Are those firecrackers?

I had originally thought to begin my articles on holster comparisons for AIWB carry. I received some holsters from Alan Bogdan of Remora for inclusion in my comparisons that included a couple of new designs which are interesting. But, that changed while I was mowing the lawn last Sunday.

We live in a very small Colorado town. It is in a rural area and I would guess that at least half the households in town, and more than that outside on the farms and ranches, have at least one firearm. So, it's not unusual to hear shots off in the distance. However, while my trusty mower was hacking at the grass, someone opened up not more than two blocks away. A group of shots. Then a few more. Right in town. Got my attention.

Considering the times we live in and the fact that bad things can happen anywhere at any time, and being the cautious person I am, I stopped the mower and went into the house to trade my LCP in for the Ruger SR9c loaded with the 17-round magazine. I strapped it on, clipped a spare magazine to my belt and went back outside.

More shots.

"Are those firecrackers?" my wife asked.

"No. Gunshots," I said.

She looked at the black Ruger poking out from under my shirt.

"Don't worry," I said. "Probably nothing. Just being prepared."

She went back to weeding the flower bed. I went back to mowing and listening. After a while the shooting stopped. Someone shooting targets, I thought.

I mowed all of the front, and most of the back, carrying the Ruger all the while. Now, many people I know, some from my "former life" in California, and some here in Colorado, would consider me paranoid. I consider myself prepared.

Then, over the next few days I read about things like this:

A man jumped into a woman's car at a busy carwash in broad daylight and started to drive it away. She jumped on the hood as he pulled out and, hanging on for her life, was carried away toward a busy street. A bystander who was a concealed carry holder, drew his gun, chased after the speeding car and shot the carjacker through the driver side window, causing him to stop and saving the woman who was still hanging onto her car. People at the scene felt that she was in danger of being killed if the carjacker had managed to get out into the busy traffic.

The Chicago Tribune reported that a Uber driver and holder of a concealed carry permit in Chicago (that must be a rarity...) shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square thereby saving a number of innocent people from injury or death.

In New Holland, Wisconsin, a man drove up to a busy fire station where there were also women and children present, got out of his car and pointed a gun at them. After getting people out of the back door two firefighters who have concealed carry permits, put the man at gun point, finally convincing him to put his weapon down. He was arrested, but unfortunately, released on a relatively low bond. He needs help and one hopes he doesn't return or try this somewhere else.

Orem, Utah, Macy's parking lot. A fugitive from the police, after wrecking a stolen pickup truck he was driving while fleeing from the law, tried to steal another car in Macy's parking lot. He dragged a woman out of her car but before he could drive it away, an armed bystander with a concealed carry permit, stopped him and forced him out of the stolen car at gunpoint. The fugitive then attacked the citizen, trying to wrest the gun from him, and was shot by the citizen. He later died in the hospital. Who knows how much more damage and possibly death might have been caused had the fugitive gotten the citizen's gun and continued his rampage?

There are many incidents like these that happen every day. How many make the "national" news? How many get compared to the anti-gun stories that flood the outlets and television shows when a bad guy uses a gun, or, sometimes, when the police use weapons to do their job and protect themselves and us?

Seldom, if ever.

This brings up an important consideration for those of us who elect to legally carry a concealed weapon in public.

There may be times when we are faced with a frightening physical and ethical situation: other peoples' lives are at risk and we have the means to effectively intervene and possibly stop that threat.

It seems to me that we have signed up to do more than just be able to defend ourselves when necessary. We have also implicitly signed up to protect those who are not so prepared, even those who would gladly deny us the right to carry a gun in order to defend ourselves and them.

Most times we are concerned with and interested in such things as holsters, carry positions, caliber, ammunition characteristics, sights, lights and automatics versus revolvers. We don't spend enough time talking about or thinking about the responsibilities and implicit social contract we have taken on by carrying a concealed weapon. This is not a good thing, for when the shit actually hits the fan, we will be dealing with a life-changing crisis that unfolds in seconds and doesn't allow time for reflections or second thoughts.

You have to think about this hard, well in advance, and prepare yourself for what may happen, even if you happen to be mowing your lawn on a sunny day.

God Wants to Kill You

God wants one of his faithful followers to kill you if you aren't a believer and don't do exactly what he said. Or exactly what an illiterate, medieval, small-time merchant said He said to him through an angel no one else saw or heard. This is not historically limited to belief in any particular god. All religions have taken this basic stance at one time or another. Fortunately, most religions have come to understand that this is not acceptable. Brides who are discovered to not be virgin on their wedding night are not dragged to their father's doorstep and stoned to death. Our soldiers do not dash our enemies babies against rocks as certain ancient religious books require. No, we have, mostly, become more humane, civilized and ethical. Mostly.

