Gun Free Zones in Anchorage

An enterprising open carry forum member has mapped all the gun free school zones in Anchorage. Because Alaska has permitless carry -- not recognized by the feds in the GFSZA statute -- if one doesn't have the Alaska permit then one should avoid these areas to be in compliance with federal law.

Of course, Chugiak High School is well within the magic 1000 foot bubble of the Richardson highway. That means that numerous people driving north out of Anchorage -- like, say, off-duty Anchorage Police Department personnel and their families training at the Birchwood shooting range -- likely are violating the federal law on a regular basis.

Seriously, this law is a joke. It needs to be revised or just repealed. I think the best form this law should take is a sentencing enhancement, which is how federal prosecutors usually use it anyways. That is, if you commit a crime with a gun in a "school zone," maybe it tacks on an extra few years to the sentence or something. As it is, the law prohibits states from fully embracing reciprocity of each other's permits and makes potential felons out of many people every day, including off-duty law enforcement officers limited only by selective enforcement.

Alaska Marine Highway System

We had the fortune to recently travel on the Alaska Marine Highway System (aka ferry). Many people don't realize that Alaska isn't all snow and polar bears and oil. We actually have a lot of communities down in the south east (including the capitol), which is a coastal maritime zone which is pretty temperate, much like Seattle or Vancouver. These communities have no road access so the only way in and out is by air or sea.

The last time we took the ferry a few years ago was fairly unpleasant. The weather was marginal the whole trip and there was nothing but fog and drizzle. The boat we were on, Kennicott, was relatively new but was not particularly nice. Maybe facilities were shut down but the services, food, etc were very limited. Our schedule precluded any daytime port calls. It was also the end of our long trip up to Alaska, so going into an isolation chamber (no cell service, wifi, etc of course) was a bit deadening.

So, it was with a bit of trepidation, full kindles and books, and carefully lowered expectations that we boarded Columbia. Luckily, we were pleasantly surprised. The weather smiled upon us and we actually had a few days of gorgeous, clear skies with beautiful sunsets. The whales were out to be seen. A USFS ranger was onboard providing some fairly interesting talks. The vessel itself was quite nice, with a decent bar/lounge (with karaoke, piano, Alaskan beer, etc), a passable formal dining room, and other nice amenities. Obviously it isn't a cruise ship but it was pretty comfortable. Having just finished a frantic few weeks at work and such, it was nice to chill out for a few days and watch whales with a beer in hand. Obviously it isn't a cruise ship, but it was pretty comfortable.

We also had several port calls in most of the major port cities which lasted a few hours each. So, we were able to see Haines, Sitka, and Ketchikan. It was great to explore Southeast -- which we'd never really been to before -- at least for a bit, as well as to get off the boat. Haines is great except for the whole "right next to Canada" thing. We really enjoyed Sitka, and the mix of Russian, Native Alaskan and Anglo-American culture was really interesting. Ketchikan was a bit more industrial than the other cities.

All in all, I'd say AMHS is a good way to travel, if you have the time and money. Then again, while a bit expensive, it may be cheaper than driving a car on the ALCAN when you figure in gas, wear and tear, lodging, etc. I really enjoyed slowing down and decompresing for a few days. Compared to the hassle of air travel, going by ferry was actually pretty pleasant. To paraphrase, ocean liners can be an elegant means of transportation from a more civilized age.

Light Posting

Sorry for the dearth of content lately -- we've been busy moving. The next six months will be pretty hectic for us so I can't guarantee how much will be here. I will try to cue up some posts on "auto post" as time allows.

Why are anti-gun people so irresponsible?

In 2007, Nevada updated their CCW laws and implemented state-wide preemption. The new state law allows political subdivisions to put government buildings off-limit to concealed carry by posting signs OR using metal detectors at each door (they must have the magic no-gun-zone forcefield stickers). However, the local governments no longer have any right to prevent OPEN carry in such facilities unless they are schools, day cares, universities, or the state legislature.

The folks over at OpenCarry.org have been pushing local NV governments and agencies to update their policies and bring them into line with state law. There is a thread with all the back and forth between a gun rights activist and the Henderson, NV City Attorney. The saga goes on for some time. The City Attorney eventually recognizes that the local ordinance is in violation of state law but literally says that her personal feelings on the issue trump the law. In written correspondence (!!!), she gets near-hysterical, rambling, and completely unprofessional. Note: If you're going to violate your profession's ethics, don't do so in writing.

