its entirety.

https://thereload.com/emails-cdc-removed-defensive-gun-use-stats-after-gun-control-advocates-pressured-officials-in-private-meeting/

In my book, I also criticize the Gun Violence Archive for how it counts DGUs and quote from the same passage the article does. Additionally, I discuss why DGUs are so hard to track. However, Kleck and English have produced some outstanding research on DGUs, and there is no reason why the CDC should not post that info.

Here are a couple of points to help understand DGUs and injurious violent crime

  1. The vast majority of injurious violent crimes are not committed with firearms.
  2. In the vast majority of DGUs, the firearm is not discharged.

When you understand these two things, you will understand why you do not bring fists to a gunfight. To clarify, when your attacker feels they can overwhelm you with their physicality (or with a non-firearm weapon), and you defend yourself by pulling a gun, your fleeing attacker just showed an instinctive understanding of the principle not to bring fists to a gunfight.

Furthermore, you can understand why DGUs are so hard to track. If there is no injury, video footage, audio recordings, or other physical evidence, it becomes harder to charge someone with a crime. It is one person’s word against another (I’m sure law enforcement gets tired of hearing adults act like children with “He started it!”). However, there is a wrinkle. If you say you pulled your gun in self-defense as part of a DGU, you are admitting to committing an aggravated assault with a firearm, but it was justified because of the circumstances. These are the exact circumstances that cannot be verified by physical evidence. So the question becomes: Do you want to take the chance that the court will find it unjustified?

This reason is the primary one why I feel the law should be changed. In the absence of physical evidence for a non-injurious DGU, I should be given the benefit of the doubt if there is disagreement about what happened. Why me? Well, I have a concealed carry permit. The state of Arizona has all ten of my fingerprints and my picture and conducted an extensive background check on me (and does so every time I renew, if not more). Also, the Federal government has my picture and all ten fingerprints. Why? Because I own restricted National Firearms Act (NFA) items. If it is my word against someone else’s who has not gone through such checks, my word should count more.

I don’t expect any changes to the law in my lifetime, so you may want to add devices to help gather physical evidence. Since most DGUs happen at home or on the home’s property, you’ll want to read my detailed discussion of home defense in my book. Implementing a basic set of my recommendations will get you all the physical evidence you need, but also, it will probably keep the situation where a DGU unfolded from ever happening.

If you carry a weapon, you should seriously consider body cameras and audio recording capability when you go between your vehicle/hotel to a destination (and back again), assuming your state allows one-party consent for audio recording. This equipment could be the difference between a DGU being ruled as self-defense versus an aggravated assault.

Talking to Law Enforcement

[note: this post contains some foul language that is relevant for describing a criminal escalation]

The public and its relations with law enforcement (LE) have strained over the last several years. This characterization is mild, as law enforcement officers (LEOs) have been deliberately targeted and killed. A lot of the difficulties with the public stem from unbalanced media representations. Without a doubt, LEOs have engaged in criminal acts against innocents, and they have either gotten away with it or been caught and punished. However, to think that all LEOs are bad is to stereotype a tiny representation as being reflective of the whole. LE has a challenging job, and I don’t think there is enough appreciation in the public’s mind for how difficult it actually is.

I believe as long as LEOs are considered separate from a community rather than a part of it, there will continue to be public relations problems. One of the benefits of living in a smaller community is that you likely know an LEO and their family. Sometimes this has downsides, at least when it did when I was growing up. If I got into trouble as a teenager, my parents usually found out about it before I even got home! 

My book discusses LE interactions extensively, so I’ll be brief here. Two main issues exist for those carrying a concealed firearm (CCF).

  1. Do I tell an LEO about my concealed weapon during a traffic stop?
  2. What do I say to an LEO after a defensive gun use (DGU)?

I cover the first one in my book, so I’ll skip it here.

Answers for the second item are very controversial. Why? The reason is that self-defense is one side of a DGU coin. The other side of the DGU coin is aggravated assault. The difference between the two is not as secure as you think. I discuss several scenarios in my book where individuals believe they were in a self-defense situation but instead committed aggravated assault. In short, depending on how evidence is conveyed in court, your flipped DGU coin can quickly become weighted to land on aggravated assault. If your DGU-weighted coin lands on aggravated assault, you are looking at felony charges. In addition, some states have extra penalties for gun crimes, such as mandatory prison sentences. In sum, there is a steep price if your DGU coin gets weighted to land on aggravated assault. The only thing worse than that is if you weighted the coin yourself by talking to LE unnecessarily.