But there remain in our world, many, many people who will gladly kill you for your unbeliefs, and "know" they will be divinely rewarded for so doing. Witness the killings in France by followers of Islam. "Allah ahkbar!" God is great. I kill you in the name of God. Blessings be upon me.

This is an enormous problem in today's world. There exist, in all countries now, many followers of Islam who will either be willing to kill you for their religious beliefs, and many more who will not condemn publically or work to stop these fundamentalists because they too are afraid they will be killed. For the Islamists jihadists, it's a win-win. Oppose me and I'll kill you. If I kill you for opposing me (and my God) then God will send me to heaven. And, you to hell.

I don't see any way to stop all of this unless those people are prevented from acting out their beliefs. Not likely to happen especially when they are trained young to hate everything not Islam. I have not heard or read of any solution that is likely to have a widespread and immediate impact to this world problem that does not involve a real holy war – a war to get rid of people who want to kill you for God. It's the mother of all problems.

But, I do have a few thoughts about how to cope with this on a more personal level. Fundamentally, it is my firm belief that everyone has the right to fight back. You might not win, but you don't have to go quietly. I believe, but I don't know for sure, that almost no civilians in France are allowed to carry firearms for self defense. This is, of course, true in other European countries as well as in some states in our own. Isn't is obvious now that there are people living among us who are intent on, and are planning to, murder us and our fellow humans because we don't give their religious ideas the 'respect' they claim they deserve? Think about this for a moment. If you don't believe in the same god that I do, you will surely go to hell, and, if you disprespect my god or his mouthpiece, I have the right, no, the obligation, to kill you and that is fine because god will reward me in heaven for it.

Most of us have always known that evil exists and sometimes walks among us. People intent on committing a violent act and don't care who gets hurt. Someone with a murderous grudge. A junkie looking for more money for more drugs. Sociopaths who bascially don't give a damn. The list is long. Pick up any newspaper, news magazine, see any internet news site, watch tv. This is not new. Everyone knows it exists, but most everyone doesn't really believe it will touch their lives. Until it does. Now, it is playing out on the world stage and can't be swept under the rug.

There are people in the world, living among us, who will gladly kill us because of our ideas.

Every person, everywhere, should have and insist upon the absolute right to protect oneself and others from the depredations and murderous intent of others of our species. At this point in history, the best means to do this is by having, carrying and knowing how to use a gun. Period.

Let's face it. Even if every man, woman and child on the planet had an assigned, 24 x 7 bodyguard, that bodyguard would have to carry a gun in order to be minimally effective. It takes a gun.

I can hear the arguments now: even if the French journalists had all been armed, what could they have done against those trained jihadists armed with automatic weapons? Answer: We will never know, but at least they would have been able to fight back.

What if the jihadist criminals had killed all of them anyway? If the citizenry of France had been armed, do you seriously think those murderers could have just driven away unharmed?

The gun is not evil here. Take exactly the same gun used by one of the Islamist killers, and give it, instead to a French policeman who kills the Islamist. Is the gun first evil, then good? Obviously not. It's a tool, much like a vaacum cleaner, made to do a specific job.

The basic right involved here is the right to defend oneself and fight back effectively against evil. Those who seek to remove that right will never be friends of mine. I understand that they are afraid of guns and violence, but I don't understand how they can thank me for my military service and thank their god for the armed men and women they need to protect them yet seek to deprive me of that right.

Get a gun. Learn how to use it effectively and safely. Carry a gun. Protect yourself and others and at least be able to stand up and fight when god tells his thugs to kill you for him.

Posted with Blogsy

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.

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 Defensive Shooting - What Happens to You After?

Legally carrying a gun, training how and when to use it, understanding of your legal and social responsibilities are all prerequisites for the responsible citizen. Knowing what may happen after one must use a gun in self defense, understanding your legal rights and what you should, and should NOT do, are just as important. The best way to get this vital information is to take a quality class taught by someone with experience, knowledge and your interests at heart. I took such a class offered by Colorado Handgun Safety and wrote about it on this blog:

http://sdcarry.blogspot.com/2012/03/legal-aftermath-of-defensive-shooting.html

This class is being offered again and I urge all of my Colorado readers to attend. Read my blog entry to see why.

This is important!

The Legal Aftermath of Defensive Shooting: Taught by an attorney - A great follow-up for concealed carry permit holders.

