Witnesses, Memories, Evidence and Lies

Since the Ferguson shooting has direct influence on our civil rights, owning and carrying firearms being part of those rights, I thought it wise to repeat what Michael Schermer had to say about memories, evidence and so-called eye witnesses.

Personally, I would not be too pleased to rely solely on the memories of allege witnesses.

What Really Happened in Ferguson?

When eyewitness testimony collides with contradictory evidence

BY MICHAEL SHERMER

Psychologists have known for decades that memory does not operate like a video camera, with our senses recording in high definition what really happens in the world, accurately stored in memory awaiting high fidelity playback on the viewing screen of our mind. Instead, fragments of scenes are processed by our senses, filtered through our emotions, biases, and prejudices, and put into context created by earlier memories, subsequent events, and the interpretations of our social group and culture. The world-renowned memory expert Elizabeth Loftus, in her 1991 book Witness for the Defense—a critical analysis of eyewitness testimony—explained the process this way:

As new bits and pieces of information are added into long-term memory, the old memories are removed, replaced, crumpled up, or shoved into corners. Memories don’t just fade…they also grow. What fades is the initial perception, the actual experience of the events. But every time we recall an event, we must reconstruct the memory, and with each recollection the memory may be changed. Truth and reality, when seen through the filter of our memories, are not objective facts but subjective, interpretative realities.

Loftus turned her research acumen to this problem when, in 1987, she was asked to testify for the defense of John Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian-born Cleveland autoworker who was on trial as “Ivan the Terrible,” the Nazi who murdered tens of thousands of Jews at Treblinka during the Second World War. But was Demjanjuk really Ivan? A witness named Abraham Goldfarb initially recalled that Ivan was killed in a 1943 uprising, but when he saw Demjanjuk he changed his story, now identifying him as the mass murderer. On the heels of Goldfarb’s testimony another witness named Eugen Turowski changed his original story of not recognizing Demjanjuk, now fingering him as the killer. The prosecution presented five witnesses who positively identified Demjanjuk as the man they had seen at Treblinka, but the defense countered with 23 other survivors of the concentration camp who could not positively ID Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible. An initial guilty verdict was overturned when another man was found guilty of the crimes.

In the 1990s there were two eyewitness-driven moral panics—the Recovered Memory Movement and the Satanic Panic—both of which involved court cases that turned entirely on the memories of eyewitnesses to satanic ritual abuse and sexual abuse claims, all of which unraveled before the facts (or the lack thereof), but not before destroying the lives of countless innocently accused. The Innocence Project, founded in 1992, uses DNA evidence to exonerate people on death row who were wrongfully convicted, the vast majority of which based on faulty eyewitness testimony—a total of 321 so far.

This process of mixing fantasy with reality to such an extent that it is impossible to sort them out is called confabulation, and Loftus has conducted numerous experiments showing how easy it is to plant false memories in people’s minds through simple suggestion and repetition, until the fantasy becomes a memory of reality. She famously concocted a story for little children about how they were once lost in a mall but rescued and returned to their parents—an event that never happened to any of her child subjects—and by merely asking them to recall details of the incident her child charges were able to recollect rich details. It was a chilling reminder of the frailty of human memory.

These historical examples should be kept in mind when assessing current events, most notably what really happened between 12:01pm and 12:03pm on August 9, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri when police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed teenager Michael Brown during a physical altercation after Wilson confronted Brown who had shoplifted cigarillos from a local market. When a grand jury failed to indict Wilson for murder, moral outrage trumped rational analysis and rioting ensued. When the documents reviewed by the grand jury were made public, however, it became clear why an indictment was dropped. The eyewitness accounts that would have indicated criminal wrong-doing on the part of the police officer were inconsistent, unreliable, provably wrong, changed over time, and even fabricated.

One woman, for example, reported that there was a second police officer in the passenger seat next to Wilson, a white “middle age or young” man in uniform. Wilson was alone. A number of bystanders said Wilson shot Brown in the back, including Brown’s friend standing next to him, Dorian Johnson. Johnson’s initial story that Wilson’s shot “struck my friend in the back” contradicted his grand jury testimony that the shot caused Brown’s body to “do like a jerking movement, not to where it looked like he got hit in his back, but I knew, it maybe could have grazed him.”

Another eyewitness said Wilson shot Brown in the back and then “stood over him and finished him off.” Under oath in front of the grand jury, however, he admitted that he made it up “based on me being where I’m from, and that can be the only assumption that I have.” His recantation was classic memory redaction based on new information. “So it was after you learned that the things you said you saw couldn’t have happened that way,” a prosecutor pressed him, “then you changed your story about what you seen?” The witness responded, “Yeah, to coincide with what really happened.” Whatever really happened we know what didn’t happen: the autopsy report concluded that Brown was not shot in the back.

More memory confabulation was apparent in another eyewitness who told a federal investigator that when he heard the first shot fired he looked out the window to see a police officer with his gun drawn and Brown “on his knees with his hands in the air. I seen him shoot him in the head.” When later told by the investigator, “What you are saying you saw isn’t forensically possible based on the evidence,” the man admitted that he based his account on what someone else told him because he was in a stairwell at the time and didn’t see it.

The moral outrage is understandable if Brown had his hands up or was face down in surrender, which would imply that Wilson executed him in cold blood. Knowing that is not what happened, however, should give us all pause before we dial up our moral modules to 11 and seek self-help justice in the form of rioting and looting, rather than the criminal justice system that, flawed as it is, still insists that indictments be based on facts instead of emotions, which are fed by long-simmering prejudices and all the cognitive biases and memory distortions that come packaged in the human mind.

Posted with Blogsy

Rode Hard, and Put Away Wet

Bullard IWB

That's an old saying from my Texas childhood, which has survived the test of time. It's a compliment of the highest order in one way, signifying something that is used hard for it's intended purpose and that doesn't have to be pampered afterwards. As I've said here many times before, a holster for a concealed handgun is a very important piece of equipment, second only to the gun itself. Many people who carry concealed spend considerable time and money getting the right gun for them. Size, weight, caliber, shape, ergonomics, all of these play a role. But, what do these actually mean when it comes to carrying that gun on your person?

We have a retired deputy in town who is a nice and well-meaning man. He often appears for community events in the summer with his deputy hat and badge and his Glock stuck into the waistband of his jeans. No holster. I asked him about it one day and he merely said he preferred "Mexican carry". His term. I hoped he didn't manage to accidently shoot himself or someone else. He wasn't too pleased and told me his gun was "modified" against this eventuality. Didn't say how.

The point is, for the rest of us, carrying our handgun in the right holster for the time, place and person is critical. Why? Well, it must be all of these things: comfortable (or you won't carry), safe (so you don't have a negligent discharge), secure (so your gun stays put and doesn't come out at inopportunte moments), effective (so you can draw easily and quickly when necessary).

Which holster is best? I've tried most, if not all, of the major styles, except for the ankle holster: leather, kydex, plastic, hybrid. They all have their uses and some carry, for me, better than others, but the "best" holster is a personal and relative decision. My vote goes for those made by David Bullard in Azle, Texas.

David's holsters are all made from quality leather to the highest standards. His designs are based on years of experience by him and his customers, and those now not with us who have carried a gun all of their adult lives, both professionally and personally. I know some internet experts who declare leather to be old school and a dead issue, preferring plastics and hybrids, but I don't agree. I think the leather and the gun form a symboitic relationship over time, each complimenting the other. The leather molds to the gun, and to the wearer, conforming to both and settling in to a comfortable, secure and effective carry combination. The leather takes on a patina and markings reflective of its service and duty life. It's comfortable and feels good, not like a chunk of plastic hanging off or inside your waistband.

Bullard hosters work exceptionally well for the types of carry I need: strong side, appendix and cross draw. All of these carry positions have their advantages and work better in some situations than others. Probably the most little understood and appreciated is the cross draw. Since most of us spend more time sitting than standing or walking, the cross draw enables one to carry concealed in any of those situations and have the firearm remain always accessible. Think about sitting in your car at a stoplight, securely buckled in, wearing a light jacket. If your gun is sitting in the strong side position, three to five o'clock, getting to it in a hurry is going to be a problem. Carrying it at the appendix position makes the task easier, but the shoulder strap and the jacket are going to be problems. The cross draw carry though is right there where you need it. This works in restaurants, theatres, and other places where one might be sitting down when the need to draw a firearm presents itself.

