Idealism, Violence and Guns

As a man once wrote, "When I hear a window breaking in the night, I want to be armed with something more than my idealism."

Ruger LCR with LaserMax sight

Can't argue with that. Well, some people could, and would, but they are among the don't confuse me with the facts crowd.

Ideals are fine. In fact, having ideals is a mark of a civilized person. Unrealistic ideals, though, are something else entirely. When ideals meet facts, the rational response is to re-evaluate your ideals. Perhaps they need modification, or more. So, when I have the occasion to talk guns and gun 'control' with friends and others, I tend to deal in facts. You might find these useful:

Weaker people – women, elderly, handicapped, children, etc. – are at the mercy of violence, or worse, from a stronger person, or people unless the weaker person has a firearm. This is a totally defensible fact. Sam Harris said it better than I could:

"But when all else fails, a gun in the hands of a woman trained to use it is the best solution that civilization has found for the problem of male aggression (I am speaking here, not about domestic violence per se, but about attacks on women in general). Indeed, there are situations in which a gun in the hands of a woman who is untrained can suffice to save her life. An ethical argument for the banning of guns must tell us why it would have been preferable for this woman to have been armed only with a frying pan."

Just because an idealistic person might plead aversion to violence and prefer reasoning with an intruder does not mean that everyone else must adopt that response.

Violence – ideally, it would be great if all of the violent people in the world were suddenly rounded up and locked away, or a serum was developed to make everyone peaceful and nice. Until that day, or one like it, comes, there will always be violence perpetrated in the world, much of it on innocent victims unable to defend themselves. Violent people do not usually seek out strong, capable people, especially people whom they suspect might be carrying a gun. They look for the weak and unaware. All of the mass shootings have occurred in "gun free zones". There was a reason for this.

So, taking the two topics above, weaker people and violent people, it only makes sense to be prepared to defend oneself and others. Sure, the odds of being violently attacked in the USA are small, but not as small as some people think.

No Guns = Less Violence - Unfortunately for those that cling to this view, the facts don't support their case. Countries that have banned handguns have fewer handgun shootings than the USA, but far more violence.

Here are a few facts (thanks to Sam Harris' website):

Incidents in the year 2010 per 100,000 population

Homicide:
U.S.  4.8
UK (includes Northern Ireland)  1.2
Australia 1.0
Sweden 1.0

Rape:
U.S.  27.3
UK (England and Wales)  28.8 
Australia 88.4
Sweden   63.5

Assault
U.S.  250.9
U.K. (England and Wales)  664.4
Australia   766
Sweden   936.6
Scotland 1449.7

Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)

Note: UNODC data and those of the Australian government do not agree. For Australian rates of Assault and Rape, I have relied on the report issued by the Australian Institute of Criminology

So, basically, those in favor of banning guns are willing to accept much higher possibilities of being assaulted without adequate means of fighting back. Doesn't matter how much hand-to-hand street fighting training grandma has, its not going to matter when that eighteen year old junkie decides to take her out for the social security money in her purse.

Guns are 'bad' and designed to kill people - "Bad" is a relative term. This is easily illustrated by the fact that, according to the economist Steven J. Levitt, if you own a gun and a swimming pool, the swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill your child than your gun is. Driving your children to school while texting your girlfriend yet being worried about normal citizens going crazy with guns is an example of twisted priorities about the nature of good and bad. There are times when a gun is a tool that is much more useful than either a swimming pool or being able to send text messages on your smart phone.

A bad gun can suddenly turn into a good thing when drug addled psychopaths are crashing into your home.

Enough with the 'facts'.

Simply put, the world is a violent place. Always has been and I see no indication that will change. Given this fact, and the fact that the only thing that gives the average person an equalizer with which to protect herself and others from violent people is a gun, the urge to take guns away from law abiding citizens is both stupid (as adverse to ignorant. Ignorance can be overcome with education.) idealistic and will do nothing to abate violence or protect others from it. If the statistics from 'gun free' countries is any guide, banning guns will only serve to increase violence.

