The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
Self-Defense Myths and Choices for Civilians
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Introductory note: I wanted to touch upon this subject for a long, long while, because it is one I care about a lot. However, it is also totally off-topic for this blog. However, since in Russia there is a lull (that is putting it mildly) between New Year and the Orthodox Nativity, I decided to “squeeze” it here in between those dates and while our usual topics are a little less pressing. Also, I friend of mine was recently thinking about getting a firearm for self-defense and a pseudo-expert wrote a lot of nonsense to her about semi-autos and revolvers. I wrote her an email to debunk some of that crap, then another even longer one, and then I felt “okay, let’s tackle this topic once and for all”. The result is the following article. My motivation here is not to engage in a sterile ideological debate about gun rights – there is enough of that 100% ideological and 100% detached from reality pseudo “debates” out there and they bore me to tears (guns are, along with abortion and drugs, a topic which tends to generate the worst, highly emotional and, mostly, a very uninformed debates, not only in the USA, but worldwide). First and foremost, what I wrote below is address to those in our community who are at risk because they are not wealthy, because they live in not too pretty neighborhoods, those who are sick and weak, the elderly, the lonely women and all those who typical are chosen by criminal thugs for abuse and assault (the rich and privileged rarely need guns because they can pay for their security in many different ways; those who most need guns are the weak, poor and otherwise defenseless). I was raised by a single mother, I have seen first hand how hard it is for a single women to survive in our putatively “civilized” society. So while this blog is definitely not a 2nd Amendment advocacy blog, but I cannot remain indifferent to the fact that we do live in a very dangerous world and that the upcoming year carries truly major risks for our planet. Put bluntly, there is a fair chance that the international economic system will collapse as a result of a US attack on North Korea or Iran. Should that happen, there is a fair chance that many western countries, including the USA, will enter one of the 5 stages of collapse defined by my friend Dmitri Orlov. If that happens, law and order could break down very fast and, frankly, in many parts of the word they already have. These are the latest stats this year for Chicago: Shot & Killed: 619 Shot & Wounded: 2911 Total Shot: 3530 Total Homicides: 670 [Typically, that is a city which has a most restrictive policy firearms thus only criminals are armed!]. Here is my bottom line: being able to use a firearm for self-defense already is a crucial skill needed for survival in many parts of the world and in the near future those parts will only increase in size and number. You are, of course, more than welcome to defend yourself with only words, but please understand that others might feel differently. It just so happens that, over the years, I learned a little something about firearms and that I have spent a lot of time researching this topic. I have decided to post this somewhat off-topic article in the hope that at least some of the readers will benefit from it. I would be grateful if we could keep the comments section focused on the issue discussed here and not the usual hatefest against an inanimate object (firearms) or those us of who believe in personal self-defense, including yours truly. Thank you.

The Saker

* * *

We live in a world of quasi-universal deceit. We also live in a world which proactively fosters a gullible, uncritical acceptance of mainstream myths and lies, especially those promoted by the corporate world. This reality permeates our lives everywhere, from what we listen to, to whom we marry, to how we raise our children, to what we eat, whom we trust with our health, whom we trust our children’s education and many, many other realms. Today I want to address a very narrow issue which is only relevant to those who are willing and able to defend themselves until the cops show up. To be clear, I am not addressing the following discussion to those who believe that firearms are the cause of violence, nor am I writing for those who believe that if attacked by criminals they will call the cops and that the cops will show up fast enough to stop the attackers. And I most definitely am not addressing the following discussion to those who live in safe areas (or think that they are). Finally, I am also not writing for law enforcement officers (this is crucial, see below!). My target audience today is a very narrow one. Those who fulfill these conditions:

1) Those who are willing to defend themselves or others until the law enforcement officers show up.
2) Those willing to use a firearm to protect themselves or their loved ones.
3) “Normal” civilians, i.e. *not* people with advanced training in the use of firearms.
4) Those who lived in jurisdictions which allow a person to use a weapon or self-defense.

What I want to do today is to debunk a very dangerous myth which is almost universally accepted and which is repeated with an almost religious fervor day after day and by almost everybody: that semi-automatic pistols are better for the self-defense needs of civilians than revolvers.

First, let’s cover the basics: semi-auto (aka “autoloader”) vs revolvers (aka “wheelguns”).

On the top left, you see a revolver (a Smith & Wesson .357 magnum model 686P) and on the bottom right you see a semi-automatic (a Smith & Wesson 9mm model M&P 9 with a flashlight/laser combo)
On the top left, you see a revolver (a Smith & Wesson .357 magnum model 686P) and on the bottom right you see a semi-automatic (a Smith & Wesson 9mm model M&P 9 with a flashlight/laser combo)

I think that we can immediately agree that the revolver looks much more antiquated while the semi-auto has a decidedly modern look. Though relatively modern, the revolver elicits images of cowboys at OK Corral while the semi-auto looks like the kind of firearm modern police and military forces would carry. And that it true, cowboys did carry revolvers (though their main weapon was aways rifle) and modern police and military forces almost exclusively carry semi-autos. Why is that?

Semi-autos come with a long list of advantages. Here are the main ones

ORDER IT NOW

1) semi-autos have a higher capacity (have more rounds inside)
2) semi-autos are faster and easier to reload
3) semi-autos are much cheaper (at least in most cases)
4) modern 9mm is an ideal caliber for shoot a person
5) semi-autos can easily accommodate accessories such as a flashlight or a laser pointer
6) semi-autos feel more “modern” and less “cowboy and shootout at OK Corral”
7) semi-autos are generally easier to shoot

It’s all true. But that is not the problem. The problem are the assumptions implicitly made when presenting these facts as arguments for the superiority of the semi-auto. In reality, these assumptions fail when applied to civilians. Let me explain.

What is the main difference between a civilian and a law enforcement officer?

It’s not the gun they carry, nor is it the quality of their training (cops are typically pretty bad shots). It is not the legal right to use deadly force, in self-defense civilians can do that (at least in those jurisdictions which allow civilians to carry a firearm to defend themselves). So what is it? It is the following crucial differences:

When cops hear gunshots they have to go and investigate/intervene whereas when civilians hear gunshots they have to take cover or run.

This is absolutely crucial: law enforcement officers have to enforce the law and protect everybody. Civilians only are allowed to protect themselves (or somebody under their protection) and only until the law enforcement forces show up. This is so important that I want to stress this again: civilians do not have the duty to arrest anybody (even in jurisdictions where so-called “citizens arrests” are legal). Civilians have no business chasing and arresting criminals, they don’t have to initiate a confrontation with gangs, thugs, hooligans, or petty criminals. Civilians do not enforce drug laws (neither should the cops, in my opinion, but that is another topic) and civilians do not make traffic stops. If you are a civilian and you see three thugs going down a one-way street while snorting cocaine and brandishing their guns, you should seek cover and get the hell out of there. Cops are duty bound to immediately intervene. That is a *HUGE* difference.

For civilians firearms are a stop-gap personal protection tool of last resort. It is only when everything else fails that you can produce your weapon and, if that also fails, use it.

Law enforcement officers and civilians live in totally different realities. The reality for civilians looks like this:

  • The vast majority of cases (about 90%) when civilians need to protect themselves happen during home invasions.
  • In the vast majority of cases (about 90%) just showing the firearm (without shooting it!) is enough to stop the attack
  • In the vast majority of cases (about 90%) when civilians do have to fire their firearm they shoot 1 to 3 rounds only.
  • In the majority of cases such armed confrontations happen at a distance of about 3 yards.
  • In the majority of cases, the entire events lasts just a few seconds, then it’s all over

Let me add one more thing: in most jurisdictions as soon as you have stopped a crime by showing your weapon or by using it, you are not allowed to continue firing it. Remember, civilians do not have the right to use deadly force to apprehend a criminal. Which means that as soon as the attack is stopped (whether because the criminal(s) ran in fear or got shot) you have to stop firing. You cannot empty your firearm into the back of a feeling criminal, no matter how egregious his attempted or committed crime was. So even if you catch some pervert trying to rape your 5 year old child, as soon as this crime is stopped, you cannot just shoot the SOB even if he richly deserves it. Let’s repeat that again, firing just ONE SINGLE ROUND more than the strict minimum you needed to stop the crime in progress would expose you to prosecution for any of the following: assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, homicide or even 2nd degree murder.

There is another truth which most people who live in crime infested areas and cops know: the vast majority of criminals out there are petty, dumb and cowardly criminals. It is estimated that anywhere between 20-30 percent of them carry weapons that don’t even work (they are too poor or too cheap to buy a good firearm, and too stupid to maintain it properly). Criminals pry on the weak and defenseless. They are not in the business of wining gunfights. I have never had to use a firearm to protect myself (thank God for that), but I know a lot of people who have and they are unanimous: as soon as the petty thugs see your gun, they run, especially if you fire it once or, even more so, hit one of them.

Yes, I know, mobsters and drug-dealers can use very experienced “soldiers” and there have been famous cases when cops, or FBI agents, have been out-gunned in protracted gun battles. But the chances of that ever happening to you are as close to zero as it gets. The most likely threat to you is a home invasion by two or three semi-literate imbeciles who failed to notice all the signs indicating that the house is occupied and who want to steal your TV to get drugs. Just yelling “get out or I will shoot you” will make them run like crazy. Besides, if you are really on the hit list of the Sinaloa Cartel no firearm will save you anyway, not even the biggest and meanest semi-auto.

What if you are in a convenience store and suddenly three armed thugs come in and try to rob the store (and the clients)? How many shots would you need? The correct reply is “none”. This is NOT your business and you are NOT to open fire unless you have reason to suspect that you or others are about to get murdered. And if that happens, your main problem will not be capacity but the fact that, unless they run, three different opponents will open fire on you from different directions. Remember, winning a gunfight is not about shooting the other guy, it’s about not getting hit in the first place. So whether you open up with your 5 shot revolver or 18 shot semi-auto, it will all happen so fast that your capacity will be the least of your worry. But the smart thing to do is to put your hands up, shut up, given them your wallet and wait for the bad guys to leave, not to have a firefight with FOUR (you + the three bad guys) people with innocent civilians standing everywhere.

Okay, all of the above is to make this point: capacity matters a lot for law enforcement officers, hardly at all for civilians. Sure, it is better to have more rounds than less, as the expression goes “I rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it”, but cute as this expression is, in the real world capacity is simply not relevant for civilians.

So what is?

Well, first and foremost reliability.

Here I will debunk another myth: that revolvers are more reliable than semi-autos. Okay, they are. But by such a tiny margin that it makes no significant difference. Modern semi-automatics produced by quality manufacturers are about as reliable as revolvers (which also sometimes fail!). But that is very bad comparison. What we have to compare is not revolvers and semi-autos but revolvers and semi-autos when used by civilians!

There are malfunctions and what is called “shooter caused malfunctions”. The latter depend mostly on the complexity of correctly using the firearm, especially under stress. And while the difference in reliability between modern revolvers and modern semi-autos is tiny, the difference between them becomes huge when shooter caused malfunctions are included. Stuff like not taking off a safety or forgetting to put a round in the chamber. There is also another type of shooter caused malfunction which is failure to properly care for the firearm. Magazines are, for example, a prime cause in failures to feed (they also tend to drop out when the gun is manipulated which, in some models, prevents the semi-auto from firing at all).

One notorious shooter caused malfunction of sorts is when somebody grabs a fully loaded (but not de-cocked) semi-auto and touches the typically light trigger and inadvertently fires. Most (but not all) revolvers have the advantage over most (but not all) semi-automatics in the fact that in double-action their triggers are much heavier (perfect for a self-defense situation) but can be made extremely light in single-action (perfect for target practice). What this means in plain English is that you are far more likely to inadvertently shoot yourself, or somebody else, when holding a semi-auto than a revolver, especially under stress. This is why semi-autos come with safeties (another terrible idea, in my opinion) which do indeed make the gun safer to manipulate, but come at the cost of adding one more critical step to execute and potentially fail when having to defend yourself.

To fire a semi-auto you need to fully engage a magazine, put a round in the chamber, disengage the safety (if you used one in the first place) and hold the gun firmly enough to allow it to fully cycle. If you hold it too lightly, that is called a “limp wrist”, then the semi-auto will fail to cycle and, basically, jam (this most often happens to women, especially those with a lighter/thinner body). If that happens you need to do what is called a “tap rack bang” procedure (see here for a video explaining it).

The “manual of arms” of a revolver is as follows: pull the trigger; if the revolver fails to fire, pull again. That’s it.

Unless you cock the hammer, the trigger will be heavy enough to be safe without the use of an additional “safety” (cocking the hammer is something you would never do in a self-defense situation – only on movies – and this is why a pure self-defense revolver will often have a “shrouded” (hidden) hammer (see photo of Ruger LCR below).

The answer of the propagandists for the semi-auto is “training, training and more training”. I will address this argument further below, but for the time being just ask yourself which you would prefer doing if confronted by a criminal thug: pull the trigger again or try a “tap rack bang” procedure. Please remember that in most cases when civilians need to use a firearm to defend themselves their opponent is 3 yards away or less? So the bad guy is standing within spitting distance, he might be already shooting at you or, a least closing the distance (a fraction of a second at that distance!) and you are going to try a “tap rack bang”? Really? I very very much doubt it, regardless of how much you spent on “tactical training” (more about that below).

Next, we need to step away from the technical firearms issues and look at the bigger picture of weapons procurement.

Here is the official version: all law enforcement and military forces have moved to the semi-auto because semi-autos are better. Really?

Think again.

How many people would you think are involved in the decision of procuring a firearm for, say, a major police department? Let me tell you about three types which are overlooked: accountants, lawyers and politicians: none of them care very much about the quality of weapons the cops will be carrying. Accountants want to go for the cheap deal. Lawyers will want to avoid a lawsuit. As for politicians, they want to look good. Which would all not be so bad if not for the corporate world.

First, a simple fact: semi-autos are, as a rule, much cheaper than revolvers. Second fact, for law enforcement semi-autos are objectively better. Third fact: what major police departments decide becomes almost accepted dogma. So if, say, the LAPD and NYPD both switch their entire force to semi-autos then it must be that we, civilians, would want to heed their wisdom and to likewise. Except for, as I explained above, we are not cops.

So let me ask you this: in theory, would you agree to pay, say, twice the price for a weapon much better suited to your needs? I think that most of us would say yes. We are not accountants in a major police department, this is about our lives and the lives of our loved ones. You are going to tell me that 300 dollars vs 700 dollars makes such a big difference to you to protect yourself and your family? How much does your TV cost you yearly? How about your hobbies or pastimes?

ORDER IT NOW

Next, lawyers and politicians: lawyers and politicians (same thing, really) will want to say that they got the cops the most firepower possible to avoid cases such as the famous 1986 Miami shootout. So not only will the want semi-autos, but also shotguns, body armor, helmets, AR-15s, armored vehicles and, if given the chance, tanks and heavy machine guns. We all know about the ridiculous over-militarization of US police forces which now treat those which they were supposed to “serve and protect” as dangerous terrorists or insurgents. And it’s their choices which you want to emulate?!

Again, I really do think that semi-autos are better for cops (for the military they are mostly useless except to enforce discipline). All I am saying is that the people involved in the decision about what weapons to get for the police (or the military) have very different criteria that a civilian would. We, civilians, should use our heads and not blindly follow what they say or do.

Now let’s look at corporations. All they want is to make as much money as possible. So, if you were the head of a corporation which manufacturers handguns and if you knew with total certitude that all the police departments and the armed forces of your country are all going to order large numbers of semi-autos for you, how interested would be in keeping a production line and inventory for revolvers which people might still want to buy, but in much smaller quantities? The truth is that the entire weapons industry has a huge interest in “pushing” semi-autos and the only reason why revolvers are still built is that people are willing to pay more for them, because some people use them for hunting and because some civilians are smart enough to see the through the corporate propaganda.

Now let’s look at the “experts community”. What do you think they prefer? I can tell you, about 95% of them will dismiss the “six-shooter” as “totally antiquated” and will swear by semi-autos. Now you remember the argument made about the “tap rack bang” procedure: that if you train well, you can learn how to do that in a fraction of second while under huge stress?

Well, think for a second, and keep in mind the manual of arms I mentioned above, if you were a firearms instructor, would you make more money teaching basic, intermediate and advanced “tactical” firearms training or simple “pull the trigger, pull again”?

This entire “tactical training” nonsense really aggravates me. As if we, civilians, all needed to spend all our free time training (not to mention hundreds and thousands of dollars to pay for it all) and try to became a pretend SWAT team civilian?! This is utterly ludicrous, but since ALL “experts” insist on regular training (and making a ton of money by selling these types of courses!) everybody out there parrots the “train, train, train” nonsense. Take a look at this video showing an ‘”expert” demonstrating how to execute a one handed “tactical” reload while in a firefight against two armed robbers. Yes, that’s right, a one handed magazine reload! That is how totally ridiculous all this tacticool nonsense has become. But there are *a lot* of “experts” making a living from it! And all of them will tell you that revolvers our bad. Indeed, they are, for them and their business model!

So do you need training and how much?

The S&W Mod. 60 with Ruger ARX .38 special rounds is an excellent self-defense option for recoil sensitive people
The S&W Mod. 60 with Ruger ARX .38 special rounds is an excellent self-defense option for recoil sensitive people

Yes, you do. You need be familiar and comfortable manipulating, maintaining and firing your weapon. I would recommend going shooting at least 4-5 times a year. You need to get used to the loud blast and the recoil. For beginners, and I am not jocking here at all, you need to convince yourself that your firearm will not shoot by itself, that unless you pull the trigger it is totally safe. This can take a while for many people (you can spot them easily: they will be afraid to even touch a loaded gun as if the latter could magically bite off a finger or two). Lastly, you need to familiarize yourself with the possible malfunctions of your firearm and what do to if they happen which, in the case of a revolver, is really simple (pull the trigger again). What you do not need is learn how to do a “tactical” reload while doing a “tactical run” while finding in a “tactical” firefight against several armed opponents. Okay, if you are rich and like to play, then by all means, do it. But for those of us who have a hard time paying bills and who have precious little time off, there are better things to do.

Please remember the figures above: in 90% of the cases you won’t shoot at all, and when you do, in about 90% of the cases you will shoot 1-3 rounds, probably missing a lot. That will take care of 99% of the situations you are likely to ever face in your life (unless you are a cop or a drug dealer, of course).

So what *do* you want our gun to do besides going “bang!”?

You do not care about accuracy. First, because your gun is much more accurate than you and, second, because your accuracy will have a negligible impact upon the outcome of your firefight. All that talk of “placement over caliber” is true, but it is also entirely theoretical. In the real world even FBI agents have an about 80% miss rate in real firefights. As long as your gun goes “bang” and you do not get shot yourself, you are doing really well.

However, IF you do hit your opponent, you want your bullet to have a maximal impact. Remember, in the real world you will shoot only 1-3 times before it’s all over: you will be either shot yourself or you will have stopped your attacker.

I am not going to go into a lengthy discussion about calibers here, but I do have two key facts to present:

First, as you all know, a revolver keeps the rounds in its cylinder. A semi-auto keeps its rounds in a magazine inserted into the grip. Now let me ask you this: why can revolvers shoot huge hunting rounds like the S&W500 and not semi-autos? The reason is simple: revolvers were designed around a specific caliber whereas semi-auto calibers were designed to be small enough to fit into a gun’s grip. What that means is that when revolver caliber were designed they were designed to be the best possible for the job, whereas the semi-auto calibers had to make a compromise on amount vs capability to fit into the semi-auto. Now do you start getting a sense why capacity is crucial for semi-autos?

Next, I want to mention a concept which I heard from hunters: the incapacitation curve. That is the time taken by a shot animal to drop. Human are much, much more fragile than animals, but the concept is one which is totally pertinent to self-defense: if you fire, say 3 rounds, and only one hits, how much time will it take to incapacitate the attacker? Let me stress here that the purpose of armed defense is not to kill, but to stop the attack. A small .22LR round can kill you, no problem, but it will kill you slowly and it has very little stopping power (if your attacker(s) dies/die 10 min after you shot them, this does you no good if they have had the time to kill you first).

Now let’s look at the same issue from a legal point of view. We all know about the numerous instances when policemen shoot somebody 5, 10 or 15 times. How do you think you will look in court if the prosecutor asks you why you fired 15 rounds at your attacker? The truth is that what is called “spray and pray” is something which courts only allow cops to do, civilians go to jail for that! So let me ask you this: would you rather explain in court why you shoot somebody in self-defense 1-2 times or 10-15 times (nevermind the reloading nonsense!)?

Again, we, civilians are not law enforcement officers and the courts to not give us the same rights as they do with cops. Unfair, maybe, but true. What this means for your is simple: you want every round to count, really really count.

I did promise not to go into the caliber issues and I won’t. You can get semi-autos which shoot calibers very similar in capability to what revolver shoot: the 10mm is an excellent round (even if too powerful for many (but not all) semi-auto originally designed for 9mm). But the truth is that in the vast majority of cases what most people use, for a variety or reasons, are 9mm, and that is a very good caliber, but most definitely not the best. It is also very ineffective against attacking wild animals which, depending on where you live, is another issue to consider (I will just say here that my personal defense caliber of choice is the .357 magnum which I believe is the best handgun caliber ever designed).

Next, I want to look at a specific subset of civilians: those of us who do not only have a firearm in their house or car, but who actually carry one on their body every day. This is a small subset of those who own firearms, but their numbers are growing very fast.

To them I will say that the size of your firearm is less important as their weight. There are many ways to carry a concealed firearm on you, some are better than other, but there is no way to lighten the weight of your firearm. So lightweight firearms are definitely the way to go for civilians carrying every day.

Left: S&W Bodyguard; Right Ruger LCR
Left: S&W Bodyguard; Right Ruger LCR

There are a lot of decent small firearms out there, but the two best ones are, in my opinion, the S&W M&P Bodyguard in .380 and the Ruger LCR in .357 magnum. The Bodyguard, especially if loaded with Lehigh Extreme Penetrator rounds is, a very decent self-defense weapon, and weighs only 408 grams or 14.4 ounces (fully loaded). It will give you 7 shots. But compare that to the Ruger LCR in 357 magnum at a weight of 555 grams or 19.6 ounces (fully loaded) which will give you 5 shots. Now ask yourself this question: in your typical self-defense situation would you rather fire 3 .380 rounds and have 4 extra left or 3 .357 magnum and have 2 extra shots left? Not sure? Then look at this photo comparing the rounds:

A US quarter, a .357 magnum round and a .380. You tell me, does size matter?
A US quarter, a .357 magnum round and a .380. You tell me, does size matter?

Let me also say this: a .357 round can handle any animal on the continental United States with the exception of the Grizzly bear. The .380 can handle most humans. Please don’t get me wrong: the S&W Bodyguard M&P is a very good carry weapon: ultra-light with 7 decent rounds. But the Ruger LCR, while a little heavier, packs a much bigger “punch” with 5 rounds which can handle anything short of a Grizzly bear. Which one makes most sense to you? What if you need to shoot through a door say a car door during a carjacking? Would you rather trust the tiny .380 or the powerful .357 magnum which was specifically designed to overcome the limitation of the .38 special rounds which cops could not shoot at criminal fleeing in their cars?

Not convinced? Did you notice that you cannot see the hammer on the Ruger LCR? It is hidden inside the frame so you could not only retrieve it without the hammer snagging on something, but also so you could fire the weapon from inside a pocket or a purse. Try that with a semi-automatic whose slide must fully cycle each time you fire!

[Sidebar: one way to compare the power of calibers/cartriges is to use the Taylor Knock Out Factor or “TKO”. The formula to measure this goes as follows: (weight of the bullet X velocity X bullet diameter) / 7000. Here is what we would see in our comparison:

Ammo: Lehigh XTP .380: (approximate figures)90gr * 850fps * .380in
———————–
7000
=======> Tayor Knock Out Factor (TKO): 4.15 per round
Number of shots 7 therefore total TKO: 4.15*7 = 29.05
Ammo: Lehigh XTP .357: (approximate figures)140gr * 1100fps * .357in
———————–
7000
=======> Tayor Knock Out Factor (TKO): 7.85 per round
Number of shots 5 therefore total TKO: 7.85*5 = 39.25

What this very roughly shows is that you have about 25% more firepower with the Ruger LCR in .357 magnum than you would get with the S&W M&P Bodyguard in .380. That difference becomes even bigger (almost 50%) if we compare the typical amount of bullet shot in a self-defense situation (1-3). Again this is by no means a scientific proof of anything, but still yet another criteria for comparison, especially if you want to make darn sure each fired bullet really counts.]

ORDER IT NOW

One fair objection to the Ruger LCR in .357 magnum is that the recoil from such a powerful round in such a light gun is brutal. It is true – it is. And for those who are recoil sensitive, Ruger also makes the LCR in a variety of calibers including 9mm and even 22LR. But I think that if you are recoil sensitive no light gun will be pleasant to shoot unless you are willing to go down to calibers which, while quite capable of killing, are known for not stopping an attacker fast enough. Recoil sensitive people have to accept that the laws of physics apply to guns too and if stopping power is mass times velocity, then recoil will be proportional to the energy needed to propel a decent sized bullet at decent enough speeds.

Still, if you really want the best of all options, there is an option, albeit not a cheap one:

The Chiappa Rhino 200DS in .357 Magnum.

The Chiappa Rhino 200DS in .357 magnum and short barrel
The Chiappa Rhino 200DS in .357 magnum and short barrel

This guns weighs only 795 grams 28.1 ounces (fully loaded). But if offers you 6 rounds in .357 magnum. But its most amazing characteristics is its revolutionary design: This gun fires from the bottom of the cylinder rather than the top. This dramatically reduces muzzle rise and recoil felt by lowering the axis of the bore almost to the palm of the shooters hand. In practical terms, this means that when you are shooting .357 magnum it feels like a .38. The blast, however, remains deafening, which is good outdoors (it scares the attacker(s)), but not so good indoors (it could rupture your eardrum). It is *amazingly* easy to shoot and very accurate (much more so than, say, the Ruger LCR or the Bodyguard even though all have short barrels). The most amazing thing is how easy it is to correctly place follow-up shots on the same target. The recoil is still there, but it is horizontal, not vertical. Simply put – the ergonomics of this gun are superior to any revolver or semi-auto out there. It is hard to convey it in words, one has to try it to really believe it. I personally seen twice somebody who had no intention of buying a new firearm firing the Chiappa Rhino only two or three times and immediately deciding to purchase one.

Bottom line, with the Chiappa Rhino you get a small gun, not too heavy, very easy to shoot and with unparalleled firepower for a such a small weapon.

It’s main drawback? The price, about 800 dollars. But considering that it is machined from a solid block of high tensile aluminum (all internal parts are machined from steel), that it comes with a fiber-optic sight and moonclips, you definitely get your money’s worth. However, if you do not feel the need to carry a firearm on you all day, then you can find much cheaper, albeit heavier, options which are great (including the excellent S&W 686P shown in the first photo).

I don’t want to go into recommending specific models. In fact, I don’t even want to convince you that revolvers are a better choice for civilians. I will even readily admit that some semi-autos, such as the new, ported, S&W M&P Shield, can be very good everyday carry weapons. My sole purpose is to debunk the nonsense spewed by corporations and “tactical experts” about revolvers being outdated or semi-autos being superior. There are even situations when elite police forces prefer a revolver: a good example of that is the Smith & Wesson R8 (see bottom below) which was designed following the request from a US SWAT team which wanted to equip the leader of a SWAT team entering a building with a powerful handgun which would not jam or malfunction and which, when fired, would not hit the shield the carried by the “lead penetrator” during an assault (like the cycling slide of a semi-auto would do). Smith and Wesson responded by creating an 8 shot (!) yet very light revolver (1150 grams or 40.6 ounces fully loaded) with a frame built from a scandium alloy. This is arguably the most advanced revolver every built. I think of it as a “space-age 686”.

The Smith & Wesson R8: arguably the most advanced revolver ever made (shown here with Cor-Bon DPX .357 Magnum 125 Grain DPX hollow point rounds)
The Smith & Wesson R8: arguably the most advanced revolver ever made (shown here with Cor-Bon DPX .357 Magnum 125 Grain DPX hollow point rounds)

My personal conclusion is that revolvers remain ideally suited for civilian self-defense needs, be it in a home, car or even for everyday carry. None of the reasons why semi-automatic guns are, indeed, better for law enforcement or military forces apply to civilians. The real reason for the current almost total focus on semi-automatic guns for civilians is corporate interests, the self-serving lies of the many “tactical shooting” “experts” out there and the herd mentality of most people. I encourage everybody to think for themselves and in their own interest. I hope that the above will contribute to this reflexion.

(Republished from The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Crime, Gun Control, Guns 
Hide 287 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. theMann says:

    Good article as far as it goes, but I will add a few points:

    1. When Saker says most people will fire 1-3 shots in a real firefight, he means one. Most people will have minimal training, outdoors, with hearing protection. Firing a short barreled .357 indoors without protection will result in most dropping the weapon and holding their ears screaming.

    2. Know your target, know what is behind your target. You fire a high penetration round in an apartment and it goes into the next apartment, you are responsible for the results.

    3. I wouldn’t recommend a handgun for most people in any situation. They require a lot of training to use with even minimal competence. Honestly for most users their best feature, if they have it, is the ability to fix a strong tactical light on the rail. Getting a powerful light in somebody’s face, especially after dark, is pretty deterrent.

    4. Can’t emphasize this enough: shooting is a skill, and all skills require both training and practice. Guns don’t require as much training\practice as swords or hands and feet (which is why people use them), but they do require some. If you aren’t going to put the time in, don’t even think of getting the weapon in the first place. And keep this in mind: the least lethal deterrent is the best.

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden
    • Disagree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    The Saker states that cops are required to enforce the law and protect people from violence. This is not true. The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that police have NO duty to intervene in a violent situation or protect you, even if it is happening right in front of them. Moreover, in many cases police arrive long after an "incident" (45 minutes in a case I am familiar with) or not at all....
    Second, he talks about 1-3 shots being fired...Ridiculous. In a home invasion, you will keep shooting until the problem is solved, whether by impact or the flight of the criminals involved. Hence the great advantage of a 17 round magazine.....As to the difficulty of teaching someone to fire a handgun, it isn't difficult at all if they are reasonably intelligent.
    , @dkshaw
    I fired a .357 at an outdoor range having forgotten to insert my ear plugs. I can not imagine what that would be like in an enclosed space. It deafened me for a couple minutes. Never ever forgot my hearing protection again. I sure hope those home intruders will give me a half a minute or so to put my ear plugs in.
    , @Sbaker
    Concerning point 1: my experience and others I have talked to; the one pulling the trigger when there is a strong adrenalin surge on board, is rarely bothered by the explosion of the shot. Many deer hunters report never having noticed the sound from a high powered rifle when they shoot the big one. I know this is not a closed space in most instances, but neither is a pistol a 7 mm magnum. Worrying about ear protection during a confrontation with a criminal should be the last thought on your mind.
    , @Return of Shawn
    The most important thing for a CC gun is to buy the gun you will ACTUALLY carry. Most people, especially women, aren't going to want to lug around a .357 revolver.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. peterAUS says:

    Let me add one more thing: in most jurisdictions as soon as you have stopped a crime by showing your weapon or by using it, you are not allowed to continue firing it. Remember, civilians do not have the right to use deadly force to apprehend a criminal. Which means that as soon as the attack is stopped (whether because the criminal(s) ran in fear or got shot) you have to stop firing.

    Grey area.
    It IS possible to keep firing until the threat is not on anymore. Again, grey area.
    Attack is stopped: the perp is down but still holding his/her weapon..he/she can recover enough to try to fire again. Plenty of fine points here.
    Bottom line..not that simple.

    Let’s repeat that again, firing just ONE SINGLE ROUND more than the strict minimum you needed to stop the crime in progress would expose you to prosecution for any of the following: assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, homicide or even 2nd degree murder.

    True.
    But WHO is to decide how many rounds were really needed? There have been cases of unbelievable perp resilience and recovery and renewed threat. Again, truly grey (and dangerous) area with plenty of fine points.

    I have never had to use a firearm to protect myself (thank God for that), but I know a lot of people who have and they are unanimous: as soon as the petty thugs see your gun, they run, especially if you fire it once or, even more so, hit one of them.

    Dangerous oversimplification. Truly dangerous.
    And…never? Well…..haha…..but keen on giving an advice?
    Interesting.

    Well, first and foremost reliability.

    True, of course.

    Here I will debunk another myth: that revolvers are more reliable than semi-autos. Okay, they are. But by such a tiny margin that it makes no significant difference. Modern semi-automatics produced by quality manufacturers are about as reliable as revolvers (which also sometimes fail!). But that is very bad comparison. What we have to compare is not revolvers and semi-autos but revolvers and semi-autos when used by civilians!

    Agree.

    There are malfunctions and what is called “shooter caused malfunctions”. The latter depend mostly on the complexity of correctly using the firearm, especially under stress. And while the difference in reliability between modern revolvers and modern semi-autos is tiny, the difference between them becomes huge when shooter caused malfunctions are included. Stuff like not taking off a safety or forgetting to put a round in the chamber. There is also another type of shooter caused malfunction which is failure to properly care for the firearm. Magazines are, for example, a prime cause in failures to feed (they also tend to drop out when the gun is manipulated which, in some models, prevents the semi-auto from firing at all).

    Agree.

    To fire a semi-auto you need to fully engage a magazine, put a round in the chamber, disengage the safety (if you used one in the first place) and hold the gun firmly enough to allow it to fully cycle.

    Not quite.
    Glock can be carried safely chambered and ready to fire just by pulling the trigger. The catch is a longer trigger pull.
    Colt .45 has extremely reliable safety so can be (should be) carried chambered and cocked; true, the safety has to be released but then the trigger pull is much shorter/lighter.
    Anyway…..

    And, here we are coming to REAL reason why semautos ARE better than revolvers:

    Unless you cock the hammer, the trigger will be heavy enough to be safe without the use of an additional “safety” (cocking the hammer is something you would never do in a self-defense situation – only on movies – and this is why a pure self-defense revolver will often have a “shrouded” (hidden) hammer (see photo of Ruger LCR below).

    Two words: TRIGGER PULL.
    For anything above 6 meters the average DA/revolver trigger pull by untrained person will, likely, make a miss.

    The reason is simple: revolvers were designed around a specific caliber whereas semi-auto calibers were designed to be small enough to fit into a gun’s grip.

    As Colt .45, Desert Eagle and such!?
    Stopped reading here.

    I am surprised, really. Saker wrote an article where he is giving , essentially, life and death advice to amateurs. And, apparently, he does not know much about the topic. That is a dangerous combination.

    Now…..thinking about it….haha….actually…that’s not that bad idea.

    I strongly suggest to all Saker fanboys to take this article and the advice here very seriously and do exactly that if/when procuring a firearm for self defense.
    Please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Hmm once you have shot the perp and he appears incapacitated you have to quit firing,well not true at least not in N.Y. for the minute he cross's the threshold he's fair game.Rochester N.Y. three would be gang banger's out of NYC kicked in the door of a house only to be met by its owner with a 12 ga. the first one went down with the first shot got back up to receive a second which killed him,the second one got a gut full of bird shot he crawled out and hid under a truck, the third one got away,no charges were filed even tho the first one had been shot and shot again for the owner deemed he was still a threat, and so is the law at least here that is...
    , @bluedog
    Hmm once you have shot the perp and he appears incapacitated you have to quit firing,well not true at least not in N.Y. for the minute he cross's the threshold he's fair game.Rochester N.Y. three would be gang banger's out of NYC kicked in the door of a house only to be met by its owner with a 12 ga. the first one went down with the first shot got back up to receive a second which killed him,the second one got a gut full of bird shot he crawled out and hid under a truck, the third one got away,no charges were filed even tho the first one had been shot and shot again for the owner deemed he was still a threat, and so is the law at least here that is...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. peterAUS says:

    Have to put this (sort of disclaimer):

    Saker fanboys should follow the advice in the article to the letter.

    Those of you who are reading this and do know the topic/subject (I’d say around 5 % tops here), well, enough said…..

    Now, those of you who just have a gut feeling that, perhaps, advice suggested in the article isn’t quite correct, just one advice: find a good instructor (by reference) and have ONE to ONE long conversation with the guy. He’ll do all the explaining, showing, even having you try this/that etc.
    Plenty…plenty of fine points there not even mentioned in the article.

    Then….and only then….try to formulate a basic idea how all that works and, very carefully, go from there, if you will.
    Your life could depend on that. Or long prison sentence. Or both.
    Free will.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    Thank you, Peter.

    I find the whole thing rather odd. The lack of a conventional safety on the Glock, one of the most popular handguns out there, seems like something that would have made it into a 6,300 primer on buying your first gun.

    Here's a good book I chanced upon recently:

    The Future of War: A History by Lawrence Freedman

    It is an excellent survey of all the topics we discuss here including the many that the Saker misses or omits. Your comments are always very helpful.

    Happy New Year!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Brabantian says: • Website

    Note to Unz readers in the USA – Europeans actually DO own a great many civilian firearms, contrary to USA myths; there are perhaps 75-100 million civilian guns in Europe … no ‘carry’ laws, but they are in homes and on farms … for statistics by country:

    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/home

    Thus Europeans, too, say ‘I like guns’, as in the famous popular music video by Australian Steve Lee, 2min38s:

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Hahaha.....so true.

    It's always funny to hear Americans showing that 2nd Amendment into other people's faces calling them "not free" and "unarmed".
    Clueless doesn't even begin to describe it.

    Now, it is true that most of Americans do have an easier access to firearms.
    It's also true that in some parts of this world one can have weapons Americans can just dream about (or being very rich if one catches my drift).

    In those parts of this world where little people have a LONG history (longer than history of USA) of fighting against an oppression (domestic/foreign) a serious firearm is just a part of a household. Not necessarily registered or visible, but, my God it is there and those people are capable and willing to use it.

    Now, true, this article and consequent comments are about Americans, so focusing on them would make sense.

    Again, bottom line, there is so much expertise in USA about the topic that just doesn't make any sense reading about it on the Internet.
    Just find a good instructor, PLENTY of them around.
    Having said that, even more true, plenty of fakes and straight idiots too.

    Choose wisely.
    , @Gleimhart
    No such myths exist to any significant degree in America. To be perfectly frank, Americans just don't generally think about Europeans very much, except when Europeans get in our face and leave us no other choice (like now).

    I don't care if you have guns or if you don't have guns. What I do know is that Europeans never miss an opportunity to lecture Americans on our own gun rights laws, as if it's any of their business, or if they have any expertise in the matter.

    I also know that Europeans in public settings are easy prey to the 3rd World hordes who roam their streets in a way that most Americans need not be. Moreover, I know that "hot burglaries" (burglaries made while the occupants are at home) occur at monumentally higher percentages than they do in the U.S., because in the U.S. there is a much greater chance of a burglar walking in on someone aiming a barrel at their face, and criminals don't like that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Overall a good article, although I come to a different conclusion. My observations.

    1. If you shoot regularly for fun, you will have already made your choice. Good, use it–the confidence that you have in a gun that you shoot regularly will outweigh any theoretical disadvantages of the weapon selected. The same observation also applies to people inclined to comment on this blog concerning their personal choice of a self-defense weapon–I agree with you. The issue is what recommendation to make to the non-combatant who does not wish to become a shooting enthusiast.

    2. The reason that revolver cartridges are typically much longer than autopistol cartridges is not power. Rather the revolver cartridges are based on 19th Century black powder designs, while autopistol cartridges took advantage of the more powerful and less fouling smokeless powder and are more compact. It is possible to chamber a revolver for an autopistol cartridge, although manufacturers typically don’t shrink the frame size to accommodate the shorter autopistol round, so that advantage is lost.

    3. If the choice is strictly one of home defense, then serious consideration should be given to a shotgun. It fires a cartridge more powerful than any practical autoloader or revolver and light loads (7/8 oz. of shot) in 12 or 20 gauge can be used if the shooter is very recoil sensitive. A double barrel model can be left loaded; you still have to move the safety to fire, but that’s fairly instinctive and doesn’t require too much mastery of the “manual of arms.” If you can’t solve your immediate tactical problem with two 12 or 20 gauge rounds, it’s probably past solving. I’ve seen commenters advocating a 5.56x45mm carbine in this situation, but I think the Saker’s arguments against an autoloading pistol are also cogent when the carbine is considered.

    4. If you don’t want to use a shotgun for home defense (they can be cumbersome), then the revolver is probably the best choice. If you won’t be carrying it, you can use a larger frame, heavier, longer-barrel weapon to soak up some of the recoil.

    5. Cartridge selection in a revolver is key. The Saker recommends .357 Magnum in a short barrel, lightweight revolver. That’s going to kick!! In addition, the blast from a .357 is loud!! The .357 and the .38 Super ACP, in my experience, produce a high-pitched crack that is very unpleasant. (Even being in the next station on a range, next to a shooter with a .38 Super was an experience I grew tired of in one short session.) I think most non-combatants would be demoralized very quickly by a couple of cylinders of full-house .357s. You can train with .38 Special wadcutters, but a recoil-sensitive person is apt to find even these unpleasant in a very lightweight revolver.

    6. My personal recommendation for a carry piece for a very recoil sensitive person would be a .22. Smith&Wesson makes both an eight shot (J frame) and a ten-shot (K frame) revolver. The lack of stopping power in a .22 Long Rifle is a factor, but, in addition to the physical damage inflicted by the bullet, there is the psychological and emotional impact associated with being shot. Someone in a frenzy won’t be stopped and someone intent on other things may not notice a relatively superficial wound, but a criminal who expected “easy pickings” and who discovers that his victim is not only armed, but willing to shoot and is a good enough marksman to land a hit, is unlikely to be inclined to push home an attack. Follow-up hits are easier with a .22 but subsequent hits with any cartridge are not generally as effective as the first one–someone inclined to push home an attack even after being wounded is a formidable, although happily not a typical, adversary.

    7. If you are not recoil sensitive, but uninclined to master the more complicated manual of arms associated with an autoloader, I’d consider a .44 Special revolver. A five-shot .44 is reasonably compact and while the .44 Special certainly kicks, it doesn’t have the blast and high-pitched crack associated with the .357 or even +P .38 Special rounds. The .44 Special gets most of its stopping power from the heavy, large-diameter bullet, so velocity loss from the shorter barrel isn’t as important as in the case of the .357. If you are carrying, however, you really need to much better trained than if you are contemplating a simple home defense.

    8. Although I’ve never used them, I wonder whether laser sights should be considered. The big problem in pistol marksmanship is that the focus must be on the sights, particularly the front sight, and not on the target when the gun is fired. That’s easier said than done, because up until that moment, the focus is on the target–that’s the threat after all. If you see your front sight when firing, you will probably hit; if you don’t you will probably miss, even at ridiculously close ranges. A laser sight that moves the focus to a red dot on the target seems to me a much better optical arrangement. I think some laser sights can be mounted relatively co-axial with the boor as part of the side panes of the butt. Perhaps some readers can share their experience and observations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Perhaps some readers can share their experience and observations.
     
    Well….concise and information packed comment with a reasonable request; good manner demands a reply.
    Personally, I am not fond of giving advice on Web re self-defense (armed or unarmed) for a couple of reasons. The most important is, it CAN affect one’s life (or lives he/she holds dear) and feels somehow….irresponsible and it is INDIVIDUAL.

    This topic is dead serious and again, I am surprised that Saker decided to tackle it.
    Perhaps some inside joke I am missing!?

    Having said that, a couple of thoughts:
    Self-defense (armed or unarmed) is a highly personal matter. In practical terms it depends, mostly, on a person who is doing it.

    That element is missing from all blabbing about the topic.

    There are people who are natural fighters, people who will never fight and are natural victims, and everything in between. Each of them should have his/her own approach to the topic, and it’s highly individual.

    For handguns it gets even to a hand size, length of fingers, hand/finger strength etc.

    As I mentioned before….plenty of fine details that can be addressed only by person by person approach and by an experienced instructor.

    Then, PRACTICE. If one wants to be effective he/she MUST practice. More practice, more effective. As in everything we do.

    That “front sight” thing. Well…hehe…depends how far the “target” is. Again, a little detail missing from the article/”conversation”. If a perp is holding your left and is about to stab you, you can shoot him from a hip. If a perp is shooting at you from a cover (car) across a road, it’s two hand grip with a rest and front sight.

    Again…details…details…details….

    Caliber, again, another serious conversation. Books have been written about it. How much damage a human being can take.
    There have been innumerable examples of unbelievable resilience. Miami Shootout Saker mentioned is just one of them. A perp shall die in 60 seconds from a huge blood loss (severed artery) but in meantime he is firing, with skill, his semi auto rifle. Etc..etc…..

    Shotgun vs handgun. Personally, shotgun for home defense always, but, one can’t carry 12 gauge around in a shopping mall. Etc…etc….

    Then, risk assessment, another element missing from the article. WHO is the threat?
    An occasional petty burglar seeking money for a quick heroin/pick the drug thing ….or an organized “gang banger” team? Details…dangerous, deadly details.

    Back to practice. One MUST practice. It’s funny….actually.
    One can spend a certain amount of time doing a personal hygiene (health…life…), but can’t spend 10 (TEN) minutes every day practicing deadly self defense (health and life again). Weird, isn’t it?
    When I say deadly, one misses and the bullet goes into neighborhood kid playground....


    In general, gunshot wounds are so painful, even a .22, that the person shot will run away.
     
    Hell NO.
    A 6.4, 250 pounds guy high on adrenaline/drug, riddled with rounds can keep coming at you with a knife and gut you. True, he’ll die a minute later but too late for you. Plenty of examples like that.

    This comment thread can easily go thousand pages (that inside joke/intention Saker actually wants I suspect). Just go to any of “gun sites” and enjoy. Or get into conversations at gun clubs/ranges.

    Bottom line, AGAIN, advising an amateur about the topic by a Web article is not only amateurish but irresponsible.
    Feels even...immature.

    , @Anonymous
    Thanks for your thoughtful, informative, and comprehensive contributions in this thread.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Renoman says:

    Shotgun man myself. It’s hard to miss with a shotgun and the intimidation factor is huge.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. bob sykes says:

    I agree that simplicity of operation argues for a revolver, and I keep one in my house. I do not carry outside my house, but I live in a civilized, rural area. If I were seriously in danger, I would use my semi-automatic rifle.

    Several years ago, Greg Ellifritz writing for the Buckeye Firearms Association reviewed a large number of gun shot incidents. The article is here,

    https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

    He concluded that if the only goal were deterrence then all calibers were equally effective, from .22 LR to .44 magnum. In general, gunshot wounds are so painful, even a .22, that the person shot will run away. Of course, with a .22 the person shot can run away, and if he is very motivated can continue the assault. With a .44, he is dead.

    Ellifritz’ recommendation was to carry something you are comfortable with and learn how to use it. A .38 spl is probably optimum for most people, but .22′s, .25′s, and .32′s will work in most home defense situations.

    If you are in war zone, get an autoloader in a powerful caliber, at least 9 mm, but many like the venerable .45 ACP.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. I confronted intruders in my home in the US (Los Angeles) on two occasions, the first time during the afternoon I heard a noise and went to check it out, I almost bumped into the intruder but when he clocked the M1 carbine I was carrying he was gone in a flash. The second time I watched the intruder taking the glass slats out of a window before climbing through. He was halfway in when I cocked the 12G Winchester Defender and the sound of that was enough to send him packing and very quickly. This was around 1am.

    One time in Australia, also around 1am, two intruders broke in but I heard them (we aren’t allowed to own guns in Australia so we’re practically forced to beat people to death) and confronted them brandishing a huge knife in one hand and a baseball bat in the other, I was screaming obscenities and pounding the wooden floorboards with the bat, I was also naked so I scared the crap out of them, they didn’t know whether I was going to kill ‘em or fuck ‘em (or kill ‘em AND fuck ‘em, but that’s a little kinky even for me) They split pronto, dropping the screwdriver they’d used to get in.

    Now I rely on my wary dog to keep guard and I also keep a golf club handy. Although I support the 2nd amendment for Americans I must confess it is much less stressful living in a place where gun violence is far less common. In Australia if you harm an intruder you are likely to be charged with a crime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dirk Manley

    "In Australia if you harm an intruder you are likely to be charged with a crime."
     
    Which is a crime in itself. Against the aggrieved party (the person whose home has been broken into by someone with obviously ill intent).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Daruma says: • Website

    Love your writings and agree with most. I think you are on good ground here; I use the LCR in +P with a laser grip. I shoot a lot and have no problems with autoloaders, but they are beyond my wife’s ability, so the LCR resides in our bed stand.

    Keep up the postings!

    Daruma

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. TG says:

    Yes, well said. Kudos.

    1. You mentioned it, but I think that it cannot be emphasized enough: first, live in a safe area. That’s worth more than all the guns you can carry.

    2. I am not a gun-control nut, but guns ARE dangerous tools. Especially if children are running around (you know, children, those tiny self-destructive humans with no common sense and who bore easily and like to get into things), you should keep your guns locked up. Again, you need to play the odds: in a safe neighborhood, a gun unlocked in a nightstand is far more likely to be picked up by one of your kids (or the kid of a visitor, or an angry spouse) or stolen, than to save your life – but of course, it becomes less available in an emergency. In a bad neighborhood (if you just have no choice here) or things start to go to pot, the odds shift, you might be better off with the gun more accessible. No hard and fast rules here but should be kept in mind.

    3. Others have mentioned: shotguns. Yes, cumbersome, and the gun in your hand is worth infinitely more than the one over your mantle, but intimidating and hard to miss with (not so much from the shot spread as the length of the barrel).

    4. Riots. These don’t happen that often, but when they do, you’ll be happier with the shotgun or rifle. Ask a Korean store-owner in LA.

    5. Get a dog. In most neighborhoods, far more valuable than a gun. The issue is not to get a pit bull, but something that sleeps in the hall and barks at strangers. A cocker spaniel will do. As you mention, criminals are mostly cowardly and are looking for the easy score. A decent watchdog is always “on.” Dealing with a barking dog is a hassle, a criminal will likely move on to a quieter and more inviting target. And when not guarding you at night, dogs fetch slobbery tennis balls. Who’s a good boy? Yes, you are!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    The mistake many gun owner make is they go out and buy a gun bring home and tell their kids now don't you touch this and put it up high so little fingers can't reach it.We have always had guns in the house and when the kids and grandkid's got old enough to have an interest in them they were permitted to play with them to their heart content, the only stipulation was they had to ask me first, and they found why there is no mystery to them at all,especially after they pinched their fingers under the hammer a few times,from there they graduated to gun safety and pinking a few cans out back,I've always keep a loaded .38 SP in the night stand next to the bed but then again our kids were not permitted in our bedroom and lol a few swats on the backside would serve to remind if needed, oops not permitted in today's sick society...
    , @Stan d Mute

    5. Get a dog.
     
    Bingo! The types who invade homes don’t like big dogs. Pit bulls scare the crap out of them.

    Get an American Bulldog, any of the mastiff breeds, a big hunting dog like Chesapeake or Newfoundland along with a small nervous alarm dog. If the sound of a gun cocking will scare off intruders, the sound of a 250lb (or three) mastiff will make them wet their pants.

    Don’t get me wrong, guns are great. If my big dogs don’t deter someone they’ll have a much bigger surprise but at least my dogs give me a chance to wake up and stuff cotton in my ears before firing a large caliber weapon indoors!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. n230099 says:

    “When no one knows who is armed…everyone is”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. @peterAUS
    Have to put this (sort of disclaimer):

    Saker fanboys should follow the advice in the article to the letter.

    Those of you who are reading this and do know the topic/subject (I'd say around 5 % tops here), well, enough said.....

    Now, those of you who just have a gut feeling that, perhaps, advice suggested in the article isn't quite correct, just one advice: find a good instructor (by reference) and have ONE to ONE long conversation with the guy. He'll do all the explaining, showing, even having you try this/that etc.
    Plenty...plenty of fine points there not even mentioned in the article.

    Then....and only then....try to formulate a basic idea how all that works and, very carefully, go from there, if you will.
    Your life could depend on that. Or long prison sentence. Or both.
    Free will.

    Thank you, Peter.

    I find the whole thing rather odd. The lack of a conventional safety on the Glock, one of the most popular handguns out there, seems like something that would have made it into a 6,300 primer on buying your first gun.

    Here’s a good book I chanced upon recently:

    The Future of War: A History by Lawrence Freedman

    It is an excellent survey of all the topics we discuss here including the many that the Saker misses or omits. Your comments are always very helpful.

    Happy New Year!

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    That's the same Lawrence Freedman who wrote great chunks of Tony Blair's speech to the Economic Club of Chicago on 24 April 1999, in which he outlines the “doctrine of the international community” which justified the violation of Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo and the invasion of Iraq.

    (Professor Freedman was then a member of the "independent" Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. bluedog says:
    @peterAUS

    Let me add one more thing: in most jurisdictions as soon as you have stopped a crime by showing your weapon or by using it, you are not allowed to continue firing it. Remember, civilians do not have the right to use deadly force to apprehend a criminal. Which means that as soon as the attack is stopped (whether because the criminal(s) ran in fear or got shot) you have to stop firing.
     
    Grey area.
    It IS possible to keep firing until the threat is not on anymore. Again, grey area.
    Attack is stopped: the perp is down but still holding his/her weapon..he/she can recover enough to try to fire again. Plenty of fine points here.
    Bottom line..not that simple.

    Let’s repeat that again, firing just ONE SINGLE ROUND more than the strict minimum you needed to stop the crime in progress would expose you to prosecution for any of the following: assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, homicide or even 2nd degree murder.
     
    True.
    But WHO is to decide how many rounds were really needed? There have been cases of unbelievable perp resilience and recovery and renewed threat. Again, truly grey (and dangerous) area with plenty of fine points.

    I have never had to use a firearm to protect myself (thank God for that), but I know a lot of people who have and they are unanimous: as soon as the petty thugs see your gun, they run, especially if you fire it once or, even more so, hit one of them.
     
    Dangerous oversimplification. Truly dangerous.
    And…never? Well…..haha…..but keen on giving an advice?
    Interesting.

    Well, first and foremost reliability.
     
    True, of course.

    Here I will debunk another myth: that revolvers are more reliable than semi-autos. Okay, they are. But by such a tiny margin that it makes no significant difference. Modern semi-automatics produced by quality manufacturers are about as reliable as revolvers (which also sometimes fail!). But that is very bad comparison. What we have to compare is not revolvers and semi-autos but revolvers and semi-autos when used by civilians!
     
    Agree.

    There are malfunctions and what is called “shooter caused malfunctions”. The latter depend mostly on the complexity of correctly using the firearm, especially under stress. And while the difference in reliability between modern revolvers and modern semi-autos is tiny, the difference between them becomes huge when shooter caused malfunctions are included. Stuff like not taking off a safety or forgetting to put a round in the chamber. There is also another type of shooter caused malfunction which is failure to properly care for the firearm. Magazines are, for example, a prime cause in failures to feed (they also tend to drop out when the gun is manipulated which, in some models, prevents the semi-auto from firing at all).
     
    Agree.

    To fire a semi-auto you need to fully engage a magazine, put a round in the chamber, disengage the safety (if you used one in the first place) and hold the gun firmly enough to allow it to fully cycle.
     
    Not quite.
    Glock can be carried safely chambered and ready to fire just by pulling the trigger. The catch is a longer trigger pull.
    Colt .45 has extremely reliable safety so can be (should be) carried chambered and cocked; true, the safety has to be released but then the trigger pull is much shorter/lighter.
    Anyway…..

