Evolution of carry gun choices

I received my concealed carry license in 2001. In Michigan, that was about the earliest it could be obtained unless you had some serious connections that caused the gun board to vote for you. This means I’ve been a concealed carrier for 17 years, and diligently carry wherever possible.

In that time, I’ve learned quite a bit about what makes a good carry gun for me and my lifestyle. In parallel, the nation has become more shall-issue state to state, causing the gun industry to ramp up selections for this enthusiastic market segment.

This article really deals more with rationale, experiences, and evolving needs and understanding than it does with grams, muzzle velocity, and technical stuff. Sure, a lot of that helped make the choices of carry guns, but very few people hold up a spec sheet side-by-side and pick solely off that.

My first carry gun: the Beretta 92 FS

This was actually my first pistol purchase made 10 years earlier, and was not purchased with the intent of a CPL-intent sidearm. It was a range gun, and I liked the looks, I liked the heft, and I liked that it was the military M9 with associated testing to verify it. When my little blue card arrived letting me know that my right to carry had been purchased back from the government, it was the only handgun in my collection suitable.

When most people think of concealed carry, the full framed Beretta 92 FS does not come to mind. It’s big, it’s bulky, the grip is thick, the slide is long. It is everything that a carry gun shouldn’t be… except reliable, accurate, manageable. Wait…

As a first carry gun, its mass was rather daunting. Coupled with concealed carry being a new thing in Michigan as well as me being a new carrier, I was certain this near-anvil chunk of metal was printing wildly on my side and causing my gait to list to port (I’m a lefty). Truth is, people are oblivious and I wasn’t printing hardly at all. The mass, though… That got me to thinking about something smaller. Much smaller.

My second carry gun: the Beretta 3032 Tomcat Inox

As much as I loved the Beretta 92 FS, I decided to stick with the brand for my next purchase. Keep in mind this was about 2002 and the huge array of concealed carry pistols were not out yet.

I caught some major grief from some friends at this choice, most from one particular friend that held the attitude that if it was not a Colt 1911 45ACP it was not actually a firearm. To him, this pistol was a sissy gun, and a weak sissy at that. To me, it was a relief from the very heavy 92 FS, the ability to concealed carry practically anywhere without fear of printing, and most importantly, a means to always have a firearm on me, whether dressed up, regular clothes, or in a pair of shorts while getting a Slurpee after mowing the lawn.

My argument was a 3032 Tomcat on my person was more powerful than a 45 in the dresser back home. I wasn’t wrong in this assessment, but the 32 ACP had some issues in the power department, and trusting one’s life to such a small caliber wasn’t the wisest thing out there.

At the time, 380’s were the compacts of choice, but coming off the 92 FS I wanted something more subcompact. I eventually sold this gun to fund my next concealed carry purchase…

The Heckler and Koch USP Compact 45

This gun was a dream come true. It was the sweet spot between the big ole 92FS and the small 3032. It was a beefy caliber. It shot like a dream, and the recoil was more of a long shove than a jumpy abrupt kick.

With the two magazine choices, I had the better feeling extended magazine and the shorter flush one, making this a great gun to take to the range and a comfortable one to shoot as well as carry.

The day comes when we all realize that the class to get the dumb blue card ill-prepared us for an actual altercation. For me, this day came in summer of 2004 during a traffic altercation. Another motorist decided he didn’t like my driving, and chose to express himself with the threat of violence.

I was fortunate to have been carrying that day, as I was in my old Jeep with no top and no doors and traffic was going nowhere. I was pinned in. Fortunately, the presence of the firearm proved to be enough of a visual deterrent that he followed orders to drop his baseball bat that he articulated he was going to kill me with and move on with his day. Needing training was now on my mind.

Later that year, I was winter camping solo and encountered a pack of wild dogs. Their modus operantdi seemed to include growling at people until they threw them food, watch as they scurried off, and then eat food. (I learned this later from some backpacking forum posts for that area.) Since I only had freeze dry, and I was not about to set up camp to entertain a pack of wild dogs while I prepared their lunch, the need to defend myself was evident. I drew the USP Compact 45, and put one right in front of what appeared to be their leader. This scared them off for a time, and effectively ended my trip since I didn’t want them coming back  while I was set up and possibly sleeping.

Getting some training

The next Spring I resolved I would get some training from a legitimate source. I managed to find that training and took a Handgun I and Handgun II course with round counts of 350-400 per day. This was common round counts in the pre-Sandy-Hook days of training. Classes had many drills with high reps per drill. It was here I realized that as much as I loved my 45, ammo costs for training were prohibitive.