Don't try to enforce your idealism on others. Live your own lives and we will live ours.

Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns?

Sam Harris is a neuroscientist who is also a philosopher, atheist and author of many books and articles on those and other topics. He also wrote: "Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world."

In my view, Sam would be considered a liberal, as am I, which would cause many gun owners and supporters of the right of self defense to dismiss him without further adoo. This would be a big mistake. Sam has put together the most cogent, reasonable and supportive arguments for the legal right and responsibilities of the American citizen to own, carry and, if absolutely necessary, use guns for self defense and the defense of others. I know that if you also believe this, you may want to dismiss Sam's reasoning, but you should not. He makes a very strong case, which, while also recognizing the fear and misunderstandings of the anti-gun factions, supports these rights.

With his permission, I have included some excerpts and remarks from his essay, "The Puzzle of the Gun" below. I urge you to read the entire essay here:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

Reading it in it's entirety will take about fifteen minutes. A brief time well spent. I have included some excerpts from Sam's article below. These are meant to capture some of the main points and to whet your curiosity so that you will read the entire thing, think about it, and be more informed to discuss these issues with all sides.


Selected excerpts from Sam's Harris' The Riddle of the Gun: 

Fantasists and zealots can be found on both sides of the debate over guns in America. On the one hand, many gun-rights advocates reject even the most sensible restrictions on the sale of weapons to the public. On the other, proponents of stricter gun laws often seem unable to understand why a good person would ever want ready access to a loaded firearm. Between these two extremes we must find grounds for a rational discussion about the problem of gun violence. (my emphasis)


(Otherwise intelligent people...)

Most of my friends do not own guns and never will. When asked to consider the possibility of keeping firearms for protection, they worry that the mere presence of them in their homes would put themselves and their families in danger. Can’t a gun go off by accident? Wouldn’t it be more likely to be used against them in an altercation with a criminal? I am surrounded by otherwise intelligent people who imagine that the ability to dial 911 is all the protection against violence a sane person ever needs.

But, unlike my friends, I own several guns and train with them regularly. Every month or two, I spend a full day shooting with a highly qualified instructor. This is an expensive and time-consuming habit, but I view it as part of my responsibility as a gun owner. It is true that my work as a writer has added to my security concerns somewhat, but my involvement with guns goes back decades. I have always wanted to be able to protect myself and my family, and I have never had any illusions about how quickly the police can respond when called. I have expressed my views on self-defense elsewhere. Suffice it to say, if a person enters your home for the purpose of harming you, you cannot reasonably expect the police to arrive in time to stop him. This is not the fault of the police—it is a problem of physics.

(The ethical importance of guns...)

Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. 

... A world without guns is a world in which no man, not even a member of Seal Team Six, can reasonably expect to prevail over more than one determined attacker at a time. A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?

(Carrying in public...)

Carrying a gun in public, however, entails even greater responsibility than keeping one at home, and in most states the laws reflect this. Like many gun-control advocates, I have serious concerns about letting ordinary citizens walk around armed. Ordinary altercations can become needlessly deadly in the presence of a weapon. A scuffle that exposes a gun in a person’s waistband, for instance, can quickly become a fight to the death—where the first person to get his hands on the weapon may feel justified using it in “self-defense.”

Some Facts About Guns

(Mass shootings...)

Fifty-five million kids went to school on the day that 20 were massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. Even in the United States, therefore, the chances of a child’s dying in a school shooting are remote. As my friend Steven Pinker demonstrates in his monumental study of human violence, The Better Angels of Our Nature, our perception of danger is easily distorted by rare events. Is gun violence increasing in the United States? No.