    And, here we are coming to REAL reason why semautos ARE better than revolvers:

    Unless you cock the hammer, the trigger will be heavy enough to be safe without the use of an additional “safety” (cocking the hammer is something you would never do in a self-defense situation – only on movies – and this is why a pure self-defense revolver will often have a “shrouded” (hidden) hammer (see photo of Ruger LCR below).
     
    Two words: TRIGGER PULL.
    For anything above 6 meters the average DA/revolver trigger pull by untrained person will, likely, make a miss.

    The reason is simple: revolvers were designed around a specific caliber whereas semi-auto calibers were designed to be small enough to fit into a gun’s grip.
     
    As Colt .45, Desert Eagle and such!?
    Stopped reading here.

    I am surprised, really. Saker wrote an article where he is giving , essentially, life and death advice to amateurs. And, apparently, he does not know much about the topic. That is a dangerous combination.

    Now…..thinking about it….haha….actually…that’s not that bad idea.

    I strongly suggest to all Saker fanboys to take this article and the advice here very seriously and do exactly that if/when procuring a firearm for self defense.
    Please.

    Hmm once you have shot the perp and he appears incapacitated you have to quit firing,well not true at least not in N.Y. for the minute he cross’s the threshold he’s fair game.Rochester N.Y. three would be gang banger’s out of NYC kicked in the door of a house only to be met by its owner with a 12 ga. the first one went down with the first shot got back up to receive a second which killed him,the second one got a gut full of bird shot he crawled out and hid under a truck, the third one got away,no charges were filed even tho the first one had been shot and shot again for the owner deemed he was still a threat, and so is the law at least here that is…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    until the law enforcement officers show up.

    Under normal circumstances. However, keep in mind that in extraordinary circumstances they’re not coming. Let me point out the fact that in cases such as the Rodney King riots, New Orleans during hurricane Katrina, Ferguson, etc etc, the police melted away for the first few days to take care of their own homes and families and weren’t going to stick their necks out for anyone else. Their first loyalty is to themselves and each other. You’re on your own and also note that none of the aforementioned occurrences were foreseeable in any way. Many people are vulnerable to just one thug-cop interaction gone wrong blowing up into another civil emergency and trashing their home value.

    These are the latest stats this year for Chicago:

    As of this writing, 11 am Jan 2nd of 2018 so far this new year there’s already 10 shot here in Chicago, two fatally, can you believe it? It’s freezing out so it’s not as if there’s a bunch of gangbangers loitering on the streets. However, it’s all a black thing, it mostly emanates from the black third of the population and secondarily from what’s classified as Hispanic. The white/other category provided less than 3% of the victims last year and who knows what they’re classifying as white/other these days.

    have reason to suspect that you or others are about to get murdered.

    You never really know what their actions will be though, do you? Being just one light trigger pull away from death at the hands of some hype is an unsettling experience. There’s lots of videos of robberies turned into shootouts on the internet, many coming out of Brazil, so one can see how some of that plays out in real life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. bluedog says:
    @TG
    Yes, well said. Kudos.

    1. You mentioned it, but I think that it cannot be emphasized enough: first, live in a safe area. That's worth more than all the guns you can carry.

    2. I am not a gun-control nut, but guns ARE dangerous tools. Especially if children are running around (you know, children, those tiny self-destructive humans with no common sense and who bore easily and like to get into things), you should keep your guns locked up. Again, you need to play the odds: in a safe neighborhood, a gun unlocked in a nightstand is far more likely to be picked up by one of your kids (or the kid of a visitor, or an angry spouse) or stolen, than to save your life - but of course, it becomes less available in an emergency. In a bad neighborhood (if you just have no choice here) or things start to go to pot, the odds shift, you might be better off with the gun more accessible. No hard and fast rules here but should be kept in mind.

    3. Others have mentioned: shotguns. Yes, cumbersome, and the gun in your hand is worth infinitely more than the one over your mantle, but intimidating and hard to miss with (not so much from the shot spread as the length of the barrel).

    4. Riots. These don't happen that often, but when they do, you'll be happier with the shotgun or rifle. Ask a Korean store-owner in LA.

    5. Get a dog. In most neighborhoods, far more valuable than a gun. The issue is not to get a pit bull, but something that sleeps in the hall and barks at strangers. A cocker spaniel will do. As you mention, criminals are mostly cowardly and are looking for the easy score. A decent watchdog is always "on." Dealing with a barking dog is a hassle, a criminal will likely move on to a quieter and more inviting target. And when not guarding you at night, dogs fetch slobbery tennis balls. Who's a good boy? Yes, you are!!

    The mistake many gun owner make is they go out and buy a gun bring home and tell their kids now don’t you touch this and put it up high so little fingers can’t reach it.We have always had guns in the house and when the kids and grandkid’s got old enough to have an interest in them they were permitted to play with them to their heart content, the only stipulation was they had to ask me first, and they found why there is no mystery to them at all,especially after they pinched their fingers under the hammer a few times,from there they graduated to gun safety and pinking a few cans out back,I’ve always keep a loaded .38 SP in the night stand next to the bed but then again our kids were not permitted in our bedroom and lol a few swats on the backside would serve to remind if needed, oops not permitted in today’s sick society…

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    The key to educating children and firearms is to reduce the natural curiosity that children have about these things. Allow them to handle an unloaded firearm when they are quite young, always reinforcing the fact that they are not to touch a firearm without permission or an adult being present. If they see someone else with a firearm, they are to "get away" and tell an adult. When handling a firearm, children will usually remark how "heavy" it is...
    When they are older, take them to a range or safe shooting spot and show them the destructive nature of firearms utilizing water-filled jugs or other targets, emphasizing the fact that shooting a firearm will destroy whatever they are aiming at. This also instills good firearm and range safety practices that will last for a lifetime.
    Marksmanship can be started with CO2, pre-charged or spring-type BB guns. There are BB pistols that simulate "blowback" firearms action which are quite useful in firearms training for children as they simulate the action of "real" firearms.
    The key is to relieve that natural curiosity that children have about firearms. Satisfy that natural curiosity and they will be competent firearms owners (and advocates) for life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. bluedog says:
    @peterAUS

    Let me add one more thing: in most jurisdictions as soon as you have stopped a crime by showing your weapon or by using it, you are not allowed to continue firing it. Remember, civilians do not have the right to use deadly force to apprehend a criminal. Which means that as soon as the attack is stopped (whether because the criminal(s) ran in fear or got shot) you have to stop firing.
     
    Grey area.
    It IS possible to keep firing until the threat is not on anymore. Again, grey area.
    Attack is stopped: the perp is down but still holding his/her weapon..he/she can recover enough to try to fire again. Plenty of fine points here.
    Bottom line..not that simple.

    Let’s repeat that again, firing just ONE SINGLE ROUND more than the strict minimum you needed to stop the crime in progress would expose you to prosecution for any of the following: assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, homicide or even 2nd degree murder.
     
    True.
    But WHO is to decide how many rounds were really needed? There have been cases of unbelievable perp resilience and recovery and renewed threat. Again, truly grey (and dangerous) area with plenty of fine points.

    I have never had to use a firearm to protect myself (thank God for that), but I know a lot of people who have and they are unanimous: as soon as the petty thugs see your gun, they run, especially if you fire it once or, even more so, hit one of them.
     
    Dangerous oversimplification. Truly dangerous.
    And…never? Well…..haha…..but keen on giving an advice?
    Interesting.

    Well, first and foremost reliability.
     
    True, of course.

    Here I will debunk another myth: that revolvers are more reliable than semi-autos. Okay, they are. But by such a tiny margin that it makes no significant difference. Modern semi-automatics produced by quality manufacturers are about as reliable as revolvers (which also sometimes fail!). But that is very bad comparison. What we have to compare is not revolvers and semi-autos but revolvers and semi-autos when used by civilians!
     
    Agree.

    There are malfunctions and what is called “shooter caused malfunctions”. The latter depend mostly on the complexity of correctly using the firearm, especially under stress. And while the difference in reliability between modern revolvers and modern semi-autos is tiny, the difference between them becomes huge when shooter caused malfunctions are included. Stuff like not taking off a safety or forgetting to put a round in the chamber. There is also another type of shooter caused malfunction which is failure to properly care for the firearm. Magazines are, for example, a prime cause in failures to feed (they also tend to drop out when the gun is manipulated which, in some models, prevents the semi-auto from firing at all).
     
    Agree.

    To fire a semi-auto you need to fully engage a magazine, put a round in the chamber, disengage the safety (if you used one in the first place) and hold the gun firmly enough to allow it to fully cycle.
     
    Not quite.
    Glock can be carried safely chambered and ready to fire just by pulling the trigger. The catch is a longer trigger pull.
    Colt .45 has extremely reliable safety so can be (should be) carried chambered and cocked; true, the safety has to be released but then the trigger pull is much shorter/lighter.
    Anyway…..

    And, here we are coming to REAL reason why semautos ARE better than revolvers:

    Unless you cock the hammer, the trigger will be heavy enough to be safe without the use of an additional “safety” (cocking the hammer is something you would never do in a self-defense situation – only on movies – and this is why a pure self-defense revolver will often have a “shrouded” (hidden) hammer (see photo of Ruger LCR below).
     
    Two words: TRIGGER PULL.
    For anything above 6 meters the average DA/revolver trigger pull by untrained person will, likely, make a miss.

    The reason is simple: revolvers were designed around a specific caliber whereas semi-auto calibers were designed to be small enough to fit into a gun’s grip.
     
    As Colt .45, Desert Eagle and such!?
    Stopped reading here.

    I am surprised, really. Saker wrote an article where he is giving , essentially, life and death advice to amateurs. And, apparently, he does not know much about the topic. That is a dangerous combination.

    Now…..thinking about it….haha….actually…that’s not that bad idea.

    I strongly suggest to all Saker fanboys to take this article and the advice here very seriously and do exactly that if/when procuring a firearm for self defense.
    Please.

    Hmm once you have shot the perp and he appears incapacitated you have to quit firing,well not true at least not in N.Y. for the minute he cross’s the threshold he’s fair game.Rochester N.Y. three would be gang banger’s out of NYC kicked in the door of a house only to be met by its owner with a 12 ga. the first one went down with the first shot got back up to receive a second which killed him,the second one got a gut full of bird shot he crawled out and hid under a truck, the third one got away,no charges were filed even tho the first one had been shot and shot again for the owner deemed he was still a threat, and so is the law at least here that is…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Bearing in mind that Saker is addressing persons who have little or no experience with firearms, I believe his is solid advice. Nothing wrong with a revolver and, as he points out, much to recommend it.

    I would like to draw people’s attention a much underrated round that would have a place for women or those averse to recoil and that is the 22 magnum. Not only are they comparatively inexpensive so that target practice is affordable, but they actually pack a wallop far in excess of what the 22 part of the name would lead one to believe. Lack of significant recoil makes follow up rounds doable. Small diameter bullets make for a small, light concealed carry even as a revolver.

    Here are the ballistics (approx, like the Sakers).

    muzzle velocity Ft.lbs Energy

    22 mag. 40 grain bullet. 2000 fps. 355 ft lbs.

    38 special +P 158 grain 915 fps. 294 ft lbs.

    9mm 115 grain 1200 fps 380 ft. lbs.

    357 mag 158 grain 1400 fps 700 ft lbs.

    See? The 22 mag is nothing to sneeze at! However I believe that only Taurus is making a small revolver in 22mag.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    I think that both Smith&Wesson and Ruger offer revolvers chambered for the .22 Magnum. But energy isn't usually a good measure of stopping power--that's better measured by momentum and cross-sectional area. So the .22 Magnum isn't all that much better than the .22 Long Rifle, despite those high energy figures. (2000 feet per second may be from a rifle, not a four-inch barrel revolver with a flash gap.) The drawback to the .22 Magnum is that it is more expensive than the .22 Long Rifle, so a person may not practice as much. A revolver chambered for the .22 Long Rifle can also be used with .22 Shorts, to introduce really recoil sensitive persons to sight alingment and trigger squeeze before you introduce any recoil; a revolver chambered for .22 Magnum will not accept .22 Shorts or .22 Long Rifle, although I think a Ruger Single Six may have an interchangeable cylinder. I don't recommend a single action revolver for self-defense, however.
    , @Twodees Partain
    Agreed on the .22WMR round. The guy at the shop tried to talk me out of buying one for my wife, saying that the.22 mag wasn't any more effective in terms of velocity than the .22LR in a short barrel. That wasn't the advantage I was looking for. The biggest advantage of the .22mag that I saw was that you could get JHP rounds in .22mag at WalMart.

    In 2002, I bought my wife a Taurus 941 w/ a 2" barrel in .22WMR because it's a low recoil round that will deliver a JHP bullet with enough energy behind it to penetrate heavy clothing. Also, the .22mag is loud, which is a good thing if she has to use it. A single loud gunshot is likely to make an attacker back off even if she misses.

    Oh, and the Taurus cost $225.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. peterAUS says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Overall a good article, although I come to a different conclusion. My observations.

    1. If you shoot regularly for fun, you will have already made your choice. Good, use it--the confidence that you have in a gun that you shoot regularly will outweigh any theoretical disadvantages of the weapon selected. The same observation also applies to people inclined to comment on this blog concerning their personal choice of a self-defense weapon--I agree with you. The issue is what recommendation to make to the non-combatant who does not wish to become a shooting enthusiast.

    2. The reason that revolver cartridges are typically much longer than autopistol cartridges is not power. Rather the revolver cartridges are based on 19th Century black powder designs, while autopistol cartridges took advantage of the more powerful and less fouling smokeless powder and are more compact. It is possible to chamber a revolver for an autopistol cartridge, although manufacturers typically don't shrink the frame size to accommodate the shorter autopistol round, so that advantage is lost.

    3. If the choice is strictly one of home defense, then serious consideration should be given to a shotgun. It fires a cartridge more powerful than any practical autoloader or revolver and light loads (7/8 oz. of shot) in 12 or 20 gauge can be used if the shooter is very recoil sensitive. A double barrel model can be left loaded; you still have to move the safety to fire, but that's fairly instinctive and doesn't require too much mastery of the "manual of arms." If you can't solve your immediate tactical problem with two 12 or 20 gauge rounds, it's probably past solving. I've seen commenters advocating a 5.56x45mm carbine in this situation, but I think the Saker's arguments against an autoloading pistol are also cogent when the carbine is considered.

    4. If you don't want to use a shotgun for home defense (they can be cumbersome), then the revolver is probably the best choice. If you won't be carrying it, you can use a larger frame, heavier, longer-barrel weapon to soak up some of the recoil.

    5. Cartridge selection in a revolver is key. The Saker recommends .357 Magnum in a short barrel, lightweight revolver. That's going to kick!! In addition, the blast from a .357 is loud!! The .357 and the .38 Super ACP, in my experience, produce a high-pitched crack that is very unpleasant. (Even being in the next station on a range, next to a shooter with a .38 Super was an experience I grew tired of in one short session.) I think most non-combatants would be demoralized very quickly by a couple of cylinders of full-house .357s. You can train with .38 Special wadcutters, but a recoil-sensitive person is apt to find even these unpleasant in a very lightweight revolver.

    6. My personal recommendation for a carry piece for a very recoil sensitive person would be a .22. Smith&Wesson makes both an eight shot (J frame) and a ten-shot (K frame) revolver. The lack of stopping power in a .22 Long Rifle is a factor, but, in addition to the physical damage inflicted by the bullet, there is the psychological and emotional impact associated with being shot. Someone in a frenzy won't be stopped and someone intent on other things may not notice a relatively superficial wound, but a criminal who expected "easy pickings" and who discovers that his victim is not only armed, but willing to shoot and is a good enough marksman to land a hit, is unlikely to be inclined to push home an attack. Follow-up hits are easier with a .22 but subsequent hits with any cartridge are not generally as effective as the first one--someone inclined to push home an attack even after being wounded is a formidable, although happily not a typical, adversary.

    7. If you are not recoil sensitive, but uninclined to master the more complicated manual of arms associated with an autoloader, I'd consider a .44 Special revolver. A five-shot .44 is reasonably compact and while the .44 Special certainly kicks, it doesn't have the blast and high-pitched crack associated with the .357 or even +P .38 Special rounds. The .44 Special gets most of its stopping power from the heavy, large-diameter bullet, so velocity loss from the shorter barrel isn't as important as in the case of the .357. If you are carrying, however, you really need to much better trained than if you are contemplating a simple home defense.

    8. Although I've never used them, I wonder whether laser sights should be considered. The big problem in pistol marksmanship is that the focus must be on the sights, particularly the front sight, and not on the target when the gun is fired. That's easier said than done, because up until that moment, the focus is on the target--that's the threat after all. If you see your front sight when firing, you will probably hit; if you don't you will probably miss, even at ridiculously close ranges. A laser sight that moves the focus to a red dot on the target seems to me a much better optical arrangement. I think some laser sights can be mounted relatively co-axial with the boor as part of the side panes of the butt. Perhaps some readers can share their experience and observations.

    Perhaps some readers can share their experience and observations.

    Well….concise and information packed comment with a reasonable request; good manner demands a reply.
    Personally, I am not fond of giving advice on Web re self-defense (armed or unarmed) for a couple of reasons. The most important is, it CAN affect one’s life (or lives he/she holds dear) and feels somehow….irresponsible and it is INDIVIDUAL.

    This topic is dead serious and again, I am surprised that Saker decided to tackle it.
    Perhaps some inside joke I am missing!?

    Having said that, a couple of thoughts:
    Self-defense (armed or unarmed) is a highly personal matter. In practical terms it depends, mostly, on a person who is doing it.

    That element is missing from all blabbing about the topic.

    There are people who are natural fighters, people who will never fight and are natural victims, and everything in between. Each of them should have his/her own approach to the topic, and it’s highly individual.

    For handguns it gets even to a hand size, length of fingers, hand/finger strength etc.

    As I mentioned before….plenty of fine details that can be addressed only by person by person approach and by an experienced instructor.

    Then, PRACTICE. If one wants to be effective he/she MUST practice. More practice, more effective. As in everything we do.

    That “front sight” thing. Well…hehe…depends how far the “target” is. Again, a little detail missing from the article/”conversation”. If a perp is holding your left and is about to stab you, you can shoot him from a hip. If a perp is shooting at you from a cover (car) across a road, it’s two hand grip with a rest and front sight.

    Again…details…details…details….

    Caliber, again, another serious conversation. Books have been written about it. How much damage a human being can take.
    There have been innumerable examples of unbelievable resilience. Miami Shootout Saker mentioned is just one of them. A perp shall die in 60 seconds from a huge blood loss (severed artery) but in meantime he is firing, with skill, his semi auto rifle. Etc..etc…..

    Shotgun vs handgun. Personally, shotgun for home defense always, but, one can’t carry 12 gauge around in a shopping mall. Etc…etc….

    Then, risk assessment, another element missing from the article. WHO is the threat?
    An occasional petty burglar seeking money for a quick heroin/pick the drug thing ….or an organized “gang banger” team? Details…dangerous, deadly details.

    Back to practice. One MUST practice. It’s funny….actually.
    One can spend a certain amount of time doing a personal hygiene (health…life…), but can’t spend 10 (TEN) minutes every day practicing deadly self defense (health and life again). Weird, isn’t it?
    When I say deadly, one misses and the bullet goes into neighborhood kid playground….

    In general, gunshot wounds are so painful, even a .22, that the person shot will run away.

    Hell NO.
    A 6.4, 250 pounds guy high on adrenaline/drug, riddled with rounds can keep coming at you with a knife and gut you. True, he’ll die a minute later but too late for you. Plenty of examples like that.

    This comment thread can easily go thousand pages (that inside joke/intention Saker actually wants I suspect). Just go to any of “gun sites” and enjoy. Or get into conversations at gun clubs/ranges.

    Bottom line, AGAIN, advising an amateur about the topic by a Web article is not only amateurish but irresponsible.
    Feels even…immature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    You are, of course, free not to comment on any topic when you feel that such commentary is amateurish, irresponsible and immature. Yes, anyone contemplating using a weapon for self-defense should get instruction, but basic marksmanship and gun handling aren't fencing or an esoteric eastern martial art. Not all instructors are competent, by the way. I remember years ago reading about a shooting school that taught its students to use unsighted fire at close ranges, sighted fire at long ranges and somehow to transition between the two in between! This advice strikes me as nuts, and when I ran my letter to American Rifleman past the late Jeff Cooper, he commented that anyone can claim to be an expert and even open a shooting school.

    Reading an article such as the Saker wrote and the comment thread should give a "newbie" some basic information about weapon types and cartridges. It won't substitute for hands-on experience, but it's not a bad start.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @ThreeCranes
    Bearing in mind that Saker is addressing persons who have little or no experience with firearms, I believe his is solid advice. Nothing wrong with a revolver and, as he points out, much to recommend it.

    I would like to draw people's attention a much underrated round that would have a place for women or those averse to recoil and that is the 22 magnum. Not only are they comparatively inexpensive so that target practice is affordable, but they actually pack a wallop far in excess of what the 22 part of the name would lead one to believe. Lack of significant recoil makes follow up rounds doable. Small diameter bullets make for a small, light concealed carry even as a revolver.

    Here are the ballistics (approx, like the Sakers).


    muzzle velocity Ft.lbs Energy

    22 mag. 40 grain bullet. 2000 fps. 355 ft lbs.

    38 special +P 158 grain 915 fps. 294 ft lbs.

    9mm 115 grain 1200 fps 380 ft. lbs.

    357 mag 158 grain 1400 fps 700 ft lbs.

    See? The 22 mag is nothing to sneeze at! However I believe that only Taurus is making a small revolver in 22mag.

    I think that both Smith&Wesson and Ruger offer revolvers chambered for the .22 Magnum. But energy isn’t usually a good measure of stopping power–that’s better measured by momentum and cross-sectional area. So the .22 Magnum isn’t all that much better than the .22 Long Rifle, despite those high energy figures. (2000 feet per second may be from a rifle, not a four-inch barrel revolver with a flash gap.) The drawback to the .22 Magnum is that it is more expensive than the .22 Long Rifle, so a person may not practice as much. A revolver chambered for the .22 Long Rifle can also be used with .22 Shorts, to introduce really recoil sensitive persons to sight alingment and trigger squeeze before you introduce any recoil; a revolver chambered for .22 Magnum will not accept .22 Shorts or .22 Long Rifle, although I think a Ruger Single Six may have an interchangeable cylinder. I don’t recommend a single action revolver for self-defense, however.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    a revolver chambered for .22 Magnum will not accept .22 Shorts or .22 Long Rifle,
     
    You have this backwards. A 22 Magnum revolver will chamber and fire a 22LR, BUT the chamber is slightly larger and you will get split cases if you shoot a LR in a magnum.
    , @ThreeCranes
    You're right. When I multiply velocity x mass (= momentum) as Saker recommended, the value for the 22 mag is just a little over half that of the 38, 9mm etc.

    Oh well, another pet theory bites the dust.

    Still, the 22 round is smaller and cheaper so a person may be inclined to practice more and won't have quite so much of that objectionable revolver cylinder bulge in their pocket. Cue Mae West quip....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @peterAUS

    Perhaps some readers can share their experience and observations.
     
    Well….concise and information packed comment with a reasonable request; good manner demands a reply.
    Personally, I am not fond of giving advice on Web re self-defense (armed or unarmed) for a couple of reasons. The most important is, it CAN affect one’s life (or lives he/she holds dear) and feels somehow….irresponsible and it is INDIVIDUAL.

    This topic is dead serious and again, I am surprised that Saker decided to tackle it.
    Perhaps some inside joke I am missing!?

    Having said that, a couple of thoughts:
    Self-defense (armed or unarmed) is a highly personal matter. In practical terms it depends, mostly, on a person who is doing it.

    That element is missing from all blabbing about the topic.

    There are people who are natural fighters, people who will never fight and are natural victims, and everything in between. Each of them should have his/her own approach to the topic, and it’s highly individual.

    For handguns it gets even to a hand size, length of fingers, hand/finger strength etc.

    As I mentioned before….plenty of fine details that can be addressed only by person by person approach and by an experienced instructor.

    Then, PRACTICE. If one wants to be effective he/she MUST practice. More practice, more effective. As in everything we do.

    That “front sight” thing. Well…hehe…depends how far the “target” is. Again, a little detail missing from the article/”conversation”. If a perp is holding your left and is about to stab you, you can shoot him from a hip. If a perp is shooting at you from a cover (car) across a road, it’s two hand grip with a rest and front sight.

    Again…details…details…details….

    Caliber, again, another serious conversation. Books have been written about it. How much damage a human being can take.
    There have been innumerable examples of unbelievable resilience. Miami Shootout Saker mentioned is just one of them. A perp shall die in 60 seconds from a huge blood loss (severed artery) but in meantime he is firing, with skill, his semi auto rifle. Etc..etc…..

    Shotgun vs handgun. Personally, shotgun for home defense always, but, one can’t carry 12 gauge around in a shopping mall. Etc…etc….

    Then, risk assessment, another element missing from the article. WHO is the threat?
    An occasional petty burglar seeking money for a quick heroin/pick the drug thing ….or an organized “gang banger” team? Details…dangerous, deadly details.

    Back to practice. One MUST practice. It’s funny….actually.
    One can spend a certain amount of time doing a personal hygiene (health…life…), but can’t spend 10 (TEN) minutes every day practicing deadly self defense (health and life again). Weird, isn’t it?
    When I say deadly, one misses and the bullet goes into neighborhood kid playground....


    In general, gunshot wounds are so painful, even a .22, that the person shot will run away.
     
    Hell NO.
    A 6.4, 250 pounds guy high on adrenaline/drug, riddled with rounds can keep coming at you with a knife and gut you. True, he’ll die a minute later but too late for you. Plenty of examples like that.

    This comment thread can easily go thousand pages (that inside joke/intention Saker actually wants I suspect). Just go to any of “gun sites” and enjoy. Or get into conversations at gun clubs/ranges.

    Bottom line, AGAIN, advising an amateur about the topic by a Web article is not only amateurish but irresponsible.
    Feels even...immature.

    You are, of course, free not to comment on any topic when you feel that such commentary is amateurish, irresponsible and immature. Yes, anyone contemplating using a weapon for self-defense should get instruction, but basic marksmanship and gun handling aren’t fencing or an esoteric eastern martial art. Not all instructors are competent, by the way. I remember years ago reading about a shooting school that taught its students to use unsighted fire at close ranges, sighted fire at long ranges and somehow to transition between the two in between! This advice strikes me as nuts, and when I ran my letter to American Rifleman past the late Jeff Cooper, he commented that anyone can claim to be an expert and even open a shooting school.

    Reading an article such as the Saker wrote and the comment thread should give a “newbie” some basic information about weapon types and cartridges. It won’t substitute for hands-on experience, but it’s not a bad start.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Just made a long and detailed reply, took a good look ...and deleted it.
    We do not want to teach/train people on open Internet. Or I don't want to. Ever.

    Re that sights thing, just:
    Range/peripheral vision.
    Board test.Try it.

    it’s not a bad start.
     
    Only as a realization that the topic is both dead serious and complicated, and has to be addressed as such.

    As for

    anyone can claim to be an expert and even open a shooting school.
     
    Takes ONE exercise to see how good handgun shot a person is. 5 minutes on a range, tops.
    That doesn't necessarily mean he/she is good at passing that expertise to somebody.
    And shooting is just one of basic blocks of "handgun self defense". There are other blocks, some of them even more important.

    Anyway.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. peterAUS says:
    @Brabantian
    Note to Unz readers in the USA - Europeans actually DO own a great many civilian firearms, contrary to USA myths; there are perhaps 75-100 million civilian guns in Europe ... no 'carry' laws, but they are in homes and on farms ... for statistics by country:
    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/home
    Thus Europeans, too, say 'I like guns', as in the famous popular music video by Australian Steve Lee, 2min38s:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU

    Hahaha…..so true.

    It’s always funny to hear Americans showing that 2nd Amendment into other people’s faces calling them “not free” and “unarmed”.
    Clueless doesn’t even begin to describe it.

    Now, it is true that most of Americans do have an easier access to firearms.
    It’s also true that in some parts of this world one can have weapons Americans can just dream about (or being very rich if one catches my drift).

    In those parts of this world where little people have a LONG history (longer than history of USA) of fighting against an oppression (domestic/foreign) a serious firearm is just a part of a household. Not necessarily registered or visible, but, my God it is there and those people are capable and willing to use it.

    Now, true, this article and consequent comments are about Americans, so focusing on them would make sense.

    Again, bottom line, there is so much expertise in USA about the topic that just doesn’t make any sense reading about it on the Internet.
    Just find a good instructor, PLENTY of them around.
    Having said that, even more true, plenty of fakes and straight idiots too.

    Choose wisely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gleimhart
    You're full of it, but beginning your asinine post with "Hahaha..." was the tipoff that what was likely going to be pure bunk.

    First off, the "myth" that Americans supposedly have about European gun ownership is simply untrue. We really just don't care one way or the other what Europeans do or don't do. Non-Americans obsess over Americans, but we have no corresponding meddlesome busybody bees-in-the-bonnet regarding guns or gun ownership in foreign places.

    Second, the notion that foreigners have access to guns that "Americans can only dream about" is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on the internet — and that's saying something. Attending just one average American gun show would knock the likes of you back on your rear-end, and we have hundreds of them on a weekly basis. The variety, deep catalogue, and custom firearms gunsmith designs is staggering.

    No country on earth has more of a history of people defending themselves with modern firearms. Americans did more to invent modern firearms than all other peoples combined.

    This article is unnecessary for Americans. Just really basic stuff for us, but foreigners may find some use in it. There are whole books and courses and instructors that cover so much more ground than just these introductory comments by The Saker. Americans don't need gun advice from foreigners. We're the experts. There wasn't even any mention about hollow points, for crying out loud. I know you don't realize why that's important, and I'm not going to tell you.

    You may want to dial it back a few notches before you play the fool again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Don’t buy into the cop propaganda. Cops ARE civilians. Most cops know very little about firearms. No situation cannot be made worse by adding a cop.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. @Diversity Heretic
    I think that both Smith&Wesson and Ruger offer revolvers chambered for the .22 Magnum. But energy isn't usually a good measure of stopping power--that's better measured by momentum and cross-sectional area. So the .22 Magnum isn't all that much better than the .22 Long Rifle, despite those high energy figures. (2000 feet per second may be from a rifle, not a four-inch barrel revolver with a flash gap.) The drawback to the .22 Magnum is that it is more expensive than the .22 Long Rifle, so a person may not practice as much. A revolver chambered for the .22 Long Rifle can also be used with .22 Shorts, to introduce really recoil sensitive persons to sight alingment and trigger squeeze before you introduce any recoil; a revolver chambered for .22 Magnum will not accept .22 Shorts or .22 Long Rifle, although I think a Ruger Single Six may have an interchangeable cylinder. I don't recommend a single action revolver for self-defense, however.

    a revolver chambered for .22 Magnum will not accept .22 Shorts or .22 Long Rifle,

    You have this backwards. A 22 Magnum revolver will chamber and fire a 22LR, BUT the chamber is slightly larger and you will get split cases if you shoot a LR in a magnum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Amend my previous post to read: "A revolver chambered for .22 Magnum will not safely fire a .22 Long Rifle cartridge."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Dutch Boy says:

    The Saker missed item #8 in the list of the advantages of a semi-automatic: you are more likely to hit what you shoot at (no minor detail).

    https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2016/11/revolvers-semi-autos-comparison/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. @Diversity Heretic
    I think that both Smith&Wesson and Ruger offer revolvers chambered for the .22 Magnum. But energy isn't usually a good measure of stopping power--that's better measured by momentum and cross-sectional area. So the .22 Magnum isn't all that much better than the .22 Long Rifle, despite those high energy figures. (2000 feet per second may be from a rifle, not a four-inch barrel revolver with a flash gap.) The drawback to the .22 Magnum is that it is more expensive than the .22 Long Rifle, so a person may not practice as much. A revolver chambered for the .22 Long Rifle can also be used with .22 Shorts, to introduce really recoil sensitive persons to sight alingment and trigger squeeze before you introduce any recoil; a revolver chambered for .22 Magnum will not accept .22 Shorts or .22 Long Rifle, although I think a Ruger Single Six may have an interchangeable cylinder. I don't recommend a single action revolver for self-defense, however.

    You’re right. When I multiply velocity x mass (= momentum) as Saker recommended, the value for the 22 mag is just a little over half that of the 38, 9mm etc.

    Oh well, another pet theory bites the dust.

    Still, the 22 round is smaller and cheaper so a person may be inclined to practice more and won’t have quite so much of that objectionable revolver cylinder bulge in their pocket. Cue Mae West quip….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Chris Mallory

    a revolver chambered for .22 Magnum will not accept .22 Shorts or .22 Long Rifle,
     
    You have this backwards. A 22 Magnum revolver will chamber and fire a 22LR, BUT the chamber is slightly larger and you will get split cases if you shoot a LR in a magnum.

    Amend my previous post to read: “A revolver chambered for .22 Magnum will not safely fire a .22 Long Rifle cartridge.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. “Let’s repeat that again, firing just ONE SINGLE ROUND more than the strict minimum you needed to stop the crime in progress would expose you to prosecution for any of the following: assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, homicide or even 2nd degree murder.”

    In many places, the fact that you fired even one round may be used against you for daring to not surrender your well-being to the pros.

    Seriously, shoot with what you are comfortable with. If you aren’t comfortable shooting any gun, you probably shouldn’t have one. I have a Beretta 92 because that is what I carried and shot for years, but I was also proficient with 38 cal revolvers and could comfortably put one to use in self defense.

    Saker’s 80% miss-rate is high for a well-trained shooter, but research they showed us in the ’80s suggested that at least 2/3 of shots in close combat (<10 feet) miss their mark largely owing to shooting in haste. This was useful knowledge in third-world hell-holes where we were limited in the number of rounds we could carry with us, but it translates well to life here: Training to keep relatively calm (relatively … you are facing a threat, after all), adequately aim (laser-sights are nice toys, but you will likely hit what you are pointing at if it's a reasonably sized center of mass), and squeeze the trigger (rather than jerkily pull it in panic or haste just to get a shot off) will mean fewer shots wasted and fewer shots required to stop a threat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Will someone explain to me why the use of a laser sight doesn't also illuminate you as a target as well? Seems to me that red light would give your target something to aim at, but unlike most here I readily admit to knowing virtually nothing about this topic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. I’d have a few quibbles. My credentials: Own 4 revolvers, 2 semi-auto pistols, 3 lever rifles, 2 semi-auto rifles, 1 shotgun. Have 3 carry permits, and have been trained. Frequent range practice, including the range on my back 40.

    1. It’s not 90% of attacks stopped by merely showing a gun. It’s 97%. That’s a bigger difference than it might seem.

    2. I prefer a revolver for the nightstand because there’s nothing to think about. If the gun comes from a quality manufacturer, it will ALWAYS work. Still, the article overstates the difficulty of semi-auto pistols. My winter-time carry gun, a FN Five-Seven, carries 20 very high velocity and quite lethal 5.7x28mm rounds. (The shooter at Ft. Hood, Texas used this gun to murder 9 people.) I carry with a round in the chamber and the safety on. Flick the lever, and you’re good to go. I don’t like the “safety-less” pistols, i.e. Glock, because of the possibility of mistaken discharge, as the author mentions.

    3. The article omits any mention of shotguns or rifles. They are ALWAYS more lethal than handguns — FAR more so because the long barrels allow the projectiles to attain higher velocity. A 12- or 20-gauge shotgun is highly lethal, and the shot won’t penetrate apartment walls. If, like me, you live in the country or in a single-family house well separated from neighbors, a rifle works very well too. My shotgun is an antique break-action that loads only one round, so my broom closet weapon is a Henry Big Boy in .357 magnum, with 10 rounds in the tube.

    You sure as hell do NOT want to be the tweaker who breaks into our house. My Henry rifle will come close to cutting you in half. My next purchase, a pump shotgun, will come even closer.

    4. Caliber is often discussed, heatedly. There is research (see the link in this post) that shows .22 to be a lot more lethal than most gunners realize. Make that .22 magnum, 45 grain “Critical Defense” from Hornady, and you’re fine. More than fine in fact; .22WMR (aka magnum) is infamous in emergency rooms, because once the bullet enters the body it’s anyone’s guess where it bounces around.

    If not .22, then .357 magnum in a handgun or rifle is highly lethal. The issue with .357 magnum is recoil, so if that’s your home defense choice in a revolver, you need a heavy, full-framed one. Mine is a Dan Wesson 715, but the Ruger GP-100 and S&W 686 are excellent. I like Dan Wesson for the swappability of barrels and superior overall quality.

    I have a Ruger LCR revolver in .357 magnum. It’s my least favorite gun. Even with lighter .38 Special, the recoil is punishing. I’d recommend that LCR buyers get that firearm in either .22 WMR or .327 Federal, to reduce recoil and the flinching and inaccuracy that stout recoil tends to cause. Too many men equate recoil sensitivity to lack of masculinity, when in fact it’s a reptile brain function only partly overcome by training.

    In any given caliber, felt recoil in a handgun is directly propotional to the gun’s weight. (Chiappa’s Rhino is a clever design that attempts to reduce recoil by slightly rechanneling it, but the recoil is still there.) This is why a 1-pound LCR revolver in .357 magnum is going to be a much tougher gun to fire accurately than a full-framed Dan Wesson, Ruger, S&W, or Taurus revolver, which weigh between 40 and 50 ounces unloaded. There is very little recoil from .22, either LR or WMR, and not much from the various .32 rounds. For someone who isn’t an enthusiast, this is why I tend to point them toward .22WMR.

    5. Don’t overlook the North American Arms mini revolvers. They weigh 6 ounces and are usually .22WMR, often with a .22LR cylinder included. They fit in a shirt pocket without showing, and have an ingenious and effective safety notch mechanism. The downside is that they are single-action only, and pretty much useless past about 20 feet. But most gun battles where shots are actually fired happen at shorter range. A 45-grain, Hornady Critical Defense .22WMR round shot from an NAA mini is quite likely to kill an attacker.

    I bought my NAA “Wasp” for comic relief. But after shooting a few hundred rounds out of it, I have gained a lot of respect for it. This is a very well-made firearm, and with practice you can be more accurate than you’d think. And, very importantly, they’ll never see you coming. Not in my opinion a home defense weapon, but an excellent summer-time carry gun.

    This article at the link makes excellent reading regarding the caliber wars:

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Yes, per you and TG in comment ten, we favor a shotgun for home defense. That’s in reliance on the advice of people who are much more knowledgeable and experienced with guns than my wife and I — including a retired military officer who’s a great shot, and a former instructor of a firearms self-defense class.

    Unlike us, our kids will learn safe, responsible, effective handling of both handguns and shotguns while they are growing up. We expect this country to become a lot more dangerous, and not just here in California, so sadly it’s more important to be prepared in this regard than when I was a kid.
    , @Poupon Marx
    I reviewed as much analytical-both Government and private-regarding guns as I could. I especially paid close attention to Masad Ayoob. From gel penetration freeze frames to shooting pig heads, and much more.

    An issue not discussed here is the energy that a bullet carries must be totally released inside the body of the shooter. If the bullet comes out the other side, energy and lethality are wasted and reduced. Over penetration does you no good.

    1. That's why the .357 is not ideal. It has a small cross section with a lot of energy (=1/2mass X velocity squared). It is very fast. The small cross section makes a corresponding small hole. Law enforcement has sidelined it for good reason.

    2. The 9mm is simply a weak round. It also has a small cross section, is relatively fast, but real world results for a single shot are lacking. The selling point of the 9mm is the low recoil (think small hands and wrists of females), and thus gained wide acceptance with political considerations. Soldiers I've taken to want the .45.

    3. The .45 is a smacker. Large cross sectional area that makes a larger hole. Therefore it rips up soft tissue, breaks bones (and is less deflected by a hard object, such as a slanted windshield). It expends all of its energy in the body of the shootee. A .45 shot to the hip of a perp will most likely break the pelvic bone and cause the perp to rotate or tip forward. Thus the opportunity for a second shot. Those that have taken tactical training know that a first shot to the mid torso is the easiest. The natural recoil of the .45 means that you can fire the second shot immediately and hit the the upper torso, without aim, just on reflex.

    The second issue is scare ability. I have had to point my Sig Sauer double action .45 at a potential perp(s) several times with the hammer cocked and pointed directly at the POSs nose. That way, he can look down the barrel at the BIG HOLE and get an idea of what is coming at him. Try it yourself. Look down the barrel at the .45 and then lesser calibers.

    The .44 mag is not as effective as the .45. "With my .45, I can put two in you before you can shoot again" is how a retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant put it.

    4. The .22 is a joke for stupid people. If a squirrel is you adversary, then use it. "Shot placement" is likewise DOA. You must assume that you will be accosted, have barely enough time to squeeze one off, and that it should make a general shock and either slow down or shock the attacker. Even if it is in the arm or leg, a .45 will smack hard and cause significant damage, even breaking a leg bone.

    Most comments on defensive guns lack adequate logic and reason, are shallow, and are merely subjective preferences. Unfortunately.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Ofcourse surviving the ordeal is a first. But I am always intrested in the aftermath.
    When the trembling and the shaking starts. When realising you could have been killed or just killed someone. When trying to go to sleep.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avalanche-the-second
    Read Dr. Peter Levine (brilliant, brilliant stuff!!!) on treating PTSD soldiers -- he points out the shaking/trembling is -- in fact -- PART of the recovery from the "brush with death." You see an antelope after it had run for its life and succeeded -- it goes back to eating grass, but also shakes and twitches... That FINISHES the mammalian recovery process (built-in!!!) from a brush with death.

    Our guys, instead of getting to twitch and shudder -- and FINISH -- instead have to lie still with their ears ringing from the IED/shots and try to still their bodies enough to aim and fire back! Then when they get to escape, and go somewhere safe-ish; they push down/try to STOP the shuddering and twitching -- and so do the medics! And the psychs... and by never finishing, they become more and more wound around the mammalian response...

    "Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma" -- fascinating, superb book!!! and his second "In an Unspoken Voice: How the Body Releases Trauma and Restores Goodness" is also brilliant! (He has some YouTubes too.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Iberiano [AKA "firewalls7582"] says:

    I’ve been a LEO my entire adult life basically, and I think the article is pretty good. Although I carry for a different reason and under different authority, as it were, the bottom line is, all you need is a 5-6 shot revolver and some basic (Gracie) Jiu Jitsu–and to train both routinely.

    All this high powered crap dealers sell to civilians and all the Krav in the world, will not serve you as well as going to shoot monthly at your local range, with a basic revolver, or if you must, some basic semi-auto (even a 22 cal). Then, practice (self-defense) BJJ, 2-3 times a week. Be aware of your surroundings, limit confrontations and be ready.

    Nothing is 100 percent failsafe, and you can get stabbed or shot standing in line minding your own business, but train in the basics, as LIVE as possible (thus BJJ over other TMAs) and you’ll be fine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Then why don't YOU limit yourself to a 5 or 6 shot revolver... while on duty.
    It is FACT that most LEOs in the USA are notoriously poor shots. In fact, civilians who are firearms literate, quite often, train more frequently, and are MORE proficient than most LEOs.
    You bring up an excellent point about the importance of "situational awareness"--being aware of your surroundings, and always looking for a "way out".
    Many people (LEOs and liberals included) have the mistaken assumption that a person who is legally carrying a firearm is going to be cocky, arrogant and reckless...nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, those who carry are MORE careful not to get into any confrontational situation.
    As civilians are more restricted in the use of firearms for self-defense and the defense of others, it is a testimony to their abilities, cautionary behavior and general firearms demeanor that they quite often put LEOs to shame, when it comes to defensive shootings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @ThreeCranes
    Bearing in mind that Saker is addressing persons who have little or no experience with firearms, I believe his is solid advice. Nothing wrong with a revolver and, as he points out, much to recommend it.

    I would like to draw people's attention a much underrated round that would have a place for women or those averse to recoil and that is the 22 magnum. Not only are they comparatively inexpensive so that target practice is affordable, but they actually pack a wallop far in excess of what the 22 part of the name would lead one to believe. Lack of significant recoil makes follow up rounds doable. Small diameter bullets make for a small, light concealed carry even as a revolver.

    Here are the ballistics (approx, like the Sakers).


    muzzle velocity Ft.lbs Energy

    22 mag. 40 grain bullet. 2000 fps. 355 ft lbs.

    38 special +P 158 grain 915 fps. 294 ft lbs.

    9mm 115 grain 1200 fps 380 ft. lbs.

    357 mag 158 grain 1400 fps 700 ft lbs.

    See? The 22 mag is nothing to sneeze at! However I believe that only Taurus is making a small revolver in 22mag.

    Agreed on the .22WMR round. The guy at the shop tried to talk me out of buying one for my wife, saying that the.22 mag wasn’t any more effective in terms of velocity than the .22LR in a short barrel. That wasn’t the advantage I was looking for. The biggest advantage of the .22mag that I saw was that you could get JHP rounds in .22mag at WalMart.

    In 2002, I bought my wife a Taurus 941 w/ a 2″ barrel in .22WMR because it’s a low recoil round that will deliver a JHP bullet with enough energy behind it to penetrate heavy clothing. Also, the .22mag is loud, which is a good thing if she has to use it. A single loud gunshot is likely to make an attacker back off even if she misses.

    Oh, and the Taurus cost $225.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Gleimhart says:
    @Brabantian
    Note to Unz readers in the USA - Europeans actually DO own a great many civilian firearms, contrary to USA myths; there are perhaps 75-100 million civilian guns in Europe ... no 'carry' laws, but they are in homes and on farms ... for statistics by country:
    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/home
    Thus Europeans, too, say 'I like guns', as in the famous popular music video by Australian Steve Lee, 2min38s:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU

    No such myths exist to any significant degree in America. To be perfectly frank, Americans just don’t generally think about Europeans very much, except when Europeans get in our face and leave us no other choice (like now).

    I don’t care if you have guns or if you don’t have guns. What I do know is that Europeans never miss an opportunity to lecture Americans on our own gun rights laws, as if it’s any of their business, or if they have any expertise in the matter.

    I also know that Europeans in public settings are easy prey to the 3rd World hordes who roam their streets in a way that most Americans need not be. Moreover, I know that “hot burglaries” (burglaries made while the occupants are at home) occur at monumentally higher percentages than they do in the U.S., because in the U.S. there is a much greater chance of a burglar walking in on someone aiming a barrel at their face, and criminals don’t like that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    There was a case in "merrie old England" a number of years ago where a homeowner defended himself against intruders with a baseball bat. The police and the "crown" (prosecutor) determined that he used "too much force" against the intruder, and in fact, transported him in the same police car as the intruder. He actually got a stiffer sentence than the intruder who broke into his house.
    You see, in most European countries, the "crown" is the only entity that has the right to self-defense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Gleimhart says:

    This article may be helpful to Europeans, Canadians and Australians, but this is all very basic introductory type stuff for Americans. There’re a number of excellent books out there that cover this ground and much more. Not sure why this article is imagined to be so necessary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Gleimhart says:
    @peterAUS
    Hahaha.....so true.

    It's always funny to hear Americans showing that 2nd Amendment into other people's faces calling them "not free" and "unarmed".
    Clueless doesn't even begin to describe it.

    Now, it is true that most of Americans do have an easier access to firearms.
    It's also true that in some parts of this world one can have weapons Americans can just dream about (or being very rich if one catches my drift).

    In those parts of this world where little people have a LONG history (longer than history of USA) of fighting against an oppression (domestic/foreign) a serious firearm is just a part of a household. Not necessarily registered or visible, but, my God it is there and those people are capable and willing to use it.

    Now, true, this article and consequent comments are about Americans, so focusing on them would make sense.

    Again, bottom line, there is so much expertise in USA about the topic that just doesn't make any sense reading about it on the Internet.
    Just find a good instructor, PLENTY of them around.
    Having said that, even more true, plenty of fakes and straight idiots too.

    Choose wisely.

    You’re full of it, but beginning your asinine post with “Hahaha…” was the tipoff that what was likely going to be pure bunk.

    First off, the “myth” that Americans supposedly have about European gun ownership is simply untrue. We really just don’t care one way or the other what Europeans do or don’t do. Non-Americans obsess over Americans, but we have no corresponding meddlesome busybody bees-in-the-bonnet regarding guns or gun ownership in foreign places.

    Second, the notion that foreigners have access to guns that “Americans can only dream about” is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on the internet — and that’s saying something. Attending just one average American gun show would knock the likes of you back on your rear-end, and we have hundreds of them on a weekly basis. The variety, deep catalogue, and custom firearms gunsmith designs is staggering.

    No country on earth has more of a history of people defending themselves with modern firearms. Americans did more to invent modern firearms than all other peoples combined.

    This article is unnecessary for Americans. Just really basic stuff for us, but foreigners may find some use in it. There are whole books and courses and instructors that cover so much more ground than just these introductory comments by The Saker. Americans don’t need gun advice from foreigners. We’re the experts. There wasn’t even any mention about hollow points, for crying out loud. I know you don’t realize why that’s important, and I’m not going to tell you.

    You may want to dial it back a few notches before you play the fool again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    I'll reply, not because of you, but of some people reading all this.
    I know your type and I steer well clear of them but your types keep posting similar bullshit and it does need responding. You know, fair and balanced, opposing views etc.

    First off, the “myth” that Americans supposedly have about European gun ownership is simply untrue. We really just don’t care one way or the other what Europeans do or don’t do. Non-Americans obsess over Americans, but we have no corresponding meddlesome busybody bees-in-the-bonnet regarding guns or gun ownership in foreign places.
     
    All evidence to the contrary.
    That ...attitude...of yours can be seen, in spades, everywhere where people talk about violence, self-defense, guns and similar stuff. Your types are so thick that you don't even register it.

    Second, the notion that foreigners have access to guns that “Americans can only dream about” is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on the internet — and that’s saying something. Attending just one average American gun show would knock the likes of you back on your rear-end, and we have hundreds of them on a weekly basis. The variety, deep catalogue, and custom firearms gunsmith designs is staggering.
     
    Toys for boys.
    Can you take down an armored vehicle with those toys? How about a helicopter gunship? Or a patrol boat?
    Belt fed machineguns with optics don't even count here.

    Because in a lot of places of this world, Europe included, that weaponry IS in people's hands.
    Not for showing of and feeding egos and grown men childish delusions.
    Well hidden, well maintained, and owned by people who do know how to use them. And are more than willing to use them should it come to that.
    I guess your types didn't even register this fact before.

    No country on earth has more of a history of people defending themselves with modern firearms.
     
    I grant you that, for an individual/small group of people against other individual/small group of people.
    But, you have failed miserably in defending an individual/group against the power of the state.
    And I do believe that 2nd isn't about "toys for boys" and self-defense. It's about abuse of the state. The last time you guys tried that failed in 1866.Don't count Waco/Ruby Ridge. Or this last one with LaVoy Finicum.
    I could post here a LONG list of peoples who have been doing that, with firearms, before you guys even got your country.

    Americans don’t need gun advice from foreigners. We’re the experts.
     
    Ah....the attitude.

    here wasn’t even any mention about hollow points, for crying out loud. I know you don’t realize why that’s important, and I’m not going to tell you.
     
    Hahaha......oh man. Your lack of perception is staggering. But, expected from your types.

    You may want to dial it back a few notches before you play the fool again
     
    My sentiment exactly.
    , @Alden
    When my sister and her husband lived in Germany they met lots of guys who had military weapons

    They got them from corrupt American soldiers who worked in the warehouses on the numerous American army bases There was a regular trade going on.

    France has as much or more of a hunting culture as we do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. peterAUS says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    You are, of course, free not to comment on any topic when you feel that such commentary is amateurish, irresponsible and immature. Yes, anyone contemplating using a weapon for self-defense should get instruction, but basic marksmanship and gun handling aren't fencing or an esoteric eastern martial art. Not all instructors are competent, by the way. I remember years ago reading about a shooting school that taught its students to use unsighted fire at close ranges, sighted fire at long ranges and somehow to transition between the two in between! This advice strikes me as nuts, and when I ran my letter to American Rifleman past the late Jeff Cooper, he commented that anyone can claim to be an expert and even open a shooting school.

    Reading an article such as the Saker wrote and the comment thread should give a "newbie" some basic information about weapon types and cartridges. It won't substitute for hands-on experience, but it's not a bad start.

    Just made a long and detailed reply, took a good look …and deleted it.
    We do not want to teach/train people on open Internet. Or I don’t want to. Ever.

    Re that sights thing, just:
    Range/peripheral vision.
    Board test.Try it.

    it’s not a bad start.

    Only as a realization that the topic is both dead serious and complicated, and has to be addressed as such.

    As for

    anyone can claim to be an expert and even open a shooting school.

    Takes ONE exercise to see how good handgun shot a person is. 5 minutes on a range, tops.
    That doesn’t necessarily mean he/she is good at passing that expertise to somebody.
    And shooting is just one of basic blocks of “handgun self defense”. There are other blocks, some of them even more important.

    Anyway…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. BeB says:

    Guns are for gunmen. That is, someone who understands them in practice as well as theory. If you’re not a gunman, you will be better off with a machete.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. And there’s your first error:
    “This is absolutely crucial: law enforcement officers have to enforce the law and protect everybody. ”

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Read More
    • Agree: fish
    • Replies: @dearieme
    Quite. Did you see the recent youtube of the cowardly policeman murdering the sobbing man who was on his knees in the hotel corridor? I'd like to think it was faked but I assume it wasn't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. anarchyst says:
    @bluedog
    The mistake many gun owner make is they go out and buy a gun bring home and tell their kids now don't you touch this and put it up high so little fingers can't reach it.We have always had guns in the house and when the kids and grandkid's got old enough to have an interest in them they were permitted to play with them to their heart content, the only stipulation was they had to ask me first, and they found why there is no mystery to them at all,especially after they pinched their fingers under the hammer a few times,from there they graduated to gun safety and pinking a few cans out back,I've always keep a loaded .38 SP in the night stand next to the bed but then again our kids were not permitted in our bedroom and lol a few swats on the backside would serve to remind if needed, oops not permitted in today's sick society...

    The key to educating children and firearms is to reduce the natural curiosity that children have about these things. Allow them to handle an unloaded firearm when they are quite young, always reinforcing the fact that they are not to touch a firearm without permission or an adult being present. If they see someone else with a firearm, they are to “get away” and tell an adult. When handling a firearm, children will usually remark how “heavy” it is…
    When they are older, take them to a range or safe shooting spot and show them the destructive nature of firearms utilizing water-filled jugs or other targets, emphasizing the fact that shooting a firearm will destroy whatever they are aiming at. This also instills good firearm and range safety practices that will last for a lifetime.
    Marksmanship can be started with CO2, pre-charged or spring-type BB guns. There are BB pistols that simulate “blowback” firearms action which are quite useful in firearms training for children as they simulate the action of “real” firearms.
    The key is to relieve that natural curiosity that children have about firearms. Satisfy that natural curiosity and they will be competent firearms owners (and advocates) for life.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. anarchyst says:
    @Gleimhart
    No such myths exist to any significant degree in America. To be perfectly frank, Americans just don't generally think about Europeans very much, except when Europeans get in our face and leave us no other choice (like now).

    I don't care if you have guns or if you don't have guns. What I do know is that Europeans never miss an opportunity to lecture Americans on our own gun rights laws, as if it's any of their business, or if they have any expertise in the matter.