To solve this issue, I took the training with my Beretta 92 FS. It may seem counter-intuitive to not ‘train like you fight’, but I felt it was more important to get the knowledge in a way I could afford rather than wait. I also took copious notes and trained in my 45 with those drills as I was able to afford.

Some big take aways were:

Ammunition capacity: With a loaded 92FS and 2 spare magazines, I had 46 shots available. With the USP Compact, I had 25 rounds. Nearly half.

Shooting dynamics: Anyone that says “I carry 45 because I only need to shoot once” is either really, really good, or they are a stupid idiot. Odds are generally on the latter. In an altercation, with all the stressors of conflict, the overload of senses, the worrying you’re doing the right thing, the determination this is last resort, the moving, potential bullets coming your way, trying to get cover, etc., you really aren’t going to hit what you’re aiming at unless it’s very close. Or unless you’ve really trained hard.  Capacity becomes your friend so you don;’t hear the dreaded ‘click’ on an empty mag.

After this training, I started to realize that the USP45C might not be the best choice. During the next couple years, strides in cartridge advancement started to close the 45 vs 9mm performance gap. After nearly a decade with the Heckler and Kock USP Compact 45 as my primary carry gun, it was time to make the transition.

The Heckler and Koch P30

The P30 in 9mm is the perfect firearm for the left handed. Ambi mag release, ambi slide lock lever, no external safety. With 46 shots on body (the loaded handgun and 2 spare mags), the P30 is a phenomenal shooter.

This firearm has been my daily carry for the past 6 years. I have approximately 10,000 rounds through it with multiple classes as a student and many as an instructor myself. It has not once malfunctioned on me. It is the cold, stoic, and reassuring friend that has my back, and I have never once doubted its performance.

That being said, I’ve never shot with it particularly well, and have had great difficulty in pinning down why. I always shoot slightly low, and slightly left. This is not a trigger position thing; I’ve tried adjusting this in a controlled manner. Follow up shots are tight, but consistently off. I’ve adjusted sights, and moved point of aim to achieve acceptable results, but still fail to get the groupings that I can easily achieve on my Beretta 92 FS or my USP Compact.

Reassess Constantly

This summer, when shooting at my home range with my son, we tried a few different drills. The first was double taps. With the P30, I was regularly 8 inches apart vertically and within 2 inches horizontally. With my 92 FS, I was regularly 2 inches apart vertically and negligible drift horizontally. This was approximately 30 double taps with each, with deliberate focus on control.

My next set of drills was a 30 yard shot. No timing, no constraints other than aim and shoot. At 30 yards, I was 18 inches off center with the P30. With the 92 FS, I was a mere 4 inches off center (both were low).

My last set of drills was one handed shooting at 10 yards, no time limit. I was on target (about a 1.5 inch grouping) with 15 shots with the 92 FS. When I performed this with the P30, my grouping was 3.25 inches with 15 shots. Both are within acceptable parameters for self defense needs.

During the nearly 20 year span of concealed carry, holsters have also made great strides. The days of leather-only holsters are long gone, with many kydex and performance plastic ones on the market that make large frame pistols far more manageable and concealable than the days of yore.

My experimentation showed I was a better shooter with the 92 FS. With that knowledge, I ordered a modern holster for it. The modern holster makes the large framed pistol easily concealable, the weight manageable, and printing minimal.

My current carry

My current daily carry is my Beretta 92 FS. It has some drawbacks which I understand. It is assuredly not on the same advancement level as the HK P30, and it is still a bit big for discrete carry everywhere. Added to this is a small Glock 43, for when the full frame pistol is not an option.

Between these two, I am covered for concealability vs capacity. But both operate as intended every time I ask. I shoot well with them both, and both serve their purpose.

Educated shooters will wonder Whiskey Tango Foxtrot at my choice, and they are certainly within the realm of reason to do so. But the gun is one part of the whole system, and with me as part of that system, the 92 FS seems to perform better. For me.

Honest assessment.


Unpopular opinion: You are responsible for your firearm

While visiting some popular sites, I came across a post that depicted an old refrigerator being repurposed as a gun cabinet. The only thing that alarmed me more than the stupid idea was the chorus of approvers of this stupid idea.

Yes, there are many technical reasons this is dumb. No fire protection, minimal ventilation, no place left for the Guinness, etc. But, most importantly, no LOCKING MECHANISM.