Bullard's OWB cross draw holsters excel at this, especially in the smaller framed and single stack handguns. They are secure and hold the weapon close enough for good concealment, draw easily and are quality pieces of gear. I use one for my Ruger LCP frequently, even in the summer with a loose shirt, or T-shirt. I think small frame revolvers and single stacks such as the S&W M&P Shield would also be ideal for this holster. Bullard's IWB design, shown above, is so versatile, with the adjustable belt loop, that I wear it IWB at any of the three positions: strong-side, appendix or cross draw.

Bullard's best seller, according to his website, is his Bodyguard model. This one is made to carry behind the hip. Not small-of-back (which I can't recommend), but at the 4 - 5 o'clock position for right handers. It incorporates a more radical "rake" or cant than most strong side holster designs but this is to aid concealment of any handgun, and especially larger ones like the 1911 .45 pistols. The position of the grips is such that they don't show and the design still permits a secure hold and fast draw. You might see some people wearing these on their hip, and complaining, but that's because they are not using the holster correctly. It belongs behind your hip, not on it. I have one each for my LCP and my Shield.

For basic, on the hip, 3 o'clock OWB carry I have a well-worn Bullard Bandit, now called a belt slide. Sure, I know I'm wearing it because you don't carry a gun on your hip without feeling the presence and the weight, but it is the most comfortable, and probably conservative of holsters. It does everything well and has definitely earned its keep. I should have one for each of my guns, and someday probably will.

If this sounds like a commercial for Dave Bullard and his crew, I guess it is. I like his stuff. I've tested a lot of holsters, and I have used most of Bullard's designs with both large and small handguns, and when all is said and done, I usually reach for a Bullard holster when leaving the house. Or, while at the house for that matter.

Check them out and tell Dave I sent you.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Urban World

I'm here in Colorado Springs on a five week course of radiation as part of my treatment program for cancer. Ugly word, cancer, but I don't see it that way. It's a condition that's sometimes very bad and sometimes not so good. I'm in the not so good camp. Treatment is possible and promises a good outcome, so life goes on. My alien pest, as I call it, has taken me to Colorado Springs to live for five weeks while this part of the treatment continues, so I'm now in the Urban World. Our little town where we live is definitely not 'urban', but really a village in the sense of being small, having primarily dirt streets, few choices for places to shop and eat, and the nearest stoplight being fifteen miles away.

The other evening, I ventured downtown here in Colorado Springs for some exercise, change of scenery and dining choices. Because of the circumstances I am currently living with, I am relying on my Ruger LCP as my carry gun. I had it with me in a small holster at 2:00 o'clock and a spare magazine clipped on the other side in it's Kytex holder. Now, living temporarily in a nice neighborhood and frequenting a hospital daily, I leave the LCP locked in a secure box in my room unless I venture out. I certainly did not leave it behind the other night and was glad I had it. Not that I needed it, but the security that it offered was comforting. But, walking the streets with the other urban dwellers, some of them sketchy enough that one needed to keep an eye out, made me realize an uncomfortable fact. My usual level of situational awareness has dropped considerably. I live in a non-threatening world most of the time. Our little town is pretty tame with few instances of crime or violence. This has tended to make me a little too comfortable.

While I do believe in carrying where legal and possible, I have come to take it for granted that I have a gun, and my level of situational awareness has dropped. But here in the urban world, where there are many more people, and more opportunity for crime, that is not appropriate. It's become obvious to me that the most important self-defense tool is that of situational awareness. Always thinking one can rely on a firearm to survive a bad situation is not a good idea. That might turn out to be the case, and we'd rather be armed than not, but being aware and avoiding or defusing a potential situation is much more effective and has no subsequent consequences.

So, I'll still carry, but even at home, but I will work to keep my situational awareness more keen and on the job. I suggest that you do too.

Posted with Blogsy

Some Holsters Updates, and Mexican Carry

I'll begin with Mexican Carry. This term may be somewhat ethnocentric, but since it's the one in use around here in the southwest, I'll stick with it. We have a retired law enforcement officer in town who carries a pistol tuck into his waistband and belt. Often, only part of the grips are visible and it appears the gun may slide down his leg and drop on the floor at any time. You can tell he has something to do with law enforcement by looking at his cap, which has a badge embroidered upon the front declaring him to be a retired LEO. Sometimes he wears his badge on his belt or shirt, but usually only on special occasions when there are tourists in town. Most of the locals don't bat an eye when they see someone walking around wearing a holstered gun.

When I first saw him in a local eatery and spied the grips of the Glock sticking out above his waistband I mentioned that he might want to get a holster for that. He disagreed, saying he preferred "Mexican carry" over a holster. I wondered if he might be in danger of a negligent discharge and getting shot by his own gun, but he assured me that the pistol had been especially made to prevent that. Looked like a basic Glock to me. No manual safety, just the trigger safety, but I didn't feel like pursuing the notion so I let it go. He's a nice man and since our law enforcement people are spread really thin around here, it is good that he is around, helpful and visible. I just worry about him and that Mexican carry.

That brings me to holsters. I have been testing a few different models for a few months now. I believe one of the critical aspects of concealed carry is having the right selection of holsters for the individual. We all are different, different sizes, weights, shapes and opinions. There is no all-around right holster for everyone. The only "right" holster is the one that you will use, and use consistently. In fact, there are "right" holsters, plural, for any concealed carry proponent because conditions and firearms change. Here, winter approaches, the days are getting cooler and the nights cold. Soon it will be mostly cold and we will be wearing heavier clothing, sweaters, down vests, hoodies, coats... all of the normal cold weather clothing. Gone will be the light shirts, t-shirts, and blouses of summer.

It will be much easier to carry bigger handguns more comfortably. A good OWB leather holster can be easily concealed beneath winter clothes much easier than with summer garb, for example. You options have increased.

Also, as I've discussed before, some holsters are suitable for some people but not others. I have a friend in town who carries a Glock 9mm, but hates IWB holsters. He's always wearing some kind of over garment. I will often carry a S&W Shield in a kydex IWB holster under a T-shirt. Some occasions call for a small pistol in a pocket holster. The main thing is that you need to develop your own small carry systems based on your build, preference (hate IWB?) and the outfits you'll be wearing. You'll need more than one holster and you should get a few good ones that will last and that you will use with comfort and confidence when you need them.

If you don't have a gun and holster combination that you like, and are comfortable with, you won't carry, and that can mean you might not have your firearm for protection when and if you finally need it. Hence, my frequent postings on holsters, and the small group of them I've been using and testing for months. I sometimes read reviews (these are especially prevalent on gun forums) of holsters that have not been used enough to properly evaluate them. There is a honeymoon period with holsters, as there is with any new acquisition. Sometimes the new thing we buy is immediately perceived as a bad deal. It's wrong, doesn't work right or broken. But, often, people will get a new holster, try it for a day or three and give glowing reports of how cool it is. Many times these same holsters end up in a box with a dozen others, unused and unloved because after some time had passed, issues developed that were not recognized at first. That's why I give them a good work out before I report back on what I think.

I have been testing IWB holsters from SwapRig, Cook's Holsters, Blade-Tech, pjholster and D.M. Bullard all summer and into the fall. My preferred carry is in the appendix position, so these holsters all accommodate this. Now, when I grab the Shield, I usually reach for the Cook's IWB kydex holster as my preferred carry, except when I don't have to worry about cover and am wearing something more than a T-shirt. Then, I will as likely go with the D.M. Bullard IWB with belt loop.

These two work the best for me, although all of them do a good job of providing security, access and comfort.

