Whether or not women should be allowed in direct combat has been a matter of discussion for quite some time. Women have, of course, taken part in combat actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them have been seriously injured or killed. Quite a few have received extremely well-deserved awards for valor. Seriously, read this.

I've attended neither Ranger school nor the Infantry Officers Course; my hat is off to any person, man or woman, who successfully completes either one. I have, however, served in a small unit while deployed which had female Soldiers. Much like their male counterparts, there were good ones and bad ones. Although I was 19 and longed for the day when I would no longer be sleeping in close proximity to a bunch of dudes, I primarily evaluated the female Soldiers on whether or not they could do their jobs, not whether they would turn heads at the dining out when the unit redeployed, or any other factor.

All of the current signs point to an inevitable integration of females in infantry units, which, with the possible exception of special operations forces, would be the final step in the decades-long overall integration of women in the military. I thought I would voice my own opinions on the subject, which, as always, I try to keep to the practical as opposed to the emotional. The subject is, however, emotional, and I will address those common concerns first.

Emotional Arguments Against Women in Combat

Several arguments I have heard against allowing women in combat involve emotions - that women will be too emotional to participate in day-to-day combat operations, that men will grow emotionally attached to women in their units and become distraught at the sight of their serious injury or death (or vice versa), and so on.

I have never seen a seriously injured (in combat) female; I have not been present for the death (in combat) of a female. I have spoken with a fellow Corpsman who had become friendly with female Marines that were later killed in Fallujah. A very tough man, but he became very quiet when he mentioned the death of "the girls." It was obvious that it had been troubling him, and would continue to do so for a long time.

I have also seen the reaction of Corpsmen and Marines immediately after the death of a comrade. These emotions vary from hard-faced stoicism to becoming completely distraught. The bonds that form between men in combat have been written about by others and should need no special description from me, but I cannot really imagine a greater level of emotional pain than that which I saw on the face of a line company Corpsman who had just had a Marine friend die while the Corpsman was desperately working to save him.

I was aware of relationships between men and...men while I was deployed, and they did not seem to cause any problems that could not be solved at the NCO or SNCO level. I am sure that the first (safety?) briefs on professionalism and avoiding personal relationships to an integrated infantry company will be extremely entertaining.

As to whether women are too emotional to participate in combat - I cannot provide any specific facts to counter this, but I just don't think that a determined woman, dedicated to whatever mission was at hand, wouldn't be able to put emotions aside and get the job done. I am also certain that there are women who couldn't do so (as well as a number of men).

Mental Arguments Against Women in Combat

I have been told that women just cannot do the job, mentally - that they are not tough enough for it. This may not be a very different argument than the emotional one, but I thought I would address it anyway.

In my life I have been privileged to know a number of extremely tough women. I have no doubt that they would doggedly continue to fight until they could physically no longer do so, and then they would summon the strength to fight on anyway. If you have any doubts about this, read the article I linked above about the female Army sergeant who kept flying medevac missions after breaking her leg when she put her body between an injured Soldier and a tree. Naturally, she downplayed the injury.

There are also women who cannot handle the stress of such a situation. While treating an injured Marine in a non-combat situation, my only trained assistance was in the form of a female Corpsman who quite literally got up and quickly walked away from the casualty, saying something along the lines of, "I can't handle this." Needless to say, I was not impressed with her performance. However, I've known men who would have done pretty much the same thing she did. In fact, I've worked with men who failed in a similar fashion. The women are simply in more of a spotlight when they do so.

I have heard second and thirdhand stories of poor performance on the part of female engagement teams (FETs) in Afghanistan, and I am sure they would be mentioned by someone in some comment on this article, which is why I bring them up. However, I have not seen them firsthand and cannot say whether they are mostly true or mostly false. I do not wish for this discussion to devolve into an exchange of anecdotes, although I have brought forth many of my own so far.