In the words of some NRA training material, “Your gun is always somewhere.” This can sound trivial, but it is true. When the firearm is not in your hand, it is where you left it.  If that place is an unlocked refrigerator, it’s on you if the firearm is subject to unauthorized access.

 In a perfect world, we should be able to lay a million dollars on the kitchen table in front of a picture window with the doors unlocked, and no one would ever come take our money. We do not live in a perfect world.

When we own something that can inflict dire consequence, such as a firearm, it is our responsibility as gun owners to control access to the firearm such that dire consequence is not unjustly visited upon ourselves or others.

Controlling firearm access is the owner’s responsibility. Even when he is not present.

Refrigerators are not made to be tamper-proof. Concealment of an object is not a reasonable approach to controlled access. It remains the gun owner’s moral responsibility to ensure due diligence in securing the firearm. Leaving a gun in the car and getting broken into and gun stolen is partially the gun owner’s fault. Leaving a defense gun on the nightstand while at work is partially the gun owner’s fault. Just as leaving it under the bed is, just as leaving a concealed carry gun in a bathroom stall is. Yes, a crime was committed to gain access to it, but access was indeed obtained.

Only when due diligence is demonstrated does the gun owner start to absolve himself. A stout gun safe. A bedside biometric safe. A locked box with securing cable in the car. These begin to demonstrate that the gun owner took reasonable precautions at controlled access. If the gun is obtained through these securing means through determined and appreciable action, the gun owner can ethically state his firearms were secure.

The last thing a responsible gun owner wants is to learn his gun caused harm to innocent people. Start storing it that way.

2019 Training Schedule

Hello BEARS! Our 2019 training schedule is official. We will be offering our Intermediate courses as well this year, so now is the time to get the prerequisites in!

Schedule:

February:

March:

April:

May:

June:

July:

August:

September:

October:

November:

Coupon Codes:

  • PROFICIENCY: This coupon code is for K&B Alumni that have taken a specific course offering and wish to re-take it to continue skill building. It is a deep 30% discount meant for returning students to a specific course, only.
  • K&B-ALUMNI: Alumni of one of our shooting courses (Essential Handgun, Michigan CPL, Intermediate Handgun 1, Intermediate Handgun 2, Martial Gunfighting) may take our Emergency Preparedness 1 and our Personal Protection class for FREE. Do not use this code unless you are an alumni of one of the listed courses.
  • EDUCATOR: An educator (public or private) of preschool, elementary school, middle school, or high school that is willing to take protective training for the purpose of being better able to protect our children will train with us for free. Offer is good for Essential Handgun, Michigan CPL, and Personal Protection courses. Proof of being an educator required prior to course start time.

The box full of holsters, the box full of lessons

Most experienced CPL people have a box full of holsters. Why? The truth is, we spend a great deal of research on the firearm we will concealed carry. What is the right size for me? How do I balance capacity with concealability? How do I balance ergonomic control against concealability? Does it support my accessory requirements? Do I like the grips? Does it go pew pew when I hit the trigger?

We spend far less time understanding that the blaster is only one part of the system that is made up of firearm-location-holster-clothing. All of these factors are important if we hope to maximize firearm capability against the requirement of concealability. It is also important to note that the firearm and the clothing in this system are somewhat fixed: They’re already determined. The newly minted CPL’er rarely goes out and buys a whole new wardrobe to accommodate his new firearm, and after such an investment, he is unlikely to buy a new firearm right away to something that may be more suitable.

What’s left is the carry location and the holster that must interface and integrate these two ‘fixed’ factors.

For carry location, the new CPL’er must learn what works for him. Is strong side 3 o’clock the best method? Appendix carry? Small of back? Cross draw? It takes time to learn what works for someone, and each person’s daily range-of-motion requirements may be different. A full time driver who is right handed may find cross draw to be beneficial, or a good shoulder holster position. A desk jockey may get a bit pinched up at appendix carry. Small of back is mostly for sadists.

Once it’s determined where to carry, one then needs to find a holster that carries well in that position. But, In the Waistband (IWB) or Outside the Waistband (OWB)? Which is more concealable with my daily wardrobe? Which is more comfortable? Which is more effective?

While making this decision, along enters the marketing. A simple search engine result will yield a sea of holster flotsam floating towards the screen, each one being the superior product with superior ergo that superior warriors in Kydexstan all swear that they and their Special Forces brethren have trusted their lives with. It’s easy to buy into this for features one may not need, that are just poorly made, or have a bad form factor that would have some people just leaving the uncomfortable mess at home.