Seventy mass shootings have occurred in the U.S. since 1982, leaving 543 dead. These crimes were horrific, but 564,452 other homicides took place in the U.S. during the same period. Mass shootings scarcely represent 0.1 percent of all murders. When talking about the problem of guns in our society, it is easy to lose sight of the worst violence and to become fixated on symbols of violence.

(Context and risk...)

Of course, it is important to think about the problem of gun violence in the context of other risks. For instance, it is estimated that 100,000 Americans die each year because doctors and nurses fail to wash their hands properly. Measured in bodies, therefore, the problem of hand washing in hospitals is worse than the problem of guns, even if we include accidents and suicides. But not all deaths are equivalent. A narrow focus on mortality rates does not always do justice to the reality of human suffering. Mass shootings are a marginal concern, even relative to other forms of gun violence, but they cause an unusual degree of terror and grief—particularly when children are targeted. Given the psychological and social costs of certain low-frequency events, it does not seem irrational to allocate disproportionate resources to prevent them.

(Protection...)

As Jeffrey Goldberg points out in The Atlantic, it may no longer be rational to hope that we can solve the problem of gun violence by restricting access to guns—because guns are everywhere, and the only people who will be deterred by stricter laws are precisely those law-abiding citizens who should be able to possess guns for their own protection and who now constitute one of the primary deterrents to violent crime. This is, of course, a familiar “gun nut” talking point. But that doesn’t make it wrong.

(Focus on the wrong things...)

Another problem with liberal dreams of gun control is that the kinds of guns used in the vast majority of crimes would not fall under any plausible weapons ban. And advocates of stricter gun laws who claim to respect the rights of “sportsmen” or “hunters,” and to recognize a legitimate need for “home defense,” simply give the game away at the outset. The very guns that law-abiding citizens use for recreation or home defense are, in fact, the problem.

In the vast majority of murders committed with firearms—even most mass killings—the weapon used is a handgun. Unless we outlaw and begin confiscating handguns, the weapons best suited for being carried undetected into a classroom, movie theater, restaurant, or shopping mall for the purpose of committing mass murder will remain readily available in the United States. But no one is seriously proposing that we address the problem on this level. In fact, the Supreme Court has recently ruled, twice (in 2008 and 2010), that banning handguns would be unconstitutional.

The problem, therefore, is that with respect to either factor that makes a gun suitable for mass murder—ease of concealment (a handgun) or range (a rifle)—the most common and least stigmatized weapons are among the most dangerous. Gun-control advocates seem perversely unaware of this. As a consequence, we routinely hear the terms “semi-automatic” and “assault weapon” intoned with misplaced outrage and awe.

(Dispair and amazement...)

As Goldberg notes, with understandable despair and amazement, the security plans at many schools encourage students to spontaneously arm themselves with pencils and laptops and engage a shooter directly in defense of their lives—all the while forbidding the lawful possession of firearms on campus, no matter what a person’s training. As Goldberg says, “The existence of these policies suggests that universities know they cannot protect their students during an armed attack.” 

(Guns in the hands of good people...)

Gun-control advocates appear unable to distinguish situations in which a gun in the hands of a good person would be useless (or worse) and those in which it would be likely to save dozens of innocent lives. They are eager to extrapolate from the Aurora shooting to every other possible scene of mass murder. However, a single gunman trying to force his way into a school, or roaming its hallways, or even standing in a classroom surrounded by dead and dying children, would be far easier to engage effectively—with a gun—than James Holmes would have been in a dark and crowded movie theater. Even in the case of the Aurora shooting, it is not ludicrous to suppose that everyone might have been better off had a well-trained person with a gun been at the scene. The liberal commentariat seems to have no awareness of what “well-trained” signifies. It happens to include an understanding of what to do and what not to do when the danger of shooting innocent bystanders exists. The fact that bystanders do occasionally get shot, even by police officers, does not prove that putting guns in the hands of good people would be a bad idea. Gun-control advocates seem always to imagine the worst possible scenario: legions of untrained, delusional vigilantes producing their weapons at a pin drop and firing indiscriminately into a crowd.

