The Cornered Cat
<— Older Posts Newer Posts —>
Normalization of Deviance

Here’s something from my current writing project…

Before the students arrive, you will want to walk through the range to be sure it will meet your needs, and then get everything set up to your satisfaction. This includes checking the berms and backstops, and the entire surrounding area, for any safety issues.

It may sound a little strange that I suggest checking a range facility for safety issues. Don’t other people shoot there, and if so, haven’t they already checked it? Would the range still be in business if something about the layout were unsafe?

Maybe. Maybe not. Medical and aviation personnel share an important safety concept called the normalization of deviance, and it’s a concept that definitely applies to us in the shooting community too. Here’s how that works.

After the Challenger space shuttle destroyed itself in 1986, analysis showed that faulty O-rings in the Challenger’s solid rocket boosters failed, causing the catastrophic explosion that took seven lives. A few years later, Challenger’s sister ship, Columbia, burned up when returning from a mission in 2003. The Columbia’s heat tiles were damaged when a piece of foam insulation broke off during takeoff and struck the tiles on the wing. The damaged tiles failed during the heat of reentry and the craft burned up with the loss of all aboard.

What you may not know or not remember is this: scientists at NASA had seen both types of damage before these disasters. They had seen similar damage on previous missions that did not end in catastrophes. Earlier shuttles had sometimes had faulty O-rings, and people working at NASA knew that the problem could get worse in cold weather. Shuttles had experienced minor tile damage during take offs before, and the people in charge of the launch were used to seeing it happen. In both cases, management had slowly accepted an increasing amount of damage and risk. With each successful mission, the degree of quality was allowed to deviate downward for the simple reason that nothing terrible had happened when launch managers ignored previous warning signs.

That’s the normalization of deviance at work. Whenever we see something risky that doesn’t lead to a catastrophic result, we become more tolerant of the risk. Each time we lower a standard but nothing bad happens, we become more likely to accept that lowered standard and more open to lowering the standard again. After all, nothing bad happened last time … right? And it doesn’t just apply to NASA and space shuttles. It is a natural human tendency that shows up in nearly every system where people create and follow safety standards.

By now you may be starting to see where this is going. What does the normalization of deviance have to do with firearms instruction and range safety?

Short answer: everything.

Every time we pick up a firearm and every time we walk onto the range, we are building a record of behavioral expectations for ourselves. Every time we deviate from our established standard and nothing bad happens, we become more likely to behave the same way again in the future. “Just this once” is habit-forming. Not only that, but when we relax a safety standard because nothing bad happened last time, we become more willing to relax it even further than that next time.

For example:

  • We might allow students to handle unloaded guns in a classroom that does not have a true safe direction. We might tell ourselves that because the guns are unloaded, we don’t really need a definite backstop that would reliably stop a bullet from going through the wall to hit someone on the other side. When we do that and nothing bad happens, we enjoy the convenience and forget the risk, and become more likely to do the same thing again the next time we teach a class.

“A history of success and positive outcomes does far more to erode our standards than a single negative outcome. The longer our success, the more normalization of deviance comes in to play. Get away with doing something unsafe or substandard enough times and the unsafe and substandard become your standard.” – Steve Whitehead

  • We might not watch carefully to stop students from muzzling themselves while getting guns out of their bags at the beginning of the day. When we let students take care of their own gearing up and nothing bad happens, we’re more likely to be relaxed about how our students gear up in the next class we teach.
  • We might set up our targets in front of a backstop made of materials we aren’t quite sure of. When nothing bad happens, we’re likely to trust that berm and others like it the next time we shoot.
  • The outdoor range we use might have a dirt backstop that has eroded over time to become much lower than the original designers intended. When regular range members shoot on that bay but nothing bad happens, they’re less likely to worry about shooting toward a low backstop. As the backstop erodes, so does their concern with maintaining it.

Every action we take builds a record inside our minds that helps us decide what we will do in the future. This isn’t only true for us, but for everyone we know. And for every organization we work with and for. Like a sand castle on a windy day, human safety standards face a persistent, relentless pressure to erode. We must constantly fight this process, watching for it and rebuilding our safety standards every time we notice them beginning to slip.