We mostly end up getting a holster based on internet reviews and a couple personal recommendations.

Now for the re-do loops.

The odds of assessing all of this correctly on the first go around is slim. As with a sore and injured body part, we rarely understand the range of motion we actually use in a day until something painful is screaming at us about it. And yes, pinching leather or Kydex and an unforgiving pistol slide can be painful. So, a reassessment of carry location occurs. Sometimes the holster can be used in the new location. Sometimes it cannot. Order up another one and throw this in the box.

Once the carry position is a bit better understood, and the holster made for this position is obtained, how does it feel? Does it work as intended? Does it pinch? Does it dig in? Does it________? Odds are this is another holster in the box and a new one purchased. IWB? OWB? New location for these? Add it to the box.

We haven’t even tried to draw it under training duress yet.

It becomes easy to see how concealed carry results in these assessments. It becomes a point of humor among veteran CPL’ers about the box full of holsters and the slight pause after mentioning it as we remember the trials of optimizing OUR carry system for US.

It does get better. After the initial carry gun is replaced with a newer model or another purpose (many people carry a compact model firearm every day but have a ‘mouse gun’ backup of some type for discretionary carry), the lessons learned from the box of holsters are not repeated for the new gun. Range of motion is understood. Carry location has already been determined. Wardrobe considerations have been addressed through experience and modified as time went by.

The system is understood. It is a box of lessons.

 

Safety rules: Not optional, no matter how ‘Murica you are

I had a lovely ‘discussion’ with a FB denizen yesterday regarding gun safety in class. A person indicated they were concealed carrying (they had an out of state permit) through the entirety of the CPL class they took (not a K&B class).

Since there is a strict “No ammo in the classroom” rule, this would have been a huge NO. A guy who we will aptly name Fudd enters the conversation, decrying that I am an anti-gun liberal doing nothing more than creating a pistol-free zone because I do not believe in the 2A. Those that know me know there is really nothing further from the truth.

The reasons for the no ammo in the classroom are this:

1) The NRA says so, and this is an NRA class. When one agrees to instruct something and effectively enters a contract, one upholds his word to do so, not just the parts they like.

2) (more importantly) In order for a firearm to discharge, 3 things are needed. A firearm, ammunition, and trigger actuation. To ENSURE a safe training environment where students and instructor may be handling firearms AND where dry-fire trigger actuation may occur, the means to make the situation safe is simply deny the presence of live ammunition.

Many things are taught in our CPL class, including DA/SA trigger pull, trigger reset, and other factors that require dry fire.

In a similar vein, if we were teaching a reloading class, and ammo must be present to address the coursework, the firearm would be what was denied in the classroom.

Fudd insisted that separating ammunition from the training area where firearms and trigger actuation was occurring was anti-2A. It is not. It is establishing a safe environment for all involved.

GSSF Recap with Berge Avesian

by Berge Avesian

I just got back from my very first Glock Shooting Sports Foundation (GSSF) competition! It was great and I highly recommend it. My performance on the other hand was not so stellar. Let me preface this with a little background: My EDC is a Sig. I carry Sigs on duty. I’ve gone to competitions with my Sig (and done quite well). I am basically a Sig guy. Now in my safe I have a number of pistols, Glocks among them, but none get so exercised as my Sigs. If I was shooting my Sig 226 today, in competition, I have no doubt I would have put up some formidable numbers but…I wasn’t shooting my Sig.

This GSSF competition was limited to Glocks only. So I pulled my Glock 22 in .40 cal from the back of my safe, grabbed my pistol bag and extra magazines and headed to the range. In hindsight I should have realized I had a problem the moment I picked up my spare mags; two of them were 10 rounders left over from the 1994 AWB! Are you starting to see how I’ve let this pistol languish? Any way I headed out the competition and honestly didn’t do too bad in the 1st two events. The 3rd and final event was the metal plates. Where the first two events could mask my poor marksmanship thanks to larger targets, the plates meant I’d have to be on target with my sights and missed shots would not go unnoticed. 4 strings of fire, 6 plates each and I only hit 15 with 44 rounds! Now I’ve been shooting for a long time and I am very familiar with all manner of firearms and how to handle them. But that doesn’t mean I’ve spent enough time on all of them to understand their nuances and how they shoot (high, low, right, left?).