The Cook's is surprisingly comfortable especially for a kydex holster, and it has the advantage of an adjustable belt clip, secured with two screws. This enables me to fine-tune the cant on the gun for best concealment, and, if I want to wear it strong side on or behind the hip, I can adjust for that too. Bullard's holster is similar in that the angle of the belt loop can be adjusted for different cant positions and, being leather, is more comfortable and covers more of the gun between the body and metal than the Cook's. Besides, I like the feel and look of well crafted leather.
http://www.cooksholsters.com
http://www.dmbullardleather.com

The SwapRigs are excellent IWB (and, with some models, also OWB) carry holsters because of three things: outstanding customer service and attention to details; quality workmanship and materials and the ability to swap out "skins" (kydex shells made to fit a particular handgun) inexpensively so that your holster can be used for practically any handgun you have or will get in the future. If you like the hybrid style – leather backing, kydex shell – then you should consider SwapRig holsters. They provide value for the money and Swap-Rig's service is among the best.
http://www.swaprigholsters.com

The IWB Blade-Tech Klipt holster is not made from kydex, but from injection molded plastic that is light and tough, and, happily, inexpensive as synthetic holsters go. You can get one for under $30 which is a good deal these days for a well made holster. I recommend these especially if you are looking for a budget holster, or something to try out with IWB carry before moving to a more expensive solution. http://shop.blade-tech.com/product_info.php?cPath=1_13_131&products_id=66548#!prettyPhoto[Product]/0/

With any of these holsters you can be assured of quality, comfort, security and good access to your firearm and that you shouldn't resort to Mexican carry.

The Cop on the Bus

"Is there a cop on the bus?"

This is an important question for a bad guy (BG: meaning a criminal, outlaw, psychopath and similar folks who don't shy from harming other people) to ask. If there is a cop on the bus, then contemplating a crime there becomes much less attractive. If a BG thinks there might be a cop on the bus, the likelihood of committing a crime on the bus is extremely low. Other busses without cops onboard are much more attractive. 

Substitute a legally armed citizen for a cop on the bus. While he or she isn't a cop, the principle remains the same. Committing a violent crime on the bus carries extreme risk for the BG if there might to be an armed citizen on the bus. 

This is fundamentally why "no gun" places makes absolutely no sense. BGs don't follow laws or rules so they will take a gun whenever they want. Knowing that they are most likely the only ones armed can give them permission to do whatever they want. 

Why the "bus" owners think differently is the result of not thinking at all, but, instead they surrender to the fear and loathing they associate with guns. 

Violence is, unfortunately, with us. It always has been, even in pre-historic times. Archeology tells us that. The methods and means of violent acts have changed over time. Initially, in terms of tools, violence to others was probably perpetrated with clubs and rocks – sharp and otherwise. As human kind's ingenuity and intelligence has grown, we developed tools that inflicted violence at a distance, then a greater distance and which amplified the force applied by one person. Without a long and boring recitation of this progression, suffice it to say that we eventually developed firearms (ignoring the other various and numerous means we have found to inflict violence on others).

Since neither violence or weapons are going away any time soon, and protection from these methods of violence depends on at least parity with the aggressor's methods, it appears foolish in the extreme to ceed the considerable advantage of weapons to the aggressors.

Why would one wish to make people (and themselves) subject to the violence of others by taking away the means of protection and fighting back? Those who would "outlaw" firearms want to give away their right to do so, but more insidiously, want to force the rest of us to do likewise. Do they seriously think that BGs (criminals, outlaws, psychopaths, sadists and their ilk) will obey their laws, give up their means of violence? I suspect that BGs in general relish the thought of an unarmed citizenry. 

The basic fact is that if a criminal thinks he or she might get shot by a citizen upon whom they wish to prey, the chances of them trying will be seriously diminished.

We all need to be cops on the bus, or at least have the BGs think so and not be able to tell the difference.

Lost in the Noise

As anyone who has access to any information source these days: television, radio, internet, facebook, email, and all the rest, can tell you, there is so much off-topic noise being screamed between individuals, interests groups, political parties, religious groups and everyone else with an agenda to protect, that the essential information we need to make rational decisions are drowned in the cacophony.

I think in the USA, politics is the worst offender, followed by religion, societal "it's all about us" groups, science deniers and the chemtrailers. Well, chemtrailers are more pathetic than serious, but they are also representative of what I mean. It appears that almost everything is co-opted by people with their own agendas. Not much is able to be discussed on it's merits, or demerits, without appeal to some external, irrelevant and often false notion, ideology or cultural phenomenon.

For example, guns. (You knew I'd get to this.) Say the word "gun" in almost any mixed gathering or company and you'll see what I mean. Anti-gun. Pro-gun. Anti-NRA. Pro-NRA. Mothers Against Guns. Mothers For Guns. Why would any sane person want a gun? Why wouldn't a sane person want a gun? Gun violence. No, just violence. Gun control. No, civil rights.

Facts and figures are put forward to prove one side or the other. Most often those "facts" and "figures" are wrong, biased or just plain made up. There are actual "facts" and "figures" available, but even when put forward and agreed to by all parties (seldom happens in the real world) that often makes no difference to opposing sides. I often see generalized references to "liberals" that categorize them as gun-haters. This is simple stereotyping. A quick look at the internet will find, for example, a foum hosting "Liberals with Guns". It does not follow that a person's social philosophy will dictate their decision about guns. I know many liberal veterans of our armed forces who have, use and like guns and promote their safe use by their families and friends. But, an unthinking "conservative" would blast them as liberal gun haters. And, by the same lights, I have some liberal friends who think all conservatives are wealthy, unfeeling, bigoted NRA gun nuts. All of these opinions are simple-minded, untrue and often block any attempts at understanding and empathy for the other person.

As long as the noise gets in the way of fruitful discussion, of understanding another person's attitudes and reasons for them, of approaching the issue, whether it be guns or something else, we will never be able to resolve these difficulties.

I think the best thing we could do is to keep politics, and similar irrelevant philosophies, out of the discussion. To that end, this blog is going to concentrate on what I consider the unbiased issues and advantages of concealed carry for the safety of oneself and others. No politics, religion, or social discrimination allowed.

Legally carried concealed firearms are there to give you and those innocent people around you a decided advantage should deadly violence threaten you, whether you are male, female, young, old, Republican, Democrat, gay or straight, black, brown, green, red or pale white, it doesn't matter. Humanity does.

 

Posted with Blogsy

It's Not the Gun

Kyle Phillips/AP

A week ago, on the last Thursday in September, an angry man, Alton Nolen, (who calls himself Jah'Keem Yisrael) having just been fired from his job at Vaughn's Food Warehouse in Moore, Oklahoma, returned with a butcher knife, attacked and killed Colleen Hufford, then decapitated her with that knife. He then attacked Traci Johnson but was shot down by Mark Vaughn with a gun he had in his office.

From what I can gather from the media, most people are glad that Mr. Vaughn shot Alton Nolen, thereby saving an innocent life, if not more than one. No one seems concerned that Mr. Vaughn had a gun in his workplace, or used it to stop Nolen's violent killing spree. There also are no outraged voices clamoring against Nolen's use of a butcher knife. No calls for "butcher knife" control. (Paring knives, bread knives, Swiss Army knives, well, they are all right, but those assault butcher knives have to be outlawed.)

Many people who now think it is a good thing and o.k. that Mr. Vaughn got his gun and shot Nolen,  would come out against having a gun in the work place. Or, perhaps, any place. But, they will have a difficult time reasonably explaining why it is good that Mr. Vaughn had a gun, and bad that Mr. Vaughn had a gun.

It is not the gun. It is certain people's unreasoning fear of violence, especially what they term "gun violence" (it's kind of like "hate crime". Doesn't matter where it stems from, it's still a crime.) And, it's those people's ignorance of the role firearms play in defending innocent people from violence. The only thing that will equalize a deadly confrontation between a 97 pound woman and a 210 pound aggressive man is a gun.

This is an old argument, not likely to sway the anti-gun people. What will get their attention is when a maniac with a butcher knife is bent on hacking off their heads. Or something like it.

Violence, like death, taxes and drugs, is here to stay and proper use and access to firearms is one big way of equalizing the odds when violence does eventually find you.

Posted with Blogsy

ISIS Amongst Us?