Weeding out the emotionally and mentally weak is a job for instructors at various points in the training pipeline, as well as NCOs at the small unit level, who are already used to identifying those who need to pull duty instead of participating in dismounted combat patrols.

Physical Arguments Against Women in Combat

The crux of the issue for me is whether or not the job can be done. There are not many factors which have more of a bearing on completing a task in combat than whether the Soldier or Marine can physically pick up their armor and weapon and ammunition and gear and water and food and make it to where they need to go in a physical condition that allows them to fight for an undetermined period of time and then make it back to wherever they need to go.

In addition, carrying a wounded comrade to safety requires a lot of physical strength. Part of my Field Medical Service School training involved dragging and/or carrying a 180lb dummy through an obstacle course, which I quite enjoyed, and, I think, excelled at. I was disappointed to see that many of the females in my class chose to let their male teammates drag the dummy for the entire evolution - then again, my two male teammates were perfectly happy to let me drag the dummy for the entire thing, too.

To this end, the differing physical standards for men and women in the military would, quite simply, have to go. Physical standards for men shouldn't be lessened - women should be held to the same standards that men are for their particular branch of service. In addition, it wouldn't be fair to have different physical standards for "combat" women and "non-combat" women, for promotions are often determined by physical fitness test scores.

This would have a definite effect on the women who wanted to join the military, but not the infantry. I have certainly known women who were strong enough to wear body armor, sling a 240, and carry a ruck. They are few and far between. Those women who want to be in the infantry but could not currently meet the physical requirements would have to work hard to do so - and those women who just want to be in the military and actually want to be promoted would also need to work harder.

Practical Arguments Against Women in Combat

Some of the arguments against allowing women in combat center on the logistical requirements and additional costs that would be required in order to properly train women - for example, that separate schoolhouses would have to be built, and so on. My answer to this is simple - if men and women are to fight together, they need to train together.

I would go so far as to suggest that latrines should be integrated, if not in a garrison environment, then definitely in the field. Basic levels of privacy and respect should be maintained, but this is a responsibility for individuals.

The bottom line here is that integrating women into infantry units needs to be something that is done to enhance (or at least maintain) the fighting capabilities of the military - not weaken them.

Challenges Faced By The First Women in Infantry Units

The very first women to enter an infantry unit will have to prove themselves at a level which I would go so far as to say no group of military women has ever had to face. They will, no doubt, be carefully selected, and entirely capable of the tasks they will face. My main concern is whether or not the women to follow them will perform at the same level.

The first female carrier-based fighter pilot, LT Kara Hultgreen, was killed in a crash that was determined to be the result of pilot error. I do not have enough information to determine if she was pushed beyond her capabilities into a role which she was unable to fulfill, but I do not want any American servicemember to die as a result of a political desire to have complete equality in the uniformed services.

I have spent long hours in gun stores - both as an employee and a customer. I have seen plenty of rude, inconsiderate, and unsafe behavior while I was working and shopping in gun stores, and I would struggle to provide a justification for almost any of it.

Please Sir, Take My Money In Exchange For This Firearm

The problem many customers have when they enter a gun store is that they are quite often ignored or insulted when actively trying to give a gun store employee money in exchange for a product. Tales of difficult car salesmen are legion in popular culture, but I have never encountered such a wide and consistent number of rude salespeople in any industry as I have in the retail firearm industry.

Some groups perceive this as a slight against them. Perhaps there is some merit to their thoughts - women or minorities are almost certain to be treated in a negative manner - in some gun stores, by some employees. However, I'm a white male, and I've been treated rudely by the same people who would or have been rude to those same women or minorities. It's just a different kind of rude.

The problem is that there is a gun store employee groupthink that seems to cross economic, social, gender, and political boundaries. It doesn't matter if you go into a small gun store in rural Tennessee or a high-end gun store in an upscale Arizona suburb, you're probably going to encounter many of the same sort of people.