When the buzzer beeped and I brought my Glock 22 up to bear on the first plate, I was dead on with my sights! The front and rear sight were in near perfect alignment. I squeezed the trigger. Bang! The plate remained unmoved. Follow up shots all had proper sight alignment yet all but the last in that magazine failed to find its mark! What happened?! It took me 2 magazines to figure out the front sight on my Glock is a bit low and every one of my missed shots hit exactly below the steel plate. D’oh! Needless to say I caught on to my sights too late to salvage the heat. If I had just given my Glock as much attention as my Sig I might have figured the sights out and shot a much better score.

Don’t let this happen to you. Whether you are like me and have a bunch of guns or just have one or two, you need to practice with everything you have. Try to run every gun you have enough that you become intimately familiar with its fit and function. Don’t wait till competition or worse a life or death situation to realize you should have been training with your guns more!

Happy Hunting!

Berge Avesian

Gun: An American Conversation (wrap up)

For the month of April, the news outlet MLive and other outlets around the country, ran a program called “Guns: An American Conversation”. The idea behind this project was to get people communicating about gun violence, and entertain possible solutions. The framework was to remain respectful, give well-reasoned answers or stances, and, again, remain respectful. If we could take away different perspectives and different stances, then we would become closer to finding solutions.

Keep and Bear, LLC instructor Don Alley was one of those chosen to be a part of this conversation.

The group consisted of about 150 people total from around the country, with viewpoints spanning the spectrum of gun rights and gun violence. While the participants weren’t 100% respectful at all times, and were sometimes steadfast in their beliefs (Don included), the month long conversation certainly didn’t devolve to the typical Facebook vitriol so common elsewhere. In that, at least, the program was a success. Here is Don’s experience.

Initial thoughts

My initial thoughts, admittedly, was that a media outlet was setting up a group to reinforce via echo-chamber that gun rights were collectively granted, alterable, negotiable, and therefore were readily adjustable via consensus. At the very worst, I figured I’d end up being a lightning rod for individual rights by questioning what authority others had over my rights. (As my involvement in the project continued, I discovered that there were certainly those that held that exact viewpoint).

Guidelines for expectations of discourse were provide, which were easy enough to follow should discussion remain fact based, purpose-driven, and earnestly looking for answers.

The beginning

The month long session dove right in, somewhat predictably. There were many anti-gun people eager to make a difference by proposing ideas that they thought would reduce firearm related violence. These tended to trample the Second Amendment, and those proposing these ideas were alright with that.

There was more than a few members that made it clear that any law, any regulation, or any disqualifier to owning arms was more than acceptable to them. If an idea resulted in any firearm being banned, confiscated, or not for sale, they were clearly for it.

Conversely, there were other members who held the opposite viewpoint. Firearm ownership was an inherent right of a free people, and others do not have the authority to alter it. Anti-gunners were quick to point out that because infringement is currently occurring, that infringement is OK.

There were many in the middle, who were either unaware of the nature of a ‘right’, or felt that reasonable limits were acceptable. These people were, ultimately my target audience for conversation, and wanted to delve more deeply into this neutral/unfamiliar conscientious to understand and relate to them better. Fortunately, the best way to show the end-game of an anti-gun stance is to simply ask more questions. With a few leading questions, the motive becomes clear: control over others. Here were some more observations…

The ‘reasonable restrictions’ argument (part 1)

Anti-gunners use the notion that ‘reasonable restrictions’ are allowed by government to safeguard the public peace. Once the authority to restrict is thus established, they argue it’s just a matter of where those restrictions lie, and ‘we all’ get a say in that. There are a number of issues with this approach.

Anti-gunners like to equate the 1A to infringing the 2A. “You cannot yell Fire! in a crowded theater. This is an example of a reasonable restriction”, they like to argue. Thy are correct that you cannot do that, but they are incorrect calling it a reasonable restriction. It’s actually a crime called ‘inciting’. A ‘restriction’ in this case would be to make it so the word “fire” was illegal to utter. Other popular 1A crimes include slander, libel, and fraud. The system has taken these 1A-based actions and criminalized them because they can lead to physical or financial harm. Aside from these, the 1A is held in high public regard, and further limitations to the 1A are generally held unfavorably.

Likewise, 2A-based abuses are also crimes. These include assault, manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon, and murder 1, 2, 3. These actions are already criminalized, and as such, if the 2A were held in the same regard as the 1A, further restriction would not be pursued, but the understanding that lawbreakers would be brought to justice.

‘Reasonable restrictions’ are not warranted if the action under scrutiny is already a crime.