Are there domestic ISIS terrorists among us here in the USA who are set to carry out random murders of American citizens? A scary thought, and the answer depends on who is giving it.
Obviously, jihad crazed religious nut-cases are real and have done real harm, and continue to do so. What makes these people more dangerous than the "average" terrorist with political or economic hate agendas is the fact that they are religious zealots who believe murdering non-believers is a sacred act for which they will be amply rewarded by God.
Really.
Although few anti-gun folks read, or will read, this blog and those who might, and those who have no faith in reality will counter that religion is not the issue. They will trot forth the poor Palestinian displaced from their homeland (which never existed until after WWII), their poverty and ill treatment by the evil Israelis. This is all a smoke screen to hide the obvious fact, a fact continually reiterated by the jihadists themselves in every way possible, that they are engaged in a religious war against the unbelievers. Period.
Is everyone in ISIS poor? A downtrodden Palestinian? Politically disenfranchised peasants yearning for a return to their "homeland"? Certainly not. What they are, in common, is a group determined to bring the rule of Islam to the world and if the world doesn't like it, then the world can die.
So, in my opinion, the efforts of this bizzare, murderous death-cult encouraging its members here in America, to start murdering our citizens until we give in to them, is not so far fetched. But, I would also say, it's no reason to go overboard. This isn't happening, contrary to the opinions and public statements of a few of our own nut-jobs. Due caution and preparations are in order, along with elevating everyone's awareness that this is a real possibility and to spark discussions of what can be done to deal with it.
In terms of self defense, it goes without saying that average citizens should be ready to defend themselves and their families, and, in this scenario, perhaps other innocent people as well. Due caution and respect for the law must be maintained, for we are not outlaws or terrorists, but people who are determined to preserve our freedoms and safety. I've read a few internet opinions, and a few from national new organizations, that call for everyone to be armed at all times. Not that I disagree with this in principle, but given the responsibilities – legal and practical – of carrying a firearm, that is not something that could be safely and properly accomplished overnight. One commentator declared that everyone should have both a "military-grade rifle" at home and a concealed carry firearm at all times. Why the average person would need a "military-grade rifle" is not clear. I'd venture that if squads of armed jihadists were roaming our streets, the armed response would not come from my neighbors shooting at them with their rifles, whatever quality and caliber they might be.
Now is the time to be alert and be ready, and to educate our friends and neighbors to the potential of jihad nut-jobs among us and educate them on the benefits and the responsibilities of American who are protected by, among other things, the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
I think it is appropriate that our local seasonal closing festivities will feature our veterans' Color Guard carrying the "Don't Tread On Me" flag. Up front and visible.

Posted with Blogsy

Two Guns

The Ruger LCP in a D.M. Bullard Cross Draw holster

I think it is safe to day, two guns are better than one.

Of course, many people consider many guns to be better than one and if you are into guns, like guns, and collect guns, that is certainly true. But, for the person who is primarily, or solely, interested in concealed carry for protection, having too many guns isn't necessary or even desirable.

However, I want to put forward the case that for the average person who carries, two guns are better than one, even if only one is carried at a time.

Why would this be so? In my opinion, it is a good idea for most of us who are concealed carry gun owners because of the fact that much, if not most, of our day is spent at home and around the house and yard. Some percentage of our time is taken by activities that take us away from home, and some of these occur in places in which we are more likely to encounter individuals and circumstances that might require recourse to our carry weapon. The two general scenarios are suited to different carry guns. Here is why.

My basic premise is that if one has gone to the trouble and training to carry a concealed firearm, then it only makes sense to carry it as often as possible. Otherwise, what is the point? You don't buy insurance that is in force some of the time and not others, nor throw a spare tire in the trunk for some trips but not others. Why, then, leave your carry gun in a drawer, or locked in a safe some times, but not others? Although this makes logical sense, most people don't follow this general rule because, let's face it, carrying a gun all of the time, especially around the house, is a pain. Really. The damn thing is hanging off your belt, or poking you in the stomach or pressing on your hip bone. Maybe dragging at your ankle. (Why anyone would use an ankle holster if they weren't deep under cover or worked a corporate job in a suit, is beyond me.)

A shoulder holster at home? Forget it.

Good holsters will provide a greater level of comfort, but, in the end, after wearing your S&W or Glock all day around the house, you'll know it. You get used to it, but never really like it.

What's a person supposed to do? Not put your gun in a drawer someplace. As we all know, even though it's unlikely, bad things can happen to good people any time, any place, and that includes while you are in the back room going through boxes for that next yard sale, or in the garage kicking the lawn mower. "Oh, pardon me an sec, Mr. Bad Guy, I need to dash into the house/back room/den/office to retrieve my gun."

So, for me, the solution is to carry an effective but small and light handgun around the house. One that is comfortable because it's small and light, but effective enough by itself, or will buy me time to get to a larger weapon if the need dictates. This smaller gun, in a quality and comfortable holster that is always with me, will ensure that I have access to a firearm when and if it is needed.

Yes, the caliber police and the capacity monitors will not take kindly to the notion of a lightweight, small, and small caliber gun, but a simple reality check is enough to defuse those overworked arguments: any gun is better than no gun when you need one. Period.

My choice for AHC (around the house carry) is a new model Ruger LCP. It is "light" and "compact" as they say. It has an improved trigger for better shooting accuracy – put a LaserMax on it and the accuracy goes way up – and it fires the modern .380 self defense loads which are fine. I haven't yet heard of a big-caliber supporter who would volunteer to be shot with a .380 to demonstrate how weak-kneed the round is. Really.

A couple of good holsters and you have a system that you can carry comfortably around the house all day. Keep it on as a back up, or swap it out for something a bit larger with more capacity if you need to carry in a situation and place that you think requires it.

Be safe.

Hidden Inside: Some Holsters for IWB Carry

pj holster & the Ruger LCP

Talon Training Group

Lobo Gunleather

SwapRig

Inside the waist band carry (IWB) often gets a bad reputation for comfort. Most people will agree that for the concealed carry person, IWB offers the best combination of concealment, security and access of the other carry methods, but this recommendation is often accompanied by complaints that it is too uncomfortable.

I would put forward the notion that carrying a chunk of metal, plastic and a stack of bullets around for any length of time is uncomfortable. We get used to it and it's one of the costs of concealed carry. Obviously, one does not want a carry system that is unnecessarily uncomfortable and irritating. That will result in leaving your weapon at home, or going to a more comfortable carry method that does not offer the same advantages as IWB.

There are a number of factors involved in a successful IWB carry system. The most important being the person's body type, the quality of the holster and the size of the gun.

There is no perfect body type for IWB carry. Everyone is different and the range of differences is large. However, different body types benefit from different carry systems. Someone who is toothpick thin won't be comfortable with, nor conceal well with a rigid IWB holster and a large gun. A short barrel .45 semi-auto in a clip-on kydex holster worn at the strong side point of the hip will be a heavy, obvious burden. A smaller frame .9mm worn in the appendix position in a soft leather holster will work much better for that person.

A larger heavier person can conceal larger guns more comfortably in more positions.

Clothing and weather make a difference. T-shirts and shorts require different carry methods than cold weather sweaters, jackets and vests.

On the theory that there are IWB holsters out there that will suit different people carrying different guns, I obtained a few IWB holsters for an extensive real-life field test over a number of months. Some of those are pictured above.

I have used this year, on a daily basis, the following IWB holster systems:

• pjholsters - kydex, thin, very well constructed and effective
• SwapRig - a highly adaptable and variable system of leather backing with easily replaceable holster shells to accommodate different pistols
• D.M. Bullard - full grain, exquisitely made leather
• Talon Training Group - leather, comfortable and very well made
• Cook's Holsters - kydex, exceptionally well made with a clip adjustable for cant
• Blade Tech - Revolution Klipt appendix, one of their thin, inexpensive and well made IWB rigs
• Galco Stow-n-Go - a simple, comfortable and inexpensive holster
• Lobo Gunleather - a soft, comfortable offset clip hoster

All but the SwapRig holster are conventional designs with various design and manufacturing differences that made the difference in feel and effectiveness.

I will report in more detail on those holsters in subsequent posts, especially after the weather turns here at 7000' for the winter, but I can say a few general things about them now. I will also offer a few observations about some of the holsters I have used previously that didn't make the grade.

