Colorado Concealed Carry on Campus: The Facts are In

Image: usconcealedcarry.com

I suppose if you have your emotional life bound up in something, it won't matter whether that something turns out to be true or not. You will continue to insist your emotional viewpoint is right even though the facts (reality) show you to be wrong. Case in point, Colorado's twelve year experience with legal on-campus carry.

When the Colorado legislature decided to even the field, dispensing with the often contradictory and unrealistic web of local, municipal and county concealed carry laws by establishing state wide statutes that invalidated all of those others, the Regents of the University of Colorado felt that they were somehow superior to the lawmakers and could rule over the state colleges regardless of the wishes of the people and legislature.

The Colorado Supreme Court said otherwise. Naturally, certain segments of the communities involved were terribly shocked and outraged, predicting an onslaught of gun violence on campus. Pretty standard fare for them. However, after over twelve years in which adults with valid carry permits have been carrying their guns on Colorado campuses, there have been no shootings by concealed carry permit holders, or by anyone else. A Colorado University employee did discharge her weapon while "showing it" and was promptly and properly fired.

I want to put forward a few quotes by David Kopek from his Washington Post article of April 20, Guns on university campuses: The Colorado experience.

"In 2003, the Colorado legislature enacted the Concealed Carry Act. The statute was written by County Sheriffs of Colorado, the organization which represents all 62 of Colorado’s elected Sheriffs. The Act passed with broad bipartisan support, including all Republicans and almost every Democrat except some from Denver and Boulder." 

Even though, as Mr. Kopek points out, the act had broad bipartisan support, there were some people who felt that their personal opinions matter more and they needed to help everyone else bow to their wishes. They are still pushing to get their way mostly by fear-mongering and presenting their cherry-picked and skewed ideas that "guns are bad”. Even after twelve years that solidly demonstrate otherwise, these people are still not satisfied and and tried again in 2013 to have legal handguns banned from college campuses. As the Colorado Sheriffs have pointed out, adults who have been licensed to carry guns in the state should not lose their right of self defense when they attend or teach at a college campus.

I think the most telling parts of this story are demonstrated by two things: the fact that violence has not escalated on Colorado campuses since this act was enforced, just the opposite, and that especially for women, the campuses are safer places than before. Here are a couple of examples from Mr. Kopel's article that brings this point home.

"The Colorado Sheriffs’ support for defensive arms carrying is confirmed by national data. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts in-person interviews with several thousand persons annually, for the National Crime Victimization Survey. In 1992-2002, over 2,000 of the persons interviewed disclosed they had been raped or sexually assaulted. Of them, only 26 volunteered that they used a weapon to resist. In none of these cases was the rape completed; in none of the cases did the victim suffer additional injury after she deployed her weapon."

And, in particular the testimony of Amanda Collins, again from Mr. Kopel's article:

"In 2012 the Colorado Supreme Court ruled 7-0 that the University of Colorado must obey the Concealed Carry Act. This was consistent with the precedent the CU has no special exemption from civil rights statutes.

But in 2013 a bill was introduced to outlaw licensed carry on all campuses. Rape survivor Amanda Collins testified before the Senate State Affairs Committee about how a ban on campus carry had affected her life. As a 21-year old, Msw Collins had a Nevada defensive handgun license. But the University of Nevada at Reno did not allow licensed firearms on campus. She was raped in then parking garage of the campus police station, which was closed for the night.

The crime took place just a few feet from an emergency call box.

 “How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?” she asked the Colorado Senators. State Senator Evie Hudak told Collins that if Collins had been carrying a gun, statistics showed that the gun would have been taken from her. Actually, statistics show that fewer than one percent of defensive gun use results in the defender’s gun being taken.

“Respectfully senator, you weren’t there,” Collins responded. “Had I been carrying concealed, he wouldn’t have known I had my weapon; and I was there. I know without a doubt in my mind at some point I would’ve been able to stop my attack by using my firearm. He already had a weapon of his own; he didn’t need mine.”

Because the rapist was not stopped that night, he later raped two more women and murdered one.

Senator Hudak resigned in December 2013, to avoid a recall election.”

I think that supporting licensed adults the right to carry on campus for self defense has been proven to work, regardless of the dire predictions from the hand-wringing fear ridden opponents, and that it is certainly a step forward for women in Colorado. Predators like to prey on the weak and having a concealed carry equalizer on your person takes that advantage away.

Women, arm yourselves.

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.

