Another Lesson Learned

Sunday I went out with a good friend to get in some shooting – target practice, a bit of training and fun. It turned out to be a learning experience for me as well as a fun afternoon. What did I learn? Well, that I cannot shoot a Ruger LCP well enough to justify keeping it as a self defense gun. Now, I love the Ruger LCP. I've had the older model, and, later bought this one, the newer model with the improved trigger. I have shot a good number of rounds through the LCP platform, but this weekend, I learned that I can't shoot it accurately enough.

This is not a gun problem. This is a shooter's problem. My problem, and not necessarily yours or anyone else's problem. I spent a few years moderating a gun forum that had quite a number of LCP owners and entusiasts as members. I'm certain that many people can perform up to expectations with their small .380 handgun, but my experience has been different.

What happened was this. I have a new LaserMax CenterFire sight on the pistol. I believe firmly that on small, self defense handguns, a laser is a necessary accessory. Most bad things happen in the dark, or darkness, and a laser can help ensure one hits what is being aimed at, especially with a gun like the LCP which has minimal sights to begin with. I fired some close range, steady rounds to ensure the alignment of the laser was correct, then moved to a steel target set up about chest high, and about chest size. Drawing and firing the first magazine at ten yards was enlightening. I shot more plants and dirt than steel, even with the pulsating red dot to aid my aim.

Not good. Reload. Shoot without the laser, still quickly, although slower than one would take in a real crisis situation. Six shots. Two hits. Again. Same speed but closer. Two hits again. Moved to about five yards and repeat. Better, but only 50% hits. Even with more attempts it didn't get any better.

If I had to place the errors anywhere it would have to be with two things, the very small form factor of the gun, coupled with a difficult and long trigger pull.

The short barrel, light weight and two-finger grip necessary on this pistol require the shooter to have an exceptionally steady hand, especially when pulling the trigger. Any slight variation will move the barrel way off target. Unfortunately, even with Ruger's improved trigger on this newer LCP, the effort and distance required to pull through to the break point is too great to maintain acceptable accuracy for me.

The LCP generates a significant amount of recoil which, coupled with the light weight of the pistol, jerks it off target with each shot so one must be very deliberate getting it back on target and trying to make a smooth trigger pull for the next round. Frankly, this was very difficult for me.

During the afternoon, I fired many rounds through the M&P Shield 9mm, an M&P 40, and a .38 special airweight, all with acceptable accuracy in slow and rapid fire. Not marksmanship competition accuracy, but with good "stopt the threat" accuracy.

Why do I have an LCP in the first place? It is small, very small, light weight, easily concealable and comfortable to carry all day, and it is effective with the modern self defense loads. All this is good, but not worth anything if the gun can not be used effectively and responsibly. For me, it's not effective, and perhaps more importantly, not responsible since I do not want to ever endanger innocent people by not being able to shoot at and hit the threat and nothing else.

I can not justify keeping the LCP for those two reasons. I will sell it and point the buyer to this article, so that he or she will understand the limitations and advantages of the pistol.

I encourage you to evaluate your carry arms for their effectiveness and responsibility when being used by you. You might be in for a surprise.

I certainly was.

Posted with Blogsy

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.

Aware

This time I present a guest whose view and philosophy mirrors my own. Many of my friends and family do not get why I carry a gun. Perhaps this will help them to see the world more like I do.

I carry a gun every day

Ernie Traugh, guest columnist
January 4, 2015

Every day I get up and put on a gun. It’s part of my daily routine. No different from making coffee or feeding the dogs before I leave for work.

There is so much misinformation about who that makes me. I’m a “gun nut.” I’m one of “those right-wing Second Amendment people.” I’m the scourge of the earth to some.

Funny how that works.

They don’t even know me but they are worried that I’m what’s wrong with this country, this state and this city I call home. I walk among them and they don’t even know it. I’m the guy in the jeans and Under Armour shirt, the guy in the $200 sport coat and $125 shoes, the guy in Nike pants and a hoodie, and some days I’m the guy with dirty hands from working in the yard, but most of all I’m the guy they never see.

