Blog

The Uncomfortable Truths About Civilian Concealed Carry

After taking many self-defense classes and talking with many concealed carry people, here are my uncomfortable truths.

  • Most civilians don’t practice enough
  • Most civilians don’t train enough
  • Most civilians don’t refresh their training
  • Most civilians are equipment focused rather than skill focused
  • Most civilians don’t maintain their equipment properly
  • Most civilians have not taken emergency medical training and can’t “stop the bleeding” or “start the breathing” on themselves, their loved ones, or innocent victims
  • Because of all these things, most civilians are not qualified to carry a round in the chamber, operate complex (e.g., semi-automatic) firearms, or render aid to an injured party before the EMTs arrive.

I hate to say it, but the truth hurts.

How do I know these uncomfortable truths? Partly via experience but partly just doing some simple math and conservative estimates.

First, what we are going to do is estimate the number of people who carry in Arizona. Look at Arizona and the number of active concealed carry permits (reference citation at the bottom). The latest data is from 2022.

  • 2022 – Arizona 458,775 active permits
  • 8.1% of adults have a permit (adult pop: 5,663,888)
  • 24.4% of permit holders are women (75/25 split)
  • Arizona is also a permitless state for ages 21 and older

Permitless concealed carry, and open carry are different. Estimating their number takes a lot of work. I would go with 50% of permit holders for permitless and about 5% for open carry as my off-the-wall estimate. This would be:

  • X = 458775 + 458775(0.5) + 458775(0.05)
  • X = 458775 + 229387 + 22938
  • X =711,100

Percent of Arizona adult population: 12.5%

In contrast, the Bureau of Justice 2018 statistics show that Arizona had about 26,865 full-time state and local law enforcement agency employees. In short, about 3.8% of 711,100 is the total number of police officers in Arizona (active patrolling police officers would be less as this number includes administrative roles, but that may not be important as this data is from 2018 and not 2022). Source: https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/census-state-and-local-law-enforcement-agencies-2018-statistical-tables

Now, what type of training and hours should these people be getting? Let’s look at what law enforcement does in training camps.

“Recruits were required to spend an average of 168 hours of training on weapons, defensive tactics, the use of force, and nonlethal weapons.”

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies, 2013. Summary: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/slleta13_sum.pdf ; Full Report: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/slleta13.pdf

Let’s halve that number of hours and assume it focused on firearms, around 84 hours. Any refresher training would be around one-third of that or 28 hours per year. In addition, let’s put regular practice at 30min per week. You would be looking at about 24 hours per year.

The first year of training would be 84 hours + 24 hours for 108 hours. Each year after that, you would have 52 hours per year of practice and refresher training. The only people I know who train at this level are Firearm Instructors because they are constantly giving classes and helping students.

Back to some simple math. Let’s assume that the number of people who carry in Arizona increases by 1% each year. This would be 7,111 new carriers each year. Thus classes in Arizona that would train these people would need to support each of them training for 108 hours each, or 767,988 hours per year. To sustain training, the existing 711,100 would need 52 hours per year, for 36,977,200 hours of a combination of range time and class time. Note that this doesn’t include the range time of police officers or people who enjoy shooting but do not carry.

I don’t see the infrastructure in Arizona capable of supporting it.

I come back to this repeatedly: it is a good thing that 79% of defensive gun uses for civilians happen at home, and 82% of the time, the firearm is not discharged.

Citation:
Lott, John R., Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2022 (November 17, 2022). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4279137 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4279137

Law Enforcement & Military Influence on Civilian Self-Defense Training: Good or Bad?

This influence is much appreciated if you are a civilian with a different threat level than ordinary civilians, such as a retired judge, state prosecutor, bodyguard, or bouncer. You can access some of the world’s best deadly force combat training without joining the military or becoming a law enforcement officer. However, if you are an ordinary civilian, the influence of deadly force training may put you at a disadvantage.


Let’s cover a few basic law enforcement foundations.