    I also know that Europeans in public settings are easy prey to the 3rd World hordes who roam their streets in a way that most Americans need not be. Moreover, I know that "hot burglaries" (burglaries made while the occupants are at home) occur at monumentally higher percentages than they do in the U.S., because in the U.S. there is a much greater chance of a burglar walking in on someone aiming a barrel at their face, and criminals don't like that.

    There was a case in “merrie old England” a number of years ago where a homeowner defended himself against intruders with a baseball bat. The police and the “crown” (prosecutor) determined that he used “too much force” against the intruder, and in fact, transported him in the same police car as the intruder. He actually got a stiffer sentence than the intruder who broke into his house.
    You see, in most European countries, the “crown” is the only entity that has the right to self-defense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    Europeans gave up their innate human right to defend themselves a while back, and hence are headed for the ash heap of history...Americans didn't. Hence, outside the ghettos America has very little violent crime, very little burglary or home invasion. And childish Antifas don't scare us a bit...
    , @Alden
    There are many cases like that in England. One case got in the news only because the homeowner was a well known news presenter.

    She and her young daughter were in the kitchen at the back of the house at night. She saw 2 intruders jump over the fence and come towards the house.

    She screamed “ I already called police” grabbed her phone and daughter ran out to the street and called police.

    Intruders didn’t break in. Must have run off because she yelled she’d called police.
    When police took report she mentioned that she had thought that she would defend herself and daughter with a kitchen knife if they got in the kitchen.

    Police informed her that if she had defended herself with a kitchen knife they would have had to arrest her even if she didn’t touch the intruders
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. anarchyst says:
    @Iberiano
    I've been a LEO my entire adult life basically, and I think the article is pretty good. Although I carry for a different reason and under different authority, as it were, the bottom line is, all you need is a 5-6 shot revolver and some basic (Gracie) Jiu Jitsu--and to train both routinely.

    All this high powered crap dealers sell to civilians and all the Krav in the world, will not serve you as well as going to shoot monthly at your local range, with a basic revolver, or if you must, some basic semi-auto (even a 22 cal). Then, practice (self-defense) BJJ, 2-3 times a week. Be aware of your surroundings, limit confrontations and be ready.

    Nothing is 100 percent failsafe, and you can get stabbed or shot standing in line minding your own business, but train in the basics, as LIVE as possible (thus BJJ over other TMAs) and you'll be fine.

    Then why don’t YOU limit yourself to a 5 or 6 shot revolver… while on duty.
    It is FACT that most LEOs in the USA are notoriously poor shots. In fact, civilians who are firearms literate, quite often, train more frequently, and are MORE proficient than most LEOs.
    You bring up an excellent point about the importance of “situational awareness”–being aware of your surroundings, and always looking for a “way out”.
    Many people (LEOs and liberals included) have the mistaken assumption that a person who is legally carrying a firearm is going to be cocky, arrogant and reckless…nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, those who carry are MORE careful not to get into any confrontational situation.
    As civilians are more restricted in the use of firearms for self-defense and the defense of others, it is a testimony to their abilities, cautionary behavior and general firearms demeanor that they quite often put LEOs to shame, when it comes to defensive shootings.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. peterAUS says:
    @Gleimhart
    You're full of it, but beginning your asinine post with "Hahaha..." was the tipoff that what was likely going to be pure bunk.

    First off, the "myth" that Americans supposedly have about European gun ownership is simply untrue. We really just don't care one way or the other what Europeans do or don't do. Non-Americans obsess over Americans, but we have no corresponding meddlesome busybody bees-in-the-bonnet regarding guns or gun ownership in foreign places.

    Second, the notion that foreigners have access to guns that "Americans can only dream about" is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on the internet — and that's saying something. Attending just one average American gun show would knock the likes of you back on your rear-end, and we have hundreds of them on a weekly basis. The variety, deep catalogue, and custom firearms gunsmith designs is staggering.

    No country on earth has more of a history of people defending themselves with modern firearms. Americans did more to invent modern firearms than all other peoples combined.

    This article is unnecessary for Americans. Just really basic stuff for us, but foreigners may find some use in it. There are whole books and courses and instructors that cover so much more ground than just these introductory comments by The Saker. Americans don't need gun advice from foreigners. We're the experts. There wasn't even any mention about hollow points, for crying out loud. I know you don't realize why that's important, and I'm not going to tell you.

    You may want to dial it back a few notches before you play the fool again.

    I’ll reply, not because of you, but of some people reading all this.
    I know your type and I steer well clear of them but your types keep posting similar bullshit and it does need responding. You know, fair and balanced, opposing views etc.

    First off, the “myth” that Americans supposedly have about European gun ownership is simply untrue. We really just don’t care one way or the other what Europeans do or don’t do. Non-Americans obsess over Americans, but we have no corresponding meddlesome busybody bees-in-the-bonnet regarding guns or gun ownership in foreign places.

    All evidence to the contrary.
    That …attitude…of yours can be seen, in spades, everywhere where people talk about violence, self-defense, guns and similar stuff. Your types are so thick that you don’t even register it.

    Second, the notion that foreigners have access to guns that “Americans can only dream about” is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on the internet — and that’s saying something. Attending just one average American gun show would knock the likes of you back on your rear-end, and we have hundreds of them on a weekly basis. The variety, deep catalogue, and custom firearms gunsmith designs is staggering.

    Toys for boys.
    Can you take down an armored vehicle with those toys? How about a helicopter gunship? Or a patrol boat?
    Belt fed machineguns with optics don’t even count here.

    Because in a lot of places of this world, Europe included, that weaponry IS in people’s hands.
    Not for showing of and feeding egos and grown men childish delusions.
    Well hidden, well maintained, and owned by people who do know how to use them. And are more than willing to use them should it come to that.
    I guess your types didn’t even register this fact before.

    No country on earth has more of a history of people defending themselves with modern firearms.

    I grant you that, for an individual/small group of people against other individual/small group of people.
    But, you have failed miserably in defending an individual/group against the power of the state.
    And I do believe that 2nd isn’t about “toys for boys” and self-defense. It’s about abuse of the state. The last time you guys tried that failed in 1866.Don’t count Waco/Ruby Ridge. Or this last one with LaVoy Finicum.
    I could post here a LONG list of peoples who have been doing that, with firearms, before you guys even got your country.

    Americans don’t need gun advice from foreigners. We’re the experts.

    Ah….the attitude.

    here wasn’t even any mention about hollow points, for crying out loud. I know you don’t realize why that’s important, and I’m not going to tell you.

    Hahaha……oh man. Your lack of perception is staggering. But, expected from your types.

    You may want to dial it back a few notches before you play the fool again

    My sentiment exactly.

    Read More
    • Troll: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @Gleimhart
    It is significant to note that every assertion made by you here is incorrect, delusional, and just plain odd.

    You didn't actually refute anything. Instead, you postured, and you're quite poor at it by the way.

    You steer clear of my type? Son, you haven't the faintest clue what "my type" is, as "my type" is not discernible on the simple account of my having pointed out your idiocy.

    The article was plainly about revolvers vs. semi-autos and you keep yacking on about toys for boys? — armored vehicles? — gunships? — and helicopters? You're not even intelligent enough to understand the parameters of the topic, much less the facts pertaining to those parameters.

    And you didn't list anything that is not in American hands or is not obtainable here. Yours were some jaw-dropping statements, one after the other. Seriously. How are people like you even formed. You can't simply will phony facts into existence, little man. Tomorrow I will show your post to some of my fellow Americans who know even more than I do and I will enjoy gauging their reactions. Probably first their eyes roll before they break out into laughter at the poser foreigner who talks from the abysmal depths of his rectum. Yes, we will have a good laugh at your expense.

    You're like so many anti-American lowlifes: You think you know what you're talking about, and you laughably think you know more about the subject as it pertains to my country than I do. You go straight from the Civil War to Waco and Ruby Ridge. That's your awesome "historical" knowledge on display. You're a whack job if there ever was one.

    You seemed to take issue with my comment about hollow points, but you didn't say why. All you did was jabber on about "perspective" and "my type" (again). Hollow points are precisely on topic for this article, and here you are acting like there was no valid reason for me to have brought it up, and you still don't even know why I did, because you're an amateur hour poser.

    Just admit it: You've never even shot a gun, have you? Your "toys for boys" comment told me quite emphatically that you are a wannabe "macho man" who suffers from some genuine hangups.

    What a nitwit. I told you to dial it back. You should've listened.

    You're dismissed.

    , @NoseytheDuke
    C'mon Peter, the person you are responding to has you pegged. Most Euros cannot begin to fathom the difference between gun availability and ownership in the US compared to Europe. I found that people simply didn't believe me when I mentioned the (meagre) collection of firearms that I had while living in the US.

    I just don't see how you can even make the statements that you have and expect to retain any credibility here but then a brief look at your previous posts shows clearly just how wrapped up you are in your (former) military identity and how much it means to you to be perceived as one tough hombre. Maybe you are but usually the ones that need to be seen as such aren't.

    Australians used to have reasonable access to guns but that was before the lying rodent war-criminal John Howard took them all away based on a single false-flag incident.

    , @bluedog
    Hmm damn you must be a troll as you twist things around to suit yourself, how in hell did we get from self defense to taking on armored vehicles gun ships and all the rest of the Bullshit,as the man said you may want to dial it back a few notches,at least if you can't get on the same page at least stay in the same book...
    , @Joe Stalin
    "It’s about abuse of the state. The last time you guys tried that failed in 1866."

    Try 1946:

    "The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of predatory policing, police brutality, political corruption and voter intimidation."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

    Made into a movie that was broadcast across the US:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103673/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re6CfoKwdsM
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Gleimhart says:
    @peterAUS
    I'll reply, not because of you, but of some people reading all this.
    I know your type and I steer well clear of them but your types keep posting similar bullshit and it does need responding. You know, fair and balanced, opposing views etc.

    First off, the “myth” that Americans supposedly have about European gun ownership is simply untrue. We really just don’t care one way or the other what Europeans do or don’t do. Non-Americans obsess over Americans, but we have no corresponding meddlesome busybody bees-in-the-bonnet regarding guns or gun ownership in foreign places.
     
    All evidence to the contrary.
    That ...attitude...of yours can be seen, in spades, everywhere where people talk about violence, self-defense, guns and similar stuff. Your types are so thick that you don't even register it.

    Second, the notion that foreigners have access to guns that “Americans can only dream about” is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on the internet — and that’s saying something. Attending just one average American gun show would knock the likes of you back on your rear-end, and we have hundreds of them on a weekly basis. The variety, deep catalogue, and custom firearms gunsmith designs is staggering.
     
    Toys for boys.
    Can you take down an armored vehicle with those toys? How about a helicopter gunship? Or a patrol boat?
    Belt fed machineguns with optics don't even count here.

    Because in a lot of places of this world, Europe included, that weaponry IS in people's hands.
    Not for showing of and feeding egos and grown men childish delusions.
    Well hidden, well maintained, and owned by people who do know how to use them. And are more than willing to use them should it come to that.
    I guess your types didn't even register this fact before.

    No country on earth has more of a history of people defending themselves with modern firearms.
     
    I grant you that, for an individual/small group of people against other individual/small group of people.
    But, you have failed miserably in defending an individual/group against the power of the state.
    And I do believe that 2nd isn't about "toys for boys" and self-defense. It's about abuse of the state. The last time you guys tried that failed in 1866.Don't count Waco/Ruby Ridge. Or this last one with LaVoy Finicum.
    I could post here a LONG list of peoples who have been doing that, with firearms, before you guys even got your country.

    Americans don’t need gun advice from foreigners. We’re the experts.
     
    Ah....the attitude.

    here wasn’t even any mention about hollow points, for crying out loud. I know you don’t realize why that’s important, and I’m not going to tell you.
     
    Hahaha......oh man. Your lack of perception is staggering. But, expected from your types.

    You may want to dial it back a few notches before you play the fool again
     
    My sentiment exactly.

    It is significant to note that every assertion made by you here is incorrect, delusional, and just plain odd.

    You didn’t actually refute anything. Instead, you postured, and you’re quite poor at it by the way.

    You steer clear of my type? Son, you haven’t the faintest clue what “my type” is, as “my type” is not discernible on the simple account of my having pointed out your idiocy.

    The article was plainly about revolvers vs. semi-autos and you keep yacking on about toys for boys? — armored vehicles? — gunships? — and helicopters? You’re not even intelligent enough to understand the parameters of the topic, much less the facts pertaining to those parameters.

    And you didn’t list anything that is not in American hands or is not obtainable here. Yours were some jaw-dropping statements, one after the other. Seriously. How are people like you even formed. You can’t simply will phony facts into existence, little man. Tomorrow I will show your post to some of my fellow Americans who know even more than I do and I will enjoy gauging their reactions. Probably first their eyes roll before they break out into laughter at the poser foreigner who talks from the abysmal depths of his rectum. Yes, we will have a good laugh at your expense.

    You’re like so many anti-American lowlifes: You think you know what you’re talking about, and you laughably think you know more about the subject as it pertains to my country than I do. You go straight from the Civil War to Waco and Ruby Ridge. That’s your awesome “historical” knowledge on display. You’re a whack job if there ever was one.

    You seemed to take issue with my comment about hollow points, but you didn’t say why. All you did was jabber on about “perspective” and “my type” (again). Hollow points are precisely on topic for this article, and here you are acting like there was no valid reason for me to have brought it up, and you still don’t even know why I did, because you’re an amateur hour poser.

    Just admit it: You’ve never even shot a gun, have you? Your “toys for boys” comment told me quite emphatically that you are a wannabe “macho man” who suffers from some genuine hangups.

    What a nitwit. I told you to dial it back. You should’ve listened.

    You’re dismissed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Wow.....what a hostility there.
    My...my.....

    Now I am curious. Why's that?
    I doubt it's because I made some "stupid comment". I make plenty of them all the time, according to many, and I have seen some testy replies/posts, but, yours is......next level.

    Whoah, really.

    What really bothers you? C'mon...please...tell me. I mean, after all that venom we got somehow "Internet intimate" I guess.
    Is that life in general? Or a wife? Divorce perhaps? Boss? Job? Middle age?
    The simmering rage just needs venting somewhere?

    I don't know, but, feels a bit unbalanced. The animosity I mean. The balance between that anger and reason for a disagreement. Almost as you've just waited for....somebody...anybody...to unleash all that.

    You know that your government monitors all this, of course.
    You are, apparently, a guy into "guns". Your posts can profile you with ease.
    Are you sure that posting all that........rage..........would sit well with "that person owning a firearm"?

    So...how do you do that? I mean, having a control in a real life?
    You, I presume, carry. And, obviously, have a very short fuse.
    How do you manage that control? Must be an impressive feat. Creates a lot of pressure too. And the pressure needs releasing. Like now.
    Impressive I give it to you.

    Now, actually, having said all that you do have a point, hollow but the point regardless.
    I did derail the thread and Saker did warn against it.
    If we talk about "revolvers vs autos" you were correct and I was not. I slipped into "2 Amendment" thing with that "Americans/Europeans" comment.
    A food for thought you, in all that rage, missed was access to military grade weaponry in some parts of Europe. I am sure that you have some contacts who did a stint in Balkans (even Ukraine), for example. Ask them about the topic if you wish.

    And, yes, hollow points.....and then custom loads, and then custom grips, with custom sights, blah...blah...I am sure you could talk for days about all that.
    Why don't you give us a brief intro here?
    Could even help with that simmering "red" inside.

    You’ve never even shot a gun, have you?
     
    See, that rage can really affect your perception.
    And with all those guns at your disposal, and all that ammo, and all that expertise you probably have in handling that...I don't know....feels as ....something just waiting to BOOM.

    Now, I guess you have fired a lot and are good with guns.
    How about this:
    Standing, in a trench. Target is something as B-27 Black Silhouette, range 200 meters. No wind.
    Standing, two hand grip, elbows resting. 9 mm handgun, custom sights. 8 rounds fired.
    How many rounds could you put anywhere in black?
    C'mon, impress us.

    Ah, another one:
    Standing, in a trench. Target the same, range 400 meters. Weapon a version of AK-47.
    Iron sights. Single shots. Say, 10. How many hits you could comfortably make anywhere in "black"?

    Or we'll have another outburst instead?
    It's fine.
    Whatever helps there. As long as that control stays "on" in real life.
    Not easy, sometimes, a?
    And getting harder.....

    But, if you feel like it now, please....just go with it. Here I mean.Words, typing...even imagining how would our .....ahm..."debate"....looks like in real life. How would you really....really....make your point to me.
    Like....

    What a nitwit. I told you to dial it back. You should’ve listened.
     
    Can't wait.
    , @FB
    Why don't you dial it back a little yourself...?

    Nobody needs to listen to hissy fits here...

    Your shrill tone tells me you're just as much as a poseur as Peter...and that's poseur with an e...

    I have read this entire exchange between yourself and Peter...and you went off like some kind of grenade for no reason...

    That kind of hysteria tells me you are mentally unstable...and should not even be talking about guns...

    Your whole shtick is...you don't care about the gun situation in Europe...blah blah blah...

    Well guess what...you sound like you have never been outside of the United States so what makes you think anybody here is interested in hearing you prattle on about things you know nothing of...

    Peter has a valid point about gun ownership in certain parts of Europe...little Switzerland ranks second in the world in gun ownership [behind the US] with 45 firearms per 100 people...

    Difference is that more Swiss households actually have firearms than in the US...reason being is that the high US number [88 per 100] is skewed by the fact that there are a lot of 'gun nuts' who own huge collections...I know many myself...

    You don't see these fanboys in Europe...but many households do have a gun or two...

    I say this from personal experience having traveled widely on the continent...I remember walking into a gun shop in Belgrade and seeing assault rifles on an unsecured display rack in the middle of the store...you don't see that in the US...

    Serbia btw is number four on the list...Finland number three. Sweden and Norway nine and 10...

    Peter is also correct about the Balkans 'gun culture' which is very different from the US...many of those guns have been used by militias that saw heavy duty action during the Balkan wars of the '90s...

    Military service is mandatory in many European countries...which means every male knows how to use a firearm...and these guys are ready to go to action if need be...as was the case with the Balkans wars...

    City violence and petty crime are not a big problem there...so it is a completely different picture...people have guns for more fundamental reasons...as in defending their political rights...something that is yakked about ad nauseum in the US but is just a figment of the imagination in tough-talking gun collectors...

    Of course many EU countries do fit the stereotype of a completely disarmed populace...but nobody needs to hear some claptrap from a know-nothing...

    Peter can be...and regularly is...quite obtuse here...but personal attacks with such a shrill tone don't look good on you either...especially when you've got nothing to say...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @peterAUS
    I'll reply, not because of you, but of some people reading all this.
    I know your type and I steer well clear of them but your types keep posting similar bullshit and it does need responding. You know, fair and balanced, opposing views etc.

    First off, the “myth” that Americans supposedly have about European gun ownership is simply untrue. We really just don’t care one way or the other what Europeans do or don’t do. Non-Americans obsess over Americans, but we have no corresponding meddlesome busybody bees-in-the-bonnet regarding guns or gun ownership in foreign places.
     
    All evidence to the contrary.
    That ...attitude...of yours can be seen, in spades, everywhere where people talk about violence, self-defense, guns and similar stuff. Your types are so thick that you don't even register it.

    Second, the notion that foreigners have access to guns that “Americans can only dream about” is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on the internet — and that’s saying something. Attending just one average American gun show would knock the likes of you back on your rear-end, and we have hundreds of them on a weekly basis. The variety, deep catalogue, and custom firearms gunsmith designs is staggering.
     
    Toys for boys.
    Can you take down an armored vehicle with those toys? How about a helicopter gunship? Or a patrol boat?
    Belt fed machineguns with optics don't even count here.

    Because in a lot of places of this world, Europe included, that weaponry IS in people's hands.
    Not for showing of and feeding egos and grown men childish delusions.
    Well hidden, well maintained, and owned by people who do know how to use them. And are more than willing to use them should it come to that.
    I guess your types didn't even register this fact before.

    No country on earth has more of a history of people defending themselves with modern firearms.
     
    I grant you that, for an individual/small group of people against other individual/small group of people.
    But, you have failed miserably in defending an individual/group against the power of the state.
    And I do believe that 2nd isn't about "toys for boys" and self-defense. It's about abuse of the state. The last time you guys tried that failed in 1866.Don't count Waco/Ruby Ridge. Or this last one with LaVoy Finicum.
    I could post here a LONG list of peoples who have been doing that, with firearms, before you guys even got your country.

    Americans don’t need gun advice from foreigners. We’re the experts.
     
    Ah....the attitude.

    here wasn’t even any mention about hollow points, for crying out loud. I know you don’t realize why that’s important, and I’m not going to tell you.
     
    Hahaha......oh man. Your lack of perception is staggering. But, expected from your types.

    You may want to dial it back a few notches before you play the fool again
     
    My sentiment exactly.

    C’mon Peter, the person you are responding to has you pegged. Most Euros cannot begin to fathom the difference between gun availability and ownership in the US compared to Europe. I found that people simply didn’t believe me when I mentioned the (meagre) collection of firearms that I had while living in the US.

    I just don’t see how you can even make the statements that you have and expect to retain any credibility here but then a brief look at your previous posts shows clearly just how wrapped up you are in your (former) military identity and how much it means to you to be perceived as one tough hombre. Maybe you are but usually the ones that need to be seen as such aren’t.

    Australians used to have reasonable access to guns but that was before the lying rodent war-criminal John Howard took them all away based on a single false-flag incident.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Could'nt agree more when England was attacked by Germany in WW2 they were begging the American homeowner to send them guns,which they did after the war they were confiscated and dumped then in the ocean,seems like those countries/goverments that fear gun ownership also fear their own people...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. pyrrhus says:
    @theMann
    Good article as far as it goes, but I will add a few points:


    1. When Saker says most people will fire 1-3 shots in a real firefight, he means one. Most people will have minimal training, outdoors, with hearing protection. Firing a short barreled .357 indoors without protection will result in most dropping the weapon and holding their ears screaming.


    2. Know your target, know what is behind your target. You fire a high penetration round in an apartment and it goes into the next apartment, you are responsible for the results.

    3. I wouldn't recommend a handgun for most people in any situation. They require a lot of training to use with even minimal competence. Honestly for most users their best feature, if they have it, is the ability to fix a strong tactical light on the rail. Getting a powerful light in somebody's face, especially after dark, is pretty deterrent.


    4. Can't emphasize this enough: shooting is a skill, and all skills require both training and practice. Guns don't require as much training\practice as swords or hands and feet (which is why people use them), but they do require some. If you aren't going to put the time in, don't even think of getting the weapon in the first place. And keep this in mind: the least lethal deterrent is the best.

    The Saker states that cops are required to enforce the law and protect people from violence. This is not true. The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that police have NO duty to intervene in a violent situation or protect you, even if it is happening right in front of them. Moreover, in many cases police arrive long after an “incident” (45 minutes in a case I am familiar with) or not at all….
    Second, he talks about 1-3 shots being fired…Ridiculous. In a home invasion, you will keep shooting until the problem is solved, whether by impact or the flight of the criminals involved. Hence the great advantage of a 17 round magazine…..As to the difficulty of teaching someone to fire a handgun, it isn’t difficult at all if they are reasonably intelligent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. pyrrhus says:
    @anarchyst
    There was a case in "merrie old England" a number of years ago where a homeowner defended himself against intruders with a baseball bat. The police and the "crown" (prosecutor) determined that he used "too much force" against the intruder, and in fact, transported him in the same police car as the intruder. He actually got a stiffer sentence than the intruder who broke into his house.
    You see, in most European countries, the "crown" is the only entity that has the right to self-defense.

    Europeans gave up their innate human right to defend themselves a while back, and hence are headed for the ash heap of history…Americans didn’t. Hence, outside the ghettos America has very little violent crime, very little burglary or home invasion. And childish Antifas don’t scare us a bit…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. dearieme says:
    @Bill Jones
    And there's your first error:
    "This is absolutely crucial: law enforcement officers have to enforce the law and protect everybody. "

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Quite. Did you see the recent youtube of the cowardly policeman murdering the sobbing man who was on his knees in the hotel corridor? I’d like to think it was faked but I assume it wasn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    It wasn't faked, and still the jury somehow acquitted this psycho.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. peterAUS says:
    @Gleimhart
    It is significant to note that every assertion made by you here is incorrect, delusional, and just plain odd.

    You didn't actually refute anything. Instead, you postured, and you're quite poor at it by the way.

    You steer clear of my type? Son, you haven't the faintest clue what "my type" is, as "my type" is not discernible on the simple account of my having pointed out your idiocy.

    The article was plainly about revolvers vs. semi-autos and you keep yacking on about toys for boys? — armored vehicles? — gunships? — and helicopters? You're not even intelligent enough to understand the parameters of the topic, much less the facts pertaining to those parameters.

    And you didn't list anything that is not in American hands or is not obtainable here. Yours were some jaw-dropping statements, one after the other. Seriously. How are people like you even formed. You can't simply will phony facts into existence, little man. Tomorrow I will show your post to some of my fellow Americans who know even more than I do and I will enjoy gauging their reactions. Probably first their eyes roll before they break out into laughter at the poser foreigner who talks from the abysmal depths of his rectum. Yes, we will have a good laugh at your expense.

    You're like so many anti-American lowlifes: You think you know what you're talking about, and you laughably think you know more about the subject as it pertains to my country than I do. You go straight from the Civil War to Waco and Ruby Ridge. That's your awesome "historical" knowledge on display. You're a whack job if there ever was one.

    You seemed to take issue with my comment about hollow points, but you didn't say why. All you did was jabber on about "perspective" and "my type" (again). Hollow points are precisely on topic for this article, and here you are acting like there was no valid reason for me to have brought it up, and you still don't even know why I did, because you're an amateur hour poser.

    Just admit it: You've never even shot a gun, have you? Your "toys for boys" comment told me quite emphatically that you are a wannabe "macho man" who suffers from some genuine hangups.

    What a nitwit. I told you to dial it back. You should've listened.

    You're dismissed.

    Wow…..what a hostility there.
    My…my…..

    Now I am curious. Why’s that?
    I doubt it’s because I made some “stupid comment”. I make plenty of them all the time, according to many, and I have seen some testy replies/posts, but, yours is……next level.

    Whoah, really.

    What really bothers you? C’mon…please…tell me. I mean, after all that venom we got somehow “Internet intimate” I guess.
    Is that life in general? Or a wife? Divorce perhaps? Boss? Job? Middle age?
    The simmering rage just needs venting somewhere?

    I don’t know, but, feels a bit unbalanced. The animosity I mean. The balance between that anger and reason for a disagreement. Almost as you’ve just waited for….somebody…anybody…to unleash all that.

    You know that your government monitors all this, of course.
    You are, apparently, a guy into “guns”. Your posts can profile you with ease.
    Are you sure that posting all that……..rage……….would sit well with “that person owning a firearm”?

    So…how do you do that? I mean, having a control in a real life?
    You, I presume, carry. And, obviously, have a very short fuse.
    How do you manage that control? Must be an impressive feat. Creates a lot of pressure too. And the pressure needs releasing. Like now.
    Impressive I give it to you.

    Now, actually, having said all that you do have a point, hollow but the point regardless.
    I did derail the thread and Saker did warn against it.
    If we talk about “revolvers vs autos” you were correct and I was not. I slipped into “2 Amendment” thing with that “Americans/Europeans” comment.
    A food for thought you, in all that rage, missed was access to military grade weaponry in some parts of Europe. I am sure that you have some contacts who did a stint in Balkans (even Ukraine), for example. Ask them about the topic if you wish.

    And, yes, hollow points…..and then custom loads, and then custom grips, with custom sights, blah…blah…I am sure you could talk for days about all that.
    Why don’t you give us a brief intro here?
    Could even help with that simmering “red” inside.

    You’ve never even shot a gun, have you?

    See, that rage can really affect your perception.
    And with all those guns at your disposal, and all that ammo, and all that expertise you probably have in handling that…I don’t know….feels as ….something just waiting to BOOM.

    Now, I guess you have fired a lot and are good with guns.
    How about this:
    Standing, in a trench. Target is something as B-27 Black Silhouette, range 200 meters. No wind.
    Standing, two hand grip, elbows resting. 9 mm handgun, custom sights. 8 rounds fired.
    How many rounds could you put anywhere in black?
    C’mon, impress us.

    Ah, another one:
    Standing, in a trench. Target the same, range 400 meters. Weapon a version of AK-47.
    Iron sights. Single shots. Say, 10. How many hits you could comfortably make anywhere in “black”?

    Or we’ll have another outburst instead?
    It’s fine.
    Whatever helps there. As long as that control stays “on” in real life.
    Not easy, sometimes, a?
    And getting harder…..

    But, if you feel like it now, please….just go with it. Here I mean.Words, typing…even imagining how would our …..ahm…”debate”….looks like in real life. How would you really….really….make your point to me.
    Like….

    What a nitwit. I told you to dial it back. You should’ve listened.

    Can’t wait.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Firstly, my apologies to Saker and people reading/posting here for the "thread derail" I am about to try.
    The best is just skip over this post.

    I have a question for Gleimhart.
    So, after you "smash me into pieces" based on my previous post, maybe you could provide some insight into something that IS related to the article.

    I mean, you are definitely the man on the ground and have, apparently, plenty of related expertise.

    So...what would be YOUR take on this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting
    I mean, it was, for a couple of weeks a staggering event. Especially for us, disarmed and generally "gun-dumb "non-Americans".

    And, then......nothing.

    I've been waiting for detailed analysis etc. plenty of media attention, overwhelming "Internet prresence" but..............blop......silence.
    Weird.......silence.
    I mean, weird for me, non-American that is. And all that you've written about me and probably more.

    So.....any opinion ...any take on all that?
    Please.
    , @Gleimhart
    Your transparent and quite "Internet-y" attempt to gas-light me is noted and discarded.

    I committed the cardinal sin of telling you that you're wrong, and now you doing a different dance altogether, with a number of sad tropes and attempts at deflecting from your manifestly stupid comments, which are in abundance here.

    Your gun range questions are silly. Real world self defense is not a static standing in a trench shooting at static paper targets on a relaxing afternoon at the gun range. That's beginner, introductory stuff. All firearms purchasing decisions and training should be geared towards the fact that in a self defense situation you're going to be firing during an adrenaline dump. Regular stress inoculation exercises, drilling and conditioning are essential, as is the ability to compensate for such an adrenaline dump. You and I both know you haven't the faintest clue how to handle such situations, which is why you're melting down now like a p*ssy.

    You still haven't been able to tell me why me bringing up hollow point ammunition is entirely relevant to the original article. What you did instead was to attempt a lame bluff, by mentioning other terms you just now looked up on the internet. You're not going to fool me, little man. None of those other things you mentioned have anything to do with the topic of ammunition choice I brought up. What happened to your earlier assertion that my reference to ammo choice indicated a poor "perspective"? Huh? What happened with that?

    And now you're insisting, yet again, that foreigners — that is, those who have considerable trouble even getting their hands on basic weaponry — have all sorts of access to all sorts of awesome "military grade" whoop-ass that we Americans don't. Now that's an occasion for Hahahaha......

    I'll say it again, what you can find on display or order from vendors at a typical American gun show and elsewhere here would knock you back on your heels. Grow up already and be man enough to admit you've been pulling cr*p out of your a** and trying to lay it out as fact.

    Your going off into weird tangents about the gubmint "watching" me all because I pointed out your idiocy is some over-the-top posturing. What unassailable logic!

    Your going off on other tangents about "divorce, boss, job, etc." is yet another sorry attempt at deflection. You strike me as spoiled and over-indulged, hardly anyone ever having contradicted you in your formative years, and now you're throwing a tantrum because you simply can't process it.

    I've been through this entire thread and have marveled at the thorough and increasing ignorance, combined with arrogance, in each one of your posts. You're all over the map. You were having the time of your life as long as you were able to strut and pose and bluff and pretend, high on your own fumes. But the minute someone came along and put you in your place and exposed you as the poser that your are, you suddenly scramble in desperation to save face. Well, it's far too late for that.

    But the most absurd of your absurdities was when you presumed — astonishingly — to tell ME what the 2nd Amendment was and was not about. It beggars belief. Truly!
    , @animalogic
    Hey, PeterAUS. This not a criticism, but a question.
    I assume, from context etc that the AUS in your username (UN) refers to Australia. Now, naturally, I don't know your life/story etc, however, my question is: is it really necessary to reference your nationality in your UN ?
    Problem is, by using Australia in your UN, your personal critics can then easily transfer that criticism to Australia. No, maybe it's not common - nor is it fair, nor right etc but it DOES happen. So -- why offer the temptation ?
    I'm proud of Australia too -- but NOT of our governments. Many of their acts I can not - will not defend. Can you ?
    So, I hope you can have a rethink on the AUS thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. bluedog says:
    @peterAUS
    I'll reply, not because of you, but of some people reading all this.
    I know your type and I steer well clear of them but your types keep posting similar bullshit and it does need responding. You know, fair and balanced, opposing views etc.

    First off, the “myth” that Americans supposedly have about European gun ownership is simply untrue. We really just don’t care one way or the other what Europeans do or don’t do. Non-Americans obsess over Americans, but we have no corresponding meddlesome busybody bees-in-the-bonnet regarding guns or gun ownership in foreign places.
     
    All evidence to the contrary.
    That ...attitude...of yours can be seen, in spades, everywhere where people talk about violence, self-defense, guns and similar stuff. Your types are so thick that you don't even register it.

    Second, the notion that foreigners have access to guns that “Americans can only dream about” is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on the internet — and that’s saying something. Attending just one average American gun show would knock the likes of you back on your rear-end, and we have hundreds of them on a weekly basis. The variety, deep catalogue, and custom firearms gunsmith designs is staggering.
     
    Toys for boys.
    Can you take down an armored vehicle with those toys? How about a helicopter gunship? Or a patrol boat?
    Belt fed machineguns with optics don't even count here.

    Because in a lot of places of this world, Europe included, that weaponry IS in people's hands.
    Not for showing of and feeding egos and grown men childish delusions.
    Well hidden, well maintained, and owned by people who do know how to use them. And are more than willing to use them should it come to that.
    I guess your types didn't even register this fact before.

    No country on earth has more of a history of people defending themselves with modern firearms.
     
    I grant you that, for an individual/small group of people against other individual/small group of people.
    But, you have failed miserably in defending an individual/group against the power of the state.
    And I do believe that 2nd isn't about "toys for boys" and self-defense. It's about abuse of the state. The last time you guys tried that failed in 1866.Don't count Waco/Ruby Ridge. Or this last one with LaVoy Finicum.
    I could post here a LONG list of peoples who have been doing that, with firearms, before you guys even got your country.

    Americans don’t need gun advice from foreigners. We’re the experts.
     
    Ah....the attitude.

    here wasn’t even any mention about hollow points, for crying out loud. I know you don’t realize why that’s important, and I’m not going to tell you.
     
    Hahaha......oh man. Your lack of perception is staggering. But, expected from your types.

    You may want to dial it back a few notches before you play the fool again
     
    My sentiment exactly.

    Hmm damn you must be a troll as you twist things around to suit yourself, how in hell did we get from self defense to taking on armored vehicles gun ships and all the rest of the Bullshit,as the man said you may want to dial it back a few notches,at least if you can’t get on the same page at least stay in the same book…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. bluedog says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    C'mon Peter, the person you are responding to has you pegged. Most Euros cannot begin to fathom the difference between gun availability and ownership in the US compared to Europe. I found that people simply didn't believe me when I mentioned the (meagre) collection of firearms that I had while living in the US.

    I just don't see how you can even make the statements that you have and expect to retain any credibility here but then a brief look at your previous posts shows clearly just how wrapped up you are in your (former) military identity and how much it means to you to be perceived as one tough hombre. Maybe you are but usually the ones that need to be seen as such aren't.

    Australians used to have reasonable access to guns but that was before the lying rodent war-criminal John Howard took them all away based on a single false-flag incident.

    Could’nt agree more when England was attacked by Germany in WW2 they were begging the American homeowner to send them guns,which they did after the war they were confiscated and dumped then in the ocean,seems like those countries/goverments that fear gun ownership also fear their own people…

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    Just to clarify your assertion: It was Britain and France that declared war on Germany...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. One major issue that many don’t consider in the wheel gun vs semi-auto is maintainability. Beyond basic cleaning, a revolver requires a gunsmith (watch what happens when the crimp on the cartridges isn’t stiff enough, and the bullets walk out because of recoil. The piece will jam, and it will take a good “gun plumber” or Gunsmith to fix your problem). I’ve seen semi-autos drug through mud and sand, and still operate reliability. That does not happen with a wheel gun.

    The late Bill Jordan, a retired Border Patrol Agent would strongly disagree with anyone asserting the superiority of a semi over a revolver. He carried nothing but a revolver during his long career, but a man in his situation is not as hard on his piece. Keep them out of sand and mud, and a revolver can be more reliable.

    The comparison, however, is not as clean as amateurs like Saker would like it to be. If one takes care of his weapon, it will take care of you. For example, trash mags that have been dropped on the feed lips and don’t use cheap mags, and that semi-auto will take very good care of you.

    On the other hand, if you don’t train with a pistol, regularly, and run through the drills one needs to be able to face certain malfunctions, then the piece will be useless to you and, perhaps, more dangerous to you then the crook. If I’m in the house, a 20 gauge is far more effective and a far bigger deterrent than a pistol will ever be. Just the sound of a Remington 870 being cocked is enough to end the overwhelming majority of confrontations with a criminal.

    The biggest thing to remember is that a pistol is what you use until you can get your long gun. Never assume the fight will be over in 2-3 shots. Making such assumptions is a good way to find yourself carried by 6.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    I agree that a poor crimp on a revolver cartridge can jam a cylinder, particularly with a heavily recoiling round, but this seems to me to be a problem most closely associated with reloaded ammunition, not factory rounds. A problem that I've seen twice with a reloaded revolver cartridge is a squib load, that contained only a primer and no powder charge; the bullet jumped the flash gap but lodged in the forcing cone, jamming the cylinder. Ran a cleaning rod down the barrel, tapped the bullet back into the chamber, freed the cylinder and all was well. Same with a bullet forced from the case by recoil, although I've never seen that problem. Maybe you need a gunsmith, maybe just tapping it back into the chamber far enough to free the cylinder will be enough.

    I've never heard of a "walking bullet" jam happening in a .22. Agree with you that magazines are key to reliability in self-loaders and that a shotgun is superior to any handgun for home defense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Quartermaster
    One major issue that many don't consider in the wheel gun vs semi-auto is maintainability. Beyond basic cleaning, a revolver requires a gunsmith (watch what happens when the crimp on the cartridges isn't stiff enough, and the bullets walk out because of recoil. The piece will jam, and it will take a good "gun plumber" or Gunsmith to fix your problem). I've seen semi-autos drug through mud and sand, and still operate reliability. That does not happen with a wheel gun.

    The late Bill Jordan, a retired Border Patrol Agent would strongly disagree with anyone asserting the superiority of a semi over a revolver. He carried nothing but a revolver during his long career, but a man in his situation is not as hard on his piece. Keep them out of sand and mud, and a revolver can be more reliable.

    The comparison, however, is not as clean as amateurs like Saker would like it to be. If one takes care of his weapon, it will take care of you. For example, trash mags that have been dropped on the feed lips and don't use cheap mags, and that semi-auto will take very good care of you.

    On the other hand, if you don't train with a pistol, regularly, and run through the drills one needs to be able to face certain malfunctions, then the piece will be useless to you and, perhaps, more dangerous to you then the crook. If I'm in the house, a 20 gauge is far more effective and a far bigger deterrent than a pistol will ever be. Just the sound of a Remington 870 being cocked is enough to end the overwhelming majority of confrontations with a criminal.

    The biggest thing to remember is that a pistol is what you use until you can get your long gun. Never assume the fight will be over in 2-3 shots. Making such assumptions is a good way to find yourself carried by 6.

    I agree that a poor crimp on a revolver cartridge can jam a cylinder, particularly with a heavily recoiling round, but this seems to me to be a problem most closely associated with reloaded ammunition, not factory rounds. A problem that I’ve seen twice with a reloaded revolver cartridge is a squib load, that contained only a primer and no powder charge; the bullet jumped the flash gap but lodged in the forcing cone, jamming the cylinder. Ran a cleaning rod down the barrel, tapped the bullet back into the chamber, freed the cylinder and all was well. Same with a bullet forced from the case by recoil, although I’ve never seen that problem. Maybe you need a gunsmith, maybe just tapping it back into the chamber far enough to free the cylinder will be enough.

    I’ve never heard of a “walking bullet” jam happening in a .22. Agree with you that magazines are key to reliability in self-loaders and that a shotgun is superior to any handgun for home defense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    Walking bullets happen once in awhile even with factory loads. If care is taken, you can get away without a having to go to a Gun Smith. Many of us who are "gun nuts" are also what I have facetiously termed "gun plumbers." We can handle the run of the mill stuff competently. If you have to open a revolver, however, you'd better know what you are doing. I'm not referring to swinging the wheel out to load it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. HdC says:
    @bluedog
    Could'nt agree more when England was attacked by Germany in WW2 they were begging the American homeowner to send them guns,which they did after the war they were confiscated and dumped then in the ocean,seems like those countries/goverments that fear gun ownership also fear their own people...

    Just to clarify your assertion: It was Britain and France that declared war on Germany…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. FWIW: After many years of carrying various configurations and calibers (.32 – .45) of semi-automatic handguns, my current conclusion is the Ruger LCR in 9mm is optimum for me for most purposes.

    Mostly cuz’ it’s a bit more powerful than .38 special, not quite .357, but I didn’t have to buy any new ammo or loading dies for it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. peterAUS says:
    @peterAUS
    Wow.....what a hostility there.
    My...my.....

    Now I am curious. Why's that?
    I doubt it's because I made some "stupid comment". I make plenty of them all the time, according to many, and I have seen some testy replies/posts, but, yours is......next level.

    Whoah, really.

    What really bothers you? C'mon...please...tell me. I mean, after all that venom we got somehow "Internet intimate" I guess.
    Is that life in general? Or a wife? Divorce perhaps? Boss? Job? Middle age?
    The simmering rage just needs venting somewhere?

    I don't know, but, feels a bit unbalanced. The animosity I mean. The balance between that anger and reason for a disagreement. Almost as you've just waited for....somebody...anybody...to unleash all that.

    You know that your government monitors all this, of course.
    You are, apparently, a guy into "guns". Your posts can profile you with ease.
    Are you sure that posting all that........rage..........would sit well with "that person owning a firearm"?

    So...how do you do that? I mean, having a control in a real life?
    You, I presume, carry. And, obviously, have a very short fuse.
    How do you manage that control? Must be an impressive feat. Creates a lot of pressure too. And the pressure needs releasing. Like now.
    Impressive I give it to you.

    Now, actually, having said all that you do have a point, hollow but the point regardless.
    I did derail the thread and Saker did warn against it.
    If we talk about "revolvers vs autos" you were correct and I was not. I slipped into "2 Amendment" thing with that "Americans/Europeans" comment.
    A food for thought you, in all that rage, missed was access to military grade weaponry in some parts of Europe. I am sure that you have some contacts who did a stint in Balkans (even Ukraine), for example. Ask them about the topic if you wish.

    And, yes, hollow points.....and then custom loads, and then custom grips, with custom sights, blah...blah...I am sure you could talk for days about all that.
    Why don't you give us a brief intro here?
    Could even help with that simmering "red" inside.

    You’ve never even shot a gun, have you?
     
    See, that rage can really affect your perception.
    And with all those guns at your disposal, and all that ammo, and all that expertise you probably have in handling that...I don't know....feels as ....something just waiting to BOOM.

    Now, I guess you have fired a lot and are good with guns.
    How about this:
    Standing, in a trench. Target is something as B-27 Black Silhouette, range 200 meters. No wind.
    Standing, two hand grip, elbows resting. 9 mm handgun, custom sights. 8 rounds fired.
    How many rounds could you put anywhere in black?
    C'mon, impress us.

    Ah, another one:
    Standing, in a trench. Target the same, range 400 meters. Weapon a version of AK-47.
    Iron sights. Single shots. Say, 10. How many hits you could comfortably make anywhere in "black"?

    Or we'll have another outburst instead?
    It's fine.
    Whatever helps there. As long as that control stays "on" in real life.
    Not easy, sometimes, a?
    And getting harder.....

    But, if you feel like it now, please....just go with it. Here I mean.Words, typing...even imagining how would our .....ahm..."debate"....looks like in real life. How would you really....really....make your point to me.
    Like....

    What a nitwit. I told you to dial it back. You should’ve listened.
     
    Can't wait.

    Firstly, my apologies to Saker and people reading/posting here for the “thread derail” I am about to try.
    The best is just skip over this post.

    I have a question for Gleimhart.
    So, after you “smash me into pieces” based on my previous post, maybe you could provide some insight into something that IS related to the article.

    I mean, you are definitely the man on the ground and have, apparently, plenty of related expertise.

    So…what would be YOUR take on this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

    I mean, it was, for a couple of weeks a staggering event. Especially for us, disarmed and generally “gun-dumb “non-Americans”.

    And, then……nothing.

    I’ve been waiting for detailed analysis etc. plenty of media attention, overwhelming “Internet prresence” but…………..blop……silence.
    Weird…….silence.
    I mean, weird for me, non-American that is. And all that you’ve written about me and probably more.

    So…..any opinion …any take on all that?
    Please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gleimhart
    You thoroughly forfeited any minimum threshold of respect I'd need to engage you in a normal discussion on any matter. It's weird you need to be told that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. nsa says:

    All you budding pistoleros should consider the legal ramifications of shooting someone before selecting a piece. If you get dragged through the court system, you’ll soon wish you took the bullet instead.
    HOME DEFENSE: keep a 30-30 lever action “deer rifle” or 12 gauge “side by side” behind the kitchen door. You may end up in court and “your honor, I got real scared and grabbed my trusty deer rifle……” works a lot better than shredding someone with a street sweeper or tricked out AR-15. If you do shoot someone, try to ditch the body on a logging road. You may skate with the cops / courts but you may still have to deal with the cadaver’s living relatives and friends. Your choice depending on the exact circumstances. Incidentally, a 30-30 deer rifle is considerably more powerful than even the most powerful handgun.
    CONCEALED CARRY: permit or not, an early five shot 38 spl S&W Model 60….the same piece mild mannered engineer, Bernie Goetz, used on the four dark complected subway perps. Stainless so almost no maintenance. Goes off every time. And mainly, it is a revolver and DOES NOT SPRAY A BUNCH OF EVIDENCE (EMPTIES) EVERYWHERE. If you shoot someone, do NOT stick around if you think you can skate. If you are identified, you can always say “you just got scared and ran”. Again, a short and sweet mugging is nothing compared to getting dragged through the american court system.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Blah...blah...blah...
    If you do shoot someone, try to ditch the body on a logging road. You may skate with the cops / courts but you may still have to deal with the cadaver’s living relatives and friends. Your choice depending on the exact circumstances.
     
    !?!?

    Uh...almost forgot. An important meeting, sorry, have to run.
    BTW, nice handle.
    See ya......
    , @Chris Mallory

    "If you do shoot someone, try to ditch the body on a logging road."
    "If you shoot someone, do NOT stick around if you think you can skate. "
     
    That is some really good advice, if you want to spend several decades in prison. You would be better off not giving legal advice.
    , @Alden
    What happens if the nearest logging road is 500 miles away?
    , @Avalanche-the-second
    Old old stupid advice. Unless you live a mile or so from your nearest neighbors, you're probably on Candid Camera (security camera) from somewhere around! That's why the old joke about shoot him on the porch and drag him inside is beyond stupid! And, ever heard of CSI your-city-here? THey can TELL where you shot him!

    If you shoot someone -- or even just pull your weapon ("brandishing" in some states) -- DO NOT run away, hoping you've not been seen. The first person to call the cops gets written in the "victim" block on the police report -- the SECOND person who calls goes in the perp block!! DON'T be that second person! As soon as you're safe, call the cops and say you were required to draw your gun to protect yourself. (It HAS happened -- and has led to a VERY bad time in court! -- where the bad guy calls and accuses the GOOD guy of being nuts and 'pulling a gun on innocent little him for no reason'! IF you RAN AWAY as soon as you could and did NOT call the cops -- guess which block your name goes in!!

    Get educated if you're going to carry -- Andrew Branca, Esq. ("Law of Self Defense" book and website and classes; I took his Georgia-specific class after reading his book) does great state-specific classes (cause it's not only the LAW in your state, but equally if not more important, the JURY INSTRUCTIONS -- how the judge tells the jury to apply the law!! -- in your state that matters)! Also, watch Mas Ayoob's talks on YouTube -- expert witness, really experienced gunnie. That HAS to be part of your decision making about whether or not to buy a gun!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Gleimhart says:
    @peterAUS
    Wow.....what a hostility there.
    My...my.....

    Now I am curious. Why's that?
    I doubt it's because I made some "stupid comment". I make plenty of them all the time, according to many, and I have seen some testy replies/posts, but, yours is......next level.

    Whoah, really.

    What really bothers you? C'mon...please...tell me. I mean, after all that venom we got somehow "Internet intimate" I guess.
    Is that life in general? Or a wife? Divorce perhaps? Boss? Job? Middle age?
    The simmering rage just needs venting somewhere?

    I don't know, but, feels a bit unbalanced. The animosity I mean. The balance between that anger and reason for a disagreement. Almost as you've just waited for....somebody...anybody...to unleash all that.

    You know that your government monitors all this, of course.
    You are, apparently, a guy into "guns". Your posts can profile you with ease.
    Are you sure that posting all that........rage..........would sit well with "that person owning a firearm"?

    So...how do you do that? I mean, having a control in a real life?
    You, I presume, carry. And, obviously, have a very short fuse.
    How do you manage that control? Must be an impressive feat. Creates a lot of pressure too. And the pressure needs releasing. Like now.
    Impressive I give it to you.

    Now, actually, having said all that you do have a point, hollow but the point regardless.
    I did derail the thread and Saker did warn against it.
    If we talk about "revolvers vs autos" you were correct and I was not. I slipped into "2 Amendment" thing with that "Americans/Europeans" comment.
    A food for thought you, in all that rage, missed was access to military grade weaponry in some parts of Europe. I am sure that you have some contacts who did a stint in Balkans (even Ukraine), for example. Ask them about the topic if you wish.

    And, yes, hollow points.....and then custom loads, and then custom grips, with custom sights, blah...blah...I am sure you could talk for days about all that.
    Why don't you give us a brief intro here?
    Could even help with that simmering "red" inside.

    You’ve never even shot a gun, have you?
     
    See, that rage can really affect your perception.
    And with all those guns at your disposal, and all that ammo, and all that expertise you probably have in handling that...I don't know....feels as ....something just waiting to BOOM.

    Now, I guess you have fired a lot and are good with guns.
    How about this:
    Standing, in a trench. Target is something as B-27 Black Silhouette, range 200 meters. No wind.
    Standing, two hand grip, elbows resting. 9 mm handgun, custom sights. 8 rounds fired.
    How many rounds could you put anywhere in black?
    C'mon, impress us.

    Ah, another one:
    Standing, in a trench. Target the same, range 400 meters. Weapon a version of AK-47.
    Iron sights. Single shots. Say, 10. How many hits you could comfortably make anywhere in "black"?

    Or we'll have another outburst instead?
    It's fine.
    Whatever helps there. As long as that control stays "on" in real life.
    Not easy, sometimes, a?
    And getting harder.....

    But, if you feel like it now, please....just go with it. Here I mean.Words, typing...even imagining how would our .....ahm..."debate"....looks like in real life. How would you really....really....make your point to me.
    Like....

    What a nitwit. I told you to dial it back. You should’ve listened.
     
    Can't wait.

    Your transparent and quite “Internet-y” attempt to gas-light me is noted and discarded.

    I committed the cardinal sin of telling you that you’re wrong, and now you doing a different dance altogether, with a number of sad tropes and attempts at deflecting from your manifestly stupid comments, which are in abundance here.

    Your gun range questions are silly. Real world self defense is not a static standing in a trench shooting at static paper targets on a relaxing afternoon at the gun range. That’s beginner, introductory stuff. All firearms purchasing decisions and training should be geared towards the fact that in a self defense situation you’re going to be firing during an adrenaline dump. Regular stress inoculation exercises, drilling and conditioning are essential, as is the ability to compensate for such an adrenaline dump. You and I both know you haven’t the faintest clue how to handle such situations, which is why you’re melting down now like a p*ssy.

    You still haven’t been able to tell me why me bringing up hollow point ammunition is entirely relevant to the original article. What you did instead was to attempt a lame bluff, by mentioning other terms you just now looked up on the internet. You’re not going to fool me, little man. None of those other things you mentioned have anything to do with the topic of ammunition choice I brought up. What happened to your earlier assertion that my reference to ammo choice indicated a poor “perspective”? Huh? What happened with that?

    And now you’re insisting, yet again, that foreigners — that is, those who have considerable trouble even getting their hands on basic weaponry — have all sorts of access to all sorts of awesome “military grade” whoop-ass that we Americans don’t. Now that’s an occasion for Hahahaha……

    I’ll say it again, what you can find on display or order from vendors at a typical American gun show and elsewhere here would knock you back on your heels. Grow up already and be man enough to admit you’ve been pulling cr*p out of your a** and trying to lay it out as fact.

    Your going off into weird tangents about the gubmint “watching” me all because I pointed out your idiocy is some over-the-top posturing. What unassailable logic!

    Your going off on other tangents about “divorce, boss, job, etc.” is yet another sorry attempt at deflection. You strike me as spoiled and over-indulged, hardly anyone ever having contradicted you in your formative years, and now you’re throwing a tantrum because you simply can’t process it.

    I’ve been through this entire thread and have marveled at the thorough and increasing ignorance, combined with arrogance, in each one of your posts. You’re all over the map. You were having the time of your life as long as you were able to strut and pose and bluff and pretend, high on your own fumes. But the minute someone came along and put you in your place and exposed you as the poser that your are, you suddenly scramble in desperation to save face. Well, it’s far too late for that.

    But the most absurd of your absurdities was when you presumed — astonishingly — to tell ME what the 2nd Amendment was and was not about. It beggars belief. Truly!

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Your gun range questions are silly.
     
    Still, the questions remain.
    Just put the number there:
    1. 2....4....7...
    2. 3....6.....9...
    Which one?
    Should take you 5 seconds.
    C'mon...give it a go.

    Actually, put some of your accomplishments here.
    Silly range thing only, of course.
    Anything, really.

    Ever fired a belt fed machinegun?
    What was the range? 2 seconds question. 400?600?800?
    How many rounds?
    100?1000?

    How about RPG or similar?
    What was the range? 200?400? Iron or optical?

    And, a very simple one:
    Have you ever done your shooting in dark? You know, different levels of "dark"?
    And, The Question: how do you use a handgun in a dark room (can't see sights, can't use any light)?
    That would be a fine pointer for self-defense I guess.
    Something of a substance.

    All firearms purchasing decisions and training should be geared towards the fact that in a self defense situation you’re going to be firing during an adrenaline dump. Regular stress inoculation exercises, drilling and conditioning are essential, as is the ability to compensate for such an adrenaline dump.
     
    True.

    This

    And now you’re insisting, yet again, that foreigners — that is, those who have considerable trouble even getting their hands on basic weaponry — have all sorts of access to all sorts of awesome “military grade” whoop-ass that we Americans don’t. Now that’s an occasion for Hahahaha……
     
    with

    a typical American gun show and elsewhere here would knock you back on your heels. Grow up already and be man enough to admit you’ve been pulling cr*p out of your a** and trying to lay it out as fact.
     
    mean no "contacts" and no experience there.
    Of course.