A Powerful, Well Reasoned Statement About Civil Rights (read: 'gun control')

A friend, a former commune hippie living up in the mountains, passed this on the other day. As in most things, it is wise to not rely on assumptions. Hippies, current and former, are often considered to be left leaning, tree-hugging, socialist and anti-guns. This is perhaps the norm with city-dwelling hippies, but the ones I have lived with and known who make our homes in the country, the farms and the mountains are quite the opposite. All of the old hippies I know would agree with the 'virtual' President's statements.

I do.

Even though both sides of this question are too often drenched in emotional bullshit, if one can dig oneself out of the manure pile and marshal facts in support of your argument, it is, maybe, possible to reach some kind of consensus on this.

Just because you don't (or do) like something, doesn't mean it is wrong.

A Virtual Presidental Address on Guns

More Guns Means More "Gun Deaths"

I saw that someone posted this little bit of relatively useless information on facebook. Now, naturally, many folks will interpret this to mean that anyone having a gun is likely to use it to kill someone else. But, let's look a little deeper into this bit of folk 'wisdom'.

Firstly, I would note that if in fact there are more 'gun deaths' and also an increase in the number of guns, it is logical that an increasing number of people killed by the gun were shot by a legal gun owner defending his or her life and or property. That is a good thing.

It is also logical to think that many of the possessors of "more guns" are bad guys, criminals and crooks who are busy doing each other in. This is also a good thing.

A good argument can also be made that with an increase in the number of citizens owning and legally carrying guns for self defense, the number of citizen (read: good people) deaths have decreased since criminals are less likely to rob, assault and try to kill someone whom they suspect is armed. This fits nicely with the notion that the bad guys are doing themselves in more frequently.

On the other side, let's say that there were far fewer guns, that citizens were prohibited from owning or carrying guns. Then, I'd agree that the number of "gun deaths" might decrease overall, but would definitely increase for the poor, defenseless public.

Making bald, unsupported and ambiguous statements like "more guns equal more gun deaths" is like saying "more cars equal more car deaths". Maybe, but getting to what that really means, if it is true at all, requires honesty, research and an unbiased desire to get at the truth.


Like Mark Twain said, there are "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics".

Here are a few facts, not biased in one way or the other, just facts that can be checked for accuracy. From "Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 12/28/12.

A note about the research by Agresti and Smith:

This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available.

Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys, but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating. Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results.

Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility.

See the link below for the source of the facts to follow and to see more for yourself:
 http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp:


In 2011 the US had a murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000. Chicago alone (known for their strict gun laws, even banning handguns) had a murder rate of 15.9. The last time our murder rate was below 4.7 was in 1963. State of Vermont allows anybody who can legally own a firearm to be able to carry it without a permit. Their murder rate is .4 per 100,000

According toBureau of Justice Statistics numbers, each year between 1987 and 1992 about 62,200 victims of violent crimes used guns to defend themselves, while another 20,000 annually used guns to protect property. According to the National Self-Defense Survey conducted by criminology professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University in 1993, Americans used guns 2.3 million times a year to defend themselves between 1988 and 1993.

A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

A Few Facts About Carrying a Gun for Self Defense

There is a source available on the internet for facts concerning many important topics and issues. Gun Control is one of these. The source is Just Facts. This is a valuable and important source for all gun owners and self-defense carry people to know about and be familiar with because, in the current gun debate, facts are the best tools you can have.

What distinguishes this resource from many other internet "fact sources" is the site's care to be unbiased and to avoid skewed and inaccurate data.

In JustFacts introductory note they say:

"This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available.

Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys, but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating. Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results.

Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts'Standards of Credibility."

Justfacts.com is one research source I can rely upon to provide fact-based information from which I can draw my own conclusions. To that end, I present some interesting facts gleaned from their site relevant to those who carry for self defense, and also to those who oppose self-defense carry out of ignorance, or because they don't understand the, well... facts.

Number of gun owners in the US

According to private firearms manufacturers data in 2010, there are between 40 and 45 million adults who own handguns.

A 2005 Gallup poll indicates there are 100 million adults who own guns of different types. In the same poll, 67% said they owned guns for self protection.

Why is having a gun for self protection necessary?

Some facts (from the Justfacts.com website. See the site for additional references and support for the information listed below.):

1. A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard." 
2. Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.
3. Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
4. A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."
5. A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
6. A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

The last, number 6, should be especially relevant to those who support self-defense carry.

Those are some facts pertaining to the usefulness of a gun in preventing violent crime. How vulnerable are we? Consider this:

 At the current homicide rate, roughly one in every 240 Americans will be murdered.

