Games Criminals Play, by Bud Allen

The target audience for this text is a corrections officer or jailer -- someone who is regularly exposed to criminals and thus targeted in a range of psychological ploys to advantage the criminal.    For someone who doesn't work in that realm, it is still a very interesting book.  The underlying notions of how people can be gamed into inappropriate behavior are applicable to business settings (albeit with much different stakes).

Tactical Pistol Shooting, by Lawrence & Pannone

This is a gem, my new favorite book on shooting techniques. There may be some controversy, as the authors suggest both-eyes-open shooting. This takes some practice, it forces a front sight -centric approach, and it feels very different than non-dominant-eye-closed aiming where the sight picture is crisper.

I tried it today with acceptable results, albeit not as good as using my dominant eye only. So I'll keep working on this for a while and see how quickly improvement comes before I make a long-term decision.

Meanwhile, I recommend this book. It covers more than just stance and technique.

The Engine 2 Diet, by Rip Esselstyn

I came across this book circuitously: I was watching a set of videos from a health conference sponsored by Dr. John McDougall. One of the speakers was Jeff Novick, who was the source of Esselstyn's chapter 3 material on reading packaged food labels. Another speaker was John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, who described an ambitious and impressive program for the firm's employees, and mentioned partnering with Esselstyn for a line of foods. So... I figured I'd might as well see what this guy is about for myself.

Bottom line: amused that he uses the phrase "plant strong" to avoid the (presumably more frightening) term "vegan." But a great book, based on great science.

Oh, and a chapter on exercises, and a number of (what seem to be great; eager to try some) recipes.

The Farnam Method of Defensive Handgunning, by John Farnam

I was disappointed in this book; fewer than 10 pages were of real use to me, and those not until after 194 less interesting pages had passed.

How to Survive the Most Critical 5 Seconds of Your Life, by Tim Larkin

This is a tough book to read -- not that it is poorly written, far from it. Rather because of the subject matter. This book is about violence; it is somewhat graphic and definitely disturbing.

The essence of the text is, if you are in a situation where a criminal will apply violence to you, then you must choose: either to apply violence to him, or to be a victim.

The author differentiates anti-social situations (e.g., when a drunk at the bar hassles you, the easiest solution is to walk away, avoiding confrontation) from asocial situations (e.g., when the criminal has a knife to your neck, and you have to decide if you will fight, perhaps literally for your life).

As I've mentioned before, sane people in the USA prefer to not think about such things. Larkin quotes Jeff Cooper early on:

"...many men who are not cowards are simply unprepared for acts of human savagery. They have not thought about it (incredible as this may appear to anyone who reads the papers or listens to the news) and they just don't know what to do. When they look right into the face of depravity and violence they are astonished and confounded."

Larkin also touches on the Virginia Tech situation, about which I've also commented in the past, asking, why didn't any group of students swarm Seung Hui Cho, even when he stopped to reload? This is a (sad) commentary on our readiness as a nation to protect ourselves in general, the culture of political correctness swirled with litigation-as-a-way-of-life.

As an (is this controversial?) aside, this culture of acquiescence is why the USA is today ill-suited to deal effectively with terrorism. Maybe that's why terrorism protection theater at our airports continues to suffice to appease the masses, or at least the politicians.

But Larkin's book isn't really about theory or politics or philosophy; it is about deciding if violence is a realistic choice for you in dangerous situations.

Just 2 Seconds, by Gavin de Becker

This is an excellent, albeit niche, text; unlike de Becker's prior book, which addressed a broad civilian market, this one is meant for the personal protection professional.

Dave Grossman addresses a general audience topic in Appendix 12, where he points out that most Americans are sheep. What does he mean by that?

We're trained to not think about defending ourselves. We're trained to think that those who do worry about such things are a bit off. We're trained to think that nice, liberal thinking folks who drive Prius cars are somehow immune to the violence of the world.

One example of this is the zero-tolerance of violence in schools -- a fine notion, except for how it applies to self-defense situations. If a child is attacked, shouldn't we want her to fight back, without worry about being expelled as part of a politically correct policy? (I've written about this before.) In fact I advocate a response to force which is slightly disproportionate -- make it just a bit more uncomfortable for the attacker, so they never consider you as a target again.

Another example is the reaction I sometimes get about some of the books I read about handguns; in the USA today, folks who (legally) carry handguns are considered fringe, even nut cases, especially by folks who live on the coasts (NY and California). (Sorry about that generalization people, but you know it is true).

But these same people will conscientiously ensure their smoke alarms work in case of a fire, and will only buy vehicles that have plenty of air bags in case of a crash -- as we should. So, why not be prepared in case of a violent attack -- as we should?

Law enforcement is not (per case law) responsible to protect you, only to investigate afterward, unless they accidentally are in the right place at the right time and do the right thing (and they have immunity from liability if they do not).

Firefighters show up when the flames are enveloping the building, and EMTs show up after the car's hit the tree. That's why you want smoke detectors and airbags and such.

