Blog

A helpful way to improve your self-defense preparation is to focus on your likely threat. In my book, I tried hard to eliminate misperceptions and rely on vetted statistics so that the attributes of the threat would be identifiable. Knowing these attributes allows us to prepare appropriately.

For the self-defense industry, the threat a civilian is supposed to prepare for is an armed violent criminal, often pictured as a mass shooter or as a masked man in the bushes or a parking garage. Preparation for this threat can involve the following things:

• High-capacity concealable handguns.
• Multiple magazines for reloads.
• Backup handgun.
• Knife.
• Body Armor.
• Bleeding kit (e.g., tourniquet, clotting agent, gauze, and so forth).

Someone fresh out of concealed carry training may be motivated to go out and buy all these things. However, after a few weeks, it becomes apparent that this amount of equipment is too uncomfortable to pack daily, and work begins on reducing it.

This process is, of course, ridiculous. One prepares for the threat; one does not prepare to be comfortable. In the military, imagine a private telling his commanding officer that carrying a 50 BMG for their mission isn’t going to work for him because it is too heavy to pack. If a 50 BMG is needed to complete the mission and deal with the likely threats you will face, you pack the 50 BMG. Otherwise, you are simply marching to the death of yourself and your team.

The same process occurs with larger caliber handguns. What starts as a desire to have the most powerful handgun a person can conceal is gradually reduced to what recoil the person can handle. When the movie Dirty Harry came out in the 1970s, many people bought S&W Model 29s in 44 Magnum. A couple of years down the road, there was a lot of Model 29s for sale that had only been shot a couple of times. People couldn’t handle the recoil. Again, this process is ridiculous. You should carry the caliber needed to deal with the threat. In fact, you should take everything you need to deal with the threat.

Therein lies the problem. The threat description that seems to be driving many purchases of self-defense equipment looks like this:

• A mass shooter.
• You are a random anonymous target.
• The mass shooter must not know you are carrying, or he will target you first.
• Because the mass shooter will target many people, you will have time to shoot.
• You will need to get as many bullets as possible downrange as accurately as possible.

Has this threat existed? Absolutely. Have armed civilians stopped this threat? Absolutely. Is this threat common? No. For most injurious violent crimes, the victim knows the offender, it happens at a place the victim feels comfortable, and weapons are not used. Defensive Gun Use (DGU) statistics back this up, with over 80 percent of DGUs happening at home and over 80 percent of the time, the firearm is not discharged (i.e., you don’t bring fists to a gunfight).

Furthermore, if God came down and told me that when I’m grocery shopping later today, a mass shooter will be present, and it is up to me to stop him, would I reach for my Every Day Carry (EDC)? Not only no, but hell no. I would be packing something far more appropriate to that situation. If I describe possible and plausible violent crime scenarios to you and you want to use something other than your EDC, you have not prepared for the threat. This fact brings us back full circle.

It appears to me the primary driver for our current generation of concealed carry handguns stems from sensitivity to comfort and sensitivity to recoil. Such developments as the micro compacts, magazine capacity, and the 38 Super Carry seem to be implicated in this approach. Unfortunately, while I appreciate innovative products, I have yet to see hard, real-world data that backs up these product justifications.

My goal here isn’t to dissuade anyone from having an EDC or to discount heroic actions on the part of civilians stopping mass shooters. It is simply to be honest about what we are preparing for and why. So let’s go through some Q&A and drive this point home. I’ll ask the questions, and an experienced concealed carrier will answer them.

Q: What caliber do you carry as your EDC?

A: I carry a 9mm.

Q: Why?

A: I feel the 9mm is the best compromise between capacity and stopping power. With improved bullet technology, I think it is just as good as anything that can be carried as an EDC.

Q: For the sake of argument, let’s assume a cartridge such as the 50 G.I. had the best real-world stopping power in a concealable handgun, available in 1911 Commanders and Glocks. Furthermore, this stopping power was proven in real-world studies of actual shootings. However, the magazine capacity is only seven rounds. Would you switch?

A: No. I have 15 rounds in my magazine. I can quickly put two rounds of 9mm in a torso and be just as effective as one round from that big cartridge. Anyway, didn’t you see John Wick 2? He was pretty concerned when he was given a Kimber with a 7-round capacity!

Q: Fair enough. Do you carry a round in the chamber?

A: Yes.

Q: Why?

A: If I need my weapon, I need it fast. It needs to be ready.

Q: So you have 16 rounds available?

A: Actually, no. I also carry two 15-round magazines, which means I have 46 rounds total.

Q: Why just two? Why not four? I mean, if it is possible that you would need 30 additional rounds, isn’t it possible that you would need 60 additional rounds?