They might be far more interested in talking to each other in front of you, perhaps to show off how much they know about whatever topic is at hand. Or maybe a lone employee will try to chase you off with a gruff and unfriendly greeting, then remain noncommittal even after you try to tell him what you're looking for. Other times, they'll talk down to you, whether you're knowledgeable or not.

Firearms bring out an attitude in a lot of people. A perception of not knowing every little detail about a weapon means a huge loss of face. Gun store employees are a group that almost certainly falls into this category - in fact, I'd say that they're the self-perpetuating inspiration for the attitude.

Unfortunately, being around guns and gun people all day doesn't bring a proper education or knowledge base. Most of the time, I just smile and nod while someone behind a gun store counter tells me that a Ruger P95 is better than an HK P30, or that .45 has a lot of "knockdown power," or that the Kimber employee that takes your order on the phone then hand builds your pistol. Two kids who worked in the store with me mocked me behind my back for liking the Beretta M9. Never mind the fact that it had saved my life, they knew better because...they played video games and talked to people at a gun store?

Now, there are a lot of good people in gun stores too. They have real-world experience, they are intelligent enough to discard the tall tales they hear instead of passing them on as gospel, and they're kind enough to be polite and helpful to customers. They'll listen to you and help you find the firearm you need or want instead of trying to sell you their favorite toy.

Believe it or not, they're at least as fed up with the idiots that stand with them behind the counter as you are. But even some of the good ones can become jaded after months or years of dealing with the firearm-owning public.

You Retard, Stop Pointing That Pistol At Me

Although I worked in a gun store for a short period of time compared to some folks, I encountered a lot of idiots. The training and experience of the gun store customers (and employees) one might expect to encounter on any given day runs the gamut from "I learned about firearms from Battlefield or Modern Warfare" to "I'm a world class competitive shooter." This wouldn't be a problem at all, if their attitude toward firearm safety didn't also vary from careless disregard to careful respect.

I've had a loaded (actually loaded, not the "all guns are always loaded" BS) XD45, with the carrier's finger on the trigger, pointed at my chest in a gun store. In fact, that person did so casually in an attempt to intimidate me into allowing him to "return" an item that had a price sticker from a competitor's store on the packaging.

I've watched other employees, while dealing with obstinate and unintelligent customers, progress from gentle reminders about firearm safety to outright orders to stop pointing guns at people. We aren't concerned if you start off ignorant of basic gun handling skills, but we need you to pay attention to the instructions we give you.

The first and most important firearm safety rule is to treat every weapon as if it were loaded. Once accepted, this rule guides all behavior around firearms. Unfortunately, it's not always understood or respected by those who own firearms.

I really don't care if I hand a gun across a counter and the person who takes it from me, who has never shot before, puts their finger on the trigger. They have no way of knowing that it's a bad thing to do. However, pointing a gun at someone is just plain rude. It's something that should be common sense, but unfortunately, common sense is often lacking.

The obstinacy of many firearm owners, and their subsequent refusal to learn to properly handle and employ the firearms they own, greatly vexes me. I don't care if you don't know about gun safety NOW or don't know how to shoot NOW, but you should take an active interest in becoming proficient with firearms if you're going to use them for home or self defense.

This might seem ironic given my comments in the first section of this article, but it's also annoying to deal with an uninformed and argumentative person who isn't there to buy a gun, just to talk about them. They could just as easily have been standing on the inside of the counter, telling customers that the M9 was always unreliable.

I wasn't there to talk about guns, I was there to help people find the right one for them. I'd happily talk to someone about guns for an hour or more if it meant helping them make the right decision. I had real customers to help, so listening to some guy blather on about how cool piston ARs are when there was a young couple patiently waiting to buy a home defense gun nearby was a complete waste of everyone's time.

I may have come across as overly harsh in this article, but I cannot express enough how my time working in a gun store colored my opinion of firearms ownership by the general public. Again, thanks to Caleb for writing a great (and more respectful) article.