More than that, we must fight this process even when others around us don’t seem to be doing the same thing. That isn’t always easy. We may find ourselves struggling to hold a line that others have apparently let go. Worse than that, even when we’ve made a strong internal commitment to resisting the forces of erosion, we may be tempted to keep our mouths shut when we spot a potential problem. When the people around us can’t see what the big deal is because they do this all the time and nobody’s had a problem with it before, it can be hard to explain our reasons for sticking to a high safety standard. That’s a tough decision to make and an uncomfortable place to live.

So why do it? We do it because we understand that not sticking to the standard can end in catastrophic pain, injury, or death. And because we don’t want to contribute to a disaster. And, most of all, we hold the line because we love our students and are committed to keeping them safe.

4 Comments
For Instructors – a wake up call

A few things to learn from a medical emergency on the range as reported <here>. According to eyewitnesses, at an action pistol match, one person was pasting targets in one bay while another person was shooting a stage in the next bay over. One of the shooter’s rounds apparently ricocheted (or traveled directly through) a crack in the concrete barriers separating the two bays, striking the taper in the chest.

The linked article has more to say, but — in part because of my current writing project which is a book for instructors — I’m thinking about instructors today. What do instructors need to learn from incidents like this?

1) Safety is not “everyone’s job.” It is the job of each one of us, individually. This means sometimes we will need to speak up … individually.

In my travels, I have at (rare) times declined to teach a class on particular ranges or bays when I did not like the setup. In nearly every case, someone said to me, “Kathy, I don’t understand. Why are you making such a big deal out of this? People shoot on this range all the time, and nobody else has had a problem with it.” The implication being that I was being snooty, difficult to work with, arrogant, or a combination of all three. In every case, my answer was the same: I’m not responsible for what other people do on ranges they control, but in my classes, I am responsible, 100%, for what happens on my range and to my students.

That’s not an easy line to hold, but the alternative is to “let” things like this happen on our watch. I’m willing to bet that at least a one or two of the shooters at this match did not much like the stage setup when they first saw it — but then were too shy or too intimidated to speak up. Or didn’t know who to talk to about it. Or talked themselves out of saying anything because nobody else seemed to see anything wrong.

Now one guy has a bullet in his chest. That’s not okay.

We have to be confident and stand up for safety. When we see something that’s not as safe as it reasonably could be, we have to be brave enough to step up and change it. Even if other people have shot in that bay before and “didn’t have a problem with it.”

2) Part of being a good instructor is learning how to ‘read’ a range for safety.

I’m not an architect or a range designer, but part of being a good instructor is learning how to ‘read’ a range. Are the berms high enough for your planned activities? Will they still be high enough when the angles change? Are the berms in good condition? Are there any gaps or low spots? What will you do about them?

It’s not enough to spot trouble. We need to know what to do about when we see it. Usually it’s just a simple matter of moving the shooters around, or changing the angles some other way. Sometimes it will take some serious thinking and maybe it will take a significant change to the planned curriculum. But in no case is it okay to spot a problem and then shrug it off as Too Much Trouble to fix.

3) IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SIMPLY OWN A MEDKIT.

Sorry for shouting, but this is hugely important. A medical kit is about as useless as tits on a bull unless there’s someone there who knows how to use it. That someone should be you — even if you always poll your students and find out who has appropriate medical training so you can assign the task to the person with the highest level of training, there will be times when you find out that you are that person. That nobody else knows even as much as you do. That you’re the one in the hot seat.

If your medical knowledge was the only medical knowledge immediately available when one of your students got shot in the chest, would you know what to do? Would you be able to do it?

If you have not had recent, relevant, repeated training in what to do for a gunshot wound, get thee to a class!

2 Comments
Be a bad witness, part 2

There’s something else that I’m seeing on the bystander’s Love Field shooting video that I shared with you yesterday, and on the more graphic one the police released, which is embedded below. There are (at least) four different types of people we can see on both videos.

1) The people who see the danger, realize it’s a danger, and leave immediately without being told. The lady with the big orange purse in the center of the screen at the beginning of the video is one of those. So is the woman in the bright turquoise shirt who abandoned the black&white flower suitcase near the kiosk. I suspect there were more of these people who left when the dude first started yelling and throwing things, but of course they weren’t caught on video.