This class is three and one-half hour presentation of Colorado concealed carry and firearms law, taught by a practicing attorney. This class will include a review of Colorado use of force case studies both justified and unjustified, legal definitions, and the "Make My Day Law" as well as question and answer opportunities with the attorney. If you wondered, "What is Next?" after your concealed handgun class, this is it. The Legal Aftermath of Defensive Shooting class will detail how there are only two outcomes to a defensive shooting: Complete Justification or the loss of your freedom.Your concealed handgun class gave you a basic overview of concealed carry law. The Legal Aftermath class provides you the opportunity to ask an attorney all of the "What-IFs" you have wondered about. Presented by Colorado Handgun Safety Inc. and our Attorney, The Legal Aftermath class is designed to give you a greater understanding and peace of mind about your abilities and responsibilities when carry a concealed firearm and defending yourself or your home.
This class is designed for gun owners who have their concealed handgun permit or have attended a concealed handgun permit class.

View Class Schedule and  Reserve your class now

Visit     http://www.coloradohandgunsafety.com for more information.

Ignorance - for people who carry concealed, it can be tragic

People who like guns and have a concealed carry permit most often focus on guns, caliber, holsters, concealment and other every day topics that keep us entertained and up to date. However, today, I saw and responded to a disturbing thread on a gun forum that dealt with none of these things.

The poster related an incident that could happen to anyone, but his attitude toward it and his responsibility as a gun owner - it's not a situation that is confined to concealed carry - was ill informed, based more on folklore than fact, and perhaps too common. In brief, the situation was this, and I'm paraphrasing and leaving out any identifying details.

The gun owner and his friends were sitting on his property enjoying their conversation when an adult male, riding a bicycle appeared and began riding around on the gun owner's property, and making stupid remarks. The bicycle guy was asked to leave repeatedly and finally rode off uttering generally threatening remarks and bad language. Then the bicycle guy returned. The gun owner sent his guests into the house and confronted Mr Bicycle Man, who at one point moved his hand toward his hoodie pocket at which time the gun owner drew his pistol so the bicycle man could see it, but didn't point it at him. Bicycle man rode away, mouthing threats.

Well, there are probably a few things the gun owner did wrong, or on the edge of wrong, but the most disturbing thing was the follow up posts. These were from the gun owner and a few other forum members, the essence of which is that the gun owner stated that he was within his legal rights to shoot someone who is trespassing on his property and refuses to "follow orders" to leave.

This is undoubtedly wrong, regardless of the state in which Mr. Gun Owner resides. It is wrong, both legally and ethically. I certainly am not familiar with every state statute on defensive shooting, but I will say that I believe there is a requirement on the part of the shooter to know, without a reasonable doubt, that he, or some innocent person at the scene, is threatened with severe bodily harm or death and the person threatening this has demonstrated the means to do so.

Carrying or having access to a firearm should make one more responsible and less willing to engage in confrontations for that very reason. If I have a legally sanctioned carry gun and some bozo wants to argue, insult and question my manhood, well, fine. I don't have to bite. I know that I have the means to defend myself if I am significantly threatened and frankly, I don't really care what other people on the scene may think. I know I am armed. The others don't. And I intend to keep it that way.

So, once again, people who have guns, especially those who carry legally, have a serious and constant burden to know the law and to know when deadly force, or the threat of it, is appropriate, legally and morally.

The scenario I proposed to Mr. Gun Owner who posted on the forum was this: suppose a twenty-something male, dirty, oddly dressed and mostly incoherent appeared on his property. Mr. Gun Owner argues with the man and orders him to leave his property. The man doesn't comply but continues to wander around raving incoherently, maybe walking toward the Gun Owner's house. The Gun Owner decides the other guy is freaking him out, doesn't know what he might do and besides, has not followed orders to leave the property, so he shoots the raving man. Afterward, Mr. Gun Owner is informed by the police that the raving man was an honorably discharged veteran who was undergoing treatment for PTSD, tended to get confused and babble when off his meds and had wandered away from home where he was being cared for by his elderly parents and was confused and looking for help.

The responsible gun owner cannot resort to deadly force unless there is no other viable alternative present at the time. Period.

I'm not a lawyer, or am I offering this as legal advice. I'm saying, know your legal and moral requirements if you carry or own a gun. From what I have seen on various gun forums, many people do not.

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.

Know the Law

On the gun forums I use, and the one I moderate, there are continually postings that show the person making statements, or asking questions, is not familiar with the law that governs concealed carry and use of a weapon in their state. Unfortunately, states vary in their requirements for gun owners - perhaps someday this will become uniform, but I 'm not holding my breath. One one forum recently a poster stated that if a person who was in a self-defense situation and had to shoot someone, killed them and had to aim to do so, would be liable for a murder charge.