A: I feel 46 rounds is sufficient for anything I may come across. Besides, I carry a knife on the left side, so I don’t have room for extra magazines.

Q: Why do you carry a knife when you have a 9mm and 46 rounds of ammunition?

A: Well, if someone gets close to me and tries to grab my weapon, I can defend myself.

Q: What if they grab your knife first?

A: I would just shoot them!

Q: Given the close range of the attacker, wouldn’t it be better to have a small backup gun, such as a 380 or 25? It will also protect you if your primary gun fails.

A: I honestly don’t want to worry about two different types of ammunition. I feel it is unlikely that my primary gun will fail, and I feel much more comfortable with my knife in such a situation. Besides, if my primary gun fails, I don’t want to run around with an underpowered 25.

Q: Given the close range, if your attacker was armed with a taser, couldn’t he simply tase you and take your EDC?

A: Criminals don’t carry tasers!

Q: For the sake of argument, let’s assume you are up against a criminal, and the distance is 10 feet. The criminal is carrying an S&W Governor. They are using Underwood Ammunition 45 Colt  220 Grain Lehigh Maximum Expansion bullets, but they only have five total rounds. The kicker is that your attacker is wearing level IIIa armor. Assuming your attacker is as fast and as accurate as you, how do you think you’ll come out?

A: Criminals don’t wear body armor!

Q: Mass shooters might.

A: Mass shooters don’t carry five-shot revolvers!

Q: This one does. Five dead people still count as a mass shooting. How do you think you will do?

A: I think I will do fine. First, I doubt he is as accurate with that revolver as I am with my red dot. Also, just because he has body armor doesn’t mean he can get off an accurate shot when bullets are striking him. Once I realize he has body armor, I can aim for the head or pelvis.

Q: There are calibers with known body armor penetration capability. For instance, the 5.7x28mm and the 7.5mm F.K. Do you think one of those would be more appropriate?

A: I think the risk of overpenetration is too great. If a bullet zips through a vest, or worse, through an attacker without a vest, someone innocent behind them can get killed.

Q: What is the difference between overpenetration and a missed shot?

A: What do you mean?

Q: Well, you are prepared to fire 46 rounds downrange. Isn’t it likely that you could be endangering innocents if you miss?

A: Possibly, but more likely, the attacker’s body will be soaking up those rounds, which isn’t going to happen with bullets that can pierce armor.

Q: One option, say with the 7.5mm, is to have three regular expanding rounds, followed by three that can pierce body armor. Would this be a better solution?

A: I don’t think so. The different bullets would probably have different points of impact, and in any case, what if you needed those penetrating rounds first?

Q: Another option may be to have a magazine with rounds that can pierce body armor. A quick magazine swap would handle it.

A: There is nothing quick about a magazine swap. I’ll stick with what I have.

Q: In many social situations, such as grocery shopping, strangers can often get quite close to you. Imagine if a felon knew that you carried a gun. This felon needs a gun but cannot purchase one normally due to background checks. Let’s assume this felon sees you at a lightly attended grocery store. Do you think he may get close enough to knock you out, take your gun, and then claim you fell down and hit your head?

A: Not hardly. I’m extremely aware of my surroundings when I am out in public. So I don’t let anyone get that close.

Q: Even when shopping?

A: Even when shopping.

While this is a fictional dialogue, it is similar to what I’ve encountered. Often, the EDC package someone uses drives what the perceived threats look like, which is the opposite of how it should be. Tiny changes in the threat often expose the weaknesses of the EDC package. However, instead of recognizing that, it usually degrades into cognitive dissonance.

Obviously, you can’t prepare for all threat permutations. However, you can prepare for the more common threats. Unfortunately, what civilians think is common and uncommon is far from the mark. This reason is why I spend so much time in my book analyzing the actual threats civilians face.  

A study titled “The Association of Firearm Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury in Criminal Assaults” was released in mid-2018. I’ll cite the article at the end and link to it. Unfortunately, the study is often presented as a rebuttal to the slogan “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” This rebuttal is misplaced and likely led to many pro-gun people skipping over the study. The point of such a slogan is simply to say that guns are inanimate objects. They require a human to use them. The slogan, at least in my mind, was never meant to be anything more than that. For example, a veteran carpenter might say, “hammers don’t smash thumbs, careless carpenters do.” Then, a study comes out that says, “wait, whether the thumb is amputated or not depends on the size and weight of the hammer, so your slogan about carpenters is wrong!” Much head-scratching ensues.