2) The people who plainly realize that danger exists — that they, personally, can get hurt or killed here — but who are still driven to watch and/or record what’s happening. The saddest example of these would be the guy cowering in the corner saying, “Oh my God oh my God” over and over again — who *still* has to keep poking his head around the corner to see what’s going on. He can’t quite bring himself to leave the area because he wants to know what’s happening, but he clearly knows it’s dangerous to stay where he is. (I think the guy who recorded this video is one of those; that’s why we see the camera jolt when the first shots are fired, but he goes back anyway.)

3) The people who don’t even realize that they, personally, could get hurt, and who have no place in their heads for danger or violence that could happen to them. Some of these people were holding cameras, but more of them were just … walking. Casually. Curiously. to find out what the noise is all about. Whatever they were feeling, it wasn’t fear of being injured or killed (though some of them glance around like they’re worried that someone else will tell them to stop). The guy wearing the blue shirt and blue jeans, and the guy in the yellow shirt with the papers in his hand, are clear examples of this.

4) The people who clearly see that the situation is dangerous to them personally, but who are “trapped” into staying there and don’t know how to effectively take cover. The guy by the left rear corner of the car bumper would be one example of this; he knows to put a car between himself and danger, but doesn’t know enough to duck. Or, on the police video, the woman inside the dark car on the right — it took her a _very_ long time to decide that she was in danger, and then all she could think to do was close the door to her car while she remained in the line of fire.

There were also a lot of people who were “trapped” into staying because of their belongings — like the guy you see in the doorway on the right, with his suitcase in the middle of the walkway. He “can’t” leave, because his suitcase is there. When the cop finally gets to him and tells him to get out of there, he steps into the maximum danger zone to retrieve his suitcase before he finally leaves.

Lots of different ways people can fail to protect themselves. So … here’s what I suggest for the take aways here.

1) Accept that danger can happen. To you. Today. Before the sun goes down, you might need to protect yourself from a violent crime.

2) Accept that you won’t necessarily ever know the end of the story. Decide now that it’s okay if you mistakenly leave a situation that you feel is escalating toward danger, but that it *isn’t* okay if you mistakenly stay.

3) Accept that you may have to abandon belongings in order to get yourself to safety, and

4) Learn how to effectively get behind cover in situations where you truly cannot leave.

 

 

Stay safe!

1 Comment
Be a bad witness, or Curiosity killed the cat

Many years ago, my husband and I were at a mall when something happened. As we walked along the upper level, we heard shouting from down below. Looking over the railing, we saw two mall security guards and five or six law enforcement officers with rifles running, flat out, toward the other end of the mall on the lower level.

Bob and I looked at each other and without a word, we turned around and started moving — rapidly —  toward the exit, which was the opposite direction from the way the men with guns were moving.

When we turned around to head toward the exit, we saw something fascinating: there was a huge crowd of people following those guys who were clearly headed toward danger. The crowd was happy, enthralled, even enthusiastic. More than a few of them were towing their children along, “Hurry up, kids…”

People wanted to know what was going on. They wanted to know what was about to happen. They wanted to SEE WHAT WAS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!

To this day, I have no idea what happened in that mall. Whatever it was, it either never made the paper or we just missed seeing the report when we looked for it later.

But I know what didn’t happen: we did not get shot. We did not distract the people trying to solve the problem. We did not add to the chaos and confusion.

We simply left … efficiently.

Something I saw today brought that memory back to my mind with sharp focus. Watch, and you’ll see what I mean.

 

So, lessons from the headlines in the form of some questions.

1) How many people thought it was more important to capture the event on video than it was to get to safety?

2) How many people moved toward danger rather than away from it, without being fully committed to solving (or helping solve) the problem when they got there?

3) How many people were willing to abandon their luggage in order to get to safety?

4) How many people put themselves in danger or otherwise demanded the attention of the people working to solve the problem?

“Be a good witness” is lousy advice. We should instead be telling people to pay attention to what’s around them as they leave the area and head for safety.

We have to be okay, not knowing the end of the story. Sometimes, that’s what it takes to stay safe and keep our loved ones safe.

 

Link to Part 2: https://www.corneredcat.com/be-a-bad-witness-part-2/

3 Comments
Lessons from the Headlines: Abduction Attempt

In Florida a few days ago, a young teenager was shopping at a dollar store with her mom when this happened.