A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found:

• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives

• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime

• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once

A 1997 survey of more than 18,000 prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime, "30% of State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime."

Justfacts goes on to show interesting charts describing the effects of various anti-handgun legislation passed in different locations. You can see these yourself on their site, but the summary is that where anti-handgun legislation is passed that inhibits the citizens from owning and carrying a gun for self protection, the incident of violent crime increases. When those restrictions are struck down, not surprisingly, the incidents of violent crime perpetrated against citizens goes down. Not a big surprise to most of us.

Why this information is important.

In the continuing national debate over gun control, which I think should be about violence control, it is important to have a good grasp of the facts. Every time I have argued this issue with someone opposed to guns, I have found that they do not know the basic facts about guns and self protection. They are working from rhetoric, falsehoods and, in many cases, just plain fear of guns. 

My response is usually to point out that it is a free country, that they don't have to own or carry a gun, but in fact, they depend upon someone for their protection who does carry a gun when thing go bad. As they frequently do, facts tell us. And, given this, all law-abiding citizens of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms in self defense in order to assist us in our constitutional rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, conversely, no one has the right to prevent me from exercising those freedoms.

When the criminals and crazies can no longer have guns, or knives, or baseball bats, or screwdrivers, cars, explosives, ice picks, poisons or any other implement that can be turned into a deadly weapon, I might consider giving up my guns.

Not likely....

Elsie Pea; Block Training; Police Chief; Lasers again

My Moderator's Logo from the old Elsie Pea Forum

Not too long ago, last year, the old Elsie Pea Forum (LCP) was sold off to an organization that runs forums. Many of them. The Elsie Pea Forum had grown to over 10,000 members and it was all five of us could do to keep things in check. We prided ourselves in stopping spam before it got started, keeping the atmosphere polite, if not cordial, preventing flame wars and keeping posters to the topic: no religion, no politics, no hatred. I will admit that there were times when this was trying, but if truth be told, the members themselves were very good about policing the forum and keeping troublemakers in line. If the members couldn't reign them in, the moderators did.

I was a big fan of Have Gun, Will Travel when I was as kid. I still think it was a TV show ahead of it's time, so I picked the logo, above, as my moderator calling card. I still moderate, but a much smaller forum where many of the Elsie Pea refugees hang out. http://www.compactcarryforum.com

Have Gun. Will Carry

Of course, it is more than that as anyone who has carried a concealed handgun for any time will tell you. Lately, I've been around the block more than once over dealing with the extra baggage that comes along with concealed carry. Like many of you, I have a drawer full of holsters (and I only have three carry guns), extra magazines, laser sights, night sights, special springs and recoil rods, gun safes, various cleaning do-dads and storage and carry boxes.

Now, the entire picture is complicated by my use and evaluation of laser sighting devices. Saving the topic of the utility and usefulness of laser sights on a concealed carry handgun for another time, one big factor became apparent right away. When I received a Laserguard from Crimson Trace for my LCP I was faced right away with the fact that, other than a Versacarry rig, I had nothing to carry it in.

At this point, over the last two months with the CT, I have had it on and off the gun three or four times. I do now have a Jeff Hays cross draw OWB holster, which is very nice indeed and works better than any cross draw holster I've found so far, and I have acquired a Remora with attached mag pouch for it. However, my other holsters, carefully pared down from many I tried that fit right, work right and will last a long time do not work with the Laserguard. Hence, off with the laser and, like today around the house, on with the Bullard Bodyguard and LCP.

Having a laser on my gun is pretty nifty, although the jury is still out as to whether a Crimson Trace or LaserMax will find it's way on one of my carry guns permanently. But not being able to carry it as I wish, in the style and quality of holsters that I require, is a big stumbling block. But, I'll report more on this after the LaserMax units arrive for testing alongside the Crimson Trace.

Block Training

I got an email, and later a follow up phone conversation, with a small group nearby composed of experienced former LEO and NRA Firearms Trainers who have come up with a very good idea. I call it Block Training. It works like this. They have essentially taken a general two-day intensive handgun and self-defense training class and broken it down into 2 to 2 1/2 hour blocks. This way a person can afford to begin improving his or her real-world handgun self-defense skills without having to pony up a few hundred dollars for the course, lodging, meals and a thousand rounds of ammo all at once.

I hope to be able to attend one of the first class blocks and report on this concept in more detail here.

