Revisiting the "first carry gun" question, 5 years or so later

So a few years back, I wrote several different pieces about concealed carry for first timers; both gun newbies, and carry newbies, though surprisingly enough, never in a single post for just the "first carry gun" question precisely.

A few days back, I got a question from a German immigrant to Washington state, who has been asking a lot of "newbie" type questions lately:

"I am planning to get me a concealed carry license. Being from Germany almost everything regarding carrying a gun is new for me, I have read about it though. My question is now: I am a fan of big caliber. In some states you have to do your "training" for the license with an automatic to be allowed to carry both types of actions. Which gun is good for a newbie like me? It should have man-stopping power, so should be more than a .38/9mm.
Thank you"

I figure now is a good time to address the question again; as so many people are starting to carry concealed, since the 2008 elections, and in preparation for the 2012 elections.

The first thing for our questioner, is that in Washington (and most other states) you don't have any qualification restrictions. Once you're licensed, it's for any firearm that is legal to carry.

The rest of the answer is more complicated however... much more complicated.

So, the basic rules for choosing a carry gun...

1. 1. The first, and most important thing to deal with; you shouldn't carry any gun, until you are completely comfortable with shooting, you are safe and proficient with firearms in general, and you are ABSOLUTELY SURE you are mentally and emotionally prepared and able, to shoot another human being in self defense. Otherwise, you are a danger to yourself and to others.
   
2. You should only a gun that you are completely comfortable with. You must be completely familiar with your guns characteristics, manual of arms, and in particular the failure modes and recovery drills for that weapon, before you carry it for self defense.
   
3. You should only carry a gun that you have tested extensively, using the ammunition and holster(s) you intend to carry it with; and wearing the clothing you intend to wear while carrying. Things that seem like they will work, often don't. The time to find out is on the range, not when someone is charging at you with a knife. Extensively means hundreds of practice draws from concealment, and hundreds of rounds fired (I personally consider 500 rounds an absolute minimum).
   
4. Carry a gun that you can and WILL carry; all day long, every day, no matter the weather or the occasion (this is why most most folks serious about self defense with firearms have multiple carry guns... different guns for different conditions and situations).
   
5. Carry a gun that you can shoot, and WILL shoot, regularly, with the ammunition you intent to load while carrying it. By regularly I mean at a minimum several magazines worth or cylinders full, once per month... and preferably more.

Now... as to specifics, that's a little more difficult.

As I said above, you need to carry a gun you are comfortable with, that is reliable, that you can shoot, that you can carry well...

What that is, is very different for everyone. What works for your body, your lifestyle, your work, your choice of clothing... It's unique to you.

My general recommendation, is that you try out a lot of different guns, and see what feels good. Rent them at a range, borrow friends guns; shoot as many guns as possible, as much as possible.

The "default" recommendation is that you buy a Glock, M&P, or XD; because they are relatively inexpensive, reliable, easy to shoot; all are available in three frame, barrel, and grip sizes, with common ergonomics, controls, and manual of arms; and all are available in the three most common defensive chambering selections in the U.S. (9mm, .40s&w and .45acp) in all three sizes.

In general, I think the "default" recommendation is a good one. I usually own at least one or two of those three types of guns at any given time (if not all three... or even multiples of all three in different sizes and chamberings).

... and I always end up selling them, because I just don't like them all that much. They don't "speak" to me on an emotional level, or interest me esthetically. I appreciate them all mechanically, and as a gunsmith and an instructor, I recommend them to friends, customers, students; and to you, my readers...  I just don't like them that much

My personal preference for double action semiautomatic pistols, are SIGs (in particular, I prefer the SIG P220 carry elite in .45acp, and the P229 elite, in .40, 9mm, or .357sig); but they are considerably more expensive than the big three striker fired options (none of the three "default" guns is a traditional double action. All have some variant of the "safe action" concept, which is functionally similar to double action). I just prefer the ergonomics, feel, natural point, and looks of the SIG.

Also, I generally carry 1911s (in all three common sizes - 5" "government", 4" "commander" and 3" "officers", and in .45acp or 10mm) as my primary sidearms; however, I don't recommend them as carry guns for anyone other than experts, or at least those who will train every week (this applies to single action firearms in general. They have a more complicated manuals of arms, and additional failure modes, which beginners shouldn't have to try to worry about under stress).

As to chambering... I really see very little reason for a beginner to chose anything but 9mm or .45acp. Yes, there are plenty of other chamberings to choose from, that are effective for self defense; but for a beginner, it's generally best that you choose a common chambering. 9mm and .45acp are the most common centerfire handgun chamberings in the U.S. and more defensive and practice loadings are factory available (and generally at a lower price) in them, than any other.

As I said above, I personally like 10mm and .357sig ( in addition to 9mm and .45), but as with single action handguns, I think both chamberings should only be considered for self defense by experts. Both have quite sharp recoil, muzzle blast, and report; and they are both extreme penetrators.

.40 S&W is also very popular (third in the U.S. behind 9mm and .45acp; and second in law enforcement behind 9mm... in fact by now, it may be more popular for LEOs than 9mm). It is marginally more effective than high pressure defensive loadings of 9mm, and marginally less effective than high pressure defensive loadings of .45acp. You generally gain one or sometimes two rounds capacity over .45 or you lose a round compared to 9mm. In exchange for that, you get sharper recoil and muzzle blast than either, and generally a higher price than either.

My personal opinion... Unless you want to shoot .357sig as well (.357sig is based on the .40s&w cartridge. In general, guns chambered in .40, can be easily converted to .357sig with a barrel and spring change), there is little reason to choose .40 over either .45 or 9mm.

Alternately, a medium frame revolver in .357 magnum can be an excellent carry choice; if you are physically comfortable with carrying a revolver of that size. Some peoples bodies work well with concealing revolvers, some don't. In general, you want more than a 2" barrel (because 2" barrels cut the effectiveness of the load greatly) and at most a 4" barrel (because anything longer is difficult to draw from concealment).

Some medium frame revolvers even have 7 round cylinders now. 7 rounds of .357 magnum is going to be just as effective (or possibly moreso) as 7 or 8 rounds of .45acp.

Actually, I'd say that in general, 6 or 7 rounds of .357 magnum are just as good for self defense, as 10 or 12 rounds of .45acp, 9mm, or .40... Even 5 or 6 rounds of .357 are pretty strong medicine for discouraging unpleasant people from doing unpleasant things; and frankly, as a non LEO civilian shooter, if you need more than 5 rounds of .357 magnum to address your immediate problems... well, you've got worse problems than a handgun can handle.

I generally don't recommend a large frame revolver (any revolver in .41 magnum or larger is going to be large frame) for concealed carry, because most people can't comfortably carry them concealed (I can just barely do so, and I'm a VERY large man... and it takes a particular choice of holster, cover garments etc...). You are better off with a smaller gun, that you can carry in more situations, with more clothing variations etc...

The absolute best piece of advice I can give you once you've selected a couple options is, BUY GOOD BELTS AND HOLSTERS.

A good belt or two, and several good holsters, can make carrying almost any reasonably sized gun, relatively easy and comfortable. Even slightly mediocre belts or holsters will make carrying any gun, an uncomfortable chore.

For a backup, deep cover, or otherwise "the gun you carry when you can't carry your bigger gun"; the conventional recommendation is a compact .38spl or .357 revolver (like the S&W J frame) or .380 auto (like the KelTec p3at).

We call them pocket guns, because they slip into your pocket; preferably first thing in the morning, every morning, not coming out until you get undressed for bed. That way you always have a gun when you need one.