People who CCF and are involved in a DGU want clear and concise advice on what to say to LE. Criminal defense attorneys usually have that advice, which is to keep quiet. I keep an attorney on retainer through Attorneys for Freedom, which attorney Marc J. Victor owns. Here is what he says on the topic: https://attorneysforfreedom.com/should-i-talk-to-the-police-if-i-am-arrested-for-a-crime/. The point of view of saying as little as possible to police is backed up by another attorney, James Duane, in a widely seen YouTube video, Don’t Talk To Police, and book You Have The Right To Remain Innocent.

Challenging this view is Massad Ayoob. Ayoob is a veteran LEO, expert witness, author, and someone who has an excellent reputation. I have not read Ayoob’s books but I enjoy his articles when I run across them. His pieces are always thought-provoking, and this one is no exception. The article in question appears in the magazine Combat Handguns March/April 2023 called Silence vs. Loose Lips and starts on page 12.

Preliminaries

Before we get started, let’s clear up a few things:

  • Over 80 percent of DGUs happen at home or on the home’s property. Both examples used by Ayoob are home defense examples. I discuss properly preparing the security of your home in my book. An adequately secured home will help prevent intruders, DGUs, and you from having to talk to law enforcement under challenging circumstances.
  • James Duane’s book is not about DGUs. It is about innocent people who worsened their lives by talking to LE. It covers a lot of ground, both state and federal. His book is replete with real-world cases that, quite frankly, are heartbreaking. These aren’t one-off stories, either. A not-small percentage of innocent people have been sent to prison, and they only went to prison based on how LE interpreted their statements. These individuals were later exonerated primarily through DNA evidence. This fact should give you pause. I recommend purchasing Duane’s book to get the full impact of those stories.

Why should I worry? I didn’t do anything wrong!

Let’s start by asking: “Why should any civilian be concerned about talking to law enforcement if they did not do anything wrong?” Then, I’ll give two reasons why a civilian should be concerned and back up my statements with quotes from James Duane’s book.

  1. LE has no obligation to be honest with you about anything. An LEO can show up at your door, fabricate a story, lie about your loved ones, and wait to hear what you say. James Duane comments:

Even if you are innocent, the police will do whatever it takes to get you to talk if they think that you might be guilty. That includes saying just about anything, no matter how dishonest, to help persuade you that it might be in your best interest to give them a statement. And the courts will generally say whatever they need to say to excuse the dishonesty on the part of the police, even if the courts have to say something that is just as dishonest. […] If a used car salesman engaged in this sort of deception, he would be thrown behind bars. – You Have the Right to Remain Innocent (p. 40). Little A. Kindle Edition.

  • Any communication you have with LE can be used to prosecute you but not used for your defense. Furthermore, the prosecution can be selective about what to quote you on and place them out of context. You cannot defend against this in any way, shape, or form. Again, from James Duane:

If you talk to the police for three hours and give them three hundred details that would all tend to support your defense, and you only mention three details that might help get you convicted, the prosecutor has every right under the law to ask the officers to only tell the jury about the three details that seem to implicate you in the crime. – You Have the Right to Remain Innocent (p. 43). Little A. Kindle Edition.

To wrap up this section, let’s have one final quote from James Duane

In other words, talking to the police is at best a no-win situation for someone suspected of committing a crime. – You Have the Right to Remain Innocent (p. 43). Little A. Kindle Edition.

The Dangers of Silence

Ayoob titles his article Silence vs. Loose Lips. Based on the previous section, we can understand the problems with loose lips. Are there any problems with silence? It turns out there are. Let’s hear from James Duane.

In the case of Salinas v. Texas, decided in 2013, the five most conservative justices on the court (the only five appointed by Republican presidents) held for the first time that the silence of a criminal suspect, at least if the suspect is not in custody, is logically relevant evidence that is admissible against the suspect at trial and may be used to help persuade the jury that the suspect is guilty! Those five members of the court agreed that the State of Texas was therefore within its rights to prove and argue that a young man named Genovevo Salinas was probably guilty of a crime because he remained silent when the police asked him a question about it. – You Have the Right to Remain Innocent (p. 93). Little A. Kindle Edition.