Oh, they acknowledge me sometimes. When I hold the door for them because my parents raised me that way. When I let them go ahead of me in line at the gas station because they seem to be in a hurry. When I pick up their baby’s pacifier in the aisle at the grocery store and hand it back to them because it fell out and they didn’t notice. But they don’t see me. I’m just another guy in the store with things in my hand. But only my left hand. I don’t carry things in my right hand. Not at the store. Not in public.

Why? Because I’m “that guy.” I know that bad things happen. Every day. Everywhere. So I try to be aware. I try to study my surroundings. I expect to not see it coming every time. I expect that evil may show up while I’m shopping or walking through the mall or eating at a restaurant. It doesn’t make me crazy. It doesn’t make me paranoid. It simply makes me aware. Unlike a lot of people that walk by me every day. Looking at their phones, their notes, their purses, or any of the other distractions that plague us. I get it.

I also get that there are wolves. Hungry. Lean. Skilled at their trade. Studying you. Studying me. They like you. They don’t like me. I see them at the mall. I see them at the gas station. I see them right here in this town. Do they know I’m armed? No, they don’t. They know that I’m aware. I look at them. Kill them with kindness. It’s a like a mutual agreement. I see you; you see me. Let’s not kid each other.

It’s weird in a way. The man and his friend in the store that looked all around and even glanced at the camera above us — those guys see me. I’m aware that the door is over there. I’m aware that the coffee pot is within reach and full. He urges me to go first to the counter. “Oh no, you go please. I have all day,” I reply. Now he has to make a purchase. Now he knows I’m polite …. I’m polite and I do not want them behind me in line.
The lady with her kid? She doesn’t notice me, but I’m there. I have a phone. I have a flashlight. I have two knives. I have a firearm. And I have a plan. If this doesn’t go well I want to get her and that little one out of here. Chances are nothing is going to happen until they’re gone anyway. I’d like to leave too.

One man asks the other a question. He hands the guy a few extra bucks to make the purchase of an item at the counter. They leave. I make my purchase. I call the employee by name and tell him to have a good night. I walk to the door and hold it open for the woman approaching. She says, “Thanks.” I say, “Yes ma’am.” Then, poof. I’m gone.

Just another uneventful trip to the store. The best kind ever. It’s funny those men truly saw me but other customers didn’t. Why? Maybe too busy. Maybe too much on their minds. Maybe because they didn’t worry for one second about those two men or me.

When I get home I don’t tell my wife about the two men who lingered. The two men who entered together but stood so far apart. The two men that seemed to have no sense of purpose or item they were in search of. No need to talk of them because nothing happened. This happens daily. Sometimes once. Sometimes multiple times. I like uneventful days.

Most people don’t know me. But man, they sure do judge me. If I use a gun to defend myself they will read about it. They will hear about it. They will weigh in on what should have happened.

I have seen bad people do bad things. I have seen good people dumbfounded and in shock because they couldn’t comprehend what was happening in front of them or, worse yet, to them. It’s not fun or pretty to think about, so most people don’t. They don’t stay awake late at night watching videos from self-defense experts. They don’t read the articles. They don’t look at unedited news on the Internet. They don’t search out the videos of people fighting for their lives and losing.

A man stabbed outside a bar. A couple hijacked and killed in front of the store. A store clerk shot even after complying with a robber’s demands. A video from inside the grocery store of a mad man with a gun shooting people while looking for his ex. Dashboard cameras of an officer involved in a shooting. It’s an ugly world so they choose not to see it.

I don’t train for the warm fuzzy days where everyone gets along. I train for the other days. I try to round out my skill sets. I look at what others have done to succeed. I watch videos of those who haven’t. Some refer to it as making something good out of something bad. Like watching videos of officers being killed as every person that’s gone through any type of law enforcement academy has had to do. Learn from others’ experiences.
People from all walks of life legally carry guns. Some are men and some are women. Some are old and some are young. The ones I know train. The ones I know are aware: Aware of their surroundings. And aware of all of the armchair quarterbacking that will be done if they ever have to use that tool of last resort on their belt. So why do it anyway? Because they value their life and the lives of others. Simple.