(Using furniture as a self defense response to an active shooter...)

Needless to say, it is easy to see how things can go badly when anyone draws a firearm defensively. But when an armed man enters an office building, restaurant, or school for the purpose of murdering everyone in sight, things are going very badly already. Imagine being one of the people in the Houston video trapped in the office with no recourse but to hide under a desk. Would you really be relieved to know that up until that moment, your workplace had been an impeccably gun-free environment and that no one, not even your friend who did three tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, would be armed? If you found yourself trapped with others in a conference room, preparing to attack the shooter with pencils and chairs, can you imagine thinking, “I’m so glad no one else has a gun, because I wouldn’t want to get caught in any crossfire”?  Despite what the New York Times and dozens of other editorial pages have avowed in the weeks since Newtown, it isn’t a vigilante delusion to believe that guns in the hands of good people would improve the odds of survival in deadly encounters of this kind. The delusion is to think that everyone would be better off defending his or her life with furniture.

And those who are horrified at the idea of stationing a police officer in every school should be obliged to tell us how long they would like to wait for the police to arrive in the event that they are needed. Declaring schools to be “gun-free zones” makes them especially good places to commit mass murder—this is more NRA propaganda that happens to be true.  With the exception of the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every mass shooting since 1950 has taken place where civilians are forbidden to carry firearms [Correction 1/11/13: I have been informed that this mall is a gun-free zone too.]

(Some real and positive things we can do...)

We could do many things to ensure that only fully vetted people could get a licensed firearm. The fact that guns in the U.S. can be legally purchased from private sellers without background checks on the buyers (the so-called “gun show loophole”) is terrifying. Getting a gun license could be made as difficult as getting a license to fly an airplane, requiring dozens of hours of training. I would certainly be happy to see policy changes like this. In that respect, I support much stricter gun laws. But I am under no illusions that such restrictions would make it difficult for bad people to acquire guns illegally.  Given the level of violence in our society, the ubiquity of guns, and the fact that our penitentiaries function like graduate schools for violent criminals, I think sane, law-abiding people should have access to guns. In that respect, I support the rights of gun owners.

Finally, I have said nothing here about what might cause a person like Adam Lanza to enter a school for the purpose of slaughtering innocent children. Clearly, we need more resources in the areas of childhood and teenage mental health, and we need protocols for parents, teachers, and fellow students to follow when a young man in their midst begins to worry them. In the majority of cases, someone planning a public assassination or a mass murder will communicate his intentions to others in advance of the crime. People need to feel personally responsible for acting on this information—and the authorities must be able to do something once the information gets passed along. But again, any law that allows us to commit or imprison people on the basis of a mere perception of risk would guarantee that large numbers of innocent people will be held against their will.

Rather than new laws, I believe we need a general shift in our attitude toward public violence—wherein everyone begins to assume some responsibility for containing it. It is worth noting that this shift has already occurred in one area of our lives, without anyone’s having received special training or even agreeing that a change in attitude was necessary: Just imagine how a few men with box cutters would now be greeted by their fellow passengers at 30,000 feet.

Perhaps we can find the same resolve on the ground.

Laser Myths

As I noted on this blog earlier, there is a high bandwidth of ignorant and misinformed internet opinions available at the click of a mouse. They live among, and sometimes overwhelm, factual, rational and real information that would be helpful to the curious and the uninitiated. Gun forums are particularly prone to becoming a venue for unsupported opinion and basic misinformation. The interesting but unfortunate consequence of this is that many wrong, stupid, ignorant and sometimes hazardous opinions are accepted as fact.

In this post, I would like to offer some facts and reason to evaluate a common internet gun forum topic about which laser sight is "better", disregarding that "better" in this context is a very undefined attribute.