Luckily, the city council has (reluctantly) taken action over Ms. Quillin's reservations and is fixing the signage. Now for the ironic part:

Ms. Quillin was arrested last month for DUI with a BAC of .30. Now, I believe in due process and all that, but when you do a hit-and-run with several open bottles of wine in the car and a BAC that is three times over the legal limit to CCW in NV (more than that to drive!!) it appears to be a fairly open and shut case. She's pleading not guilty so it should be interesting to see how that works out for her--so much for taking responsibility for your actions and all that. The police also concluded that she was drunk during work hours, so I guess the rambling, incoherent, emotional emails make more sense now.

Antigun people seem to continually prove that they themselves have no self control, cannot determine truth from falsity, and cannot function as independent adults; for some reason assume that they are the norm. Normally I think education is the answer, but these symptoms appear to persist despite higher education or post-graduate work in some cases.

Militarized Language

Sebastian is writing about some shenanigans over in Joan Peterson's blog.

First, she's freaking out because a marine who is running for public office refers to himself as a "warrior." She thinks this terminology is some sort of secret code to extremist tin foil hat types, apparently.

Next, she's breaking out a major upgrade in the Reasoned Discourse level. Interestingly, she refers to her new commenting guidelines as "Rules of Engagement." If I were crazy, then I'd think that this was some sort of "secret code." I mean, why use a militarized phrase that practically reeks of conflict and violence? There were plenty of words with non-military etymologies such as "Commenting Guidelines," "Comment Policy," "Discussion Rules," and so on.

I think this is another case of double standards. I remember after the tragedy where Gabby Giffords was shot, the gun control folks and media (but I repeat myself) trotted out a graphic from Sarah Palin calling on folks to "target" various seats. Interestingly, even though the DNC using exactly the same language, graphics, and rhetoric, they got a free pass. Even more ironically, the progressive "Mother Goose" blog had written a vitriolic piece attacking Rep Giffords just prior to the shooting and calling for her to be targeted as she was a blue dog heretic, but that got flushed down the memory hole too.

If it is inappropriate to militarize our civil discourse in a given context, then it is inappropriate for both sides to do so. If one takes that view, then one might make an exception for speakers who are actually in the military or who study military science, or for different contexts where such language is appropriate (for example, discussing drone strikes in Pakistan would be an appropriate time to talk about "rules of engagement"). It seems to reek of at least irony if not offensive double-standards for Joan to blast a veteran for referring to his honorable service and then turn around and use militarized language herself to advance her cause without a second thought.

Recess Appointments

Maybe Andrew Traver won't get a promotion so quick after all.

The New Meme: ATF Gunrunner Scandal Result of No Leadership

When Gunrunner first broke, the media tried to ignore it until CBS ran with a series of reports. Next, the excuse was that "weak laws" (instead of complex, strict laws which the ATF knowingly and willfully refused to enforce). Now, the line that's getting trotted out is that Gunrunner is a result of the ATF not having a permanent Senate-confirmed director.

Even the WSJ, a semi-friendly conservative-leaning media outlet, closes its big story by commenting, "Some ATF agents believe the scandal could help highlight how Congress's refusal to approve an ATF leader contributes to the agency's troubles."

According to the new meme, apparently the big-bad NRA and other gun rights groups have been stymieing efforts to appoint a permanent leader, leaving the agency rudderless and adrift since 2008.

When you examine that line, though, it just doesn't hold up. Congress made the position require senate confirmation in 2006 in order to make ATF more responsive to Congressional oversight. Pres Bush's appointee, Michael Sullivan, was no friend of gun owners. He had a record of supporting the targeting of smaller gun shops for paperwork and technical errors, called for stricter gun control measures and bans, and was a speaker for Joyce Foundation events. Additionally, at that point, Pres Bush was a "lame duck," out of political capital, facing a hostile congress with a lot of other issues on his plate (like, say, Iraq). As a consequence, Sullivan never got confirmed.

When Pres Obama -- who supported open, transparent, and accountable government as a Senator during his campaign, and who also voted "YEA" on the 2006 law that added the confirmation requirement -- took office, he declined to nominate a replacement prior to the 2010 elections. Even though his party had a large majority in the Senate and a lot of political capital to expend, President Obama didn't even put a name in the ring. So Sullivan sat in the office until January 2009 then Kenneth Melson took over. So, due to President Obama's political decision, ATF lacked permanent leadership for the first half of his presidency. This in no way can be blamed on the NRA or gun rights groups or anyone other than perhaps Rahm Emanuel and other political advisors to the administration.

Immediately following the 2010 elections, Pres Obama nominated Andrew Traver, another anti-gun figure from the Chicago office. He has languished in the confirmation process for a few years, in part due to Republican holds, but also due to "blue dogs" like Sen Tester, Udall, and Begich.

Meanwhile, due to the highly politicized process, literally hundreds of other appointments are in limbo. Yet you don't see other federal agencies engaging in this sort of behavior all the time. It isn't like DEA is offering yellowcake to the Mexican cartels to track down their involvement in terrorist plots, after all. Finally, President Obama had the option of a recess appointment to just drop Traver into place and chose not to do so.

All this of course ignores the large non-political staff that most federal agencies rely on for day-to-day operations. Regardless of who is at the top, the day to day federal employees will continue to operate as they always have. It also neglects the fact that "acting" director Melson has been there since 2009 (i.e., for three years or so) -- not exactly temporary, transient "bungee boss" leadership with high churn and turnoever.

Which brings us back to the meme: "ATF can't help but be buffoonish due to a void in leadership, which is entirely the fault of the obstructionist gun lobby and their Republican henchmen." It might make a nice soundbyte, but it just plain ignores the reality. ATF hasn't had a permanent director because the two people put up for the position have had obvious agendas and because neither Pres Bush nor Pres Obama really cared enough about the issue to expend any political capital on it. In fact, Pres Obama dodged the issue for the first half of his administration to score political points for his party.

The easy answer is for the President to act with the "advice" of the Senate: suggest a middle of the road, non-partisan, non-controversial nominee. There has to be a worthy career technocrat who is more interested in doing a good job than scoring political points. From a "gun rights" point of view, this is another reason to keep the ATF on life support rather than abolishing it and transferring its functions to the FBI. It is much easier to exercise oversight of a red headed stepchild like ATF than it is to try and dig into what a more powerful and respected bureaucracy like the FBI is doing. Either way, the current meme is just not correct.

Laws on the Books

Repeat offender gets 15 years. Turns out the feds don't like it when felons stockpile lots of weapons, express a desire to convert ARs to full-auto, and threaten to "do something" to their probation officers. This guy has quite the record, including arrests for a bunch of drug and weapons violations back in the 90s then felony theft a few years ago.

Now, one has to wonder why the two straw buyers got let off with nothing. Maybe they made deals to cooperate.

Because its "Club Fed," maybe he'll actually serve most of the sentence.

\\

Still, one has to wonder about some quirks of the "War on Drugs." Hayes' felonies largely looked to be drug related and Misconduct Involving Weapons 2. MIW 2 can apply when a weapons is used (or even constructively possessed) in context with a drug case. There was one misdemeanor assault charge and other than that no violent crimes. The degree of Mr. Hayes' specific drug abuse/involvement is unknown, but one has to wonder about the justice of a system that permanently removes people's civil rights for victimless non-violent crimes with no possibility for redress. There's a big difference between a gang banger who is peddling drugs and cooking meth with a glock shoved in his waistband, and someone who toked up once at a hunting cabin where a bird shotgun also happened to be present.

Alaska allows gun rights to be restored for some non-violent felons based on a law signed last year by Gov Parnell. This law might conflict with federal case law though so it will be interesting to see how future cases unfold. I don't personally use drugs or associate with anyone who does so this isn't something I've really researched in depth to this point, as it just isn't a factor for me. It is hard enough to stay on top of the gun laws which actually apply to me.

Financial Implications of Self Defense Part 2

Recently I wrote about some "insurance" type policies to help in the event of a self-defense event. I've found two more options that I wanted to pass along.

USCCA Defense Shield

This program offers various levels of protection for civil and criminal liability. It looks very similar to the NRA program. The downside I've found is that USCCA is somewhat controversial for spamming their members, and this program is fairly new without much of a track record.

Prices as follows:

$50K civil / $25K criminal - $127/year

$100K civil / $50K criminal - $197/year

$300K civil / $75K criminal - $297/year

There's also an option to double criminal protection via a grant.

MMD Brokers LLC

This policy is similar to the NRA insurance, and is even also underwritten by Lloyd's of London. It covers relatives (in the home only) and applies in an apparently wider set of circumstances. They also allow you to use the benefit for either civil or criminal expenses. Their prices are as follows:

$100,000 - $250.00 plus tax
$250,000 - $330.00 plus tax

To Include Licensed Spouse:
$50.00 plus tax - $100,000 Limit
$75.00 plus tax - $250,000 limit

SUMMARY

Here's a table that summarizes the options, with the bottom line being the annual cost per dollar of coverage:

PROGRAM	COST	CIVIL	CRIMINAL	TOTAL	COST PER DOLLAR
USCCA Platinum	297	300,000	75,000	375,000	0.000792
NRA Plus	254	250,000	50,000	250,000	0.001016
USCCA Gold	197	100,000	50,000	150,000	0.001313
MMD Plus	330	250,000	250,000	250,000	0.00132
NRA Basic	165	100,000	50,000	100,000	0.00165
USCCA Silver	127	50,000	25,000	75,000	0.001693
MMD Basic	250	100,000	100,000	100,000	0.0025
ACDN	85	0	10,000	10,000	0.0085
CHLPP (4 yr)	100	0	10,000	10,000	0.01
CHLPP	129	0	10,000	10,000	0.0129

Basically, it boils down to the biggest programs from each provider offering the most efficient protection. ACDN and CHLPP are the most expensive (by orders of magnitude), but their protection is different. ACDN drops $10K into your lawyer's bank account pronto, whereas the insurance programs don't pay up until you're cleared (i.e., everything else is out of pocket). I also didn't factor in possible grant monies. CHLPP is similar in that they provide benefits until you're past the grand jury stage, which I roughly valued at around ten grand.

Here's the options for covering you and a spouse:

PROGRAM	COST	CIVIL	CRIMINAL	TOTAL	COST PER DOLLAR
USCCA Platinum	594	300,000	75,000	375,000	0.001584
MMD Plus	405	250,000	250,000	250,000	0.00162
NRA Plus	508	250,000	50,000	250,000	0.002032
USCCA Gold	394	100,000	50,000	150,000	0.002627
MMD Basic	300	100,000	100,000	100,000	0.003
NRA Basic	330	100,000	50,000	100,000	0.0033
USCCA Silver	254	50,000	25,000	75,000	0.003387
CHLPP ( 4 yr)	125	0	10,000	10,000	0.0125
ACDN	125	0	10,000	10,000	0.0125
CHLPP	229	0	10,000	10,000	0.0229

This is where the NRA programs fall down. MMD and USCCA offer spouse add-on prices which help a lot when insuring a family. They are basically the same when it comes to getting protection, with NRA coming in next.

Shoot First? Hardly

Our opponents like to claim that Castle Doctrine laws are "shoot first" policies that protect murderers and allow jumpy homeowners to light up traveling salesmen, political activists going door to door, and kids on lawns.

That's not how they actually work, though. Look at this man in Louisville who lit up a kid who was ringing doorbells with his shotgun: he's been charged with attempted murder.

Kentucky has castle doctrine and protection of property statutes. They are also a "stand your ground" state. If you listened to our opponents, under these laws you might think that you could shoot kids on your lawn and then smoke a lucky. This, of course, is wrong. The law allows you to assume that an intruder who forcibly and unlawfully enters your residence has the intent to do you harm. Kids ringing doorbells and vacuum salesmen are not forcibly or unlawfully entering properties (or, they shouldn't be). Moreover, while I'd have to read Kentucky's self defense statutes, I doubt that it allows you to satisfy the "ability/opportunity" portions of the self defense triad.

There are a bunch of things I'd draw from this example.

• Never listen to internet or media soundbytes about laws. You need to read your state's statutes yourself and understand what they mean.
• Laws are a reflection of the community's position on ethical and moral behavior. Look at how laws are actually enforced by LEOs, how prosecutors handle cases, and how juries vote. I doubt that even with strong castle doctrine you're going to get much sympathy from any component of the system for shooting an actual child on your lawn who is posing no threat.
• Even if castle doctrine did legally protect you from criminal prosecution (which I find unlikely -- I doubt CD would protect anyone in any state with a case like this one), you're still hosed in a case like this. First, the arrest will show up on your record forever. Every lender, landlord, employer, cop in a traffic stop, judge signing a warrant, and blogger will be able to see, "BAM, arrested, 2011, for MURDER 1!" They may not know the disposition of the case. You can expect the community to express its indignation and outrage. You can expect a civil lawsuit that will ruin your life.
• Our political opponents should not own guns for self defense, at least not until they learn about the actual laws. They are liable to get themselves into a lot of trouble.

Freedom Rankings

Apparently Alaska is #44 overall -- down with the Brady Bunch Bottomfeeders of CA, NY, MA, NJ, and so on -- in overall freedom according to a recent study. We are, however, #5 in personal freedom. We're getting dragged down due to economic issues (namely, our government spending per capita is really high, and a ton of people work for the .gov).

The Electronic Plantation

I don't really want to get into the Jose Guerena shooting at this point as there is just not enough evidence to really say anything definitive. I hope that more information continues to come out because what I've seen this far isn't that positive. It looks like the best that can be said is that the outcome was the result of a technically inept and bungled raid.

However, I do think the affadavit provided to request the warrant was really interesting. The warrant reviewed by a judge who granted the warrant mentions only multiple arrests. It does not mention whether those arrests led to any indictments or convictions. In fact, while Jose Guerena was apparently arrested he was not actually ever charged with anything nor was he convicted.

The problem is that as discussed in "arrest proofing," arrest records never go away -- ever. Even if State records are ordered sealed -- which you'd probably have to hire and pay an attorney to get a judge to do -- the federal records exist. The arrest records are digitized in a federal database and often made readily available, whereas the ultimate disposition of cases is actually harder to get to. That means that often people just look at the arrest record without considering the outcome of the case. In effect, people are considered guilty without a conviction (much less the presumption of innocence). That is exactly what you'll see in the Guerena affidavit; while the police admit that the disposition of the arrests is unknown, all the arrests get mentioned and paint a certain picture.

While I'm a supporter of open carry -- and did so in Alaska from time to time, which is fairly friendly to the practice -- I think it is something for 2A activists and responsible citizens to remember. A single weapons misconduct arrest -- even if totally bogus -- goes on your record forever. That arrest serves as an element of PC for future SWAT raids on your home. That arrest can be easily reviewed by employers. That arrest may show up when police pull you over on a routine traffic stop.

You can argue easily that the system isn't fair. Maybe we should legalize marijuana, which would get rid of a lot of the arrests that end up on the records of the economically disadvantaged and of minorities (along with generating probation violations and impoverishing their families). Maybe the police should issue more notices to appear in lieu of arrests which go on records forever. However, the world we live in and the perfect world are two different places as can easily be observed in the Guerena affadavit.

Newsflash: Brady Campaign Board Member does not know name of organization

Double Post.

Newsflash: Brady Campaign Board Member does not know name of organization

"...The Brady Campaign was not the "National Council to Control Handguns" You made that up. It was once called, "Handgun Control, Inc." But nice try. The name was changed some years after Jim Brady was shot to death in honor of him and when his wife, Sarah, became involved in the issue for obvious reasons."

- Joan Peterson, Board Member of the Brady Campaign

Of course, sources like biased insurrectionist evil gun rights advocates Brady Campaign's own website state the history of the group very plainly:

Mark Borinsky, who had been robbed and nearly killed at gunpoint, founded the organization in 1974 as the National Council to Control Handguns. Pete Shields became Chairman in 1978 following the murder of his twenty-three-year-old son, Nick, in 1974. The organization was renamed Handgun Control, Inc (HCI) in 1980.

This is why I don't agree with Linoge, who thinks that JaPete is a liar. I think she's a naive but useful idiot. She clearly demonstrates her ignorance of basic facts and concepts about her own group. She is barely able to negotiate friendly, charted waters. It is no surprise that she continually illustrates her lack of knowledge on neutral ground (like currently existing laws) or more difficult territory. However, she brings enthusiasm and personal energy to the issue which can be used by people who are better informed than she is.

Frankly, it kind of worries me that Joan has firearms in her home, as she's demonstrated many times that she has no handle on firearms safety or law. She's argued before that the Federal Gun Free School Zones act doesn't actually exist, so I really hope that her husband has never transported his hunting shotgun in a non-approved manner within 1000 feet of a school (say, unloaded, in an unlocked case in the trunk of the car with the rest of the bird gear or sporting clays equipment). That would be a serious felony. As for firearms safety -- well, she clearly believes that the statistics she cites don't apply to her, but based on her writing I really doubt that she is competent to "Stop, don't touch, leave the area, tell a responsible adult," much less how to safely unload an unattended firearm, "finger on trigger" discipline, or muzzle control. I personally think that if you're a responsible adult and you have firearms in the home - even if they're "Just your spouse's" -- you should understand the basics of firearms safety and know how to (1) clear (unload) and (2) secure them. That's just "common sense" to me.

As a note, I still don't read Common Gunsense. DW does occasionally head over there, and while she's been essentially banned (as a knuckle dragging guy, I'm just going to venture a guess that having a female who disagrees with her really irks Joan and blows her worldview, because gosh, the only people who commit gun crimes have to be evil wife beating men-folk who are responsible for all violence), she does highlight the most egregious words to come from Joan Peterson's pen for me to blog about.

Its Going to Go Down Fast

Joe Huffman has an interesting post up. He measured out a crime scene and then recreated the stage for a USPSA match. The members of the club shot from the position of the bad guy, the good guys (four cops who were shot), and a bystander and timed shooting from each position.

On average it took the "bad guy" position 4.42 seconds to shoot four victims, with times ranging from 2.47 to slightly over 10 seconds. In real life we don't know exactly how fast it happened, but we do know that one of the four cops had time to start drawing his weapon and another got out of his chair and engaged hand to hand. The perp wasn't a skilled shooter in a pistol club but he also had the advantage of acting first (not reacting). So the "four and a half" seconds mark is probably in the ballpark.

They found that the good guys (victims) had a time of 3.29 seconds to neutralize the attacker, meaning that they had only about a second to realize what was going on, mentally say, "oh shit," and jack up to code red to begin their draw stroke. The bystander had a time of 2.48 seconds, which gave her about two seconds to go to code red and begin a draw stroke (had she been armed).

LESSONS DERIVED

This reinforced a few things to me. First off, when this goes down, it is more likely than not going to be fast, at close range, and intense.

Urban gunfights are short, intense events characterized by sudden violence at close range...over 85 percent of these fights actually occur much closer ... like within 10 feet!

Gabriel Suarez. Tactical Pistol Marksmanship: How To Improve Your Combat Shooting Skills (p. 131). Kindle Edition.

Next, if you are in "condition white," you are going to lose. That could mean you could die if that's the attacker's intent. If you have 1-2 seconds to process what is going on, there is not any time to decide deep moral questions about self defense, to deal with incredulity, or to work through your personal boundaries. At best, you can hope on a "fight, flight, or freeze" reflex to kick in and the latter will probably get you killed. It looks like the LEOs who were cut down were working on paperwork. I'd like to think that they were not in condition white, but they were probably dividing their attention between multiple things: working on files, drinking hot coffee without spilling, social interaction, with something left over for SA.

Once you accept the fact that you actually may be the next target - today - you have taken the first great step toward your own physical security. Having made this simple, if difficult, admission, you can never afterward be surprised, and surprise is the greatest single element in tactics - offensive or defensive.

Jeff Cooper. To Ride, Shoot Straight, And Speak The Truth (p. 47). Kindle Edition.

Finally, even if you're in "condition yellow," if you don't go to "orange" you are also going to be way behind the curve. Jumping from "yellow" to "red" (to lead flying) while skipping orange is not as big of a jump as going from white to orange (or red). However, I saw in my class that there are precious few ways to gain an advantage once the draw stroke has begun. A really skilled shooter might shave a half second (or maybe a whole second) off the draw stroke time of an intermediate or average one, and that isn't enough to rescue you from being behind the power curve. Before the buzzer sounds you want to identify your target, determine what will make you shoot him, have your hand on your gun (if you can do so discreetly), and be in a solid fighting stance. Those are all "freebies" that you can do without using any time once the bullets start flying -- if you go to orange first.

\\

As we saw in the USPSA match results, there is only going to be a second or two of time at best to determine what's going on and craft an appropriate reaction once the shooting starts. It is all well and good to know about the color code for personal awareness and to be out of white. That is a huge mental advantage that gives you a fighting chance. However, without that movement up to condition orange -- a specific alert which is focusing your attention -- then you're still going to end up behind the power curve.

Normally, armor (and distance) buys you time; in this case, the good guys who were wearing body armor did not get enough time out of it to survive. In this case, the only way you can buy more time for yourself is early alerting to "orange" situational awareness. At the range, our "good guys" did pretty well, but they started in orange and knew they were going to red when the buzzer started the stage. That apparently made all the difference.

Of course, there's a fine line between vigilance and hypervigilance. Still, it is something to think about. I certainly don't mean to denigrate the tactics of any of the victims. I seriously doubt I would do better. However, it is wise to try and learn lessons paid for in blood from those who were cut down by villains so that the bad guys don't win again.