Police Chief

The Chief in one of the local towns nearby is leaving after a long military and police career. One of the more interesting things he had to say was that he, along with many other in law enforcement, support the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. To walk the talk, he is planning to set up and conduct concealed carry classes in our area. Now, if you want to take one, it is at least a two hour drive, and if you don't want to wait until they get around to holding a class within that range, you can drive another hour or two. I'm looking forward to that and it's got me thinking about getting my instructor qualifications and helping out.

Lasers Again

I've already whined about lasers and holsters, so I'll spare you that. The update is that I am waiting on what I have been assured by LaserMax is a package with at least one laser sight evaluation unit, plus other materials. If I don't see it this week, I'll be following up with them. Once that arrives, and the snow melts and the ground dries, I will be able to get some range time with both models and have some  personal experience that I can hopefully translate into useful information.

Actual Facts

I have been in correspondence with many of my state and national legislators, and have written my views directly to the White House. In response, and in some stories I have read in various media, people who are pushing an agenda often quote supposed "facts" in order to substantiate their claims and viewpoints. Now, there is nothing wrong with using facts to oppose or support a given topic, but often what are presented as "facts" are not objective and real. Many statistics and so-called facts are not without bias, sometimes extreme. One example I have seen references a study that if a certain measure were to be passed by the legislature, it would cost the average person over $700 per year more to pay their basic expenses - food, utilities, rent, etc. While this may be true in the aggregate, the study failed to take into consideration a projected $300 per year general cost of living increase, whether the measure under discussion passed or not. The real fact was a $400 increase, not $700.

There is an organization of researchers who find and publish actual factual data, regardless of whether anyone agrees with them or not. It is really not a matter of debate, but of provable fact derived from actual data. Studies with a high degree of objectivity and integrity. Statutes. Laws. Regulations. See them at http://www.justfacts.com

The, of course, have a section on gun control. It is quite extensive, even containing relevant state and federal statutes. At the beginning, there is a very interesting section of facts that anyone engaging in reasonable and rational discussions about firearms and violence should be familiar with. There are frequently 'facts' quoted in the media that seem to indicate that guns in the hands of citizens don't deter crime. However, the statistics and facts compiled by this organization speak otherwise.

I encourage you all to visit www.justfacts.com and see for yourself, but I am also quoting the beginning part of their section on gun control that I think can serve as good information to educate those who are opposed to gun ownership out of fear, misunderstanding and reliance on biased 'facts'.

From www.justfacts.com

"Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 12/28/12. http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Finding What You Want » Click on the footnote numbers for meticulous documentation of each fact. Introductory Notes This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available. Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys,[1] but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating.[2] Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results. Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility. Ownership * As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people.[5] * Based on production data from firearm manufacturers,[6] there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.[7] * Based upon surveys, the following are estimates of private firearm ownership in the U.S. as of 2010:  Households With a Gun  Adults Owning a Gun  Adults Owning a Handgun Percentage  40-45%  30-34%  17-19% Number  47-53 million  70-80 million  40-45 million [8] * A 2005 nationwide Gallup poll of 1,012 adults found the following levels of firearm ownership: Category  Percentage Owning a Firearm Households  42% Individuals  30% Male  47% Female  13% White  33% Nonwhite  18% Republican  41% Independent  27% Democrat  23% [9] * In the same poll, gun owners stated they own firearms for the following reasons: Protection Against Crime  67% Target Shooting  66% Hunting  41% [10] Crime and Self-Defense * Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11] * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12] * Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16] * Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18] * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19] * A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20] * A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21] • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22] * Click here to see why the following commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility: "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."

Lessons

When things don't work, it is usually a sign that there is a lesson there, that some changes need to occur in order to correct whatever is wrong. The shooting in Connecticut is another example of something that does not work.

I have stayed far away from this story, as I did with the shootings in Colorado recently. Not because I do not grieve with the parents, friends and relatives, but because the story will be beaten to death in order to sell advertiser time, and to push various agendas. What gets lost in all this are the, to me, essential lessons.

The first lesson is that gun control as envisioned by gun haters is not only ineffective at resolving incidents like this (not to mention much smaller, frequent and more personal incidents that happen almost daily in America and across the world), it can contribute to the likelihood of things like this happening again. If guns were removed from law-abiding citizens, that fact would not stop the crazies, criminals and terrorists from getting and using guns, it would, in my opinion, make that much more likely and the consequences of that class of people more devastating. It would be plain open season on anyone without the means to protect themselves and their loved ones, and those people would, of course, be the law-abiding citizens who had to give up their guns.