Regular readers of this blog will probably be disappointed to see that this is recycled content. My apologies. I intend for this video to reach the audience that does not regularly visit the blog and/or would not have an interest in reading the article I wrote on this subject last year.

But when it comes to pink carry handguns, I start to wonder.

Are women buying these guns? Or are their husbands, boyfriends, and so on buying them a pink gun in the hopes that this will suddenly make them want to carry? I don't know that I understand that approach. If they're interested in shooting or self-defense, it shouldn't take a pink gun to push them over the edge - or should it? I'm a boy, I don't know these things.

If I was a girl and my significant other bought this gun for me, I would break up with them.

I do know that, anecdotally, I see and hear of far more interest in pink guns from men than women. Not that they are all gay dudes looking to buy them (there must be a few, after all, there is an advocacy group called the Pink Pistols), but it seems like an excuse for a male to buy a gun for a female partner more than something that truly makes the firearm appeal to a woman.

I asked about how to make firearms appeal to women a few months back and the answers I got made a lot of sense, but were not ones that I would have come up with when thinking about the subject, because again, I am not a girl. The basic theme seemed to be that firearms were empowering and helped women feel that they could stand on their own. This is a worthy idea and one I wholeheartedly support - but is making the gun pink going to help this, or just sell more guns, cause be damned?

What do my female readers think about this?

These men are also some of the most fit people on the planet, who do things on a regular basis that the average person could not hope to do once. Despite being physically capable of carrying more, they willingly go into the field with lightweight, minimalist, and essential gear only. They don't take light things that don't work and they don't take heavy things that do work if there is a lighter alternative.

This goes for all aspects of their equipment - body armor and 782 gear, weapons, etc. As much as one piece of gear might help one aspect of their mission, arriving at their destination with as much physical stamina remaining as possible is very high on their list of priorities.

This is why I laugh when I see people (especially on the internet) making fun of those who dislike heavy gear. For the most part, they have never been anywhere or done anything. Those I've seen in person make such comments could certainly not run the length of a football field with their preferred heavy gear and hope to do anything useful when they made it to the end zone.

When I came to the same conclusions on my own after months of carrying too much gear in the field, I thought I was doing something wrong. As time went by and I met more and more such men, their opinions made me decide that I wasn't exactly wrong in the loadout I had at the end of my deployment (although if any more time had passed, I probably would have ended up wearing only a kevlar groin protector and carrying only one frag grenade).

In the spirit of this post, I'll keep its overall length "light." I do hope, however, that the point has been made.

Links:

GearScout

TheFirearmBlog

RomeoTangoBravo

I describe a few things I think gun store employees should be aware of.

Interestingly enough, Mike Pannone (who, coincidentally, wrote a handbook about Glocks), worked on Gen 3 .40 caliber Glock issues way back in 2007. Either with the use of a 9mm trigger pack or tweaking the ejector about 1mm towards the center axis of the bore, ejection issues went away.

He says...

"The cases never hit or barely contact the ejector. The ejection problem is due to the case not making contact with the ejector especially if it is the last round or there is no magazine in the well. The round in the magazine keeps the case from dropping down and failing to make contact with the ejector. I have several Glocks that with the magazine removed the expended case will not eject and will fall out through the magazine well. With certain magazines, ejection is weak as noted in your video.

...

The problem with a 9mm trigger housing in a 40 is that on some guns it will eject straight back into your forehead. I messed around with bending the ejector just slightly and it actually worked the best on a stock 22. The forehead thing is not every time but once every so often...but it can sting and without glasses...well, you get it."

Here's the video he mentions.

I've seen others that poke fun at those who've, for example, taken carbine courses, and so on. Some of the folks passing these along seem pretty involved in that, for lack of a better term, "world." I'm not saying that we shouldn't poke fun at ourselves, because I often mock the robotic manner in which I come across in videos.

However, they provided some food for thought, and I think I'll discuss the marketing of a few companies in the industry. Maybe I'll gain a few enemies here, but oh well. By the way, several of the companies listed have sent me thousands of dollars worth of equipment for T&E (BCM and Spikes).

Bravo Company USA/Bravo Company MFG

Bravo Company makes great ARs. Their marketing appears to be directed at the law enforcement, military, and private military contractor market, with things like a well-produced video of military-looking guys protecting a Pashtun-looking family on an Afghan-looking mountainside. They also have the "BCMGUNFIGHTER" line of apparel (and stickers).

As I said, they're marketing their wares towards that particular segment, but I would not be surprised to learn that most BCM products are bought by regular civilians (I have no data on this, nor do I see a problem with it). Are they buying BCM stuff because it's awesome, or because of the marketing push to connect BCM with professional gunfighters?

If there's anything that would be ripe for a Willy Wonka-style mocking meme, a guy who's never been in a gunfight putting a "BCMGUNFIGHTER" sticker on his car is it. Regardless of the reason behind most purchases - I would venture a guess that it's some combination of the two above factors - the success of the company speaks for itself.

Spike's Tactical

Spike's Tactical also makes great ARs. It's not as easy to pinpoint who they're marketing to. For sure, they target the LE market. They seem to be more civilian-focused than Bravo, which makes sense in a way, since there are more gun-owning civilians in the US than there are law enforcement officers or military personnel or PMCs.

I have to say that a lot of Spike's marketing turns me off. I'm not in the tribal/tapout crowd, and it seems like that's what they're going for. The brashness of it is not appealing to me. The spider logo doesn't really bother me that much, but some of the more "thuggish" apparel isn't my thing. It seems too poseur. As a pretty tough friend of mine once said, "everyone wants to say they're training for UFC, but nobody wants to get punched in the face."

Spike's seems to be doing very well, which is good, because they make a great product. I suppose someone had to reach out to this market segment, I just kinda wish it wasn't a company I like so much.

(edit: I once made a print advertisement for Spike's, but it was positioned a little differently. Of course, I only did the one advertisement, so I guess it wasn't very effective.)

Advanced Armament Corp.

AAC does clever stuff like give out earplugs "for when your friends don't have silencers" and put up billboards proclaiming that "silencers are legal" (at least, they pretend to do so in some online ads I've seen - I don't know if they actually did that).

I like a clever ad campaign or trick and will take a look at the company's products if I see one. The products still have to actually be able to perform, but something funny will at least draw me in.

Glock

I have in the past made the statement that Glock's "Perfection" tagline is one of the biggest jokes in the industry. There is nothing perfect about a Glock, whether it's because they're ugly, or some of their models might get you killed if you tried to use them out of the box to defend yourself, or because they're shaped to fit only 3% of the population - I fall in to that 3%, by the way.

But "Perfection" sells a lot better than "Utilitarian" or "Some Of Our Guns Suck, Others Are Awesome."

I carry a Glock 19.

Remington/ATI/Any Turkish Firearm Company

Here's where I complain about "booth babes." I appreciate the female form, but I would rather hear about the merits of a product or company, or at least see a clever and successful marketing campaign, than simply be expected to approach a company's booth at a trade show because they hired a few models in skimpy clothing (It seemed that Remington had half a dozen at the 2012 NRA show).

What makes this worse is that if the models are actually holding firearms, it's perfectly obvious that they have no idea what they're doing. Why should I spend time looking at your product if you're marketing it in an amateurish manner? "Look, boobs?"

I recently saw a photo shoot with a female model for some 1911 grips. The actual grips were in an underexposed portion of the photo, so it was hard to tell if they were effective, decent looking, etc. I couldn't really see anything that would sell me on the grips, other than the fact that a woman was holding the pistol. I'm sure that'll sell a lot of grips - or at least posters. Sex sells, just not to me.

At the risk of sounding toolish - If I'm buying a firearm or piece of gear, it's going to be used. I may depend on it in the field. I'll be thousands of miles away from that "hot" model, literally and figuratively, and the vacant expression on her face as she stared at the camera or signed posters at a trade show isn't going to help me come home.

At the NRA show, I found it unfortunate and distressing that there was a line to get autographs from the peroxide blonde at the ATI booth, but people were walking past Julie Goloski-Golob without paying any attention to her - and, astounding shooting prowess aside, she is a very attractive woman in her own right. She was also very pleasant to talk to.

But I always keep in mind what a businessman I know said - he was actually referencing a completely different topic at the time - "We're not marketing to the Andrew Tuohys of the gun world." This brings me to my next point...

Elzetta

I have told friends in the past that I appreciate a product that is sold on its merits, and I really can't think of a better example of this than Elzetta flashlights, which are marketed with advertisements that discuss the technical details of their lights. While this is exactly the sort of thing that appeals to me and I find refreshing, it does not generally seem to have a huge splash in the marketplace. I'm sure that one photo of a blonde shining an Elzetta light off-camera while wearing a tank top and parting her lips would gain a lot of attention, but that's not how those guys roll, and that's exactly why I like them so much.

Unfortunately, the end result of this is lost profits.

Tru-Spec/Extreme Shock/Counter Sniper/Hell Fighter

It may be a little unfair to lump Tru-Spec in here, but this group is composed of companies whose advertising promises way more than the product delivers, and that's a fair description of a Tru-Spec booth I saw at the NRA show. It featured a quote from "Gunny" - R. Lee Ermey, which read, "Only the very best products earn my stamp of approval. Tru-Spec makes service attire that's simply outstanding."

I don't know what his definition of "simply outstanding" is, but every professional organization or unit I've encountered that uses Tru-Spec apparel has cursed the bean counters that cursed them with such poorly made "service attire." Rips and tears seemed to be the norm, not the exception, and some garments became unserviceable at an unacceptable pace. Not exactly what I'd call "simply outstanding."

The others use flashy photos with explosions and tactical dudes in black tactical gear with tactical accessory-laden tactical firearms doing tactical things, like pointing guns off camera. They also use taglines like "the choice of elite military and law enforcement agencies around the globe."

This goes with the above Tru-Spec point - a lot of crappy gear is foisted upon good agencies or units, only to end up collecting dust in a quadcon or storage locker. An ironic factor is the inclusion of the American flag to sell products not made in America or used by any professional organization in the United States. "Around the world" generally means "a few third world police departments at various points on the planet."

Arc'teryx

I recently picked up a few Arc'teryx LEAF jackets (an Alpha and a Bravo, thanks to my friend Jim at Deliberate Dynamics). The image of Arc'teryx in the firearm industry is linked considerably, and perhaps unfortunately, to Chris Costa. As a result, Arc'teryx apparel seems to be perceived as more of a popular item or status symbol than something that's actually useful.

That's unfortunate, because both jackets (one made in China, one made in Canada) are outstanding at what they do, which is protect my body from the elements. I have some cheap Chinese-made jackets and some older American-made stuff; the quality, design and craftsmanship of the Arc'teryx apparel compares favorably to old American-made apparel. The cheap Chinese jackets work, but they aren't as well made and are perhaps not as good in terms of keeping me warm. Some people will buy one type, and others will buy another.

I don't know if Arc'teryx should be blamed for how they are perceived. Then again, they price their stuff really high, so they should expect some pushback or resentment. To be honest, I don't know if I would buy a $700 jacket. I think the Berry-compliant models are mostly intended for agency purchases - still, the $370 Bravo jacket isn't the sort of purchase I would make lightly.

Outside the tactical and/or gear world, most people just see them as jackets.

I Guess That's It For Now

I have come to the end of my thoughts on "tactical" and firearm marketing, at least for now. What are your thoughts?