I have read many forum posts that go back and forth about which laser sight is "better": the LaserMax CenterFire or the Crimson Trace Laserguard. Mostly, the comments center on perceived notions of size, shape, beam and actuation preferences. Price usually doesn't come up, although the CT (Crimson Trace) is much more costly than the LM (LaserMax).It seems to me that the purpose of a laser sight on a handgun is to provide a highly visible aiming point on the same plane as the target when one wishes to fire a shot. This is especially important under low light conditions and with small handguns that are difficult to shoot accurately. All laser sights will do this with the same focal precision and power. The amount of power a laser sight maker can supply to the device is restricted. 

Looking at the LaserMax and the Crimson Trace models that attach to the underside of the frame, their size, weight and profiles are close enough to not make a real difference. I have used both and can vouch for this fact. Arguments about one being "slimmer" than the other are nonsense in any meaningful sense.


The main difference between the LaserMax CenterFire and the Crimson Trace Laserguard, disregarding cost, is the method of operation. With the LM you have a choice; with the CT, you don't.

The CT laser, given a firm grip on the pistol, is always on regardless of whether you want it on or not. I don't like technology that tries to do my thinking for me. I suspect that many people don't want to have to think about this so they go for the default "on" state. This indicates a lack of training on their part and their not understanding that the only time you need or want a laser shining from your gun is when you need to shoot.

Anybody can grab a CT equipped handgun and turn on the laser. Doesn't matter if they know what they are doing or not, whether their finger is on the trigger when they draw or not. As long as they hold the pistol with a firm grip, the CT laser is always shining. To disengage it, one has to modify the grip. Not a particularly optimal choice.

Additionally, I've noticed that with small guns like the LCP, where there are two fingers on the grip, depending on the shooter's hand size, the CT doesn't always stay on under rapid fire when the fingers may shift a bit under the recoil and mental pressure. If you are focused on the red dot and it suddenly disappears, you can be distracted and that next round may end up somewhere you didn't want it to go. Yes, if you can maintain a consistent hold and grip pressure during a self-defense shooting episode, this probably won't happen. But I submit that most people won't be that aware and precise.

Which leads to the fact that with the LM, the shooter always has the choice of the laser being on, or off. Whichever, it's not going to change from that state unexpectedly. 
You will see many posts about this by people who haven't bothered to learn and train sufficiently for defensive shooting. Think about it. 

If someone is set to quickly grab their gun and begin banging off shots with the laser on, I think this shows a lack of basic training on safe gun handling and shooting. When we train to operate defensively, we train to quickly and consistently draw our weapon from the holster, and position, of our choosing, in such a manner as to not shoot ourselves or an innocent bystander in the process. Proper grip. Trigger finger extended alongside the slide or trigger guard (varies with gun model of course). Extract gun and rotate clear of the body, pointing down range toward the target area. Finger extended, not on the trigger. Threat identification. Decision to shoot or not. If yes, finger goes to trigger as the weapon is centered on the target. Fire.

In the above scenario the only time the laser needs to be on is when you decide to shoot. If you are doing things right, the CT comes on when you grip the pistol in the holster. The LM does not. Why? Because you haven't turned it on. When can you turn it on? Whenever you choose because, if you are doing this right, as your gun clears the holster, your trigger finger will be resting on the LM slide switch. When your finger sweeps back to the trigger - whenever you decide to fire - the slide switch gets pushed in and the laser goes on as your finger slides into the trigger guard. Or, you may decide not to shoot but to actuate the laser anyway. Push the switch and it's on. Enough? Push the switch to turn it off. 

It is easy and natural to push the slide switch off with the thumb on your supporting hand to disengage the laser. Then, your trigger finger will automatically (it should!) be extended and again resting naturally on the LM slide switch where it all began.

With the CT, you are shining that laser beam around all the time, whether you have decided to shoot or not, unless you relax the grip on your weapon. And, if you are drawing, presenting and aiming correctly with a CT equipped gun, your trigger finger will be extended alongside the weapon, just like in the LM example, until you make the conscious decision to shoot. However, there won't be a switch under your finger because your laser will always be on, regardless of whether you want it on or not.

