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