Of the kydex holsters, I generally prefer Cook's. The quality of manufacture is outstanding with attention given to small details like rounding and smoothing the corners, a decent sight channel and close conformation with the gun's form. I especially like the ability to adjust the belt clip for different angles of cant which allows this holster to easily adapt to positions ranging from the cross-draw to the strong side behind the hip carry.

Blade Tech's Revolution Klipt is an outstanding holster that works, is thin and comfortable and at under $30 is priced right. I like it.

pjholster's kydex models are among the best on the market, at least among those I have had the chance to use. Paul builds with attention to detail and comfort. His thin IWB models are secure and amazingly light and comfortable. With an adjustable belt clip, I would rate them up there with the Cook's models.

Of the leather holsters, I prefer the Bullard and the Talon Training Group's offerings. Comparing my models, I would give the edge to the Talon holster since it is equally as comfortable as the Bullard, but offers an offset clip and reinforcement to keep it open better than Bullard's design. Lobo's holster is the most comfortable but did not stay in place as well as the others, and while this may be fine for some people, I found it nagged me at times. However, the Bullard and the Lobo, being leather without reinforcement, would carry either a Ruger SR9c or a S&W M&P Shield equally well. The Galco Stow-n-Go is an excellent, cheap, effective and inexpensive holster especially for smaller handguns.

SwapRig holsters are in their own class. Based on a proven hybrid design - a flat piece of leather between you and the holster to provide both support and comfort, it departs from the competition in two major ways: quality of construction and customer support, and the ability to quickly and easily swap the kydex "shell" that forms the 'holster' part of the system with another "shell" or skin, to fit any other gun. Hence, one holster platform can be adapted easily to carry a wide range of handguns. Revolvers. Semi-Autos. Derringers. Large, medium or small, it doesn't matter. For around $15 you can buy a new skin for your new gun and use the same, comfortable, broken-in platform. Excellent idea, and you can tell from the packaging and instructions that they are well made and the make will stand behind his holsters. Outstanding value and effectiveness.

Those are my current picks of some of the good IWB holsters I have tried. There are other quality IWB holsters available from dedicated and quality-minded makers that I have not tried but hope to as the years go on. I suggest that you think carefully about your needs, you body type and they kinds of gun or guns you will be carrying and get the best made holster you can afford. Price is no guarantee of quality, so spend time on sites like this one, and on the makers' websites. Write them. Call them. The good ones will be more than happy to talk with you. They make holsters and understand their uses, so get their input and evaluate accordingly. It's going to be much less expensive to buy one or three quality holsters than run through a box full of also-rans.

As me (and most concealed carry people) how I know...

Not-so-hot

In this category are holsters I've tried and not liked for various reasons ranging from value, security to comfort. Others obviously feel differently, but I just didn't like them:

• Crossbreed - based on the quality of construction compared to their cost, and the lack of interest and attention given to customers or potential customers.
• Old Faithful - a slap-together, uncomfortable and less secure do-it-yourself assemblage of parts.
• VersaCarry - I am just not that interested in the minimal level of security offered for the trigger and magazine release.
• High Noon - looking at the excellent holsters on the market with the same designs and materials, I don't understand why their prices are so high. I also didn't like being told that I didn't know enough about holsters to question them on their pricing.
• Remora - the 'high friction', no clip, IWB holster is generally a good holster, but after using many models with many handguns I feel they do not stay in place without adjustments during the day, especially if one is active. Yes, I've had one work it's way out of my waistband and fall to the floor. Also, when worn with some clothing, they are not guaranteed to stay in place when the gun is drawn. That's been my experience.

"Gun Free Zones": Decisions

Having spent the last two days in New Mexico, where there is a reciprocal agreement between States that renders my concealed carry permit valid there, I have to say that you must be still aware of the differences in the concealed carry and handgun laws in states you visit.

I know that in New Mexico you are obligated to know if the eating establishment you are thinking about going to derives more than 50% of it's income from the sale of liquor. I'm not sure how I would go about getting that info, especially if I saw a restaurant that I wanted to go to right then. Or, even later, for that matter. Do the restaurants know what this ratio is on any given day? Is it an annual assessment? How does the State determine this?

Sticky ground. I've solved this by finding an "approved" eatery list for the towns I visit most often in New Mexico and I carry it in my iPhone for quick reference.

However, there are other differences you must be aware of from state to state. One big one is the "gun free zone" signs. Or, "weapons prohibited". Or, "No Firearms", etc. You get the idea. An establishment owner can post signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms while inside. In some states these signs must comply with fairly rigorous requirements: size of the sign and lettering. Color. Where it must be posted, and more. It pays to know what these legal requirements on the sign posters are so that you will be able to tell if the signs are not legal, and can be disregarded or not.

In some states, all the owner or manager of an establishment with such a sign posted can do is ask you to leave, or be in danger of trespass. In some states, they carry more legal force and might get you in trouble with the authorities. It pays to know what's what in these instances.

I ran into a sign in Trader Joe's in Santa Fe, New Mexico that warned against carrying any gun, loaded or not, into their store or face a possible charge from a forth degree felony. I have no idea what a "forth degree felony" is in New Mexico, nor do I intend to find out. Now, I like Trader Joe's - good and different foods and drink at very reasonable prices - but I had to wonder about what was going through people's heads who read that sign. Did they feel safe? Secure? Warm and loving toward their fellows? Were they now confident that no armed criminal, psycho or sociopath would dare to visit Trader Joe's? Did they understand that criminals, psychos and sociopaths (to name only a few) do not read anti-gun signs, and, if they did bother to read them, would not care what they say.

In fact, it can, and has been argued, that such bold anti-gun declarations serve to mark potential sites for future violence by those very types the signs were created to discourage.

Rationally, this is probably understandable, but, emotionally, not so much. Why is this? Why is it that a reasonably rational person can learn and understand facts and the outcomes of logical thinking processes, such as, "if you put your hand on that hot stove, you'll burn it." but not be able to make the connection with, "a gun will put a woman and a man on more equal footing when it comes to self protection and resisting violence."

Of course businesses that seek to prohibit those of us who are legally carrying from being able to protect ourselves can do without our business. It helps to get that message across to them. I'm going to make a serious effort to respond with an actual letter - snail mail - stating my views about this and that I won't support their business until the signs come down. Probably won't bring any signs down, but they will certainly get some feedback from the other side.

Meanwhile, in those states and areas where the sign is legally no more than a recommendation, I will make my own determination whether to lock my gun in the car and go on in, unarmed, or just decline the request.

Unarmed in the Big Apple

Right now I am in the far northern part of the island of Manhattan, hanging out with my son who lives here. I flew out of Denver last week, leaving my M&P Shield 9mm in the car to be stowed at home until I return. Although the state of Colorado has deemed it good that I be licensed for concealed carry, the state of New York feels otherwise. Even so, being an honorably discharged veteran who was trained and encouraged to be proficient with weapons of many kinds for eight years of active duty, I am considered by New York to be somehow not capable of carrying a firearm responsibly while in that state.

Anyone who has walked the streets in the Big Apple, especially later at night just trying to get from here to there, or rides the subway, knows how it feels to be unarmed in the midst of what can be charitably called "sketchy people". Uneasy is not quite the right word. Especially if one is a so-called senior citizen, which I happen to be. Large, strong dudes who might be more than happy, given the right set of circumstances, to relieve you of your valuables, can pretty much have their way considering the fact that New York's Finest are seldom seen in certain neighborhoods. Like the rats scuttling through Central Park near the Natural History Museum (a very cool place, by the way) the feeling of vulnerability is constantly with you as you walk the streets of New York.

I think this partly stems from the attitudes I saw last night. We are in midtown Manhattan, after seven p.m., walking through the mobbed sidewalks, dodging people who are headed straight for you, with their earphones firmly plugged in, or perhaps scrolling their smart phones for directions or the subway map, maybe thumbing a text to a friend all the while dodging quickly around the EMTs wheeling a victim out of a store into the ambulance double parked in the street. They are uncaring, unconcerned with the human drama unfolding around them, intent on their own purposes, unconcerned with and unconnected to the humans around them — that is a key to understanding how oblivious and uncaring those who live like this can become. Be ready to protect myself or other innocents from possible and intentional harm? Not me, brother. It is everyone for themselves and count me out if I have to get involved on your behalf.