The ‘reasonable restrictions’ argument (part 2)

Of interest in the ‘reasonable restriction’ argument, the SCOTUS case DC vs Heller clarified that the 2A is an individual right, but that the government had authority to restrict “unusual” firearms. Since recent estimates show that there are at least 2.4 million AR-15 style defensive carbines in private ownership in the USA, with who knows how many other ‘assault weapons’ (please forgive my use of the term) in private ownership, this style of firearm cannot be considered ‘unusual’, and the ruling would actually prohibit government entities from banning this particular arm.

The ‘restrictions are not infringement’ argument

Yes, they are, by definition. I posted a progression of a firearms transaction from total freedom to authoritarianism. It went like this:

  • Total freedom: I walk into the gun store, choose the firearm I want, voluntarily transact, and leave with the firearm I’ve purchased.
  • Add firearm restrictions: I walk into a gun store, choose the firearm I want (from a list of features the government has deemed I may purchase), voluntarily transact, and leave with the firearm I’ve purchased.
  • Add background checks: I walk into a gun store, choose the firearm I want (from a list of features the government has deemed I may purchase), get NICS checked (ensure I am not on a list that the government has deemed not allowed to purchase a firearm), voluntarily transact, and leave with the firearm I’ve purchased.
  • Add purchase permits: I first go to the government, take a test to prove I am eligible, wait on those results, get issued a purchase permit, I walk into a gun store, choose the firearm I want (from a list of features the government has deemed I may purchase), get NICS checked (ensure I am not on a list that the government has deemed not allowed to purchase a firearm), voluntarily transact, and leave with the firearm I’ve purchased.
  • Add waiting periods: I first go to the government, take a test to prove I am eligible, wait on those results, get issued a purchase permit, I walk into a gun store, choose the firearm I want (from a list of features the government has deemed I may purchase), get NICS checked (ensure I am not on a list that the government has deemed not allowed to purchase a firearm), voluntarily transact, leave the gun store, wait 3 days to ‘cool off’, return, and leave with the firearm I’ve purchased.
  • Add red flag laws: I first go to the government, take a test to prove I am eligible, wait on those results, get issued a purchase permit, I walk into a gun store, choose the firearm I want (from a list of features the government has deemed I may purchase), get NICS checked (ensure I am not on a list that the government has deemed not allowed to purchase a firearm), voluntarily transact, leave the gun store, wait 3 days to ‘cool off’, return, and leave with the firearm I’ve purchased, which I may keep only until such a time that the collective preference of society deems I am allowed to have it, and I must surrender them should a single judge deem it so. I will not be afforded due process, I will not be able to face my accuser, and I will not have a say in their disposition. I may have to prove myself worthy of exercising my right, and the state may make that proof as attainable or unattainable as it sees fit.
  • Authoritarianism: Gun store? We outlawed those. Why do you need a gun? I am reporting you.

Each step above cumulatively infringes on a person’s right, and distances the freedom the 2A enumerates into a set of privileges and preferences, eventually ensuring that no firearms and no people are in the ‘approved set’.

Anti-gunners are quick to point out how ‘quick’ it is to get a firearm. You can walk in and walk out with one. This is as it should be when exercising a Right. What they don’t emphasize is that the person is run through a somewhat efficient database that is able to check ineligibility right away. Because something is ‘quick’ does not mean that it isn’t thorough or comprehensive.

Rejection of the slippery-slope argument

In logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and case law, is a consequentialist logical device in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.

Anti-gunners like to call out the cautions and concerns of pro-gunners as being slippery slope arguments. “Just because we enact regulation now does not mean that we will enact more legislation later.”, they say.

Yes, it does. Yes, they will.

We had the 1934 National Firearm Act which effectively outlawed automatic weapons,  short barrel rifles and shotguns, and suppressors. This was followed with the 1968 Gun Control Act, which regulated firearms as interstate commerce, restricted many firearms, and attempted to relegate firearm ownership as “sporting purpose” in origin and not militaristic in origin. From there, an 80’s era assault weapon ban attempted to prohibit ‘military style’ firearms. A myriad of state level and local bans have followed in the years since. We now have a retired SCOTUS judge calling for the repeal of the 2A, and multiple politicians introducing bills that outright ban firearms.

A slippery slope argument is no longer a logical fallacy when the slope has been proven to exist and is indeed slippery.