What about pleading the 5th? More problems, unfortunately. More from James Duane:

The same year the Supreme Court decided Salinas, the Department of Justice also helped persuade another federal court in another case that it should be lawful and permissible for a prosecutor to argue that anyone who explicitly asserts the right against self-incrimination is also admitting guilt. – You Have the Right to Remain Innocent (p. 107). Little A. Kindle Edition.

Furthermore:

Even if you take care to say, “I wish to invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination,” you have no guarantee that the agent will not testify months later at your trial that “he said he would not talk because the truth would incriminate him.” – Duane, James. You Have the Right to Remain Innocent (p. 113). Little A. Kindle Edition.  

It is essential to remember for those who are used to watching crime dramas on television or movies that there are usually several months (if not longer!) between your LE conversation and your trial. As a result, the LEO has probably forgotten most of what you said and now has to review some notes that may be good or not.

Now What?

At this point, talking is bad, and being silent is bad. However, Ayoob has a 5-point recommendation if you are in a DGU (taken from the article but abbreviated). He starts when LE is on the scene:

Point 1: Explain the active dynamic, which is what the opponent did to make you use force. […].

Point 2: Confirm that you were the intended victim […].

Point 3: Point out evidence […].

Point 4: Point out witnesses […].

Point 5: Only at that point, request an attorney, cease to answer questions and say something such as “Detective, you’ll have my full cooperation after I’ve spoken with counsel. I wish to speak with an attorney now.”

I recommend something similar in my book. The US Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) also does. Here is what they say (https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/what-to-say-to-911-after-a-self-defense-incident/), which covers more than the 911 call:

  1. Identify yourself clearly as the victim of an attack.
  2. Clearly communicate who the person was that attacked you, where he or she fled to and if he or she is armed with any weapon, such as a firearm.
  3. Follow all police instructions when they arrive on the scene, as it is critical for you to survive that next encounter.
  4. Point out any major pieces of evidence that the police need to be aware of, such as the weapon the attacker used that forced you to act in self-defense.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Ayoob’s examples are as relevant as they could be to his or USCCA’s points. Therefore, I will create a fictitious scenario and walk through it with a happy ending. Then, I will take that same scenario and show how it becomes a disaster. I’ll end the fictional parts with a # mark.

DISCLAIMER: I’m not a criminal defense attorney or an LEO. I also did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Therefore, what follows is not legal advice.

You are at home with your wife and baby. You fall asleep, and your wife wakes you up around 1 am and tells you the baby is sick. The baby’s symptoms are very similar to what she had a few months ago, and your wife knows what medicine will do the trick. So you throw on some clothes and head down to a 24/7 drug store about 10 minutes from your house.

As you round the corner to the store, you see two figures outside in the distance. Both appear to be smoking. As you approach, one begins walking to the store entrance, and the other turns and walks a few steps away. You park the car, open the door and step out of the vehicle.

You are rushed by an attacker who uses their body against your car door. The attacker uses the sidewalk’s edge for leverage, and the door crushes one of your legs, immobilizing you. At the same time, another attacker slides up on the car hood and swings a quart beer bottle at your head. Luckily, he missed, and the quart bottle shattered on the top of the car spilling stale beer all over you. The 2nd attacker is desperately trying to grab your shirt and pull you up so he can punch you out. At this time, you are able to pull your EDC and fire a round at the 2nd attacker. The 2nd attacker is hit and falls. The attacker pushing on the door flees. You try and stand but realize your leg may be broken as it cannot support your weight.

Realizing you are especially vulnerable, you get in your car, shut the door, and lock it. You can see the 2nd attacker motionless on the ground. You cannot see anyone outside the store and decide to call 911. You are trying to remember what to say as the phone is ringing.

#

Here are some 911 options.

Option 1: “There has been a shooting at Store Z, at the corner of Street X and Street Y. Please send the police.”

Option 2: “I was involved in a shooting at Store Z, at the corner of Street X and Street Y. I was attacked by two men, one is down, and the other has fled. Please send the police.”