Is this harsh? Yes. Is it true? Probably more so than I would like to believe.

Would the police like to be in a situation in which things have gone irretrievably bad, weapons are drawn and the bad guys, the cops and the honest civilians are armed? No. But, what about the much more likely scenario in which the cops aren't there (they really can't be everywhere, nor should they be required to be) and it is just the bad guys with the guns, knives, baseball bags, chains, tire irons or muscles and the college student on the way home for the day, or the grandmother who has spent part of her social security check at the grocery store who runs afoul of neighborhood thugs looking for drug money?

Why anyone thinks that an honest, law-abiding citizen should be prohibited from carrying a gun for self defense while criminals and crazies are illegally armed is frankly beyond me. Probably the same people who think that having armed forces to protect our country and freedoms is fine unless one of them gets hurt or killed in the process.

A very ignorant person once said to me, after seeing me in my uniform after I had carried a flag with our home town color guard, "Freedom is free". He went on to say that wars and armed forces weren't necessary. I pointed out that because many men and women had worn the uniform and put their lives on the line in order that he have the freedom to utter such crap, that freedom is brought at a price. The same must be said about our individual freedoms.

There is no clear answer to evil and violence. These have been with us as long as we have been able to recount them in song and story. To wish them away by telling honest, good people that they can not have the rights and means to protect themselves and other innocents from evil and violence is certainly wrong, short sighted and certainly immoral.

Posted with Blogsy

National Veterans Carry Permit

While visiting New Mexico from Colorado recently my wife and I had the opportunity to attend a performance at the Santa Fe Opera. It is a nationally recognized venue, which you can also see in the final scenes in the movie Crazy Heart. As I stood overlooking the opera grounds at the hundreds of people there, I wondered who among the crowd was legally carrying a concealed pistol. It being New Mexico, I figured the odds for concealed carry, legal or otherwise, were pretty good.

A Colorado concealed carry permit is recognized by the state of New Mexico, and vice versa. While this is a good thing between neighboring states, there are differences in the conditions under which one may legally carry in different states, and it is the responsibility of the person with a permit to know and abide by those different requirements. For example, I keep a list of restaurants in Taos and Santa Fe, the two towns I am most likely to visit, in which concealed carry is permitted. In New Mexico, a restaurant that gains more than a certain percentage of its income from the sale of liquor is not one in which legal concealed carry is permissible. Not being able to compute that percentage myself, I rely on the list of those restaurants that are considered by the state to comply with that requirement. Before going to an eatery, I check the list I keep stored on my iphone.

Yes, this is a minor pain, but it is my responsibility to comply with the state law. But, the real pain is that permits are not valid in all states. Twenty different states may consider my carry permit to be valid, but the rest may not. Although I pass the background check and that's considered good with some states, it is not with others. The chances are good that I would also meet their permitting requirements, but I'd have to either live there, or apply in absentia. Not all states permit this.

If I were a Federal employee with the right and requirement to carry a concealed weapon and did so, after satisfying the necessary requirements, I would be able to legally carry in all states. If I were an active member of the armed forces with those same requirements and obligations, the same would hold true. But as a citizen of the United States as a whole, but residing in only one of the states, I don't have that right. Being an honorably discharged veteran of the United States Navy, surely one of the most ancient and federal of government organizations, and who was expected to be armed when and wherever necessary to defend the Constitution, I think that right should not be surrendered upon the honorable discharge of a veteran who would still qualify under a state requirements.

In other words, if an honorably discharged veteran of the American armed forces desires to legally carry a concealed weapon, and can pass a standard background check for that purpose, that person should be entitled to carry in any state in the Union, regardless of the vagaries of state law. I can carry legally in Colorado. Yet, when I travel to New York to visit family, I am not allowed to carry my weapon, concealed or otherwise. I am an honorably discharged Navy veteran, trained and experienced in weapons and weapons systems by the Navy, sanctioned by the State of Colorado to carry, yet, somehow in New York, all of this goes by the wayside and I am prohibited from exercising those rights.

I think it is time that all honorably discharged veterans of America's armed forces be able to apply for and receive, with appropriate and timely background checks, a concealed carry permit that is valid in all fifty states. I am going to continue to promote this idea on this blog and in communicaitons with all of my elected legislative representatives and to the White House. I am not a criminal. I am not unstable invididual, liable to go suddenly insane for no reason. I served honorably for eight years, most of that during the Viet Nam war. now, as a citizen and resident of Colorado, having passed the necessary background checks, I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon. I see no reason why I, and other veterans who meet those basic qualifications, should be discriminated against and prohibited from excercising that right in all states.

I will be asking for and promoting what I am calling the National Veterans Carry Permit law, to be passed by Congress and signed by the President which will allow qualifying veterans to exercise our Constitutional right to be armed in all fifty states of the Union.

I hope you will join me.

If you support this idea, or have constructive criticisms and ideas for improvements and support, please comment here or send me email at eindecker@gmail.com with your ideas.

As regular readers will know, I often review holsters and other gear on this blog. I would like to pass some of this forward to those who have constructive comments and feedback about the National Veterans Carry Permit (NVCP) proposal. I will choose the most interesting and helpful comment or idea every few weeks, post that here for others to read and consider, and send a piece of gear from one of my reviews to that person. The first award will be a new cargo pocket holster from SwapRig Holsters.

Let me hear from you. Even if you don't like the idea, let me know, but be real, cite evidence to back up your objections so that we can evaluate them in a mature way.

Posted with Blogsy

Lobo Gun Leather Offset Belt Clip IWB Holster

Lobo Gun Leather IWB Offset Holster

A few months ago I received a new Offset Belt Clip IWB Holster for my Ruger SR9c from Ray Cory. I posted an introduction to Ray and his advice from many years of law enforcement experience here: http://sdcarry.blogspot.com/search/label/Lobo%20Gun%20Leather

I have had the opportunity to use his  offset IWB holster for two different, albeit, similar guns. Ray made this holster for my SR9c and it performed as advertised for that task – securely and comfortably with a high enough ride to ensure the grip on the pistol was available for a fast and secure draw. Ray uses rather thin and flexible leather for this holster, cowhide in this case, not horsehide which I understand is stiffer than cowhide for the same thickness. While adequate for the Ruger, I personally would not have wanted to go with thinner leather, but I did enjoy the resulting comfort of the holster.

I no longer have the Ruger SR9c.  The Smith & Wesson M&P Shield is now my main carry gun. Curious about how this holster might work with it, I tried the Shield in Ray's holster designed for the Ruger and found it is almost a perfect fit. There may be a fraction of an inch extra on the slide shield, but if you didn't know the holster wasn't made for the Shield, you would never guess. The positive thing for me is that with the Shield's lighter weight, the holster feels just right. Not to stiff, not too flexible. The comfort is still there as is the excellent positioning of the grips above the belt line. And, the offset clip, riding behind the bulk of the pistol in the holster, keeps the profile slim and makes it even for concealable.

Sometimes too much is made of a holster's ability, or lack of it, to enable easy one-handed re-holstering of a firearm. There are times and activities in which this is a good thing to have in a holster, for example during practice sessions or at the range, but for a self defense carry gun and holster, I don't think it is a necessary feature. When I carry in public, the gun stays in the holster, and will do so unless the time comes for me to produce it. I doubt if I will be required to re-holster later without the aid of my other hand or eyes. Your opinion may differ.

So, for a good, well made and comfortable holster at a reasonable price, take a close look at Ray's work on his site: http://www.lobogunleather.com/1_home

kytex. Yes, kyTEX, not Dex...

Kytex Gear Ruger LCP .380 magazine belt holder

There is this company called: Kytex Gear, at http://www.kytexgear.com  They make, well, shooting gear from kydex. Now, lots of people have outfits that produce kydex shooting stuff: holsters, magazine carriers, flashlight holsters and the like. Most of them are pretty good. It's hard to screw up moulding and trimming kydex, although it can be done. Most of these products are pretty standard. Some kydex products are, however, much better and more innovative in ways that work, than others. Innovation is fine, but innovation must result in improvement and enhancement solutions before it is innovation with value.