Bad people think hard about confronting other bad people because they would know that the other guys are armed. Not so with the disarmed public. They would be easy prey to anyone who had a gun, knife or club.

The second lesson is that by prohibiting law abiding citizens from legally carrying in a designated place, that place then becomes what we used to call in the military, a free fire zone. Anyone wanting to wreak death and destruction would most likely pick a gun-free zone to do so for the simple reason that the odds are high that no one there would be armed and able to stop them. This is so obvious that I do not understand why we would ever want to create and advertise a free-fire zone to the criminals, crazies and terrorists.

I spent some time in Israel recently and I can assure you that the Israelis don't allow their school children to be unprotected or attend gun-free zones. You see a group of students out for a field trip, or a trip across town and they are invariably accompanied by adults with weapons. Go to a nice sidewalk cafe by the sea in Tel Aviv, and the guy at the entrance is packing. The Israelis don't think it is smart to have their people give up their weapons because a bunch of Arabs are trying to kill them and their families. We shouldn't either.

The third lesson is that this is, and always has been, a dangerous world. Thinking that removing dangerous things from the world will make it safe is a delusion. Cars are dangerous. So are alcohol, airplanes, electricity, poisonous emissions, submarines, knives, axes, and... well, you get the point. However, it should be noted that by themselves, none of the items in that list are dangerous in of of themselves. Unless they are used, or mis-used, by humans, they are pretty benign. Airplanes don't fly by themselves. Knives, axes and alcohol are static items that without human interaction would slowly degenerate into molecules over time. Guns. The same. So, obviously, one of the most dangerous elements to humans are other humans, and until that changes, I refuse to surrender the right to protect myself from them as effectively as I can.

In the end, I cannot see how depriving law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms would have in any way stopped the tragedy in Connecticut. Or in Colorado.

I can see that if a teacher, aid or even passerby on the school grounds who was legally carrying a weapon that day might have stopped or minimized the damage that did occur. At least the possibility would have existed where, instead, the law had decided to make that school a free fire zone for a crazed criminal.

If you are scared by all this, be scared of the society and the dangerous people in it, not the many things those unfortunate individuals may use to express their violent souls. Also, be somewhat comforted by the knowledge that there are among you many who hold their freedoms and rights dear and who would seek to protect themselves and others, perhaps you, from those dangerous individuals, and who legally have the means to do so.

It Doesn't Change Anything

The furor over Aurora has abated somewhat now so I feel I can comment on the self-defense aspects of this tragedy. A few days after the shootings I was visiting relatives in northern Colorado and one, who should know better, burst out that it was all the fault of those concealed carry permits that are so easy to get. Obviously, my relative was not thinking clearly, so I ran over some basic facts with him, which cooled the situation quickly.

First, law-abiding citizens who have concealed carry permits usually won't carry in a "gun free" zone, which this was. That removed legal carry from the situation. Obviously, had there been one or more concealed carry citizens present, things might have turned out differently. We'll never know.

Second, even if there were no concealed carry permits, anyone who wants to buy and carry a gun will find a way to do so. Criminals and crazy people don't usually bother to go through the expense, background checks and training required of a citizen to obtain a carry permit. Still, they persist in using and carrying guns (not to mention knives, clubs, bats, martial arts weapons, or any handy weapon they can get their hands on at the time.)

The fundamental thing lost in all the noise is that law-abiding citizens of the USA have the right to protect themselves from deadly assault. Taking away that right, and that protection, will not change the fact that bad people assault good people every day.

Carried to an absurd extreme, the logic of taking away guns from the public so they can't defend themselves when they choose to fight back and not be passive victims of crime, will result in ever more 'police' or law-enforcement personnel being necessary to protect an unarmed society. Weapons cannot be kept from criminals who want them (if this is not clear, refer to the so-called "war on drugs", or even Prohibition in the early part of the last century. Acknowledged failures in separating the public from something the public wants.)

Since assault can happen any time and anywhere, there must always be adequate armed law enforcement personnel in the immediate area in order to adequately safeguard our citizens. In short,  cops on every corner, in every apartment, hotel, restaurant, church, baseball, football or basketball game, movie theatres, parking lots, grocery stores.... You get the picture. A basic police state with almost as many people required to be hired, trained, equipped and paid to protect about the same number of citizens. Not only is this financially impossible, but who wants to live in a police state?

Until someone figures out how to eliminate criminal and pathological behaviors, there will always be someone who preys on the innocent. In my opinion, the innocent must maintain the right to protect themselves and not be required to submit passively to whatever the criminals and crazies want to do.