I've gone into some detail about this because this is a serious matter and deserves a serious and detailed examination, not off-hand remarks.

Statistics will show that the idea that all or most deadly force self defense shooting encounters are not of the split-second grab and shoot as fast as possible kind. Many encounters don't involve shooting at all, but the presentation of a deadly threat -  your weapon -  to a potential criminal perpetrator. Just the sight of your handgun may be enough to defuse the threat. Or that and the purposeful switching on of a little red dot on the middle of his chest. The fact remains, that if the person legally carrying is sufficiently trained to handle his or her weapon correctly, that person will be in charge of when and if the laser sight needs to be actuated and can do so as effectively and quickly with a LM as with a CT. But, with the LM, you get to be in control and make the decisions.

Simply put, if a person is trained to properly grasp, present, aim and fire a handgun in a self defense scenario, one is, by that very fact, trained to be in control of a LaserMax sight.

Three Laws of Concealed Carry

Image from: freedomoutpost.com

There, arguably, may be more than three laws, or absolute requirements for legally carrying a concealed weapon, but if so, I argue that these are the top three.

One: Always carry where legally possible.
Two: You are responsible for where all bullets stop that you fire from your weapon.
Three: Know for certain when you must not shoot.

Number One is more often not practiced than it is. There are many reasons people give themselves for not carrying. You can think of some, like, too uncomfortable, I'm just going down the block to the store, I will be in church, we live in a safe town/neighborhood/area, and many more. We've all had those thoughts. If you live in a low crime, small town, rural area there is not much likelihood of suffering a sudden home invasion. You have to decide whether not much likelihood is acceptable when you think about home carry. Is that the only possibility of being threatened with deadly force at home? Maybe. Maybe not. The simple fact is, that if you need to resort to your gun (more on this in number three, below) and you don't have it, or have quick enough access to it, that option disappears.

Number Two is true both morally and legally. Guns are dangerous. That is their purpose, but like any dangerous tool, consider chain saws if you will, it is incumbent on their owners to know this and be practiced and trained in their safe use. But with guns, a more important requirement is imposed on the owner and user, that of the absolute responsibility to not injure or kill an innocent person through neglect, inappropriate use, ignorance, lack of sufficient training, and so forth. It's a long list. Simply put, you are responsible for what happens when you pull the trigger, so you better be sure you know how to shoot safely and to be able to reliably hit only what you intend. This includes the responsibility, for example, of using the appropriate gun and ammunition. If you carry a .357 magnum with full metal jacket bullets and you shoot a bad guy, your bullet goes through him, through a wall and hits an innocent person, you are responsible, just as if you had shot and missed your target. If you had used, say, a regular .38 special, or perhaps a .380 self defense round, the chances of this happening are reduced. Something to think about. And, for the big caliber boys who love their .45s and .40s and other high-powered handguns, I would caution that you especially are at risk of a similar unfortunate occurrence.

Not every man has to have a big gun to be effective. Women don't have this problem.

Number Three is, in my view, the most important of the three 'laws' for the legal concealed carry person. I have had, and read through, many discussions and arguments on this point. I have a prior post here describing what I learned in a class about the Legal Aftermath of a Self Defense shooting. You should read it if you haven't, and if you have, you should probably read it again. It is vitally important to understand how this may affect you.

There is a school of thought on this that when a properly trained, and I mean by that trained in the use and safety of your gun, and also in your legal rights and responsibilities, a person is less likely to get involved in situation which might escalate to violence. Such a person is also more likely to have developed a heightened awareness of his or her surroundings and situations, thereby begin able to defuse, or avoid those that might escalate. Good in theory, but I find that in practice, this does not always work out as planned. For men. I suspect women will have a completely different, and likely more sane and appropriate response. For men, often the opposite but subtle influence of concealed carry on their psyches is the opposite.