Brian, owner and designer of products at Kytex Gear has made, produced and sells what I think are the most useful and innovative semi-automatic handgun magazine carriers around. I have reviewed these mag carriers here, last year. As I said then, I like to be critical of shooting products, especially those intended for people who conceal carry for self defense, for that is a serious business and one in which corners should not be cut. I received a Kytex Gear mag carrier for my Ruger SR9c double-stack 10 round magazine. Which also works fine for the 17 round magazine I might add.

There are no bolts, brads or washers involved, just an efficient, three-dimensional little piece of functional artwork that wraps around the magazine and folds over into the belt clip. Nothing there that doesn't belong. The belt clip has these little ears that serve to hold it securely, and, surprisingly, aid putting it on and getting it off. I routinely clip it on with one hand and unclip it with one hand, but it always stays in place.

Now, in testing gear there is always the 'honeymoon' period when it's new and cool and neater than cold beer on a hot day. But, with time and use, the picture often changes. That comfy holster isn't so comfy after a ten hour car and shopping trip, or a long sit at the movies. The ergonomics aren't so hot when you discover that the holster, for example, puts the gun's grip in such a position that it hangs up on the chair at the diner, almost prying the pistol out of the holster and flipping it on the floor. Maybe that new mag holder continually pokes you in places you don't want to be poked in.

Since I got my Kytex Gear SR9c mag holder last year, I have also been using two Kytex Gear .380 mag holders for my LCP. These are little jewels. I clip 'em on, slide them where I want them and, really, forget about them. Always there. Never aware. They work as they are designed. Every time.

Once, I snagged my SR9c mag holder with magazine aboard, on the side of a door. Wasn't my fault, it was an accidental collision with another person. Result, the belt clip on the Kytex mag holder bent out at about 30 degrees. Hmmm... A quick note to Brian and a short session with my daughter's hair dryer to heat up the clip area, I bent the clip back into position. Works fine again and has never bent or cracked. I'm thinking it's indestructable.

So, a year later, the big double-stack mag holder and the small .380 holders are part of my everyday carry system. The holsters I choose may vary with the season, gun and clothing, but the Kytex Gear mag holders are always there. Good stuff.

Swimming Pools, Cars and Guns

I recently read an article about studies showing many people who understand the facts and science that underly certain issues still will not believe the facts if the facts contradict their personal beliefs. The Anti-Vaccination crowd is one example. Even though it is clear that vaccinations prevent many, many childhood diseases, the anti-vax people refuse to believe this fact. I think the same thinking, or lack of it, pervades the anti-gun people. Below are a few facts from the Center for Disease Control website:

• From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents.2
• About one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger.2 For every child who dies from drowning, another five receive emergency department care for nonfatal submersion injuries.1
• More than 50% of drowning victims treated in emergency departments (EDs) require hospitalization or transfer for further care (compared with a hospitalization rate of about 6% for all unintentional injuries).1,2  These nonfatal drowning injuries can cause severe brain damage that may result in long-term disabilities such as memory problems, learning disabilities, and permanent loss of basic functioning (e.g., permanent vegetative state).3,4
• Children ages 1 to 4 have the highest drowning rates. In 2009, among children 1 to 4 years old who died from an unintentional injury, more than 30% died from drowning.1,2  Among children ages 1 to 4, most drownings occur in home swimming pools.2 Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects).1 Among those 1-14, fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death behind motor vehicle crashes.1

So, from the above information it is clear that two children die each day from drowning, mostly in a family swimming pool. Those who are lucky enough to survive, may not be so lucky because of the terrible after effects. The last point above indicates that the next greater killer of young people are "motor vehicle crashes".

There is, then, a proven record of the killing of innocent children through the negligent care and operation of the family swimming pool, followed closely motor vehicle crashes. Given the emotional reaction of the anti-gun people who demand an end to gun ownership in this country when "gun violence" (regardless of the type: suicide, gang shootings, robberies, holdups, drug gangs, etc.) is in the news, I used to wonder why the same uproar, or bigger, did not emerge with the reporting of all this deadly mayhem in our nation's swimming pools and on the roads.

Ban swimming pools? Not likely. Keep children out of motor vehicles. Fat chance...

I think the answer lies in the fact that most people who do not understand guns, were not raised in an environment in which guns are owned, cared for, respected and used responsibly, are unreasonably fearful of them. Gun = bad. Gun owner = potential evil person.

Rationality doesn't work when dealing with an anti-gun person. What I basically end up telling any that I have occasion to talk with is that gun ownership, and the right to carry, is a civil right and they have no business trying to take my civil rights away. It's their choice to exercise those rights or not. But, their ignorance and fear does not trump my civil rights.

Someone recently said that seeing someone change their minds in the midst of a discussion about beliefs or strongly held opinions was about as likely as seeing a supernova explode overhead. I believe this is true. I don't try to change minds about this any longer. I just point out that my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is mine, I wore a Navy uniform for many years to support those rights, and I refuse to allow their fear and ignorance to take them away.

I know that there are many commentators and pro-gun writers who advise us not to use the Constitutional right argument, but I think they are wrong. You won't be able to change someone's made-up mind. Experience and a traumatic experience might, but your arguments won't. I think it is proper and effective to stand up for our civil rights and be publicly supportive of them, not to hide this fact because it won't change minds. I don't think it is my job to change minds about this but to support the maintenance and expansion of those rights. I hope you do too.

The Simplified Carry System 1

Preparing to legally carry a concealed handgun is to embark on a path of many choices – ethical, legal, societial, and financial, among others. Which training and permitting classes are needed? Where can these be taken, and who is certified and capable of providing the best training and information? What are the ethical and very serious legal requirements and ramifications of carrying a concealed weapon? What level of training is minimal to meet those requirements?

In addition to these, more prosaic concerns come to the fore – what type and caliber of handgun is adequate, and best for the shooter? The best answer to this particular question is not easily come by in most instances and should be considered very carefully before one invests in a gun, or guns for concealed carry. Seek out a knowledgeable professional, not a friend who likes guns, or in many instances, the sales person at your local gun shop. Look up respected members of the shooting community with these kinds of experiences, people like Massad Ayoob whose writings and videos are readily available on the internet.

You will find that the best answer is usually the same one that you will hear from an experienced project manager: it depends. It depends on one's obvious physical characteristics, among other things. Someone who is not an experienced shooter and who stands five feet two inches and weighs a little over a hundred pounds has no business carrying something like a Model 1911 .45 semi-automatic. Not only will it be too heavy and difficult to conceal, but will likely be almost impossible for such a person to shoot with acceptable accuracy.

It depends on your level of experience. Are you a competent shooter at the range? If so, are you also competent with shooting a close ranges, quickly in extremely stressful situations? Few people are. How good are you at handling gun problems should they arise when the chips are down? Ammunition stoppages, jams, failure to feed or extract with a semi-automatic pistol can happen, and if they do, are you prepared to efficiently deal with them while you may be getting shot at? Few people are.

If you chose to carry a small, lightweight pistol as your main weapon because it's light weight, concealable and effective with modern ammunition, can you reliably hit your target with it in combat conditions? If not, then why not? What would you need to ensure that if you do have to shoot, you will not accidentally shoot an innocent person?

How will you carry your pistol? Where? What kind of holster is best for each of those choices?

Again, it all depends.

There are many other considerations to carrying and effectively using a concealed handgun. Those are merely a few. With these things in mind, I have set out to put together a simplified carry system that addresses the most important questions that someone new to concealed carry may have. Hopefully, it will also deal with those of us who have been searching for a solid carry system and have invested more than we wanted in guns, accessories and holsters. There are certainly other choices, but I've settled on the system I describe below for certain reasons.

The System

It is composed of four major components chosen for specific reasons and to work together solidly on a daily basis.