    But, you did scale down the rage a bit.
    Becoming careful...nice.

    Still, all your posts are just about venting on me. You haven't, except that paragraph I quoted, actually provided anything of a real substance here.

    As for your post below:

    You thoroughly forfeited any minimum threshold of respect I’d need to engage you in a normal discussion on any matter. It’s weird you need to be told that.
     
    Same....nothing. For a very simple question.

    You know, I got a strong impression that you are, in fact, all that you "channel" on me.
    Makes sense somehow.
    , @Twodees Partain
    Gleimhart, please don't feed the trolls. Trolls are like stray dogs. If you give them what they want, they hang around. This site has a great function, the ignore feature. I put trolls on ignore as soon as I recognize them for what they are. peterAUS is a troll.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Gleimhart says:
    @peterAUS
    Firstly, my apologies to Saker and people reading/posting here for the "thread derail" I am about to try.
    The best is just skip over this post.

    I have a question for Gleimhart.
    So, after you "smash me into pieces" based on my previous post, maybe you could provide some insight into something that IS related to the article.

    I mean, you are definitely the man on the ground and have, apparently, plenty of related expertise.

    So...what would be YOUR take on this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting
    I mean, it was, for a couple of weeks a staggering event. Especially for us, disarmed and generally "gun-dumb "non-Americans".

    And, then......nothing.

    I've been waiting for detailed analysis etc. plenty of media attention, overwhelming "Internet prresence" but..............blop......silence.
    Weird.......silence.
    I mean, weird for me, non-American that is. And all that you've written about me and probably more.

    So.....any opinion ...any take on all that?
    Please.

    You thoroughly forfeited any minimum threshold of respect I’d need to engage you in a normal discussion on any matter. It’s weird you need to be told that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. peterAUS says:
    @nsa
    All you budding pistoleros should consider the legal ramifications of shooting someone before selecting a piece. If you get dragged through the court system, you'll soon wish you took the bullet instead.
    HOME DEFENSE: keep a 30-30 lever action "deer rifle" or 12 gauge "side by side" behind the kitchen door. You may end up in court and "your honor, I got real scared and grabbed my trusty deer rifle......" works a lot better than shredding someone with a street sweeper or tricked out AR-15. If you do shoot someone, try to ditch the body on a logging road. You may skate with the cops / courts but you may still have to deal with the cadaver's living relatives and friends. Your choice depending on the exact circumstances. Incidentally, a 30-30 deer rifle is considerably more powerful than even the most powerful handgun.
    CONCEALED CARRY: permit or not, an early five shot 38 spl S&W Model 60....the same piece mild mannered engineer, Bernie Goetz, used on the four dark complected subway perps. Stainless so almost no maintenance. Goes off every time. And mainly, it is a revolver and DOES NOT SPRAY A BUNCH OF EVIDENCE (EMPTIES) EVERYWHERE. If you shoot someone, do NOT stick around if you think you can skate. If you are identified, you can always say "you just got scared and ran". Again, a short and sweet mugging is nothing compared to getting dragged through the american court system.

    Blah…blah…blah…
    If you do shoot someone, try to ditch the body on a logging road. You may skate with the cops / courts but you may still have to deal with the cadaver’s living relatives and friends. Your choice depending on the exact circumstances.

    !?!?

    Uh…almost forgot. An important meeting, sorry, have to run.
    BTW, nice handle.
    See ya……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Diversity Heretic
    I agree that a poor crimp on a revolver cartridge can jam a cylinder, particularly with a heavily recoiling round, but this seems to me to be a problem most closely associated with reloaded ammunition, not factory rounds. A problem that I've seen twice with a reloaded revolver cartridge is a squib load, that contained only a primer and no powder charge; the bullet jumped the flash gap but lodged in the forcing cone, jamming the cylinder. Ran a cleaning rod down the barrel, tapped the bullet back into the chamber, freed the cylinder and all was well. Same with a bullet forced from the case by recoil, although I've never seen that problem. Maybe you need a gunsmith, maybe just tapping it back into the chamber far enough to free the cylinder will be enough.

    I've never heard of a "walking bullet" jam happening in a .22. Agree with you that magazines are key to reliability in self-loaders and that a shotgun is superior to any handgun for home defense.

    Walking bullets happen once in awhile even with factory loads. If care is taken, you can get away without a having to go to a Gun Smith. Many of us who are “gun nuts” are also what I have facetiously termed “gun plumbers.” We can handle the run of the mill stuff competently. If you have to open a revolver, however, you’d better know what you are doing. I’m not referring to swinging the wheel out to load it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Agreed. Once you take the side plate off of a wheel gun, you'd better be beyond "gun plumber" expertise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. peterAUS says:
    @Gleimhart
    Your transparent and quite "Internet-y" attempt to gas-light me is noted and discarded.

    I committed the cardinal sin of telling you that you're wrong, and now you doing a different dance altogether, with a number of sad tropes and attempts at deflecting from your manifestly stupid comments, which are in abundance here.

    Your gun range questions are silly. Real world self defense is not a static standing in a trench shooting at static paper targets on a relaxing afternoon at the gun range. That's beginner, introductory stuff. All firearms purchasing decisions and training should be geared towards the fact that in a self defense situation you're going to be firing during an adrenaline dump. Regular stress inoculation exercises, drilling and conditioning are essential, as is the ability to compensate for such an adrenaline dump. You and I both know you haven't the faintest clue how to handle such situations, which is why you're melting down now like a p*ssy.

    You still haven't been able to tell me why me bringing up hollow point ammunition is entirely relevant to the original article. What you did instead was to attempt a lame bluff, by mentioning other terms you just now looked up on the internet. You're not going to fool me, little man. None of those other things you mentioned have anything to do with the topic of ammunition choice I brought up. What happened to your earlier assertion that my reference to ammo choice indicated a poor "perspective"? Huh? What happened with that?

    And now you're insisting, yet again, that foreigners — that is, those who have considerable trouble even getting their hands on basic weaponry — have all sorts of access to all sorts of awesome "military grade" whoop-ass that we Americans don't. Now that's an occasion for Hahahaha......

    I'll say it again, what you can find on display or order from vendors at a typical American gun show and elsewhere here would knock you back on your heels. Grow up already and be man enough to admit you've been pulling cr*p out of your a** and trying to lay it out as fact.

    Your going off into weird tangents about the gubmint "watching" me all because I pointed out your idiocy is some over-the-top posturing. What unassailable logic!

    Your going off on other tangents about "divorce, boss, job, etc." is yet another sorry attempt at deflection. You strike me as spoiled and over-indulged, hardly anyone ever having contradicted you in your formative years, and now you're throwing a tantrum because you simply can't process it.

    I've been through this entire thread and have marveled at the thorough and increasing ignorance, combined with arrogance, in each one of your posts. You're all over the map. You were having the time of your life as long as you were able to strut and pose and bluff and pretend, high on your own fumes. But the minute someone came along and put you in your place and exposed you as the poser that your are, you suddenly scramble in desperation to save face. Well, it's far too late for that.

    But the most absurd of your absurdities was when you presumed — astonishingly — to tell ME what the 2nd Amendment was and was not about. It beggars belief. Truly!

    Your gun range questions are silly.

    Still, the questions remain.
    Just put the number there:
    1. 2….4….7…
    2. 3….6…..9…
    Which one?
    Should take you 5 seconds.
    C’mon…give it a go.

    Actually, put some of your accomplishments here.
    Silly range thing only, of course.
    Anything, really.

    Ever fired a belt fed machinegun?
    What was the range? 2 seconds question. 400?600?800?
    How many rounds?
    100?1000?

    How about RPG or similar?
    What was the range? 200?400? Iron or optical?

    And, a very simple one:
    Have you ever done your shooting in dark? You know, different levels of “dark”?
    And, The Question: how do you use a handgun in a dark room (can’t see sights, can’t use any light)?
    That would be a fine pointer for self-defense I guess.
    Something of a substance.

    All firearms purchasing decisions and training should be geared towards the fact that in a self defense situation you’re going to be firing during an adrenaline dump. Regular stress inoculation exercises, drilling and conditioning are essential, as is the ability to compensate for such an adrenaline dump.

    True.

    This

    And now you’re insisting, yet again, that foreigners — that is, those who have considerable trouble even getting their hands on basic weaponry — have all sorts of access to all sorts of awesome “military grade” whoop-ass that we Americans don’t. Now that’s an occasion for Hahahaha……

    with

    a typical American gun show and elsewhere here would knock you back on your heels. Grow up already and be man enough to admit you’ve been pulling cr*p out of your a** and trying to lay it out as fact.

    mean no “contacts” and no experience there.
    Of course.

    But, you did scale down the rage a bit.
    Becoming careful…nice.

    Still, all your posts are just about venting on me. You haven’t, except that paragraph I quoted, actually provided anything of a real substance here.

    As for your post below:

    You thoroughly forfeited any minimum threshold of respect I’d need to engage you in a normal discussion on any matter. It’s weird you need to be told that.

    Same….nothing. For a very simple question.

    You know, I got a strong impression that you are, in fact, all that you “channel” on me.
    Makes sense somehow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Gleimhart says:

    Your umpteenth attempt to deflect from my criticisms is noted and discarded. It’s far too late for you to save face. You’re obviously a poser, as you have repeatedly shown throughout this thread, and with each post you become increasingly more desperate to convince me otherwise. It’s almost painful to watch you try so hard as you beg, “Believe me! Believe me! I’m a real-life expert!”, but no one is buying it. A number of people besides me have noticed, and there’s nothing you can do to extricate yourself from your self-inflicted embarrassments. You couldn’t even maintain the parameters of the original discussion per the content of the article. That’s how poorly you did. Okay? So stop trying. It’s not working. You’re a blowhard and no one takes you seriously, which is very likely the root source of why you act like this. Grow up already, little boy!

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    My...my........I think I recognize you now.

    This isn't the first time we've...."debated" things a?

    Wow.
    What a grudge. What....a.....grudge.......

    I AM impressed.
    Hahaha....actually I have to give it to you. A very good move.

    Let's recapitulate:


    It’s far too late for you to save face. You’re obviously a poser
    ....you beg, “Believe me! Believe me! I’m a real-life expert!”, but no one is buying it.
    A number of people besides me have noticed, and there’s nothing you can do to extricate yourself from your self-inflicted embarrassments.
    You’re a blowhard and no one takes you seriously
     
    THAT is why you got into this, ahm, "discussion".
    To prove I am all that ?
    Is that so important to you?
    Oh man......hahaha....

    Well, a learning experience for sure.
    What a character.
    This means so much to you? I mean......this "Web chatter"? Oh man......
    Awesome.

    You've made my day.

    But, still, at the other hand....creepy.
    What other characters will crawl out from under the rock here I wonder?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. peterAUS says:
    @Gleimhart
    Your umpteenth attempt to deflect from my criticisms is noted and discarded. It's far too late for you to save face. You're obviously a poser, as you have repeatedly shown throughout this thread, and with each post you become increasingly more desperate to convince me otherwise. It's almost painful to watch you try so hard as you beg, "Believe me! Believe me! I'm a real-life expert!", but no one is buying it. A number of people besides me have noticed, and there's nothing you can do to extricate yourself from your self-inflicted embarrassments. You couldn't even maintain the parameters of the original discussion per the content of the article. That's how poorly you did. Okay? So stop trying. It's not working. You're a blowhard and no one takes you seriously, which is very likely the root source of why you act like this. Grow up already, little boy!

    My…my……..I think I recognize you now.

    This isn’t the first time we’ve….”debated” things a?

    Wow.
    What a grudge. What….a…..grudge…….

    I AM impressed.
    Hahaha….actually I have to give it to you. A very good move.

    Let’s recapitulate:

    It’s far too late for you to save face. You’re obviously a poser
    ….you beg, “Believe me! Believe me! I’m a real-life expert!”, but no one is buying it.
    A number of people besides me have noticed, and there’s nothing you can do to extricate yourself from your self-inflicted embarrassments.
    You’re a blowhard and no one takes you seriously

    THAT is why you got into this, ahm, “discussion”.
    To prove I am all that ?
    Is that so important to you?
    Oh man……hahaha….

    Well, a learning experience for sure.
    What a character.
    This means so much to you? I mean……this “Web chatter”? Oh man……
    Awesome.

    You’ve made my day.

    But, still, at the other hand….creepy.
    What other characters will crawl out from under the rock here I wonder?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gleimhart
    Must you be wrong about everything?

    No, we've never had any interactions with one another before this, you paranoid weirdo. I rarely even come here, and rarer still do I post.

    You are a very strange person, and not only because you hit the Return key after every sentence.

    Wanna hear a funny joke?

    Hey, did you hear the one about the Australian gun expert?

    ME: Australian gun expert! Ow, my sides!

    And he knows more about the 2nd Amendment than Americans like you do!

    ME: Stop it, you're killing me!
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Give it up man, you write like a child and the projection on display is blatantly obvious. I recognise the very same lame tactics that you tried in your run in with FB. They didn't work then either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Gleimhart says:
    @peterAUS
    My...my........I think I recognize you now.

    This isn't the first time we've...."debated" things a?

    Wow.
    What a grudge. What....a.....grudge.......

    I AM impressed.
    Hahaha....actually I have to give it to you. A very good move.

    Let's recapitulate:


    It’s far too late for you to save face. You’re obviously a poser
    ....you beg, “Believe me! Believe me! I’m a real-life expert!”, but no one is buying it.
    A number of people besides me have noticed, and there’s nothing you can do to extricate yourself from your self-inflicted embarrassments.
    You’re a blowhard and no one takes you seriously
     
    THAT is why you got into this, ahm, "discussion".
    To prove I am all that ?
    Is that so important to you?
    Oh man......hahaha....

    Well, a learning experience for sure.
    What a character.
    This means so much to you? I mean......this "Web chatter"? Oh man......
    Awesome.

    You've made my day.

    But, still, at the other hand....creepy.
    What other characters will crawl out from under the rock here I wonder?

    Must you be wrong about everything?

    No, we’ve never had any interactions with one another before this, you paranoid weirdo. I rarely even come here, and rarer still do I post.

    You are a very strange person, and not only because you hit the Return key after every sentence.

    Wanna hear a funny joke?

    Hey, did you hear the one about the Australian gun expert?

    ME: Australian gun expert! Ow, my sides!

    And he knows more about the 2nd Amendment than Americans like you do!

    ME: Stop it, you’re killing me!

    Read More
    • Replies: @poop
    Take it from an expert: peterASS is a piece of crap.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @peterAUS
    My...my........I think I recognize you now.

    This isn't the first time we've...."debated" things a?

    Wow.
    What a grudge. What....a.....grudge.......

    I AM impressed.
    Hahaha....actually I have to give it to you. A very good move.

    Let's recapitulate:


    It’s far too late for you to save face. You’re obviously a poser
    ....you beg, “Believe me! Believe me! I’m a real-life expert!”, but no one is buying it.
    A number of people besides me have noticed, and there’s nothing you can do to extricate yourself from your self-inflicted embarrassments.
    You’re a blowhard and no one takes you seriously
     
    THAT is why you got into this, ahm, "discussion".
    To prove I am all that ?
    Is that so important to you?
    Oh man......hahaha....

    Well, a learning experience for sure.
    What a character.
    This means so much to you? I mean......this "Web chatter"? Oh man......
    Awesome.

    You've made my day.

    But, still, at the other hand....creepy.
    What other characters will crawl out from under the rock here I wonder?

    Give it up man, you write like a child and the projection on display is blatantly obvious. I recognise the very same lame tactics that you tried in your run in with FB. They didn’t work then either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Hey Nosey...

    I just stumbled on this thread a bit late it seems...

    Man oh man...our boy Pete has dug himself in pretty deep again...[no surprise there...]

    I actually feel kind of sorry for him...this 'Gleimhart' chap is letting him have it with both barrels...

    Looks to me like a 'takes two to tango' kind of thing...'Gleimhart' looks to be some kind of nutcase himself...a more aggressive version of our 'GameBoy Pete'...

    FWIW...LOL
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Quartermaster
    Walking bullets happen once in awhile even with factory loads. If care is taken, you can get away without a having to go to a Gun Smith. Many of us who are "gun nuts" are also what I have facetiously termed "gun plumbers." We can handle the run of the mill stuff competently. If you have to open a revolver, however, you'd better know what you are doing. I'm not referring to swinging the wheel out to load it.

    Agreed. Once you take the side plate off of a wheel gun, you’d better be beyond “gun plumber” expertise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Notax says:

    The supreme Court has ruled various times that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens. Your on your own. Police usually show up after the fact.

    Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
    Castle Rock v. Gonzales,
    DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. M x V is vastly overrated. When I was at Soldier of Fortune, a guy who made ballistic vests would have someone shoot him with .45 ACP. Ballsy but effective PR. He didn’t go backwards a centimeter. Equal and opposite and all that. There is the wound-ballistic stuff about collapsing supersonic cavities but unless a vital organ is hit, such as the brain except in the case of NPR listeners, it is blood loss or blood pressure loss that is the discouraging factor. Or the realization of having been hit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Well....that's highly scientific stuff and I've seen huge debates about it.

    I believe it's not even that simple. It depends on a target. Size, overall strenght and the most important mental state. A strong man high on adrenaline can take a lot of punishment. Or, more importantly, high on drugs. Thinking of which, on a drug withdrawal as well.

    I read, ages ago, a couple of mind boggling example:
    A petite woman, armed with knife, got shot once in a chest with 12 gauge buckshot, didn't go down and kept coming. Only second shot put her down.
    A perp got more than dozen hits by .38..and kept operating. Young FAT male.
    Now, resident creeps will probably dispute this, but I saw with my own eyes a healthy young male got shot in a foot and went down in a shock; he didn't expect it. Took around 10-15 seconds to make him responsive. In self-defense approach it would be perfect, wouldn't it?
    I also spoke with a guy with a similar experience: he was responding to a call->he knew that an armed perp was there and he was young, fit, armed and ready; he didn't clear a corner well and the perp shot him in a calf->he went down as knocked down. He actually said that it felt as being knocked down.

    Bottom line, there are zillions examples all across the board. Again, depends on a weapon/bullit/range/whatever, but, also, depends a LOT on that particular target.

    I agree that a shot in a brain, even with 22, will put a target down. Simply doesn't apply to an amateur self-defense unless a freak accident.
    Even a head shot is unlikely in that high stress scenario. And, well, where in the head? Without going into macabre details there have been cases of people being shot in a head and kept functioning.

    That leaves that most common advice: shoot at the center of a body mass. That brings the blood loos approach (unless, again, a freak accident where a bullit severs spine...).
    But, again, there have been documented cases of a person being shot in heart and still operating for up to 5 seconds. That's a long time if a perp has an automatic weapon and is 10 meters from you.

    Then, penetration vs expansion.
    We don't want to miss the target, penetrate wall, and have a bullet hitting a passer by; at the same time we would like to hit the target if he/she is taking cover behind a drywall.
    Plenty of scenarios...plenty of possibilities.

    Again, for the article target audience, it boils down to a very simple advice:
    Find a good instructor and go from there.
    Just do that.

    As one can't become proficient enough in unarmed self-defense without a good instructor and enough practice, the exactly the same applies to armed self-defense. Including legal approach which is often overlooked in all that.
    And, yes, a good instructor will give a plenty of advice for follow up, individual, training.
    If the instructor is really good a day...a day.....course will be good enough. After that the trainee can keep doing all necessary just by himself/herself. Demands occasional visit to range, but that's the part of the fun.

    Just....get.....a....good....instructor.

    , @Quartermaster
    The amount of tissue damage is one of the largest factors in "stopping power." The Thompson LaGarde study was done in 1905 because of the performance of the .38 pistols that replaced the old Colt SAA .45 pistols before the Philippine Insurrection. They found the largest factor was bullet diameter. A lot of the theory about terminal ballistics, such as supersonic cavities, and such, apply only at high velocities with rifle bullets. Even so, impact instability, which causes bullet tumbling, is what the 5.56mm bullet depends on for its stopping power, and at close range, is not dependable. Even with rifles, the bigger the bullet diameter, the more effective it is in taking someone out of a fight.

    I remember you from SOF as well as your Colleague Susan Katz Keating. IIRC, you wrote under pseudonym.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. peterAUS says:
    @Frederick V. Reed
    M x V is vastly overrated. When I was at Soldier of Fortune, a guy who made ballistic vests would have someone shoot him with .45 ACP. Ballsy but effective PR. He didn't go backwards a centimeter. Equal and opposite and all that. There is the wound-ballistic stuff about collapsing supersonic cavities but unless a vital organ is hit, such as the brain except in the case of NPR listeners, it is blood loss or blood pressure loss that is the discouraging factor. Or the realization of having been hit.

    Well….that’s highly scientific stuff and I’ve seen huge debates about it.

    I believe it’s not even that simple. It depends on a target. Size, overall strenght and the most important mental state. A strong man high on adrenaline can take a lot of punishment. Or, more importantly, high on drugs. Thinking of which, on a drug withdrawal as well.

    I read, ages ago, a couple of mind boggling example:
    A petite woman, armed with knife, got shot once in a chest with 12 gauge buckshot, didn’t go down and kept coming. Only second shot put her down.
    A perp got more than dozen hits by .38..and kept operating. Young FAT male.
    Now, resident creeps will probably dispute this, but I saw with my own eyes a healthy young male got shot in a foot and went down in a shock; he didn’t expect it. Took around 10-15 seconds to make him responsive. In self-defense approach it would be perfect, wouldn’t it?
    I also spoke with a guy with a similar experience: he was responding to a call->he knew that an armed perp was there and he was young, fit, armed and ready; he didn’t clear a corner well and the perp shot him in a calf->he went down as knocked down. He actually said that it felt as being knocked down.

    Bottom line, there are zillions examples all across the board. Again, depends on a weapon/bullit/range/whatever, but, also, depends a LOT on that particular target.

    I agree that a shot in a brain, even with 22, will put a target down. Simply doesn’t apply to an amateur self-defense unless a freak accident.
    Even a head shot is unlikely in that high stress scenario. And, well, where in the head? Without going into macabre details there have been cases of people being shot in a head and kept functioning.

    That leaves that most common advice: shoot at the center of a body mass. That brings the blood loos approach (unless, again, a freak accident where a bullit severs spine…).
    But, again, there have been documented cases of a person being shot in heart and still operating for up to 5 seconds. That’s a long time if a perp has an automatic weapon and is 10 meters from you.

    Then, penetration vs expansion.
    We don’t want to miss the target, penetrate wall, and have a bullet hitting a passer by; at the same time we would like to hit the target if he/she is taking cover behind a drywall.
    Plenty of scenarios…plenty of possibilities.

    Again, for the article target audience, it boils down to a very simple advice:
    Find a good instructor and go from there.
    Just do that.

    As one can’t become proficient enough in unarmed self-defense without a good instructor and enough practice, the exactly the same applies to armed self-defense. Including legal approach which is often overlooked in all that.
    And, yes, a good instructor will give a plenty of advice for follow up, individual, training.
    If the instructor is really good a day…a day…..course will be good enough. After that the trainee can keep doing all necessary just by himself/herself. Demands occasional visit to range, but that’s the part of the fun.

    Just….get…..a….good….instructor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "That leaves that most common advice: shoot at the center of a body mass."
     
    Dude, the point of shooting CBM is to knock the adversary down, hopefully to render him harmless, or at least to make a kill-shot relatively easy. In the current environment, anything less is asking for more trouble than it is worth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Frederick V. Reed
    M x V is vastly overrated. When I was at Soldier of Fortune, a guy who made ballistic vests would have someone shoot him with .45 ACP. Ballsy but effective PR. He didn't go backwards a centimeter. Equal and opposite and all that. There is the wound-ballistic stuff about collapsing supersonic cavities but unless a vital organ is hit, such as the brain except in the case of NPR listeners, it is blood loss or blood pressure loss that is the discouraging factor. Or the realization of having been hit.

    The amount of tissue damage is one of the largest factors in “stopping power.” The Thompson LaGarde study was done in 1905 because of the performance of the .38 pistols that replaced the old Colt SAA .45 pistols before the Philippine Insurrection. They found the largest factor was bullet diameter. A lot of the theory about terminal ballistics, such as supersonic cavities, and such, apply only at high velocities with rifle bullets. Even so, impact instability, which causes bullet tumbling, is what the 5.56mm bullet depends on for its stopping power, and at close range, is not dependable. Even with rifles, the bigger the bullet diameter, the more effective it is in taking someone out of a fight.

    I remember you from SOF as well as your Colleague Susan Katz Keating. IIRC, you wrote under pseudonym.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. peterAUS says:

    Now…I just feel we all have been skirting here around the most important element of all this.
    A weapon, a round, training, tactics, blah….blah…..but not about the most important: WHO is that amateur we all are trying to help?

    Happened to me plenty of times:
    “Oh, you are into that….you know…I’d like to learn about it so can defend myself….blah..blah…”.
    Nice….a normal person in all this “bad guns” brainwashing around.

    Then, I say:
    “Well, come to my place and we’ll have a conversation and we’ll go from there”.
    The keen amateur agrees.

    Then we start talking about the topic.
    And then you hit the wall 9 times of 10.

    They want to defend themselves against a BAD guy.
    Makes sense. So…WHO exactly is that bad guy? Rule no. 1 , “know your enemy”. And you see that they simply can’t do that. I’ve found that fascinating.
    9 times of 10 they can NOT visualize/describe a young black male. They…can…NOT.

    That’s just for starter.
    Then we move on to, well….a killing of a human being.
    9 times of 10 a person can NOT talk about it. And there are plenty of details there.

    If we somehow pass those two then they see a weapon as….something repulsive.
    We “gun nuts” know how we feel when we handle our weapons. Man……
    And then you give the same weapon to him/her and they look at it as ..literally….piece of shit. Handle it as something……unclean….inherently bad.

    9….times….of….10……..

    I, personally, actually, came to a conclusion that a lot of people simply can’t do that.
    Why, I don’t care. They just can’t.
    Maybe a part of natural selection; cleaning a gene pool.

    Yes, they are scared. Yes, they SAY they’d like to be able to defend themselves.
    But the “blocks” are still there.

    A good thing is that 10th person. My impression, and I’d love to be wrong, it looks there are less and less of them around.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. @Gleimhart
    Your transparent and quite "Internet-y" attempt to gas-light me is noted and discarded.

    I committed the cardinal sin of telling you that you're wrong, and now you doing a different dance altogether, with a number of sad tropes and attempts at deflecting from your manifestly stupid comments, which are in abundance here.

    Your gun range questions are silly. Real world self defense is not a static standing in a trench shooting at static paper targets on a relaxing afternoon at the gun range. That's beginner, introductory stuff. All firearms purchasing decisions and training should be geared towards the fact that in a self defense situation you're going to be firing during an adrenaline dump. Regular stress inoculation exercises, drilling and conditioning are essential, as is the ability to compensate for such an adrenaline dump. You and I both know you haven't the faintest clue how to handle such situations, which is why you're melting down now like a p*ssy.

    You still haven't been able to tell me why me bringing up hollow point ammunition is entirely relevant to the original article. What you did instead was to attempt a lame bluff, by mentioning other terms you just now looked up on the internet. You're not going to fool me, little man. None of those other things you mentioned have anything to do with the topic of ammunition choice I brought up. What happened to your earlier assertion that my reference to ammo choice indicated a poor "perspective"? Huh? What happened with that?

    And now you're insisting, yet again, that foreigners — that is, those who have considerable trouble even getting their hands on basic weaponry — have all sorts of access to all sorts of awesome "military grade" whoop-ass that we Americans don't. Now that's an occasion for Hahahaha......

    I'll say it again, what you can find on display or order from vendors at a typical American gun show and elsewhere here would knock you back on your heels. Grow up already and be man enough to admit you've been pulling cr*p out of your a** and trying to lay it out as fact.

    Your going off into weird tangents about the gubmint "watching" me all because I pointed out your idiocy is some over-the-top posturing. What unassailable logic!

    Your going off on other tangents about "divorce, boss, job, etc." is yet another sorry attempt at deflection. You strike me as spoiled and over-indulged, hardly anyone ever having contradicted you in your formative years, and now you're throwing a tantrum because you simply can't process it.

    I've been through this entire thread and have marveled at the thorough and increasing ignorance, combined with arrogance, in each one of your posts. You're all over the map. You were having the time of your life as long as you were able to strut and pose and bluff and pretend, high on your own fumes. But the minute someone came along and put you in your place and exposed you as the poser that your are, you suddenly scramble in desperation to save face. Well, it's far too late for that.

    But the most absurd of your absurdities was when you presumed — astonishingly — to tell ME what the 2nd Amendment was and was not about. It beggars belief. Truly!

    Gleimhart, please don’t feed the trolls. Trolls are like stray dogs. If you give them what they want, they hang around. This site has a great function, the ignore feature. I put trolls on ignore as soon as I recognize them for what they are. peterAUS is a troll.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Johnny Rico
    Thank you, Peter.

    I find the whole thing rather odd. The lack of a conventional safety on the Glock, one of the most popular handguns out there, seems like something that would have made it into a 6,300 primer on buying your first gun.

    Here's a good book I chanced upon recently:

    The Future of War: A History by Lawrence Freedman

    It is an excellent survey of all the topics we discuss here including the many that the Saker misses or omits. Your comments are always very helpful.

    Happy New Year!

    That’s the same Lawrence Freedman who wrote great chunks of Tony Blair’s speech to the Economic Club of Chicago on 24 April 1999, in which he outlines the “doctrine of the international community” which justified the violation of Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo and the invasion of Iraq.

    (Professor Freedman was then a member of the “independent” Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    Thank you. Good to know. I picked this book up at the library a couple weeks ago but was unfamiliar with "Sir" Lawrence Freedman. I'm reading up on him now. I'm gonna go back to the sections on the conflicts you mention and see how his politics colored his coverage.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/28/chilcot-inquiry-martin-gilbert
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. peterAUS says:

    For true fans of the “topic” only:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stopping_power

    And, creeps wise (from the same page):
    Be polite, and welcoming to new users
    Assume good faith
    Avoid personal attacks

    Interestingly enough, apparently, plenty of “attitude” there too.
    Some quotes:
    meaningless terminology
    impotent
    rather silly

    Feels as the topic attracts certain…..types.
    Makes you think a?

    Time off for some reflection and introspection.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. @YetAnotherAnon
    That's the same Lawrence Freedman who wrote great chunks of Tony Blair's speech to the Economic Club of Chicago on 24 April 1999, in which he outlines the “doctrine of the international community” which justified the violation of Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo and the invasion of Iraq.

    (Professor Freedman was then a member of the "independent" Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War)

    Thank you. Good to know. I picked this book up at the library a couple weeks ago but was unfamiliar with “Sir” Lawrence Freedman. I’m reading up on him now. I’m gonna go back to the sections on the conflicts you mention and see how his politics colored his coverage.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/28/chilcot-inquiry-martin-gilbert

    Read More
    • Troll: FB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. poop says:
    @Gleimhart
    Must you be wrong about everything?

    No, we've never had any interactions with one another before this, you paranoid weirdo. I rarely even come here, and rarer still do I post.

    You are a very strange person, and not only because you hit the Return key after every sentence.

    Wanna hear a funny joke?

    Hey, did you hear the one about the Australian gun expert?

    ME: Australian gun expert! Ow, my sides!

    And he knows more about the 2nd Amendment than Americans like you do!

    ME: Stop it, you're killing me!

    Take it from an expert: peterASS is a piece of crap.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. TT says:

    Saker,

    Im no gun expert, but just want to say, find a better home like your beautiful born place Switzerland for your family that you never need to own a gun ever. I believe there is enough decent jobs there, even as a bus driver or school teacher, or in some 3rd world countries bless with peace. Life is more happy & peaceful.

    US is becoming such a sick place, with so much violent and hatred, opiods abuse, LGBT glorifying, msm propaganda, social problems, psychopaths electing lunatic leaders seeking atrocity wars. Why wait for implosion crisis that you foreseen to defense love ones hopelessly?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    See your point, but as to the specific example of Switzerland, are we confident that it will not become Muslim and African like the rest of western and Central Europe?

    Anywa, the Swiss have pretty good gun rights still, right? Someone living even in beautiful Switzerland would be wise to keep a few guns on hand for defense of home and family just like the rest of us. More so IF the population becomes less civilized and more aggressive & hostile a la Germany, France, Sweden, Etc.

    , @Hu Mi Yu

    find a better home like your beautiful born place Switzerland for your family that you never need to own a gun ever.
     
    Last time I was in Switzerland, all males were required to have military training and keep a rifle in their home. Many think that is why Switzerland is such a safe place.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Truth says:

    US is becoming such a sick place, with so much violent and hatred, opiods abuse, LGBT glorifying, msm propaganda, social problems, psychopaths electing lunatic leaders seeking atrocity wars.

    Yeah, and when you get away from this website, it even gets worse!

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Now that’s funny right there. Gotta admit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. I’ve been carrying a concealed firearm since the 1980s, and in about 1987 I had to show it to a third-world savage at a bus stop in order to to dissuade him from robbing me at knife point.

    I was itching to shoot him, but I knew that a White man shooting a nigger even in self-defense would result in me achieving a certain amount of unwanted fame and probably being tried for something in front of a jury of angry chimps and/or cowardly hippies.

    Such is the state of our “justice system” even then, I didn’t report this attempted robbery. I would have had to explain why it was only attempted. But given the neighborhood, it’s doubtful that many White people would end up there to be victimized. I was only there by a very poor decision on my part. If niggers want to kill each other, they have my full support.

    At any rate, my weapon of choice has always been something that can be easily carried concealed. If you can’t carry it, you can’t use it.

    I’ve carried a range of small pistols from a .38 snubnose wheelgun to a .32 automatic to a .25 automatic to a .380 auto. I know I can make any of these work for me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. @nsa
    All you budding pistoleros should consider the legal ramifications of shooting someone before selecting a piece. If you get dragged through the court system, you'll soon wish you took the bullet instead.
    HOME DEFENSE: keep a 30-30 lever action "deer rifle" or 12 gauge "side by side" behind the kitchen door. You may end up in court and "your honor, I got real scared and grabbed my trusty deer rifle......" works a lot better than shredding someone with a street sweeper or tricked out AR-15. If you do shoot someone, try to ditch the body on a logging road. You may skate with the cops / courts but you may still have to deal with the cadaver's living relatives and friends. Your choice depending on the exact circumstances. Incidentally, a 30-30 deer rifle is considerably more powerful than even the most powerful handgun.
    CONCEALED CARRY: permit or not, an early five shot 38 spl S&W Model 60....the same piece mild mannered engineer, Bernie Goetz, used on the four dark complected subway perps. Stainless so almost no maintenance. Goes off every time. And mainly, it is a revolver and DOES NOT SPRAY A BUNCH OF EVIDENCE (EMPTIES) EVERYWHERE. If you shoot someone, do NOT stick around if you think you can skate. If you are identified, you can always say "you just got scared and ran". Again, a short and sweet mugging is nothing compared to getting dragged through the american court system.

    “If you do shoot someone, try to ditch the body on a logging road.”
    “If you shoot someone, do NOT stick around if you think you can skate. “

    That is some really good advice, if you want to spend several decades in prison. You would be better off not giving legal advice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @peterAUS
    I'll reply, not because of you, but of some people reading all this.
    I know your type and I steer well clear of them but your types keep posting similar bullshit and it does need responding. You know, fair and balanced, opposing views etc.

    First off, the “myth” that Americans supposedly have about European gun ownership is simply untrue. We really just don’t care one way or the other what Europeans do or don’t do. Non-Americans obsess over Americans, but we have no corresponding meddlesome busybody bees-in-the-bonnet regarding guns or gun ownership in foreign places.
     
    All evidence to the contrary.
    That ...attitude...of yours can be seen, in spades, everywhere where people talk about violence, self-defense, guns and similar stuff. Your types are so thick that you don't even register it.

    Second, the notion that foreigners have access to guns that “Americans can only dream about” is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on the internet — and that’s saying something. Attending just one average American gun show would knock the likes of you back on your rear-end, and we have hundreds of them on a weekly basis. The variety, deep catalogue, and custom firearms gunsmith designs is staggering.
     
    Toys for boys.
    Can you take down an armored vehicle with those toys? How about a helicopter gunship? Or a patrol boat?
    Belt fed machineguns with optics don't even count here.

    Because in a lot of places of this world, Europe included, that weaponry IS in people's hands.
    Not for showing of and feeding egos and grown men childish delusions.
    Well hidden, well maintained, and owned by people who do know how to use them. And are more than willing to use them should it come to that.
    I guess your types didn't even register this fact before.

    No country on earth has more of a history of people defending themselves with modern firearms.
     
    I grant you that, for an individual/small group of people against other individual/small group of people.
    But, you have failed miserably in defending an individual/group against the power of the state.
    And I do believe that 2nd isn't about "toys for boys" and self-defense. It's about abuse of the state. The last time you guys tried that failed in 1866.Don't count Waco/Ruby Ridge. Or this last one with LaVoy Finicum.
    I could post here a LONG list of peoples who have been doing that, with firearms, before you guys even got your country.

    Americans don’t need gun advice from foreigners. We’re the experts.
     
    Ah....the attitude.

    here wasn’t even any mention about hollow points, for crying out loud. I know you don’t realize why that’s important, and I’m not going to tell you.
     
    Hahaha......oh man. Your lack of perception is staggering. But, expected from your types.

    You may want to dial it back a few notches before you play the fool again
     
    My sentiment exactly.

    “It’s about abuse of the state. The last time you guys tried that failed in 1866.”

    Try 1946:

    “The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of predatory policing, police brutality, political corruption and voter intimidation.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

    Made into a movie that was broadcast across the US:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103673/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. The only gun that counts is the one that you have with you; personally, I like the Kel-Tec .32ACP pistol.

    Lots of people don’t have the strength to pull back the slide; I know someone’s wife whose husband ended up buying her a .38Spl Ruger LCR because of that. He also purchased an aftermarket laser designator which he will install at some point. Hubby ended obtaining a .380ACP Ruger LCP 2 for pocket carry and a 9mm Ruger SR9 Compact. I volunteered at a place where some Black guy said he carried a Charter Arms .44Spl. before CCW was legal in Chicago. Myself, I have a Charter Arms Undercover .38Spl.

    My suggestion is for everyone to slowly acquire “Insatiable Gun Lust syndrome” and start buying guns, because you like them, damn it!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. peterAUS says:

    Thread derail warning!

    It’s about abuse of the state. The last time you guys tried that failed in 1866.”

    Try 1946:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

    Not bad.

    Still, my point stays say, 70/30.

    While the power that be WAS successfully challenged by armed citizens it was at town/county level.
    Not exactly a state.
    The weapons involved, from the authority side, were equal to the weapons of the armed citizens. If we really want to be picky the issue was resolved not even by firearms but (improvised) satchel charges (effectively industrial explosive).

    The powers that be didn’t deploy full power of the state, National Guard.
    THAT would’ve been interesting to watch.
    And, then, the Federal Government, with federal troops.

    As I just posted in a different article comments:
    It’s not about numbers, it’s about organization and hardware.
    One armed citizen can easily take on a soldier.
    Ten armed citizens can take on a squad. (with a SMAW or similar)
    160 armed citizens will have a hard time taking on a company.(with mortars)
    800 armed citizens will lose, most of the time, against a battalion.(with machineguns on tripods, heavy mortars and AT, guided, missiles).
    3000 armed citizens will lose almost all the time, against a brigade.(with cannon and howitzer).
    15000 armed citizens will lose all the time against a corps.(with MRLS etc).
    And all that even excluding armor and air power, helicopter gunships in particular.

    So, while 2nd does give US citizens legal access to decent firearms it can’t be compared to (not quite legal) access to military grade hardware in certain countries of this world.
    Bottom line, combination of not having access to military grade hardware plus inability to organize and train at certain level make the very point of 2nd (fight against abuse of the power of the state) rather moot.

    Now, I do concede that having access to all that weaponry as we speak, with, more importantly, being proficient in using them, with ease to organize, say, a militia up to level of platoon in a couple of hours in necessary, give US citizens big edge compared to most countries of this world.

    Say, “gun fans” in USA could be, if needed, a first class militia in a blink.
    The catch is…..the opposition is also a first class.

    In practical terms, a small town somewhere in Red States could organize self-defense against any Third World military in a week and resist, likely, for a couple of weeks, even a month. Quite a feat I admit.
    You get US Army brigade combat team at the other hand, well, I’d give the defenders 48 hours tops.

    Now….truly SHTF scenario when military starts to disintegrate is, probably, a scenario when that could work, but that’s in distant future if ever.

    Back to the article.
    2nd does give weak a chance to have a big equalizer; 5.5 granny with a .38 can defend herself against a vicious intruder. Most of countries of this world can’t offer that.
    The catch is….the intruder can also get a firearm easy. Serious criminals can get automatic weapons and ballistic vests. Even more importantly, without any desire to denigrate vets, a lot of criminals can have previous military, even LEO, experience. Even more of a catch: ex-military have exactly the experience to take out armed civilians; COIN since 2001 has given them exactly that skillset and experience. Ex-LEO even more.

    There are countries where an average citizen can’t have a firearm. Well, he/she can have a well trained dog because a potential threat also has a hard time getting a firearm.
    Those a bit more “physical” can have a blunt/edged weapon close at hand all the time. The intruder(s) won’t have anything stronger either. A smart person can make, literally, home a castle of a sort, especially against an average punk.

    As pointed out several times here:
    The purchase of a firearm should start with honest appraisal of WHAT the firearm is really for. WHO is a potential threat.
    Then,WHO is a person who is going to get involved in that self-defense.
    And, really, all those questions and more are best answered by a competent instructor. Plenty of them in USA.

    Simple advice for an interested reader: forget the article, forget all these comments: get a good instructor and go from there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    Well, in fact Americans did invent a program to arm and train civilian militia:

    The Civilian Markmanship Program, created by the US Congress:

    http://thecmp.org/

    The US government will sell a citizen a combat rifle to train with.

    but there is now a broad private initiative to train US citizens in the use of semi-automatic rifles like AR-10s and AR-15s: Project Appleseed. (RWVA.org)

    "Project Appleseed is an apolitical[1] rifle marksmanship training program that focuses on teaching traditional rifle marksmanship from standing, sitting/kneeling, and prone positions over a two-day weekend shooting clinic for what is termed an "Appleseed". It is one of the major activities of The Revolutionary War Veterans Association (RWVA), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that teaches and promotes traditional rifle marksmanship, while also teaching American heritage and history with the intent of encouraging people to become active civically.[2][3][4]

    In addition to Project Appleseed, there is also a companion subsidiary activity conducted within the RWVA called "Liberty Seed" that is the American heritage and history portion of Project Appleseed. "Liberty Seed" has been termed a "civics class in disguise", and features content on the "Three Strikes" that were needed to start the American Revolutionary War.[2]

    The emphasis on teaching traditional rifle marksmanship within Project Appleseed centers around traditional rifle marksmanship techniques using a rifle sling coupled with a concept termed "natural point of aim" (NPOA). Project Appleseed uses reduced size scaled silhouette targets that enable a shooter to assess their effective range with their rifle using a reduced length shooting range only 25 meters (82 feet) long, while simulating firing at full size targets at ranges up to 400 yards.[5]

    As part of teaching traditional rifleman marksmanship skills, Project Appleseed also teaches the rifleman's cadence. This consists of learning to fire at respiratory pauses every 3–4 seconds, shooting in synchronicity with one's natural rhythm of breathing thereby enabling improving one's marksmanship.[6]

    Some commentators have questioned the political aspect of the self-empowerment of shooting.[7]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Appleseed

    There have been over 100,000 citizens that have gone through this program. People who not only own a rifle but can effectively engage targets out to 400 yards. People who have basically created their Designated Marksman rifle when SHTF.

    http://looserounds.com/2015/01/24/how-does-the-designated-marksman-concept-apply-to-the-prepared-civilian/

    "In practice, the Designated Marksman concept revolves around additional training more so than additional equipment. Sure the different branches have “accurized” versions of DMR style rifles such as the SAM-R, Mark 12 SPR, and the SDM-R, but they all accomplish the same goal: enable an individual soldier with additional marksmanship training to better engage targets at intermediate ranges. So how does this apply to the prepared civilian? Can any rifle function as a DMR? Can a civilian shooter ever take advantage of a long shot? The first part of this series will define the gun. Hint: It’s not that special.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJqx0qfPWlg
    , @Miro23

    As I just posted in a different article comments:

    It’s not about numbers, it’s about organization and hardware.
    One armed citizen can easily take on a soldier.
    Ten armed citizens can take on a squad. (with a SMAW or similar)
    160 armed citizens will have a hard time taking on a company.(with mortars)
    800 armed citizens will lose, most of the time, against a battalion.(with machineguns on tripods, heavy mortars and AT, guided, missiles).
    3000 armed citizens will lose almost all the time, against a brigade.(with cannon and howitzer).
    15000 armed citizens will lose all the time against a corps.(with MRLS etc).
    And all that even excluding armor and air power, helicopter gunships in particular.
     
    How about 3.000.000 armed citizens? ( less than 1% of the US population).

    And how would the US military feel about destroying their own towns and families?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @peterAUS
    Well....that's highly scientific stuff and I've seen huge debates about it.

    I believe it's not even that simple. It depends on a target. Size, overall strenght and the most important mental state. A strong man high on adrenaline can take a lot of punishment. Or, more importantly, high on drugs. Thinking of which, on a drug withdrawal as well.

    I read, ages ago, a couple of mind boggling example:
    A petite woman, armed with knife, got shot once in a chest with 12 gauge buckshot, didn't go down and kept coming. Only second shot put her down.
    A perp got more than dozen hits by .38..and kept operating. Young FAT male.
    Now, resident creeps will probably dispute this, but I saw with my own eyes a healthy young male got shot in a foot and went down in a shock; he didn't expect it. Took around 10-15 seconds to make him responsive. In self-defense approach it would be perfect, wouldn't it?
    I also spoke with a guy with a similar experience: he was responding to a call->he knew that an armed perp was there and he was young, fit, armed and ready; he didn't clear a corner well and the perp shot him in a calf->he went down as knocked down. He actually said that it felt as being knocked down.

    Bottom line, there are zillions examples all across the board. Again, depends on a weapon/bullit/range/whatever, but, also, depends a LOT on that particular target.

    I agree that a shot in a brain, even with 22, will put a target down. Simply doesn't apply to an amateur self-defense unless a freak accident.
    Even a head shot is unlikely in that high stress scenario. And, well, where in the head? Without going into macabre details there have been cases of people being shot in a head and kept functioning.

    That leaves that most common advice: shoot at the center of a body mass. That brings the blood loos approach (unless, again, a freak accident where a bullit severs spine...).
    But, again, there have been documented cases of a person being shot in heart and still operating for up to 5 seconds. That's a long time if a perp has an automatic weapon and is 10 meters from you.

    Then, penetration vs expansion.
    We don't want to miss the target, penetrate wall, and have a bullet hitting a passer by; at the same time we would like to hit the target if he/she is taking cover behind a drywall.
    Plenty of scenarios...plenty of possibilities.

    Again, for the article target audience, it boils down to a very simple advice:
    Find a good instructor and go from there.
    Just do that.

    As one can't become proficient enough in unarmed self-defense without a good instructor and enough practice, the exactly the same applies to armed self-defense. Including legal approach which is often overlooked in all that.
    And, yes, a good instructor will give a plenty of advice for follow up, individual, training.
    If the instructor is really good a day...a day.....course will be good enough. After that the trainee can keep doing all necessary just by himself/herself. Demands occasional visit to range, but that's the part of the fun.

    Just....get.....a....good....instructor.

    “That leaves that most common advice: shoot at the center of a body mass.”

    Dude, the point of shooting CBM is to knock the adversary down, hopefully to render him harmless, or at least to make a kill-shot relatively easy. In the current environment, anything less is asking for more trouble than it is worth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. dkshaw says:
    @theMann
    Good article as far as it goes, but I will add a few points:


    1. When Saker says most people will fire 1-3 shots in a real firefight, he means one. Most people will have minimal training, outdoors, with hearing protection. Firing a short barreled .357 indoors without protection will result in most dropping the weapon and holding their ears screaming.


    2. Know your target, know what is behind your target. You fire a high penetration round in an apartment and it goes into the next apartment, you are responsible for the results.

    3. I wouldn't recommend a handgun for most people in any situation. They require a lot of training to use with even minimal competence. Honestly for most users their best feature, if they have it, is the ability to fix a strong tactical light on the rail. Getting a powerful light in somebody's face, especially after dark, is pretty deterrent.


    4. Can't emphasize this enough: shooting is a skill, and all skills require both training and practice. Guns don't require as much training\practice as swords or hands and feet (which is why people use them), but they do require some. If you aren't going to put the time in, don't even think of getting the weapon in the first place. And keep this in mind: the least lethal deterrent is the best.

    I fired a .357 at an outdoor range having forgotten to insert my ear plugs. I can not imagine what that would be like in an enclosed space. It deafened me for a couple minutes. Never ever forgot my hearing protection again. I sure hope those home intruders will give me a half a minute or so to put my ear plugs in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    For under $50 you can pick up a set of electronic ear muffs. Lets you hear quiet noises, some even amplify quiet sounds. They also muffle the sound of loud noises. Keep a set at your bedroom door. Easier to wear than plugs and if you don't have time to turn them on, they still work to dampen the gunshot.
    , @Alden
    The noise will scare the intruders as much as it does you
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. I totally agree. I have a 3-inch barrel Ruger SP-101 revolver and I think it’s the perfect civilian self-defense tool.

    It’s a bit bigger and heavier that a tiny “snubnose” revolver which makes it easier and more comfortable to shoot, but it’s also not too big that you can’t carry it if you need to. I have a permit but basically never carry, I like having the option.

    It will fire .357 magnum but I just keep it loaded with .38 special +P. It’s not horrible firing magnums, because of the extra weight of the gun, but it’s still a bit much.

    I actually personally know a guy who used a semi-auto handgun in self-defense against a home invasion and it didn’t fire. He kept it unloaded with a full magazine next to it, and in the heat of the moment he just put the magazine in but forgot to rack the slide. He pointed it at the intruder and pulled the trigger but it just went “click”.

    It worked out ok for him anyway though, the intruder still ran away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    I recall an article in the New York Times in the 1990s where an engineer and his daughter were victims of an attempted robbery in an elevator. The engineer was killed because his Walther pistol, presumably a PPK was being carried UNCHAMBERED, even though he could have safely carried it chambered due to it's DA/SA system of operation.

    Someone made the apropos comment that "he was educated beyond his intelligence."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @dkshaw
    I fired a .357 at an outdoor range having forgotten to insert my ear plugs. I can not imagine what that would be like in an enclosed space. It deafened me for a couple minutes. Never ever forgot my hearing protection again. I sure hope those home intruders will give me a half a minute or so to put my ear plugs in.

    For under $50 you can pick up a set of electronic ear muffs. Lets you hear quiet noises, some even amplify quiet sounds. They also muffle the sound of loud noises. Keep a set at your bedroom door. Easier to wear than plugs and if you don’t have time to turn them on, they still work to dampen the gunshot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    Massad Ayoob states he has a flashlight, electronic muffs and body armor for bedroom use. That's preparedness!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Jake Jackson
    I'd have a few quibbles. My credentials: Own 4 revolvers, 2 semi-auto pistols, 3 lever rifles, 2 semi-auto rifles, 1 shotgun. Have 3 carry permits, and have been trained. Frequent range practice, including the range on my back 40.

    1. It's not 90% of attacks stopped by merely showing a gun. It's 97%. That's a bigger difference than it might seem.

    2. I prefer a revolver for the nightstand because there's nothing to think about. If the gun comes from a quality manufacturer, it will ALWAYS work. Still, the article overstates the difficulty of semi-auto pistols. My winter-time carry gun, a FN Five-Seven, carries 20 very high velocity and quite lethal 5.7x28mm rounds. (The shooter at Ft. Hood, Texas used this gun to murder 9 people.) I carry with a round in the chamber and the safety on. Flick the lever, and you're good to go. I don't like the "safety-less" pistols, i.e. Glock, because of the possibility of mistaken discharge, as the author mentions.

    3. The article omits any mention of shotguns or rifles. They are ALWAYS more lethal than handguns -- FAR more so because the long barrels allow the projectiles to attain higher velocity. A 12- or 20-gauge shotgun is highly lethal, and the shot won't penetrate apartment walls. If, like me, you live in the country or in a single-family house well separated from neighbors, a rifle works very well too. My shotgun is an antique break-action that loads only one round, so my broom closet weapon is a Henry Big Boy in .357 magnum, with 10 rounds in the tube.

    You sure as hell do NOT want to be the tweaker who breaks into our house. My Henry rifle will come close to cutting you in half. My next purchase, a pump shotgun, will come even closer.

    4. Caliber is often discussed, heatedly. There is research (see the link in this post) that shows .22 to be a lot more lethal than most gunners realize. Make that .22 magnum, 45 grain "Critical Defense" from Hornady, and you're fine. More than fine in fact; .22WMR (aka magnum) is infamous in emergency rooms, because once the bullet enters the body it's anyone's guess where it bounces around.

    If not .22, then .357 magnum in a handgun or rifle is highly lethal. The issue with .357 magnum is recoil, so if that's your home defense choice in a revolver, you need a heavy, full-framed one. Mine is a Dan Wesson 715, but the Ruger GP-100 and S&W 686 are excellent. I like Dan Wesson for the swappability of barrels and superior overall quality.

    I have a Ruger LCR revolver in .357 magnum. It's my least favorite gun. Even with lighter .38 Special, the recoil is punishing. I'd recommend that LCR buyers get that firearm in either .22 WMR or .327 Federal, to reduce recoil and the flinching and inaccuracy that stout recoil tends to cause. Too many men equate recoil sensitivity to lack of masculinity, when in fact it's a reptile brain function only partly overcome by training.

    In any given caliber, felt recoil in a handgun is directly propotional to the gun's weight. (Chiappa's Rhino is a clever design that attempts to reduce recoil by slightly rechanneling it, but the recoil is still there.) This is why a 1-pound LCR revolver in .357 magnum is going to be a much tougher gun to fire accurately than a full-framed Dan Wesson, Ruger, S&W, or Taurus revolver, which weigh between 40 and 50 ounces unloaded. There is very little recoil from .22, either LR or WMR, and not much from the various .32 rounds. For someone who isn't an enthusiast, this is why I tend to point them toward .22WMR.

    5. Don't overlook the North American Arms mini revolvers. They weigh 6 ounces and are usually .22WMR, often with a .22LR cylinder included. They fit in a shirt pocket without showing, and have an ingenious and effective safety notch mechanism. The downside is that they are single-action only, and pretty much useless past about 20 feet. But most gun battles where shots are actually fired happen at shorter range. A 45-grain, Hornady Critical Defense .22WMR round shot from an NAA mini is quite likely to kill an attacker.

    I bought my NAA "Wasp" for comic relief. But after shooting a few hundred rounds out of it, I have gained a lot of respect for it. This is a very well-made firearm, and with practice you can be more accurate than you'd think. And, very importantly, they'll never see you coming. Not in my opinion a home defense weapon, but an excellent summer-time carry gun.

    This article at the link makes excellent reading regarding the caliber wars:

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

    Yes, per you and TG in comment ten, we favor a shotgun for home defense. That’s in reliance on the advice of people who are much more knowledgeable and experienced with guns than my wife and I — including a retired military officer who’s a great shot, and a former instructor of a firearms self-defense class.

