While anyone can be a victim of crime, most criminals look for weakness when choosing victims. And they instinctively assess potential victims based on their appearance, body language, voice, and other cues.
  
In most cases, bad guys don't want a fight. They seek to avoid "alpha males" and zero in on more submissive citizens. So one of the best ways to avoid becoming a victim is to project the characteristics of an alpha.

Night is falling. Two men walk out of a grocery store into the dark parking lot.

The first man clutches a grocery bag to his chest, scurrying toward his car with eyes turned down to the ground. The second man carries a grocery bag at his side, striding confidently, head upright and eyes surveying the parked cars around him.

A criminal skulks in the shadows looking for a victim. Which one of the men is he more likely to choose? 

While anyone can be a victim of crime, most criminals look for weakness when choosing victims. And they instinctively assess potential victims based on their appearance, body language, voice, and other cues.

In most cases, bad guys don't want a fight. They seek to avoid "alpha males" and zero in on more submissive citizens. So one of the best ways to avoid becoming a victim is to project the characteristics of an alpha.  

Here's a video from National Geographic that takes a look at alpha male behavior in primates and how similar this behavior is in humans. It's not about self defense, but there are several lessons here to help project more confidence, appear more dominant, and, perhaps, deter a criminal from choosing you as a victim and forcing you to defend yourself. 

This video is about 45 minutes, but it's worth watching all the way through.

NOTE: The video is more or less family friendly, but some viewers may consider a few 

Springfield 3.3 XD-S 9mm pistols-serial numbers between XS900000 and XS938700

Springfield 3.3 XD-S .45ACP pistols-erial numbers between XS5000000 and XS686300

Several months ago, Springfield Armory issued a recall of their latest pistol, the XD-S. The XD-S is a compact single-stack version of the company's XD series of pistols. Apparently the pistol has the potential to double fire or slam fire during the firing sequence if the grip safety momentarily disengages before the slide returns to battery. In order to reset the trigger, the slide has to cycle and in doing so it catches the striker on the sear. The XD-S has a striker safety plate that should prevent the engagement which is allowing the pistol to fire out of battery. It looks as if the spring on this part or perhaps the sear spring may be too weak to deploy if the shooter's hand comes off the grip safety momentarily while the slide is moving rearward.

It sounds convoluted and possibly a difficult scenario to recreate, yet it has happened enough that Springfield Armory issued the recall for the 3.3 XD-S 9mm and 3.3 XD-S 45 ACP pistols. The recall does not apply to the XD or XDM series pistols. Another problem associated with the XD-S pistol are reports of shooters having them fire by simply releasing the slide to chamber a round without having a finger on the trigger. According to Springfield's website, no injuries have been reported to date as a result of either of these defects.

With some shooters waiting as long as 6 months for their pistols to be fixed, the XD-S pistols are finally coming back from Springfield Armory. Externally, the upgrade to the XD-S appears to be a roll pin in the grip safety. Inside the pistol there are 3 other upgraded parts, the sear, the sear spring, and the disconnector.

While the roll pin present in the grip safety signifies an important upgrade; it can also serve as a visual reminder to inform a potential buyer of the XD-S that the handgun has been through the recall process.

If you have a Springfield XD-S, you should send it in to Springfield Armory as soon as possible to have it upgraded. More information can be found at the website that the company established to aid users through the process:

http://springfieldrecall.com/RecallUpdate.asp

I regularly teach CCW certification classes. Other times I am simply talking about guns and gun safety 
with friend and co-worker. People have lots of questions, but there is one that is most frustrating: “Should I carry my gun fully loaded? That seems dangerous and unsafe.”

Hearing such a question always forces me to stifle a heavy sigh. I am not in the business making anyone feel out of place. I am in the business of training. It is my goal to pass on information, teaching those who don’t know about a very important topic, gun safety.

So let’s talk briefly about conditions of carry and why we carry the way we do.

The correct condition in which to carry your firearm is what’s called Condition One. That is, the firearm should be fully loaded. A round should be in the chamber and all safeties should be engaged. In the case of a Model 1911 style pistol that means the hammer must be fully cocked in order for the
frame-mounted safety to engage. Once engaged, the safety locks up the entire mechanism.

In an emergency you must acquire a firing grip, draw your pistol, acquire the sight picture, disengage the safety and press the trigger. That is five steps.  Do you really want to add another required movement before you are able to defend yourself or your loved ones?

If you do not carry your pistol with a round in the chamber, you need to grasp the slide, retract it fully and release it completely somewhere in your rush to defend yourself. I vote “no” on all that extra action.