A similar situation existed with alcohol during Prohibition and now exists with illegal drugs – they require demand and people before they can kill. The more deadly the drugs are, the more highly desired they are. For example, Fentanyl is incredibly dangerous (far more fatal than firearms), but the demand continues to outstrip the supply. In short, where there is demand, there will be supply regardless of legality or threat of horrific punishment. This rule is a universal rule governing human exchange, probably since the beginning of civilization. Obviously, with drugs, different complicating factors impact demand, such as addiction, compared to illegally possessing firearms. However, criminals using firearms are likely using them to protect the drug supply for this demand, which means criminal firearm violence and illegal drugs are intertwined in complex ways (similar to how alcohol, Prohibition, and gun violence were intertwined). To quote from the study (my emphasis): “Most gunshot victims and survivors were young minority men with prior court arraignments. Most attacks occurred in circumstances where gangs or drugs played an important role (according to BPD investigation results). Most were in outdoor locations in the disadvantaged Boston neighborhoods of Roxbury, Mattapan, and Dorchester.”

One aspect of the study is that power matters regarding guns. Power has several variables: velocity, muzzle energy, bullet weight, bullet construction, sectional density, diameter, and so forth. Say, for instance, you were about to be attacked by a rabid coyote. You had your choice of a Ruger 10/22 with a 50-round magazine, a 9mm with a 17-round magazine, a .45 Colt revolver with five rounds, or a 12-gauge shotgun with four rounds alternating between buckshot, slug, buckshot, and slug. Which would you pick? I know which one I’m choosing. The choice doesn’t change if your coyote is not four-legged with rabies but is instead of the armed 2-legged variety attempting to kill you.

The study is engaging in some respects:

1. Indoor shootings are statistically significant for fatalities compared to outdoor shootings. I’m assuming that indoor versus outdoor is mainly a marker for distance. The closer the victim is to the offender, the more power and accuracy come into play.
2. Because these are criminal assaults, I assume that the bullets are Full Metal Jackets (FMJs), which are common and inexpensive compared to sophisticated self-defense ammunition. In other words, they likely don’t represent the latest in bullet construction.
3. The largest sample sizes are from small to medium calibers: “The most common caliber was 9 mm in both nonfatal shootings (50 of 184 [27.2%]) and gun homicides (65 of 183 [35.6%]).” This fact certainly makes sense, as the 9mm is an extremely popular cartridge (and still is today).
4. The number of shots versus wounds (my emphasis): “The mean (SD) number of shots was higher in fatal shootings (6.11 [5.73]) than in nonfatal shootings (4.41 [3.98]). Homicide victims were more likely to have multiple gunshot wounds (119 of 183 [65.0%]) than were nonfatal shooting survivors (50 of 184 [27.2%]), and the mean (SD) number of gunshot wounds for homicide victims was correspondingly higher than the number for survivors (2.82 [2.76] vs 1.67 [1.41], respectively). A separate calculation found that the number of shots fired was statistically unrelated to caliber for both fatal and nonfatal cases […].”

The last item needs further reflection. We have more outdoor locations, criminals, and gangs or drugs involved. I think that explains the high number of rounds fired. Also, I don’t think there are any surprises that the number of times you are hit helps to determine whether you die. So let’s round the mean (SD) numbers a bit since you can’t shoot 6.11 times.

• Shots fired fatal: 6
• Shots fired nonfatal: 4
• Wounds fatal: 3
• Wounds nonfatal: 2

Essentially, you are looking at a 50 percent hit rate on the number of shots. What I found interesting is that typically 9mm firearms have higher-capacity magazines than your large caliber handguns. With many 9mm magazines, six is between one-third and one-half the magazine capacity. Note that Massachusetts has a magazine capacity law of 10 or fewer. Although criminals wouldn’t follow the law, their choice of magazines may be limited by what is readily available to them. What made me surprised? Well, I would have thought that small- to medium-caliber semi-auto handguns, which are well represented with the 25, 380, and 9mm, would have had many more rounds fired. This fact seems to indicate other factors, such as the victim finding cover or returning fire, are more of a factor than capacity. I also suspect that the number of rounds fired is higher for criminals (and outdoor settings) since the victim was likely ambushed; however, that is speculation on my part.

The study’s conclusion is based on their statistical analysis: “The implication is that if the medium- and large-caliber guns had been replaced with small caliber (assuming everything else unchanged), the result would have been a 39.5% reduction in gun homicides.”                          

In looking at the study, I am a little concerned about two things—first, the smaller sample size of the large-caliber guns. However, the study sponsor is the Bureau of Justice Statistics, who, based on my experience in dealing with them, are very experienced at what they do. If this were research done independently, I would probably contract out to a statistics firm and validate their statistics. Secondly, bullet construction is not a factor taken into account. I have to assume that criminals are using popular inexpensive rounds, but that is an assumption. Since FMJs are prevalent across all calibers, they would not necessarily be used in small- to medium-calibers only. In short, I don’t think they would change the statistics much, but it is a factor that should have been considered in this analysis.   