    Unlike us, our kids will learn safe, responsible, effective handling of both handguns and shotguns while they are growing up. We expect this country to become a lot more dangerous, and not just here in California, so sadly it’s more important to be prepared in this regard than when I was a kid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    in reliance on the advice of people who are much more knowledgeable and experienced with guns than my wife and I — including a retired military officer who’s a great shot, and a former instructor of a firearms self-defense class.
     
    Nice.

    Re instructor, ideally, it would be, related to


    fighting door to door in Fallujah
     
    from the post below, a former LEO with considerable experience not only with firearms and such, but the legal process after a self-defense event.

    Even more important, IMHO, an experienced former LEO would be able to give an invaluable insight into the mindset/mode of operation of a potential threat.

    Ex-military, most of the time, do lack that particular element. Even former MPs actually didn't work with civilian perps in local environment.
    Ex-cop from LA,for example, running self-defense course in the same city, does have that advantage.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Bischkva says:

    Excellent article. Unfortunately gun ninjas who fantasize about fighting door to door in Fallujah will not appreciate your common sense. Also wish you’d written more about the Glock cult, particularly as exemplified by “Glock leg.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. @Truth

    US is becoming such a sick place, with so much violent and hatred, opiods abuse, LGBT glorifying, msm propaganda, social problems, psychopaths electing lunatic leaders seeking atrocity wars.
     
    Yeah, and when you get away from this website, it even gets worse!

    Now that’s funny right there. Gotta admit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @TT
    Saker,

    Im no gun expert, but just want to say, find a better home like your beautiful born place Switzerland for your family that you never need to own a gun ever. I believe there is enough decent jobs there, even as a bus driver or school teacher, or in some 3rd world countries bless with peace. Life is more happy & peaceful.

    US is becoming such a sick place, with so much violent and hatred, opiods abuse, LGBT glorifying, msm propaganda, social problems, psychopaths electing lunatic leaders seeking atrocity wars. Why wait for implosion crisis that you foreseen to defense love ones hopelessly?

    See your point, but as to the specific example of Switzerland, are we confident that it will not become Muslim and African like the rest of western and Central Europe?

    Anywa, the Swiss have pretty good gun rights still, right? Someone living even in beautiful Switzerland would be wise to keep a few guns on hand for defense of home and family just like the rest of us. More so IF the population becomes less civilized and more aggressive & hostile a la Germany, France, Sweden, Etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TT
    Switzerland has very professional army, they can defense very well. I read that all their reserved is abled to keep their military gears with weapons at home. Swiss people are sane, you never hear any mass shooting. Its not in EU, they won't be stupid or forced to let in terrorists enmass.
    , @TT
    I was contemplating to get a pistol and rifle when i moved to Australia decades ago. I stay at safe upper class area, but police can only come after 1hr, so i prefer to fend off druggie breakin myself to defend my family(gun law is another matter).

    I am military trained, shooting isn't too difficult. But i gave up altogether, its insane to kill someone in any name. So i moved on to a safe country that i no need a gun at all. If you aren't rich enough to live in safe estate, any place in Switzerland is better than US imo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @peterAUS
    Thread derail warning!

    It’s about abuse of the state. The last time you guys tried that failed in 1866.”

    Try 1946:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29
     

    Not bad.

    Still, my point stays say, 70/30.

    While the power that be WAS successfully challenged by armed citizens it was at town/county level.
    Not exactly a state.
    The weapons involved, from the authority side, were equal to the weapons of the armed citizens. If we really want to be picky the issue was resolved not even by firearms but (improvised) satchel charges (effectively industrial explosive).

    The powers that be didn't deploy full power of the state, National Guard.
    THAT would've been interesting to watch.
    And, then, the Federal Government, with federal troops.

    As I just posted in a different article comments:
    It’s not about numbers, it’s about organization and hardware.
    One armed citizen can easily take on a soldier.
    Ten armed citizens can take on a squad. (with a SMAW or similar)
    160 armed citizens will have a hard time taking on a company.(with mortars)
    800 armed citizens will lose, most of the time, against a battalion.(with machineguns on tripods, heavy mortars and AT, guided, missiles).
    3000 armed citizens will lose almost all the time, against a brigade.(with cannon and howitzer).
    15000 armed citizens will lose all the time against a corps.(with MRLS etc).
    And all that even excluding armor and air power, helicopter gunships in particular.

    So, while 2nd does give US citizens legal access to decent firearms it can't be compared to (not quite legal) access to military grade hardware in certain countries of this world.
    Bottom line, combination of not having access to military grade hardware plus inability to organize and train at certain level make the very point of 2nd (fight against abuse of the power of the state) rather moot.

    Now, I do concede that having access to all that weaponry as we speak, with, more importantly, being proficient in using them, with ease to organize, say, a militia up to level of platoon in a couple of hours in necessary, give US citizens big edge compared to most countries of this world.

    Say, "gun fans" in USA could be, if needed, a first class militia in a blink.
    The catch is.....the opposition is also a first class.

    In practical terms, a small town somewhere in Red States could organize self-defense against any Third World military in a week and resist, likely, for a couple of weeks, even a month. Quite a feat I admit.
    You get US Army brigade combat team at the other hand, well, I'd give the defenders 48 hours tops.

    Now....truly SHTF scenario when military starts to disintegrate is, probably, a scenario when that could work, but that's in distant future if ever.

    Back to the article.
    2nd does give weak a chance to have a big equalizer; 5.5 granny with a .38 can defend herself against a vicious intruder. Most of countries of this world can't offer that.
    The catch is....the intruder can also get a firearm easy. Serious criminals can get automatic weapons and ballistic vests. Even more importantly, without any desire to denigrate vets, a lot of criminals can have previous military, even LEO, experience. Even more of a catch: ex-military have exactly the experience to take out armed civilians; COIN since 2001 has given them exactly that skillset and experience. Ex-LEO even more.

    There are countries where an average citizen can't have a firearm. Well, he/she can have a well trained dog because a potential threat also has a hard time getting a firearm.
    Those a bit more "physical" can have a blunt/edged weapon close at hand all the time. The intruder(s) won't have anything stronger either. A smart person can make, literally, home a castle of a sort, especially against an average punk.

    As pointed out several times here:
    The purchase of a firearm should start with honest appraisal of WHAT the firearm is really for. WHO is a potential threat.
    Then,WHO is a person who is going to get involved in that self-defense.
    And, really, all those questions and more are best answered by a competent instructor. Plenty of them in USA.

    Simple advice for an interested reader: forget the article, forget all these comments: get a good instructor and go from there.

    Well, in fact Americans did invent a program to arm and train civilian militia:

    The Civilian Markmanship Program, created by the US Congress:

    http://thecmp.org/

    The US government will sell a citizen a combat rifle to train with.

    but there is now a broad private initiative to train US citizens in the use of semi-automatic rifles like AR-10s and AR-15s: Project Appleseed. (RWVA.org)

    “Project Appleseed is an apolitical[1] rifle marksmanship training program that focuses on teaching traditional rifle marksmanship from standing, sitting/kneeling, and prone positions over a two-day weekend shooting clinic for what is termed an “Appleseed”. It is one of the major activities of The Revolutionary War Veterans Association (RWVA), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that teaches and promotes traditional rifle marksmanship, while also teaching American heritage and history with the intent of encouraging people to become active civically.[2][3][4]

    In addition to Project Appleseed, there is also a companion subsidiary activity conducted within the RWVA called “Liberty Seed” that is the American heritage and history portion of Project Appleseed. “Liberty Seed” has been termed a “civics class in disguise”, and features content on the “Three Strikes” that were needed to start the American Revolutionary War.[2]

    The emphasis on teaching traditional rifle marksmanship within Project Appleseed centers around traditional rifle marksmanship techniques using a rifle sling coupled with a concept termed “natural point of aim” (NPOA). Project Appleseed uses reduced size scaled silhouette targets that enable a shooter to assess their effective range with their rifle using a reduced length shooting range only 25 meters (82 feet) long, while simulating firing at full size targets at ranges up to 400 yards.[5]

    As part of teaching traditional rifleman marksmanship skills, Project Appleseed also teaches the rifleman’s cadence. This consists of learning to fire at respiratory pauses every 3–4 seconds, shooting in synchronicity with one’s natural rhythm of breathing thereby enabling improving one’s marksmanship.[6]

    Some commentators have questioned the political aspect of the self-empowerment of shooting.[7]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Appleseed

    There have been over 100,000 citizens that have gone through this program. People who not only own a rifle but can effectively engage targets out to 400 yards. People who have basically created their Designated Marksman rifle when SHTF.

    http://looserounds.com/2015/01/24/how-does-the-designated-marksman-concept-apply-to-the-prepared-civilian/

    “In practice, the Designated Marksman concept revolves around additional training more so than additional equipment. Sure the different branches have “accurized” versions of DMR style rifles such as the SAM-R, Mark 12 SPR, and the SDM-R, but they all accomplish the same goal: enable an individual soldier with additional marksmanship training to better engage targets at intermediate ranges. So how does this apply to the prepared civilian? Can any rifle function as a DMR? Can a civilian shooter ever take advantage of a long shot? The first part of this series will define the gun. Hint: It’s not that special.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Well, maybe we are derailing the thread a bit but, that you posted is impressive.

    I must say, Americans can really disappoint a lot, but, well, they can really impress a lot too.
    The land of extremes a?
    No wonder people look up to them.OK...some people. Minority on this Web site.

    You know, you try something like that in plenty of countries around the world you get imprisoned in a second for a long time.
    Impressive, really.

    Don't get me wrong, but, I do have sort of opinion.

    Have those guys thought about extending that project into re-enacting?

    Nothing spectacular, say, "Bastogne", for example.
    Like, a weak platoon of besieged US Paras being attacked by a reinforced company of bad, bad (mechanized) Nazis?

    That would, sort of, complete the thing.

    Just a thought.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Loveofknowledge
    I totally agree. I have a 3-inch barrel Ruger SP-101 revolver and I think it's the perfect civilian self-defense tool.

    It's a bit bigger and heavier that a tiny "snubnose" revolver which makes it easier and more comfortable to shoot, but it's also not too big that you can't carry it if you need to. I have a permit but basically never carry, I like having the option.

    It will fire .357 magnum but I just keep it loaded with .38 special +P. It's not horrible firing magnums, because of the extra weight of the gun, but it's still a bit much.

    I actually personally know a guy who used a semi-auto handgun in self-defense against a home invasion and it didn't fire. He kept it unloaded with a full magazine next to it, and in the heat of the moment he just put the magazine in but forgot to rack the slide. He pointed it at the intruder and pulled the trigger but it just went "click".

    It worked out ok for him anyway though, the intruder still ran away.

    I recall an article in the New York Times in the 1990s where an engineer and his daughter were victims of an attempted robbery in an elevator. The engineer was killed because his Walther pistol, presumably a PPK was being carried UNCHAMBERED, even though he could have safely carried it chambered due to it’s DA/SA system of operation.

    Someone made the apropos comment that “he was educated beyond his intelligence.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. peterAUS says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Yes, per you and TG in comment ten, we favor a shotgun for home defense. That’s in reliance on the advice of people who are much more knowledgeable and experienced with guns than my wife and I — including a retired military officer who’s a great shot, and a former instructor of a firearms self-defense class.

    Unlike us, our kids will learn safe, responsible, effective handling of both handguns and shotguns while they are growing up. We expect this country to become a lot more dangerous, and not just here in California, so sadly it’s more important to be prepared in this regard than when I was a kid.

    in reliance on the advice of people who are much more knowledgeable and experienced with guns than my wife and I — including a retired military officer who’s a great shot, and a former instructor of a firearms self-defense class.

    Nice.

    Re instructor, ideally, it would be, related to

    fighting door to door in Fallujah

    from the post below, a former LEO with considerable experience not only with firearms and such, but the legal process after a self-defense event.

    Even more important, IMHO, an experienced former LEO would be able to give an invaluable insight into the mindset/mode of operation of a potential threat.

    Ex-military, most of the time, do lack that particular element. Even former MPs actually didn’t work with civilian perps in local environment.
    Ex-cop from LA,for example, running self-defense course in the same city, does have that advantage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Chris Mallory
    For under $50 you can pick up a set of electronic ear muffs. Lets you hear quiet noises, some even amplify quiet sounds. They also muffle the sound of loud noises. Keep a set at your bedroom door. Easier to wear than plugs and if you don't have time to turn them on, they still work to dampen the gunshot.

    Massad Ayoob states he has a flashlight, electronic muffs and body armor for bedroom use. That’s preparedness!

    Read More
    • Replies: @nsa
    Ayoob is a 5' tall part time small town cop who for 30 years has been making a living by consulting, performing as an expert witness at civilian shooting trials, and scribbling $300 articles for gun rags like Guns & Ammo and American Handgunner. He recommends: 1) if unarmed and being mugged, give the perp whatever he wants and hope you don't take a beatdown, 2) if armed, toss a $20 bill on the ground and start to back up, 3) avoid shooting anyone at all costs as this kind of event has ramifications far beyond the cops and courts, even if the shooting is "righteous". One of you budding Wyatt Earps offs the neighbor's worthless drug addled kid in a late night burglary....you will end up having to move at a minimum.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. peterAUS says:
    @Joe Stalin
    Well, in fact Americans did invent a program to arm and train civilian militia:

    The Civilian Markmanship Program, created by the US Congress:

    http://thecmp.org/

    The US government will sell a citizen a combat rifle to train with.

    but there is now a broad private initiative to train US citizens in the use of semi-automatic rifles like AR-10s and AR-15s: Project Appleseed. (RWVA.org)

    "Project Appleseed is an apolitical[1] rifle marksmanship training program that focuses on teaching traditional rifle marksmanship from standing, sitting/kneeling, and prone positions over a two-day weekend shooting clinic for what is termed an "Appleseed". It is one of the major activities of The Revolutionary War Veterans Association (RWVA), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that teaches and promotes traditional rifle marksmanship, while also teaching American heritage and history with the intent of encouraging people to become active civically.[2][3][4]

    In addition to Project Appleseed, there is also a companion subsidiary activity conducted within the RWVA called "Liberty Seed" that is the American heritage and history portion of Project Appleseed. "Liberty Seed" has been termed a "civics class in disguise", and features content on the "Three Strikes" that were needed to start the American Revolutionary War.[2]

    The emphasis on teaching traditional rifle marksmanship within Project Appleseed centers around traditional rifle marksmanship techniques using a rifle sling coupled with a concept termed "natural point of aim" (NPOA). Project Appleseed uses reduced size scaled silhouette targets that enable a shooter to assess their effective range with their rifle using a reduced length shooting range only 25 meters (82 feet) long, while simulating firing at full size targets at ranges up to 400 yards.[5]

    As part of teaching traditional rifleman marksmanship skills, Project Appleseed also teaches the rifleman's cadence. This consists of learning to fire at respiratory pauses every 3–4 seconds, shooting in synchronicity with one's natural rhythm of breathing thereby enabling improving one's marksmanship.[6]

    Some commentators have questioned the political aspect of the self-empowerment of shooting.[7]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Appleseed

    There have been over 100,000 citizens that have gone through this program. People who not only own a rifle but can effectively engage targets out to 400 yards. People who have basically created their Designated Marksman rifle when SHTF.

    http://looserounds.com/2015/01/24/how-does-the-designated-marksman-concept-apply-to-the-prepared-civilian/

    "In practice, the Designated Marksman concept revolves around additional training more so than additional equipment. Sure the different branches have “accurized” versions of DMR style rifles such as the SAM-R, Mark 12 SPR, and the SDM-R, but they all accomplish the same goal: enable an individual soldier with additional marksmanship training to better engage targets at intermediate ranges. So how does this apply to the prepared civilian? Can any rifle function as a DMR? Can a civilian shooter ever take advantage of a long shot? The first part of this series will define the gun. Hint: It’s not that special.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJqx0qfPWlg

    Well, maybe we are derailing the thread a bit but, that you posted is impressive.

    I must say, Americans can really disappoint a lot, but, well, they can really impress a lot too.
    The land of extremes a?
    No wonder people look up to them.OK…some people. Minority on this Web site.

    You know, you try something like that in plenty of countries around the world you get imprisoned in a second for a long time.
    Impressive, really.

    Don’t get me wrong, but, I do have sort of opinion.

    Have those guys thought about extending that project into re-enacting?

    Nothing spectacular, say, “Bastogne”, for example.
    Like, a weak platoon of besieged US Paras being attacked by a reinforced company of bad, bad (mechanized) Nazis?

    That would, sort of, complete the thing.

    Just a thought.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    There is a Canadian counterpart for USA's Project Appleseed:

    https://mapleseedrifleman.com/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. , a former LEO with considerable experience not only with firearms

    You do realize that the average cop knows next to nothing about firearms and is a a horrible shot. Your average gun owner probably shoots more rounds a year than your average cop. Your typical cop knows very little about the law either, usually limited to “The law is what I say it is”.

    Petey, you know very little about anything. Maybe you should join the IDF and quit trolling the internet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    60 seconds Google search:

    https://www.usacarry.com/top-10-things-you-should-look-for-in-a-firearms-instructor/
    https://www.defensivestrategies.org/blog/why-you-want-to-choose-your-firearm-instructor-wisely
    https://www.thegunwriter.com/23206/guest-column-buying-gun-101/
    , @pyrrhus
    Well said.. Australians, having allowed themselves to be gelded by their government, love to give advice to Americans on subjects about which Australians know absolutely nothing.
    , @Alden
    You are right that the average cop is not an expert. Many only go to the range to qualify once a year. Their gun is just a tool if their trade. But unlike other people who use their tools all day long, cops seldom or never use their guns

    But there are many officers who are experts. Many southern and western cops come from generations of hunting and gun owning families

    Most departments have all sorts of shooting contests

    So some officers only shoot once a year, but others are experts with handguns at least.

    The thing is, police aren’t defensive. They are offensive and come from a position of power. In robbery home invasions etc, the criminals are offensive. So I really don’t know if police know much about defense.

    Most PD defense courses consist of give it up keep your mouth shut do what the robber says and get it over with and you’ll survive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. TT says:
    @RadicalCenter
    See your point, but as to the specific example of Switzerland, are we confident that it will not become Muslim and African like the rest of western and Central Europe?

    Anywa, the Swiss have pretty good gun rights still, right? Someone living even in beautiful Switzerland would be wise to keep a few guns on hand for defense of home and family just like the rest of us. More so IF the population becomes less civilized and more aggressive & hostile a la Germany, France, Sweden, Etc.

    Switzerland has very professional army, they can defense very well. I read that all their reserved is abled to keep their military gears with weapons at home. Swiss people are sane, you never hear any mass shooting. Its not in EU, they won’t be stupid or forced to let in terrorists enmass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. peterAUS says:
    @Chris Mallory

    , a former LEO with considerable experience not only with firearms
     
    You do realize that the average cop knows next to nothing about firearms and is a a horrible shot. Your average gun owner probably shoots more rounds a year than your average cop. Your typical cop knows very little about the law either, usually limited to "The law is what I say it is".

    Petey, you know very little about anything. Maybe you should join the IDF and quit trolling the internet.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    Gee Pety, you can cut and paste URLs for people trying to sell a service. I have over 40 years of handling firearms. I usually put a 1000 rounds downrange every month. I don't have much need of listening to some tatted bro in tac pants telling me how to shoot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. TT says:
    @RadicalCenter
    See your point, but as to the specific example of Switzerland, are we confident that it will not become Muslim and African like the rest of western and Central Europe?

    Anywa, the Swiss have pretty good gun rights still, right? Someone living even in beautiful Switzerland would be wise to keep a few guns on hand for defense of home and family just like the rest of us. More so IF the population becomes less civilized and more aggressive & hostile a la Germany, France, Sweden, Etc.

    I was contemplating to get a pistol and rifle when i moved to Australia decades ago. I stay at safe upper class area, but police can only come after 1hr, so i prefer to fend off druggie breakin myself to defend my family(gun law is another matter).

    I am military trained, shooting isn’t too difficult. But i gave up altogether, its insane to kill someone in any name. So i moved on to a safe country that i no need a gun at all. If you aren’t rich enough to live in safe estate, any place in Switzerland is better than US imo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @peterAUS
    Well, maybe we are derailing the thread a bit but, that you posted is impressive.

    I must say, Americans can really disappoint a lot, but, well, they can really impress a lot too.
    The land of extremes a?
    No wonder people look up to them.OK...some people. Minority on this Web site.

    You know, you try something like that in plenty of countries around the world you get imprisoned in a second for a long time.
    Impressive, really.

    Don't get me wrong, but, I do have sort of opinion.

    Have those guys thought about extending that project into re-enacting?

    Nothing spectacular, say, "Bastogne", for example.
    Like, a weak platoon of besieged US Paras being attacked by a reinforced company of bad, bad (mechanized) Nazis?

    That would, sort of, complete the thing.

    Just a thought.

    There is a Canadian counterpart for USA’s Project Appleseed:

    https://mapleseedrifleman.com/

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Very nice.

    From the site:

    SIX STEPS OF FIRING THE SHOT

    ....Follow Through
    HOLD THE TRIGGER BACK, and TAKE A MENTAL “SNAPSHOT”.
     
    Nice.

    And this

    ...being able to put all shots into a 20 inch target at 500 yards. ....

     

    very nice.

    Impressive really.

    Thanks for sharing this info.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. peterAUS says:
    @Joe Stalin
    There is a Canadian counterpart for USA's Project Appleseed:

    https://mapleseedrifleman.com/

    Very nice.

    From the site:

    SIX STEPS OF FIRING THE SHOT

    ….Follow Through
    HOLD THE TRIGGER BACK, and TAKE A MENTAL “SNAPSHOT”.

    Nice.

    And this

    …being able to put all shots into a 20 inch target at 500 yards. ….

    very nice.

    Impressive really.

    Thanks for sharing this info.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @peterAUS
    60 seconds Google search:

    https://www.usacarry.com/top-10-things-you-should-look-for-in-a-firearms-instructor/
    https://www.defensivestrategies.org/blog/why-you-want-to-choose-your-firearm-instructor-wisely
    https://www.thegunwriter.com/23206/guest-column-buying-gun-101/

    Gee Pety, you can cut and paste URLs for people trying to sell a service. I have over 40 years of handling firearms. I usually put a 1000 rounds downrange every month. I don’t have much need of listening to some tatted bro in tac pants telling me how to shoot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    You know, maybe I was wrong in judging you here.
    Shame on me.

    With all that expertise you apparently have, would you care to share your wisdom here for newbies sake?

    A couple of paragraphs if possible.

    Scenario:
    Say, a mid thirties white female, single, 5.1, 55 kgs, small hands...petite all over. Intelligent, educated, office worker. Short sighted, contacts. Concerned about neighborhood getting bad. Asks YOU about armed self-defense...rapists (plural) threat in particular. Gang rape happened to a friend of hers recently around. Breaking, entering, rape......

    What would you tell her?

    Please.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. peterAUS says:

    I have over 40 years of handling firearms. I usually put a 1000 rounds downrange every month. I don’t have much need of listening to some tatted bro in tac pants telling me how to shoot.

    Maybe.

    You definitely have exactly the attitude newbies are well advised to avoid, at any cost.

    From the fist link:

    5. Are they friendly, open-minded and non-militaristic?

    If you’re like me, I know you’ve come across this type of instructor: The one who says “this is my way and there’s no other way to do it.” Or the instructor who finds it necessary to intimidate people to stroke his own ego. If you haven’t come across these folks just visit your local gun shop, as many of these types work there. When looking for an instructor you want someone who is humble and willing to learn from others and take their advice, as well as share their own wisdom.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. peterAUS says:
    @Chris Mallory
    Gee Pety, you can cut and paste URLs for people trying to sell a service. I have over 40 years of handling firearms. I usually put a 1000 rounds downrange every month. I don't have much need of listening to some tatted bro in tac pants telling me how to shoot.

    You know, maybe I was wrong in judging you here.
    Shame on me.

    With all that expertise you apparently have, would you care to share your wisdom here for newbies sake?

    A couple of paragraphs if possible.

    Scenario:
    Say, a mid thirties white female, single, 5.1, 55 kgs, small hands…petite all over. Intelligent, educated, office worker. Short sighted, contacts. Concerned about neighborhood getting bad. Asks YOU about armed self-defense…rapists (plural) threat in particular. Gang rape happened to a friend of hers recently around. Breaking, entering, rape……

    What would you tell her?

    Please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    And, to be fair and balanced, blah, blah..... this is what I'd tell her:

    "You know, I don't think I am the right person to advise you on that.
    Armed civilian self-defense is a bit more complicated than guns, shooting, tactics and such. There is much, much more to that, especially for a person like you.
    If you want, I will try to find you a good instructor and we can go and visit him together. If you feel he could deliver, we could make a decision together and you go from there."

    Now, if she really wants me to do that I'd do my best, knowing it wouldn't be quite the best in her case and legal advice in particular, I'd really ask her to seek somewhere else.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. peterAUS says:
    @peterAUS
    You know, maybe I was wrong in judging you here.
    Shame on me.

    With all that expertise you apparently have, would you care to share your wisdom here for newbies sake?

    A couple of paragraphs if possible.

    Scenario:
    Say, a mid thirties white female, single, 5.1, 55 kgs, small hands...petite all over. Intelligent, educated, office worker. Short sighted, contacts. Concerned about neighborhood getting bad. Asks YOU about armed self-defense...rapists (plural) threat in particular. Gang rape happened to a friend of hers recently around. Breaking, entering, rape......

    What would you tell her?

    Please.

    And, to be fair and balanced, blah, blah….. this is what I’d tell her:

    “You know, I don’t think I am the right person to advise you on that.
    Armed civilian self-defense is a bit more complicated than guns, shooting, tactics and such. There is much, much more to that, especially for a person like you.
    If you want, I will try to find you a good instructor and we can go and visit him together. If you feel he could deliver, we could make a decision together and you go from there.”

    Now, if she really wants me to do that I’d do my best, knowing it wouldn’t be quite the best in her case and legal advice in particular, I’d really ask her to seek somewhere else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    1) Unless she is a government employee not in the military she is a citizen, not a civilian.
    2) If rape gangs are an issue, move. Avoiding the fight is always better than fighting. Your mama and daddy will gladly take you back in for your own safety.
    3) Get a dog. Crooks don't like barking dogs, no matter the size.
    4) Shoot several different kinds of firearms. Find the one you like and that you shoot well. There is no cookie cutter answer to what is the best gun for you.
    5) Shoot often, practice.
    6) Don't hang out with Petey. He is a known member of rape gangs.
    7) Most instances of firearm self defense never result in the weapon being fired. The mere sight of the weapon is enough to make most thugs run. Unless it is personal, most don't consider it worth getting shot.
    8) Tactics are situational.
    9) Have good locks on your doors.
    10) The #1 thing I have taught my daughter, "DON"T BE A DUMBASS!" Life is much harder if you are stupid.


    You know Pety, I have never heard of an armed woman being gang raped. Gang rape is not that common in the US. Maybe in your country, where arms are very limited it is more prevalent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. “Like, a weak platoon of besieged US Paras being attacked by a reinforced company of bad, bad (mechanized) Nazis?”

    We actually have stuff like that in America. There was a WW 2 reenactment at an airport outside Chicago years ago where I actually saw a genuine Škoda/Praga Lt vz.38, or Panzer 38(t) tank on display.

    I know, how would us dumb Yanks deal with that in an internal civil war? One advantage of having a large smallarms industry is that smokeless powder is available to citizens over-the-counter in one pound cans. In addition to smokeless powder being a low explosive, smokeless powder is also a High Explosive. That means you can construct shaped charges to create armor piercing weapons using blasting caps. America. F Yeah.

    http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/nitro.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Thread derail warning again; 2nd related.

    I know, how would us dumb Yanks deal with that in an internal civil war?
     
    BANG!

    Well, I guess that both of us know that we can't, or better, shouldn't talk about that here. Or anywhere in public. Call me paranoid but, better be safe than sorry.

    Not only it could attract unwanted attention from authorities but we really don't want to train, say, "ragheads" here. I could be stupid but I am not irresponsible. Or at least I am trying not to be.

    Having said that, there is a proven methodology how to do that. I guess I could write a couple of pages about that, but, of course, won't.

    Where there is a will there is a way. Especially when people wanting to do that are intelligent and educated locals. There is amazing expertise in civilian life so easily transferred into "militia". And it's not just "tough guys with guns". Actually, in real serious conflict such guys are just .......say....security details.....for really important people. Tradesmen (certain trades), scientists (certain sciences), hobbyists (certain again) etc...etc....Even common management could be invaluable in all that because ORGANIZING all that is of utmost importance.

    Actually, a smart "militiaman in waiting" would be well advised to carefully study cases around the world when such things happened.
    The latest wealth of information could be, with some effort, picked up from Donbass militias, especially from the very beginning of the conflict.
    There were some very smooth and neat tricks locals pulled over there to face, say, a combined arms adversary just with local resources.

    There, (un)fortunately, we often come to that "American exceptionalism".
    Such experiences are deemed, most of the time, worthless.

    I personally find that idiotic, but, free will is what a man is all about.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. peterAUS says:
    @Joe Stalin
    "Like, a weak platoon of besieged US Paras being attacked by a reinforced company of bad, bad (mechanized) Nazis?"

    We actually have stuff like that in America. There was a WW 2 reenactment at an airport outside Chicago years ago where I actually saw a genuine Škoda/Praga Lt vz.38, or Panzer 38(t) tank on display.

    I know, how would us dumb Yanks deal with that in an internal civil war? One advantage of having a large smallarms industry is that smokeless powder is available to citizens over-the-counter in one pound cans. In addition to smokeless powder being a low explosive, smokeless powder is also a High Explosive. That means you can construct shaped charges to create armor piercing weapons using blasting caps. America. F Yeah.

    http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/nitro.html

    Thread derail warning again; 2nd related.

    I know, how would us dumb Yanks deal with that in an internal civil war?

    BANG!

    Well, I guess that both of us know that we can’t, or better, shouldn’t talk about that here. Or anywhere in public. Call me paranoid but, better be safe than sorry.

    Not only it could attract unwanted attention from authorities but we really don’t want to train, say, “ragheads” here. I could be stupid but I am not irresponsible. Or at least I am trying not to be.

    Having said that, there is a proven methodology how to do that. I guess I could write a couple of pages about that, but, of course, won’t.

    Where there is a will there is a way. Especially when people wanting to do that are intelligent and educated locals. There is amazing expertise in civilian life so easily transferred into “militia”. And it’s not just “tough guys with guns”. Actually, in real serious conflict such guys are just …….say….security details…..for really important people. Tradesmen (certain trades), scientists (certain sciences), hobbyists (certain again) etc…etc….Even common management could be invaluable in all that because ORGANIZING all that is of utmost importance.

    Actually, a smart “militiaman in waiting” would be well advised to carefully study cases around the world when such things happened.
    The latest wealth of information could be, with some effort, picked up from Donbass militias, especially from the very beginning of the conflict.
    There were some very smooth and neat tricks locals pulled over there to face, say, a combined arms adversary just with local resources.

    There, (un)fortunately, we often come to that “American exceptionalism”.
    Such experiences are deemed, most of the time, worthless.

    I personally find that idiotic, but, free will is what a man is all about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    That's the difference between the USA and Australia. It's our right to talk about stuff like that, and we do. The first rifle in our household was a mail order Lee Enfield .303 in the 1960s. Australia will jail you for having a computer program to print 3-D guns. Australia has laws against having body armor to protect yourself. (So does the People's Republic of Massachusetts, unfortunately.)

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/3d-printed-guns-and-regulation/8388672

    In America, Cabelas advertises "tactical gear" in Chicago radio ads (They are NOT a "cop shop" so those were aimed at the normal American.). DSA and FN advertise advertise assault rifles and handguns on radio. Wal-Mart had a Thanksgiving Black Friday ad a couple of years ago that had a Sig AR. I can go to on the internet and order Gen 3 night vision riflescopes, thermal imaging weaponsights, smallarms ammunition and body armor and have them delivered to my door. No questions asked.

    We trust ourselves as Citizens. We trust ourselves as civilian militia.

    America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Miro23 says:
    @peterAUS
    Thread derail warning!

    It’s about abuse of the state. The last time you guys tried that failed in 1866.”

    Try 1946:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29
     

    Not bad.

    Still, my point stays say, 70/30.

    While the power that be WAS successfully challenged by armed citizens it was at town/county level.
    Not exactly a state.
    The weapons involved, from the authority side, were equal to the weapons of the armed citizens. If we really want to be picky the issue was resolved not even by firearms but (improvised) satchel charges (effectively industrial explosive).

    The powers that be didn't deploy full power of the state, National Guard.
    THAT would've been interesting to watch.
    And, then, the Federal Government, with federal troops.

    As I just posted in a different article comments:
    It’s not about numbers, it’s about organization and hardware.
    One armed citizen can easily take on a soldier.
    Ten armed citizens can take on a squad. (with a SMAW or similar)
    160 armed citizens will have a hard time taking on a company.(with mortars)
    800 armed citizens will lose, most of the time, against a battalion.(with machineguns on tripods, heavy mortars and AT, guided, missiles).
    3000 armed citizens will lose almost all the time, against a brigade.(with cannon and howitzer).
    15000 armed citizens will lose all the time against a corps.(with MRLS etc).
    And all that even excluding armor and air power, helicopter gunships in particular.

    So, while 2nd does give US citizens legal access to decent firearms it can't be compared to (not quite legal) access to military grade hardware in certain countries of this world.
    Bottom line, combination of not having access to military grade hardware plus inability to organize and train at certain level make the very point of 2nd (fight against abuse of the power of the state) rather moot.

    Now, I do concede that having access to all that weaponry as we speak, with, more importantly, being proficient in using them, with ease to organize, say, a militia up to level of platoon in a couple of hours in necessary, give US citizens big edge compared to most countries of this world.

    Say, "gun fans" in USA could be, if needed, a first class militia in a blink.
    The catch is.....the opposition is also a first class.

    In practical terms, a small town somewhere in Red States could organize self-defense against any Third World military in a week and resist, likely, for a couple of weeks, even a month. Quite a feat I admit.
    You get US Army brigade combat team at the other hand, well, I'd give the defenders 48 hours tops.

    Now....truly SHTF scenario when military starts to disintegrate is, probably, a scenario when that could work, but that's in distant future if ever.

    Back to the article.
    2nd does give weak a chance to have a big equalizer; 5.5 granny with a .38 can defend herself against a vicious intruder. Most of countries of this world can't offer that.
    The catch is....the intruder can also get a firearm easy. Serious criminals can get automatic weapons and ballistic vests. Even more importantly, without any desire to denigrate vets, a lot of criminals can have previous military, even LEO, experience. Even more of a catch: ex-military have exactly the experience to take out armed civilians; COIN since 2001 has given them exactly that skillset and experience. Ex-LEO even more.

    There are countries where an average citizen can't have a firearm. Well, he/she can have a well trained dog because a potential threat also has a hard time getting a firearm.
    Those a bit more "physical" can have a blunt/edged weapon close at hand all the time. The intruder(s) won't have anything stronger either. A smart person can make, literally, home a castle of a sort, especially against an average punk.

    As pointed out several times here:
    The purchase of a firearm should start with honest appraisal of WHAT the firearm is really for. WHO is a potential threat.
    Then,WHO is a person who is going to get involved in that self-defense.
    And, really, all those questions and more are best answered by a competent instructor. Plenty of them in USA.

    Simple advice for an interested reader: forget the article, forget all these comments: get a good instructor and go from there.

    As I just posted in a different article comments:

    It’s not about numbers, it’s about organization and hardware.
    One armed citizen can easily take on a soldier.
    Ten armed citizens can take on a squad. (with a SMAW or similar)
    160 armed citizens will have a hard time taking on a company.(with mortars)
    800 armed citizens will lose, most of the time, against a battalion.(with machineguns on tripods, heavy mortars and AT, guided, missiles).
    3000 armed citizens will lose almost all the time, against a brigade.(with cannon and howitzer).
    15000 armed citizens will lose all the time against a corps.(with MRLS etc).
    And all that even excluding armor and air power, helicopter gunships in particular.

    How about 3.000.000 armed citizens? ( less than 1% of the US population).

    And how would the US military feel about destroying their own towns and families?

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I read an article, I cannot remember which, that suggested that one of the reasons why citizenship was being offered in return for military service was to encourage foreigners to enlist and that they would feel no special connection to American traditions or its people and would simply obey orders. I wonder if anyone can add to that?
    , @peterAUS
    Questions felt sincere so tried to reply.
    Gave up.

    That's what I call "civilian question".
    The proper answer requires a perceived scenario.

    One keyword: ORGANIZATION.

    I believe the first question is meaningless.
    Can't imagine such scenario.
    I could imagine, at most, a county declaring something of an independence and Administration going for restoring own authority.

    Based on that the second question is complicated and requires a serious post. We can not have such posts here.
    If you are really interested think "magnitude/scale" and go from there. I, personally, believe that it wouldn't be a problem for US Administration. Military will execute the order.

    Everything more than that, organized (say a state or group of states declaring independence), would not look as citizens armed per 2nd. That would be next level and not relevant to the topic.

    A scenario where there is total breakup of law and order in, say, several states and military, still ORGANIZED (the key) is tasked to, say, disarm all civilians there, no problem at all. 1 000 000 armed civilians in small groups against an organized US military effort.....a joke.
    It wouldn't even be much of a fighting. People are not that stupid.

    , @jilles dykstra
    There seem to be more guns in the USA than citizens.
    I suppose therefore the militarised police, armour piercing, thus wall piercing, ammo, and armored personnel carriers.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Militia's and federal troops never, or hardly ever, hesitated to break up demonstrations and strikes.
    FDR sent federal troops often to break up strikes, many times with casualties.
    , @pyrrhus
    Taking on the military directly is insane. Fourth generation (guerilla) warfare is effective by cutting supply lines and harassing the authorities and collaborators. Plus some hit and run attacks and sniping...think Viet Nam.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. No sidearm will defend against proactive, authorities-encouraged, government-sanctioned, genocidal rapid-fire assault and home invasion.

    Rules-based, law-abiding, society-approved, reactive, one-on-one ‘gentlemanly’ deployment of defensive lethal force is not the destiny of America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. Alden says:
    @dkshaw
    I fired a .357 at an outdoor range having forgotten to insert my ear plugs. I can not imagine what that would be like in an enclosed space. It deafened me for a couple minutes. Never ever forgot my hearing protection again. I sure hope those home intruders will give me a half a minute or so to put my ear plugs in.

    The noise will scare the intruders as much as it does you

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Biff says:

    1) Those who are willing to defend themselves or others until the law enforcement officers show up.

    Bwaahh! Good one.
    Where I’m from in Colorado, if you are taken hostage by a criminal you are 50% more likely to be shot by law enforcement than by your hostage taker(remember when to duck).

    The cops in the U.S. are the most trigger happy people on the planet with no regard to some of the most basic fundamental safety issues there are: know your target, and what is behind your target.
    Bang, bang, bang. “I feared for my safety”
    Case closed(never mind the dead people).

    Yea, I got plenty of guns – really big ones, but I still feel defenseless against the career criminals – they simply just out number you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  112. @Miro23

    As I just posted in a different article comments:

    It’s not about numbers, it’s about organization and hardware.
    One armed citizen can easily take on a soldier.
    Ten armed citizens can take on a squad. (with a SMAW or similar)
    160 armed citizens will have a hard time taking on a company.(with mortars)
    800 armed citizens will lose, most of the time, against a battalion.(with machineguns on tripods, heavy mortars and AT, guided, missiles).
    3000 armed citizens will lose almost all the time, against a brigade.(with cannon and howitzer).
    15000 armed citizens will lose all the time against a corps.(with MRLS etc).
    And all that even excluding armor and air power, helicopter gunships in particular.
     
    How about 3.000.000 armed citizens? ( less than 1% of the US population).

    And how would the US military feel about destroying their own towns and families?

    I read an article, I cannot remember which, that suggested that one of the reasons why citizenship was being offered in return for military service was to encourage foreigners to enlist and that they would feel no special connection to American traditions or its people and would simply obey orders. I wonder if anyone can add to that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    I’ve read that too. I think it’s just to get more cannon fodder and support troops for our endless wars.

    We’re running out of Whites. Too many blacks, 40 % have IQs below 80. But Mexico has a huge supply of 90 + IQ young guys for whom enlisting especially for support rather than combat is a great deal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. peterAUS says:
    @Miro23

    As I just posted in a different article comments:

    It’s not about numbers, it’s about organization and hardware.
    One armed citizen can easily take on a soldier.
    Ten armed citizens can take on a squad. (with a SMAW or similar)
    160 armed citizens will have a hard time taking on a company.(with mortars)
    800 armed citizens will lose, most of the time, against a battalion.(with machineguns on tripods, heavy mortars and AT, guided, missiles).
    3000 armed citizens will lose almost all the time, against a brigade.(with cannon and howitzer).
    15000 armed citizens will lose all the time against a corps.(with MRLS etc).
    And all that even excluding armor and air power, helicopter gunships in particular.
     
    How about 3.000.000 armed citizens? ( less than 1% of the US population).

    And how would the US military feel about destroying their own towns and families?

    Questions felt sincere so tried to reply.
    Gave up.

    That’s what I call “civilian question”.
    The proper answer requires a perceived scenario.

    One keyword: ORGANIZATION.

    I believe the first question is meaningless.
    Can’t imagine such scenario.
    I could imagine, at most, a county declaring something of an independence and Administration going for restoring own authority.

    Based on that the second question is complicated and requires a serious post. We can not have such posts here.
    If you are really interested think “magnitude/scale” and go from there. I, personally, believe that it wouldn’t be a problem for US Administration. Military will execute the order.

    Everything more than that, organized (say a state or group of states declaring independence), would not look as citizens armed per 2nd. That would be next level and not relevant to the topic.

    A scenario where there is total breakup of law and order in, say, several states and military, still ORGANIZED (the key) is tasked to, say, disarm all civilians there, no problem at all. 1 000 000 armed civilians in small groups against an organized US military effort…..a joke.
    It wouldn’t even be much of a fighting. People are not that stupid.

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Dirk Manley

    "1 000 000 armed civilians in small groups against an organized US military effort…..a joke."
     
    You've obviously never been to Iraq. circa 2003-2010.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. SOL says:

    “Cops are duty bound to immediately intervene. ”

    No, not in the US?

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    Cops don't have to do anything in the US, and the Supreme Court has ruled that they can't be sued even for failing to stop your murder....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Living in Europe where you need a licence to own a gun, any gun, an amazing article.
    If I were to apply for a licence, I would not get it.
    But indeed, since the EU open borders, we have a lot more shooting, often Kalashnikovs smuggled from Balkan countries.
    There is no defence against a planned Kalashnikov murder, as we see here.
    They’re cheap, it seems, around € 150.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. @Miro23

    As I just posted in a different article comments:

    It’s not about numbers, it’s about organization and hardware.
    One armed citizen can easily take on a soldier.
    Ten armed citizens can take on a squad. (with a SMAW or similar)
    160 armed citizens will have a hard time taking on a company.(with mortars)
    800 armed citizens will lose, most of the time, against a battalion.(with machineguns on tripods, heavy mortars and AT, guided, missiles).
    3000 armed citizens will lose almost all the time, against a brigade.(with cannon and howitzer).
    15000 armed citizens will lose all the time against a corps.(with MRLS etc).
    And all that even excluding armor and air power, helicopter gunships in particular.
     
    How about 3.000.000 armed citizens? ( less than 1% of the US population).

    And how would the US military feel about destroying their own towns and families?

    There seem to be more guns in the USA than citizens.
    I suppose therefore the militarised police, armour piercing, thus wall piercing, ammo, and armored personnel carriers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avalanche-the-second
    No. The problem is NOT gunowners! If we were (oh, dear God, if ONLY we were able!) to get the damned negros and hispanics (and moslems) OUT of the U.S., our "gun violence" rate would drop to the FOURTH LOWEST ON THE PLANET!! There are more guns than citizens; and the smart citizens are loading up, because the cops CANNOT be there in time -- and the idiot-liberals who've had the run of the place lo these many years, have imported many hundreds of thousands of savages.

    The militarized police are globalist preparation for the oncoming race war! The damned subverted treasonous govt and lefties and globalists have imported all these horrifically violent freeloaders -- and the free ride is about to disappear! Arm up, ammo up, and lift!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Miro23

    As I just posted in a different article comments:

    It’s not about numbers, it’s about organization and hardware.
    One armed citizen can easily take on a soldier.
    Ten armed citizens can take on a squad. (with a SMAW or similar)
    160 armed citizens will have a hard time taking on a company.(with mortars)
    800 armed citizens will lose, most of the time, against a battalion.(with machineguns on tripods, heavy mortars and AT, guided, missiles).
    3000 armed citizens will lose almost all the time, against a brigade.(with cannon and howitzer).
    15000 armed citizens will lose all the time against a corps.(with MRLS etc).
    And all that even excluding armor and air power, helicopter gunships in particular.
     
    How about 3.000.000 armed citizens? ( less than 1% of the US population).

    And how would the US military feel about destroying their own towns and families?

    Militia’s and federal troops never, or hardly ever, hesitated to break up demonstrations and strikes.
    FDR sent federal troops often to break up strikes, many times with casualties.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. map says:

    For a new shooter, I do not thing Saker’s advice is very good.

    The decision for a self-defense weapon should start out with the round you want to fire. In general, the round should not be smaller than a 9mm and, really, does not need to be bigger than a 9mm. Keep in mind, .38, .357, 380, and 9mm are all pretty much the same size, so focusing on the 9mm as your “reference” round won’t make you under-gunned.

    That said, the .38 and the 380 are under-powered. The .357 is over-powered. You run a .357 in a scandium or small-frame revolver, and you will experience punishing recoil. This will discourage practice using your new gun, so this kind of round is not recommended.

    The 9mm is a standard NATO round. It is available everywhere, being one of the most common calibers around. Choose 115 or 124 gr jacketed hollow-point, preferably firing the Barnes bullet. The Barnes bullet is a heavily expanding round that will dig into the body and not over-penetrate. You can see how these bullets perform at sites like LuckyGunner.com. Use Winchester White Box FMJ ammo to practice, since hollowpoint ammo is to costly to train with outside of a few rounds.

    Once you’ve selected the the proper collection of 9mm hollow-point and FMJ ammo, it’s time to select the gun through which to deliver the bullet. Here, guns are highly personal, but it is useful to start with a reference standard: the Glock 19 and it’s equivalents. These guns are big enough to fight with in a home-defense setting and they are small enough to carry concealed. They are fairly easy to manipulate, whether racking the slide or loading the magazines. It is a good gun to start with but most certainly sample as many pistols as you can get your hands on.

    You can get 9mm revolvers and I would certainly recommend you try those, but, in general, I would not recommend a revolver. They shoot harshly. The long 13-lb trigger pull means that you will end up shooting low and to your left. It’s an uncomfortable gun to practice with, especially in its polymer variants. Again, try things out, but you will need to filter out your choices.

    On the reliability of semi-autos vs. revolvers, both are so well-made nowadays that you would not need to worry about it. The revolver, however, is more complicated mechanically. The hammer and the cylinder are timed together, which means the cylinder has to align the bullet exactly to where the hammer needs to hit the primer. If it is off by a little bit, the gun will not fire. Complications reduce reliability. Again, see what you like.

    I do not recommend 1911′s or DA/SA pistols. 1911′s are not reliable unless you get an expensive gun, although they are the nicest shooters with the nicest triggers. The DA/SA’s have a heavy trigger pull on the first round, much like a revolver, with a light trigger on every subsequent round, so there is a greater chance of missing on the first shot. DA/SA’s also have a high “bore axis” meaning the height of the barrel from the trigger which detracts from shooting. Again, try them out, but they require more training to fire correctly. They are also larger and heavier because of the steel construction. The striker-fired pistols are usually the ones you want to start with.

    A few tips:

    1) Smaller guns are harder to shoot and handle, even though they are easier to conceal. Keep this in mind if you’re a woman. I would look at the S&W and Glock smaller-frame, single-stack pistols.

    2) I prefer proven designs that have been around awhile. Chiappos Rhinos look gimmicky and the ARX ammo design has not been field-tested. That looks like an over-penetrating round. Time will tell.

    3) Fanboys love Glocks because they are customizable. Grips, frames, barrels, triggers can all be modified. You can build Glocks out of kits and mix-and-match whatever features you want.

    4) 12-Gauge Shotguns in a bedroom or living room distance will take off the head and half the torso. You will turn your room into a biohazard.

    5) Rifles 30 caliber and above will penetrate a wall.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    1911′s are not reliable unless you get an expensive gun, although they are the nicest shooters with the nicest triggers.
     
    False. I have owned $400 1911's that ran 1000's of rounds with no failures. I currently carry a Ruger 1911 as my daily carry. No issues out of it at all. The expensive Kimbers and Colts I have owned did have problems.

    5) Rifles 30 caliber and above will penetrate a wall.
     
    The only round that will not penetrate multiple interior sheetrock walls is birdshot. Every other round will go through.
    Even frangible 5.56 will go through 8-10 sheets of sheetrock set up as framed walls 10 feet apart. 22LR will penetrate several sheets of sheetrock.
    Birdshot will go through one sheet and usually be stopped by the 2nd.

    Check out the Box O' Truth for their experiments on penetration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Jake Jackson
    I'd have a few quibbles. My credentials: Own 4 revolvers, 2 semi-auto pistols, 3 lever rifles, 2 semi-auto rifles, 1 shotgun. Have 3 carry permits, and have been trained. Frequent range practice, including the range on my back 40.

    1. It's not 90% of attacks stopped by merely showing a gun. It's 97%. That's a bigger difference than it might seem.

    2. I prefer a revolver for the nightstand because there's nothing to think about. If the gun comes from a quality manufacturer, it will ALWAYS work. Still, the article overstates the difficulty of semi-auto pistols. My winter-time carry gun, a FN Five-Seven, carries 20 very high velocity and quite lethal 5.7x28mm rounds. (The shooter at Ft. Hood, Texas used this gun to murder 9 people.) I carry with a round in the chamber and the safety on. Flick the lever, and you're good to go. I don't like the "safety-less" pistols, i.e. Glock, because of the possibility of mistaken discharge, as the author mentions.

    3. The article omits any mention of shotguns or rifles. They are ALWAYS more lethal than handguns -- FAR more so because the long barrels allow the projectiles to attain higher velocity. A 12- or 20-gauge shotgun is highly lethal, and the shot won't penetrate apartment walls. If, like me, you live in the country or in a single-family house well separated from neighbors, a rifle works very well too. My shotgun is an antique break-action that loads only one round, so my broom closet weapon is a Henry Big Boy in .357 magnum, with 10 rounds in the tube.

    You sure as hell do NOT want to be the tweaker who breaks into our house. My Henry rifle will come close to cutting you in half. My next purchase, a pump shotgun, will come even closer.

    4. Caliber is often discussed, heatedly. There is research (see the link in this post) that shows .22 to be a lot more lethal than most gunners realize. Make that .22 magnum, 45 grain "Critical Defense" from Hornady, and you're fine. More than fine in fact; .22WMR (aka magnum) is infamous in emergency rooms, because once the bullet enters the body it's anyone's guess where it bounces around.

    If not .22, then .357 magnum in a handgun or rifle is highly lethal. The issue with .357 magnum is recoil, so if that's your home defense choice in a revolver, you need a heavy, full-framed one. Mine is a Dan Wesson 715, but the Ruger GP-100 and S&W 686 are excellent. I like Dan Wesson for the swappability of barrels and superior overall quality.

    I have a Ruger LCR revolver in .357 magnum. It's my least favorite gun. Even with lighter .38 Special, the recoil is punishing. I'd recommend that LCR buyers get that firearm in either .22 WMR or .327 Federal, to reduce recoil and the flinching and inaccuracy that stout recoil tends to cause. Too many men equate recoil sensitivity to lack of masculinity, when in fact it's a reptile brain function only partly overcome by training.

    In any given caliber, felt recoil in a handgun is directly propotional to the gun's weight. (Chiappa's Rhino is a clever design that attempts to reduce recoil by slightly rechanneling it, but the recoil is still there.) This is why a 1-pound LCR revolver in .357 magnum is going to be a much tougher gun to fire accurately than a full-framed Dan Wesson, Ruger, S&W, or Taurus revolver, which weigh between 40 and 50 ounces unloaded. There is very little recoil from .22, either LR or WMR, and not much from the various .32 rounds. For someone who isn't an enthusiast, this is why I tend to point them toward .22WMR.

    5. Don't overlook the North American Arms mini revolvers. They weigh 6 ounces and are usually .22WMR, often with a .22LR cylinder included. They fit in a shirt pocket without showing, and have an ingenious and effective safety notch mechanism. The downside is that they are single-action only, and pretty much useless past about 20 feet. But most gun battles where shots are actually fired happen at shorter range. A 45-grain, Hornady Critical Defense .22WMR round shot from an NAA mini is quite likely to kill an attacker.

    I bought my NAA "Wasp" for comic relief. But after shooting a few hundred rounds out of it, I have gained a lot of respect for it. This is a very well-made firearm, and with practice you can be more accurate than you'd think. And, very importantly, they'll never see you coming. Not in my opinion a home defense weapon, but an excellent summer-time carry gun.

    This article at the link makes excellent reading regarding the caliber wars:

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

    I reviewed as much analytical-both Government and private-regarding guns as I could. I especially paid close attention to Masad Ayoob. From gel penetration freeze frames to shooting pig heads, and much more.

    An issue not discussed here is the energy that a bullet carries must be totally released inside the body of the shooter. If the bullet comes out the other side, energy and lethality are wasted and reduced. Over penetration does you no good.

    1. That’s why the .357 is not ideal. It has a small cross section with a lot of energy (=1/2mass X velocity squared). It is very fast. The small cross section makes a corresponding small hole. Law enforcement has sidelined it for good reason.

    2. The 9mm is simply a weak round. It also has a small cross section, is relatively fast, but real world results for a single shot are lacking. The selling point of the 9mm is the low recoil (think small hands and wrists of females), and thus gained wide acceptance with political considerations. Soldiers I’ve taken to want the .45.

    3. The .45 is a smacker. Large cross sectional area that makes a larger hole. Therefore it rips up soft tissue, breaks bones (and is less deflected by a hard object, such as a slanted windshield). It expends all of its energy in the body of the shootee. A .45 shot to the hip of a perp will most likely break the pelvic bone and cause the perp to rotate or tip forward. Thus the opportunity for a second shot. Those that have taken tactical training know that a first shot to the mid torso is the easiest. The natural recoil of the .45 means that you can fire the second shot immediately and hit the the upper torso, without aim, just on reflex.

    The second issue is scare ability. I have had to point my Sig Sauer double action .45 at a potential perp(s) several times with the hammer cocked and pointed directly at the POSs nose. That way, he can look down the barrel at the BIG HOLE and get an idea of what is coming at him. Try it yourself. Look down the barrel at the .45 and then lesser calibers.

    The .44 mag is not as effective as the .45. “With my .45, I can put two in you before you can shoot again” is how a retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant put it.

    4. The .22 is a joke for stupid people. If a squirrel is you adversary, then use it. “Shot placement” is likewise DOA. You must assume that you will be accosted, have barely enough time to squeeze one off, and that it should make a general shock and either slow down or shock the attacker. Even if it is in the arm or leg, a .45 will smack hard and cause significant damage, even breaking a leg bone.