The Gun

Ruger LCR .38 Special +P with LaserMax CenterFire sight

A revolver? Not a Glock, or a Beretta, or an M&P...? Yes, and I have very good reasons for choosing this pistol over the others.

The Ruger LCR .38 Special +P is a solid, no frills choice for a primary and main carry gun. It's main attributes are:

• Lightweight - important for a gun that you will carry every day for hours, sometimes for more hours than you think, and in situations where comfortable concealment is an important attribute.
• Made for concealment - no hammer to hang up on clothing, smooth contours, small but ergonomic and comfortable grip.
• Solid build - USA made weapon of the highest standard and reasonable cost.
• Effective - fires the .38 Special round, which, with hollow point ammunition is very effective for self defense at the close ranges where those episodes tend to occur. The LCR can also safely fire +P ammunition for extra power at the possible sacrifice of accuracy and comfort. The LCR's smooth, double-action trigger pull is among the best available for this type of gun.
• Simplicity - being a revolver, there is very little that can go wrong in contrast to a semi-automatic pistol. There is no manual safety to disengage. The safety is built into the double-action mechanism and the internal arrangement of the striking parts. The gun can only fire if one pulls the trigger.
• Great ergonomics - which helps immensely in handling the recoil, and keeping the pistol on target.

On a personal note: I am no longer a youngster and even though I was superbly trained in the use, maintenance and accuracy of various weapons systems in the US Navy, I am not the shooter I once was. And neither are nearly all of the people I know who routinely carry a concealed handgun. We don't practice and train nearly enough, and we are not always prepared for a sudden, violent confrontation. Few people are. Given these facts, it makes sense to me to carry a solidly reliable handgun that I can shoot accurately enough at close ranges if the unlikely event should transpire. This pistol has the ergonomics, reliability and accuracy with the laser to fulfill those requirements. It won't go out of battery, jam, fail to feed or fire, eject or extract. The odds are enormously good that when I pull the trigger it will fire and I will hit what I am aiming at. Every time.

The Sight: LaserMax CenterFire

Why a laser sight? Isn't that just something else to worry about or to go wrong? Those are the most common arguments against using a laser sight on a self-defense gun, but I think they miss the point. The main purpose of a good laser sight on a concealed handgun is to help the shooter to hit what needs to be hit, and nothing else. Who needs it, you might ask? The odds are, you do. 

My guess is that fewer than one percent of the people who will read this article are experienced enough to shoot accurately if they were suddenly launched into a shooting self defense situation. Reading reports of police-involved shootings, even those in which the officers were experienced shooters, reveals that about fifty percent of them don't hit their targets even when they are shooting at bad guys who are within seven to fifteen feet.

I know I can't shoot that well, nor can most civilians who are carrying concealed handguns, so it is very important to give yourself every advantage you can if the balloon goes up. You do not want to shoot an innocent person. Let me repeat that: you never, ever want to be responsible for injuring or killing an innocent person because you can't shoot your weapon accurately. A good laser sight will help you avoid that situation and for that reason alone, you should have one on your weapon and train with it regularly.

For those who think it is too hard to learn how to push a button to turn on a laser sight, well, I can't do much for them except to suggest if that confuses them, they might seriously reconsider carrying a loaded weapon.

I chose the LaserMax for good reasons. It is a quality sight that exactly fits the Ruger LCR. Good holsters are available for it. It doesn't cost an arm and a leg. It remains under my control at all times. If I want it to be on, I simply touch the button with my trigger finger either before I place that finger on the trigger, or while that finger is on its way to the trigger after drawing the weapon. If I don't want the laser on for any reason, it doesn't come on regardless of how I grip the weapon, unlike the grip actuated lasers.

The Holster

Talon IWB outward side.

Talon IWB inward side.

The Talon IWB holster for the Ruger LCR .38 Special.



A good holster is a requirement for a concealed handgun. Good holster. Not the most expensive or exotic or high-tech, but a good one that does the things a good holster must do, day after day. This one, the Talon IWB is more than merely a good holster. It is a surprising holster. Although it doesn't appear extraordinary, after my extensive use in a wide variety of activities, it has proved once again that you "can't tell a book by the cover".  It possesses all of the attributes listed below and more:

• Comfort - this is not an overrated virtue. If one has committed to carrying a concealed handgun, one should carry whenever legally possible, and this means nearly all of the time. At home, in the car, the bus, the grocery store, walking the dog or through a crowded mall. In long movies or performance venues. Your gun must ride along comfortably with you, or you will leave it at home. Or in the car. Or squirm around all day trying to get comfortable with it.
• Security - the holster must keep the gun secure and in place. It should not move around, which impacts the comfort aspect and perhaps the security as well. You don't want to stand up in your favorite restaurant and have your gun fall out of your holster and hit the deck. Embarrassing at the least, hazardous at the worst.
• Safety - allied with security, it also means that it should protect the weapon from negligent discharge. If you are carrying a semi-auto, the magazine release should be safely protected as well. If one chooses an open carry holster, it should have some means whereby the gun is not vulnerable to quick grabs. A locking mechanism or safety strap is a good feature.
• Re-holstering - While not an essential attribute of a good holster, let's face it, if it is easy to re-holster your weapon with one hand, it's just a more friendly holster. 
• Longevity - good holsters are not cheap, and usually, cheap holsters are not good. Buy a good holster or two, keep them for a long, long time and save money in the long run.

In addition to the above, the Talon IWB holster has, for me, another unlooked for and outstanding feature. Variability. I like to carry either strong side, behind the hip, or in the appendix position. I feel they both have their advantages in different circumstances and different dress. This holster is equally at home in both carry positions. Talon designed it as a strong side carry holster, but after wearing it for a few days, I needed to slip my Ruger into the appendix position under a light T-shirt for a quick foray down the block. So, I slid the Talon and the LCR into the appendix spot, in the hollow in front of my hip bone. It fit there easily, comfortably and the cant was just right to angle the grip up into that little depression above my hip where it completely disappeared under the T-shirt. The angle is not so great as to inhibit a clean draw. Now, I probably carry appendix a bit more than strong side, and this one holster easily and effectively accommodates either.

Now, if I can convince Charlie and the boys to design an OWB holster for my LCR/LaserMax rig, I'll be even happier.


The Speed Loader

5 Star Bedside Blocks with loaded loaders...

5 Star Speed Loaders in Aluminum, Black and Zombie Camo

5 Star with .38 Special rounds

I approached the folks at 5 Star Firearms about acquiring a speed loader to combine with my other system components for this article. I received a package a short time later with three speed loaders and two bedside blocks. I'll admit that I had not considered, or requested, loading blocks but the 5 Star folks are better at this than I am, obviously, so they made up for my oversight with the two bedside blocks you see above. They are more than handy. Drop five rounds into the deep block holes, slip the speed loader over them, twist the knob, and shazam!, a loaded loader. Quick. No muss, no fuss. And, keeping them handy by the bedside with loaded loaders nesting inside, makes the speed loaders quickly available for use.

Frankly, I was amazed at the precision and quality of the 5 Star Speed loaders. There is a fresh wind of the old dictum, "form follows function". There is nothing extraneous about them. They are carefully designed to incorporate only those functions that go toward rapid, efficient speed loading of a revolver. No extra metal. No extra weight or bulk to carry around. The speed loaders carry the .38 Special rounds securely with enough play so that precise alignment is not an issue, and they release quickly and easily with a twist of the flat-sided knob. These loaders speak quality from top to bottom.


So there you have it, my idea of a Simplified Carry System, the SCS. It's composed of a,

• high-quality, light weight revolver for reliable action and sufficient, manageable firepower; 
• a tightly-integrated and controllable laser sight for safety and accuracy under pressure; 
• a sensibly priced, very comfortable and effective concealment holster, and
• a reliable, finely-made speed loader

I know there will be many who will disagree with my choices for the components of my Simplified Carry System. That is as it should be. No gun, holster, ammunition and accessories are meant to be all things to all people. However, I do stand by it as a system that anyone can put together quickly, at a reasonable price and have a solid concealed carry system that is reliable, effective and concealable without ending up with some unused guns, a box of old holsters under the bed and the nagging feeling that you might not be able to shoot accurately enough when you have to.