Option 3: “I was involved in a shooting at Store Z, at the corner of Street X and Street Y. I was attacked by two men, one is down, and the other has fled. I do not know if the man that fled was armed. He was wearing a black hoodie, jeans, and white shoes. Please send the police.”

Option 4: “My name is John Doe. I was involved in a defensive shooting at Store Z, at the corner of Street X and Street Y. I was attacked by two men, one is down, and another one has fled. I do not know if the man that fled was armed. He was wearing a black hoodie, jeans, and white shoes. He fled towards Street X. Please send the police.”

Option 5: “My name is John Doe. I was involved in a defensive shooting at Store Z, at the corner of Street X and Street Y. I was attacked by two men, one is down, and another one has fled. I do not know if the man that fled was armed. He was wearing a black hoodie, jeans, and white shoes. He fled towards Street X. I believe another man that may have been a witness is in the store. Please send the police.”

Option 6: “My name is John Doe, and I have a concealed carry permit. I was involved in a defensive shooting at Store Z, at the corner of Street X and Street Y. I was attacked by two men, one is down, and another one has fled. I do not know if the man that fled was armed. He was wearing a black hoodie, jeans, and white shoes. He fled towards Street X. I believe another man that may have been a witness is in the store. I am also injured. Please send the police and an ambulance.”

Option 7: “My name is John Doe, and I have a concealed carry permit. I was involved in a defensive shooting at Store Z, at the corner of Street X and Street Y. I was attacked by two men, one is down, and another one has fled. I do not know if the man that fled was armed. He was wearing a black hoodie, jeans, and white shoes. He fled towards Street X. I believe another man that may have been a witness is in the store. I am also injured and cannot walk. I am inside my brown car parked in front of the store. Please send the police and an ambulance.”

Write down your preferred option. Then, you can see how it turns out later.  Back to the scenario:

You’ve put your legs in the car (a painful process!), locked the doors, and rolled up the windows. You placed your EDC in the passenger seat. You see LE pull into the parking lot, roll down your window, and place your hands up through the window. The LEO approaches you, their weapon drawn, and asks who you are.

You say: “My name is John Doe, and I have a concealed carry permit. I called 911. I was involved in a defensive shooting. I was attacked by two men, this one is down, and another one has fled. I do not know if the man that fled was armed. He was wearing a black hoodie, jeans, and white shoes. He fled towards Street X. I believe another man that may have been a witness is in the store. I am also injured, that is why I am in my car. I can’t stand or walk, but I’m not bleeding. I think my leg may be broken. It got pinned in the door.”

The LEO says: “Where is your weapon, sir?”

You respond: “On the passenger seat.”

The LEO says: “I will need to take possession of it. I’m moving towards the passenger door. Do not move. Unlock it on my command only.”

The LEO takes possession of your firearm. At this time, the LEO tells you to keep your hands up, and the LEO checks out the man on the ground. The LEO comes back and asks for your identification. You provide it, and it checks out. At this point, the LEO asks you about what exactly happened. An ambulance arrives and begins working on the man on the ground. They indicate another ambulance is on the way.

The LEO notices about the smell of beer in the car. You explain that it must have been stale beer from the quart beer bottle the man swung at you. The LEO asks if you mind taking a quick breathalyzer. You agree.

The 2nd ambulance pulls up, and the LEO says, “For the EMTs to work on you in the car, I’ll need to do a quick search to ensure there are no other weapons. Is that ok?” You say, “Sure.” He begins searching when the EMTs approach your door and ask about your condition. They ask if you can get out of the car with assistance and get on a gurney. You say that you can, and they help you out. The LEO walks over to discuss the attacker’s condition with the EMTs. Other LEOs arrive, and he sends them to talk with the clerk in the store and check around the property.

When the LEO arrives, you are getting ready to be loaded into the ambulance. He says he has a few more questions for you. You tell the officer that, given the circumstances, you need a lawyer, and he’ll have your full cooperation after talking with the lawyer. The LEO respects your decision and leaves you alone.

The day you are released from the hospital, the LEO you talked with shows up. He says they pulled the video from the store, which backs your story. It looks like your attackers were looking to carjack someone that night. They even had a story worked out in advance if things went south. Their friend, who worked at the store, had told them the camera’s recorder was broken, so there wouldn’t be any video. It looks like he was wrong. They were pretty surprised when we showed them the video. The LEO wanted to know if you were willing to testify against your attackers as the attacker you shot would make a full recovery. You say you will testify against them.