That's why I have a pocket gun... actually I have several.

As it happens, I own, and recommend, both of the guns above; particularly with the option of adding a laser sight. Although you should train to use your sights as much as possible; there are some situations where sights aren't all that useful... as it happens, those are often the situations you really need your backup gun in. And even if you have a chance to use your sights, on most backup guns the sights are barely there, or at best hard to see, anyway. Laser sights help compensate for all of those factors.

So... confused yet?

Once you actually buy a carry gun (or peferably at least two carry guns) I  want you to do two things:

First, Shoot them... a lot. As much as you possibly can. Shoot them two handed, strong handed, and weak handed. Shoot them at very close range, as well as at medium range. Shoot them at moving targets. Shot them while on the move. Shoot them in defensive pistol competiton... just shoot them as much as possible.

Second, CARRY THEM. Carry them all day, every day, everywhere you legally can.

CARRY THEM all the time... because you don't need a gun most of the time, but when you need one, you REALLY need one.

Defending yourself, for those outside the gun culture

Almost all my readers are "gun people", in that they own guns already, are interested in guns, guns are a hobby and form of recreation for them etc...

However, I'm also a part of several other communities or subcultures if you will, where guns are an uncomfortable subject, or just a mystery.

For example, I teach basic self defense, to women, and to gays, for free. I fully and firmly believe, armed women don't get raped, and armed gays don't get bashed.

I have a lot of friends in what you might call "alternative sexuality" or "alternative lifestyle" communities. These folks often engage in what you might consider fairly risky behavior; in that they meet strangers in private places etc... Basically, a lot of the necessary conventions of these communities, because they require discretion, privacy, secrecy etc... are the exact things the self defense classes and books tell you NOT to do.

I used to have a lot of friends who were escorts, strippers, in porn, or some combination of all of the above (I did security for them. You make friends pretty quickly in those situation). They have all those same risks, only turned up to 11.

I'm involved in gaming, both casual and hardcore, both tabletop and video gaming; and a lot of gamers and geeks just don't know a damn thing about guns or self defense... or worse, what they "know" is dead wrong... meaning it will get them, and others, dead.

We in the gun community or the gun culture if you will, understand that there is a hell of a lot of just plain bad information out there in the non-gun world; and we should, when we can, try to help others to get GOOD information, and to learn how to defend themselves safely, and responsibly.

To that end, I'm going to repost something I wrote on a forum for one of those groups I mention above.


-----------------------


The best way to protect yourself is to avoid being in danger in the first place, absolutely; but when that plan fails, the best way to defend yourself is a weapon.

Less lethal weapons are always an option if you feel you can't carry a gun, or can't kill someone who is trying to hurt you. Stun guns and chemical irritant sprays CAN be useful and effective if used properly.

Though I have seen far too many cases where they were not effective enough, to trust them as a primary means of self defense, any advantage you can give yourself in a life or death situation, is one you should tale. Also, unfortunately, in many places, these may be your only lawful means of self defense.

If you do choose to use a contact stun gun, a taser (they are two very different things by the way, and the difference is important), or a chemical irritant; you NEED to get training in how to use them safely, and effectively; and you ABSOLUTELY must practice with them at least once.

The time to say "huh, that didn't work the way I thought it would" is in training, NOT when someone is about to rape you to death.

Now, lot of folks in this community are not comfortably with firearms, but they carry knives; and they believe they will defend themselves with a knife if the time comes.

Let me tell you right now, you want to think of a knife as your absolute last resort in a defensive situation.

Unless you are an expert martial artist, trained for years in self defense with a knife, you are unlikely to be very effective in doing so; and you are likely to hurt yourself badly if it ever happens.

Even knife experts, and I'm one of them; hurt themselves badly, when defending themselves with a knife... and I'm one of them.

I've been in a couple of knife fights. Trust me on this, you REALLY want to avoid a knife fight under any circumstances. Next time you see me, ask me to show you some of my scars.

The two things most people don't understand are:

1. It's VERY hard to defend yourself with a knife. It's pretty easy to hurt someone pretty badly, but it's very hard to STOP them from attacking you, which is your goal; and it's very easy to hurt yourself in the process. Plus in order to use a knife effectively, you have to be close enough that they can grab you, and really, you should avoid that if there's any way you can.

and

2. You are far more likely to die or be permanently disabled or disfigured by a knife wound, than by a gunshot.

That's counterintuitive, but ER statistics prove it out. You are far more likely to die from a knife wound, because you are likely to lose more blood, have a greater chance of shock, and are more likely to suffer more severe infections, and more secondary infections.

So, while I won't say knives are useless for self defense, or not to grab one if it's your only weapon (any weapon you can use, is better than no weapon at all, if you're defending your life)... don't make it your plan to defend yourself with a knife, and don't carry a knife for self defense, unless it's your only option, or it's a backup to your other self defense methods.

My personal recommendation is, if you are able to deal mentally and emotionally with the concept of killing someone (and you need to be 100% able to deal with it, otherwise you are going to be a bigger danger to yourself and others than a rapist or killer is. If you can't, stick to less lethal weapons) you should carry a firearm.

Nothing stops a rapist so well as a bullet... or five.

Again, I want to stress, you shouldn't carry a gun unless you are entirely comfortable doing so; and have accepted the idea that you may, no matter how much you dont want to, need to use the thing on another human being, and you are safe, mature, stable, and responsible enough to do so.

If you are bi-polar or depressive, and your illness is not well controlled with medication you take religiously, you probably shouldn't have a gun. If you're an addict who is not doing well in recovery, you probably shouldn't have a gun (if you are an addict who is not in recovery at all, it is illegal for you to have a gun). In general, if you're someone who has great difficulties with mental or emotional stability... you probably shouldn't have a gun.

I won't say you definitely shouldn't, because everyone is different, as are everyones individual issues... but in general, unless you are sober, and stable, you shouldn't have a gun.

Also, you shouldn't carry a gun if you are not physically safe and secure (crackhead roommate? No guns til you move, which you should do immediately), responsible and conscientious about your possessions (if you lose your purse every week... don't carry a gun), and you have received training in self defense shooting, and the legal issues surrounding armed self defense in your state.

Note, I'm not saying it should be illegal for you to own or carry a gun without training in firearms safety and the legal aspects of self defense. What I'm saying is that unless it's a life or death emergency, you shouldn't, you're an idiot if you do, and I don't want you carrying a gun around me or mine.

You should also train with your defensive firearm at least once a month; both to ensure that your skills in shooting are adequate and safe for self defense, and to ensure that the firearm is still functioning properly.

Finally, when you decide to own and carry a gun, you accept a burden to behave in a safe and responsible manner.

People who carry guns for lawful self defense, can't allow their anger, or their depression, to get the best of them. They can't get into bar fights. They can't get into domestic disturbances. They can't get drunk or high.

Carrying a gun for lawful self defense means you always need to be the better man or woman in any situation. You need to turn the other cheek, and exercise restraint and caution, even further than those who don't carry.

Now, if I haven't scared you off after all that heavy stuff, here's my offer.

I am an NRA certified firearms instructor; and have additionally been trained in firearms use and instruction by Gunsite Academy, Frontsight Academy, Massad Ayoobs Lethal Force Institute, and several other firearms training facilities. I have acted as a trainer for several law enforcement organizations, security contractors, and for private clients; for almost 15 years.