In fact, another participant used the “pieces of cake” argument to highlight the iterative, repeated infringement. He likened one’s rights to a cake. When someone came along and said “I will take a piece of your cake, but you get to keep the rest”, the cake owners acquiesced. When they came back for more, the cake owner protested but gave in. Now, with only a slice left, they are coming for it once again.

The anti-gunners were actually livid with this analogy. My take on it was that they were clearly exposed as incrementally infringing rights, and their call for “middle ground common sense” legislation was highlighted as another failure in a long history of gun control failures.

I asked “If we do another gun ban like you’re asking, can we add language to the bill that any future politician suggesting further bans shall be forcibly removed from his office, even upon pain of death, and those enforcing that removal have a full and complete pardon?” I did not get a reply.

The qualifications of those that would make you defenseless

This was actually a post that infuriated me the most. It was a ladies-only post, so I respected their space, but I still read it and took away what I could. The reason for my anger was how ill-informed some of the participants were regarding self defense. After exhibiting potentially lethal ignorance on the topic, they continued to use the group to talk about protective actions. Hint: If your personal protection strategy is based on ‘hope’, or ‘willful ignorance’, don’t try to impose your viewpoints on to others via gun control.

That being said, many/most of the participants cited situational awareness, staying in areas known to be safer, having some defense training, and many only go walking about with their dog.

Here are some of the personal protection strategies of some in the group:

  • I am disabled and ride an electric scooter. I feel that is my armor. I also carry a can of hairspray that will temporarily stop someone if sprayed in their eyes. I also have one of those really loud alarm buttons I can press to attract attention if needed.”
  • “..I assume my world is essentially a safe place and should I be a victim of violence, it would be a random circumstance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I would never carry a gun.
  • I also know some basic self defense just from watching some videos.”   followed up with a question as to what videos she watches. She answered “The ones that pop up on my Facebook feed and Twitter“.
  • I was raised to use my house keys as weapons. Putting one or two between my knuckles to pierce my attacker and wound him.
  • Protection of the female from male predators has been throughout our history and part of our present.. I don’t think carrying a gun will fix our future..

Another prevalent topic was the need to ‘feel’ safe. Not ‘be’ safe, feel safe. This is a false measurable, as how one feels is unimportant when protective topics are addressed, yet the solutions offered throughout the project seemed to repeatedly be based on how to ‘feel safe’.

There were more than a few posts with women knowing a good bit of martial arts, carrying defensive firearms, and carrying pepper spray/gel, and again, there was a high degree of stated situational awareness.

There is, however, a danger in considering a vocal gun control proponent’s argument, however. They are, quite literally, arguing to make you defenseless. The ‘bait’, is that you will not need defense any more if all guns are taken away, but the sum of human history up to the invention of the firearm shows that theory to be in error. In fact, advent of the firearm helps ensure females are safer than they ever have been in history, as the device relies on a chemical reaction (the cartridge going off), rather than physical strength, to project protective force.

How gun owners are perceived

It has been my experience that gun owners view the American population in two groups:

  1. People who want violence eliminated (but the means in which this is accomplished varies greatly).
  2. Criminals.

During this month long project, it became clear that anti-gun people view Americans in 3 categories:

  1. People who are anti-gun and therefore want violence eliminated.
  2. Pro-gun people who are alright with violence, or are themselves criminals waiting to happen.
  3. Criminals.

This attitude was prevalent throughout the project, with gun owners sometimes outright vilified. One post even stated “another good guy with a gun, until he wasn’t” regarding an assaultive encounter under discussion.

I see this as the biggest divide on this issue. To the anti-gunner, the 2A is not really a right, it’s a road block to imposing their preference. It must be questioned, marginalized, scrutinized, and the founding fathers’ intent on it must be doubted. This is the only way it can be eroded. Then, they will have their way.

Until then, pro-gunners are apparently one step away from becoming criminals.

I, for one, will continue to see American’s in the 2-category model I first mentioned, and I will continue to reject and vehemently oppose the notion that gun owners are violence proponents simply by virtue of employing a means of protection.

The obligatory NRA bashing

This is the time honored tradition of the anti-gunner, but also represents one of the biggest wins this project offered. The topic started with the usual “NRA wants dead babies” statements. Not put out there as fact, but rather that the NRA is complicit in every shooting occurring in the USA.