 

 

That’s an abduction attempt. Broad daylight, as far as I can tell. Not an empty back alleyway in the middle of the night. Just inside a dollar store in Florida, with other people around.

Stranger tries to grab a 13 year old and drag her out of the store. The girl’s mom reacts quickly and fights back, eventually throwing her own body on top of her daughter to thwart the assailant, who fled for the exit.

The fleeing criminal was stopped by a good guy with a gun. An off duty cop happened to be pulling up outside the store. He blocked the assailant’s car in the parking lot and held the assailant at gun point until law enforcement arrived to arrest the guy and take him into custody.

Several people have asked me what I thought the mother “should have” done. My answer: exactly what she did! She used the tools and skills she had available to her, without any hesitation at all. Her immediate and full commitment to action almost certainly saved her daughter’s life.

Legal questions

Others have asked a different question: if one of us were in the same situation, would it be legal to shoot the attacker? Is it legal to shoot an assailant who’s trying to kidnap your child, and who appears to be succeeding? Let’s look at that.

In this case, I think we could easily articulate ability, opportunity, jeopardy — which are three elements that must be present for a use of deadly force to be legally justified throughout the United States. (Various courts use different words to approach the same concepts; however, the concepts themselves are a constant.)

Quick overview:

1 – ABILITY. Ability answers the question, “Does the attacker have the power to kill or cripple the person he/she is attacking?” In this case, the answer would be a definite *YES*, because an adult male has the power to kill or cripple a young teenage girl, whether or not he has a weapon in his hand. He could (and does) easily overpower her.

2 – OPPORTUNITY. Opportunity answers the question, “Do the circumstances allow the attacker to use his/her ability against the intended victim?” In this case, again, that’s a definite *YES,* because he is physically close enough to overpower her and has already done so. As he drags her out of the store, she has no way to save herself from what’s happening to her.

3 – JEOPARDY. Jeopardy answers the question, “Would a reasonable person look at the complete situation and conclude that the attacker intended to use his/her ability and take the opportunity to kill or cripple the person being attacked?” Again, that’s a *YES,* because nobody in their right mind can watch this video without having chills run up and down their spine for what was clearly about to happen. Anyone think he was just grabbing the girl so he could take her to an ice cream store and make her happy?

At this point, it’s likely that some folks reading this are thinking, “Wait… those are the answers from the 13-year-old girl’s perspective. But would the mom (or other bystanders) be legally  justified in shooting the assailant?”

That’s almost certainly a *YES*, too. That’s because the person being attacked would easily be justified in using deadly force to save her own life, which means in most (not all) US jurisdictions, every bystander who saw what was happening would -also- be justified in using deadly force to save the little girl’s life. There are potential nuances we could discuss, but I can’t see any of those nuances making a problem here.

Practical questions

Note that none of this talks about the physical difficulty of accessing your gun and using it while you are on the ground, fighting with an assailant and trying hard to hang onto your child at the same time.

  • If you carry in your purse: would you be able to get your gun out of your purse in this situation? Probably not. Especially not if you make a habit of setting it in the cart as you shop. Even if you had the purse attached to your body, that’s a very complex situation and it’s very likely everything would be too tangled for accessing the gun.
  • If you carry on-body: would you be able to get your gun out of the holster during this violent and chaotic situation? Maybe not. Especially if you prefer to carry in a soft, squishy holster under several layers of clothes, or if you use one that has a complex retention strap.

This is one reason I strongly recommend learning to draw the gun under the watchful eye of a good instructor. More than that, I also recommend taking the kind of classes where you can learn how to draw the gun when everything isn’t calm and squared away in advance. That’s also why I offer the Against the Odds class, where people can learn to get to their guns under adverse conditions, and begin to understand different ways they can protect themselves when they aren’t standing calmly 7 yards away from a target that doesn’t move.

Regardless of how you carry: have you practiced any kind of close quarters engagement, either with empty hands or with dummy guns? Even though there are many opportunities we can spot on the video where one of us might have been able to shoot if we were the mom in this situation, seeing those opportunities from the outside is a different thing than feeling or seeing them from the inside.

Not only that, but it wouldn’t be an easy shot even though it’s so close that we’re tempted to think marksmanship wouldn’t be an issue. Because everything happens so fast and everyone is moving so much, there’s a strong possibility that a gunshot would hit either the daughter or one of the other customers.