    Most comments on defensive guns lack adequate logic and reason, are shallow, and are merely subjective preferences. Unfortunately.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    Your point about passing through soft tissue vs. hitting a bone and leaving all the momentum within the body cavity is the key issue in this whole debate about stopping power.

    The problem with this debate revolves (sorry) around, as you allude to, the issue of accuracy of a pistol fired by a frightened amateur in a stressful situation. The debate is irresolvable because the uncertainty of inherent accuracy exceeds the conditions of scientific debate on lethal characteristics of diverse rounds and loads. It's one of those precision vs. accuracy things. We can specify with great precision the characteristics of ballistics etc. but if we don't hit the right part of the target then all the calculations are in vain.

    Yes, we can mull over cross sections, momentum etc. but a 22 mag that hits bone will do much more damage than a 45 that passes through soft tissue of fat hanging under someone's arm. And a pistol in the hands of a scared amateur is so inaccurate that the luck factor outweighs the precision of calculating velocity, momentum etc. factor. Reducing this uncertainty is why experts recommend aiming at the torso, the big area containing the vital organs.

    Commenter above mentioned how shot to a foot put the intruder down. Yes, and a Judo sweep to the leg does the same thing spectacularly. Not because the foot is some special target, but because of leverage. The foot is at the end of a 3 foot lever plus it is all bone so a hit is liable to be 100% transmitted. Any force is magnified by this lever arm. But aiming for the foot is a foolish option.

    Common sense is best guide and easily available. Round must be handleable by shooter. No good putting elephant gun in hands of 86 pound woman etc. Most important thing is familiarity with the chosen weapon. We all know this stuff.

    Most important factor is handling fear. I've seen and been the victim of one armed robbery. We (a group of us) were held up by a gang of three. Two revolvers and one sawed off shotgun. I can personally attest that some of us froze and some of us cooly took care of business, talking with the robbers, moving with calm and so on.
    That's the X factor. How you behave under stress. Some people literally freeze. Some don't. I believe that that's more important than all the discussion about caliber and velocity.

    And aiming and firing a pistol true requires that all attention be concentrated on the target. The attacker-is-just-a-target mindset and not a threatening human being or any of that crap. It's the same with fighting. You don't hate your opponent. You treat him like a sack of potatoes and you methodically pound the crap out of him. Some of us can do this and some of us can't. And, as someone said above, training does help. The motions of handling the gun must become automatic because the conscious mind will have its hands full processing all the novel stuff that's going on in a violent confrontation. It's all about tuning out extraneous noise and focusing. And having a pistol held to your head does indeed focus the mind wonderfully (to paraphrase Johnson). I speak from experience.

    , @Chris Mallory
    1) The 357 is usually rated as the best man stopper among the pistol rounds.
    2) All pistol rounds are weak when compared to long guns. With modern ammo the 9mm is just as good as anything else. There is a reason why most armies and police agencies use it.
    3) The 45 is a good round. But it is not a death ray or black hole of doom. If the thug is falling forward and you are counting on the recoil to hit him in the upper torso with the 2nd shot, you will miss. You have to bring the weapon back into shooting position and aim. Unless you have really practiced your point shooting, then you just have to bring the pistol back into shooting position.
    4) How many times have YOU been shot with a 22? If a 22 is all a person can handle and they can shoot it accurately, then they need to be carrying a 22. The 22 in your pocket beats the 45 in the drawer at home.
    , @pyrrhus
    9mm hollow points are highly effective, as are high velocity rounds in general because of the shock they tend to generate....
    , @Jake Jackson
    I replied so late that I don't expect an answer, so I will be brief.

    1. Comments from you and others about the merits and demerits of .22WMR are interesting. I tend to recommend it for a brand new shooter due to low recoil and high lethality for such a small round.

    2. Which .45 do you refer to, ACP or Colt? I know virtually nothing about any caliber beginning with a number above 3.

    3. The prior point notwithstanding, I'm not going to swap out the .357 in the bedstand because some guy online told me that a .45 Whatever is "a real smacker." The intruder will be in bad shape, no matter what gun I use. But I am curious which .45 round you were talking about.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Capitalistic jungles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. blaster says:

    Data I saw about two years ago shows that for home invasions a family member is 21x more likely to be shot than an invader. Semi-autos not that reliable: Depending on model, unless they are kept scrupulously clean you will get a FTF – failure to fire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    Depending on model, unless they are kept scrupulously clean you will get a FTF – failure to fire.
     
    Ammo selection is probably more important. And it will be a failure to load or eject, not a failure to fire. Failures to fire are pretty uncommon with modern centerfire ammo. Rimfire is a different story due to how it is manufactured.

    Some Glock boys brag of never cleaning their pistol.
    , @Alden
    Most of the studies that show people who defend themselves with guns shoot themselves rather than the criminals comes from the gun control lobby.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. George says:

    “would you rather explain in court why you shoot somebody in self-defense 1-2 times or 10-15 times”

    How will you explain your choice of the 357 Dirty Harry caliber?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    “would you rather explain in court why you shoot somebody in self-defense 1-2 times or 10-15 times”

    How will you explain your choice of the 357 Dirty Harry caliber?
     
    Dirty Harry used a 44, not a 357.

    If it is a good shoot, it doesn't matter how many times you shoot them or what gun you used. You fire the weapon until the threat is stopped.
    , @gdpbull
    The dirty harry gun was a .44 mag. But that would be ok too for self defense except it heavier and bigger.
    , @Alden
    Simple, I was scared, the adrenaline was pumping, finger caught in the trigger, gun kept firing by itself, NO PRIOR INTENT irresistible impulse, I’m a woman, I’m old I’m smaller than the attacker, kids in the house.

    That is why every gun owner should belong to the NRA and gets gun owners legal insurance. There are other companies that issue gun owner insurance. They have lists of defense attorneys all over the countries familiar with the defenses I listed above.
    NRA can send a gun owner an entire list of explanations for shooting a would be robber 10 times.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Poupon Marx
    I reviewed as much analytical-both Government and private-regarding guns as I could. I especially paid close attention to Masad Ayoob. From gel penetration freeze frames to shooting pig heads, and much more.

    An issue not discussed here is the energy that a bullet carries must be totally released inside the body of the shooter. If the bullet comes out the other side, energy and lethality are wasted and reduced. Over penetration does you no good.

    1. That's why the .357 is not ideal. It has a small cross section with a lot of energy (=1/2mass X velocity squared). It is very fast. The small cross section makes a corresponding small hole. Law enforcement has sidelined it for good reason.

    2. The 9mm is simply a weak round. It also has a small cross section, is relatively fast, but real world results for a single shot are lacking. The selling point of the 9mm is the low recoil (think small hands and wrists of females), and thus gained wide acceptance with political considerations. Soldiers I've taken to want the .45.

    3. The .45 is a smacker. Large cross sectional area that makes a larger hole. Therefore it rips up soft tissue, breaks bones (and is less deflected by a hard object, such as a slanted windshield). It expends all of its energy in the body of the shootee. A .45 shot to the hip of a perp will most likely break the pelvic bone and cause the perp to rotate or tip forward. Thus the opportunity for a second shot. Those that have taken tactical training know that a first shot to the mid torso is the easiest. The natural recoil of the .45 means that you can fire the second shot immediately and hit the the upper torso, without aim, just on reflex.

    The second issue is scare ability. I have had to point my Sig Sauer double action .45 at a potential perp(s) several times with the hammer cocked and pointed directly at the POSs nose. That way, he can look down the barrel at the BIG HOLE and get an idea of what is coming at him. Try it yourself. Look down the barrel at the .45 and then lesser calibers.

    The .44 mag is not as effective as the .45. "With my .45, I can put two in you before you can shoot again" is how a retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant put it.

    4. The .22 is a joke for stupid people. If a squirrel is you adversary, then use it. "Shot placement" is likewise DOA. You must assume that you will be accosted, have barely enough time to squeeze one off, and that it should make a general shock and either slow down or shock the attacker. Even if it is in the arm or leg, a .45 will smack hard and cause significant damage, even breaking a leg bone.

    Most comments on defensive guns lack adequate logic and reason, are shallow, and are merely subjective preferences. Unfortunately.

    Your point about passing through soft tissue vs. hitting a bone and leaving all the momentum within the body cavity is the key issue in this whole debate about stopping power.

    The problem with this debate revolves (sorry) around, as you allude to, the issue of accuracy of a pistol fired by a frightened amateur in a stressful situation. The debate is irresolvable because the uncertainty of inherent accuracy exceeds the conditions of scientific debate on lethal characteristics of diverse rounds and loads. It’s one of those precision vs. accuracy things. We can specify with great precision the characteristics of ballistics etc. but if we don’t hit the right part of the target then all the calculations are in vain.

    Yes, we can mull over cross sections, momentum etc. but a 22 mag that hits bone will do much more damage than a 45 that passes through soft tissue of fat hanging under someone’s arm. And a pistol in the hands of a scared amateur is so inaccurate that the luck factor outweighs the precision of calculating velocity, momentum etc. factor. Reducing this uncertainty is why experts recommend aiming at the torso, the big area containing the vital organs.

    Commenter above mentioned how shot to a foot put the intruder down. Yes, and a Judo sweep to the leg does the same thing spectacularly. Not because the foot is some special target, but because of leverage. The foot is at the end of a 3 foot lever plus it is all bone so a hit is liable to be 100% transmitted. Any force is magnified by this lever arm. But aiming for the foot is a foolish option.

    Common sense is best guide and easily available. Round must be handleable by shooter. No good putting elephant gun in hands of 86 pound woman etc. Most important thing is familiarity with the chosen weapon. We all know this stuff.

    Most important factor is handling fear. I’ve seen and been the victim of one armed robbery. We (a group of us) were held up by a gang of three. Two revolvers and one sawed off shotgun. I can personally attest that some of us froze and some of us cooly took care of business, talking with the robbers, moving with calm and so on.
    That’s the X factor. How you behave under stress. Some people literally freeze. Some don’t. I believe that that’s more important than all the discussion about caliber and velocity.

    And aiming and firing a pistol true requires that all attention be concentrated on the target. The attacker-is-just-a-target mindset and not a threatening human being or any of that crap. It’s the same with fighting. You don’t hate your opponent. You treat him like a sack of potatoes and you methodically pound the crap out of him. Some of us can do this and some of us can’t. And, as someone said above, training does help. The motions of handling the gun must become automatic because the conscious mind will have its hands full processing all the novel stuff that’s going on in a violent confrontation. It’s all about tuning out extraneous noise and focusing. And having a pistol held to your head does indeed focus the mind wonderfully (to paraphrase Johnson). I speak from experience.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Good post.
    Agree with most.

    You've touched the most important issue in all this:

    Most important factor is handling fear.
     

    That’s the X factor. How you behave under stress. Some people literally freeze. Some don’t. I believe that that’s more important than all the discussion about caliber and velocity.
     

    Some of us can do this and some of us can’t. And, as someone said above, training does help. The motions of handling the gun must become automatic because the conscious mind will have its hands full processing all the novel stuff that’s going on in a violent confrontation. It’s all about tuning out extraneous noise and focusing.
     
    I, personally, believe that training helps.
    That's actually how I assess how serious a (civilian) trainee is.

    In military it's easy; you drill the man until he can't do it anymore; short break and again. And again. So, when that stimuli happens he'll react automatically and efficiently. Or at least that's how we did it to our men, and ourselves, before all this "sensitivity" thing came in. Does it work that anymore I am not sure.
    In a couple of situations when I had to use a handgun it was automatic, with no thinking at all. But, yes, I did train/practice a lot. A lot.

    The problem with most civilians, especially that type the article points to, is that they do not want to practice that much.
    , @Poupon Marx
    Your comment is the most useful, objective on this topic. As well as mine, of course.

    Well done.
    , @Poupon Marx
    There are several reasons the Sig with hammer in .45 is my first choice. One is the long double action trigger pull to cock and release the hammer. Same as on the revolver. Two. I ALWAYS HAVE one chambered and can simply and quickly cock the hammer for single and quick action.

    I will never have a primary defense gun with an external safety. I chose the Sig like my life depended on it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. nsa says:
    @Joe Stalin
    Massad Ayoob states he has a flashlight, electronic muffs and body armor for bedroom use. That's preparedness!

    Ayoob is a 5′ tall part time small town cop who for 30 years has been making a living by consulting, performing as an expert witness at civilian shooting trials, and scribbling $300 articles for gun rags like Guns & Ammo and American Handgunner. He recommends: 1) if unarmed and being mugged, give the perp whatever he wants and hope you don’t take a beatdown, 2) if armed, toss a $20 bill on the ground and start to back up, 3) avoid shooting anyone at all costs as this kind of event has ramifications far beyond the cops and courts, even if the shooting is “righteous”. One of you budding Wyatt Earps offs the neighbor’s worthless drug addled kid in a late night burglary….you will end up having to move at a minimum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @peterAUS
    And, to be fair and balanced, blah, blah..... this is what I'd tell her:

    "You know, I don't think I am the right person to advise you on that.
    Armed civilian self-defense is a bit more complicated than guns, shooting, tactics and such. There is much, much more to that, especially for a person like you.
    If you want, I will try to find you a good instructor and we can go and visit him together. If you feel he could deliver, we could make a decision together and you go from there."

    Now, if she really wants me to do that I'd do my best, knowing it wouldn't be quite the best in her case and legal advice in particular, I'd really ask her to seek somewhere else.

    1) Unless she is a government employee not in the military she is a citizen, not a civilian.
    2) If rape gangs are an issue, move. Avoiding the fight is always better than fighting. Your mama and daddy will gladly take you back in for your own safety.
    3) Get a dog. Crooks don’t like barking dogs, no matter the size.
    4) Shoot several different kinds of firearms. Find the one you like and that you shoot well. There is no cookie cutter answer to what is the best gun for you.
    5) Shoot often, practice.
    6) Don’t hang out with Petey. He is a known member of rape gangs.
    7) Most instances of firearm self defense never result in the weapon being fired. The mere sight of the weapon is enough to make most thugs run. Unless it is personal, most don’t consider it worth getting shot.
    8) Tactics are situational.
    9) Have good locks on your doors.
    10) The #1 thing I have taught my daughter, “DON”T BE A DUMBASS!” Life is much harder if you are stupid.

    You know Pety, I have never heard of an armed woman being gang raped. Gang rape is not that common in the US. Maybe in your country, where arms are very limited it is more prevalent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    One thing I think would help in home safety would be to have locks on bedroom doors

    Most American houses built since 1945 don’t have locks on bedroom doors. So intruders can just walk in and jump on a woman. Bedroom locks and a gun would give a woman a chance to wake up and grab a gun.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @George
    "would you rather explain in court why you shoot somebody in self-defense 1-2 times or 10-15 times"

    How will you explain your choice of the 357 Dirty Harry caliber?

    “would you rather explain in court why you shoot somebody in self-defense 1-2 times or 10-15 times”

    How will you explain your choice of the 357 Dirty Harry caliber?

    Dirty Harry used a 44, not a 357.

    If it is a good shoot, it doesn’t matter how many times you shoot them or what gun you used. You fire the weapon until the threat is stopped.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @blaster
    Data I saw about two years ago shows that for home invasions a family member is 21x more likely to be shot than an invader. Semi-autos not that reliable: Depending on model, unless they are kept scrupulously clean you will get a FTF - failure to fire.

    Depending on model, unless they are kept scrupulously clean you will get a FTF – failure to fire.

    Ammo selection is probably more important. And it will be a failure to load or eject, not a failure to fire. Failures to fire are pretty uncommon with modern centerfire ammo. Rimfire is a different story due to how it is manufactured.

    Some Glock boys brag of never cleaning their pistol.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. gdpbull says:
    @George
    "would you rather explain in court why you shoot somebody in self-defense 1-2 times or 10-15 times"

    How will you explain your choice of the 357 Dirty Harry caliber?

    The dirty harry gun was a .44 mag. But that would be ok too for self defense except it heavier and bigger.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. gdpbull says:

    Great article. Couldn’t agree more, except for the part about not continuing to shoot if they are not down. The possibility of being killed trumps the possibility of a court battle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  130. @Poupon Marx
    I reviewed as much analytical-both Government and private-regarding guns as I could. I especially paid close attention to Masad Ayoob. From gel penetration freeze frames to shooting pig heads, and much more.

    An issue not discussed here is the energy that a bullet carries must be totally released inside the body of the shooter. If the bullet comes out the other side, energy and lethality are wasted and reduced. Over penetration does you no good.

    1. That's why the .357 is not ideal. It has a small cross section with a lot of energy (=1/2mass X velocity squared). It is very fast. The small cross section makes a corresponding small hole. Law enforcement has sidelined it for good reason.

    2. The 9mm is simply a weak round. It also has a small cross section, is relatively fast, but real world results for a single shot are lacking. The selling point of the 9mm is the low recoil (think small hands and wrists of females), and thus gained wide acceptance with political considerations. Soldiers I've taken to want the .45.

    3. The .45 is a smacker. Large cross sectional area that makes a larger hole. Therefore it rips up soft tissue, breaks bones (and is less deflected by a hard object, such as a slanted windshield). It expends all of its energy in the body of the shootee. A .45 shot to the hip of a perp will most likely break the pelvic bone and cause the perp to rotate or tip forward. Thus the opportunity for a second shot. Those that have taken tactical training know that a first shot to the mid torso is the easiest. The natural recoil of the .45 means that you can fire the second shot immediately and hit the the upper torso, without aim, just on reflex.

    The second issue is scare ability. I have had to point my Sig Sauer double action .45 at a potential perp(s) several times with the hammer cocked and pointed directly at the POSs nose. That way, he can look down the barrel at the BIG HOLE and get an idea of what is coming at him. Try it yourself. Look down the barrel at the .45 and then lesser calibers.

    The .44 mag is not as effective as the .45. "With my .45, I can put two in you before you can shoot again" is how a retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant put it.

    4. The .22 is a joke for stupid people. If a squirrel is you adversary, then use it. "Shot placement" is likewise DOA. You must assume that you will be accosted, have barely enough time to squeeze one off, and that it should make a general shock and either slow down or shock the attacker. Even if it is in the arm or leg, a .45 will smack hard and cause significant damage, even breaking a leg bone.

    Most comments on defensive guns lack adequate logic and reason, are shallow, and are merely subjective preferences. Unfortunately.

    1) The 357 is usually rated as the best man stopper among the pistol rounds.
    2) All pistol rounds are weak when compared to long guns. With modern ammo the 9mm is just as good as anything else. There is a reason why most armies and police agencies use it.
    3) The 45 is a good round. But it is not a death ray or black hole of doom. If the thug is falling forward and you are counting on the recoil to hit him in the upper torso with the 2nd shot, you will miss. You have to bring the weapon back into shooting position and aim. Unless you have really practiced your point shooting, then you just have to bring the pistol back into shooting position.
    4) How many times have YOU been shot with a 22? If a 22 is all a person can handle and they can shoot it accurately, then they need to be carrying a 22. The 22 in your pocket beats the 45 in the drawer at home.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Poupon marx
    Complete nonsense and subjective posturing. Useless chatter.
    , @Alden
    You’re right, especially as the average street robber is not some Superman who’ll keep charging after being hit.

    A big part of attack and defense is surprise and shock. A small effeminate gay man coming out of a bar or a middle aged woman walking home who shoots and misses a big bad black bully will shock him so much he will get out of there as fast as he can.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. pyrrhus says:
    @dearieme
    Quite. Did you see the recent youtube of the cowardly policeman murdering the sobbing man who was on his knees in the hotel corridor? I'd like to think it was faked but I assume it wasn't.

    It wasn’t faked, and still the jury somehow acquitted this psycho.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. gdpbull says:

    One other advantage of carrying a gun – It provides a little more freedom on where you feel comfortable going, like for example in bad neighborhoods. And actually, that freedom allows one to communicate with people that most people have no access to. It leads to better understanding of one another. Even in those bad neighborhoods 95% of the people are friendly and mostly kind. Occasionally, there will be gang-banger types that become threatening, but even then, almost always one can defuse the situation by making self-deprecating jokes and not responding in an adversarial way, and everyone winds up laughing and moving on. Only ONCE in many many years did I have to actually brandish a pistol. It caused the hoodlums to pause, and for me to run like a bat out of h_ll.

    I should point out however, one usually cannot legally carry a firearm in these bad neighborhoods, but I would carry anyway. Some things come before the law, like your life for instance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @TT
    Saker,

    Im no gun expert, but just want to say, find a better home like your beautiful born place Switzerland for your family that you never need to own a gun ever. I believe there is enough decent jobs there, even as a bus driver or school teacher, or in some 3rd world countries bless with peace. Life is more happy & peaceful.

    US is becoming such a sick place, with so much violent and hatred, opiods abuse, LGBT glorifying, msm propaganda, social problems, psychopaths electing lunatic leaders seeking atrocity wars. Why wait for implosion crisis that you foreseen to defense love ones hopelessly?

    find a better home like your beautiful born place Switzerland for your family that you never need to own a gun ever.

    Last time I was in Switzerland, all males were required to have military training and keep a rifle in their home. Many think that is why Switzerland is such a safe place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TT
    There are over 20 countries have mandatory military service. Take Israel, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Switzerland as examples.

    Israel encourage all soldiers to keep weapons (with ammo) even off duty, so you find civilian clothing with assault rifles walking around. Is Israel safe? You know better.

    Switzerland allowed to keep service weapons at home with limited ammo rounds. But one mass shooting 5yrs ago and some domestic violents have prompted new laws limiting live ammo to be kept by reserved special force only. Is Switzerland safe, sure. Probably those killed by guns are much less than by dog/knife in US?

    Whereas Singapore, Korea, Taiwan all not allowed to keep service weapons. Gun robbery is death punishment in Singapore, so no idiot bother to get one. Yet they are safest countries. In Singapore, HK, Taiwan, China, Korea, Japan, Thailand, Myanmar, ..people are still walking on the street after dark. Police usually appear within 10min in emergency call.

    So, military training and keeping weapons got nothing to do with safe society, its the people & government policy. US people need to carry a gun wherever they go or sleep to feel safe. No amount of mass shooting and homicides will make US gov restrict gun ownership. Its a insane country to live in, esp people can buy any military assault rifles with unlimited ammo for shooting birds or mass killing at their pleasure.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @map
    For a new shooter, I do not thing Saker's advice is very good.

    The decision for a self-defense weapon should start out with the round you want to fire. In general, the round should not be smaller than a 9mm and, really, does not need to be bigger than a 9mm. Keep in mind, .38, .357, 380, and 9mm are all pretty much the same size, so focusing on the 9mm as your "reference" round won't make you under-gunned.

    That said, the .38 and the 380 are under-powered. The .357 is over-powered. You run a .357 in a scandium or small-frame revolver, and you will experience punishing recoil. This will discourage practice using your new gun, so this kind of round is not recommended.

    The 9mm is a standard NATO round. It is available everywhere, being one of the most common calibers around. Choose 115 or 124 gr jacketed hollow-point, preferably firing the Barnes bullet. The Barnes bullet is a heavily expanding round that will dig into the body and not over-penetrate. You can see how these bullets perform at sites like LuckyGunner.com. Use Winchester White Box FMJ ammo to practice, since hollowpoint ammo is to costly to train with outside of a few rounds.

    Once you've selected the the proper collection of 9mm hollow-point and FMJ ammo, it's time to select the gun through which to deliver the bullet. Here, guns are highly personal, but it is useful to start with a reference standard: the Glock 19 and it's equivalents. These guns are big enough to fight with in a home-defense setting and they are small enough to carry concealed. They are fairly easy to manipulate, whether racking the slide or loading the magazines. It is a good gun to start with but most certainly sample as many pistols as you can get your hands on.

    You can get 9mm revolvers and I would certainly recommend you try those, but, in general, I would not recommend a revolver. They shoot harshly. The long 13-lb trigger pull means that you will end up shooting low and to your left. It's an uncomfortable gun to practice with, especially in its polymer variants. Again, try things out, but you will need to filter out your choices.

    On the reliability of semi-autos vs. revolvers, both are so well-made nowadays that you would not need to worry about it. The revolver, however, is more complicated mechanically. The hammer and the cylinder are timed together, which means the cylinder has to align the bullet exactly to where the hammer needs to hit the primer. If it is off by a little bit, the gun will not fire. Complications reduce reliability. Again, see what you like.

    I do not recommend 1911's or DA/SA pistols. 1911's are not reliable unless you get an expensive gun, although they are the nicest shooters with the nicest triggers. The DA/SA's have a heavy trigger pull on the first round, much like a revolver, with a light trigger on every subsequent round, so there is a greater chance of missing on the first shot. DA/SA's also have a high "bore axis" meaning the height of the barrel from the trigger which detracts from shooting. Again, try them out, but they require more training to fire correctly. They are also larger and heavier because of the steel construction. The striker-fired pistols are usually the ones you want to start with.

    A few tips:

    1) Smaller guns are harder to shoot and handle, even though they are easier to conceal. Keep this in mind if you're a woman. I would look at the S&W and Glock smaller-frame, single-stack pistols.

    2) I prefer proven designs that have been around awhile. Chiappos Rhinos look gimmicky and the ARX ammo design has not been field-tested. That looks like an over-penetrating round. Time will tell.

    3) Fanboys love Glocks because they are customizable. Grips, frames, barrels, triggers can all be modified. You can build Glocks out of kits and mix-and-match whatever features you want.

    4) 12-Gauge Shotguns in a bedroom or living room distance will take off the head and half the torso. You will turn your room into a biohazard.

    5) Rifles 30 caliber and above will penetrate a wall.

    1911′s are not reliable unless you get an expensive gun, although they are the nicest shooters with the nicest triggers.

    False. I have owned $400 1911′s that ran 1000′s of rounds with no failures. I currently carry a Ruger 1911 as my daily carry. No issues out of it at all. The expensive Kimbers and Colts I have owned did have problems.

    5) Rifles 30 caliber and above will penetrate a wall.

    The only round that will not penetrate multiple interior sheetrock walls is birdshot. Every other round will go through.
    Even frangible 5.56 will go through 8-10 sheets of sheetrock set up as framed walls 10 feet apart. 22LR will penetrate several sheets of sheetrock.
    Birdshot will go through one sheet and usually be stopped by the 2nd.

    Check out the Box O’ Truth for their experiments on penetration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    Yep, I have several .45acp pistols including two Colt Gov.Models, a Ballester Molina and a Taurus. The Taurus is my favorite, BTW. I once owned a Colt Double Eagle, but it was kind of awkward feeling in hand. It was accurate, but heavy. I sold it to a friend and he likes it fine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. pyrrhus says:
    @Poupon Marx
    I reviewed as much analytical-both Government and private-regarding guns as I could. I especially paid close attention to Masad Ayoob. From gel penetration freeze frames to shooting pig heads, and much more.

    An issue not discussed here is the energy that a bullet carries must be totally released inside the body of the shooter. If the bullet comes out the other side, energy and lethality are wasted and reduced. Over penetration does you no good.

    1. That's why the .357 is not ideal. It has a small cross section with a lot of energy (=1/2mass X velocity squared). It is very fast. The small cross section makes a corresponding small hole. Law enforcement has sidelined it for good reason.

    2. The 9mm is simply a weak round. It also has a small cross section, is relatively fast, but real world results for a single shot are lacking. The selling point of the 9mm is the low recoil (think small hands and wrists of females), and thus gained wide acceptance with political considerations. Soldiers I've taken to want the .45.

    3. The .45 is a smacker. Large cross sectional area that makes a larger hole. Therefore it rips up soft tissue, breaks bones (and is less deflected by a hard object, such as a slanted windshield). It expends all of its energy in the body of the shootee. A .45 shot to the hip of a perp will most likely break the pelvic bone and cause the perp to rotate or tip forward. Thus the opportunity for a second shot. Those that have taken tactical training know that a first shot to the mid torso is the easiest. The natural recoil of the .45 means that you can fire the second shot immediately and hit the the upper torso, without aim, just on reflex.

    The second issue is scare ability. I have had to point my Sig Sauer double action .45 at a potential perp(s) several times with the hammer cocked and pointed directly at the POSs nose. That way, he can look down the barrel at the BIG HOLE and get an idea of what is coming at him. Try it yourself. Look down the barrel at the .45 and then lesser calibers.

    The .44 mag is not as effective as the .45. "With my .45, I can put two in you before you can shoot again" is how a retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant put it.

    4. The .22 is a joke for stupid people. If a squirrel is you adversary, then use it. "Shot placement" is likewise DOA. You must assume that you will be accosted, have barely enough time to squeeze one off, and that it should make a general shock and either slow down or shock the attacker. Even if it is in the arm or leg, a .45 will smack hard and cause significant damage, even breaking a leg bone.

    Most comments on defensive guns lack adequate logic and reason, are shallow, and are merely subjective preferences. Unfortunately.

    9mm hollow points are highly effective, as are high velocity rounds in general because of the shock they tend to generate….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Poupon marx
    Useless assertion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Joe Hide says:

    Saker,
    Your article was amazing! This was one of the most practical, realistic, and truth driven releases of personal weapons information I’ve ever read. You touched on point after point of the huge complexity of gun ownership in convincing manner. I will definitely use your info in my home defense purchases. Thank You!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  137. pyrrhus says:
    @SOL
    "Cops are duty bound to immediately intervene. "

    No, not in the US?

    Cops don’t have to do anything in the US, and the Supreme Court has ruled that they can’t be sued even for failing to stop your murder….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. pyrrhus says:
    @Miro23

    As I just posted in a different article comments:

    It’s not about numbers, it’s about organization and hardware.
    One armed citizen can easily take on a soldier.
    Ten armed citizens can take on a squad. (with a SMAW or similar)
    160 armed citizens will have a hard time taking on a company.(with mortars)
    800 armed citizens will lose, most of the time, against a battalion.(with machineguns on tripods, heavy mortars and AT, guided, missiles).
    3000 armed citizens will lose almost all the time, against a brigade.(with cannon and howitzer).
    15000 armed citizens will lose all the time against a corps.(with MRLS etc).
    And all that even excluding armor and air power, helicopter gunships in particular.
     
    How about 3.000.000 armed citizens? ( less than 1% of the US population).

    And how would the US military feel about destroying their own towns and families?

    Taking on the military directly is insane. Fourth generation (guerilla) warfare is effective by cutting supply lines and harassing the authorities and collaborators. Plus some hit and run attacks and sniping…think Viet Nam.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. pyrrhus says:
    @Chris Mallory

    , a former LEO with considerable experience not only with firearms
     
    You do realize that the average cop knows next to nothing about firearms and is a a horrible shot. Your average gun owner probably shoots more rounds a year than your average cop. Your typical cop knows very little about the law either, usually limited to "The law is what I say it is".

    Petey, you know very little about anything. Maybe you should join the IDF and quit trolling the internet.

    Well said.. Australians, having allowed themselves to be gelded by their government, love to give advice to Americans on subjects about which Australians know absolutely nothing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @peterAUS
    Thread derail warning again; 2nd related.

    I know, how would us dumb Yanks deal with that in an internal civil war?
     
    BANG!

    Well, I guess that both of us know that we can't, or better, shouldn't talk about that here. Or anywhere in public. Call me paranoid but, better be safe than sorry.

    Not only it could attract unwanted attention from authorities but we really don't want to train, say, "ragheads" here. I could be stupid but I am not irresponsible. Or at least I am trying not to be.

    Having said that, there is a proven methodology how to do that. I guess I could write a couple of pages about that, but, of course, won't.

    Where there is a will there is a way. Especially when people wanting to do that are intelligent and educated locals. There is amazing expertise in civilian life so easily transferred into "militia". And it's not just "tough guys with guns". Actually, in real serious conflict such guys are just .......say....security details.....for really important people. Tradesmen (certain trades), scientists (certain sciences), hobbyists (certain again) etc...etc....Even common management could be invaluable in all that because ORGANIZING all that is of utmost importance.

    Actually, a smart "militiaman in waiting" would be well advised to carefully study cases around the world when such things happened.
    The latest wealth of information could be, with some effort, picked up from Donbass militias, especially from the very beginning of the conflict.
    There were some very smooth and neat tricks locals pulled over there to face, say, a combined arms adversary just with local resources.

    There, (un)fortunately, we often come to that "American exceptionalism".
    Such experiences are deemed, most of the time, worthless.

    I personally find that idiotic, but, free will is what a man is all about.

    That’s the difference between the USA and Australia. It’s our right to talk about stuff like that, and we do. The first rifle in our household was a mail order Lee Enfield .303 in the 1960s. Australia will jail you for having a computer program to print 3-D guns. Australia has laws against having body armor to protect yourself. (So does the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, unfortunately.)

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/3d-printed-guns-and-regulation/8388672

    In America, Cabelas advertises “tactical gear” in Chicago radio ads (They are NOT a “cop shop” so those were aimed at the normal American.). DSA and FN advertise advertise assault rifles and handguns on radio. Wal-Mart had a Thanksgiving Black Friday ad a couple of years ago that had a Sig AR. I can go to on the internet and order Gen 3 night vision riflescopes, thermal imaging weaponsights, smallarms ammunition and body armor and have them delivered to my door. No questions asked.

    We trust ourselves as Citizens. We trust ourselves as civilian militia.

    America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. J1234 says:

    Revolvers can generally be designed to handle heavier loads without structural or cycling problems. That’s why people carry them for bear protection when camping or hiking. I agree that .357 is often too powerful for home defense – partly because of the permanent hearing loss and partly because of the short distances. 9 mm in an enclosed space is probably going to be too loud, as well. The best thing to do to protect hearing is to get electronic muffs and keep them with your gun.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    Some historical background from American Rifleman:

    "The .357 Magnum is definitely not boring, obsolete, nor is it useless. It came about in 1934 as the result of experimental work of Elmer Keith, along with some technical assistance from Phil Sharpe who some 20-plus years later served with the Technical Department of the NRA, and Winchester. Douglas B. Wesson, grandson of Smith & Wesson founder Daniel Wesson and president of the company at the time, coordinated the effort and produced heavy N-frame revolvers for the project. After the cartridge was made available to the public, Wesson did double duty serving as a public relations proponent of the gun and cartridge by taking it all over North America on hunting expeditions.

    "Whereas the .38 Special cartridge offered a slight improvement over its parent, the .38 Long Colt cartridge—a 25 percent heavier bullet at nearly the same velocity—the .357 Mag. virtually doubled the velocity of the .38 Spl. and nearly tripled the muzzle energy. This allowed law enforcement officers the advantage of a revolver, which most were comfortable carrying at the time, with the capability of penetrating a motor vehicle body and disabling suspects using that automobile to shield themselves. It also allowed hunters the capability of humanely taking big game with a handgun. Wesson demonstrated that by taking animals as small as coyotes and as large as walrus with his .357 Mag.

    https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/11/16/the-357-magnum-anything-but-boring/

    It's powerful to deal with steel car doors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Long guns are most important for the time when street fight will be reality in the cities of USA.
    Once the dollar will fall it will be initiated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  143. peterAUS says:
    @ThreeCranes
    Your point about passing through soft tissue vs. hitting a bone and leaving all the momentum within the body cavity is the key issue in this whole debate about stopping power.

    The problem with this debate revolves (sorry) around, as you allude to, the issue of accuracy of a pistol fired by a frightened amateur in a stressful situation. The debate is irresolvable because the uncertainty of inherent accuracy exceeds the conditions of scientific debate on lethal characteristics of diverse rounds and loads. It's one of those precision vs. accuracy things. We can specify with great precision the characteristics of ballistics etc. but if we don't hit the right part of the target then all the calculations are in vain.

    Yes, we can mull over cross sections, momentum etc. but a 22 mag that hits bone will do much more damage than a 45 that passes through soft tissue of fat hanging under someone's arm. And a pistol in the hands of a scared amateur is so inaccurate that the luck factor outweighs the precision of calculating velocity, momentum etc. factor. Reducing this uncertainty is why experts recommend aiming at the torso, the big area containing the vital organs.

    Commenter above mentioned how shot to a foot put the intruder down. Yes, and a Judo sweep to the leg does the same thing spectacularly. Not because the foot is some special target, but because of leverage. The foot is at the end of a 3 foot lever plus it is all bone so a hit is liable to be 100% transmitted. Any force is magnified by this lever arm. But aiming for the foot is a foolish option.

    Common sense is best guide and easily available. Round must be handleable by shooter. No good putting elephant gun in hands of 86 pound woman etc. Most important thing is familiarity with the chosen weapon. We all know this stuff.

    Most important factor is handling fear. I've seen and been the victim of one armed robbery. We (a group of us) were held up by a gang of three. Two revolvers and one sawed off shotgun. I can personally attest that some of us froze and some of us cooly took care of business, talking with the robbers, moving with calm and so on.
    That's the X factor. How you behave under stress. Some people literally freeze. Some don't. I believe that that's more important than all the discussion about caliber and velocity.

    And aiming and firing a pistol true requires that all attention be concentrated on the target. The attacker-is-just-a-target mindset and not a threatening human being or any of that crap. It's the same with fighting. You don't hate your opponent. You treat him like a sack of potatoes and you methodically pound the crap out of him. Some of us can do this and some of us can't. And, as someone said above, training does help. The motions of handling the gun must become automatic because the conscious mind will have its hands full processing all the novel stuff that's going on in a violent confrontation. It's all about tuning out extraneous noise and focusing. And having a pistol held to your head does indeed focus the mind wonderfully (to paraphrase Johnson). I speak from experience.

    Good post.
    Agree with most.

    You’ve touched the most important issue in all this:

    Most important factor is handling fear.

    That’s the X factor. How you behave under stress. Some people literally freeze. Some don’t. I believe that that’s more important than all the discussion about caliber and velocity.

    Some of us can do this and some of us can’t. And, as someone said above, training does help. The motions of handling the gun must become automatic because the conscious mind will have its hands full processing all the novel stuff that’s going on in a violent confrontation. It’s all about tuning out extraneous noise and focusing.

    I, personally, believe that training helps.
    That’s actually how I assess how serious a (civilian) trainee is.

    In military it’s easy; you drill the man until he can’t do it anymore; short break and again. And again. So, when that stimuli happens he’ll react automatically and efficiently. Or at least that’s how we did it to our men, and ourselves, before all this “sensitivity” thing came in. Does it work that anymore I am not sure.
    In a couple of situations when I had to use a handgun it was automatic, with no thinking at all. But, yes, I did train/practice a lot. A lot.

    The problem with most civilians, especially that type the article points to, is that they do not want to practice that much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TT
    hi mate, im rather worry about you having access to military weapons. Down under has many decent jobs better than military that brainwashed soldiers into killing machines, shoot shoot, bomb bomb... Dude, consider find a relax job that keep your mind wholesome is more meaningful life, than obssessed with how to massacre 25Mil North Korean innocents. Think about it seriously. And a soldier duty is to fight for defending one's homeland, not aggression.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. kevink4 says:

    I have 3 handguns that I feel are reliable.

    When I carry, I carry a .38 J frame revolver. Fits best with the clothes I wear. Reliable.

    At home, if I hear something suspicious, I would grab my .45 ACP 1991A1 gun. The gun I’ve shot the most through the years, super reliable. Familiarity and trust.

    The third is a Glock 27, which I’ve taken on trips and would be the gun at hand in a hotel if necessary. More capable than the 38, easier to travel with than the 45.

    Luckily, I’ve never needed to use or display a gun for my personal safety.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J1234
    I like to say that an average revolver on an average day is as reliable as a good semi-auto on a good day. However, semi-autos can still be plenty reliable. A .380 is great because of the very small pocket size, and a good choice, but even though semi-autos have been made more reliable over the last few decades, they are still less reliable in some close quarter scenarios - such as shooting through a coat pocket in which the gun is carried (which can give a person an enormous tactical advantage) or when in actual physical contact with an attacker.

    The semi-auto has two disadvantages in these scenarios: 1) it needs enough space for the slide to cycle the ammo (usually a couple of inches, at a minimum) and...2) it can be taken out of battery when the slide is pushed back, even just a little. Of course, reloading quickly is the semi-auto's biggest advantage...even more than capacity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. TT says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    find a better home like your beautiful born place Switzerland for your family that you never need to own a gun ever.
     
    Last time I was in Switzerland, all males were required to have military training and keep a rifle in their home. Many think that is why Switzerland is such a safe place.

    There are over 20 countries have mandatory military service. Take Israel, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Switzerland as examples.

    Israel encourage all soldiers to keep weapons (with ammo) even off duty, so you find civilian clothing with assault rifles walking around. Is Israel safe? You know better.

    Switzerland allowed to keep service weapons at home with limited ammo rounds. But one mass shooting 5yrs ago and some domestic violents have prompted new laws limiting live ammo to be kept by reserved special force only. Is Switzerland safe, sure. Probably those killed by guns are much less than by dog/knife in US?

    Whereas Singapore, Korea, Taiwan all not allowed to keep service weapons. Gun robbery is death punishment in Singapore, so no idiot bother to get one. Yet they are safest countries. In Singapore, HK, Taiwan, China, Korea, Japan, Thailand, Myanmar, ..people are still walking on the street after dark. Police usually appear within 10min in emergency call.

    So, military training and keeping weapons got nothing to do with safe society, its the people & government policy. US people need to carry a gun wherever they go or sleep to feel safe. No amount of mass shooting and homicides will make US gov restrict gun ownership. Its a insane country to live in, esp people can buy any military assault rifles with unlimited ammo for shooting birds or mass killing at their pleasure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    You do realize that you contradicted yourself, don't you. First you gave examples of gun tolerant countries that experienced little or no gun violence. Then you criticized the US as a Wild West culture for tolerating guns.

    In spite of that flaw in your reasoning, you did touch upon the main point when you said "Gun robbery is death punishment in Singapore, so no idiot bother to get one. Yet they are safest countries."

    Precisely. Mandatory death penalty for any low life that commits an armed robbery would bring gun violence against innocents to a grinding halt.

    On the other hand, yoofs in our darker communities will go on shooting one another with abandon irrespective of the consequences. Killing is, for them, a rite of passage, an initiation into manhood. In other words, the lives of blacks hominids are organized around different priorities than yours and mine and, as multiculturalists constantly remind us, we cannot judge them by our standards. Judge them we won't; we can however, protect ourselves from their depredations. Mandatory execution for gun-related violence sounds laudable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. TT says:
    @peterAUS
    Good post.
    Agree with most.

    You've touched the most important issue in all this:

    Most important factor is handling fear.
     

    That’s the X factor. How you behave under stress. Some people literally freeze. Some don’t. I believe that that’s more important than all the discussion about caliber and velocity.
     

    Some of us can do this and some of us can’t. And, as someone said above, training does help. The motions of handling the gun must become automatic because the conscious mind will have its hands full processing all the novel stuff that’s going on in a violent confrontation. It’s all about tuning out extraneous noise and focusing.
     
    I, personally, believe that training helps.
    That's actually how I assess how serious a (civilian) trainee is.

    In military it's easy; you drill the man until he can't do it anymore; short break and again. And again. So, when that stimuli happens he'll react automatically and efficiently. Or at least that's how we did it to our men, and ourselves, before all this "sensitivity" thing came in. Does it work that anymore I am not sure.
    In a couple of situations when I had to use a handgun it was automatic, with no thinking at all. But, yes, I did train/practice a lot. A lot.

    The problem with most civilians, especially that type the article points to, is that they do not want to practice that much.

    hi mate, im rather worry about you having access to military weapons. Down under has many decent jobs better than military that brainwashed soldiers into killing machines, shoot shoot, bomb bomb… Dude, consider find a relax job that keep your mind wholesome is more meaningful life, than obssessed with how to massacre 25Mil North Korean innocents. Think about it seriously. And a soldier duty is to fight for defending one’s homeland, not aggression.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    You don't need to worry about me. You "read" me here so badly it boggles the mind. Plenty of people here got it bad but you are at around the very top.
    That's O.K.

    You are probably new to Internet. I say that because you believe that smart people would post, on related subjects, material that can, easily, lead back to them.

    I know that Five Eyes, if they really want to get into my systems/home can do that; but, giving all that on a platter would be idiotic. That I could see that intrusion is also possible.
    Anybody else would have a bit of hard time passing my IT security. Or if/when into my systems, well, that game works both ways. OSI layers and exploits are peculiar thing.

    As some people posted here, if I had an access to military grade hardware in Australia I would be either in Armed Forces or arrested in a day.

    But, see, you posted that you lived a bit here and bit there. Why it would be inconceivable that some other people could to the same? I could've lived "there", then "there", then USA, then Australia, then "somewhere else"...and just move around. Maybe I am just about to move somewhere else from the place I am in? People do that, you know.

    Ah, you mean my handle? Yeah..........
    Or an IP address being traced back? Yeah......sure.....

    Now, all this so far is.."who cares" for this very topic. Citizen armed self-defense.

    The below is not:

    This from one on your post re this article:

    its insane to kill someone in any name.
     
    I almost felt from my chair reading that.

    Insane does describe that belief well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. joe webb says:

    how much does the S & W R-8 cost?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  148. Shrek says:

    It quite obvious that the Saker is way out of his field of expertise. In fact it reminds me that I really shouldn’t take anything he writes too seriously. I can’t remember the term for when you read an article on a subject you are familiar with and realize that the author knows little to nothing about the subject and has it all wrong then you read the next article about something you have no knowledge of and take it for the truth. I’m reminded not to put much faith in any of the Sakers’ writing.
    Buy a Glock in 9mm and be done. Reliable and easy to shoot in an intense situation. Lots of rounds for when you actually need more than one to three rounds. Can’t be rendered ineffective in a struggle by holding the cylinder or blocking the hammer. He’s correct that most self defense shootings are at extreme close range , often in a physical struggle and the weapon is used as “get off me” tool with the weapon pressed into the attacker’s body. Twenty three states have explicit stand your ground laws and several more interpret their laws in a manner that there is little to no duty to retreat. If you live in a People’s Democratic Republic type state then you deserve what the Marxist do to you for defending yourself as you are infringing on their power over all aspects of your life. Marxist are very jealous of anyone exercising powers they have appropriated for themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  149. I’d love to see some proofreading here. I don’t need everything that I read on the Internet to be 100% perfect, but The Saker’s average in this post is approaching one misspelled word per sentence.
    The advice may indeed be good, but I can’t help questioning the authoritative merit and attention to detail. Please accept this as a sincere plea rather than grammar Nazi trolling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  150. peterAUS says:
    @TT
    hi mate, im rather worry about you having access to military weapons. Down under has many decent jobs better than military that brainwashed soldiers into killing machines, shoot shoot, bomb bomb... Dude, consider find a relax job that keep your mind wholesome is more meaningful life, than obssessed with how to massacre 25Mil North Korean innocents. Think about it seriously. And a soldier duty is to fight for defending one's homeland, not aggression.

    You don’t need to worry about me. You “read” me here so badly it boggles the mind. Plenty of people here got it bad but you are at around the very top.
    That’s O.K.

    You are probably new to Internet. I say that because you believe that smart people would post, on related subjects, material that can, easily, lead back to them.

    I know that Five Eyes, if they really want to get into my systems/home can do that; but, giving all that on a platter would be idiotic. That I could see that intrusion is also possible.
    Anybody else would have a bit of hard time passing my IT security. Or if/when into my systems, well, that game works both ways. OSI layers and exploits are peculiar thing.

    As some people posted here, if I had an access to military grade hardware in Australia I would be either in Armed Forces or arrested in a day.

    But, see, you posted that you lived a bit here and bit there. Why it would be inconceivable that some other people could to the same? I could’ve lived “there”, then “there”, then USA, then Australia, then “somewhere else”…and just move around. Maybe I am just about to move somewhere else from the place I am in? People do that, you know.

    Ah, you mean my handle? Yeah……….
    Or an IP address being traced back? Yeah……sure…..

    Now, all this so far is..”who cares” for this very topic. Citizen armed self-defense.

    The below is not:

    This from one on your post re this article:

    its insane to kill someone in any name.

    I almost felt from my chair reading that.

    Insane does describe that belief well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    its insane to kill
     
    Kant: virtuous behaviour has value even if it dooms you to defeat

    Re security system. In many robbery situations now, a camera might be recording what you do. Something to think about before doing anything that could be interpreted as a coup de grâce shot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. J1234 says:
    @kevink4
    I have 3 handguns that I feel are reliable.

    When I carry, I carry a .38 J frame revolver. Fits best with the clothes I wear. Reliable.

    At home, if I hear something suspicious, I would grab my .45 ACP 1991A1 gun. The gun I've shot the most through the years, super reliable. Familiarity and trust.

    The third is a Glock 27, which I've taken on trips and would be the gun at hand in a hotel if necessary. More capable than the 38, easier to travel with than the 45.

    Luckily, I've never needed to use or display a gun for my personal safety.

    I like to say that an average revolver on an average day is as reliable as a good semi-auto on a good day. However, semi-autos can still be plenty reliable. A .380 is great because of the very small pocket size, and a good choice, but even though semi-autos have been made more reliable over the last few decades, they are still less reliable in some close quarter scenarios – such as shooting through a coat pocket in which the gun is carried (which can give a person an enormous tactical advantage) or when in actual physical contact with an attacker.

    The semi-auto has two disadvantages in these scenarios: 1) it needs enough space for the slide to cycle the ammo (usually a couple of inches, at a minimum) and…2) it can be taken out of battery when the slide is pushed back, even just a little. Of course, reloading quickly is the semi-auto’s biggest advantage…even more than capacity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Good post, especially re firing from a pocket.

    Talking about "hand to hand", well, one can also get a good grip on the cylinder, jam a thumb/finger on both revolver and semiauto between hammer and striking pin (true, except some versions of both revolver and semiauto...no visible hammer or no hammer at all).

    Now, when we are onto it, didn't FBI/police have that 7 meters rule gun/knife thing?

    Or, close enough, "good guy" goes for the gun and a perp simply unloads a good right on the "good guy" jaw?

    Scenarios, training, practice......as with anything we do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Sean says:
    @peterAUS
    You don't need to worry about me. You "read" me here so badly it boggles the mind. Plenty of people here got it bad but you are at around the very top.
    That's O.K.

    You are probably new to Internet. I say that because you believe that smart people would post, on related subjects, material that can, easily, lead back to them.

    I know that Five Eyes, if they really want to get into my systems/home can do that; but, giving all that on a platter would be idiotic. That I could see that intrusion is also possible.
    Anybody else would have a bit of hard time passing my IT security. Or if/when into my systems, well, that game works both ways. OSI layers and exploits are peculiar thing.

    As some people posted here, if I had an access to military grade hardware in Australia I would be either in Armed Forces or arrested in a day.

    But, see, you posted that you lived a bit here and bit there. Why it would be inconceivable that some other people could to the same? I could've lived "there", then "there", then USA, then Australia, then "somewhere else"...and just move around. Maybe I am just about to move somewhere else from the place I am in? People do that, you know.

    Ah, you mean my handle? Yeah..........
    Or an IP address being traced back? Yeah......sure.....

    Now, all this so far is.."who cares" for this very topic. Citizen armed self-defense.

    The below is not:

    This from one on your post re this article:

    its insane to kill someone in any name.
     
    I almost felt from my chair reading that.

    Insane does describe that belief well.

    its insane to kill

    Kant: virtuous behaviour has value even if it dooms you to defeat

    Re security system. In many robbery situations now, a camera might be recording what you do. Something to think about before doing anything that could be interpreted as a coup de grâce shot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Hahahaha.......Kant you say?

    I am sure that 95 % of people into violence, self-defense and guns would have hard time getting Kant on the best week with a good lecturer.

    And, in self-defense situations, mind operates from the hindbrain most of the time.
    Even philosophical types preach "no thinking, just flow/reaction".

    In real, there is the THREAT, adrenaline dump, tunnel vision, time distortion and just reaction (good or bad).

    I've been in a couple of those. Or at least I spout I have.

    One lasted about 2 minutes they say.
    I remember, in total, maybe 20 seconds of all that, tops. Just disjointed flashes of what happened. Some flashes almost nonsensical (like a little girl screaming; wrong time and place).
    I did have shakes after that.
    Have to say that Kant, Plato and the rest didn't even register at the time. All night actually and the "event" happened around midnight.

    True, in the next couple of days I was thinking about mortality, afterlife and such.

    Interview 10 people watching the same car crash, separately. Could be an interesting experience.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @TT
    There are over 20 countries have mandatory military service. Take Israel, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Switzerland as examples.

    Israel encourage all soldiers to keep weapons (with ammo) even off duty, so you find civilian clothing with assault rifles walking around. Is Israel safe? You know better.

    Switzerland allowed to keep service weapons at home with limited ammo rounds. But one mass shooting 5yrs ago and some domestic violents have prompted new laws limiting live ammo to be kept by reserved special force only. Is Switzerland safe, sure. Probably those killed by guns are much less than by dog/knife in US?

    Whereas Singapore, Korea, Taiwan all not allowed to keep service weapons. Gun robbery is death punishment in Singapore, so no idiot bother to get one. Yet they are safest countries. In Singapore, HK, Taiwan, China, Korea, Japan, Thailand, Myanmar, ..people are still walking on the street after dark. Police usually appear within 10min in emergency call.

    So, military training and keeping weapons got nothing to do with safe society, its the people & government policy. US people need to carry a gun wherever they go or sleep to feel safe. No amount of mass shooting and homicides will make US gov restrict gun ownership. Its a insane country to live in, esp people can buy any military assault rifles with unlimited ammo for shooting birds or mass killing at their pleasure.

    You do realize that you contradicted yourself, don’t you. First you gave examples of gun tolerant countries that experienced little or no gun violence. Then you criticized the US as a Wild West culture for tolerating guns.

    In spite of that flaw in your reasoning, you did touch upon the main point when you said “Gun robbery is death punishment in Singapore, so no idiot bother to get one. Yet they are safest countries.”

    Precisely. Mandatory death penalty for any low life that commits an armed robbery would bring gun violence against innocents to a grinding halt.

    On the other hand, yoofs in our darker communities will go on shooting one another with abandon irrespective of the consequences. Killing is, for them, a rite of passage, an initiation into manhood. In other words, the lives of blacks hominids are organized around different priorities than yours and mine and, as multiculturalists constantly remind us, we cannot judge them by our standards. Judge them we won’t; we can however, protect ourselves from their depredations. Mandatory execution for gun-related violence sounds laudable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Not to argue, but I don’t think black hominids are advanced enough to think of rites of passage.

    It just happens.
    , @TT
    Sorry Saker for not limit on weapon selection topic per your writing. I promote solve at root cause. Eg.if You know pesticides will cause your love one cancer, let's debate whether chemo or radiotherapy is better? I goes organic.

    [You do realize that you contradicted yourself, don’t you. First you gave examples of gun tolerant countries that experienced little or no gun violence. Then you criticized the US as a Wild West culture for tolerating guns.]

    ★Cranes, can't you derive something from below:

    Israel weapon tolerance with ammo (mix defence policy needs for military & civilians?) -> vicious.

    Switzerland weapon tolerance with ammo ( military defence only) -> safest, 1 mass shoot/ a few domestic violents -> gov policy control ammo -> safest

    US weapon tolerance with ammo (guns & military grade assault weapons & ammo free for all)-> multiple mass shoot / violent -> *gov can't control -> more NRA lobby, more lethal weapons, more mass shoot / violent -> go back to *

    Asia countries zero tolerance regardless of military training needs -> safest

    [In spite of that flaw in your reasoning, you did touch upon the main point when you said “Gun robbery is death punishment in Singapore, so no idiot bother to get one. Yet they are safest countries.”