Men are by nature more competitive than women. Doesn't mean we are better, but we have the tendency to be in competition with other men. If a man is in a situation in which the signals and signs are such that it is likely, or becoming likely, that a confrontation may develop, then for a man to bow out, apologize, perhaps take a load of crap from a loud-mouth jerk, is going against most men's belief in 'manhood'. You are taught to be brave, stand up for yourself, don't let a jerk push you around. Maybe this was good when you were a teenager or working on becoming one, but as an adult this will most usually lead to trouble. And if you happened to be carrying a gun, it can lead to the most serious of trouble.

Even though the knowledge is there, or ought to be there, in your consciousness that you are legally carrying a potentially deadly weapon and getting involved in an situation that may, or is, escalating toward physical violence, it may get lost in the male adrenaline rush. It's hard to back down and lose face, especially when this happens in the presence of friends, or perhaps your family. However that may be, the responsible and moral person who is carrying a gun must avoid, defuse or abandon such situations whenever and however possible. Slink away. Take the abuse. Be a pussy. Say, "I'm sorry." Say, "Please forgive me, it won't happen again." Say, "You're right. I'm wrong. So sorry."

Difficult? Damn right. Correct response? Damn right. What is the alternative? Escalate to the point where a fight starts, the guy knocks you down and starts to stomp your face and you get your pistol and shoot him dead. Or shoot someone else standing around? That's only one example of many, many possible bad outcomes for you and other people.

So your pride has been hurt. Your kids think you are a weenie, a coward. Better than seeing you hurt, dead, in jail and filled with remorse for the rest of your life.

Having a concealed firearm on your belt should be a constant reminder of the awesome moral and legal responsibilities you have accepted in so doing. Your legal requirements are clearly listed in your state's statutes. Find them. Read them. A number of times. Memorize them. They will state under what circumstances you are entitled to resort to your gun for self defense or the defense of others. They vary state by state. Don't seek out gun websites to tell you about this. And, never resort to gun forums. There is too much self-interest, ignorance and political crap out there as it is. Would you trust your future to some idiot with a screen name like 45acp to advise you on moral and legal responsibilities? I hope not.

You and I have the right to self defense for ourselves and our loved ones, and in most instances, those of innocent people who are in similar danger. Those rights are spelled out in the state law where you live, and where you are if such a situation develops. Learn them and remember them. They exist for your protection and the protection of other citizens who do not choose to exercise their Second Amendment guarantees.

Some preliminary thoughts about the carry part of concealed carry.

As we all know there are many different approaches to designing and making holsters for carrying a handgun concealed. I have tried and tested many of them, and written about many in this blog. I think the main reason why we accumulate so many different holsters over time is that we initially don't answer a fundamental question: what type of holster will I carry the most often and the most comfortably?

This is based upon the assumption that if one goes to all of the trouble to get a concealed carry permit, then one will be carrying a handgun whenever possible. What is the alternative? To guess when you will not be needing to protect yourself or others? How will you do that? So, given that many of us (not most, probably) who have a permit will have a gun on their person whenever possible, it makes sense that a holster has to be comfortable and useful enough to be with us constantly.

Concealed carry holsters have to meet basic criteria: be safe, provide quick and unencumbered access to the handgun, hold the weapon securely, be generally concealable and comfortable. It's the last part, "comfortable" that is the issue.

My opinion is that for most of us, the best carry position is the appendix followed by the cross draw. They a couple of important advantages: easy to access when sitting; and easily protected from grabs or from someone bumping into you and feeling that gun on your hip. But to effectively conceal in those positions, the gun and holster should be carried inside the waistband, or with an effective covering garment. Not always possible in warm weather. A really loose shirt will work if you carry in these positions OWB, but you will have places, times and positions where your gun will be obvious to bystanders. So, inside the waistband is called for in most situations. The bad part: comfort.