If anyone in my region, wishes to learn how to shoot a gun for the first time, wants to learn about firearms safety, want's their kids, or family to learn about firearms safety; want's advice about firearms for defending themselves, or wants to get back into shooting; I will give them free instruction, and use of my firearms and safety gear, any time I'm available.

The only thing I ask, is that if you can, you pay for the ammo. If you can't afford it, I've got a fair bit, and I'm glad to share it with you... but ammo isn't free, and these days, it isn't particularly cheap.

Re-enacting scenes from my childhood

Growing up, I was always 2-6 inches taller, 50-100 lbs heavier, and a lot stronger than the other kids my age.... plus I got into Jiu Jitsu at age 5.

So, this looked very familiar to me... in fact I had EXACTLY this happen when I was 13, and I did exactly the same thing to the kid, only harder (he ended up in the hospital):

No-one was ever stupid enough to try to bully me; but there were a lot of little punks who thought they would prove something by starting a fight.

They certainly proved something... just not what they were hoping to prove.

update: Youtube pulled the vid so I'm sourcing it from LiveLeak now.

A Pit Bull In My Pocket

No, not the big ass dog currently attempting to lick my face off (he's a bit affectionate); the brand new carry gun sitting there.

As I mentioned in my BAG day post, my wife has snaffled my Kel-Tec P3AT for her daily carry gun; because it's the only gun we own... one of the very few available actually... that she can carry on body without a cover garment.

So, that found me looking for a new pocket carry gun.

S'okay with me, I've been planning on buying one of these since they came out:

That would be a Smith and Wesson, hammerless, 5 shot, J frame, scandium airweight, black non-reflective finish, in .357 magnum; a.k.a. the 340pd.

I've been a j-frame owner before, shot the scandiums (many of them, from .22 up to .44 magnum) many times; and owned a scandium L frame (a 386). I have not however been a scandium J frame owner as of yet.

...Well, until now.


That little cell phone holster there isn't actually a cell phone holder. It holds three 5 shot speedloaders quite nicely; while still allowing easy access, and of course while being very discrete. I actually prefer the Safariland speedloaders for this thing, but I happened to already have four of the HKS units around.

From the factory the gun comes with the UncleMikes/S&W licensed soft kraton version of Craig Spegels boot grips...

... which is great, if you have small hands. I uh... don't.

As you can see, I can barely get a three finger grip on there, never mind a four finger grip. Also, with the bare backstrap, the gun just isn't pleasant to shoot with anything approaching full house loads. .38+p+ is the maximum here.

The factory sights are... rudimentary would probably be a good way of putting it. Trying to site down that little black trough, in the dark, without my glasses on...

Yeah, no.

So, to kill two birds with one stone, I decided to put on a set of Crimson Trace lg-305 overmolded lasergrips. This version of the laser grip lets me establish a full (and comfortable) four finger grip on the gun, as well as giving me the laser.

I'm also considering swapping out the front sight for an XS BigDot, for lowlight redundancy.

The much larger grip lets me fire full house .357 magnum without discomfort (to my hand anyway. my eyes and ears are another question entirely), even though it's so light weight (just 15.5oz loaded).

Initially I had a concern that the size difference in the grip would hurt concealability; but I'll say, I have no problem with it.

Yeah, it's bigger, by quite a bit. Here's the two of them to compare:




It's about a half inch wider, and about a half inch taller, but not as wide through the palm swell. Also, it's sticky (with the soft and grippy Hogue overmolded rubber compound), but not as sticky as the stock grips.

I'll be honest with you, I think it's easier to carry with the laser grips on. It's CERTAINLY a hell of a lot easier to draw and establish a good grip; and with the smooth organic shape, it's very comfortable to carry in my front right jeans pocket, even sitting in the car.

So, how does the 340 compare to my previous carry gun, the P3AT?

It's bigger. Much bigger:


The numbers tell the story, at least somewhat.
Smith and Wesson 340 Personal Defense (PD):

Chambering: .357 magnum (120-158gr loads only. Short barrel loadings better)
Barrel Length: 1.875
Capacity: 5
Thickness: 1.3"
Height: with factory grips 4.3", with CT laser grips (305) 4.8"
Length: with factory grips: 6.375", with CT laser grips (305): 6.775"
Weight: 12.0 oz unloaded, 14.9oz loaded, with CT laser grips (305) 15.5oz loaded

Kel-Tec P3AT:

Chambering: .380 (browning lock type gun, +p are OK unlike blowback guns)
Barrel Length: 2.75"
Capacity: 6+1
Thickness: .8"
Height: 3.6"
Length: 5.2"
Weight: 7.2 oz unloaded (no mag), 10.2oz loaded

The reason I say the numbers reflect the tale somewhat, is that strictly by dimensions the 340 seems to come off quite badly; but the shape of the thing is very good, so the dimensions don't seem to matter as much.

Although the maximum thickness of the 340 is 1.3"; that is of course at the widest part, the round cylinder, which is actually a quite small portion of the gun; and the measurement makes the gun seem far chunkier than it really is.

Most of the 340 is only about a half inch thick, and is organically shaped; as opposed to the Kel-Tec, which is a nearly flat .77" thick, and is very linear. This makes the 340 actually FEEL thinner than the Kel-Tec, and in my experience it is more comfortable to carry in the pocket, and it prints less in most clothing.

Here's a pic showing both of them in their respective pocket holsters (a slightly modified Desantis nemesis for the 340, that is completely and exactly covered by the GuruDave holster for the P3AT):


The holsters are lined up foot and spine above; and the P3AT holster is almost exactly the same size as the 340s holster. The difference is the fair bit of the grip left out on the 340.

Again though, the shape of the thing is what really matters; because in your pocket, it doesn't look like a gun at all. My thigh is rounded, the P3AT is not, so the P3AT shows angles where angles shouldn't be, even with the holster; whereas inside the the holster, the 340 is all smooth curves.

That isn't to say the P3AT is hard to conceal (I've never had someone spot it yet, even trained and aware individuals); but the 340 just looks smoother in the pocket.

And, as I said above, it's a HELL of a lot easier to draw. Even in the holster, the P3AT has a tendency to want to rotate; at least in my pockets (which admittedly, are quite large).

The chambering is of course a major factor here. The 340 is a .357, even though it's only a 1.85" barrel. That means you're only going to get about 1100fps from 124gr at best; along with a HUGE fireball and muzzle blast.

Still, .357 is .357.

Take a look up at the factory grip above again, and you'll notice there is a deep undercut behind the trigger guard, a bare backstrap, and a very sudden and narrow transition into the web of the thumb.

On my hand at least, that means the trigger guard raps my knuckles, the frame hump tries to embed itself into the web of my thumb; and the narrow grip and bare backstrap puts the cylinder latch right against the meaty bit of the side of my thumb just waiting to tear a bit of flesh out if I'm not very careful to keep a thumbs down grip.

All of that says "DON'T SHOOT .357 THROUGH ME" very loudly.

Look again at the LG-305 though. Full 4 finger grip, broader and more hand filling through the palm, nice big rubber bit in the web of the thumb...

Really, with the big grip on it, .357 is not bad at all. I'm not saying it's like shooting a stainless L frame; but it can be accomplished without major drama in the hand... again though, and it may seem like I'm getting repetitious here, but it really must be emphasized; the muzzle flash and muzzle blast are staggering.

The cor-bon super hot .380 that I carry in the P3AT is supposed to be 1100fps, but that's from a 2.5" test barrel. Also that's effectively +p+ and only suitable for locked breech guns.

A P3AT is NOT a 2.5" test barrel, and what you've got is 90gr at around 1000fps from it's dinky barrel (and with a pretty large standard deviation by the way. It's hard to get a consistent burn in such a small barrel).