#

We see that John Doe did some things right and some wrong, which will happen to most people in a very stressful event such as this attack.

The Twist

In this example, everything is exactly the same except for two things. One, there is no store video; two, you are arrested when you are released from the hospital. This story resumes when you are sitting with the detective (D) in the police station, and the detective is describing the evidence against you (JD).

D: Mr. Doe, I have you as saying one of your attackers was a man wearing a black hoodie, jeans, and white shoes, and fled towards Street X. Is that correct?

JD: I believe that is correct, yes.

D: We apprehended a woman on Street Y. She was wearing a green hoodie, jeans, and gray shoes.

JD: Really? Was she the attacker?

D: Well, she was there. According to her, however, you caused all the problems.

JD: What? Hell, just pull the video from the store.

D: There is no video. The store’s recorder was broken.

JD: What? Look, I was attacked.

D: We talked to the woman and the man you shot separately. Their stories agreed. They said you pulled up and wanted to buy drugs from them. They told you they didn’t sell drugs, and you became belligerent. You called the woman a cunt. Her boyfriend was walking to your car to confront you about it when you pulled your gun. The boyfriend thought you would shoot his girl, so he picked up a beer bottle and tried to knock you out. You shot him instead.

JD: That is total bullshit.

D: Well, it turns out that your breathalyzer reading was about one-third of the legal limit.

JD: Damn – I forgot I had a glass of wine with my wife just before I went to bed. It was just an honest mistake.

D: When you consented to a vehicle search, the LEO found a baggie with half a painkiller.

JD: That is, like, over a year old. When my wife discovered she was pregnant, she wanted to surprise her parents. Unfortunately, I had wrenched my back at work. The only way I could survive the car trip was to take half a painkiller.

D: I take it you have a prescription for them?

JD: Um, no. Someone I know gave one to me so I could make the trip.

D: Well, you know, druggies like to hang out with druggies. Guess what else? That eyewitness you said went in the store, so such an eyewitness existed. No one had purchased anything from the store for half an hour before you arrived.

JD: Look, I saw someone approaching the store’s front. Perhaps he doubled back and was my attacker.

D: Now, the eyewitness is your attacker? Are you sure it was a guy? I mean, you don’t have a stellar record so far.

JD: Look, I don’t quite remember what I said. These are just honest mistakes.

D: Guess what? Everything you said is in the 911 call. That is public information. Do you know what else was in the 911 call? What you said before the operator picked up. If you didn’t know, 911 calls begin recording even before you get connected to an operator. You kept saying to yourself, “What do I say?” repeatedly.

JD: I was trying to remember my concealed carry training regarding 911.

D: Or trying to fake a story.

JD: That is not true!

D: Here is what I think happened. I think you had some wine with your wife, maybe got a little buzzed, maybe got to thinking some painkillers would go good right now. Your baby was sick, and you went out to get medicine, but you realized half a painkiller wouldn’t do the trick that evening. So you approached two people who you thought could sell you some. When they couldn’t, you blew a gasket. The situation escalated, and you ended up shooting someone. To try and cover your tracks, you gave false information to the police and figured the guy you shot would die. You get away free if we don’t find the other witness. That’s why you described the witness completely wrong and even misled us about where she was headed. As you call them, these “honest mistakes” don’t seem so honest, do they?  

#

In the absence of hard evidence, other evidence must be used, and sometimes that could be distorted. For example, depending on the US State, John Doe is looking at serious prison time. When he gets out of prison, his wife may have divorced him, and his kid is calling someone else dad.

In the good version, the hard evidence trumped the other evidence. The LEOs concluded that you simply made some honest mistakes. As a result, a man was reunited with his family, and two criminals were taken off the street. While there are some things they could follow up on with you, there are much bigger fish to fry.

Honest Mistakes versus Lying versus Hiding Something

Looking back on your actions in a stressful situation, you probably didn’t do everything according to the script. It is especially true with ordinary civilians, who probably experienced hardcore violence for the first time.