Getting Back to Basics

Ruger's LCP (Light Compact Pistol)

After one decides to carry a concealed handgun for defense and goes through the necessary bureaucratic procedures to get the carry permit, and trains to become proficient, then attends more classes, or does some extensive reading and discussion with friends or forum friends, then decides on the ammunition that best serves the carry needs, schools oneself on the possible aftermath of a legal self defense shooting and, finally gets a few holsters that satisfy concealment requirements, it is apparent that the situation has become somewhat complicated. Like that last sentence.

Much energy, time and conversation is devoted to the accessories, guns, ammo, shooting and all that goes with them, but it is easy to lose sight of what brought you to this pass in the first place. That would be, at least for me, the desire to not go defenseless into the world, to be ready to stand up to evil and craziness where and when necessary. So, let me try to find the basics in all of that.

The basic requirements are, I think, these:

1. Be armed where ever legally possible, all of the time.
   
2. Commit to the real possibility that sometime in life you will be forced to use your gun to apply deadly force in the defense of yourself or others, and you will do this without hesitation once that situation is reached.
   
3. Understand absolutely the legal and moral requirements incumbent on you who have chosen to carry a concealed weapon.
   
4. Be proficient with your gun and particular with your ammunition so that you only hit what you intend to shoot.
   
5. Choose a gun for defense in an environment that will most likely contain other people than just the bad guy(s). A .44 magnum is not a good choice.
   
6. Use a gun that you will always carry. Again, a .44 magnum or other two pound massive pistol is not a good choice.
   
7. Use a quality holster in such a position that you can get to your pistol quickly whether sitting or standing.
   

Assuming that one has accepted and practices numbers 1 through 4 above, there is still much dispute and endless discussions about the best defense pistol and how to carry it concealed. Much of this is really beside the point. It is entertaining and fun to get into these things, but, for real, my philosophy has boiled down to a few basic facts.

 

I always carry when legally possible with a gun suitable to the occasion, and in a position where I can access it quickly sitting, driving, standing or walking. This means it has to be in a cross draw or appendix carry position, or a shoulder rig.

D. M. Bullard Cross Draw Holster

I would guess that the majority of legal concealed carry permit holders, when they carry, use the strong side position. It's kind of become the sanctioned or "approved" way. However, I think it is not the most effective. Even worn at 3:00 o'clock for a right handed shooter, the pistol will not be as easy to get to when one is sitting, or, especially driving buckled into your car seat. Moving the gun further back to 4:00 or 4:30, or worse, small of the back, just makes it worse.

Cross draw, especially for a right handed shooter, is the optimal carry position. You can get to your weapon quickly from almost any position. The seat belt doesn't interfere in a car. It is easy to get your gun hand on or in close to your gun without drawing attention to that fact. The same goes for appendix carry (1:00 o'clock for the right handed) but a little more complicated if sitting in a seat with a back, but not as bad as a strong-side position.

 

Cross draw has gotten a bad rap over the years, even though you'll see many photos of the old lawmen and Texas Rangers wearing their pistols cross draw. Must have been a reason. These days, if you were open carrying, like most law enforcement officers do, this would certainly put your gun in an easily accessible position when standing face to face with a bad guy. However, for us, wearing concealed, the bad guy likely won't know you have a gun in the first place.

 

It's a good position to use if, for example, a bad guy is close to you and you suddenly have to fend him off with your non-shooting hand. You can quickly fend, or block with your left, stepping back with your right leg, which is a natural movement in a fight, quickly drawing as your body turns and as soon as your gun becomes level it's pointing directly at him.

 

There are other reasons for considering cross draw. I had pretty much bought into the often stated notion that cross draw was old-fashioned, unsafe and not as effective as strong side carry, until I read a long piece on it in Gun Week by R. K. Campbell. You can find it here: http://www.gunweek.com/2005/feature0101.html

 

Given his experience and his reasoning, I had to re-evaluate my opposition to cross draw even though I was initally attracted to it. I suggest you read Mr. Campbell's article and decide for yourself.

 

Misinformed. Again

Easter Sunday. I am sitting in the back of the church in my usual spot, wearing a nice jacket, shiny boots and my Ruger LC9 discreetly tucked away when the guest preacher launches into a mini-tirade against the "make my day" law. His problems were three: he absolutely does not understand the specifics or intent of the law, he fails to see how protecting property justifies applying the law (basically the castle doctrine) to businesses, and he thinks people who have guns do so because they are afraid.
He and his wife also revealed later that they think anyone can go to a gun show and buy a fully functional "AK-47" which they equate with "machine guns."