Holster makers have come up with various solutions to this IWB issue, and, if you carry long enough, and anything larger than an LCP-sized handgun, it becomes an issue. A good, firm leather holster for a medium sized handgun will, in order to offer a certain level of comfort, will be thick and wide. A good kydex IWB holster is much thinner, but will either stick you in the ribs with the slide (sweat) shield, or if it does not have one, with the pistol's slide. The hybrid models that provide a wide backing of leather with two clips and a kydex holster are difficult to put on and you have a foot-wide hunk of leather wrapped to your torso all day.

I think the same can be said about wearing one of these types at the strong-side positions, like 3, 4 or 5 o'clock for right hand shooters. Whichever position you choose, your pants and belt must wrap around the gun and the holster, creating a large bulge that is clamped to your body and is always there in your consciousness, pressing into your hip or stomach like a heavy parasite.

I used to dismiss those people who say or write that they just can't get used to IWB carry. I no longer do so, but have come to appreciate their position. I seem to naturally reach for an OWB holster for my everyday carry, especially around the house. If I'm going out for a half-hour or so, I am ok with IWB, but if it's going to be longer, especially if we are on a car trip for a day, I don't like it. I make my pistol accessible, but not on me, while driving. When I get out, it goes along too. But, more often in an OWB cross draw or on the strong side where I don't have to live with a hunk of leather, or kydex and a heavy handgun stuck in my pants.

Of course your mileage and preferences will vary. Many people don't mind IWB carry and it works for them. But, after a long time carrying I have come to the conclusion that I want a balance between access and comfort so I am tending to the OWB style for most of my carry situations.

Spyderco Redefines Ugly as Beautiful

It is the hands that tell the tale. They go naturally to the knife and around the handle. The thumb falls naturally onto the large hole drilled into the top of the blade and a quick flick and snap of the wrist shoots the blade from the handle and it locks into place with a satisfying "clack!". Or, the thumb rotates smoothly around bringing the blade with it until it locks open. Watching a movie, or reading a book, often the hand seeks the knife and idly, almost subconsciously opens and closes it, opens and closes, grooving the movements into the brain and muscle memory.

When the knife is open, the handle shape and material seems to be made for secure holding and manipulation. The curves and dips fit the hand naturally and orient the blade for work.

The blade is a real anomaly for a pocket or folding knife. It's pretty much ugly if you don't understand why it is shaped and made the way it is. I never did, until I got one. I was always attracted first by blade shape in a knife. I like the Wharncliffe and the traditional drop point hunting blade shapes. Of course I've been interested in the tanto and Ken Onion's sweeping curved blade shapes too. But the Spyderco? With the hump and hole in the top, the almost leaf-shape and the flat grind? What's that all about?

Well, now I'm coming to know and appreciate what that is about.

The leaf shape with a slight but useful belly is a great cutting and slicing shape. The point is in line with the midline of the entire knife, so thrust cuts are right on, and sharpening isn't unnecessarily difficult. The flat grind is what you need for clean, sharp slicing which is where most EDC knife tasks will be anyway. And, that hump. It keeps the 13mm or so hole in the top of the blade accessible for opening the blade with one hand when necessary.

With the blade open and locked and the knife in your hand, it fits like it is supposed to – comfortable, secure and shaped for different cutting grips.

And, a feature I'm growing to appreciate is the quality of the VG-10 steel in the Spyderco blade. It came very sharp and remains paper-slicing sharp even after a few weeks of regular use. I don't like a high maintenance blade.

So, I'm satisfied with my new everyday carry knife, the Spyderco Delica4. I've been so happy with it, that I've ordered a smaller version, the Dragonfly 2 for those times I want a smaller carry knife but with the same features and advantages of the Delica. I know that I'm in the honeymoon period with the Delica now, so I'll check back in from time to time and report on how the marriage is going. With both the Delica and the Dragonfly.