My so-called “gun nut” friends and customers are some of the most congenial, trustworthy people I know. I only wish everyone had such friends. I wish everyone understood like I do.

• Ernie Traugh is owner operator of Cedar Valley Outfitters, which opened in 2001, and has been a reserve police officer since 2004. Comments: ernie@cedarvalleyoutfitters.org

Posted with Blogsy

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.

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.

Reducing the Inventory. Reducing Complexity. Re-focusing

Ruger SR9c, Comp-Tac Minotaur AIWB, Kytex mag holder.

Bond Arms Snake Slayer, Remora holster,
BA Ammo holder with .410 Personal Defense Rounds

As with so many shooters, my personal inventory of weapons, accessories and holsters has grown far beyond what I need to be well equipped for personal defense.

I also have the proverbial box of holsters, except in my case, it is a large drawer full of holsters. As readers of this blog will note, I've tried and analyzed many holsters over the past months, reporting on what I see as their good and bad points relative to self defense carry. There are many different designs and executions of those designs. There are many ways to carry spare ammunition, a subject that really doesn't lend itself to debate - if you carry for self defense, then be adequately prepared with extra ammo. A gun with no ammo doesn't work. It looks like a gun, but it don't shoot. Case closed.

Laser sights. Night sights. Grips. Mag extenders, modifications (which I don't recommend in general) to the gun... There are many, many ways to spend money on more stuff for more guns.

But, I've come to the conclusion, what's the point? If you are interested in guns, shooting, target practice, and all of that, then fine. There is little limit to what you can spend your money and concentration on. But, if you are primarily interested in carrying a gun for self defense, and the legitimate defense of other innocent people who may need protection, all of the 'noise' of more stuff isn't going to do you much good for a couple of reasons.

One, it really doesn't matter if you have a leather or kydex holster, or mag carrier. It doesn't matter if you carry a Model 1911 .45, or a LCP .380. Strong side carry, cross draw, appendix and anywhere else - it's not all that important to the main goal of being prepared with your pistol for self defense situations. "No," someone is going to say, "you're wrong." Then comes one of the standard arguments: caliber (bigger is better vrs. accuracy trumps caliber), carry style (cross draw is too vulnerable to gun-grabs, and slow vrs. cross draw is better for driving and sitting), or (IWB is too uncomfortable and harder to get to, vrs. OWB less concealable and  harder to get to...)

And so on.

Two, if you have four different holsters, three different styles (IWB, OWB, SOB) and five different guns, you are setting yourself up for confusion, uncertainty and delay when, as the Marines so accurately put it, the shit hits the fan. Take the Bond Arms derringer and the Ruger SR9c for example. I had both of these guns - still have the Ruger - and can speak from experience. As the photos demonstrate above, carrying them in the same manner still presents significant differences and potential difficulties. It's easy enough when I'm just practicing moves like drawing from concealment, safety, presentation, reloading, but if that SHTF moment ever comes, I will be suddenly in full blown, adrenaline fueled, get-it-done-right-now mode. No luxury or time for consideration of what's in my waistband, or where, exactly, it's located.

If I'm carrying the Ruger with the manual safety on (I don't, but I don't recommend this practice to anyone. You have to make your own choices.), I have to click it off when I draw. If I'm carrying the derringer, the safety will be off, but I have to cock the hammer. It's a single action. (Which barrel will fire first? The bottom one for more accuracy and recoil control, if I've remembered to set the hammer accordingly.)

I can quickly squeeze off two, three or four shots (or more) with the Ruger with simple trigger presses. I have to re-cock the derringer with the thumb of my weak hand before I can shoot a second time. Third shot with the derringer? Well, first in the midst of all this fear, panic and craziness, I have to open the barrel latch, swing the barrels up and over, lock them there with my shooting hand thumb, strip out the two shotgun hulls, reach to my ammo carrier, lever up two shells so I can grab two together, bring them up to the gun, which I hope I've remembered to lock upright into my field of vision so I can also assess the situation while seeing the empty chambers, slide two shells into the barrels - all the way in - and close and lock the barrels into the frame. Oh, then I have to re-cock the hammer.

By then, I might be dead.

With the Ruger, once I've emptied the magazine, which will be eleven to eighteen rounds, depending, I have to push the mag release button, hold the gun into my field of view, slide a new magazine from the holder on my weak side, and slap it home and slap the slide back into battery.

Confusion. Mistakes. Too many options for a time that demands simplicity and clarity.

I am simplifying. The Snake Slayer, a fine handgun, is on the block. Someone will like it and find a good use for it. I don't spend much time afoot in snake country, although there are a few 'wild' dogs around here that would benefit from a face full of #4 shot. My holster collection is being reduced to a few that are simple, effective and concealable. I am carrying in only two locations on my body and none of my holsters are so comfortable that I 'forget I have it on'. That's pretty much BS anyway. Your conscious mind will become attuned to a good holster, but it doesn't forget where it is.

There are times and occasions when a good OWB holster works well and is appropriate, like a long day on your feet, walking, at the fair, around town. There are times when appendix carry is better, like in the car, or at the coffee shop or restaurant. Even walking around. My holster requirements have gone down by at least 50%.

The carry guns I depend on now, both Rugers - the SR9c and the LCP look and operate much the same way. Yes, I know that the LCP is hammer fired and the SR9c is striker fired, the triggers are very different, and the magazine capacities are very different. But, my hand and brain knows which is which when I put my hand on the gun and it knows how to achieve a self-defense sight alignment quickly (and when it's too close-quarters to worry about sight, or slide, alignment) with either. All I have to do then is press the trigger. Repeatedly, if necessary.

A couple of simple, effective and reasonably comfortable holsters for each pistol, one for AWIB, one for strong side carry. That's it.

If I need a separate mag carrier, I go with one from Kytex. I've reviewed them on this blog and I still recommend them. None better. With a gun in either carry position, the Kytex mag holder and spare mag is always in the same place. Don't have to worry about that.

Re-focusing
Finally, simplicity applied to self defense shooting itself.
The internet can be a good thing. Yes, there is a lot of crap flying around out there, especially regarding guns, self-defense, the Second Amendment and all, but I watched a couple of enlightening videos recently that I recommend to you. One was an interview by Rob Pincus with Lt. Col. Dave Grossman a literate, educated, soldier, former LEO and student of violence and combat, consultant and author of a Pulitzer nominated book on those topics. He was discussing the concept of the "sheepdog", the title of his new children's book. Now, I'd much earlier seen a video by Nut N Fancy, who is certainly opinionated and knowledgeable, but whose attitudes I don't always agree with. My understanding of 'sheepdog' then was that people who considered themselves to be that kind of person were arrogant and looked down on everyone else, who they, the sheepdogs, were out to protect. Whether the sheep liked it or not. An odious concept at best.

However, hearing Lt. Col. Grossman's explanation of the sheepdog cast a new light on this concept. There are people who rather than run from trouble, run toward it in order to deal with it. Fire fighters. Cops. Military. Teachers in 'bad' schools. Counselors. First responders. The 'average citizen' who rushes in to help or save. These are all sheepdogs and they don't look down on the people who are not. I believe anyone who elects to legally carry a gun for defense must consider themselves to have accepted the role, to some extent, of a sheepdog, if only for one's self and one's family. I believe the commitment goes much further and that, and it becomes a duty of protecting the innocent whenever that is truly necessary, whether through the use of a firearm, or jumping into a burning house trailer to rescue a trapped person. No one can make someone else be a sheepdog, but if you are carrying a gun for defense, you've already signed up.

I have to remark here that on a gun forum I used to moderate we had a few posters who declared that if they were ever in a place where a random shooter went active, their main and only responsibility was to get away to safety. Why, I asked, were the posters carrying a gun in the first place? I would wonder how a person could live with themselves if they had the possibility and means to stop such violence and they crawled out the nearest exit instead.

Re-focusing on the basics of shooting for defense. Obviously, when pushed to the point where there is no alternative but to shoot your weapon, one then is forced from the defensive to the offensive as a matter of survival. Offensive shooting with a handgun is not difficult. Anyone can learn the basics of drawing, presentation to the main target area and squeezing off rounds. You don't have to hit the bull's eye, or the 10 ring. You just have to put rounds into your target, which at normal self defense shooting distances of around 10 to 15 feet, is not difficult to do. If a normal person trains to do only this, that is all that is needed to be effective at self defense shooting.

And, accepting the fact that you are a sheepdog and you are able and committed to shooting the bad guy(s) if required.

Keep it simple. Restrict the number of your carry guns. Two, or three at the most. Make sure they are well maintained and you can shoot accurately enough to hit a man-sized target repeatedly and quickly. Carry in only one or two locations on your person. Avoid fancy or trick holsters. Keep it simple. No matter which caliber or calibers you choose, make sure you can shoot them accurately.

Where it is legal, always carry your gun.
Where it is legal, always carry your gun.
Where it is legal, always carry your gun.

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]

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.

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....

Carrying Concealed: the first year

This post is primarily addressed to those who have recently received their concealed carry permits, or are within their first year of actively carrying. Welcome to a new world of increased awareness and responsibility. Awareness of having a weapon stashed somewhere about your person almost all of the time. Awareness of the idea that you think everyone else knows that you are carrying. Awareness that your weapon might not be totally secure in its place or holster. Awareness of your awesome responsibility to be safe and to stay out of confrontations whenever possible. Awareness that you possess access to deadly force. Awareness that innocent people can not be threatened or harmed by the fact of you having a legal gun and possibly being required to use it.

For those new to concealed carry, probably the overriding fact for them is that they have a gun on their person. It is natural to be constantly aware of the weapon - after all, it is not something that most of us have grown up with. A pound or more of cold steel encased in plastic or leather hanging off our belts, tucked inside the waistband of our pants or skirts or in a purse or briefcase is difficult to ignore under normal circumstances. It's always there. It pokes, prods and weighs us down. It bumps into doorways and cars. It is there to be felt when a friend gives you a friendly pat or hug. ("That? Oh, that's my insulin pump." Or, depending on the friend, you can say that's my new 9 mm semi-auto... Wanna see it? I don't recommend disclosing to anyone whom you don't have to that you are legally carrying. Once you tell someone, it is in the "wild". You have no control over who else will know... Not a good idea.)

It is a good idea to practice giving and receiving hugs, being an increasingly normal greeting in some circumstances, so that the other person is redirected from touching your weapon. I've found that some men friends will reach out and give one a friendly pat on the side, about where your kidneys are. Wearing a gun near that position - strong side carry on or behind the hip, a common practice for men - guarantees that such a friendly pat will find your gun. Then what? I've used the 'insulin pump' ploy before, but that's pretty lame and leaves the suspicion that you are hiding something. Which you are. I tend to favor a cross draw or appendix carry position when I know I'm going to be mixing with a lot of people to forestall the good old boy kidney pat, or the friendly females who are into hugging everyone. Once, when a male friend gave me a "hello" pat like that on the street and his hand banged into my pistol under my shirt, he looked at me with a quizzical expression. I just smiled back and carried on like nothing happened. To this day, I still think he isn't sure what happened, but I never admitted carrying, so he doesn't know for sure.

So, finding a carry position that works for you, and a good holster that you can depend on will go a long way to becoming more at ease with concealed carry. My experience is that you will end up with a number of holsters to suit different needs. For example, I recently spent two days traveling to another city, going to restaurants, hotels, stores, walking streets, visiting friends, in and out of the car and in a large movie theatre. I took two guns along. One, a Ruger LCP with a Crimson Trace laser sight, and a Ruger LC9, no laser. I had the LCP in a Remora holster, leather lined with an attached mag pouch. Since I carry this mostly at the cross draw position, this was an excellent package for driving, when I was not wearing a coat or sweater (it was pretty cold outside) and in the dark movie theatre. Slipped between my belt and waistband on my cross draw side, it is totally unobtrusive, comfortable and secure - there is a large amount of surface area with the mag pouch attached and this grips exceedingly well.

Even under a simple long sleeve T-shirt, it's not detectable, and it's accessible when sitting.
Other times, I changed to the LC9 in a D.M. Bullard "Bandit" which I use for either my LC9 or my SR9c as a strong side OWB holster. Being almost a straight drop (small cant) I can also wear this cross draw if I like. When I was carrying one pistol, the other was in my messenger bag along with my iPad, notebook and pens and flashlight. It's become my BUG ( back up gun) bag when I carry two guns. When I know I will be walking a lot and want more comfort with a larger caliber, I favor OWB holsters. Although I like cross draw for most situations, I have still not found an acceptable OWB cross draw for anything larger than a small pistol like the LCP.

Other people's awareness that you are carrying a gun
Unless you are sloppy and careless, or carry without a holster, or in an inferior holster that will allow your gun to fall out on the sidewalk as you exit your car, or on the floor as you bend down in public, or dress so that your gun and holster shows, other people will not know you are carrying. I frequently observe others in public to see if I can determine if they are carrying. So far, unless the gun actually shows by printing badly (once) or is exposed when they reach for something (once), I can't tell. And, considering where I live and how many people own handguns and permits to carry them, I am certain that in any sizable gathering, I am not the only one carrying.

When you are new at this, you will have a tendency to fiddle. Re-adjusting the gun and holster, which, after a brief time of carrying, could be the sign of an inferior or ill-fitting holster. Mostly, assuming you have the holster thing figured out, this is only the result of you being too aware of the gun. It is also a give-away to anyone who is looking for signs. If you think there is a problem with your holster or gun, head to a private area - stalls in a restroom are good - and check it out. And fix it. And, remember, that when you look down and see a small dent in your shirt from the end of the grip, you may know it's from the gun under your belt, but hardly anyone else does, if they even notice it at all. Just looks like another wrinkle to them.

Practice. Practice. Practice.Sometimes awareness comes from the sneaking suspicion that you aren't ready to carry, deploy and use your weapon. Comfort with carrying comes with carrying. If you have decided to do that, then by all means, carry whenever it is legal to do so. Not when it seems important or convenient, but all of the time. If you have to leave your gun behind, like going to the Post Office or Court House, invest in a cable-secured gun box, attach it to your car and lock your gun there until you return. Not convenient but better than leaving it at home. You can never predict when you will be confronted by a situation that calls for self protection.

Practice deploying your gun from your various holsters, quickly, efficiently, safely and properly. Needless to say, do this with an unloaded weapon, with no one else around. If you carry with the safety on, always disengage it a the proper place in your draw sequence. Even if it is already off-safe, it is good practice to swipe it off anyway. Do this while wearing what you normally would wear - shirt, sweater, coat, purse, etc. Do it five hundred times to be sure you can do it right the one time you will need to. Then do it five hundred times from the other holsters and carry positions you will be using. This is a good method to get you to settle on a limited range of carry positions as well as holsters.
Above all, practice drawing, aiming and shooting what you want to hit so that you can be certain of hitting what you aim at, and only what you aim at. Nothing else. In my view, there is only one way of doing this, and it involves a significant investment in time and ammunition, and, of course, money.
Shoot regularly and substantially. Invest in targets, ammunition and training. This isn't target shooting. This is self-defense shooting. Quick, but not blazingly fast. Deliberate, so that you engage the right target. Accurate, so that you hit an appropriately sized target area with all of your rounds. Sufficient, so that you can get two or three rounds into that target area before assessing the situation. (Even though you might be loaded up with eleven rounds, there is no need to practice shooting them all as fast as possible.)

There is a school of thought that a laser sight is a prerequisite, or great benefit to accomplishing good self defense shooting skills. I am in the process of testing this theory, along with a couple of laser sights from major manufacturers. However, my expectations right now are that a laser sight does not excuse one from bearing down and practicing solid self-defense shooting skills so that they are effective and come naturally. I expect that a laser, while offering certain advantages in some circumstances (I will have a better idea about this after I've done my testing and evaluations) will not substitute for the requirement of a significant amount of practice and ammunition expenditure.

To sum up, I think that awareness of having a gun on one's person is a requisite to being a safe and effective practitioner of legally carrying for self defense. The type and level of awareness changes and one gets familiar with the weapon, carry systems and responsibilities inherent in gun ownership and use. Always be aware, but be experienced, trained and effective.

Posted with Blogsy