Seriously.

This, of course, engendered a bunch of back and forth on the forum, much of it heated and most of it uninformed, although not as bad as the original poster's bad information. Such incidents are best judged upon their merits, or lack thereof, and speculations about such a vague notion are merely that - speculations. However, there is a lesson here.

Know the laws of the states in which you will be carrying. Don't depend on internet chatter or advice. Every state now has its statutes online so getting to the real thing and reading them is no big trick. It is best to be informed and know your responsibilities beforehand so that you can stand a better chance of making a good decision if you have to.

One example. You are leaving your local supermarket with groceries when, in the parking lot two rows away, a nutcase starts shooting at people at random. You have an excellent opportunity to duck into your car and leave the scene. You are not in immediate danger of lethal harm. But, other people who are manifestly innocent (ordinary women, men, children) are. If you take care of yourself and leave you have not gotten involved hence are not legally liable, but, on the other hand, if you are legally armed for self defense, are you morally and ethically liable to come to the defense of innocent people? And, if you do so, what kind of legal liabilities and protections do you have?

I think it is best to know about, and consider such possibilities beforehand. In instances where these kinds of factors may come into play, there is no time for consideration of potential legal and moral questions. There is only time to act. It's best to know what you should do before you have to do it.

There are classes that discuss these kinds of issues and questions. I highly recommend them to you. You'll find my report on one such class in this blog - aftermath of defensive shootings. See what is available in your area. Considering the consequences, it will be both inexpensive and vital if you carry a handgun for self defense.

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.

 

Need for Knowledge

As some of you know, I am one of the moderators on a large gun forum with over ten thousand members. ( elsiepeaforum.com ) Most of the members do not post, which is pretty much the norm for internet forums in my experience. But, from the ones who do post it is possible to discern some trends in people's attitudes and knowledge about carrying handguns for self defense - legally, of course.

The main thing I am seeing is that there are many more people getting their concealed carry permits, buying guns, strapping them on and carrying without enough basic knowledge about guns in general, gun safety and correct and safe use of their weapons in particular. I would feel better if those who were carrying legally were well versed in the law and their responsibilities, and solid in their knowledge of how and when to resort to their weapons.

For me this breaks down into two main areas: the legal and moral responsibilities one has accepted in order to carry a gun, and the minimum level of training in safety and shooting skills needed. As I have noted in a prior post here about the "Aftermath" class, the former can be acquired by attending a good class, reading many of the excellent books on that subject and engaging experienced members of a good gun forum in questions and discussions. The second is more complicated.

While books and videos can teach basic gun safety, they are only the starting point. Safety involves you and those around you, especially if you have children in the house, or likely to visit. Think grandparents, for example. The first impulse is to lock everything up in the safe when kids are around. This is obviously a good idea, but beyond that, what can you teach youngsters about gun safety when you are not around? Like, they are playing at Jane's or Jimmy's house and Jane or Jimmy comes up with dad's gun. This happens more often that we would like to think.

I believe it is imperative to teach young people about guns from the safety perspective. What they are, how they operate. That they are inherently dangerous and should be respected but not feared. And, most importantly, all guns are to be considered loaded. For my kids, I taught that and the basic rule, not to be trifled with, that if one of their friends comes up with a gun, to ask them firmly to put it down, and then leave immediately, encouraging any other child present to leave also, and report this to the nearest adult. If no adults are around, get out of the house and call 911.

Adults who carry with minimal knowledge and with preconceived ideas garnered by conversations, movies, the internet, etc. are potentially dangerous to themselves and to others. One example that comes up frequently in the forums are people who buy steel clips to attach to their carry guns so that they can be clipped to the waistband of their garment. No holster. Trigger not covered. This, as we always point out is a very bad idea and can get them and innocent bystanders shot. Even after a significant number of experienced forum members have pointed out the serious safety flaw in this type of carry, there are still those who think they know better and blow off any warnings.

We also see people who are basically afraid of their guns. Some will buy a readily concealable pistol like Ruger's LCP .380 and when they finally get around to firing it, the noise and recoil shocks them. Some learn to use it properly. Some shoot a few rounds and then stick it into their carry holster and go on about their daily business. Some sell it and get something bigger that doesn't have the perceived recoil. They don't shoot that one much either, but still rely on it as a carry weapon.

I could go on with other types of stories but the essential thing is that in order to carry effectively and safely, one must learn basic gun safety, preferably from an instructor who knows what she is doing and, better, is certified by the NRA or other recognized organization to be a firearms instructor. Then, one should practice regularly - not just shooting, but gun handling, loading and unloading properly, holstering and storing the weapon away safely. And, frequent cleaning and inspection, looking for anything out of the ordinary that might impede the safe operation of the gun. Often impending problems can be spotted and recified early if you practice regular inspections of your firearms.

All this makes sense, but can it be required of concealed permit holders? Probably not. There is little uniformity in state law that regulates how proficient a person has to be with shooting and gun safety before a permit can be acquired. In Colorado, you merely have to take a concealed handgun permit class, and present proof of that along with some other minor documentation in order to obtain your permit. You do not have to demonstrate you could hit a wall if you were shooting inside your house.

This is likely not going to change in the near future. Or distant future for that matter. One good reason is that, constitutionally, nothing of this sort is required as part of our right to keep and bear arms. I am sure that when that was written, most children were intimately acquainted with guns from an early age, learning from their parents and relatives how to use them and not act like a damn fool. I was taught very early on by my father and grandfather, and later by the US Navy and Marine Corps. All-in-all, excellent and unforgiving teachers. I thank them for it.

While the idea of mandatory firearms training in safety and shooting skills as prerequisties for a conceal carry license is, at first, an attractive idea, I don't like the idea of a bureaucratic mandate, controlled by government officials. That, to me, strikes at the foundation of a free people with second amendment rights. I think it is up to us to encourage and help those who need it in this area, not another government body.

If you are not as familiar as you should be with gun safety and your shooting skills, not target shooting, but self-defense shooting, please work on getting the necessary skills and knowledge. Take some classes. Find some good firearms instructors who can teach you these basic skills and practice and train with them so they are second nature. We all make mistakes, but it is good to make little mistakes, not big ones when people's safety or freedom are at stake.

 

To Lase or Not To Lase?

After the Aftermath class I have been thinking about negligence. This in terms of not being negligent with a dangerous weapon, to wit, my handguns. Having, carrying and being prepared to use one of my guns in proper and legal defense of myself or others puts me liable for negligence. One of the most important things about using a gun is to be able to hit what you aim to hit.

Initially, my thoughts went to proper aiming. This makes sense and led me toward re-thinking my positon on laser sights for handguns. I have found sufficient arguments against the use of lasers, for me, that I do not have one, nor any direct experience with using lasers on handguns. Wouldn't it make sense to equip my self defense guns with laser sights to increase the odds of being on target when I need to be?

The standard arguments for laser sights usually include being able to acquire a target easily, especially in low or no light conditions. No argument there. The standard arguments against include reliability issues, becoming dependent on the laser (which would be a bad thing should it suddenly fail to operate), and possible hesitation if the shooter does not pick up the laser dot quickly.

However, I haven't seen the argument that may make both of these irrelevant, which is, under extreme duress and the body and mind in the "fight or flight" mode, adrenalin surging through one's body, time slowed, tunnel vision, perhaps shaking hands, can one shoot with any kind of acceptable accuracy with or without a laser?

Massad Ayoob writes that when shooters learn the secret of the front sight, their accuracy goes up along with their ability to quickly acquire the target accurately. By this he means to forget about the standard "sight picture" we have all been taught to use. Center the front sight in the middle of the rear sight notch, with the top of the front sight being level with that of the rear sight and sitting on the bottom edge of the target. Who has time for that? Practice has shown that if the handgun has a highly visible front sight, and if the gun fits the hand as it should (and the hand is holding the gun as it should) and the shooter puts the front sight on the target - forgetting about the rear sight - the chances of hitting that target are greatly improved.

Now, back to the laser/non-laser question. Is it likely that a person who trains regularly to use a front sight picture, as described above, and shoots that way in training, has as much ability to hit the target as someone depending on acquiring a laser dot on a target? Probably. Would a laser be a better sighting system in dark or dim conditions? Very likely.

This remains an open question, one to which there appear to be no clear-cut answers.

It is extremely important to be good enough with your handgun to hit an intended target under extreme pressure. At this point I think it is necessary for each person to decide which road to take, laser or no laser, then dedicate to that and become proficient in that method. It is easy to legally carry a lot, and practice little, whether with a laser or no. I also suspect that having a laser equipped handgun gives some people the notion that it is like a technical magic wand and will, by itself, make the shooter an acccurate one. This is not true. Training and practice are essential to effective self protection and not being negligent with your deadly weapon, whether you use a laser or not. Perhaps, especially if you do.

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."