Best bet would probably be to jam the gun into the assailant for a contact shot, though even with that there’s still a significant danger of the round going through the assailant to hit the daughter or someone else. So you’d still need to be very aware of your angles and everything else. And many people who haven’t practiced this type of skill will unintentionally create a malfunction by shoving the gun too aggressively into the assailant. (This can knock the slide out of battery and stop the gun from firing.) It’s doable, but again, it’s a skill that must be taught and practiced.

Taken away and used against you? That’s one of my least-favorite phrases, but I think here it could be a valid concern. Would you, with the skills you have right now, really be able to hold onto your gun in this situation if you couldn’t shoot immediately, while being in close contact with a determined assailant? What have you done to acquire or test those skills?

Bottom line

The mom in this case did the right thing and saved her daughter’s life with the tools she had — her own empty hands.

The assailant was stopped and eventually arrested because a bystander had a gun and was willing to act in defense of others.

We can use incidents like these that are caught on video, not to second-guess the people who were there, but to prepare our own minds to do what it takes to protect ourselves and the people we love. As always, there are many lessons we can learn from incidents that happen to others — once we know how to watch a crime video.

Stay safe.

6 Comments
Designations

Q: How many legs would this kitty cat have if we called the tail a leg?

How many legs would this cat have if we called his tail a leg?

 A: Four. Calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg.

What does this have to do with Cornered Cat’s usual subjects, you ask? Simple — I keep running across instructors and would-be instructors who think calling a classroom wall a “safe direction” will actually make it a safe direction.

ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.” — NRA training materials.

A “safe direction” is one that will reliably stop a bullet from the most powerful cartridge that will feed into the gun you’re handling.

Most interior and exterior walls in modern buildings won’t do that. This means they are not safe directions for purposes of dry fire or gun handling.

Does this mean guns should never be handled inside a classroom? Not at all! Any teaching environment can be made safe with some forethought. A big cardboard box full of books and papers makes a fine backstop and costs almost nothing, for example. It just takes some creativity — and a stubborn commitment to keeping students safe — to figure out how to make safety protocols work in different settings.

Unfortunately, too many people are not willing to do that work. They get complacent, or handle the problem with a shrug: “Well, it’s difficult to find a true safe direction, so we’ll just pretend that wall will be okay. That’s good enough for me. No ammo in the classroom anyway, so…”
 
This tears down the safety rules at the very place where we should be most careful about instilling them. It breeds complacency where we should be building caution and respect. It stops people from thinking clearly at the level where people actually live with the gun, and it wordlessly tells them they should only follow good gun handling rules as long as it’s easy to do so. It models the kind of thinking that says it’s too hard to find practical ways to stay safe in everyday settings. It leads people to only pretend to follow critical safety protocols that are intended to stop them from unintentionally killing other people.

Stay safe. Keep your people safe. Never ‘designate’ a safe direction in a firearms classroom. Find a true safe direction or make one.

Don’t call that tail a leg.  😉

1 Comment
Imposter

Lots of new instructors (and some very experienced ones) suffer from imposter syndrome. What’s that?

Impostor syndrome describes a situation where a fully qualified and well-trained individual feels like an impostor or fraud because they think that they have duped the people around them. They have a fear that some day, they will be “outed” as not being as smart or as prepared to do their jobs as others perceive them to be.

(I should add — and this is important! — that sometimes, people feel as though they don’t belong in the job they’re doing pretty much because they don’t. Our industry is flooded with people who really want to teach things they have not bothered to learn. This is a real problem, but a different one than what I’m talking about here.)

Imposter syndrome does not always feel good, but that doesn’t mean it always has to be a bad thing. Embraced and used properly, it can become a strong driver for excellence and continued improvement. In many cases, it’s actually the source of expertise.

Think about this: It’s hard for someone to learn anything when they already know everything. Once someone has decided they don’t need to learn more, they often stop learning. Adult people rarely look for ways to do better tying their own shoes. There’s no need; they already know how. They’re already experts at that. So why bother looking for ways to improve their skills at it? They stop learning because they feel they already know everything.

That’s the experts’ trap.