Buffalo bore has a 90gr load that claims 1100fps and Doubletap a 95gr load that claims 1000, but instead of a test barrel, both say that's their velocity from the P3AT. Both are above Saami +p like the cor-bon; and I'd expect the same kind of results, at 50fps lower than claimed, with a large deviation.

A note about barrel length: The stated length of the P3AT barrel is 2.75" vs. the 340s 1.88", but remember revolver barrels are measured from the forcing cone and don't include the chamber. Automatic barrels are measured from the breech face, so about an inch (.95" actually) of that length is the chamber, and the effective length of the barrel is in fact slightly shorter than the 340.

That's a worthwhile difference in mass, momentum, and energy (about 200ftlbs, vs about 400ftlbs). That means, even with full expansion, generally speaking the .357 is going to give you at least 2" more penetration; which is a big deal.

Now, as I have said repeatedly, any full .357 magnum load is going to give you a MASSIVE fireball and muzzle blast from that short barrel; and it's going to be unpleasant to shoot. For most people, most of the time, I recommend a .38spl +p (or +p+).

If you can get it (it's rarer than a liberal with a clue these days), I cannot recommend Speers gold dot short barrel personal defense ammunition strongly enough.

In either .357 magnum or .38+p it uses the same specially designed 135gr. bullet; made to penetrate, and give good, controlled expansion at the lower velocities of the sub 2" barrel. The loads also use a flash suppressed powder; and a powder charge whose burn rate, and volume is optimized to produce as little fireball, muzzle blast, and extra recoil as possible.

It IS a lower velocity round, at just about 1000fps from the 340, and 340ftlbs of energy; but it is specifically designed to BE a lower velocity round, so you still get good penetration and full expansion. Importantly, you get that nearly non existent muzzle flash, and greatly reduced muzzle blast (still substantial, but greatly reduced).

I plan on carrying the Speer, Doubletap, or Buffalo Bore .357 short barrel loads, if I can ever get 5 boxes together to qualify the gun with it. I'm on waiting lists at Midway, Midsouth, Cheaper than Dirt, and my local stores, and direct from BB and DT.

As it is, the ONLY defensive .357 I've been able to get my hands on is Federal premium self defense 158gr hydrashoks; which is excellent ammo, but not particularly well suited to such a lightweight gun (never go under 120gr or over 158gr on these guns. You'll get pull or setback, which can jam up, or blow up a gaun; and with loads above 158gr, you can possibly get forcing cone cracking and frame stretching).

So, all that said, I'm not particularly recoil sensitive; and with the laser grip, I get a full four finger grip that fills the hand nicely, and helps me control recoil well. That is clearly not the case with the P3AT:

By the by, that's not even an attempt at a shooting grip; it's just that when I have the P3AT in a proper shooting grip the only part of the gun you can see is the slide. I wanted you to see how much of my hand is hanging off in the breeze when I shoot that little gun.

Now honestly, most of the time it doesn't bother me. I can shoot the sucker very well, emptying a mag as fast as I can shoot into a 4" circle at 7 yards; which as far as I'm concerned is EXCELLENT pocket gun accuracy. I've put at least 15,000 rounds through the thing, including about 5000 super hot +p and better loads; and I find it reasonably easy to control and comfortable to shoot.

Well... 'Cept for one thing: with the hot loads, the front of the trigger guard beats the hell out of my trigger finger, and the bottom of it beats up my middle finger (the humped bit recoils right into my knuckle). I can get the best grip in the world on it, after 50 rounds I've still got two hurting fingers. It doesn't stop me from shooting the gun well, but it IS a pain.

Thankfully, Mels fingers are small enough that she doesn't have that problem; though she prefers milder loads to the ones I choose to carry; because she gets a lot more muzzle flip, and with he much smaller and not as strong hands, it's harder for her to control it.

So, which one would I rather shoot with full house loads?

The 340 with the laser grips; no question. Wih the factory grip it would be entirely the other way; but with the laser grip, the gun is quite comfortable and controllable.

... and of course I like having that .357 capability there in case I need it.

All in all, I'm very happy with my new carry gun.

I mean, wouldn't this view just ruin your whole day?:

(don't start snarking in comments about the four rules. The only thing at risk there was a remotely operated camera).

The requested submissive self defense post...

Is up at Femina Fortis.

Mel

I Passed a Couple of Milestones Today

So today I did two things I've never done before.

First, I made my first solo visit to the range. Usually Chris or John is with me, because it took a little time for me to become comfortable clearing my own jams and dealing with malfunctions.

Today, I went by myself.

Second, I carried concealed in public for the first time.

My permit arrived in the mail yesterday. For those of you counting, it only took DPS 5 business days to process the application, including mailing time. Yes, that's damn fast.

I love AZ.

However my fingerprints would not read correctly, so along with the permit DPS sent me another fingerprint card to send back to them. Failure to do so would result in the permit being suspended.

So I pack up the fingerprint card, my range bag, and my carry gun...

Oh, did I forget to mention I bought a carry gun just for me? For a long time I've mostly been shooting Chris's guns, and I wanted a carry gun that was 100% mine.

So, after babes with bullets, I bought a Kimber Aegis.

While I love my PF9, when I decided to finally get my CCW permit I knew I needed a carry gun that I could train with every week; without putting my hand on ice afterwards. I'm of the opinion that if I'm going to carry a gun, day in and day out, I need to shoot it at least once a week, and the PF9 wasn't going to do it for me (Chris loves it. He must have no nerves left in his hands).

Bear Arms carries almost every compact 9mm on the market so I figured I would go fingerprint and dry fire everything they had. After going through 10 individual models of handgun I settled on either the Aegis or the H&K P30, both of which fit me well and had triggers I liked.

I called Chris up and he pointed out (quite rightly) that H&K's customer service sucks, and the Aegis was a better choice. So in the course of half an hour, I spent 4 months of the money I had been saving up to buy new gun stuff.

As far as I'm concerned, it was money very well spent.

I love the Aegis; it was accurate out of the box and 400 rounds later I have no complaints. It's quite light, yet I can fire the super hot Cor-Bon through it without a problem, because it fits my hands that well. Plus it's just plain more attractive than the other compact 9mm handguns on the market (the EMP comes close but Bear Arms has yet to get one in stock, and I'm not attached to black polymer at all). And of course it's basically Officer's Model 1911 (just in 9mm) so finding holsters and accessories isn't exactly difficult.

So today, I grabbed my Aegis, my range bag, and the fingerprint card and paid a little visit to Scottsdale Gun Club to get my fingerprints done and break in the Aegis a bit more.

I also tested several different defensive loads, to see what it liked. So far likes everything I've fed it; grouping well with several different 124gr loads, and the 147gr Hornady TAP.

My personal preference was the Hydra-Shoks; but it also shot very well with the Hornadys. I'm going to try it out with the 124gr hornady as well, because Chris can load that for us quite cheaply, so I can practice with the equivalent of my carry ammo.

So I have the permit, the gun, and the ammo. What am I missing?

Oh yeah, a way to actually CARRY all of it.

I'm female, I live in the desert, and I have curves. During the 9 months of the year where wearing jackets and/or loose shirts is nearly impossible, I need to carry off-body. Unfortunately this means a concealment purse. I'd much rather carry in a holster, but in my situation that wouldn't exactly be concealed.