  • Mentality: Law enforcement has a duty to protect the public. When a threat to the public surfaces, law enforcement will engage.
  • Weapon Readiness: A law enforcement officer can be attacked at any time. As a result, their weapons are ready to operate as their life can depend on them. For example, they carry a round in the chamber.
  • Weapon Complexity: Some public threats are experienced with violence. They may be former military members or accomplished violent criminals with weapon-based violence expertise. Excellent training in complex weapons may be required to deal with these threats adequately. These include semi-automatic weapons, Short Barreled Rifles (SBRs), suppressors, night vision, and the whole nine yards.
  • Legality: In case of a mistake (e.g., an innocent person is killed in a shoot-out), law enforcement officers have extensive protections encoded in law. In addition, the full power of the police union is available to them.

Let’s cover how these foundations can become disadvantages for civilians.
First, an aspect of law enforcement mentality comes from unnecessarily involving yourself in public violence. Ask yourself this question: if your spouse and your kids are at a convenience store and someone robs it, do you want your spouse to involve yourself in that violence if your spouse or your kids are not directly threatened by it? If someone is after $200 at the local 7-11 and your spouse decides to shoot it out with him, the crook gets away, and your spouse is killed in front of the kids, was the right decision made? This reason is why I cover Varg Freeborn’s mission concept extensively (also – buy his book, Violence of the Mind). It will go a long way to help prioritize what is important.


Second, let’s look at weapon readiness. Because of the threat level law enforcement officers face, it is quite understandable that their weapons are ready for immediate action. This fact goes doubly true for advanced tactical teams like SWAT. However, the National Firearms Survey reveals that civilian defensive gun uses differ significantly from law enforcement. So different, in fact, that civilians should prioritize weapon readiness far less than they are.


Third, let’s look at weapon complexity. Many civilians are using very similar weapons to law enforcement and the military. However, research into civilian defensive gun uses where the weapon was discharged reveals that civilians rarely need complex weapons. They could hinder your ability to respond. In short, the simpler, the better.


Fourth, and finally, we look at legality. The combination of the first three items discussed is bad for civilians. It dramatically increases the chance of a civilian needing legal help unnecessarily. Weapon readiness and complexity can lead to negligent discharges and, in Arizona, a felony criminal charge with a mandatory prison sentence. While law enforcement is duty-bound to protect the public, if an accident happens and an innocent is killed while battling it out with a violent criminal, a law enforcement officer has extensive legal rights due to their public obligation. A civilian in the same circumstances will not have the same protections. This fact could mean prison time for a civilian.


Let’s change gears and cover missed opportunities. De-escalation training is one of the most significant opportunities for law enforcement training to influence civilian training. Law enforcement does this training as they only want to use the minimal amount of force necessary to stop the threat for the safety of everyone. It is far better to de-escalate a situation than to pull a Taser or a firearm. Unfortunately, I’ve never seen this training incorporated into common civilian self-defense training. It is unfortunate because de-escalation training is helpful in many aspects of civilian life. In short, real-life “de-escalation training” sessions (e.g., arguments with the spouse) happen much more frequently than violent encounters allowing practitioners to gain experience. Everyone benefits when a potentially violent situation is de-escalated. To understand its importance, remember over 50 % of violent crime is aggravated assault, and about 67% of the time, the victim isn’t injured. These situations are a big chunk of violent crime and look like civilian arguments that spiral out of control. Imagine the violent crime statistics if 50% of those situations were de-escalated.

Violence Against Women: The Math

An excerpt from my book where I look at the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) from 2015 up to and including 2019 (pre-pandemic).

2.6 Violence Against Women
It is essential to characterize some differences between the sexes in violent crime victimization:

  • Men were victimized more in aggravated assault and robbery when the victim was not injured.
  • Women and men are victimized about the same in aggravated assault and robbery when the victim is injured.
  • Women are by far the majority victim in injurious rape/sexual assault.
  • Men are by far the majority victim in homicide.