I had the opportunity to discuss their assumptions with them, at some length, so that they were at least exposed to the facts of the law, that it is intended to protect people, not merely property, from harm regardless if one is in your home or place of business. That people should be afraid when encountering criminals or crazy people with guns and the way to not be afraid and to offer an effective way of protecting oneself and others is to legally carry and know how to use a firearm responsibly. And, I also disabused them of the notion that one can walk into a gun show and buy a machine gun.

Now, I am not at all certain that they believed me or will approach this with a more objective perspective. Likely not, especially since he was invested in convincing people that if one believes in Jesus, then you don't have to be afraid, because if someone kills you, you are going to heaven anyway. I'm not kidding. This was the underlying message he gave to the congregation.

I am not buying into that. To state only one objection: would it be all right if I did nothing while innocent people were murdered and I had an opportunity to stop it because they might be going to heaven anyway?

All that aside, the essential issue is a common one. People are misinformed about the reasons why our rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental and, in many cases, can only be guaranteed by our right to bear arms to protect ourselves from others who would seek to take those rights, and our very lives, away from us. People are misinformed. Why?

I suspect it is because of fear and ignorance. Fear of guns, since they only know what they see in the media - and by that I mean film and TV as well as gun-hostile press - and ignorance of basic facts regarding self-defense shootings and crime. A prime example of this is when the preacher also said that the number of self defense shootings had "doubled" over the last few years. That is statistically incorrect, however, he mentioned nothing about the curious facts that while the number of citizens arming themselves and acquiring concealed carry permits had grown tremendously, the violent crime rate has significantly dropped during that same period. That this interesting connection was not mentioned by the preacher tells me that he didn't know this, or, if he did, it did not fit his preconceived notions about guns and people. Certainly didn't fit with his "it is ok to be afraid" sermon.
I couldn't help wondering, sitting there with my legal, concealed 9 mm, if he would have condemned me should I have had to protect him and the others there from some crazy with a gun come to church to settle the demons in his head?

The Legal Aftermath of Defensive Shooting

Last night I drove for two hours to attend a class held by Colorado Handgun Safety entitled, "The Legal Aftermath of Defensive Shooting" taught by a defense attorney, concealed handgun permit holder and former attorney with the US Army. Those of you who follow the Elsie Pea Forum (elsiepeaforum.com) will have already seen some of what follows.

First, if similar classes are available to you, by all means take one. Consider this as follow on training to accompany your concealed carry permit. Consider this to be another form of self defense. I obviously can't recap a three hour class but I can say a few things here. It was so good that although it was scheduled for two hours, we went for three. Conversation. Question and answer. Amplifications. Excellent. Some points made in the class:

Know the Law in Your State

In a defensive shooting situation, every bullet you fire has a lawyer attached to it. This, from the mouth of a lawyer that knows what he is talking about.

This means that you should strive to absolutely understand the statutes in your state that pertain to what one might be charged with after a defensive shooting. Charged with does not mean convicted of, or that charges cannot be dropped or defended against, but be aware that serious charges can be brought, regardless of their outcome before or in court.

For example, If your state has a "castle doctrine" or "make my day" law, be CERTAIN you understand under what condition that law applies. One example: if "unlawful entry" is part of that statute, know, for certain, what "unlawful" and what "entry" mean. If you gave someone a key in the distant past to your dwelling (you have to know what "dwelling" means in your state), even though you kicked them out and told them never to come back, and they enter with the old key they still have, the court might not consider that "unlawful". You should have changed the locks. If a potential home invader screams he is gonna rob and kill you, runs on your porch waving a shotgun and you shoot him as he opens the door, did he actually "enter" your dwelling? There is a court case that says, in similar circumstance, no. Self defense? Most definitely. Castle doctrine? Probably not.

Why is that important? Castle doctrine, or similar statute, might protect you from consequences more than self defense will.

Know What Not to Do Afterwards

This is important. If you are involved in a self-defense shooting, the ONLY thing you should say to the police, a prosecutor, an EMT - anyone at the scene or later - is:

"My name is (insert name here). I am a victim. I will fully cooperate once I have spoken with my attorney."

Did I say this is important? Yes. Why?

Because you may say something that will FOREVER REMOVE your right to using self defense in court. At the scene, these scenarios may play out:

Police: "That's ok. I know you are upset and you didn't mean to shoot him."