Who interprets whether something said is an honest mistake or a lie? Well, the LEO does. Therein lies the problem, as it is not objective but subjective. Your LEO can have some of the following characteristics that influence their perception of what you say:

Condition: Fresh, Exhausted

Attitude: Open, Annoyed

Experience: Rookie, Veteran

If an LEO believes you are hiding something, guilty, or lying, they have tremendous power to try and get you to say something incriminating. If you doubt this, read the quotes from James Duane earlier in this post. Duane also points out in his book that once an LEO believes you are guilty, they are subject to confirmation bias. All the evidence they see confirms that you are guilty. Any evidence that does not is discounted. Hard evidence is the only antidote.

What should have happened?

Upon seeing two young people at 1am at a corner convenience store, John Doe should have kept driving and found another store. Violent crime is primarily a young person’s game. Most ordinary civilians are either working (depending on their job) or sleeping at 1 am – they aren’t hanging out smoking in front of a store. Keep in mind a corner store has a lot of ways for your attackers to flee the scene of a crime.

If John Doe felt he had to stop because of his kid, he should have worn a body cam. I discuss these things in my book. Unfortunately, I do not know of any people who CCF and use a body cam – it is not typically discussed. I’m currently evaluating one that may be promising, and I’ll post something on it later if it turns out well. Also, if your state permits it, one-party consent to audio recording allows you to record conversations. So if you don’t want the bulk of a camera, you may still benefit from recorded conversations that could help your case.

However, many civilian violence situations involve an escalation. This fact is why I recommend de-escalation training. You don’t want to be recorded as encouraging the fight. Also, you don’t want to inform LE about your video/audio recording. You’ll be discussing any of your recordings with your attorney.

Lastly, after John Doe told the officer what happened, he should have invoked his constitutional rights. You can read Marc J. Victor’s statement at the link I previously listed for Attorneys for Freedom. You may want to edit out mention of the 5th amendment based upon what Duane has said, but otherwise, John Doe’s innocence would have been better protected from badly interpreted circumstantial evidence.  

Counterpoints to Ayoob

Ayoob wants to counteract those who did not read Duane carefully and remind them that silence is not your best option. However, he says a few points that I feel are controversial.

Ayoob: “The advice to never talk to the police comes primarily from defense attorneys who know a huge percentage of their clients are guilty as charged […].”

Counterpoint: LE talks to guilty people the majority of the time. Is it not possible that this fact influences their interpretation of the evidence? The more evidence available, the more it may be interpreted as the statements of the guilty: the more statements, the more guilt, even when the person is innocent.

Ayoob: “If an innocent person follows advice for guilty people and acts like a guilty person, they’ll end up with a guilty man’s verdict.”

Counterpoint: In Ayoob’s own example, the silent man spent an “uncomfortably long time behind bars” before getting a hearing. However, he didn’t go to trial and wasn’t convicted even when he was silent. I’m not saying the man took the best approach, but there is a difference between waiting for a hearing and being convicted and going to prison.

Ayoob (quoting from his 1980 book): “Explain to the arresting officers that you’re not a punk taking the Fifth […].”

Counterpoint: You should never feel guilty about involving your constitutional rights. Yes, as Ayoob and Duane point out, there are problems with silence and problems with invoking the 5th amendment. However, you can use Marc J. Victor’s statement he recommends, but just leave out the 5th amendment (but keep the other amendments!).  

Duane points out that when LE shoots someone, they invoke their constitutional rights. I doubt that they follow the 5-point plan laid out in the article (but I’m happy to be proven wrong). Duane also points out that LEOs, attorneys, and anyone involved in the legal system tell their children never to talk to LE. If true, this advice contradicts Ayoob’s own points.

Unfortunately, Ayoob’s statements in the article seem to contradict Point 5 of invoking your constitutional rights. After reading the article, one wonders why Ayoob even recommends invoking your constitutional rights. After all, aren’t you acting like a guilty person?

Hopefully, a future article from Ayoob can expand on a few things:

  1. Does an LEO follow the 5-point plan if they are involved in a fatal shooting? If not, why?
  2. What do LEOs tell their children about talking to LE?
  3. Given what was stated in the article, why is Point 5 necessary? What does it prevent?

As you can see from the length of this post, Ayoob’s articles are very thought-provoking and provide great information for ordinary civilians. While I may have some disagreements, they were well worth thinking through.