The elephant in the room is: how much injurious violent crime is violence against women? One way to estimate it is to apply NCVS percentages to UCR statistics. In doing so, we come up with these percentages for victim sex in injurious violent crime:

  • Men = 37.5%
  • Women = 62.5%

This result shows that injurious violent crime is predominately violence against women. The derivation of these percentages is detailed in Appendix A. Here is a short summary:

  • The UCR mixes aggravated assault and robbery with rape and homicide. Aggravated assault and robbery can be both injurious and non-injurious, while rape and homicide are always considered injurious (and fatal in the case of homicide).
  • Aggravated assault and robbery make up 89 percent of the violent crime in this period.
  • The NCVS says that aggravated assault and robbery result in victim injury around 33 percent of the time.
  • When the victim is injured in an aggravated assault or robbery, the victim sex percentages change from predominately male in non-injurious cases to about a 50/50 split for injurious.
  • There is considerable police reporting bias around crimes where the victim knows the offender. Rape is a crime where the offender is almost always someone the victim knows. Hence, the police reporting bias is more significant with rape (in addition to other factors, such as the humiliation of the victim and the prospects of a criminal trial). Compensating for the police reporting bias leads to a substantial increase in victims of rape.
  • Rape is a crime where the victim is predominately a woman.
  • Homicide is a crime where the victim is predominately a male.
  • Homicide is only 1.3 percent of violent crime in this period.

Hence, injurious aggravated assault and injurious robbery show the victim’s sex to be about 50/50. However, compensating for the unreported nature of rape increases the victim’s sex to female since most victims of rape are female. Even though homicide has predominately male victims, homicide is not underreported and is a much smaller percentage of overall violent crime.

Note that this estimate may be higher than actual because no statistical methods of violent crime capture a woman unwilling to report a crime to the police (which impacts the UCR) or admit that a crime occurred (which affects the NCVS). If a woman convinces herself that a crime didn’t happen, there is no crime victim. This fact leads us to an uncomfortable truth:

  • Women are the victims of injurious violent crime more than men. Men are victims of non-injurious violent crime more than women.

[..]

If you are interested in my book, you can buy it from all the online retailers. Links are here. In addition, I have my own store for electronic copies – in PDF format and epub format. Also, there is additional NCVS research I did that you can purchase as well. Enjoy!

The 1911, Powerful Cartridges, and the Spring

For a standard-size 1911, the 10mm is perhaps the most powerful cartridge you can carry without modifying the pistol. The 10mm doesn’t need a compensator and only requires a heavier spring. However, this heavier spring could cause some individuals problems with cycling the slide. The problem is the spring is doing double duty – slowing down the slide on recoil, then pushing the slide forward to chamber another round.

Enter the 1911 recoil damper v2 by the 460 Rowland group. This recoil guide rod houses a piston that acts like air brakes, slowing down the slide at the last second. My gunsmith feels this solution is best on a long slide, but the 460 Rowland group also says it is for the standard-size government model too. This product allows for a spring that can be customized to chamber a round, and the spring is not needed to control slide velocity during recoil. The nice part is that this product can be used in 1911 calibers besides the 460 Rowland.

The combination of this product, along with a long slide 1911 that had its barrel ported, thus allowing me to forgo the added compensator, is a perfect combination for a 460 Rowland project. Here is what I did:

  • Purchased a 1911 Iver Johnson Eagle XL Long Slide 45 ACP with a ported barrel. These go between $800 and $900 on Gunbroker. You can find one used for cheaper.
  • Purchased the v2 damper. $200
  • I had a 460 Rowland reamer, but you can usually rent one if needed.

I took the gun to my gunsmith, an excellent 1911 guy, who checked out the Iver Johnson. He was very impressed with the quality at the price point. Only minor slide polishing was needed by the cocking serrations. I’m a trigger snob, and the trigger from the factor was decent, which surprised me at this price point.

At this point, the gunsmith installed the v2 damper and did some testing. He was impressed, as was I. I now have a 1911 long slide with mid-range 44 magnum power. You can also shoot cheaper 45 ACP (just clean it well before shooting 460 Rowlands). Because of the split duty of the recoil damper and spring, you can tune your pistol to handle your favorite 460 Rowland loads and your favorite 45 ACP practice loads. Also, because I carry in condition 3, I don’t have to worry about a heavy spring causing problems when chambering a round with this setup.