Fortunately, there were many pro-2A people who were able to shed some reason on it. Some of these points were:

  • Issues you (anti-gunners) are for have lobbies. Why do you not oppose them? Are lobbies evil or not?
  • Why do you feel the NRA is racist? (Apparently Ted Nugent’s opinions translate to the entirety of the organization.)
  • Who is the NRA made up of? (Answer: Between 5 and 10 million Americans willing to open their wallet and their junk mail boxes to support their cause).
  • For your causes, you (anti-gunners) get corporate support (such as Soros funded protests). Why is it that the NRA getting corporate support from related industry members vilified?

As I mentioned, I felt this was out biggest ‘win’ in the discussion. It became very clear that the answer to “Why is the NRA vilified” is “Because they are effective.” Based on the responses of many centrist viewpoints in the group, they felt the NRA and its members were unfairly targeted and vilified for supporting their cause.

Gun owners should have to ____________

I mentioned this one in last month’s post, and it remained prevalent throughout the month long project. The restrictions proposed, and the solutions offered seemed to largely revolve around this format.  ‘Solutions’ varied from carrying extra liability insurance (ensuring gun rights are only for the wealthy), to mandatory safety training (enabling anti-gun areas to impose very difficult testing), to waiting periods, to more invasive background checks, to even getting clearance from a psychologist, the solution was clear: gun owners must bear the brunt of freedom infringement for the mere feeling of safety in others.

One of the moderator’s favorite participants had an op-ed piece published in his local paper, suggesting that liability insurance be required for gun owners. It was heartening to find his op-ed received a near-90% disapproval to his ill-thought suggestions.

Built-in bias

The program was moderated such that only a few new topics were introduced each day, and conversation swirled around those. During this month, a homeowner used an AR-15 to stop multiple people invading his home. This link was rejected as a talking point. The same day, another gun control school walk out occurred, where one student was shot in the ankle. This article was rushed through to the top of the line and published.

The AR-15 link was rejected ‘because we already know guns like this can be used defensively’. But, don’t we already know school walkouts occur? Don’t we already know sometimes someone in a large group suffers injury?

While the conversation was free on each topic, the conversation was indeed steered by what topics were brought up.

Conclusion

I’ve come away with a somewhat hopeful feeling: That truth, logic, safety, and true freedom lie on the side of the pro-gun community. We rely on our training to protect us during an altercation, and the justice system to follow up. The anti-gun side relies on the justice system upfront to make them safe, but their disarmament goals ensure that failures within the justice system will continue to harm peaceable Americans.

Keep & Bear Podcast E0006: Holsters 101

In Episode 6, Berge and Don talk about holsters. The firearm, holster, belt, method of carry, and attire all work together as a SYSTEM for concealed carry. What are some of the considerations when choosing a CPL pistol? What does a good holster do for those considerations?

Follow the RULES!

This morning the Detroit News has yet another report of a man negligently (negligently not accidentally) discharging his pistol with fatal results.  The details are sparse but what we are told is that he was cleaning his pistol, then in the process of showing it to his wife discharged it right into his chest.  Of all the stupid ways to die…

If I understand this right, he was cleaning his pistol while it was loaded.  Then managed to, in showing the pistol to his wife, point it at his chest and actuate the trigger.  It is at this point that I want to reiterate the 4 BASIC rules of safe gun handling:

  1. ALWAYS TREAT EVERY FIREARM AS IF IT WERE LOADED.
  2. NEVER POINT A FIREARM AT SOMETHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY.
  3. KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL READY TO FIRE.
  4. BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEHIND IT.

These rules are all you need to safely use a firearm, yet so many people forget them, never learn them or disregard them.  When that happens we have people shooting themselves in the chest unintentionally.

This was a needless death, but let us not let the moment pass without reflection on how you can learn from his mistake.  While the above rules deal with how to safely operate a firearm, they don’t specifically speak to how to safely clean one.  With that in mind I offer my humble advice for your consideration. The first step to safely cleaning your firearm is to MAKE SURE ITS UNLOADED!!!  Remove the magazine, open the cylinder, open the bolt, lock the action open, do whatever you need to do on your firearm to get access to the chamber so you can visually AND physically inspect it!  If there is something there STOP! REMOVE IT! Then proceed to break down your firearm according to the owner’s manual. If you want to take it a step further, clean your firearm in a room or area free of live ammo.  You do this and the worst thing that can happen to you while cleaning your firearm is dropping it on your foot.

Once your firearm is clean refer to the 4 cardinal rules of safe gun handling and you will never appear in the news like the poor fellow above.  Stay safe, have fun, & concentrate on the front sight!

Post by Berge Avesian, Keep & Bear LLC