    Precisely. Mandatory death penalty for any low life that commits an armed robbery would bring gun violence against innocents to a grinding halt.]

    -> Just for case study only, mandatory death penalty is not what i promoted or agree on. Its another form of killing, justification is another topic. Violent begets violent, only love alone appease.

    [On the other hand, yoofs in our darker communities will go on shooting one another with abandon irrespective of the consequences. Killing is, for them, a rite of passage, an initiation into manhood. In other words, the lives of blacks hominids are organized around different priorities than yours and mine and, as multiculturalists constantly remind us, we cannot judge them by our standards. Judge them we won’t; we can however, protect ourselves from their depredations. Mandatory execution for gun-related violence sounds laudable.]
    -> allow them more weapons access, out gun them with more lethal weapons by higher purchasing power? Vicious cycle.

    -> read my comment last part again. I only want clarify to Hu Min Yu, its not about gun tolerance or military training, its the people & gov policy make up society. You have people can't control violent usage of gun(add a legalized opiod factor if you wish), you elected a gov unable to restrict, NRA lobby & promote more lethal assault weapons ownership for school as solution, didn't all these alarm you? No? Go back to ★ again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. peterAUS says:
    @J1234
    I like to say that an average revolver on an average day is as reliable as a good semi-auto on a good day. However, semi-autos can still be plenty reliable. A .380 is great because of the very small pocket size, and a good choice, but even though semi-autos have been made more reliable over the last few decades, they are still less reliable in some close quarter scenarios - such as shooting through a coat pocket in which the gun is carried (which can give a person an enormous tactical advantage) or when in actual physical contact with an attacker.

    The semi-auto has two disadvantages in these scenarios: 1) it needs enough space for the slide to cycle the ammo (usually a couple of inches, at a minimum) and...2) it can be taken out of battery when the slide is pushed back, even just a little. Of course, reloading quickly is the semi-auto's biggest advantage...even more than capacity.

    Good post, especially re firing from a pocket.

    Talking about “hand to hand”, well, one can also get a good grip on the cylinder, jam a thumb/finger on both revolver and semiauto between hammer and striking pin (true, except some versions of both revolver and semiauto…no visible hammer or no hammer at all).

    Now, when we are onto it, didn’t FBI/police have that 7 meters rule gun/knife thing?

    Or, close enough, “good guy” goes for the gun and a perp simply unloads a good right on the “good guy” jaw?

    Scenarios, training, practice……as with anything we do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Chris Mallory
    1) The 357 is usually rated as the best man stopper among the pistol rounds.
    2) All pistol rounds are weak when compared to long guns. With modern ammo the 9mm is just as good as anything else. There is a reason why most armies and police agencies use it.
    3) The 45 is a good round. But it is not a death ray or black hole of doom. If the thug is falling forward and you are counting on the recoil to hit him in the upper torso with the 2nd shot, you will miss. You have to bring the weapon back into shooting position and aim. Unless you have really practiced your point shooting, then you just have to bring the pistol back into shooting position.
    4) How many times have YOU been shot with a 22? If a 22 is all a person can handle and they can shoot it accurately, then they need to be carrying a 22. The 22 in your pocket beats the 45 in the drawer at home.

    Complete nonsense and subjective posturing. Useless chatter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    I agree, that is what your post was. All nonsense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @pyrrhus
    9mm hollow points are highly effective, as are high velocity rounds in general because of the shock they tend to generate....

    Useless assertion.

    Read More
    • Troll: Twodees Partain
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @ThreeCranes
    Your point about passing through soft tissue vs. hitting a bone and leaving all the momentum within the body cavity is the key issue in this whole debate about stopping power.

    The problem with this debate revolves (sorry) around, as you allude to, the issue of accuracy of a pistol fired by a frightened amateur in a stressful situation. The debate is irresolvable because the uncertainty of inherent accuracy exceeds the conditions of scientific debate on lethal characteristics of diverse rounds and loads. It's one of those precision vs. accuracy things. We can specify with great precision the characteristics of ballistics etc. but if we don't hit the right part of the target then all the calculations are in vain.

    Yes, we can mull over cross sections, momentum etc. but a 22 mag that hits bone will do much more damage than a 45 that passes through soft tissue of fat hanging under someone's arm. And a pistol in the hands of a scared amateur is so inaccurate that the luck factor outweighs the precision of calculating velocity, momentum etc. factor. Reducing this uncertainty is why experts recommend aiming at the torso, the big area containing the vital organs.

    Commenter above mentioned how shot to a foot put the intruder down. Yes, and a Judo sweep to the leg does the same thing spectacularly. Not because the foot is some special target, but because of leverage. The foot is at the end of a 3 foot lever plus it is all bone so a hit is liable to be 100% transmitted. Any force is magnified by this lever arm. But aiming for the foot is a foolish option.

    Common sense is best guide and easily available. Round must be handleable by shooter. No good putting elephant gun in hands of 86 pound woman etc. Most important thing is familiarity with the chosen weapon. We all know this stuff.

    Most important factor is handling fear. I've seen and been the victim of one armed robbery. We (a group of us) were held up by a gang of three. Two revolvers and one sawed off shotgun. I can personally attest that some of us froze and some of us cooly took care of business, talking with the robbers, moving with calm and so on.
    That's the X factor. How you behave under stress. Some people literally freeze. Some don't. I believe that that's more important than all the discussion about caliber and velocity.

    And aiming and firing a pistol true requires that all attention be concentrated on the target. The attacker-is-just-a-target mindset and not a threatening human being or any of that crap. It's the same with fighting. You don't hate your opponent. You treat him like a sack of potatoes and you methodically pound the crap out of him. Some of us can do this and some of us can't. And, as someone said above, training does help. The motions of handling the gun must become automatic because the conscious mind will have its hands full processing all the novel stuff that's going on in a violent confrontation. It's all about tuning out extraneous noise and focusing. And having a pistol held to your head does indeed focus the mind wonderfully (to paraphrase Johnson). I speak from experience.

    Your comment is the most useful, objective on this topic. As well as mine, of course.

    Well done.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Sbaker says:
    @theMann
    Good article as far as it goes, but I will add a few points:


    1. When Saker says most people will fire 1-3 shots in a real firefight, he means one. Most people will have minimal training, outdoors, with hearing protection. Firing a short barreled .357 indoors without protection will result in most dropping the weapon and holding their ears screaming.


    2. Know your target, know what is behind your target. You fire a high penetration round in an apartment and it goes into the next apartment, you are responsible for the results.

    3. I wouldn't recommend a handgun for most people in any situation. They require a lot of training to use with even minimal competence. Honestly for most users their best feature, if they have it, is the ability to fix a strong tactical light on the rail. Getting a powerful light in somebody's face, especially after dark, is pretty deterrent.


    4. Can't emphasize this enough: shooting is a skill, and all skills require both training and practice. Guns don't require as much training\practice as swords or hands and feet (which is why people use them), but they do require some. If you aren't going to put the time in, don't even think of getting the weapon in the first place. And keep this in mind: the least lethal deterrent is the best.

    Concerning point 1: my experience and others I have talked to; the one pulling the trigger when there is a strong adrenalin surge on board, is rarely bothered by the explosion of the shot. Many deer hunters report never having noticed the sound from a high powered rifle when they shoot the big one. I know this is not a closed space in most instances, but neither is a pistol a 7 mm magnum. Worrying about ear protection during a confrontation with a criminal should be the last thought on your mind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. peterAUS says:
    @Sean

    its insane to kill
     
    Kant: virtuous behaviour has value even if it dooms you to defeat

    Re security system. In many robbery situations now, a camera might be recording what you do. Something to think about before doing anything that could be interpreted as a coup de grâce shot.

    Hahahaha…….Kant you say?

    I am sure that 95 % of people into violence, self-defense and guns would have hard time getting Kant on the best week with a good lecturer.

    And, in self-defense situations, mind operates from the hindbrain most of the time.
    Even philosophical types preach “no thinking, just flow/reaction”.

    In real, there is the THREAT, adrenaline dump, tunnel vision, time distortion and just reaction (good or bad).

    I’ve been in a couple of those. Or at least I spout I have.

    One lasted about 2 minutes they say.
    I remember, in total, maybe 20 seconds of all that, tops. Just disjointed flashes of what happened. Some flashes almost nonsensical (like a little girl screaming; wrong time and place).
    I did have shakes after that.
    Have to say that Kant, Plato and the rest didn’t even register at the time. All night actually and the “event” happened around midnight.

    True, in the next couple of days I was thinking about mortality, afterlife and such.

    Interview 10 people watching the same car crash, separately. Could be an interesting experience.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Bill P says:

    I personally prefer revolvers for shooting, so it’s nice to see this article. I’m not an expert, but I’ve shot a fair number of guns and revolvers just feel more “right.” Semi autos feel like the recoil is less consistent to me. Maybe it’s because of the slide snapping back and forth.

    As for .357 as a self-defense round, I guess, but it seems like a bit much. There’s no way I can get two shots on target as quickly with a .357 as with a .38 special. I doubt anyone can. With adrenaline pumping the recoil and blast might not be all that noticeable, but physics being what it is the magnum round is going to cause the barrel to jump a lot higher and the muzzle flash could be blinding at night. The .357 is better as a handgun hunting round/wilderness gun IMO. It’s optimized for a six-inch barrel, and there are some beautiful .357 six-shooters out there.

    I like a .38 special +p on a 5 shot solid steel j-frame for self defense. I’ve practiced with that gun to the point where I can get five shots in a pie plate at 50 feet in about a second. With the copper jacketed target ammo, if the sun’s at the right angle, you can actually see the bullets flying to the target. That helps me aim for some reason, kind of like tracers I guess.

    One more thing about revolvers: They make better blunt objects for bludgeoning than semi autos if it comes to that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  161. @ThreeCranes
    Your point about passing through soft tissue vs. hitting a bone and leaving all the momentum within the body cavity is the key issue in this whole debate about stopping power.

    The problem with this debate revolves (sorry) around, as you allude to, the issue of accuracy of a pistol fired by a frightened amateur in a stressful situation. The debate is irresolvable because the uncertainty of inherent accuracy exceeds the conditions of scientific debate on lethal characteristics of diverse rounds and loads. It's one of those precision vs. accuracy things. We can specify with great precision the characteristics of ballistics etc. but if we don't hit the right part of the target then all the calculations are in vain.

    Yes, we can mull over cross sections, momentum etc. but a 22 mag that hits bone will do much more damage than a 45 that passes through soft tissue of fat hanging under someone's arm. And a pistol in the hands of a scared amateur is so inaccurate that the luck factor outweighs the precision of calculating velocity, momentum etc. factor. Reducing this uncertainty is why experts recommend aiming at the torso, the big area containing the vital organs.

    Commenter above mentioned how shot to a foot put the intruder down. Yes, and a Judo sweep to the leg does the same thing spectacularly. Not because the foot is some special target, but because of leverage. The foot is at the end of a 3 foot lever plus it is all bone so a hit is liable to be 100% transmitted. Any force is magnified by this lever arm. But aiming for the foot is a foolish option.

    Common sense is best guide and easily available. Round must be handleable by shooter. No good putting elephant gun in hands of 86 pound woman etc. Most important thing is familiarity with the chosen weapon. We all know this stuff.

    Most important factor is handling fear. I've seen and been the victim of one armed robbery. We (a group of us) were held up by a gang of three. Two revolvers and one sawed off shotgun. I can personally attest that some of us froze and some of us cooly took care of business, talking with the robbers, moving with calm and so on.
    That's the X factor. How you behave under stress. Some people literally freeze. Some don't. I believe that that's more important than all the discussion about caliber and velocity.

    And aiming and firing a pistol true requires that all attention be concentrated on the target. The attacker-is-just-a-target mindset and not a threatening human being or any of that crap. It's the same with fighting. You don't hate your opponent. You treat him like a sack of potatoes and you methodically pound the crap out of him. Some of us can do this and some of us can't. And, as someone said above, training does help. The motions of handling the gun must become automatic because the conscious mind will have its hands full processing all the novel stuff that's going on in a violent confrontation. It's all about tuning out extraneous noise and focusing. And having a pistol held to your head does indeed focus the mind wonderfully (to paraphrase Johnson). I speak from experience.

    There are several reasons the Sig with hammer in .45 is my first choice. One is the long double action trigger pull to cock and release the hammer. Same as on the revolver. Two. I ALWAYS HAVE one chambered and can simply and quickly cock the hammer for single and quick action.

    I will never have a primary defense gun with an external safety. I chose the Sig like my life depended on it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. “In real, there is the THREAT, adrenaline dump, tunnel vision, time distortion and just reaction (good or bad).”

    There it is in a nutshell.

    And then there is still that little part of the self that is outside the self, looking down at the scene from above noting all the effects you just described, aware even that it is doing so….ah, the curse of consciousness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  163. Alden says:
    @Chris Mallory
    1) The 357 is usually rated as the best man stopper among the pistol rounds.
    2) All pistol rounds are weak when compared to long guns. With modern ammo the 9mm is just as good as anything else. There is a reason why most armies and police agencies use it.
    3) The 45 is a good round. But it is not a death ray or black hole of doom. If the thug is falling forward and you are counting on the recoil to hit him in the upper torso with the 2nd shot, you will miss. You have to bring the weapon back into shooting position and aim. Unless you have really practiced your point shooting, then you just have to bring the pistol back into shooting position.
    4) How many times have YOU been shot with a 22? If a 22 is all a person can handle and they can shoot it accurately, then they need to be carrying a 22. The 22 in your pocket beats the 45 in the drawer at home.

    You’re right, especially as the average street robber is not some Superman who’ll keep charging after being hit.

    A big part of attack and defense is surprise and shock. A small effeminate gay man coming out of a bar or a middle aged woman walking home who shoots and misses a big bad black bully will shock him so much he will get out of there as fast as he can.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Sean says:

    Kant is the basis of what Western law calls morality. My point (which was agreeing with you) is that after shooting someone, you may be held to a totally unrealistic standard of what would have been proportionate self defence, and there may be a video recording to trip you up in your (as you say confused) recollection.

    One lasted about 2 minutes they say.
    I remember, in total, maybe 20 seconds of all that, tops. Just disjointed flashes of what happened. Some flashes almost nonsensical (like a little girl screaming; wrong time and place).
    I did have shakes after that.
    Have to say that Kant, Plato and the rest didn’t even register at the time. All night actually and the “event” happened around midnight.

    True, in the next couple of days I was thinking about mortality, afterlife and such.

    Interview 10 people watching the same car crash, separately. Could be an interesting experience.

    Yes and that is why if it comes to having to injure someone (or maybe just threaten them with a gun), you get medical attention for them, call the police then then when they arrive say you feel sick and say nothing more (anything can be used to crucify you in court), except you’ll cooperate just as soon as you have spoke to a lawyer. The police only have to catch you out in one lie (guaranteed if there is a video of what happened) and they can get a conviction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    I’m sure people are tired of this and I don’t want to repeat myself

    Buy NRA gun owners insurance when you buy your first gun. It will pay your defense attorney fees. It will provide experts to explain why you shot the person because you feared for your life.
    It will provide you with all the state, county and local gun regs.
    , @peterAUS

    My point (which was agreeing with you) is that after shooting someone, you may be held to a totally unrealistic standard of what would have been proportionate self defence, and there may be a video recording to trip you up in your (as you say confused) recollection.
     
    Exactly.

    say nothing more (anything can be used to crucify you in court), except you’ll cooperate just as soon as you have spoke to a lawyer. The police only have to catch you out in one lie (guaranteed if there is a video of what happened) and they can get a conviction.
     
    True.

    That is why I, here, kept posting that about:
    A good instructor, preferably ex-LEO, who knows all that.
    In short, as a part of training, giving a complete overview of legal process post self-defense event.

    He can, if truly experienced, go from BOTH sides of the story. After each shooting a LEO goes through the process "why, how" etc. He knows both sides of that in depth and can advise accordingly. A good instructor will even have a realistic exercise for that very element. Etc.

    Instructors coming from military/competitive shooting simply lack that fundamental element.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Alden says:
    @Chris Mallory

    , a former LEO with considerable experience not only with firearms
     
    You do realize that the average cop knows next to nothing about firearms and is a a horrible shot. Your average gun owner probably shoots more rounds a year than your average cop. Your typical cop knows very little about the law either, usually limited to "The law is what I say it is".

    Petey, you know very little about anything. Maybe you should join the IDF and quit trolling the internet.

    You are right that the average cop is not an expert. Many only go to the range to qualify once a year. Their gun is just a tool if their trade. But unlike other people who use their tools all day long, cops seldom or never use their guns

    But there are many officers who are experts. Many southern and western cops come from generations of hunting and gun owning families

    Most departments have all sorts of shooting contests

    So some officers only shoot once a year, but others are experts with handguns at least.

    The thing is, police aren’t defensive. They are offensive and come from a position of power. In robbery home invasions etc, the criminals are offensive. So I really don’t know if police know much about defense.

    Most PD defense courses consist of give it up keep your mouth shut do what the robber says and get it over with and you’ll survive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Alden says:
    @blaster
    Data I saw about two years ago shows that for home invasions a family member is 21x more likely to be shot than an invader. Semi-autos not that reliable: Depending on model, unless they are kept scrupulously clean you will get a FTF - failure to fire.

    Most of the studies that show people who defend themselves with guns shoot themselves rather than the criminals comes from the gun control lobby.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Alden says:
    @George
    "would you rather explain in court why you shoot somebody in self-defense 1-2 times or 10-15 times"

    How will you explain your choice of the 357 Dirty Harry caliber?

    Simple, I was scared, the adrenaline was pumping, finger caught in the trigger, gun kept firing by itself, NO PRIOR INTENT irresistible impulse, I’m a woman, I’m old I’m smaller than the attacker, kids in the house.

    That is why every gun owner should belong to the NRA and gets gun owners legal insurance. There are other companies that issue gun owner insurance. They have lists of defense attorneys all over the countries familiar with the defenses I listed above.
    NRA can send a gun owner an entire list of explanations for shooting a would be robber 10 times.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Alden says:
    @Sean
    Kant is the basis of what Western law calls morality. My point (which was agreeing with you) is that after shooting someone, you may be held to a totally unrealistic standard of what would have been proportionate self defence, and there may be a video recording to trip you up in your (as you say confused) recollection.

    One lasted about 2 minutes they say.
    I remember, in total, maybe 20 seconds of all that, tops. Just disjointed flashes of what happened. Some flashes almost nonsensical (like a little girl screaming; wrong time and place).
    I did have shakes after that.
    Have to say that Kant, Plato and the rest didn’t even register at the time. All night actually and the “event” happened around midnight.

    True, in the next couple of days I was thinking about mortality, afterlife and such.

    Interview 10 people watching the same car crash, separately. Could be an interesting experience.
     
    Yes and that is why if it comes to having to injure someone (or maybe just threaten them with a gun), you get medical attention for them, call the police then then when they arrive say you feel sick and say nothing more (anything can be used to crucify you in court), except you'll cooperate just as soon as you have spoke to a lawyer. The police only have to catch you out in one lie (guaranteed if there is a video of what happened) and they can get a conviction.

    I’m sure people are tired of this and I don’t want to repeat myself

    Buy NRA gun owners insurance when you buy your first gun. It will pay your defense attorney fees. It will provide experts to explain why you shot the person because you feared for your life.
    It will provide you with all the state, county and local gun regs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Alden says:
    @Chris Mallory
    1) Unless she is a government employee not in the military she is a citizen, not a civilian.
    2) If rape gangs are an issue, move. Avoiding the fight is always better than fighting. Your mama and daddy will gladly take you back in for your own safety.
    3) Get a dog. Crooks don't like barking dogs, no matter the size.
    4) Shoot several different kinds of firearms. Find the one you like and that you shoot well. There is no cookie cutter answer to what is the best gun for you.
    5) Shoot often, practice.
    6) Don't hang out with Petey. He is a known member of rape gangs.
    7) Most instances of firearm self defense never result in the weapon being fired. The mere sight of the weapon is enough to make most thugs run. Unless it is personal, most don't consider it worth getting shot.
    8) Tactics are situational.
    9) Have good locks on your doors.
    10) The #1 thing I have taught my daughter, "DON"T BE A DUMBASS!" Life is much harder if you are stupid.


    You know Pety, I have never heard of an armed woman being gang raped. Gang rape is not that common in the US. Maybe in your country, where arms are very limited it is more prevalent.

    One thing I think would help in home safety would be to have locks on bedroom doors

    Most American houses built since 1945 don’t have locks on bedroom doors. So intruders can just walk in and jump on a woman. Bedroom locks and a gun would give a woman a chance to wake up and grab a gun.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Alden says:
    @ThreeCranes
    You do realize that you contradicted yourself, don't you. First you gave examples of gun tolerant countries that experienced little or no gun violence. Then you criticized the US as a Wild West culture for tolerating guns.

    In spite of that flaw in your reasoning, you did touch upon the main point when you said "Gun robbery is death punishment in Singapore, so no idiot bother to get one. Yet they are safest countries."

    Precisely. Mandatory death penalty for any low life that commits an armed robbery would bring gun violence against innocents to a grinding halt.

    On the other hand, yoofs in our darker communities will go on shooting one another with abandon irrespective of the consequences. Killing is, for them, a rite of passage, an initiation into manhood. In other words, the lives of blacks hominids are organized around different priorities than yours and mine and, as multiculturalists constantly remind us, we cannot judge them by our standards. Judge them we won't; we can however, protect ourselves from their depredations. Mandatory execution for gun-related violence sounds laudable.

    Not to argue, but I don’t think black hominids are advanced enough to think of rites of passage.

    It just happens.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. peterAUS says:
    @Sean
    Kant is the basis of what Western law calls morality. My point (which was agreeing with you) is that after shooting someone, you may be held to a totally unrealistic standard of what would have been proportionate self defence, and there may be a video recording to trip you up in your (as you say confused) recollection.

    One lasted about 2 minutes they say.
    I remember, in total, maybe 20 seconds of all that, tops. Just disjointed flashes of what happened. Some flashes almost nonsensical (like a little girl screaming; wrong time and place).
    I did have shakes after that.
    Have to say that Kant, Plato and the rest didn’t even register at the time. All night actually and the “event” happened around midnight.

    True, in the next couple of days I was thinking about mortality, afterlife and such.

    Interview 10 people watching the same car crash, separately. Could be an interesting experience.
     
    Yes and that is why if it comes to having to injure someone (or maybe just threaten them with a gun), you get medical attention for them, call the police then then when they arrive say you feel sick and say nothing more (anything can be used to crucify you in court), except you'll cooperate just as soon as you have spoke to a lawyer. The police only have to catch you out in one lie (guaranteed if there is a video of what happened) and they can get a conviction.

    My point (which was agreeing with you) is that after shooting someone, you may be held to a totally unrealistic standard of what would have been proportionate self defence, and there may be a video recording to trip you up in your (as you say confused) recollection.

    Exactly.

    say nothing more (anything can be used to crucify you in court), except you’ll cooperate just as soon as you have spoke to a lawyer. The police only have to catch you out in one lie (guaranteed if there is a video of what happened) and they can get a conviction.

    True.

    That is why I, here, kept posting that about:
    A good instructor, preferably ex-LEO, who knows all that.
    In short, as a part of training, giving a complete overview of legal process post self-defense event.

    He can, if truly experienced, go from BOTH sides of the story. After each shooting a LEO goes through the process “why, how” etc. He knows both sides of that in depth and can advise accordingly. A good instructor will even have a realistic exercise for that very element. Etc.

    Instructors coming from military/competitive shooting simply lack that fundamental element.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Poupon marx
    Complete nonsense and subjective posturing. Useless chatter.

    I agree, that is what your post was. All nonsense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Dr. X says:

    Wow… what a long, rambling and exhausting essay. I hardly know where to begin with my response.

    First, it is superficially true that revolvers are better for self-defense – for those who do not frequently train. A revolver is, simply, more idiot-proof — for six rounds, anyway. An auto pistol is far better for people who actually take the time to train with realistic scenarios, such as IDPA.

    Second, a revolver is far more difficult to reload than an auto pistol and this makes a very big difference in a situation where more than a few shots are needed.

    Third, a revolver is not necessarily easier to carry than an auto pistol (unless it is a small 2″ S&W J-frame) because an auto pistol is flatter, lighter, and conceals easier.

    Fourth, I have very serious misgivings about the notion that auto pistols are better for cops. To the contrary, I’d like to see more cops carrying revolvers. Cops are often not very good marksmen at all and cops who have auto pistols with high-capacity magazines often take a “spray and pray” approach with few hits. There are numerous instances of cops blazing away with hundreds of rounds of ammo at suspects. In one incident in Cleveland, cops thought that were getting shot at… when in reality a vehicle had backfired through its muffler. The cops fired 113 shots at the vehicle, basically executing the two unarmed occupants who were each hit over two dozen times. (Still less than a 50% hit rate, though…)

    Fifth, another very serious misgiving I have is that Saker believes that a couple of shots out of a revolver is all that is ever needed for self-defense. In most — perhaps 95% — of defensive scenarios this is true. But what about the Detroit Riots, the LA Riots, Katrina, etc? When the cops completely disappear, and gangs of numerous (perhaps thousands) of individuals rule the streets engaged in looting, arson, and murder, five or six shots out of a .38 revolver ain’t gonna cut it. If you are ever in a bug-out situation where there is mass anarchy or a mass exodus and you need to grab a gun that you will need to pack concealed for a long time, there is no substitute for a good 9mm auto pistol, a half-dozen loaded hi-cap mags, and 100-200 rounds of spare ammo, all of which can easily be toted in a backpack for an extended duration.

    I love my revolvers as much as any gun, and I am very skilled with them, but when I shoot competitively and need to engage multiple targets quickly and accomplish fast reloads, there is no substitute for a good, reliable auto pistol.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    that a couple of shots out of a revolver is all that is ever needed for self-defense. In most — perhaps 95% — of defensive scenarios this is true. But what about the Detroit Riots, the LA Riots, Katrina, etc?
     
    By all means have a back up plan and a bug out bag. But even better stay the hell out of areas where dindus might riot and if the forecast calls for a hurricane, make some plans before hand.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @J1234
    Revolvers can generally be designed to handle heavier loads without structural or cycling problems. That's why people carry them for bear protection when camping or hiking. I agree that .357 is often too powerful for home defense - partly because of the permanent hearing loss and partly because of the short distances. 9 mm in an enclosed space is probably going to be too loud, as well. The best thing to do to protect hearing is to get electronic muffs and keep them with your gun.

    Some historical background from American Rifleman:

    “The .357 Magnum is definitely not boring, obsolete, nor is it useless. It came about in 1934 as the result of experimental work of Elmer Keith, along with some technical assistance from Phil Sharpe who some 20-plus years later served with the Technical Department of the NRA, and Winchester. Douglas B. Wesson, grandson of Smith & Wesson founder Daniel Wesson and president of the company at the time, coordinated the effort and produced heavy N-frame revolvers for the project. After the cartridge was made available to the public, Wesson did double duty serving as a public relations proponent of the gun and cartridge by taking it all over North America on hunting expeditions.

    “Whereas the .38 Special cartridge offered a slight improvement over its parent, the .38 Long Colt cartridge—a 25 percent heavier bullet at nearly the same velocity—the .357 Mag. virtually doubled the velocity of the .38 Spl. and nearly tripled the muzzle energy. This allowed law enforcement officers the advantage of a revolver, which most were comfortable carrying at the time, with the capability of penetrating a motor vehicle body and disabling suspects using that automobile to shield themselves. It also allowed hunters the capability of humanely taking big game with a handgun. Wesson demonstrated that by taking animals as small as coyotes and as large as walrus with his .357 Mag.

    https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/11/16/the-357-magnum-anything-but-boring/

    It’s powerful to deal with steel car doors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Chris Mallory

    1911′s are not reliable unless you get an expensive gun, although they are the nicest shooters with the nicest triggers.
     
    False. I have owned $400 1911's that ran 1000's of rounds with no failures. I currently carry a Ruger 1911 as my daily carry. No issues out of it at all. The expensive Kimbers and Colts I have owned did have problems.

    5) Rifles 30 caliber and above will penetrate a wall.
     
    The only round that will not penetrate multiple interior sheetrock walls is birdshot. Every other round will go through.
    Even frangible 5.56 will go through 8-10 sheets of sheetrock set up as framed walls 10 feet apart. 22LR will penetrate several sheets of sheetrock.
    Birdshot will go through one sheet and usually be stopped by the 2nd.

    Check out the Box O' Truth for their experiments on penetration.

    Yep, I have several .45acp pistols including two Colt Gov.Models, a Ballester Molina and a Taurus. The Taurus is my favorite, BTW. I once owned a Colt Double Eagle, but it was kind of awkward feeling in hand. It was accurate, but heavy. I sold it to a friend and he likes it fine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. jsmithesq says:

    Since the supreme court of the U.S. eliminated the “fleeing felon” rule it has been illegal to use deadly force to apprehend a criminal or stop a crime.

    A correct analysis is that you put yourself in the shoes of the victim, and if he or she would be justified in using lethal force from their standpoint, you may use lethal force as against the perpetrator.

    Accordingly, one can only use lethal force when a threat of death or very serious bodily injury is threatened. Of course, police and other law enforcement officials are included in this analysis since they are the ones charged with apprehending fleeing felons. Accordingly, I disagree with the statement within the article by The Saker, which states that a citizen has no ability to use lethal force to apprehend a criminal, which of course, implies via innuendo that a police officer, could use lethal force to apprehend a criminal or stop a crime. Anyone can use lethal force, but the law no longer makes a distinction between a law enforcement officer and anyone else.

    A proper instruction would be to tell someone that only if they are in reasonable fear that their life is in danger of being ended immediately, are they justified in using lethal force against another human, and in that instance the lethal force must be directed only to the human or humans who pose such a threat.

    As for how and why I speak from authority as to the law, I am a criminal defense attorney who has practiced for 20 years, and who scored in the 93d percentile on the constitutional law section of the multistate bar, when I took the bar exam approximately 21 years ago. I also just attended a 6.5 hour continuing education course for attorneys on Ohio concealed carry law, and the above is consistent with what I was taught in the course, which also agrees with that which I learned in law school.

    That said, it used to be that law enforcement folk could use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon, so this is a common misnomer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    Accordingly, one can only use lethal force when a threat of death or very serious bodily injury is threatened.
     
    Depends on state law. Texas does (or did) allow force to stop some property crimes. Kentucky allows me to use deadly force to stop an arson of a habitation. Know your state's laws, they are all different.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Svigor says:

    You really can turn any topic into a TL;DR, can’t you. You say with 1k words what others say with 100.

    that semi-automatic pistols are better for the self-defense needs of civilians than revolvers.

    They are. They’re more ergonomic, have better firepower, they’re easier and faster to reload (and thus train with), and most important, they’re a lot more affordable.

    Let’s repeat that again, firing just ONE SINGLE ROUND more than the strict minimum you needed to stop the crime in progress would expose you to prosecution for any of the following: assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, homicide or even 2nd degree murder.

    Firing more than 0 rounds exposes you to prosecution.

    Your whole argument is based on the idea that someone willing to put in the work to become psychologically ready to kill in self-defense can’t be trusted to use a slightly more complicated form of firearm. It doesn’t really make sense. Lots of SA pistols are pretty simple, you just pull the trigger and they fire. And again, they’re a lot cheaper than revolvers.

    Stuff like not taking off a safety or forgetting to put a round in the chamber.

    So buy one that doesn’t use a safety. And a weapon without a round in the chamber is not a ready weapon. You’re supposed to keep a round in the chamber. Otherwise it’s only a little better than an unloaded gun for self-defense.

    (they also tend to drop out when the gun is manipulated which, in some models, prevents the semi-auto from firing at all).

    Yeah don’t buy one of those models.

    One notorious shooter caused malfunction of sorts is when somebody grabs a fully loaded (but not de-cocked) semi-auto and touches the typically light trigger and inadvertently fires.

    If you’re not a gun guy, don’t buy a SD pistol with a light trigger.

    This is why semi-autos come with safeties

    A great many do not.

    To fire a semi-auto you need to fully engage a magazine, put a round in the chamber, disengage the safety (if you used one in the first place) and hold the gun firmly enough to allow it to fully cycle.

    So shoot with it until you get it through your head not to limp-wrist it (assuming you have a model prone to limp-wristing; the easiest solution is not to buy a model prone to limp-wristing). PS, it’s usually pretty easy to clear these.

    The answer of the propagandists for the semi-auto is “training, training and more training”.

    It’s just basic familiarity; it’s not like you have to train all the time to use a SA properly. If you have the presence of mind to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you can remember “don’t limp wrist it” too, I think.

    There’s no easy button for self-defense. To truly prepare yourself (as opposed to just carrying a gun) takes some mental work for most people. If you can handle that, you can handle a semiauto pistol.

    Revolvers are fine but so are SAs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  178. Spud Boy says:

    Seems to me a shotgun has a huge advantage if you have children in your house: You can load the first round as a blank, second as rock salt, and 3+ with regular loads. Worst case your kid gets the crap scared out of them vs. blowing their own (or a sibling or friend’s) head off with a revolver.
    .
    .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  179. TT says:
    @ThreeCranes
    You do realize that you contradicted yourself, don't you. First you gave examples of gun tolerant countries that experienced little or no gun violence. Then you criticized the US as a Wild West culture for tolerating guns.

    In spite of that flaw in your reasoning, you did touch upon the main point when you said "Gun robbery is death punishment in Singapore, so no idiot bother to get one. Yet they are safest countries."

    Precisely. Mandatory death penalty for any low life that commits an armed robbery would bring gun violence against innocents to a grinding halt.

    On the other hand, yoofs in our darker communities will go on shooting one another with abandon irrespective of the consequences. Killing is, for them, a rite of passage, an initiation into manhood. In other words, the lives of blacks hominids are organized around different priorities than yours and mine and, as multiculturalists constantly remind us, we cannot judge them by our standards. Judge them we won't; we can however, protect ourselves from their depredations. Mandatory execution for gun-related violence sounds laudable.

    Sorry Saker for not limit on weapon selection topic per your writing. I promote solve at root cause. Eg.if You know pesticides will cause your love one cancer, let’s debate whether chemo or radiotherapy is better? I goes organic.

    [You do realize that you contradicted yourself, don’t you. First you gave examples of gun tolerant countries that experienced little or no gun violence. Then you criticized the US as a Wild West culture for tolerating guns.]

    ★Cranes, can’t you derive something from below:

    Israel weapon tolerance with ammo (mix defence policy needs for military & civilians?) -> vicious.

    Switzerland weapon tolerance with ammo ( military defence only) -> safest, 1 mass shoot/ a few domestic violents -> gov policy control ammo -> safest

    US weapon tolerance with ammo (guns & military grade assault weapons & ammo free for all)-> multiple mass shoot / violent -> *gov can’t control -> more NRA lobby, more lethal weapons, more mass shoot / violent -> go back to *

    Asia countries zero tolerance regardless of military training needs -> safest

    [In spite of that flaw in your reasoning, you did touch upon the main point when you said “Gun robbery is death punishment in Singapore, so no idiot bother to get one. Yet they are safest countries.”

    Precisely. Mandatory death penalty for any low life that commits an armed robbery would bring gun violence against innocents to a grinding halt.]

    -> Just for case study only, mandatory death penalty is not what i promoted or agree on. Its another form of killing, justification is another topic. Violent begets violent, only love alone appease.

    [On the other hand, yoofs in our darker communities will go on shooting one another with abandon irrespective of the consequences. Killing is, for them, a rite of passage, an initiation into manhood. In other words, the lives of blacks hominids are organized around different priorities than yours and mine and, as multiculturalists constantly remind us, we cannot judge them by our standards. Judge them we won’t; we can however, protect ourselves from their depredations. Mandatory execution for gun-related violence sounds laudable.]
    -> allow them more weapons access, out gun them with more lethal weapons by higher purchasing power? Vicious cycle.

    -> read my comment last part again. I only want clarify to Hu Min Yu, its not about gun tolerance or military training, its the people & gov policy make up society. You have people can’t control violent usage of gun(add a legalized opiod factor if you wish), you elected a gov unable to restrict, NRA lobby & promote more lethal assault weapons ownership for school as solution, didn’t all these alarm you? No? Go back to ★ again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Svigor says:

    One thing I think would help in home safety would be to have locks on bedroom doors

    Most American houses built since 1945 don’t have locks on bedroom doors. So intruders can just walk in and jump on a woman. Bedroom locks and a gun would give a woman a chance to wake up and grab a gun.

    Not a bad idea, but if you aren’t going to make bedroom doors as stout as exterior doors, it won’t help all that much. *Quietly tries the bedroom door, finds it locked, kicks it in and jumps on woman who didn’t hear a thing because she was sound asleep*

    Dogs really are the best, followed by alarms.

    Now, when we are onto it, didn’t FBI/police have that 7 meters rule gun/knife thing?

    What I find odd about self-defense discussions is how everyone goes right from talking about firearms to talking about unarmed combat. Have none of these people heard of knives? Carrying a knife is much easier and far more effective than any form of unarmed combat expertise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    is It really that easy to kick in a door, even a flimsy interior door? I don’t think so. however long it took, its longer than just opening the door. And the few minutes might give someone the chance to call police or grab a gun.

    The article isn’t about self defense in general, but the best kinds of guns for different people in differebt situations.

    Knives require getting close. Guns can stop the criminal before he gets close.
    , @peterAUS

    What I find odd about self-defense discussions is how everyone goes right from talking about firearms to talking about unarmed combat. Have none of these people heard of knives? Carrying a knife is much easier and far more effective than any form of unarmed combat expertise.
     
    Of course.
    But, as you said

    To truly prepare yourself (as opposed to just carrying a gun) takes some mental work for most people.
     
    using a knife in self-defense scenario is a peculiar matter.

    Of course that for true fighters everything is just a tool.

    But for an average citizen, well, from psychological point of view I guess that using an edged weapon is not easy. The very idea of stabbing somebody is, for most people, repulsive.

    And, also, using a knife against a perp does require some physical ability. Say, granny with a knife vs granny with .38.

    I guess what I am trying to say that a knife is very efficient in "bad guy" hands and in enraged person hands (especially addict....).

    But, for an average person's self-defense I don't think it is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Alden says:
    @Svigor

    One thing I think would help in home safety would be to have locks on bedroom doors

    Most American houses built since 1945 don’t have locks on bedroom doors. So intruders can just walk in and jump on a woman. Bedroom locks and a gun would give a woman a chance to wake up and grab a gun.
     
    Not a bad idea, but if you aren't going to make bedroom doors as stout as exterior doors, it won't help all that much. *Quietly tries the bedroom door, finds it locked, kicks it in and jumps on woman who didn't hear a thing because she was sound asleep*

    Dogs really are the best, followed by alarms.

    Now, when we are onto it, didn’t FBI/police have that 7 meters rule gun/knife thing?
     
    What I find odd about self-defense discussions is how everyone goes right from talking about firearms to talking about unarmed combat. Have none of these people heard of knives? Carrying a knife is much easier and far more effective than any form of unarmed combat expertise.

    is It really that easy to kick in a door, even a flimsy interior door? I don’t think so. however long it took, its longer than just opening the door. And the few minutes might give someone the chance to call police or grab a gun.

    The article isn’t about self defense in general, but the best kinds of guns for different people in differebt situations.

    Knives require getting close. Guns can stop the criminal before he gets close.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Neither you nor the average criminal knows the proper way to kick in a locked door.

    Here’s how the police are trained to kick in a locked door. Get a bit sideways. Pull your knee up to your waist. Kick your heel hard as you can on the doorknob. If the lock doesn’t break the first time, repeat. It should work after a few times.

    The movies all show smashing the door, not the lock with the shoulders. Doesn’t work. Kicking the door not the lock won’t work either.

    Even those honeycomb foam doors covered with a 1/8 inch layer of cardboard will take a while unless the perp kicks in the lock.

    At least the householder won’t wake up with an intruder in the bedroom or on top of her. At least householder would have chance to grab a gun if the door were locked.

    No gun? Scream “ I’ve already called the police “ would be effective.

    Rember who the average burglar intruder is in The United States. A below 85 IQ Black with an existing criminal record and probably outstanding warrants.

    I know woman who walked into her kitchen about 9/pm and saw a black man working on her kitchen door. She was shocked and screamed. The black guy ran off.

    Problem with that expensive White neighborhood is that it’s near a freeway. The blacks used to get on the freeeay, drive to White neighborhoods get off the freeway and rob and burglarize a few blocks off the off ramps.

    That neighborhood is very safe now. Reason is that Hispanics took over the neighborhood and established a defense perimeter between the Whites and criminal blacks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Overall a good article, although I come to a different conclusion. My observations.

    1. If you shoot regularly for fun, you will have already made your choice. Good, use it--the confidence that you have in a gun that you shoot regularly will outweigh any theoretical disadvantages of the weapon selected. The same observation also applies to people inclined to comment on this blog concerning their personal choice of a self-defense weapon--I agree with you. The issue is what recommendation to make to the non-combatant who does not wish to become a shooting enthusiast.

    2. The reason that revolver cartridges are typically much longer than autopistol cartridges is not power. Rather the revolver cartridges are based on 19th Century black powder designs, while autopistol cartridges took advantage of the more powerful and less fouling smokeless powder and are more compact. It is possible to chamber a revolver for an autopistol cartridge, although manufacturers typically don't shrink the frame size to accommodate the shorter autopistol round, so that advantage is lost.

    3. If the choice is strictly one of home defense, then serious consideration should be given to a shotgun. It fires a cartridge more powerful than any practical autoloader or revolver and light loads (7/8 oz. of shot) in 12 or 20 gauge can be used if the shooter is very recoil sensitive. A double barrel model can be left loaded; you still have to move the safety to fire, but that's fairly instinctive and doesn't require too much mastery of the "manual of arms." If you can't solve your immediate tactical problem with two 12 or 20 gauge rounds, it's probably past solving. I've seen commenters advocating a 5.56x45mm carbine in this situation, but I think the Saker's arguments against an autoloading pistol are also cogent when the carbine is considered.

    4. If you don't want to use a shotgun for home defense (they can be cumbersome), then the revolver is probably the best choice. If you won't be carrying it, you can use a larger frame, heavier, longer-barrel weapon to soak up some of the recoil.

    5. Cartridge selection in a revolver is key. The Saker recommends .357 Magnum in a short barrel, lightweight revolver. That's going to kick!! In addition, the blast from a .357 is loud!! The .357 and the .38 Super ACP, in my experience, produce a high-pitched crack that is very unpleasant. (Even being in the next station on a range, next to a shooter with a .38 Super was an experience I grew tired of in one short session.) I think most non-combatants would be demoralized very quickly by a couple of cylinders of full-house .357s. You can train with .38 Special wadcutters, but a recoil-sensitive person is apt to find even these unpleasant in a very lightweight revolver.

    6. My personal recommendation for a carry piece for a very recoil sensitive person would be a .22. Smith&Wesson makes both an eight shot (J frame) and a ten-shot (K frame) revolver. The lack of stopping power in a .22 Long Rifle is a factor, but, in addition to the physical damage inflicted by the bullet, there is the psychological and emotional impact associated with being shot. Someone in a frenzy won't be stopped and someone intent on other things may not notice a relatively superficial wound, but a criminal who expected "easy pickings" and who discovers that his victim is not only armed, but willing to shoot and is a good enough marksman to land a hit, is unlikely to be inclined to push home an attack. Follow-up hits are easier with a .22 but subsequent hits with any cartridge are not generally as effective as the first one--someone inclined to push home an attack even after being wounded is a formidable, although happily not a typical, adversary.

    7. If you are not recoil sensitive, but uninclined to master the more complicated manual of arms associated with an autoloader, I'd consider a .44 Special revolver. A five-shot .44 is reasonably compact and while the .44 Special certainly kicks, it doesn't have the blast and high-pitched crack associated with the .357 or even +P .38 Special rounds. The .44 Special gets most of its stopping power from the heavy, large-diameter bullet, so velocity loss from the shorter barrel isn't as important as in the case of the .357. If you are carrying, however, you really need to much better trained than if you are contemplating a simple home defense.

    8. Although I've never used them, I wonder whether laser sights should be considered. The big problem in pistol marksmanship is that the focus must be on the sights, particularly the front sight, and not on the target when the gun is fired. That's easier said than done, because up until that moment, the focus is on the target--that's the threat after all. If you see your front sight when firing, you will probably hit; if you don't you will probably miss, even at ridiculously close ranges. A laser sight that moves the focus to a red dot on the target seems to me a much better optical arrangement. I think some laser sights can be mounted relatively co-axial with the boor as part of the side panes of the butt. Perhaps some readers can share their experience and observations.

    Thanks for your thoughtful, informative, and comprehensive contributions in this thread.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist

    "Let’s repeat that again, firing just ONE SINGLE ROUND more than the strict minimum you needed to stop the crime in progress would expose you to prosecution for any of the following: assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, homicide or even 2nd degree murder."
     
    In many places, the fact that you fired even one round may be used against you for daring to not surrender your well-being to the pros.

    Seriously, shoot with what you are comfortable with. If you aren't comfortable shooting any gun, you probably shouldn't have one. I have a Beretta 92 because that is what I carried and shot for years, but I was also proficient with 38 cal revolvers and could comfortably put one to use in self defense.

    Saker's 80% miss-rate is high for a well-trained shooter, but research they showed us in the '80s suggested that at least 2/3 of shots in close combat (<10 feet) miss their mark largely owing to shooting in haste. This was useful knowledge in third-world hell-holes where we were limited in the number of rounds we could carry with us, but it translates well to life here: Training to keep relatively calm (relatively ... you are facing a threat, after all), adequately aim (laser-sights are nice toys, but you will likely hit what you are pointing at if it's a reasonably sized center of mass), and squeeze the trigger (rather than jerkily pull it in panic or haste just to get a shot off) will mean fewer shots wasted and fewer shots required to stop a threat.

    Will someone explain to me why the use of a laser sight doesn’t also illuminate you as a target as well? Seems to me that red light would give your target something to aim at, but unlike most here I readily admit to knowing virtually nothing about this topic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    Will someone explain to me why the use of a laser sight doesn’t also illuminate you as a target as well? Seems to me that red light would give your target something to aim at, but unlike most here I readily admit to knowing virtually nothing about this topic.
     
    A lot of it will depend upon the environment. I have played with a laser sight on a pistol. In fog or mist you can see the laser show up like an arrow pointing right back at you. Without the reflective atmosphere you might see the red light on the end of the pistol, but I suspect unless it is pitch black you would be able to see the person with the gun anyway. Most self defense shootings take place at under 10 yards. The laser allows ease of point shooting, cutting down on reaction time.
    , @The Alarmist
    Laser sights are pointless if you pull the trigger too hard and jerk the gun. Yeah, you might hit the target, but you might not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. peterAUS says:
    @Svigor

    One thing I think would help in home safety would be to have locks on bedroom doors

    Most American houses built since 1945 don’t have locks on bedroom doors. So intruders can just walk in and jump on a woman. Bedroom locks and a gun would give a woman a chance to wake up and grab a gun.
     
    Not a bad idea, but if you aren't going to make bedroom doors as stout as exterior doors, it won't help all that much. *Quietly tries the bedroom door, finds it locked, kicks it in and jumps on woman who didn't hear a thing because she was sound asleep*

    Dogs really are the best, followed by alarms.

    Now, when we are onto it, didn’t FBI/police have that 7 meters rule gun/knife thing?
     
    What I find odd about self-defense discussions is how everyone goes right from talking about firearms to talking about unarmed combat. Have none of these people heard of knives? Carrying a knife is much easier and far more effective than any form of unarmed combat expertise.

    What I find odd about self-defense discussions is how everyone goes right from talking about firearms to talking about unarmed combat. Have none of these people heard of knives? Carrying a knife is much easier and far more effective than any form of unarmed combat expertise.

    Of course.
    But, as you said

    To truly prepare yourself (as opposed to just carrying a gun) takes some mental work for most people.

    using a knife in self-defense scenario is a peculiar matter.

    Of course that for true fighters everything is just a tool.

    But for an average citizen, well, from psychological point of view I guess that using an edged weapon is not easy. The very idea of stabbing somebody is, for most people, repulsive.

    And, also, using a knife against a perp does require some physical ability. Say, granny with a knife vs granny with .38.

    I guess what I am trying to say that a knife is very efficient in “bad guy” hands and in enraged person hands (especially addict….).

    But, for an average person’s self-defense I don’t think it is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. FB says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Give it up man, you write like a child and the projection on display is blatantly obvious. I recognise the very same lame tactics that you tried in your run in with FB. They didn't work then either.

    Hey Nosey…

    I just stumbled on this thread a bit late it seems…

    Man oh man…our boy Pete has dug himself in pretty deep again…[no surprise there...]

    I actually feel kind of sorry for him…this ‘Gleimhart’ chap is letting him have it with both barrels…

    Looks to me like a ‘takes two to tango’ kind of thing…‘Gleimhart’ looks to be some kind of nutcase himself…a more aggressive version of our ‘GameBoy Pete’…

    FWIW…LOL

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Jim Moore says:

    One point I think is important is liability. I was a federal law enforcement officer for over 30 years and also worked as an investigator for a City Attorney’s office helping defend local police officers who were being sued, usually relating to use of force.

    If a law enforcement officer uses force (shoots, tases, clubs with a baton, pepper sprays) someone they usually have a free defense attorney provided by their agency to try to justify their actions. Most of these attorneys I have seen are pretty good at it.

    If you as a civilian use the same force you have a very good chance of getting sued. You have to pay for your own attorney and hopefully you get a good one who is competent in this area of the law and does not soak you in your hour of need.

    I knew of a federal agent who saw a rape in progress. He intervened and ended up clinging to a car door as the rapist drove off. The agent shot and killed the bad guy. Shirt tail kin came out of the wood work and sued the agent. It took years to resolve, luckily in the agent’s favor. He had an Assistant United States Attorney to defend him because it was ruled duty related. What if that were you?

    Yes, “better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.” I have heard that my whole career. But we live in a litigious society where people view lawsuits as being like the lottery. Maybe your homeowners insurance will cover any award, maybe it won’t. Juries almost always give cops more benefit of the doubt than civilians. Especially when the plaintiff attorney tries to compare you with wanna-be cop George Zimmerman

    So think twice before you shoot. Do it if you have to, but it is better to avoid bad areas, especially in the dark. I have heard of silly disputes over a parking space that end up with someone being shot.

    I know of a case of an off-duty federal agent shot and killed by a 60 year old white guy on his way to dialysis in Florida. It was a “you cut me off in traffic” thing. The agent died in front of his child that he was taking to school. He was armed but the bad guy shot first. My point is the shooter was an otherwise law abiding person who got angry and shot over something silly. He went to jail.

    Just be careful, walk away if you have to. If you shoot, the odds are you will get sued and even if you prevail it may cost you a bundle.

    As a final note, I vote for a wheel gun as a home defense weapon. The S&W model 60 is great in my opinion. I have owned one since 1977.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    There was a situation in LA (near Barham Blvd going into the Valley) a few years back where two guys got into a traffic beef due to neither being willing to yield to the other in merging traffic. One guy was white and the other was black but unknown to each was the fact that they were both cops working undercover, driving unmarked vehicles. The black cop flashed his weapon to signal to the white cop that he'd better back off or else. The white cop then shot through the door and killed the black cop and it was only later that it was discovered that both were cops.
    , @Alden
    I bet the old White guy had diabetes.

    So many bar fights, parking lot fights domestic violence fights road rage are caused by diabetics and their “volatility and irritability “

    Diabetics will never back down. They start fights and just keep going.

    I fired 2 managers in the past 5 years because they flew off the handle and squabbled with everyone. A couple months after I hired each I noted their diabetic behavior and asked if they had diabetes. They were schocked and asked me how I figured it out.

    Personally, I think diabetics are worse than drunks as far as starting fights all the time.
    , @Chris Mallory

    If you shoot, the odds are you will get sued and even if you prevail it may cost you a bundle.
     
    A growing trend is for the states to limit or outright ban any civil suit rising out of a true self defense shooting.

    One article on the matter lists 32 states with various degrees of civil immunity in self defense cases. The best thing to do would be to read your state law and/or talk to a local lawyer. I didn't look at all 32 states, but I do know the law in my state.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/self-defense-immunity-laws-which-states-protect-you-best/
    , @peterAUS
    We've been presented here with plethora of advice re the topic.
    Not many from the legal point of view.
    Nice to see your comment.

    Would you be so kind to post here a simple, say, "drill" as to what to do/not do, and how, post shooting event?
    jsmithesq could chime in, of course.

    Like, a homeowner is in his home, perp is down from multiple wounds, the owner is holding his gun an listening to police sirens, going through the shakes.

    What would be advisable course of action in the next couple of hours from the legal point of view?
    In USA, of course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Jim Moore
    One point I think is important is liability. I was a federal law enforcement officer for over 30 years and also worked as an investigator for a City Attorney's office helping defend local police officers who were being sued, usually relating to use of force.

    If a law enforcement officer uses force (shoots, tases, clubs with a baton, pepper sprays) someone they usually have a free defense attorney provided by their agency to try to justify their actions. Most of these attorneys I have seen are pretty good at it.

    If you as a civilian use the same force you have a very good chance of getting sued. You have to pay for your own attorney and hopefully you get a good one who is competent in this area of the law and does not soak you in your hour of need.

    I knew of a federal agent who saw a rape in progress. He intervened and ended up clinging to a car door as the rapist drove off. The agent shot and killed the bad guy. Shirt tail kin came out of the wood work and sued the agent. It took years to resolve, luckily in the agent's favor. He had an Assistant United States Attorney to defend him because it was ruled duty related. What if that were you?

    Yes, "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6." I have heard that my whole career. But we live in a litigious society where people view lawsuits as being like the lottery. Maybe your homeowners insurance will cover any award, maybe it won't. Juries almost always give cops more benefit of the doubt than civilians. Especially when the plaintiff attorney tries to compare you with wanna-be cop George Zimmerman

    So think twice before you shoot. Do it if you have to, but it is better to avoid bad areas, especially in the dark. I have heard of silly disputes over a parking space that end up with someone being shot.

    I know of a case of an off-duty federal agent shot and killed by a 60 year old white guy on his way to dialysis in Florida. It was a "you cut me off in traffic" thing. The agent died in front of his child that he was taking to school. He was armed but the bad guy shot first. My point is the shooter was an otherwise law abiding person who got angry and shot over something silly. He went to jail.

    Just be careful, walk away if you have to. If you shoot, the odds are you will get sued and even if you prevail it may cost you a bundle.

    As a final note, I vote for a wheel gun as a home defense weapon. The S&W model 60 is great in my opinion. I have owned one since 1977.

    There was a situation in LA (near Barham Blvd going into the Valley) a few years back where two guys got into a traffic beef due to neither being willing to yield to the other in merging traffic. One guy was white and the other was black but unknown to each was the fact that they were both cops working undercover, driving unmarked vehicles. The black cop flashed his weapon to signal to the white cop that he’d better back off or else. The white cop then shot through the door and killed the black cop and it was only later that it was discovered that both were cops.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The White cop was on the radio for a good 10 minutes asking for help and back up because the black guy was pointing a gun at him.

    There was no cut off thing that would start a rational conflict. The black just stared harassing and pointing the gunI might be wrong, but as I remember it, the affirmative black officer was off duty.

    Blacks and their Jewish enablers were still very powerful in Los Angeles then.

    Had the White officer not called in that he was under attack it would have been a Darren Wilson Mike Brown situation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @peterAUS
    Wow.....what a hostility there.
    My...my.....