Let’s look at some ballistics from Buffalo Bore with a 5″ 1911 (note: 460 Rowland has a compensated barrel):

  • 460 Rowland: 1524 fps / 954 ft. lbs. 185gr. JHP
  • 45ACP +P: . 1150 fps / 543 ft. lbs. 185gr. JHP
  • 10mm Heavy: 1350 fps / 728 ft. lbs. 180gr JHP
  • 10mm Tactical: 1,200fps / 575 ft. lbs. 180gr JHP
  • 50 GI: 1200 fps / 600 ft. lbs. 185gr Copper (from the Guncrafter website).

The 460 Rowland / 45 ACP combination is tough to beat, especially when you are potentially looking at a pistol + modifications at $1200 (note that you can often rent a reamer). If you had some money burning a hole in your pocket, you could add the Nighthawk 1911 drop-in trigger for $300 (an excellent, though overpriced, part). This part would bring the cost to around $1500.

I think the most controllable and deadly combination from the list above is the 50GI (12.7mm). Unfortunately, you’ll pay from 3k to 6k to get one of these pistols, and ammunition is expensive if you aren’t reloading. After that, a ported 1911 5″ or 6″ with the 460 Rowland conversion and the v2 damper seems best. Iver Johnson, S&W, Tisa, and Auto Ordnance offer ported pistols in 45 ACP.

NOTE: I recommend against using a ported or compensated pistol for concealed carry at night. Even with low-flash powder, the ports/compensator will direct the flash directly in your line of vision. Due to the increased pressure of the 460 Rowland, in my opinion, it should be shot with a ported barrel / compensator when using the v2 damper.

Investigative Incompetence

In a recent article called “Investigative Incompetence” by Marty Hayes, in Gun Digest Volume 40 Issue 8 June 2023, a startling claim was made:

“In fact, based upon the cases I’ve worked, I’d estimate that at least half of the homicide investigations have major flaws in them. If you’re involved in a self-defense homicide, you probably have a 50/50 chance of the homicide being investigated competently.”


Wow. Put another way, you have a 50/50 chance of your self-defense case being investigated incompetently. This statistic, of course, is based upon Hayes’ experience, but the article doesn’t list his years of expert witness experience, only his 30-year teaching experience. However, given his listed credentials, I see no reason to doubt Hayes’ experiences.


After covering some cases of bad investigation, the second half of the article critiques “internet commandos” who say, “Never talk to the police.” While I’m sure there are such people, there are also respected criminal defense attorneys who recommend minimal communication with the police. The question is, why?
The reason is that everything you say to the police in this situation can be used against you. Furthermore, it will only be used to prosecute you. Your defense can’t use this information to protect you. In addition, it may be months before your trial. All the law enforcement officer has to remember about their encounter is what they wrote down. How accurate will that be? In conclusion, Mayes writes:

“The moral of the story is that, after a self-defense shooting, make sure the police know the reason why you used deadly force so they can correctly investigate the incident. This means you need to either explain what the deceased was doing that caused you to fear for your life and – as importantly – what evidence exists to back up your story. If there are witnesses, make sure the police know who might have seen the event. Next would probably be a good time to invoke your right to remain silent […].”

Sadly, I’ve never seen these articles convey why you should invoke your right to be silent at this point. After all, if you trust the police to investigate the situation, why wouldn’t you tell them everything you know at this point?

The critical point is that it won’t matter – you will likely say way too much following this advice. Why? Let’s look at Mayes’ fictional example:

“[…] let’s say you’re accosted by an armed robber who threatens you with a knife, and you respond with deadly force. The shot you fire doesn’t drop the perpetrator immediately, but he runs off, tosses the knife in some bushes, and then expires. You refuse to talk to the police. They have no evidence of the robbery or the knife, because you refuse to tell them about the knife and where the deceased tossed it.”