Now let’s briefly discuss why we carry in Condition One. First and foremost is safety.  Negligent discharges happen most often during administrative handling—that is, when you are performing extra functions not required for the fight. Trying to load your pistol at the beginning of a fight is an invitation for trouble. Reloading during a fight is tough enough. There is no need to add another function to the mix.

Also keep in mind that all modern properly functioning pistols are drop-safe. Guns don’t simply “go off.” Guns must be made to fire. So if you don’t perform all the steps needed to make that gun go loud, it will not fire. That means, if you load and make your pistol ready, put it in the holster and then LEAVE IT
ALONE until you are faced with a life-threatening emergency, you will be fine.

So, I ask you, “Why would you carry a half-loaded gun when carrying a fully-loaded gun is safer and more efficient?”

You know the answer. Strap on your gun and leave it alone until you need it. If you do that, you will be perfectly safe.

Submitted by cbaus on October 11, 2013 - 8:00am.     

Editor's Note: - The following "Law You Can Use" Consumer Information
Column, written by Buckeye Firearms Association Legal Chair Ken Hanson, is being provided by the Ohio State Bar Association to news outlets across the state.  It has already been published at Akron.com.

Q: I've been hearing about "stand-your-ground" laws in the news. What does Ohio law say about using lethal force in a self-defense situation?

 A: In Ohio, if you use lethal force in self-defense you must prove, by a  "preponderance” (greater weight) of the evidence, that you were properly acting  in self-defense. Under current law, in order to act in self-defense, you must  prove: 1) you were not at fault in creating the situation; 2) you had an honest
belief and reasonable grounds to believe that you were in imminent danger of suffering serious physical harm or death, and that the only reasonable way to stop or avoid the attack was to use lethal force; and 3) you did not violate any duty to physically retreat from the situation.

 Q: When might I be "at fault in creating the situation?"

A: A court would consider you to be at fault if you created the situation,  unnecessarily prolonged it, or escalated the amount of force involved. In other words, you cannot claim self-defense if you started the fight, or if you continued fighting after the other party tried to stop or abandon the fight, or if you escalated the force involved by, for example, pulling a gun in a fistfight.

Q: How does a court decide whether I had reasonable grounds to believe
that I was in imminent danger?


A: Whoever is examining your claim of self-defense, whether it is the first  police officer on the scene or the last juror, "steps into our shoes," taking  into account your age, gender, physical condition, medical condition, training,  etc., and looks at the objective facts to determine if you were reasonable in
concluding (your "honest belief") that you were in imminent danger of serious physical harm or death.

Q: Why would I have to prove that the only reasonable way to stop or avoid the attack was to use of lethal force?

A: The law considers the taking of a human life to be a last resort. To claim self-defense, you must establish that the only reasonable way you could have stopped or avoided the attack was to use of lethal force. In the law, this is sometimes called a "last resort" test.

Q: What is the "duty to physically retreat?"

A: Before using lethal force, the law says you must physically retreat from the situation, if you can do so without taking unreasonable risks. However, the law does not require you to physically retreat from your own residence, place of business or vehicle.

Q: What is a "stand-your-ground" law?

A: Typically, "stand your ground" is a phrase used to describe a self-defense law that does not require a duty to physically retreat in a threatening situation. This term is specific to each state's law, and in some states "stand your ground" describes laws that go farther to protect self-defense rights than
just removing a person's duty to physically retreat.

Q: What changes is Ohio considering to its self-defense laws?

A: Ohio legislators are considering House Bill 203, which would entirely remove the duty to try to physically retreat from the situation. The proposed legislation also states, affirmatively, that a person does not have a duty to retreat as long as that person is someplace where they may legally be present.
If H.B. 203 passes, you would have to prove, by a "preponderance of the evidence" that, in using lethal force against another person, you were properly acting in self-defense. Specifically, you would have to prove that: 1) you were not at fault in creating the situation; and 2) you had reasonable grounds to
believe and an honest belief that you were in imminent danger of suffering serious physical harm or death, and that the only reasonable way to stop or avoid the attack was to use lethal force. If this bill passes, you would no longer have a duty to physically retreat from the situation, as current Ohio law
requires.

This "Law You Can Use" column was provided by the Ohio State Bar Association. It was prepared by attorney L. Kenneth Hanson, of counsel at Firestone, Brehm, Wolf, Whitney and Young LLP in Delaware. Articles appearing in this column are intended to provide broad, general information about the law.
Before applying this information to a specific legal problem, readers are urged to seek advice from an attorney.