You: "Yeah, I don't know what happened, I didn't mean to kill the guy."

Adios your right to self defense. You didn't mean to kill/shoot the guy? If you didn't mean to shoot him in self defense, then why did you shoot him?

Police: "You've been through a stressful experience. I know it was an accident and you didn't want to hurt anyone."

You: "I'm freaked out, man. Yeah, it was an accident."

Slam! That sound was your right to argue self defense leaving the building.

Unless you are an experienced defense lawyer, you don't know the law, especially the finer points like maintaining your ability to exercise your right of self defense in court, so repeat after me: "My name is (insert name here). I am a victim. I will fully cooperate once I have spoken with my attorney." Then, shut up. Period. Don't talk to anyone else, regardless of how sympathetic or helpful they are. Don't blab to yourself in the back of the police car - every police car these days has a tape recorder going. Shut up. Get a lawyer and listen to what he or she tells you.

Ask for your attorney, right up front. The questions should stop. If they don't tell them you want your attorney.

Our instructor also said that the first document that your attorney should file with the court is that your defense in your case is based on self defense. If you don't it may be gone forever.

Win The Race

Win the race to call 911. The order in which calls are logged determines, initially, who is the victim and who is the aggressor. Sad, but true.

After an incident - and it doesn't have to be a shooting, maybe you foiled a carjacking and the carjacker fled when you put your 9 mm in his face. Call right away. You don't want him calling and complaining of meancing, or someone else calling who only saw you point your gun at a young man who then ran away.

Once you call, state your name, location, your description (so the responding officers will be able to tell you are the caller not the perp), say you are the victim of the crime, maybe you have the assailant at gunpoint (if true) and you need help. Then PUT THE PHONE DOWN. Don't hang up and don't engage the sympathetic dispatcher in conversation. The 911 dispatchers are trained to keep you on the line and talking. Guess what? It's recorded and anything you say can be used against you.

Do Not Be Negligent With Your Gun

Society has certain common expectations of reasonable care. If you have a driver's license, society expects you to know the rules and how to safely operate your car so that it is not a danger to you or to others. The same expectations apply to concealed handgun permit holders, and even more so. Why more so? A handgun is an inherently deadly weapon. Where a car or a bottle or a baseball bat may be used as a deadly weapon, they are not, in themselves deadly weapons. A gun is. Without question. Therefore, you have a more exact standard of care. To use a gun otherwise is negligent, and usually criminally negligent.

To not be negligent you have to, among other things, hit what you shoot at. This is not as easy as it may seem. Not only must you practice to enable you to hit your target reliably every time, but you must practice in the manner you will most be likely to use in a self-defense shooting situation. This is quick, sometimes instinctive point-and-shoot at close ranges. It is also shooting under extreme stress and while your body and mind is raging in the "fight or flight" mode and all of your senses have been radically altered when your body goes into survival mode. This is not standing at the range popping paper targets. Studies show that even professional and expert gun handlers will miss often under these stressful conditions. You are likely not a professional or expert gun handler, so you must practice even harder to be proficient in self defense scenarios.

Practice like this is not convenient, easy or cheap. However, having made the decision to carry you must have accepted the awesome responsibility that goes along with that. Find a way to practice. Find a way to make the cost acceptable. One way is to buy a smaller caliber handgun, like a .22 caliber that approximates the one or ones you will be carrying and put a lot of lead downrange with the cheaper .22 ammo to build up your proficiency. Dry firing will help with things like grip and trigger control, but it does not give that BANG! and induce the small adrenaline rush that can cause you to flinch and miss.

You have to shoot safely so as to not endanger others. This obviously entails being accurate under stress, but it also means you have to be aware of your surroundings (not easy when cranked with fear) so that you don't endanger others. You also must consider the type and caliber of your carry gun, and the ammunition you choose for it. This is a complex issue, especially among gun people who always have their favorites. Simply put though, I think as far as hardware goes, the most important consideration is the type of ammunition you will be shooting. I favor somewhat lower velocity ammo firing jacketed hollow point type bullets that have a smaller chance of punching through something and hitting an unintended object or person.

There have been books written about all of this and more. However, in addition to reading, I highly recommend a class about these topics taught by a professional and an attorney that knows, from experience, what he or she is talking about. It is too important to leave to internet gossip or hearsay.

Take a class on what can happen, and what you should and should not do after being involved in a defensive shooting. Read books by Ayoob and others. And remember:

"My name is (insert name here). I am a victim. I will fully cooperate once I have spoken with my attorney."