Let’s provide some background to this example:

  • This is likely the first time you have ever been in a violent incident as a civilian. You will be incredibly nervous and stressed out.
  • Given that you have just taken a life, even though you feel you were justified, you are probably worried about going to prison if the police aren’t on your side.
  • Most concealed carriers strongly support law enforcement.
  • Contrary to the example, I’m going to assume the suspect didn’t know the perpetrator threw the knife away, much less see where it was thrown. I find that unlikely.

Now, let’s walk through some sample dialogs here between you the suspect and the police. You are at the scene when the police show up, and let’s assume your firearm is far away from you and clearly unloaded.


Scenario 1

POLICE: Tell me your name and what happened here.
SUSPECT: My name is John Smith; I’m a concealed carry permit holder. I was walking to my car, and a man tried to rob me with a knife. I felt he was going to kill me, so I shot him.
POLICE: There is no knife here.
SUSPECT: blab blab blab blab

Scenario 2

POLICE: Tell me your name and what happened here.
SUSPECT: My name is John Smith; I’m a concealed carry permit holder. I was walking to my car, and a man tried to rob me with a knife. I felt he was going to kill me, so I shot him.
POLICE: It looks like he was shot in the back.
SUSPECT: blab blab blab blab

Scenario 3

POLICE: Tell me your name and what happened here.
SUSPECT: My name is John Smith; I’m a concealed carry permit holder. I was walking to my car, and a man tried to rob me with a knife. I felt he was going to kill me, so I shot him.
POLICE: This area is common for drug dealing. Are you the dealer or the druggie?
SUSPECT: blab blab blab blab

Scenario 4

POLICE: Tell me your name and what happened here.
SUSPECT: My name is John Smith; I’m a concealed carry permit holder. I was walking to my car, and a man tried to rob me with a knife. I felt he was going to kill me, so I shot him.
POLICE: I recognize the guy you killed. He is not a criminal.
SUSPECT: blab blab blab blab

In short, based on the background information, we can see how incredibly easy it would be to get a suspect talking. Police are trained how to make people spill their guts in these situations. Too often, people focus on TV style interrogations and “come down to the station” style scenarios. However, these “at the scene” situations are much easier for police to extract information. All the police need to do is offer an opinion the suspect is in the wrong. That opinion, given the background assumptions, is all that is needed to get a suspect to sing like a canary. So, while I’m sympathetic to Mayes’ argument, I don’t have confidence that many people can pull it off given our background assumptions.

Before we get too critical of the police, an important point here is that the police rarely deal with cut-and-dried situations. Often, two parties are blameworthy in the escalation that proceeded the violence. If you ever had a friend whose relationships are never successful and they always blame the other person (and they have no self-awareness about their own deficiencies), this situation is a lot like what police deal with daily, except the stakes are much higher. Let’s go through a more realistic scenario.

Scenario 5

POLICE: Tell me your name and what happened here.
SUSPECT: My name is John Smith; I’m a concealed carry permit holder. I was walking to my car, and a man tried to rob me with a knife. I felt he was going to kill me, so I shot him.
POLICE: So, you’re telling me that the first thing he does is pull a knife and tell you he will rob you?
SUSPECT: No. He asked me for a cigarette, and I said I didn’t smoke. Then he asked me if I had any money I could give him.
POLICE: Then you shot him?
SUSPECT: NO! I told him I didn’t have any money to give him. He got upset and started cussing me out. He then told me he could kill me right now, take my money, and no one would ever know.
POLICE: Then he pulled the knife?
SUSPECT: No. I backed away, put my hand on my gun, and told him I was armed.
POLICE: Oh, so he pulled the knife after you threatened him with your gun.
SUSPECT: I’m no longer talking to you without my attorney present.

Now, imagine your criminal defense attorney looking at this transcript. What will they say about your willingness to talk to the police? Unfortunately, as much as a concealed carrier values law enforcement, they are not your friend in this situation. Do you know who your friend is? You are. Here is my recommendation.