SGC didn't have any carry purses I liked for the price ($289 for a Galco purse? I don't think so) so I headed to Shooter's World. I picked up a couple carry purses (under $100 each), and an open carry holster I particularly liked (a Fobus paddle)

So now I have a concealed carry kit I can live with:


I didn't even get out of Shooter's World's parking lot before I stuffed everything I needed into one of my new purses. I had more errands to run after all, that is kind of what I do.

So fully kitted out, I headed to the grocery store. I did all of my normal shopping in one of my normal stores, while carrying.

Needless to say, no one noticed. That is the point, after all.

So today I officially joined the millions of armed citizens that carry concealed every day. I'm a stay-at-home mom, I blend in completely, and I'm armed.

I hope that gives the local goblins something to think about.

Mel

Quote of the century

From the inestimable Larry Correia:

"...When you shoot somebody in self defense, the goal isn’t necessarily to kill them, it is to stop them. You want the bad guy to stop doing whatever it is they are doing that caused you go pull a gun in the first place. Live or die is really irrelevant. You want them to leave you alone. Sadly, the best way to make somebody leave you alone is to shoot them in their vital organs, and that often results in the bad guy’s death.

But that’s his problem, not yours."

The whole post is great, and mirrors some of the posts I did about carbines and handguns from a couple years back.

The Moral Superiority of Self Defense

So I've been having a hard time with something for the past week. I've been struggling with a bunch of factors which combined to relieve me of even more of my innocence, most of which I won´t go into. I've had to admit to myself that I don´t understand how some people think, and that there is more evil in the world than I thought before, and that people will do ANYTHING to other people, immoral and wrong or not.

However, I still hadn't made that leap from understanding that the world sucks to mentally preparing for what could happen if crime and inhumanity came right to my front door and I had to fight back. I HAVE the knowledge, and I HAVE the training, but I didn't have the will to use it in my own defense. I didn't have the will to protect myself (and only myself, the kids I've always been capable) from mortal danger.

So today (and just today) I discovered what had been holding me back. I had not yet resigned myself to the fact that, although my education taught me otherwise, pacifism is not actually the moral high ground. Pacifism is actually a fine-tuned, well-concealed form of selfishness and cowardice.

Pacifism (in the current Liberal definition, not the classical pacifism of Shakers, Quakers, Mennonites, etc.) teaches that there is a moral superiority in not fighting back, that if we do not resist the enemy will just see how much ¨better¨ we are and be so simultaneously cowed and shamed that they will just ¨see our point of view.¨ This is folly in the best of times; deadly and destructive in times of war.

As many have said before me, the real reason GFWs hate the idea of everyone being armed for their own self-defense, or being allowed to own firearms is simple: somewhere along the line these GFWs got the idea that just because they can´t be trusted to use these obviously inanimate tools of self-defense (excuse me, mass destruction), no one else can.

Somewhere along the line they got the idea that thought is action, and just because they (like everyone else) occasionally think violent or destructive thoughts that they are incapable of self-control and will act on those thoughts.

They assume that because they fear their own capability for violence, and distrust their own ability to restrain it; that everyone else has the same trouble (except for police officers, soldiers, etc who obviously have this ability mysteriously trained into them). Then, rather than restrain themselves; they try to control the beast within by removing all opportunity for temptation to mayhem; and assume that everyone else has to as well.

Itś this basic logical fallacy (what psychiatrists call projection) that convinces liberals, that since they can be convinced to not commit violence out of fear of consequences AND lack of opportunity, those with malicious intent can be similarly convinced.

Thus convinced of their own rectitude and moral superiority, they will try to convince the malicious that a.) they understand what theyŕe going through, they've thought about destroying lives too, b.) they will take away EVERYONES ability across the board so NO ONE will be tempted, and c.) they will punish those who are capable of self-restraint, those who are ¨different¨, by making up for those differences with restrictions on the capable, and handouts, equalizations, etc etc for those who are not.

...And of course, the more violent you are and ¨misunderstood¨ you are, the more equalization is needed.

This idea of being able to reason with the malicious is based on a false premise. Shrouded in this ideal is a very basic mis-understanding of human nature: that people who have shown malice and a lack of respect for the rights and lives of others can be reasoned with; and their "better nature' can be appealed to. If they had enough reason, or better nature (or for that matter any shame at all) to begin with, talking them out of violence would be unnecessary, as they wouldn't be inclined to commit predatory violence in the first place.

So why is this the cowardly and lazy way out? Because instead of requiring that everyone be brought up to a high standard of self-control and responsibility (formerly referred to as ¨adulthood¨) the intent is instead to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator; the person who needs to be controlled by someone else, preferably the not-plagued-by-human-error-yet-run-by-humans state. Which of course should be run by the oh-so-enlightened Liberals who came up with these ideas in the first place.

Those of us in favor of self-defense and personal responsibility know better.

We know that someone with malicious intent is not a downtrodden, misunderstood, helpless human being who just needs to be convinced and coddled. We know that someone with malicious intent either a.) knows exactly what they are doing, exactly how wrong it is, and exactly what the consequences are; and chooses to commit evil anyway, or b.) is incapable of understanding and/or self-restraint. Both should be removed (imprisoned or committed) from the general population as both present a continual danger and the latter is also IN continual danger themselves.

So what happens when those with the Liberal doctrine of pacifism outnumber those of us with a doctrine of personal responsibility, in most positions of power, influence, and policy-making? The doctrine of ¨equalization¨ becomes public policy, and the ¨victims¨ become protected classes.

Their whole philosophy can be summed up as ¨these people made you feel bad for not acting like an adult. We will make them pay.¨

...And pay we do.

We pay for counseling for criminals, welfare for those unwilling to grow up and be responsible adults, court settlements for bogus discrimination, and don´t even get me started on how much those poor boys at Duke had to pay for the crime of looking at a "stripper".

All of these "equalizations" to try to make up for the fact that those of us who value personal responsibility work harder, behave better, and are as a whole more trustworthy.

Self-defense and responsibility advocates look at things a bit differently. Oh, we're guilty of projection too: We think that since we are capable of reason and self-restraint, others are too.We tend to see people the same way we see ourselves, as worth trusting unless they indicate otherwise.

For example, AZ is an open-carry state. What that means is that anyone who legally owns a firearm can carry that firearm openly on their person anywhere not prohibited by law.

This includes many places people go every day, from parks to grocery stores and just strolling down the street. Every now and then I see someone who is obviously armed and not uniformed, and it doesn't bother me. However I've heard exclamations of fear from others, as if the presence of a firearm is an automatic threat.

And don't assume such reactions are limited only to the gun fearing general public. A well known blogger was recently harassed and physically assaulted by a police officer, when said ignorant police officer (and there an unfortunate number of them) caught a glimpse of the bloggers gun, that flashed while he was reaching for some groceries.

Since I trust myself to carry a firearm and not commit murder (as the EEEEEEVIL semi-automatic death machine is obviously whispering me to do) I can trust another adult to carry a firearm and never have it leave the holster. Unless the situation indicates otherwise, I know that a person who is openly carrying a firearm a.) has passed the background check that indicates whether or not they've displayed lack of self-restraint in the past, and b.) is carrying that firearm as a precaution, just as I do.

What that means to me is that the adult carrying the firearms understands that there are people with malicious intent in the world and is prepared to protects themselves and others from the violent actions of those people. Honestly, the sight of another armed person (generally) doesn't alarm me, and sometimes is comforting.

As a sidenote here, this is something that gun-control activists don´t understand. Grouping serious gun owners together with criminals who buy guns, is like saying the responsible Rottweiler owners who give their dogs proper training and care are comparable to the irresponsible... never mind, they think that too.

Okay, Iĺl try again. It's like saying that someone who spent months of their free time rebuilding a classic automobile will use it in a drive-by shooting so it can get the crap shot out of it and possibly seized by the police.

Someone who has sunk tons of time into finding the right firearm, practicing with it, becoming proficient with it, etc... does NOT want that firearm used in a crime and seized by police (just as after spending months getting my Llama working I don't want to have to hand it over to our boys in blue).

Serious gun owners who are serious about self-defense DON'T want their firearms used in criminal acts, and don´t deserve to be treated like theyŕe criminals who will use a firearm in a crime and ditch it later. They are two completely different mindsets and should be treated differently.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...

This is very indicative of how personal responsibility advocates think. We think a person should not be judged by their impulses, thoughts, or upbringing, but how they ACT upon those factors.

For example we applaud those who escape poverty and work hard to improve their lives and encourage others to follow in their footsteps.

We tend to think of every adult as capable of improving themselves and supporting themselves, and handling the consequences of their actions; but we also donate more per capita to charities that help those who, for whatever reason, need help to survive and become self-sufficient. We WANT everyone to be responsible and self-sufficient, and trust that adults have self-restraint.

Liberals think they have the moral high ground here; that pacifism is more moral because it results in less bloodshed; and that in their attempt to ¨help¨ the perpetrators of predatory violence, they are doing good.

Except they don't, it isn't, and they aren't.

Usually pacifism ends in more bloodshed, as the criminals are free (after probation and free counseling) to commit more malicious acts on more innocent victims.

So what do the Liberals try to do? They try to take away the tools of violence, as if taking away the temptation will take away the act. They don´t allow for the fact that criminals aren't quite as lazy as they are, and WILL find other avenues to obtain tools of violence. Money and a lack of scruples can accomplish anything except world peace.

Self-defense and responsibility advocates KNOW that criminals don´t give a damn about the law or the consequences of their actions; if they did they wouldn't be criminals. There is the occasional case of someone who wants to leave the gang life or otherwise comes to their senses (occasionally 20 years in prison will change a man for the better... very occasionally), and we help them as much as possible; but for the truly malicious there is no help.

The very basis of self-defense is very simple: the life of the person being attacked (usually an innocent) is more important than what the attacker wants. (This is of course assuming a civilian situation; militaries and war zones have their own very specific sets of agreed to terms.) This is one of the few times that life really is a zero-sum game; in that either the criminal gets what they want and the innocent must live with what the criminal metes out, or the innocent successfully defends themself.

Now here's where self-defense advocates and Liberals differ. A Liberal will tell you that you can't assume the criminal will hurt you in order to get what they want. This is assuming that someone who has shown a distinct lack of respect for law, morals, or fundamental standards of human behavior, has a discernible stopping point, or a moral code of their own that you can depend on. Self-defense advocates will (rightfully) assume that if a person is willing to commit one crime, they are willing to commit another.

Thankfully, the state of Arizona agrees with us on that point.

As of 2006, Arizona has a doctrine of presumed justification. This means that it is presumed that one is justified in using lethal force (or the threat of lethal force), if one is presented with a situation where a reasonable person would believe they were threatened with immediate, present, physical force; or that it was necessary to defend others being threatened with immediate, present, physical force. Unless prosecutors can explicitly prove that you were NOT justified in doing so; they are not even allowed to file charges.

In this state, there is no duty to retreat; and we explicitly allow that ones home, vehicle, and place of business are specially protected; and that any person threatening or trespassing on those areas, is by that very act presenting a credible threat of force.

Additionally, Arizona has a list of crimes which any citizen would be justified in using deadly force or threat of deadly force in order to prevent. They specifically include (but are not necessarily limited to):

• Aggravated trespass (trespass with the use or threat of force)
• Aggravated theft (theft with the use or threat of force)
• Arson of an occupied structure
• Burglary in the second or first degree
• Kidnapping
• Manslaughter
• First or second degree murder
• Sexual conduct with a minor
• Sexual assault
• Child molestation
• Armed robbery
• Aggravated assault

Arizona assumes that if a person is willing to commit one of the crimes above that they are willing to take it to the next level and take another personś life. Often kidnapping and rape do become murders; and quite often rather than be stopped a criminal will take the life of an innocent who has the bad luck of getting in their way.

Our state legislature assumes that criminals are without scruples, why can't Liberals?

...Because they identify with the criminals.

Liberals can see themselves doing the same things in the same circumstances. They want to pretend that a person is only a product of their social status and upbringing; and that "if only they'd had the same education and opportunity I had", that the criminal would magically have been a good person.

Of course his way, when they aren't willing to go through the hard work of being self-sufficient or take responsibility for their actions, they have someone to blame.

A lot of times it's guns; quite often it's successful businesspeople (who won´t share), religious conservatives (who don´t believe in hedonism), or any other figure who insists that they work hard for what they want. You see, it's not the criminal's fault, it's life's fault... really it is.

But anyway...

Self-defense is the moral high-ground. There are two sides to this conflict, one is right, and one is wrong. One, the criminal, wants whatever they want, whether it be valuables or power or whatever; without regard to the law, or the rights of others. The innocent just wants to survive with as little harm as possible, and if others are involved without anyone else coming to harm. The criminal is WRONG, and the innocent is not.

In the Liberal world, the innocent would hand whatever it is over and possibly survive, possibly be raped, or possibly be killed. However since it leads to only one death, the death of the victim and not the poor, innocent criminal, thatś the better end in their eyes. However this leaves a criminal on the loose who is more than capable of murder, and will most likely do so again.

(no, seriously, they believe that. It sounds insane, but one thing you'll always hear from victim disarmament advocates is "Well, if I had a gun, maybe we'd both end up dead. At least if I don't have a gun, only one person has to die, and maybe he won't kill me". It's absolutely mind boggling)

In our world, the innocent would fight back, maybe bare-handed, preferably with something that gives them parity, or superiority in the conflict, like a firearm of their own. In our perfect world the criminal would be the one in a world of pain or hurt with the innocent unharmed.

Unfortauntely, that doesn't always happen. Sometimes the victim still gets killed; but our hope (and what we train for) is for the criminal to be stopped either by injury or death. The aim is always for the innocent to survive; and when they don't, the next aim is for the criminal to be stopped, therefore ending the train of victims.

And thatś where the moral superiority of self-defense comes in.

In a world of self-defense we have people who believe it their responsibility to not let evil go about its business. In a world of self-defense we have a military that protects us from those who want to kill us, police to take care of minor criminals before they progress to violent crimes, stiff penalties for those who abuse the rights of others, no matter their upbringing or ïnequities¨, and people who stop violence when they see it. All of these factors combine to make everyone more safe and secure, as those with malicious intent are removed from society and therefore unable to victimize more people, and those who care about others enough to prevent greater harm are left alive and well.

That is the moral superiority of protective violence: leaving a world with more people who protect others than people who harm others. More servicemen than ruthless dictators, more self-sufficient people than subjects. That is truly leaving a better world for our kids, which is the most morally superior action of all.

So now I get it. Now I understand why defending myself is the most important thing of all. I previously didn't understand why my life was worth the pain and the trouble, or the consequences of defending myself.

Now I do.

By saving my life, I save much more than that. I save my kids' mother; I save the children I am going to have; I save my family from the pain of losing me; And I save myself, a moral upright person who wouldn't unnecessarily bring harm to anyone else. I save myself from a beast who, after they are done with me, will go on to another innocent victim. I stop one evil person, and that one person stopped is worth it. It is, after all, the most moral thing to do.

Mel

Just call me Mel, everyone else does.

The "First Handgun" question

One of the questions we get frequently at the NoR, and that I hear in gun shops all the time, is "What should I get as my first handgun?"; this is usually followed by "I've only got about $300-$400 to spend".

Well, my answer to this is always "Are you looking just to shoot at the range, or are you looking for a gun to defend yourself with?"

If you’re looking to establish basic pistol shooting skills, I’d recommend purchasing a double action .22 revolver, like the Smith and Wesson model 17, 18, or 617; or  .22 automatic like the Browning Buckmark, or Ruger Mark X series pistol (currently at Mark III). There are better shooting .22s out there, but the Ruger and Buckmark are both reliable, and great for practice and fun plinking.

On the other hand, if you’re looking for a self defense weapon, and have no experience with handguns; I can’t recommend strongly enough that you choose a mid size revolver in .357 magnum.

You should be able to find a decent used Ruger SP101 or GP100, the older Ruger Security Six (and it's variants), or an older Smith and Wesson model 19/619 or maybe model 65/620 for $350 or so.

Also, if you hunt around you can find some really GREAT deals on Taurus revolvers, which are just as good as the Rugers, and nearly as good as the S&W's (some of them were originally licensed S&W designs in fact) for a lot less money. Their medium frame 7-shot model 66 can be had for less than $400 brand new from the right dealer, and their slightly more basic model 65 (a 6 shot) for less than $350. Oh and Tauruses have an unlimited lifetime warranty - a BIG plus for anyone but especially a new shooter.

No mater what you get, if you can get one for a good price, I recommend going with a stainless gun. They are just easier to maintain.

Now, the reason I say a .357 revolver, is because they are dead simple, dead reliable, and you have the option of a full power magnum, or a .38spl for practice. The reason I say go for a mid sized (S&W K or L frame for example), is that the large frame pistols are bulkier and heavier than they need to be for .357(and really the GP100 as well which is more of an extra-medium); and the compact .357's are very difficult to properly control. Really they should be considered experts weapons. The mid sized frames are large enough to help tame recoil, and establish a full and solid grip; but not so large that they are difficult to point, or unwieldy. This balance will help you to develop basic handgun shooting skills.

You’re going to have a hard time finding a decent automatic in that same price range without going to a Milsurp or foreign import discount pistol; or by going to CDNN and picking up a reissue. Now, all of these can be a great deal, but again, these are not really weapons for the novice.

The reason I recommend against these bargain autos and re-issues, is because as a beginner, you don't have the experience with pistols yet to deal with malfunctions, and speed reload drills; which are essential for a defensive pistol. If you can’t perform malfunction drills and speed reloads, you are taking a serious risk with your self defense weapon.

I shoot hundreds, and sometimes thousands of rounds a month, and my bedside gun is still a revolver, because I don’t want to think about malfunctions when I’m sleepy and startled. Also as I recently found out, I don’t practice my speed reload and malfunction drills nearly enough; and again, I’m an experienced pistol shooter.

Once you develop good basic handgun habits with a revolver, then you should buy that aforementioned .22 automatic. Then once you’ve developed the basic knowledge of automatic operations, and practice malfunction clearance and reloads, you can venture into full sized automatics; when, hopefully, you have the money to buy a decent one.

Crime, Punishment, and Poverty

A reader from the UK, on the Nation of Riflemen forums; brought up an interesting question:

"What's wrong with Canada? Please educate me.

I was under the impression that it had a higher standard of living by many measures than the U.S."

That was loooong time ago.

For a long time Canada was ranked fourth in standard of living, but recently the fell to 27th, primarily because of the rapidly increasing crime rate.

The Canadian per capita overall crime rate is higher than the US (again this is a recent thing). The Canadian per capita rape and murder rate are higher than the U.S. as well, when take as a whole. Of course there are areas where the U.S. rates are VERY high, and we'll get to the reasons in a minute.

The problem in Canada is mostly due to relatively ineffective court and prison system, and excessive social welfare support for the criminal underclass.

Please note, that doesnt mean all the underclass are criminals; but that most criminals are in the underclass, which is supported extensively by social welfare systems.

When criminals are not effectively punished, and in fact effectively supported by the state, then criminal behavior will be the easist path to "success" (as determined by material gain) for the underclass.

The biggest impact of welfare reform, and the rise of concealed carry permits in the US has ben a radical decrease in violent crime per capita all around the country, except in heavily urban areas where such permits are rarely if ever issued, and where state and local social welfare systems prop up the criminal underclass.

The violent crame rate in Florida was among the highest in the nation; the combined effect of CCW and welfare reform (which took effect in the same couple of year period) was to reduce violent crime by more than 20% in less than 10 years.

One might have noticed that as the welfare states of Britain, Australia, Canada, France, and other places have grown, so has their crime rate. At the same time their educational achievement, economic growth, and standards of living have all fallen, in some cases dframatically.

One might also have noticed that the less private firearms ownership there is, the more crime there is. Violent crime in the UK since the effective gun ban has more than doubled.

Why is that? Simple, and cliche but true "Where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns"

Where everyone has guns, people don't generally shoot at each other; because they know that guns arent some magical penis extension. They are tought from a young age that a firearm is a tool, and like other tools it can be dangerous, and must be respected and properly handled. There is no mythology of power or manhood surrounding the gun, as so many liberals assume (because they dont understand, and have no experience with guns, except as an adjunt of criminals).

Not only that, but people dont shoot others, because they know they'll get shot right back.

The fact is, the vast majority of violent crime is caused by poor morals, poor upbringing, poor education, and poor people. Not any one of these things is sufficient, you need to have most, if not all of them at the same time for a culture of violent crime to rise.

Guess what, social welfare systems almost deliberately cause these factors. Social welfare encourages (and sometimes requires) the abdication of personal, and parental authority and responsibility to the state. It provides significant counterincentive to self improvement, and to personal responsiblity. It discourages real parenting, and certainly discourages the strong presence of fathers, because if you have a father, you get no benefits. It discourages education, because why do you need when when the state will pay for you; it's jsut wasted effort.

Straight up, social welfare is the single most aggravating factor in the rise of violent crime.

The only factor mitigatitig these tendencies, is the presencee of arms among the potential victims. The firearm is the great equalizer, and when firearms are easily and lawfully available, no criminal can feel safe in their crimes.

In new york city recently, a repeat violent offender held a woman at gun point while his associates collected the belongings of her companions. The woman is reported to have said "what are you going to do, shoot me"... He did.

If the criminal hadn't been safe in the ssumption that he was the only one armed in that situation, do you think there might have been a different result?

Self Defense Stories

Reader Dave Dembiski posted in his blog about buying a Ken Onion blackout on my recommendation in "The Gift of a Knife".

This quote struck me:

"You can compress the handle against the meat of your hand with four fingers and flick the torsion bar out and up with a thumb fairly easily, and this opens the knife faster than my eye can follow. Throw in a little wrist action and it's near-instantaneous, and very sure. "Authoritative" was a word I've read describing the action, and that just about does it justice."

I think maybe I'm the one who described it as authoritative; or rather I know I have before, I'm just not sure if he's referring to me specifically in his quote.

Anyway it reminded me of some stories I'd posted up on the Nation Of Riflemen forums about self defense, and I thought I'd share them here:

I've never been in a firefight in civvy life, but I have been shot (it's no fun, believe me), and I've had a few times where I had to excercise my rights to defend myself (a side effect of my appearance, winning personality, and choice of work).

In Ireland (where I lived for three years) it's basically illegal to carry any kind of self defense device; but that never stopped me from carrying a simple little Ken Onion Blackout (or on occaison other things, but I ALWAYS had the blackout).

I was walking through a not so great neighborhood in Dublin when these two skangers started following me. Finally, they sidled up and the dirtier one said "So there, y'american are ya". I just looked at him "not exactly, but it'll do for now", "Ahh yeah, well... we'll be havin your wallet then" ... (knife I've palmed in my hand since I noticde them flicks out with a nasty little snick) ... "No I don't think you will".

If it were just a regular knife I'm guessing they would have kept pressing til someone (them) got hurt, but that authoritative little flick (and it is little, only a 3.5" blade) was just intimidating enough that they ran like schoolgirls.

Story number two also happened while I was in Ireland:

I played semi-pro American Football for three seasons with the Dublin Rebels. I used to spend my non-football weekends "mentoring" kids in temple bar (a neighborhood in Dublin). Basically I was just trying to give them some interaction with an adult who gave a damn, had some of the same interests as they did (heavy metal, role playing games, the goth thing etc...); and to try to keep them out of petty crime and off drugs. I was cool, American, military, had tatoos and knew metal; and I'd always spring for some food, or protect them from getting hassled or beaten up.

This fine day I was talking with some of the kids on a corner when this junkie, and what looked like his little brother, start to try and steal a bike a few feet away. I sent one of the kids to get the gardai (the Irish cops) and kept an eye on him. Well, as this progressed, one of the kids said "look at this fucking skanger stealing this bike here" loud enough for the scumbag to hear it.

The scumbag started getting hostile at that point and starts yelling "what did he fucking say". I just looked through him, gave him the dead face and said "I don't know, and I don't care; AND NEITHER DO YOU".

Well that shook him a bit, and he started to walk off; but then I saw the box cutter come into his hand. I pushed the kids back behind me just as he spun around and came at us screaming "Im gonna cut you fuckers".

I had a little bit of an Arnie moment and said "Now that isn't nice, you shouldn't threaten people with knives; and don't fucking swear".

While I was playing action hereo, I stepped inside his arc, got wrist control (to avoid the blade) and crossed him up; but he managed to give me a nice little slash across my cheek (shallow and ragged, healed without a scar thankfully).

I couldn't get a good angle on his hand and maintain control of him so I let the open wrist loose, came up under for a cross arm head lock, and pulled him in to try and establish head control so I could disarm him easier.

Well when I pulled his head in, the fucker managed to bite a quarter sized chunk out of my right pec (that one left a heck of a scar; looks worse than the bullet scars). That kind of pissed me off, so I stepped round him, came up into an arm bar choke, and then took his head off the corner of a brick building a couple of times.

The fucker kept trying to free his hand though; he just wouldn't stop fighting me.

At that point I had him completely under control so I just said "drop the knife or I'm going to keep hurting you".

Well, he didn't, so I reached up and started twisting his ear. "I'mna say it one more time, then I'm gonna kill you. Drop the knife".

Again, he didn't drop the knife, so I twisted a little harder and said "ok, thats it, in about three seconds I'm breaking your neck".

That got him to drop the knife.

A few seconds later the Gardai showed up and took him into custody; at which point he started trying to claim that I attacked, beat, and brutalized him, and that they should arrest me. Of course there were 50 or so witneses to what happened, and the whole thing was on CCTV from 4 different cameras.

It turned out the guy was a heroin junky, HIV positive, syphilitic, and had hepatitis. I had to get an HIV test, hepatitis etc... (actually three sets of them, once immediately, once after six weeks, and once after six months which I do anyway, every six months); thank god, all were clear. I also had to be chemically deloused (every hair on my body below the neck gone. Very itchy).

They charged the fucker with grevious bodily harm, and assault with an offensive weapon. They told him they were going to charge him with attempted murder (because of the HIV); and when they showed him the video tape and witness statements he plead out to 3 years. I was pissed the sentence was only three years, but I was glad the case didn't drag out into a long trial.

Oh and the kid was in fact his little brother; the junky was only 20, his brother was 11, and both had tracks covering both arms. Renews your faith in humanity eh.

So a few months later, I'm sitting up in bed reading at around 3am; and I hear a big clang.

I lived at the end of a dead end cul-de sac that has some footpaths running past it, with pubs at both ends of the paths. It wasn't too unusual to hear late night noises, but this one caught my attention.

Now I'm not the most trusting individual, so I go to the window and take a look, and I see some fucker messing around the side of my house; looks like he's trying to attach somethign to the house.

I slipped into my shoes; grabbed my tachi (no guns allowed in Ireland), and my mag-lite; slipped out my back door around the side of the house; and I popped the light.

Picture this: 3AM, you're doing something nefarious, and a 6'2", 24 stone (335lb), bare ass naked man holding a 3-1/2 foot sword and a big ass flashlight confronts you. What do you do?

Well he takes off running, and here I am chasing this fucker down the street, sword over one shoulder, flashlight over the other; screaming verious obscenities punctuated with the occaisonal "Im gonna enjoy killing you" and the like.

The guy managed to jump over a pretty good sized wall, so I let him go, and went back to the house to check out what he was doing.

I get in there, and I see the guy was messing with the gas meter. There was a timer, some bare wires, and some model rocket igniters on the ground. I called the Gardai, and they came out and took the report etc... but they didn't do anything with it (I can't begin to tell you how corrupt and incompetent the Gardai can be).

I was less than amused. I asked around and the word I got was that the guy I put away was a runner for a gang and they wanted revenge. I also heard it was the fuckers cousin, but we couldnt get any proof so the investigation never went anywhere.

The last story is from my college days:

In my last year of college a good friend of mine was raped and beaten by her "boyfriend". Now I'm not by nature a violent man; or perhaps I should say I am one who is very good at violence, but does not generally choose to use it. It takes a lot to get me angry, but one thing that will do it every time is rape or abuse of any kind.

My friend refused to go to police with what happened, and ended up getting hooked on prescription drugs. I was extremely unhappy about this; and in some places where I knew the scumbag hung out, I made very clear that I took exception to his continued breathing.

A couple nights later I get a knock on my apartment door at about 2am, and silly me, I open it without looking out first; experiencing the true joy of having a gun shoved into my chest for my stupidity.

Well, I was somewhat annoyed by this fact. Here's this guy, shaking like a chihuahua on speed (actually shaking like a piece of subhuman trash on speed, which he was) with a gun shoved very hard into my chest.

Of course this was his major mistake: NEVER GET WITHIN GRASPING DISTANCE OF SOMEONE YOU PLAN ON SHOOTING.

Even better, the genius was pushing so hard that the weapon was out of battery; and the safety was on.

I quickly slapped an offhand wrist lock, twisting the gun out of his hand and breaking his wrist and two fingers in the process; then popped his elbow and dislocated his shoulder with a palm strike. A quick followup with an elbow to the head and a knife hand strike to the throat, and he was down.

So I called up a couple of friends (including his victim); and we took him out into the desert, stripped him naked, and left him there.

Honestly I have no idea what happened to him; he was alive, breathing, mostly conscious and not seriously bleeding when we left. We even left him his shoes and a gallon jug of water. I never read anything in the newspaper, and no-one ever came after us over it; but I never saw the guy again, and as far as I could find out neither did anyone else in the area.

Yes, what I did was legally wrong, and was probably a sin in that it was only self defense because I goaded him into it; but I don't care. My conscience is clear and the statute of limitations has expired.