That's why some folks carry handguns or mace or stun guns, learn martial arts techniques, and the like. It really isn't so crazy to act counter to popular culture.

Back to Grossman's sheep analogy. He says there are also wolves. (Think bad guys.) Wolves prey upon sheep. And then, there are sheepdogs. They attack wolves who threaten the flock.

Usually we think of sheepdogs as representing our military and law enforcement professionals. But sheepdogs also represent those of us who refuse to be sheep.

Grossman writes, "[Sheep's] only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, 'Do you have any idea how hard it would be ... if your loved ones [were] attacked ... and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?'" [p626]

The Concealed Handgun Manual, by Chris Bird

This is an excellent book. Even for folks not interested in carrying a concealed handgun, Mr. Bird touches on an obvious, yet not talked about phenomenon that dramatically affect the way we live: we are taught that being a victim is appropriate, acceptable behavior. We are taught to be sheep, and to not protect ourselves and our loved ones. And we are taught that if one does protect oneself, there will be hell to pay.

Does that seem over the top? It isn't really. Consider public schools: many have a zero tolerance policy on violence. If little Sally is attacked at school and appropriately fights back, she's in as much trouble as her attacker, at least as far as the school district is concerned.

These lessons, unfortunately, work well, with insidious consequences. Look at the Virginia Tech situation, where Seung Hui Cho murdered 30 people. All reports indicate that no one fought back -- even after it was clear that individuals were being murdered, that there was no negotiated agreement to be had. The Incident Review Panel pointed out that playing dead amid the carnage was a survival technique for some students. Frighteningly, the Panel didn't make any recommendation or comment about the opposite behavior: that students should be taught to fight back. In fact, the event was credited with the opposite outcome -- with reducing the ability of trained, law abiding citizens to defend themselves with weapons.

If the passengers on United Airlines flight 93 on September 11th, 2001 had been brought up in this politically correct, ultra-liberal, CYA - lawsuit avoidance mentality, thousands more innocents might have been killed by terrorists. Fortunately, Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, Tom Burnett, Jeremy Glick, and Lou Nacke, took the heroic high road and defended if not themselves, at least their nation.

Notifying and waiting for the authorities is clearly the best course of action in any life threatening situation. Except for when it gets in the way of saving your life. If your assailant is about to kill or inflict severe bodily harm upon you, you should defend yourself. Otherwise, all the police will be able to do is investigate your murder after the fact.

The author attributes to Professor John Lott Jr that "... a woman who defends herself with a firearm is 2.5 times more likely to survive a violent confrontation with a criminal without serious injury than if she were not to resist at all... with anything other than a firearm, she is four times more likely to be hurt..."

As Mr. Bird writes, "US courts have consistently held than law-enforcement agencies have no duty to protect an individual citizen."

The question that bothers me is: why do so few politicians trust their law-abiding citizens, even those willing to be trained and tested, to carry guns for protection?

[An aside on the "law-abiding" part of this: based on the most recent data provided in Texas, licensed concealed handgun carry (CHL) holders accounted for 0.26% of the criminal convictions in the state. It would be nice for the number of convicted CHL holders to be zero, but problems with fewer than 0.05% of the licensed CHL holders is still pretty good.]

Mr. Bird's book is informational as well as thought provoking.

The Gift of Fear, by Gavin De Becker

The sub-title of this book is, "this book can save your life." I believe that to be true.

Some key points: trust your intuition, if a situation doesn't "feel" right, then it isn't right, and perhaps most important, don't hesitate to be rude to protect your space and your safety. On that last point, De Becker gives several examples of how appropriate it can be, especially for a woman in a potentially dangerous situation (e.g., an elevator, stair way, parking garage) to tell an unwanted male, "I don't want your help," and to even follow up with, "I said NO!" The point being, rudeness is preferable to many other outcomes.

Negatives about this book: there's quite a bit of discussion of celebrity stalking, about which I have no interest, and serial killers, for which, ditto my lack of interest. You can skim those parts and still get quite a lot out of this book.

After the Echo, by Russ Clagett

This excellent little book was recommended to me by a firearms instructor. The instructor was right: it is a useful book for anyone who might imagine using justifiable deadly force to stop an assailant. It also gives valuable insight into the world of police snipers and the issues with which they must deal.

Emergency, by Neil Strauss

The sub-title of this book is, "This book will save your life." Hard to imagine, unless you use it to swat a mosquito carrying a virus.

The good news is, this is a very fast read; I read it on a relatively short flight. The bad news is, it is as empty of meaning as a mediocre cheese danish. Said differently, I tried to list the things I'd learned from this book:

1. This is where the list is supposed to go. You've seen the phrase, "this page intentionally left blank?" Well, this list intentionally left blank.
   

In fairness, there were a few pointers to interesting training firms, like Gunsite for shooting skills, and onPoint Tactical for urban evasion skills.

It probably would have made for a fascinating magazine article.