Get an attorney on retainer. Ask your attorney about body cameras, whether they are legal in your state, about whether your state has one-party consent for audio recording, whether to tell the police about your body camera and so forth. Assuming these devices are legal, if you strap on a gun, strap on your recording devices. For starters, any time you are going back and forth from your vehicle or hotel room, start recording. Your own evidence is the best evidence in this situation.

If you feel like your body cam / audio recordings can convict you, then you probably shouldn’t be carrying a firearm. They are what will allow the jury to feel what you felt, see what you see, and optionally hear what you heard. In comparison, the jury will only have the police officer’s testimony about what happened. Revisit Scenario 5 and ask yourself if that is what you want.

In short, stop relying on investigators who may or may not be competent, witnesses who may or may not be there, and the police who are not your friend. Keep in mind that their mistakes, or your mistakes from talking too much, can send you to prison. Rely on yourself.

The good news is that despite 330 million people in the United States and millions of concealed carriers, the number of justified homicides by a private citizen is incredibly tiny (typically, less than 500 per year). Instead, when we look at Defensive Gun Use (DGU) statistics (DGUS happen over 1.5 million times per year), we see these common circumstances:

  • 80 percent of DGUs happen at the home or the property of the home.
  • 80 percent of DGUs do not result in the victim discharging their firearm.
  • Less than 10 percent of DGUs happen in normal concealed carry situations.

These statistics are the reason I spend a lot of time in my book on home security. Properly preparing your home can prevent crime as well as provide substantial evidence against any perpetrator.

Hunting and the Loaded Chamber

There are many types of hunting, but I’ll distill them into three general categories: Walking, Stalking, and Waiting. Since I grew up in Arizona, most big game hunting was Walking. Of course, you would stop and glass. I’ll put that in the Waiting category. If you spotted something, you then might plan a Stalk. For birds, dove hunting is in the Waiting category, while quail hunting is in the Walking category. I’m sure other parts of the country have hunts, which may differ from Arizona, but they can be placed in these three general categories.

When I was old enough to go hunting, it was just past the era of hunting on horseback and well before the age of UTVs, SxSs, and four-wheelers. It was also well before long-range rifle hunting became the norm. I remember how common lever-action and pump-action rifles were. One of the main reasons was that no one carried a round in the chamber. These two styles of rifles allowed a shooter to chamber a round for a shot quickly. It was considered extremely dangerous to carry a round in the chamber of a rifle or shotgun. My dad or grandfather would probably knock the heck out of anyone in their hunting party that carried a round in the chamber.

I was in a dilemma. I was a left-handed shooter. But, at that time, left-handed bolt actions were costly. So, I ended up going with semi-automatic rifles and shotguns growing up. One thing I hated about them was how uncomfortable I was putting a round in the chamber. Usually, you pulled back the bolt and let it fly somehow, where the rifle did the work of chambering the round. I never felt comfy with this process. I still don’t. It goes without saying I didn’t walk around with a round in the chamber.

Dove hunting and coyote calling were exceptions. Usually, we were sitting, waiting for the dove to fly in. Because we weren’t walking around, having a round in the chamber was natural. Same with coyote calling. Unless you wanted to practice your running shots, jacking a round in the chamber would send coyotes hauling butt out of there. There were also cases where you might do so during deer hunting. If the younger guys in the hunting party were flushing some fingers or canyons and you were the lucky older guy at the end, you might sit tight and put one in the chamber while you waited to see what was flushed out.

Except for long-range rifle shooting, times have changed. Glocks and AR-15s have changed the way many people carry semi-automatic firearms while Walking. They carry with a round in the chamber. However, I would be willing to bet money that more negligent discharges have occurred since 1980 than from 1865 to 1980.

Ride Share Woes

If you’ve read my book, you know I am a fan of rideshares for events that don’t occur very often. You can avoid walking to/from your vehicle, dark parking garages, etc. However, I did run into a problem the other day. I went to a downtown area that had two large events. We were dropped off at the event without an issue. Once the events had started, the streets were prepared for people leaving the events. Unfortunately, this setup prevented rideshare cars from getting close to the event. As a result, we had to walk a decent distance to get a rideshare, which defeats the purpose.