    Now I am curious. Why's that?
    I doubt it's because I made some "stupid comment". I make plenty of them all the time, according to many, and I have seen some testy replies/posts, but, yours is......next level.

    Whoah, really.

    What really bothers you? C'mon...please...tell me. I mean, after all that venom we got somehow "Internet intimate" I guess.
    Is that life in general? Or a wife? Divorce perhaps? Boss? Job? Middle age?
    The simmering rage just needs venting somewhere?

    I don't know, but, feels a bit unbalanced. The animosity I mean. The balance between that anger and reason for a disagreement. Almost as you've just waited for....somebody...anybody...to unleash all that.

    You know that your government monitors all this, of course.
    You are, apparently, a guy into "guns". Your posts can profile you with ease.
    Are you sure that posting all that........rage..........would sit well with "that person owning a firearm"?

    So...how do you do that? I mean, having a control in a real life?
    You, I presume, carry. And, obviously, have a very short fuse.
    How do you manage that control? Must be an impressive feat. Creates a lot of pressure too. And the pressure needs releasing. Like now.
    Impressive I give it to you.

    Now, actually, having said all that you do have a point, hollow but the point regardless.
    I did derail the thread and Saker did warn against it.
    If we talk about "revolvers vs autos" you were correct and I was not. I slipped into "2 Amendment" thing with that "Americans/Europeans" comment.
    A food for thought you, in all that rage, missed was access to military grade weaponry in some parts of Europe. I am sure that you have some contacts who did a stint in Balkans (even Ukraine), for example. Ask them about the topic if you wish.

    And, yes, hollow points.....and then custom loads, and then custom grips, with custom sights, blah...blah...I am sure you could talk for days about all that.
    Why don't you give us a brief intro here?
    Could even help with that simmering "red" inside.

    You’ve never even shot a gun, have you?
     
    See, that rage can really affect your perception.
    And with all those guns at your disposal, and all that ammo, and all that expertise you probably have in handling that...I don't know....feels as ....something just waiting to BOOM.

    Now, I guess you have fired a lot and are good with guns.
    How about this:
    Standing, in a trench. Target is something as B-27 Black Silhouette, range 200 meters. No wind.
    Standing, two hand grip, elbows resting. 9 mm handgun, custom sights. 8 rounds fired.
    How many rounds could you put anywhere in black?
    C'mon, impress us.

    Ah, another one:
    Standing, in a trench. Target the same, range 400 meters. Weapon a version of AK-47.
    Iron sights. Single shots. Say, 10. How many hits you could comfortably make anywhere in "black"?

    Or we'll have another outburst instead?
    It's fine.
    Whatever helps there. As long as that control stays "on" in real life.
    Not easy, sometimes, a?
    And getting harder.....

    But, if you feel like it now, please....just go with it. Here I mean.Words, typing...even imagining how would our .....ahm..."debate"....looks like in real life. How would you really....really....make your point to me.
    Like....

    What a nitwit. I told you to dial it back. You should’ve listened.
     
    Can't wait.

    Hey, PeterAUS. This not a criticism, but a question.
    I assume, from context etc that the AUS in your username (UN) refers to Australia. Now, naturally, I don’t know your life/story etc, however, my question is: is it really necessary to reference your nationality in your UN ?
    Problem is, by using Australia in your UN, your personal critics can then easily transfer that criticism to Australia. No, maybe it’s not common – nor is it fair, nor right etc but it DOES happen. So — why offer the temptation ?
    I’m proud of Australia too — but NOT of our governments. Many of their acts I can not – will not defend. Can you ?
    So, I hope you can have a rethink on the AUS thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Hey, PeterAUS. This not a criticism, but a question.
     
    Aha.

    I assume, from context etc that the AUS in your username (UN) refers to Australia.
     
    O.K.
    Why not Austria? I could be an Austrian living, for a time being in Australia. Or was living in Australia. Actually, my father could've been German and mother Estonian. Or vice versa. Etc.

    Now, naturally, I don’t know your life/story etc, however, my question is: is it really necessary to reference your nationality in your UN ?
     
    Don't know? Is it?
    Austrian or Australian?
    Nationality or current living location?

    Problem is, by using Australia in your UN, your personal critics can then easily transfer that criticism to Australia. No, maybe it’s not common – nor is it fair, nor right etc but it DOES happen. So — why offer the temptation ?
     
    Haha.....yeah....
    People will criticize you because of plenty of reasons; quite a few out of realm of logic, science and common sense.
    My advice to you: do not take people on the Internet too seriously. Me included.

    I’m proud of Australia too — but NOT of our governments. Many of their acts I can not – will not defend. Can you ?
     
    Such as?

    So, I hope you can have a rethink on the AUS thing.
     
    Austria or Australia?

    On a more serious note....has the word "censorship" occurred to you, while you were typing that post? Or...."compulsive control"?

    I've been..hehe....criticized here a lot, called all sorts of names, even my mother was mentioned a couple of times (in certain, rather violent, sex scenes), but, so far, nobody wanted me to change my handle.
    Always interesting around here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. This annoys me so much when I see it.

    People starting to use the police’s self-serving false dichotomy of “police” and “civilians”

    Civilians are EVERYBODY who is not military. Which INCLUDES THE POLICE.

    Police use the term “civilian” in a derogatory manner. Please stop accepting and perpetuating their mindset that anyone not wearing blue or brown is to be treated as boot-licking subservient scum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  190. @peterAUS
    Questions felt sincere so tried to reply.
    Gave up.

    That's what I call "civilian question".
    The proper answer requires a perceived scenario.

    One keyword: ORGANIZATION.

    I believe the first question is meaningless.
    Can't imagine such scenario.
    I could imagine, at most, a county declaring something of an independence and Administration going for restoring own authority.

    Based on that the second question is complicated and requires a serious post. We can not have such posts here.
    If you are really interested think "magnitude/scale" and go from there. I, personally, believe that it wouldn't be a problem for US Administration. Military will execute the order.

    Everything more than that, organized (say a state or group of states declaring independence), would not look as citizens armed per 2nd. That would be next level and not relevant to the topic.

    A scenario where there is total breakup of law and order in, say, several states and military, still ORGANIZED (the key) is tasked to, say, disarm all civilians there, no problem at all. 1 000 000 armed civilians in small groups against an organized US military effort.....a joke.
    It wouldn't even be much of a fighting. People are not that stupid.

    “1 000 000 armed civilians in small groups against an organized US military effort…..a joke.”

    You’ve obviously never been to Iraq. circa 2003-2010.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @NoseytheDuke
    I confronted intruders in my home in the US (Los Angeles) on two occasions, the first time during the afternoon I heard a noise and went to check it out, I almost bumped into the intruder but when he clocked the M1 carbine I was carrying he was gone in a flash. The second time I watched the intruder taking the glass slats out of a window before climbing through. He was halfway in when I cocked the 12G Winchester Defender and the sound of that was enough to send him packing and very quickly. This was around 1am.

    One time in Australia, also around 1am, two intruders broke in but I heard them (we aren't allowed to own guns in Australia so we're practically forced to beat people to death) and confronted them brandishing a huge knife in one hand and a baseball bat in the other, I was screaming obscenities and pounding the wooden floorboards with the bat, I was also naked so I scared the crap out of them, they didn't know whether I was going to kill 'em or fuck 'em (or kill 'em AND fuck 'em, but that's a little kinky even for me) They split pronto, dropping the screwdriver they'd used to get in.

    Now I rely on my wary dog to keep guard and I also keep a golf club handy. Although I support the 2nd amendment for Americans I must confess it is much less stressful living in a place where gun violence is far less common. In Australia if you harm an intruder you are likely to be charged with a crime.

    “In Australia if you harm an intruder you are likely to be charged with a crime.”

    Which is a crime in itself. Against the aggrieved party (the person whose home has been broken into by someone with obviously ill intent).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Everyone says “get a dog” and dogs are great but relatively few people seem to be up to the task of ‘canine companionship’ –instead they appear to think dogs can be like appliances, and they store them in cages while they work long hours, go out to dinner and movies, go shopping, sleep, what have you…

    This is cruel and doesn’t produce good results for dogs or humans. I see so much of this and it’s so depressing. Then these same people send their dogs to “trainers” who visit further cruelties upon the dogs as well as violate the bond which should be connecting the dog to the family.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Depends on the trainer. Some of the so called trainers use what they call positive reinforcement. That means waving a treat 6 inches from their mouth while begging them to do what they are supposed to do anyway.

    Doesn’t work.

    Dogs do seem to have an excessive need for love and attention. One dog I know goes out to the gate every day about an hour before sunset and waits for his mommy to get home. If she’s not home by 7 winter, 9 in summer he gets really anxious. That dog has a husband and 3 kids around but he really wants his beloved mommy home on time.

    But they also need food and shelter. I’m sure they are happy lying on the couch or next to a heat vent waiting for their beloved humans to get home.

    I’ve done a lot of dog sitting in the last 10 years. They sleep most of the time when their owners are away.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Alden says:
    @Jim Moore
    One point I think is important is liability. I was a federal law enforcement officer for over 30 years and also worked as an investigator for a City Attorney's office helping defend local police officers who were being sued, usually relating to use of force.

    If a law enforcement officer uses force (shoots, tases, clubs with a baton, pepper sprays) someone they usually have a free defense attorney provided by their agency to try to justify their actions. Most of these attorneys I have seen are pretty good at it.

    If you as a civilian use the same force you have a very good chance of getting sued. You have to pay for your own attorney and hopefully you get a good one who is competent in this area of the law and does not soak you in your hour of need.

    I knew of a federal agent who saw a rape in progress. He intervened and ended up clinging to a car door as the rapist drove off. The agent shot and killed the bad guy. Shirt tail kin came out of the wood work and sued the agent. It took years to resolve, luckily in the agent's favor. He had an Assistant United States Attorney to defend him because it was ruled duty related. What if that were you?

    Yes, "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6." I have heard that my whole career. But we live in a litigious society where people view lawsuits as being like the lottery. Maybe your homeowners insurance will cover any award, maybe it won't. Juries almost always give cops more benefit of the doubt than civilians. Especially when the plaintiff attorney tries to compare you with wanna-be cop George Zimmerman

    So think twice before you shoot. Do it if you have to, but it is better to avoid bad areas, especially in the dark. I have heard of silly disputes over a parking space that end up with someone being shot.

    I know of a case of an off-duty federal agent shot and killed by a 60 year old white guy on his way to dialysis in Florida. It was a "you cut me off in traffic" thing. The agent died in front of his child that he was taking to school. He was armed but the bad guy shot first. My point is the shooter was an otherwise law abiding person who got angry and shot over something silly. He went to jail.

    Just be careful, walk away if you have to. If you shoot, the odds are you will get sued and even if you prevail it may cost you a bundle.

    As a final note, I vote for a wheel gun as a home defense weapon. The S&W model 60 is great in my opinion. I have owned one since 1977.

    I bet the old White guy had diabetes.

    So many bar fights, parking lot fights domestic violence fights road rage are caused by diabetics and their “volatility and irritability “

    Diabetics will never back down. They start fights and just keep going.

    I fired 2 managers in the past 5 years because they flew off the handle and squabbled with everyone. A couple months after I hired each I noted their diabetic behavior and asked if they had diabetes. They were schocked and asked me how I figured it out.

    Personally, I think diabetics are worse than drunks as far as starting fights all the time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Alden says:
    @Gleimhart
    You're full of it, but beginning your asinine post with "Hahaha..." was the tipoff that what was likely going to be pure bunk.

    First off, the "myth" that Americans supposedly have about European gun ownership is simply untrue. We really just don't care one way or the other what Europeans do or don't do. Non-Americans obsess over Americans, but we have no corresponding meddlesome busybody bees-in-the-bonnet regarding guns or gun ownership in foreign places.

    Second, the notion that foreigners have access to guns that "Americans can only dream about" is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on the internet — and that's saying something. Attending just one average American gun show would knock the likes of you back on your rear-end, and we have hundreds of them on a weekly basis. The variety, deep catalogue, and custom firearms gunsmith designs is staggering.

    No country on earth has more of a history of people defending themselves with modern firearms. Americans did more to invent modern firearms than all other peoples combined.

    This article is unnecessary for Americans. Just really basic stuff for us, but foreigners may find some use in it. There are whole books and courses and instructors that cover so much more ground than just these introductory comments by The Saker. Americans don't need gun advice from foreigners. We're the experts. There wasn't even any mention about hollow points, for crying out loud. I know you don't realize why that's important, and I'm not going to tell you.

    You may want to dial it back a few notches before you play the fool again.

    When my sister and her husband lived in Germany they met lots of guys who had military weapons

    They got them from corrupt American soldiers who worked in the warehouses on the numerous American army bases There was a regular trade going on.

    France has as much or more of a hunting culture as we do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @TG
    Yes, well said. Kudos.

    1. You mentioned it, but I think that it cannot be emphasized enough: first, live in a safe area. That's worth more than all the guns you can carry.

    2. I am not a gun-control nut, but guns ARE dangerous tools. Especially if children are running around (you know, children, those tiny self-destructive humans with no common sense and who bore easily and like to get into things), you should keep your guns locked up. Again, you need to play the odds: in a safe neighborhood, a gun unlocked in a nightstand is far more likely to be picked up by one of your kids (or the kid of a visitor, or an angry spouse) or stolen, than to save your life - but of course, it becomes less available in an emergency. In a bad neighborhood (if you just have no choice here) or things start to go to pot, the odds shift, you might be better off with the gun more accessible. No hard and fast rules here but should be kept in mind.

    3. Others have mentioned: shotguns. Yes, cumbersome, and the gun in your hand is worth infinitely more than the one over your mantle, but intimidating and hard to miss with (not so much from the shot spread as the length of the barrel).

    4. Riots. These don't happen that often, but when they do, you'll be happier with the shotgun or rifle. Ask a Korean store-owner in LA.

    5. Get a dog. In most neighborhoods, far more valuable than a gun. The issue is not to get a pit bull, but something that sleeps in the hall and barks at strangers. A cocker spaniel will do. As you mention, criminals are mostly cowardly and are looking for the easy score. A decent watchdog is always "on." Dealing with a barking dog is a hassle, a criminal will likely move on to a quieter and more inviting target. And when not guarding you at night, dogs fetch slobbery tennis balls. Who's a good boy? Yes, you are!!

    5. Get a dog.

    Bingo! The types who invade homes don’t like big dogs. Pit bulls scare the crap out of them.

    Get an American Bulldog, any of the mastiff breeds, a big hunting dog like Chesapeake or Newfoundland along with a small nervous alarm dog. If the sound of a gun cocking will scare off intruders, the sound of a 250lb (or three) mastiff will make them wet their pants.

    Don’t get me wrong, guns are great. If my big dogs don’t deter someone they’ll have a much bigger surprise but at least my dogs give me a chance to wake up and stuff cotton in my ears before firing a large caliber weapon indoors!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    Stan, I agree about having a dog. Big breeds are more intimidating to crooks, but the dog doesn't need to be very big to be effective. I had a great dog years ago, an Irish Terrier. He was my wife's bodyguard. That breed is typically fearless and they have a deep voice and rather large teeth for their size. Mine weighed about 34 pounds. He chased away an intruder in our garage once, and he scared the shit out of anybody who came near my wife when she was walking him around town.

    A 60 pound dog is big enough to fight off two unarmed human attackers at once. I have a mixed breed who weighs 65 pounds or so and he's a very good guardian. I found him playing in the road when he was about 7 weeks old and he had huge feet and weighed 18 pounds. He looked like a Boerboel puppy but he didn't grow to 150 pounds like that breed does.

    Of course, most crooks are afraid of dogs. The old folks said, when I was a kid, "Don't trust anybody your dog doesn't trust". That has served as good advice.
    , @Alden
    Where do you live that you need such protection? Are you black and you live in the south side of Chicago?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Svigor says:

    is It really that easy to kick in a door, even a flimsy interior door? I don’t think so.

    Yeah it’s pretty easy. I agree that it’s better than nothing – just not much better.

    The article isn’t about self defense in general, but the best kinds of guns for different people in differebt situations.

    Knives require getting close. Guns can stop the criminal before he gets close.

    At least one comment broached unarmed self-defense. You have to get pretty close for that.

    And, also, using a knife against a perp does require some physical ability. Say, granny with a knife vs granny with .38.

    The context was explicitly knives vs unarmed combat, not knives vs guns. Knives are a better backup than empty hands, no matter how trained, was the point.

    Will someone explain to me why the use of a laser sight doesn’t also illuminate you as a target as well? Seems to me that red light would give your target something to aim at, but unlike most here I readily admit to knowing virtually nothing about this topic.

    From what I gather, laser sights were a fad that’s pretty much over. Nobody who isn’t getting paid to push them pushes them anymore. Lights are the big accessory, though, and they have the same problem. On the up side, they tend to blind the target and you can ID him at night so you aren’t blasting an innocent by mistake.

    The agent shot and killed the bad guy. Shirt tail kin came out of the wood work and sued the agent.

    From what I gather, these suits are long shots. Shoot someone and cripple him he can argue you killed his employment prospects. He can’t argue that if he’s dead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    "is It really that easy to kick in a door, even a flimsy interior door? I don’t think so."

    I am able to see through a sliding wood bedroom door using a the 100w illumination of an incandescent lamp ceiling fixture on one side and viewing it through an old US Army infrared Metascope. Thin enough?
    , @Alden
    No, but all his relatives can sue you for wrongful death. Relatives who are dependent can sue you for loss of income over his lifetime. Not that most criminals have much projected income
    Lovers can sue you for loss of consortium.

    Even his landlord or mortgage holder could probably sue you for loss of a couple months rent or mortgage payments.
    “Judged by 12 or carried by 6”

    If you are a black lowlife prison isn’t so bad. You get 3 hots and a cot and lots of leisure time.

    If you are a White in jail or prison surrounded by black criminals and affirmative action black guards you’ll wish you were dead.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @Jim Moore
    One point I think is important is liability. I was a federal law enforcement officer for over 30 years and also worked as an investigator for a City Attorney's office helping defend local police officers who were being sued, usually relating to use of force.

    If a law enforcement officer uses force (shoots, tases, clubs with a baton, pepper sprays) someone they usually have a free defense attorney provided by their agency to try to justify their actions. Most of these attorneys I have seen are pretty good at it.

    If you as a civilian use the same force you have a very good chance of getting sued. You have to pay for your own attorney and hopefully you get a good one who is competent in this area of the law and does not soak you in your hour of need.

    I knew of a federal agent who saw a rape in progress. He intervened and ended up clinging to a car door as the rapist drove off. The agent shot and killed the bad guy. Shirt tail kin came out of the wood work and sued the agent. It took years to resolve, luckily in the agent's favor. He had an Assistant United States Attorney to defend him because it was ruled duty related. What if that were you?

    Yes, "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6." I have heard that my whole career. But we live in a litigious society where people view lawsuits as being like the lottery. Maybe your homeowners insurance will cover any award, maybe it won't. Juries almost always give cops more benefit of the doubt than civilians. Especially when the plaintiff attorney tries to compare you with wanna-be cop George Zimmerman

    So think twice before you shoot. Do it if you have to, but it is better to avoid bad areas, especially in the dark. I have heard of silly disputes over a parking space that end up with someone being shot.

    I know of a case of an off-duty federal agent shot and killed by a 60 year old white guy on his way to dialysis in Florida. It was a "you cut me off in traffic" thing. The agent died in front of his child that he was taking to school. He was armed but the bad guy shot first. My point is the shooter was an otherwise law abiding person who got angry and shot over something silly. He went to jail.

    Just be careful, walk away if you have to. If you shoot, the odds are you will get sued and even if you prevail it may cost you a bundle.

    As a final note, I vote for a wheel gun as a home defense weapon. The S&W model 60 is great in my opinion. I have owned one since 1977.

    If you shoot, the odds are you will get sued and even if you prevail it may cost you a bundle.

    A growing trend is for the states to limit or outright ban any civil suit rising out of a true self defense shooting.

    One article on the matter lists 32 states with various degrees of civil immunity in self defense cases. The best thing to do would be to read your state law and/or talk to a local lawyer. I didn’t look at all 32 states, but I do know the law in my state.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/self-defense-immunity-laws-which-states-protect-you-best/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Anonymous
    Will someone explain to me why the use of a laser sight doesn't also illuminate you as a target as well? Seems to me that red light would give your target something to aim at, but unlike most here I readily admit to knowing virtually nothing about this topic.

    Will someone explain to me why the use of a laser sight doesn’t also illuminate you as a target as well? Seems to me that red light would give your target something to aim at, but unlike most here I readily admit to knowing virtually nothing about this topic.

    A lot of it will depend upon the environment. I have played with a laser sight on a pistol. In fog or mist you can see the laser show up like an arrow pointing right back at you. Without the reflective atmosphere you might see the red light on the end of the pistol, but I suspect unless it is pitch black you would be able to see the person with the gun anyway. Most self defense shootings take place at under 10 yards. The laser allows ease of point shooting, cutting down on reaction time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    Laser sights are illegal in the Grand Duchy of Chicago. But I can see them having a use in certain situations. Someone pointed out if it's dark, like in the case where of an active shooter in a movie theater and they were wearing body armor, a head shot attempt might be feasible. Ian at Forgotten Weapons runs through a contest with an assault rifle with his partner and at the end, they come the conclusion if you have a big magazine, you can afford tactical-wise to take iffy shots at targets that you wouldn't consider if you were limited, like with a revolver. Reading Ayoob's articles in American Handgunner having a large capacity magazine is certainly advantageous in a running gun battle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @jsmithesq
    Since the supreme court of the U.S. eliminated the "fleeing felon" rule it has been illegal to use deadly force to apprehend a criminal or stop a crime.

    A correct analysis is that you put yourself in the shoes of the victim, and if he or she would be justified in using lethal force from their standpoint, you may use lethal force as against the perpetrator.

    Accordingly, one can only use lethal force when a threat of death or very serious bodily injury is threatened. Of course, police and other law enforcement officials are included in this analysis since they are the ones charged with apprehending fleeing felons. Accordingly, I disagree with the statement within the article by The Saker, which states that a citizen has no ability to use lethal force to apprehend a criminal, which of course, implies via innuendo that a police officer, could use lethal force to apprehend a criminal or stop a crime. Anyone can use lethal force, but the law no longer makes a distinction between a law enforcement officer and anyone else.

    A proper instruction would be to tell someone that only if they are in reasonable fear that their life is in danger of being ended immediately, are they justified in using lethal force against another human, and in that instance the lethal force must be directed only to the human or humans who pose such a threat.

    As for how and why I speak from authority as to the law, I am a criminal defense attorney who has practiced for 20 years, and who scored in the 93d percentile on the constitutional law section of the multistate bar, when I took the bar exam approximately 21 years ago. I also just attended a 6.5 hour continuing education course for attorneys on Ohio concealed carry law, and the above is consistent with what I was taught in the course, which also agrees with that which I learned in law school.

    That said, it used to be that law enforcement folk could use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon, so this is a common misnomer.

    Accordingly, one can only use lethal force when a threat of death or very serious bodily injury is threatened.

    Depends on state law. Texas does (or did) allow force to stop some property crimes. Kentucky allows me to use deadly force to stop an arson of a habitation. Know your state’s laws, they are all different.

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Dr. X
    Wow... what a long, rambling and exhausting essay. I hardly know where to begin with my response.

    First, it is superficially true that revolvers are better for self-defense -- for those who do not frequently train. A revolver is, simply, more idiot-proof -- for six rounds, anyway. An auto pistol is far better for people who actually take the time to train with realistic scenarios, such as IDPA.

    Second, a revolver is far more difficult to reload than an auto pistol and this makes a very big difference in a situation where more than a few shots are needed.

    Third, a revolver is not necessarily easier to carry than an auto pistol (unless it is a small 2" S&W J-frame) because an auto pistol is flatter, lighter, and conceals easier.

    Fourth, I have very serious misgivings about the notion that auto pistols are better for cops. To the contrary, I'd like to see more cops carrying revolvers. Cops are often not very good marksmen at all and cops who have auto pistols with high-capacity magazines often take a "spray and pray" approach with few hits. There are numerous instances of cops blazing away with hundreds of rounds of ammo at suspects. In one incident in Cleveland, cops thought that were getting shot at... when in reality a vehicle had backfired through its muffler. The cops fired 113 shots at the vehicle, basically executing the two unarmed occupants who were each hit over two dozen times. (Still less than a 50% hit rate, though...)

    Fifth, another very serious misgiving I have is that Saker believes that a couple of shots out of a revolver is all that is ever needed for self-defense. In most -- perhaps 95% -- of defensive scenarios this is true. But what about the Detroit Riots, the LA Riots, Katrina, etc? When the cops completely disappear, and gangs of numerous (perhaps thousands) of individuals rule the streets engaged in looting, arson, and murder, five or six shots out of a .38 revolver ain't gonna cut it. If you are ever in a bug-out situation where there is mass anarchy or a mass exodus and you need to grab a gun that you will need to pack concealed for a long time, there is no substitute for a good 9mm auto pistol, a half-dozen loaded hi-cap mags, and 100-200 rounds of spare ammo, all of which can easily be toted in a backpack for an extended duration.

    I love my revolvers as much as any gun, and I am very skilled with them, but when I shoot competitively and need to engage multiple targets quickly and accomplish fast reloads, there is no substitute for a good, reliable auto pistol.

    that a couple of shots out of a revolver is all that is ever needed for self-defense. In most — perhaps 95% — of defensive scenarios this is true. But what about the Detroit Riots, the LA Riots, Katrina, etc?

    By all means have a back up plan and a bug out bag. But even better stay the hell out of areas where dindus might riot and if the forecast calls for a hurricane, make some plans before hand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. FB says:
    @Gleimhart
    It is significant to note that every assertion made by you here is incorrect, delusional, and just plain odd.

    You didn't actually refute anything. Instead, you postured, and you're quite poor at it by the way.

    You steer clear of my type? Son, you haven't the faintest clue what "my type" is, as "my type" is not discernible on the simple account of my having pointed out your idiocy.

    The article was plainly about revolvers vs. semi-autos and you keep yacking on about toys for boys? — armored vehicles? — gunships? — and helicopters? You're not even intelligent enough to understand the parameters of the topic, much less the facts pertaining to those parameters.

    And you didn't list anything that is not in American hands or is not obtainable here. Yours were some jaw-dropping statements, one after the other. Seriously. How are people like you even formed. You can't simply will phony facts into existence, little man. Tomorrow I will show your post to some of my fellow Americans who know even more than I do and I will enjoy gauging their reactions. Probably first their eyes roll before they break out into laughter at the poser foreigner who talks from the abysmal depths of his rectum. Yes, we will have a good laugh at your expense.

    You're like so many anti-American lowlifes: You think you know what you're talking about, and you laughably think you know more about the subject as it pertains to my country than I do. You go straight from the Civil War to Waco and Ruby Ridge. That's your awesome "historical" knowledge on display. You're a whack job if there ever was one.

    You seemed to take issue with my comment about hollow points, but you didn't say why. All you did was jabber on about "perspective" and "my type" (again). Hollow points are precisely on topic for this article, and here you are acting like there was no valid reason for me to have brought it up, and you still don't even know why I did, because you're an amateur hour poser.

    Just admit it: You've never even shot a gun, have you? Your "toys for boys" comment told me quite emphatically that you are a wannabe "macho man" who suffers from some genuine hangups.

    What a nitwit. I told you to dial it back. You should've listened.

    You're dismissed.

    Why don’t you dial it back a little yourself…?

    Nobody needs to listen to hissy fits here…

    Your shrill tone tells me you’re just as much as a poseur as Peter…and that’s poseur with an e

    I have read this entire exchange between yourself and Peter…and you went off like some kind of grenade for no reason…

    That kind of hysteria tells me you are mentally unstable…and should not even be talking about guns…

    Your whole shtick is…you don’t care about the gun situation in Europe…blah blah blah…

    Well guess what…you sound like you have never been outside of the United States so what makes you think anybody here is interested in hearing you prattle on about things you know nothing of…

    Peter has a valid point about gun ownership in certain parts of Europe…little Switzerland ranks second in the world in gun ownership [behind the US] with 45 firearms per 100 people…

    Difference is that more Swiss households actually have firearms than in the US…reason being is that the high US number [88 per 100] is skewed by the fact that there are a lot of ‘gun nuts’ who own huge collections…I know many myself…

    You don’t see these fanboys in Europe…but many households do have a gun or two…

    I say this from personal experience having traveled widely on the continent…I remember walking into a gun shop in Belgrade and seeing assault rifles on an unsecured display rack in the middle of the store…you don’t see that in the US…

    Serbia btw is number four on the list…Finland number three. Sweden and Norway nine and 10…

    Peter is also correct about the Balkans ‘gun culture’ which is very different from the US…many of those guns have been used by militias that saw heavy duty action during the Balkan wars of the ’90s…

    Military service is mandatory in many European countries…which means every male knows how to use a firearm…and these guys are ready to go to action if need be…as was the case with the Balkans wars…

    City violence and petty crime are not a big problem there…so it is a completely different picture…people have guns for more fundamental reasons…as in defending their political rights…something that is yakked about ad nauseum in the US but is just a figment of the imagination in tough-talking gun collectors…

    Of course many EU countries do fit the stereotype of a completely disarmed populace…but nobody needs to hear some claptrap from a know-nothing…

    Peter can be…and regularly is…quite obtuse here…but personal attacks with such a shrill tone don’t look good on you either…especially when you’ve got nothing to say…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @Chris Mallory

    Will someone explain to me why the use of a laser sight doesn’t also illuminate you as a target as well? Seems to me that red light would give your target something to aim at, but unlike most here I readily admit to knowing virtually nothing about this topic.
     
    A lot of it will depend upon the environment. I have played with a laser sight on a pistol. In fog or mist you can see the laser show up like an arrow pointing right back at you. Without the reflective atmosphere you might see the red light on the end of the pistol, but I suspect unless it is pitch black you would be able to see the person with the gun anyway. Most self defense shootings take place at under 10 yards. The laser allows ease of point shooting, cutting down on reaction time.

    Laser sights are illegal in the Grand Duchy of Chicago. But I can see them having a use in certain situations. Someone pointed out if it’s dark, like in the case where of an active shooter in a movie theater and they were wearing body armor, a head shot attempt might be feasible. Ian at Forgotten Weapons runs through a contest with an assault rifle with his partner and at the end, they come the conclusion if you have a big magazine, you can afford tactical-wise to take iffy shots at targets that you wouldn’t consider if you were limited, like with a revolver. Reading Ayoob’s articles in American Handgunner having a large capacity magazine is certainly advantageous in a running gun battle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. peterAUS says:
    @animalogic
    Hey, PeterAUS. This not a criticism, but a question.
    I assume, from context etc that the AUS in your username (UN) refers to Australia. Now, naturally, I don't know your life/story etc, however, my question is: is it really necessary to reference your nationality in your UN ?
    Problem is, by using Australia in your UN, your personal critics can then easily transfer that criticism to Australia. No, maybe it's not common - nor is it fair, nor right etc but it DOES happen. So -- why offer the temptation ?
    I'm proud of Australia too -- but NOT of our governments. Many of their acts I can not - will not defend. Can you ?
    So, I hope you can have a rethink on the AUS thing.

    Hey, PeterAUS. This not a criticism, but a question.

    Aha.

    I assume, from context etc that the AUS in your username (UN) refers to Australia.

    O.K.
    Why not Austria? I could be an Austrian living, for a time being in Australia. Or was living in Australia. Actually, my father could’ve been German and mother Estonian. Or vice versa. Etc.

    Now, naturally, I don’t know your life/story etc, however, my question is: is it really necessary to reference your nationality in your UN ?

    Don’t know? Is it?
    Austrian or Australian?
    Nationality or current living location?

    Problem is, by using Australia in your UN, your personal critics can then easily transfer that criticism to Australia. No, maybe it’s not common – nor is it fair, nor right etc but it DOES happen. So — why offer the temptation ?

    Haha…..yeah….
    People will criticize you because of plenty of reasons; quite a few out of realm of logic, science and common sense.
    My advice to you: do not take people on the Internet too seriously. Me included.

    I’m proud of Australia too — but NOT of our governments. Many of their acts I can not – will not defend. Can you ?

    Such as?

    So, I hope you can have a rethink on the AUS thing.

    Austria or Australia?

    On a more serious note….has the word “censorship” occurred to you, while you were typing that post? Or….”compulsive control”?

    I’ve been..hehe….criticized here a lot, called all sorts of names, even my mother was mentioned a couple of times (in certain, rather violent, sex scenes), but, so far, nobody wanted me to change my handle.
    Always interesting around here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    You equate what I wrote with censorship & (Jesus wept) "compulsive control" ? Keep your "handle" you monumental smart arse....hehehe & hahaha
    , @Anonymous
    We've got to get these childish, personal vendettas under control around here. They're irritating everyone and taking up way too much space. They end up having little to nothing to do with the topic at hand, and make the site look bad.

    Perhaps those who persistently engage in these antics should be limited to 100 words per post, or (even better) five posts per day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. peterAUS says:
    @Jim Moore
    One point I think is important is liability. I was a federal law enforcement officer for over 30 years and also worked as an investigator for a City Attorney's office helping defend local police officers who were being sued, usually relating to use of force.

    If a law enforcement officer uses force (shoots, tases, clubs with a baton, pepper sprays) someone they usually have a free defense attorney provided by their agency to try to justify their actions. Most of these attorneys I have seen are pretty good at it.

    If you as a civilian use the same force you have a very good chance of getting sued. You have to pay for your own attorney and hopefully you get a good one who is competent in this area of the law and does not soak you in your hour of need.

    I knew of a federal agent who saw a rape in progress. He intervened and ended up clinging to a car door as the rapist drove off. The agent shot and killed the bad guy. Shirt tail kin came out of the wood work and sued the agent. It took years to resolve, luckily in the agent's favor. He had an Assistant United States Attorney to defend him because it was ruled duty related. What if that were you?

    Yes, "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6." I have heard that my whole career. But we live in a litigious society where people view lawsuits as being like the lottery. Maybe your homeowners insurance will cover any award, maybe it won't. Juries almost always give cops more benefit of the doubt than civilians. Especially when the plaintiff attorney tries to compare you with wanna-be cop George Zimmerman

    So think twice before you shoot. Do it if you have to, but it is better to avoid bad areas, especially in the dark. I have heard of silly disputes over a parking space that end up with someone being shot.

    I know of a case of an off-duty federal agent shot and killed by a 60 year old white guy on his way to dialysis in Florida. It was a "you cut me off in traffic" thing. The agent died in front of his child that he was taking to school. He was armed but the bad guy shot first. My point is the shooter was an otherwise law abiding person who got angry and shot over something silly. He went to jail.

    Just be careful, walk away if you have to. If you shoot, the odds are you will get sued and even if you prevail it may cost you a bundle.

    As a final note, I vote for a wheel gun as a home defense weapon. The S&W model 60 is great in my opinion. I have owned one since 1977.

    We’ve been presented here with plethora of advice re the topic.
    Not many from the legal point of view.
    Nice to see your comment.

    Would you be so kind to post here a simple, say, “drill” as to what to do/not do, and how, post shooting event?
    jsmithesq could chime in, of course.

    Like, a homeowner is in his home, perp is down from multiple wounds, the owner is holding his gun an listening to police sirens, going through the shakes.

    What would be advisable course of action in the next couple of hours from the legal point of view?
    In USA, of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X

    Like, a homeowner is in his home, perp is down from multiple wounds, the owner is holding his gun an listening to police sirens, going through the shakes.

    What would be advisable course of action in the next couple of hours from the legal point of view?
    In USA, of course.
     
    The advisable course of action would be the following:

    1. Call 911 and say "There's an emergency, someone's been shot. Send an ambulance." Then hang up and say NOTHING more.

    2. When the cops show up say "This person burglarized my home and I was forced to defend myself. I would like to exercise my Fifth Amendment right to not answer any other questions, and I would like to exercise my Sixth Amendment right to have an attorney present." Say NOTHING else. NOTHING.

    The biggest problem most people have is keeping their mouth SHUT around the cops. Cops are NOT your friends.
    , @Alden
    Totally depends on the specific laws of the state and city and county ordinances.

    Generalizations are useless. Get gun owners insurance and read the information they send you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. “I remember walking into a gun shop in Belgrade and seeing assault rifles on an unsecured display rack in the middle of the store…you don’t see that in the US…”

    Sure you do. I was in an Illinois gun shop a couple of years ago and they had a large display of assault rifles in the front of the store. A relative was looking to buy an FN SCAR-H. They had it on display where anyone could pick it up. I handled a Beretta .223 AR and Armalite AR-10 straight straight off the rack. Apparently this store was well known as an assault rifle shop; relative spotted a person who looked just like Roe Conn, WGN radio personality. I’ve heard Dan Proft, WIND radio personality state he has a S&W AR.

    I’ll stretch out my neck and bet most guns in Europe are long guns intended for hunting, are registered and permitted, are not military caliber and basically unsuitable for militia use. Suitable for self-defense in a pinch, sure. Limited magazine capacity as well?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Warning: "militia" thread in progress here. Proceed with caution. Better, still, skip it.

    I’ll stretch out my neck and bet most guns in Europe are long guns intended for hunting, are registered and permitted, are not military caliber and basically unsuitable for militia use. Suitable for self-defense in a pinch, sure. Limited magazine capacity as well?
     
    The "American exceptionalism" as it best or worst.

    There is no Europe.
    There are groups of countries over there.

    Difference between United Kingdom and Bosnia and Herzegovina is......huge.

    What you posted is correct, as far as I know, for Western Europe.

    It is absolutely NOT correct for the East Europe. Balkans in particular.

    I guarantee you, a village in Kosovo, as we speak, has somewhere handy, but well hidden, a cache of weaponry to give US Army battle group hard time. The village has the structure in place to form a light infantry company in an hour. Trained and experienced guys too.
    The same in some other parts of Balkans too. Can't and won't go into details, of course.

    So, yes, you are correct up to a point: legally, nobody on this planet beats US citizens in having access to serious hardware.
    At the same time, some other countries, Europe included, have peoples/ethnic groups already "militarized" to a hilt, just, well, not quite legal.
    Which is exactly the point. That capability is not for self-defense and "big boys toys", but exactly what the 2nd was/is all about. Challenging the power of the state.
    Details: AAA cannons up to 3o mm, MANPADs, heavy machineguns with optics on tripods, rifle grenades, grenades, LAND MINES, etc. MORTARS up to 120 mm. And plenty of ammo for all that. Or better, for, say, 48 hours of intense fighting.
    Now, all that is just a step one. The first step.
    I can't, won't talk here about the 2nd and 3rd.

    As I said before, taking a look how it all worked in real (not in a book/movie) could be a good learning experience.
    And especially the latest in Ukraine. There was some really cool "militia" stuff there in 2014.
    , @FB

    'I’ll stretch out my neck and bet most guns in Europe are long guns intended for hunting, are registered and permitted, are not military caliber and basically unsuitable for militia use. Suitable for self-defense in a pinch, sure. Limited magazine capacity as well?'
     
    Depends which country in Europe...big differences there...if we get into countries where there is police corruption and start talking about unregistered weapons then that is a whole other can of worms right there...

    But I would agree generally that getting a sidearm In Europe can be more difficult in some jurisdictions than a long gun...

    In some countries it does not appear difficult at all to get sidearms...

    Again my point here is that in the Balkan countries especially there is a long tradition of gun ownership...

    This is most visible in rural areas where both long guns and sidearms are in practically every household...not all are necessarily registered and enforcement is either lax or nonexistent...

    The militia tradition here is also noteworthy...this is a part of Europe where an armed populace has been a way of life for centuries of political upheaval...

    Other places have their own type of gun culture...ie Sicily...

    I already mentioned Switzerland and this too goes back to the country's fierce independence...

    The point is that there is more to gun culture in Europe than some US hayseeds could ever imagine...so they should keep quiet about things they don't know...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @Svigor

    is It really that easy to kick in a door, even a flimsy interior door? I don’t think so.
     
    Yeah it's pretty easy. I agree that it's better than nothing - just not much better.

    The article isn’t about self defense in general, but the best kinds of guns for different people in differebt situations.

    Knives require getting close. Guns can stop the criminal before he gets close.
     
    At least one comment broached unarmed self-defense. You have to get pretty close for that.

    And, also, using a knife against a perp does require some physical ability. Say, granny with a knife vs granny with .38.
     
    The context was explicitly knives vs unarmed combat, not knives vs guns. Knives are a better backup than empty hands, no matter how trained, was the point.

    Will someone explain to me why the use of a laser sight doesn’t also illuminate you as a target as well? Seems to me that red light would give your target something to aim at, but unlike most here I readily admit to knowing virtually nothing about this topic.
     
    From what I gather, laser sights were a fad that's pretty much over. Nobody who isn't getting paid to push them pushes them anymore. Lights are the big accessory, though, and they have the same problem. On the up side, they tend to blind the target and you can ID him at night so you aren't blasting an innocent by mistake.

    The agent shot and killed the bad guy. Shirt tail kin came out of the wood work and sued the agent.
     
    From what I gather, these suits are long shots. Shoot someone and cripple him he can argue you killed his employment prospects. He can't argue that if he's dead.

    “is It really that easy to kick in a door, even a flimsy interior door? I don’t think so.”

    I am able to see through a sliding wood bedroom door using a the 100w illumination of an incandescent lamp ceiling fixture on one side and viewing it through an old US Army infrared Metascope. Thin enough?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    You know, you strike me as a guy into "militia" thing.

    I guess I was that type once upon a time. Or just a blowhard would be idiot. Probably 20/80 as far as "audience" here is concerned.

    We can't talk about that topic here.
    How about you get a quick email account, post the address here and we go from there?

    Now, of course somebody will be monitoring that "conversation" but at least we'll have creeps, "ragheads", gung-ho types and and would-be idiots with death wish out of conversation.

    You, Americans, are very good at individual/team level, "militia" thing wise.
    You are not good at anything above that and really bad where it really matters. Just a "blowhard" opinion.

    So, from a pure academic approach, maybe we could talk about a couple of things there?

    Could add something to what you know and do and, well, isn't Internet all about sharing information and bettering ourselves?

    I mean, even if 90 % I'd say will be sheer idiocy, a smart man could pick up that 10 %.

    Just a thought.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @peterAUS

    Hey, PeterAUS. This not a criticism, but a question.
     
    Aha.

    I assume, from context etc that the AUS in your username (UN) refers to Australia.
     
    O.K.
    Why not Austria? I could be an Austrian living, for a time being in Australia. Or was living in Australia. Actually, my father could've been German and mother Estonian. Or vice versa. Etc.

    Now, naturally, I don’t know your life/story etc, however, my question is: is it really necessary to reference your nationality in your UN ?
     
    Don't know? Is it?
    Austrian or Australian?
    Nationality or current living location?

    Problem is, by using Australia in your UN, your personal critics can then easily transfer that criticism to Australia. No, maybe it’s not common – nor is it fair, nor right etc but it DOES happen. So — why offer the temptation ?
     
    Haha.....yeah....
    People will criticize you because of plenty of reasons; quite a few out of realm of logic, science and common sense.
    My advice to you: do not take people on the Internet too seriously. Me included.

    I’m proud of Australia too — but NOT of our governments. Many of their acts I can not – will not defend. Can you ?
     
    Such as?

    So, I hope you can have a rethink on the AUS thing.
     
    Austria or Australia?

    On a more serious note....has the word "censorship" occurred to you, while you were typing that post? Or...."compulsive control"?

    I've been..hehe....criticized here a lot, called all sorts of names, even my mother was mentioned a couple of times (in certain, rather violent, sex scenes), but, so far, nobody wanted me to change my handle.
    Always interesting around here.

    You equate what I wrote with censorship & (Jesus wept) “compulsive control” ? Keep your “handle” you monumental smart arse….hehehe & hahaha

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. peterAUS says:
    @Joe Stalin
    "I remember walking into a gun shop in Belgrade and seeing assault rifles on an unsecured display rack in the middle of the store…you don’t see that in the US…"

    Sure you do. I was in an Illinois gun shop a couple of years ago and they had a large display of assault rifles in the front of the store. A relative was looking to buy an FN SCAR-H. They had it on display where anyone could pick it up. I handled a Beretta .223 AR and Armalite AR-10 straight straight off the rack. Apparently this store was well known as an assault rifle shop; relative spotted a person who looked just like Roe Conn, WGN radio personality. I've heard Dan Proft, WIND radio personality state he has a S&W AR.

    I'll stretch out my neck and bet most guns in Europe are long guns intended for hunting, are registered and permitted, are not military caliber and basically unsuitable for militia use. Suitable for self-defense in a pinch, sure. Limited magazine capacity as well?

    Warning: “militia” thread in progress here. Proceed with caution. Better, still, skip it.

    I’ll stretch out my neck and bet most guns in Europe are long guns intended for hunting, are registered and permitted, are not military caliber and basically unsuitable for militia use. Suitable for self-defense in a pinch, sure. Limited magazine capacity as well?

    The “American exceptionalism” as it best or worst.

    There is no Europe.
    There are groups of countries over there.

    Difference between United Kingdom and Bosnia and Herzegovina is……huge.

    What you posted is correct, as far as I know, for Western Europe.

    It is absolutely NOT correct for the East Europe. Balkans in particular.

    I guarantee you, a village in Kosovo, as we speak, has somewhere handy, but well hidden, a cache of weaponry to give US Army battle group hard time. The village has the structure in place to form a light infantry company in an hour. Trained and experienced guys too.
    The same in some other parts of Balkans too. Can’t and won’t go into details, of course.

    So, yes, you are correct up to a point: legally, nobody on this planet beats US citizens in having access to serious hardware.
    At the same time, some other countries, Europe included, have peoples/ethnic groups already “militarized” to a hilt, just, well, not quite legal.
    Which is exactly the point. That capability is not for self-defense and “big boys toys”, but exactly what the 2nd was/is all about. Challenging the power of the state.
    Details: AAA cannons up to 3o mm, MANPADs, heavy machineguns with optics on tripods, rifle grenades, grenades, LAND MINES, etc. MORTARS up to 120 mm. And plenty of ammo for all that. Or better, for, say, 48 hours of intense fighting.
    Now, all that is just a step one. The first step.
    I can’t, won’t talk here about the 2nd and 3rd.

    As I said before, taking a look how it all worked in real (not in a book/movie) could be a good learning experience.
    And especially the latest in Ukraine. There was some really cool “militia” stuff there in 2014.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Peter...put down that crack pipe for a minute and exhale slowly...

    What you are describing with that kind of military hardware may certainly exist in certain hotspots like Kosovo, maybe even Bosnia...and certainly does exist in active conflict areas like Donbass...

    But you are conflating apples and oranges here...

    Forming an infantry platoon in an hour is reality in some places...but this kind of stuff is allowed to happen only with tacit approval from whatever 'authorities' may be in place there...

    And this is a function of the stability of the area in question...we do still have unstable areas due to the hostilities we have had in recent times...the political questions are far from settled...and people are keeping their powder dry...

    But this has nothing to do with ordinary folks in stable areas...and their longstanding gun culture...

    There is no need to get into a lot of crazy talk to know that even countries like Germany where police corruption is nil and political stability is rock solid...there is still gun ownership among the people...especially in the rural areas...

    I am talking here of things I know firsthand...

    No you are not going to get an assault rifle legally...and you will need to be a member of a gun club to get a sidearm...

    But lots of capable rifles and shotguns are there in people's homes...that is a fact...

    I already talked about Switzerland...where the citizen militia played a key role in discouraging a Nazi invasion in WW2...every man was part of the Swiss militia...and kept his gun battle ready at all times...that militia is active to this day...

    Finland has 45 guns per 100 people...just a hair behind Switzerland...and again another case of probably more households with guns than the US...

    Just recently they are bringing in aptitude tests and such...but here again nobody is going to take away people's guns...especially in the rural areas...the same to varying extent is true in the other Nordic countries...

    We don't need to go into hyperbole about what is tucked away in some barn in Kosovo...true as that may be...it's not an accurate picture of the overall situation on the continent...

    But one thing you said is absolutely true...Europe is a fiction...even some countries within Europe are a fiction...so it is pointless and quite uninformed for Americans to talk about Europe as some kind of monolithic entity...

    And quite ridiculous to apply stereotypes about gun culture...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. FB says:
    @Joe Stalin
    "I remember walking into a gun shop in Belgrade and seeing assault rifles on an unsecured display rack in the middle of the store…you don’t see that in the US…"

    Sure you do. I was in an Illinois gun shop a couple of years ago and they had a large display of assault rifles in the front of the store. A relative was looking to buy an FN SCAR-H. They had it on display where anyone could pick it up. I handled a Beretta .223 AR and Armalite AR-10 straight straight off the rack. Apparently this store was well known as an assault rifle shop; relative spotted a person who looked just like Roe Conn, WGN radio personality. I've heard Dan Proft, WIND radio personality state he has a S&W AR.

    I'll stretch out my neck and bet most guns in Europe are long guns intended for hunting, are registered and permitted, are not military caliber and basically unsuitable for militia use. Suitable for self-defense in a pinch, sure. Limited magazine capacity as well?

    ‘I’ll stretch out my neck and bet most guns in Europe are long guns intended for hunting, are registered and permitted, are not military caliber and basically unsuitable for militia use. Suitable for self-defense in a pinch, sure. Limited magazine capacity as well?’

    Depends which country in Europe…big differences there…if we get into countries where there is police corruption and start talking about unregistered weapons then that is a whole other can of worms right there…

    But I would agree generally that getting a sidearm In Europe can be more difficult in some jurisdictions than a long gun…

    In some countries it does not appear difficult at all to get sidearms…

    Again my point here is that in the Balkan countries especially there is a long tradition of gun ownership…

    This is most visible in rural areas where both long guns and sidearms are in practically every household…not all are necessarily registered and enforcement is either lax or nonexistent…

    The militia tradition here is also noteworthy…this is a part of Europe where an armed populace has been a way of life for centuries of political upheaval…

    Other places have their own type of gun culture…ie Sicily…

    I already mentioned Switzerland and this too goes back to the country’s fierce independence…

    The point is that there is more to gun culture in Europe than some US hayseeds could ever imagine…so they should keep quiet about things they don’t know…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. peterAUS says:
    @Joe Stalin
    "is It really that easy to kick in a door, even a flimsy interior door? I don’t think so."

    I am able to see through a sliding wood bedroom door using a the 100w illumination of an incandescent lamp ceiling fixture on one side and viewing it through an old US Army infrared Metascope. Thin enough?

    You know, you strike me as a guy into “militia” thing.

    I guess I was that type once upon a time. Or just a blowhard would be idiot. Probably 20/80 as far as “audience” here is concerned.

    We can’t talk about that topic here.
    How about you get a quick email account, post the address here and we go from there?

    Now, of course somebody will be monitoring that “conversation” but at least we’ll have creeps, “ragheads”, gung-ho types and and would-be idiots with death wish out of conversation.

    You, Americans, are very good at individual/team level, “militia” thing wise.
    You are not good at anything above that and really bad where it really matters. Just a “blowhard” opinion.

    So, from a pure academic approach, maybe we could talk about a couple of things there?

    Could add something to what you know and do and, well, isn’t Internet all about sharing information and bettering ourselves?

    I mean, even if 90 % I’d say will be sheer idiocy, a smart man could pick up that 10 %.

    Just a thought.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    I'm just a guy interested in firearms, nothing more, nothing less. I am not a member of a gun club, nor a member of any organized "militia" group. I don't shoot very much. I am, however, very much interested in keeping American gun rights alive. You learn a lot reading and listening to the arguments of American and foreign gun controllers for decades. So I've decided to see what answers there were to the voluminous attacks gun controllers have presented via "The Megaphone," as Steve Sailer calls it.

    Does that satisfy your curiosity about me?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. FB says:
    @peterAUS
    Warning: "militia" thread in progress here. Proceed with caution. Better, still, skip it.

    I’ll stretch out my neck and bet most guns in Europe are long guns intended for hunting, are registered and permitted, are not military caliber and basically unsuitable for militia use. Suitable for self-defense in a pinch, sure. Limited magazine capacity as well?
     
    The "American exceptionalism" as it best or worst.

    There is no Europe.
    There are groups of countries over there.

    Difference between United Kingdom and Bosnia and Herzegovina is......huge.

    What you posted is correct, as far as I know, for Western Europe.

    It is absolutely NOT correct for the East Europe. Balkans in particular.

    I guarantee you, a village in Kosovo, as we speak, has somewhere handy, but well hidden, a cache of weaponry to give US Army battle group hard time. The village has the structure in place to form a light infantry company in an hour. Trained and experienced guys too.
    The same in some other parts of Balkans too. Can't and won't go into details, of course.

    So, yes, you are correct up to a point: legally, nobody on this planet beats US citizens in having access to serious hardware.
    At the same time, some other countries, Europe included, have peoples/ethnic groups already "militarized" to a hilt, just, well, not quite legal.
    Which is exactly the point. That capability is not for self-defense and "big boys toys", but exactly what the 2nd was/is all about. Challenging the power of the state.
    Details: AAA cannons up to 3o mm, MANPADs, heavy machineguns with optics on tripods, rifle grenades, grenades, LAND MINES, etc. MORTARS up to 120 mm. And plenty of ammo for all that. Or better, for, say, 48 hours of intense fighting.
    Now, all that is just a step one. The first step.
    I can't, won't talk here about the 2nd and 3rd.

    As I said before, taking a look how it all worked in real (not in a book/movie) could be a good learning experience.
    And especially the latest in Ukraine. There was some really cool "militia" stuff there in 2014.

    Peter…put down that crack pipe for a minute and exhale slowly…

    What you are describing with that kind of military hardware may certainly exist in certain hotspots like Kosovo, maybe even Bosnia…and certainly does exist in active conflict areas like Donbass…

    But you are conflating apples and oranges here…

    Forming an infantry platoon in an hour is reality in some places…but this kind of stuff is allowed to happen only with tacit approval from whatever ‘authorities’ may be in place there…

    And this is a function of the stability of the area in question…we do still have unstable areas due to the hostilities we have had in recent times…the political questions are far from settled…and people are keeping their powder dry…

    But this has nothing to do with ordinary folks in stable areas…and their longstanding gun culture…

    There is no need to get into a lot of crazy talk to know that even countries like Germany where police corruption is nil and political stability is rock solid…there is still gun ownership among the people…especially in the rural areas…

    I am talking here of things I know firsthand…

    No you are not going to get an assault rifle legally…and you will need to be a member of a gun club to get a sidearm…

    But lots of capable rifles and shotguns are there in people’s homes…that is a fact…

    I already talked about Switzerland…where the citizen militia played a key role in discouraging a Nazi invasion in WW2…every man was part of the Swiss militia…and kept his gun battle ready at all times…that militia is active to this day…

    Finland has 45 guns per 100 people…just a hair behind Switzerland…and again another case of probably more households with guns than the US…

    Just recently they are bringing in aptitude tests and such…but here again nobody is going to take away people’s guns…especially in the rural areas…the same to varying extent is true in the other Nordic countries…

    We don’t need to go into hyperbole about what is tucked away in some barn in Kosovo…true as that may be…it’s not an accurate picture of the overall situation on the continent…

    But one thing you said is absolutely true…Europe is a fiction…even some countries within Europe are a fiction…so it is pointless and quite uninformed for Americans to talk about Europe as some kind of monolithic entity…

    And quite ridiculous to apply stereotypes about gun culture…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments