Two Guns

The Ruger LCP in a D.M. Bullard Cross Draw holster

I think it is safe to day, two guns are better than one.

Of course, many people consider many guns to be better than one and if you are into guns, like guns, and collect guns, that is certainly true. But, for the person who is primarily, or solely, interested in concealed carry for protection, having too many guns isn't necessary or even desirable.

However, I want to put forward the case that for the average person who carries, two guns are better than one, even if only one is carried at a time.

Why would this be so? In my opinion, it is a good idea for most of us who are concealed carry gun owners because of the fact that much, if not most, of our day is spent at home and around the house and yard. Some percentage of our time is taken by activities that take us away from home, and some of these occur in places in which we are more likely to encounter individuals and circumstances that might require recourse to our carry weapon. The two general scenarios are suited to different carry guns. Here is why.

My basic premise is that if one has gone to the trouble and training to carry a concealed firearm, then it only makes sense to carry it as often as possible. Otherwise, what is the point? You don't buy insurance that is in force some of the time and not others, nor throw a spare tire in the trunk for some trips but not others. Why, then, leave your carry gun in a drawer, or locked in a safe some times, but not others? Although this makes logical sense, most people don't follow this general rule because, let's face it, carrying a gun all of the time, especially around the house, is a pain. Really. The damn thing is hanging off your belt, or poking you in the stomach or pressing on your hip bone. Maybe dragging at your ankle. (Why anyone would use an ankle holster if they weren't deep under cover or worked a corporate job in a suit, is beyond me.)

A shoulder holster at home? Forget it.

Good holsters will provide a greater level of comfort, but, in the end, after wearing your S&W or Glock all day around the house, you'll know it. You get used to it, but never really like it.

What's a person supposed to do? Not put your gun in a drawer someplace. As we all know, even though it's unlikely, bad things can happen to good people any time, any place, and that includes while you are in the back room going through boxes for that next yard sale, or in the garage kicking the lawn mower. "Oh, pardon me an sec, Mr. Bad Guy, I need to dash into the house/back room/den/office to retrieve my gun."

So, for me, the solution is to carry an effective but small and light handgun around the house. One that is comfortable because it's small and light, but effective enough by itself, or will buy me time to get to a larger weapon if the need dictates. This smaller gun, in a quality and comfortable holster that is always with me, will ensure that I have access to a firearm when and if it is needed.

Yes, the caliber police and the capacity monitors will not take kindly to the notion of a lightweight, small, and small caliber gun, but a simple reality check is enough to defuse those overworked arguments: any gun is better than no gun when you need one. Period.

My choice for AHC (around the house carry) is a new model Ruger LCP. It is "light" and "compact" as they say. It has an improved trigger for better shooting accuracy – put a LaserMax on it and the accuracy goes way up – and it fires the modern .380 self defense loads which are fine. I haven't yet heard of a big-caliber supporter who would volunteer to be shot with a .380 to demonstrate how weak-kneed the round is. Really.

A couple of good holsters and you have a system that you can carry comfortably around the house all day. Keep it on as a back up, or swap it out for something a bit larger with more capacity if you need to carry in a situation and place that you think requires it.

Be safe.

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]

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

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.

Reliability and Risk

One of the big questions about legal concealed carry for self defense is which gun will be the most reliable. Which will be most likely to go "bang" if you have to pull the trigger. Many people would say that a double-barrel shotgun is the best answer, but when you have to factor in other considerations the picture becomes much more complicated.

You cannot easily conceal a double-barrel shotgun for every day carry. Nor would most people want to. Given that a legal concealed carrier will desire to keep his or her gun concealed from others, yet have it readily accessible when needed, comfortable to carry so it isn't left at home, and reliabile so that it works when needed, the question of what to carry and how becomes thorny indeed.

Probably the most popular handgun for concealed carry is some version of the semi-automatic pistol, usually a center fire caliber since these have more power than a rimfire gun. Two questions follow on from that.

One, which caliber should I carry?

Two, what size gun?