In short, you’ll want to research before attending an event like the one I just described. You may be able to park closer to the event (as long as the parking location is safe and you can walk to it easily) then you can get picked up by a rideshare!

Violent Crime and Mental Illness

Alex Berenson recently had a substack about a large study showing heavy marijuana usage leads to schizophrenia even when genetic factors were eliminated. Furthermore, this diagnosis significantly impacted young men, at over double the rate of non-marijuana users. One rather disturbing tendency in the substack was that Berenson pointed to schizophrenia as being a leading factor in the increase of violent crime. However, the reality is much less clear.


While I think Berenson’s position can be attacked substantially (full disclosure: I do not do drugs, and after seeing firsthand the devastating effects of cigarette smoking on my family, I strongly recommend only putting clean air in your lungs), it does bring up a good point: If I wanted to track mental illness and violent crime, how would I do it?


In my book, I cited a reputable source on the link between mental illness, suicide, and mass murder. Since deaths are investigated thoroughly in the US, these links can be researched. However, we are still looking at a small percentage of violent crime (around 1.3 percent from 2015 to 2019). So the questions are: are there any violent crime statistics that can shed light on non-homicide violent crime and mental illness? What data would need to be gathered? Can this data be collected reliably? Is this data available to law enforcement, and could it be included in the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)?


The violent crime aggravated assault seems like an excellent category to begin this analysis. It is the most common violent crime by far. In addition, aggravated assault is a weapon-based crime (unless the victim is severely injured without a weapon) and would have the most similarities to murder/non-negligent homicide. Although a promising category, I don’t think the offender’s mental illness data can be gathered reliably. Here are some important considerations regarding mental illness and the offender’s condition:

  1. Undiagnosed mental illness.
  2. Diagnosed mental illness and medication not taken or medication schedule not followed.
  3. Diagnosed mental illness with worse symptoms due to alcohol and drug use (regardless of whether the medication was taken).
  4. Diagnosed mental illness, medication was taken, and the correct schedule was followed; no alcohol or drug use. As pointed out in the link above, this situation could happen because a medication that wasn’t effective at reducing hostility was prescribed.

There are also further complications. Imagine someone who recently experienced the loss of a loved one and fell into a short period of depression. A few days later, they are involved in an argument. Due to their emotional state, the argument ends up being escalated rather than de-escalated, and the person is charged with an aggravated assault. You can think of the root cause as a transient mental illness. However, a period of emotional distress is normal while grieving. To make matters worse, the aggravated assault charge might combine with the grief and cause symptoms to persist much longer. If the person continued to have symptoms of depression for several months, this would likely be classified as a mental illness.
This circumstance is similar to other phenomena, such as homelessness. You can study people experiencing homelessness and perhaps find that mental illness is common. However, you do not know if a mental illness was the cause of homelessness, if homelessness caused the mental illness, or if homelessness aggravated a minor mental illness.


Law enforcement could not make these distinctions when the crime was reported. It is also unknown whether law enforcement would have access to a patient’s medical records at the time of the incident. Therefore, this reporting would not make sense for the UCR.


As my book’s subtitle indicates, we must look at self-defense holistically. Alcohol abuse, drug abuse, family abuse, and incarceration are all risk factors for someone who may use violence against you. However, when these factors are removed, those who have mental illness may have only a slightly higher risk of violence than the average person.


One troubling thing about the study Berenson cites and the risk factors for violence. Suppose heavy marijuana use does lead to an increased risk of schizophrenia. In that case, heavy marijuana use must stop if the user is diagnosed with schizophrenia and put on medication. Otherwise, the combination of schizophrenia, medication, and drug abuse could lead to more violence in our society.

Gun Safety Without the Gun

You can, of course, train your child about gun safety with an unloaded gun. And to be honest, you should do that at some point. However, you can teach them about gun safety quite a bit earlier without using a gun. How?

Well, personality experts have documented the 5-7 year shift. This period is when, historically, 5 to 7-year-old children have been given adult responsibility (the age range is due to children getting to that point at different times, based upon their individual development). So, let’s say you’ve determined your 7-year-old can have some adult responsibility. Unfortunately, many hunter-firearm safety courses start at the age of 10. Therefore, we have a three-year period to teach children the essence of gun safety without using a gun. For most homeowners, this is easy to do.

You’ll need to use a battery-powered reciprocating saw. You can think of it as an AR-style pistol. Here is what the tool simulates:

Blade Inserted: Round in the Chamber
Battery In/Out: Loaded Magazine / No Magazine
Trigger: Trigger
Safety: Safety

I would also use a cut-off saw blade you cannot easily see to simulate a round in the chamber.

As an exercise, for example, place the saw with the small blade inserted, insert the battery, have the safety off, and p it on the table. Tell your youngster: “Make sure this weapon is safe.” Here is the procedure:

  1. Safety on
  2. Detach the Battery [unload the magazine]
  3. Remove the blade [unload the chamber]

A lot of bad habits can be nipped in the bud by watching your child perform this exercise. Where is the tool pointed? Is your child checking the chamber by looking down the “barrel?” Where is their trigger finger? Ear and Eye protection? And so on…Here is another exercise:

Hand your youngster a saw ready to use (safety on). Tell your youngster to pretend to cut a piece of wood but activate the saw while pretending, then place the saw in safe mode and hand it back to you. This exercise will simulate handing a firearm to your youngster, having them shoot, putting the g in safe mode, and then handing it back to you. Ensure your child checks the safety and has proper trigger finger discipline when receiving the saw. When your child is “sawing,” you can check the location of the hands. Also, watch when your child is done “sawing,” ensuring they hit the safety, and use proper trigger finger discipline. You can think of many other exercises as well.

When it is time to pack up, ensure your child “unloads” the saw and safely puts it back where it belongs.

Also note, if you have a bolt action rifle with a 3-position safety, it is compatible with this training. The safety can be set in the position where the bolt moves, but the trigger does not. The magazine/battery can also be removed, and the saw blade/chambered round removed.

Unfortunately, the simulation of “loading a magazine in a semi-auto pistol and putting a round in the chamber” cannot be done safely with this approach and still be compatible with saw safety. For instance, you’ll always put the blade in the saw without the battery. With pistols, you’ll insert the magazine and cycle the slide to load the chamber. You don’t want to teach your child to put a “free round” in the chamber [insert a round, then slam the slide], then insert the magazine. Many pistols, such as 1911s, will have an issue with this approach. However, this training is valid for some situations. For example, many hunters who will be stationary (e.g., tree stand, coyote calling, and so forth) will often put the safety on where the bolt moves and the trigger does not, chamber a free round, then load a fully loaded magazine.

Using this approach, a youngster can learn saw safety and gun safety. While it can’t simulate everything, it can significantly help youngsters learn safety safely (!)

The Knife

I took several classes in knife fighting and “edged weapons,” as Gunsite calls it. However, the more training I underwent, the more I realized it wasn’t for me. I felt there were way too many disadvantages and, quite simply, few advantages. However, I enjoyed learning from my instructors, they were great, and their intentions were honorable. Nonetheless, you should evaluate a self-defense weapon based on whether it allows you to accomplish your mission. If it doesn’t feel right after giving the training a chance, or you feel it will likely compromise your mission, don’t use it no matter what anyone says.

Also, be aware that there are “knife people” who behave as if they are members of a secret cult. Self-defense revolves around the knife and only the knife. They can talk about knives, knife shapes, unique handles, special blades, and so forth for hours. Unfortunately, you’ll meet some of them that seem a bit too fascinated with the knife, and honestly, it is a bit creepy.

In my analysis, every knife fighting article should be subtitled: Death or Prison. As an ordinary civilian, I felt that was the choice I was making using the knife as a self-defense weapon. Given that stark choice, looking at other defensive weapons made sense to me. Your analysis may differ from mine. I would elaborate more on my experiences, but someone who has experienced a lot of knife violence in real life already has. There is no better critique of the knife as a self-defense weapon than what can be found in Varg Freeborn’s book Violence of the Mind book. Get a copy.