The person with imposter feelings doesn’t feel like that. They might feel out of place, foolish and weak and untutored. But they do not feel that they know it all. Despite this (and this is where fears of being seen as an imposter lead to actually becoming an imposter in truth), a person with imposter syndrome might stop learning anyway. They might feel so afraid of others thinking they are ignorant that they refuse to learn more where others can see them. They might hide from learning situations and avoid being put in positions where others might realize that they don’t already know everything. They stop learning because they are afraid to be seen learning.

That’s the imposters’ trap.

Instead of getting caught in either of those traps, a brave person with imposter feelings can use those feelings to drive themselves toward true excellence and expertise. In order to do that, they must not ignore the imposter feelings or try to “overcome” the negative thoughts by sheer willpower, stuffing them back inside or telling themselves to shut up when they feel weak. Instead, they can lean into the feelings like a yachtsman leans into the wind, letting the wind fill the sails that speed the boat across the water. Instead of fighting the feelings head-on, they can use that energy to learn and grow and strengthen their  abilities at every opportunity. They can use the fear of being found unprepared help them become better prepared, and they can use the fear of being seen as weak to help themselves become strong.

When a person embraces the imposter feelings as the allies they are, they can help that person learn more, do better, and achieve more than they ever imagined. And along the way, they will have truly earned the respect they once feared others would not give them.

1 Comment
Looking Around

My Fb feed at the moment is full of trainers talking about “Checking Your Six” and being “Tactically Aware” and doing “After Action Scans.”

Most of that is garbage.

It is not garbage in the sense of being useless, but garbage in the sense of being clutter. Noise. Added complications. This tactical clutter turns what should be a common sense and practical and ordinary thing into a game of “Let’s Pretend.” Let’s pretend you just shot someone, now let’s pretend to look around. Maybe we’ll even suggest you look around in a complicated, mechanistic way that you cannot even practice on your ordinary range.

Huh.

Looking around after we shoot should definitely be a thing that we do. But we should not be playing “let’s pretend!” when we do it. We should not be doing it as a “tactical exercise” and we certainly shouldn’t be just going through a complex series of motions just because we think we might need to do something like that “someday.”

We should be looking around after we shoot for a simple, very real reason: because it’s a good idea to look around sometimes. Shooting is a high-concentration exercise, just like programming your next stop on your GPS, or texting a friend, or counting your change. And just like we should remember to look around every time we’re done concentrating on these other activities, so should we remember to look around every time we’re done concentrating on our front sights.

Looking around should be a thing we do simply because it helps us stay safe in the here-and-now. Immediately. Today. Right now and every time we’re at the range practicing with our firearms as part of our normal, everyday lives. Because you know what?

Ranges are NOT 100% crime-free.

There are no utterly safe places in this world. None. This includes wherever you shoot. Bad things can happen there just as they can happen anywhere else.

On the lower end of the scale, valuables get pilfered. Ask anyone who’s ever had a good set of muffs or an entire bag walk off how that feels. You set your stuff on the table at the back of the bay, and go forward to tape your targets. When you return to the back of the bay, some of your stuff is … gone. Where’d it go? Good luck finding out.

On the higher end of the scale, there’s violent crime. It’s rare, but not unheard-of. Those of us who shoot on remote private ranges aren’t immune. In fact, we may be more at risk. The criminals in the 1986 FBI Miami shootout, for example, stole several of the firearms they used in their crimes from people who had been shooting alone on public ranges — shooting or beating those people and leaving them for dead. Within the past few years, similar things have happened to a man shooting alone on an outdoor range in Oklahoma (he recovered) and to another man in Pennsylvania (he died).

It’s not unique to outdoor ranges, of course. Irony-minded criminals have been known to steal guns, at gunpoint, from people leaving indoor ranges — sometimes shooting their victims in the bargain. Which probably goes to show that just owning a gun, or even having it with you, isn’t going to do you much good if you don’t see trouble coming. Or if you’re not prepared to counter it when it does.

So, yeah. Look around when you’re done shooting. Do it every time. But don’t do it because you’re playing a game of “Let’s Pretend.” Instead, look for the answers to these questions:

  • Who is on the range with me?
  • Who has come onto the range or left the range since the last time I looked around?
  • What is everyone doing?
  • Is anyone loitering around my stuff? Or paying more attention to other people’s stuff than seems natural?

It’s not a tactical exercise or a range dance. It’s just, you know, looking around.

3 Comments