Both questions are important and both have their adherents. You will find that many people consider anything less than a .45 caliber handgun to be next to useless for self defense. Their argument usually relies on what they call "stopping power", i.e., the ability of a bullet to generate enough energy into a target to "stop" that target from further action. There remains much debate about the idea of "stopping power" in the knowledgeable gun community.

The idea that one can shoot a full sized adult with a .45 caliber bullet and knock that person down is pretty far fetched. It might work sometimes, but mostly it probably won't for various reasons. The person shot is too cranked up on adrenalin or other stimulants to be much affected. Big animals, shot with large caliber rifle bullets will often not realize they are "dead" and continue to charge or run, as the case may be, for a relatively long period after being shot. So, a big bullet is no surety of "stopping power".

Also, one must be able to actually hit the target. If you miss, it doesn't much matter what caliber of bullet you use.

You will find that most law enforcement and military handgun applications have moved away from the big .45 caliber guns to smaller calibers, the 9 mm being the world-wide favorite at this moment. There are variations of course: .40 caliber, .38 special for certain applications, etc. But this shows that the idea of "stopping power" being the most important is no longer in favor.

Modern ammunition loads that are designed for self defense are very effective in sizes from .380 auto, considered the minimum self defense caliber by many, up through the larger calibers. This is important because the effectiveness of a self defense round is not restricted to caliber and power. The design of the bullet and it's characteristics relative to particular handguns is very important. For example, a well designed .380 auto self defense round, like the Hornady Critical Defense round, may have as much, or more, effect on an adult assailant as a basic .45 caliber full metal jacket bullet fired from a short-barreled .45 pistol. This is certainly true if the .380 bullet is better placed into the target than the .45 round.

Besides these factors, a person carrying for self defense must also consider size and weight of the handgun. Most people will not lug around a two-pound pistol every day, even though their intentions are good to start with. Gun manufacturers have recognized this and responded with a slew of "compact" handguns, both semi-autos and revolvers. The overall aim is to combine what the buying public will consider sufficient "power" with compact size and lighter weight in order to arrive at a perfect carry pistol. Such a gun does not exist, given that everyone has their own idea of perfect. However, there are now many more options to choose from for a daily carry handgun.

It is almost a truism that the best self defense gun is the one you have with you when you need it. No matter if you favor a full size model 1911 .45 semi-auto loaded with outstanding self defense ammunition. If it is home in the safe, or locked in the car because it's become a real pain to carry all day, it is for all real purposes useless as a self defense weapon. I think this is the fundamental reason behind the amazing sales of Ruger's little LCP (Light Compact Pistol). They seem to be selling them as fast as they can make them. They are small, light and very effective when loaded with modern .380 self defense ammunition. Even though many gun "writers" term them derisively as "mouse guns", a great many average people (and many knowledgeable gun owners) are buying and carrying them for self defense. I've yet to meet a person who snorts at these "mouse guns" who will volunteer to be shot with one. That says something.

With the success of the LCP and the LCR (the .38 Special and .357 magnum revolver versions of "light and compact") from Ruger, the market has responded by producing an increasing number and models of "light and compact" for concealed carry. There are many options now.

Perhaps a more crucial question of having a gun with you when you need it, is the one of reliability. If you pull out your compact semi-auto pistol and pull the trigger and it doesn't go "bang", things can turn ugly really fast. No one wants to have a gun that won't work.

The internet gun communications - sites and forums mainly - are rife with tales of malfunctioning guns. If one read solely these and did not put this talk into perspective, you would think a semi-automatic pistol was a fragile beast liable to malfunction at any time. Since most of the worlds police and military depend upon semi-automatic sidearms, this is manifestly not the case. But, it is true that at some times, some guns (probably all guns) will fail. The question is, can you depend upon a certain brand and type of gun to be reliable enough to trust for every day carry?

This question will require a lot of thought and research. My internet forum members will continue to be a great help with this question and I'll give it some deep thought as well. After all, I am personally very interested in this question.