What are the takeaways from this study for the ordinary civilian who uses a firearm for self-defense? First, it is essential to remember that this study captures criminal shootings that are likely gang or drug-related. This fact differs from what a Law-Abiding Citizen (LAC) will experience in a Defensive Gun Use (DGU) scenario. Here are some of the differences:

1. LACs do not ambush people.
2. LACs do not shoot a fleeing attacker unless their attacker is shooting back while running away.
3. LACs do not walk up and shoot a downed attacker execution style.

Here are a few takeaways from the study for LACs, many of which are almost of the “sky is blue on a sunny day” variety to those familiar with firearms and, in particular, the hunting of game animals with firearms:

1. The closer you are to your attacker, the more accurate you will be with your firearm.
2. The closer you are to your attacker, the more powerful your ammunition will be.
3. The more bullets hit your attacker, the more deadly it will be for your attacker.
4. The larger the caliber you use, the more deadly it will be for your attacker.
5. A cylinder or magazine capacity of over six rounds is not critical.

When I say “deadly,” I mean “more likely to stop the attacker.” As I pointed out in my book, most people shot with firearms do not die. A whole other study would have to be performed to understand which calibers are statistically significant to stop an attack without regard to whether the attacker perished. Of course, if an attacker dies on the spot, that is a stopped attack. However, because most attackers shot with a firearm do not die, going into shock likely accounts for most stopped attacks. Are there differences between caliber/bullet combinations more likely to induce shock than others? I do not know.

LACs probably have an advantage over criminals because they can choose better self-defense ammunition. The increased sophistication of self-defense ammunition has long been a lynchpin for fans of smaller caliber ammunition. The improvements in small- to medium-caliber self-defense ammunition are claimed to be as effective as larger-caliber ammunition. However, it is essential to remember that those improvements are also available in larger-caliber self-defense ammunition.

In sum, for a LAC considering a handgun for self-defense of their home or for concealed carry, a revolver with a capacity of six rounds seems just as fine for self-defense as a semi-auto pistol with a larger magazine capacity. Shoot the largest caliber handgun you can handle accurately using the best self-defense ammunition available.

Assuming this study is replicated, it calls into question self-defense product developments like the 38 Super Carry. Perhaps I should start saving for a Guncrafter No. 5 commander in 50 G.I. with 185-grain hollow points.

Citation:

Braga AA, Cook PJ. The Association of Firearm Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury in Criminal Assaults. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(3):e180833. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0833

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536

If you CCF, I recommend carrying the bill of sale of your concealed firearm with your identification. This bill of sale needs to have the serial number of your firearm on it. In addition, you need to be identified as the purchaser. As I discussed in my book, you should keep your identification separate from your wallet. You should also have a copy at home in the safe and an electronic copy in an email folder.

You need to have the bill of sale in case your firearm is ever confiscated. For example, you are in a traffic accident and lose consciousness. You wake up in the emergency room, and your firearm is gone. In all likelihood, the emergency personnel found your firearm and gave it to law enforcement. Therefore, your firearm is not going to be in the hospital.

It is not uncommon for people to freak out at this point. They know they are responsible for their firearm, and now they don’t know where it is. Unfortunately, the hospital staff is not going to be sympathetic. You may end up in a psychiatric evaluation if you aggressively demand your firearm to be returned (I’m not kidding).

Ultimately, you must go to the appropriate law enforcement offices and get your firearm back. They won’t return it to you without a bill of sale that identifies you and the serial number of your firearm. Law enforcement may also run a background check on you, which could take time. They may also ship it to your FFL rather than return it to you. Also, you will likely not get any ammunition back with your firearm.

Just remember, you won’t get anything back without a bill of sale that has you and the serial number of the firearm listed.

Self-defense methods are difficult to evaluate unless the threat is adequately understood. The first part of my book showcase how most Americans misunderstand their most likely violent crime threat. More specifically, they assume their violent crime threat is a stranger who is an armed violent criminal who will confront them in a public location, such as a parking garage.

When you don’t clearly understand the threat, you can make bad self-defense choices. For example, a person’s fear of being victimized by violent crime might be so intense that they decide to live their life out in a personal bomb shelter buried in their backyard. However, based on the violent crime rates in America against people who can afford a personal bomb shelter, this fear is unjustified as the threat isn’t a likely one.

However, if a 24-hour Purge was being instituted, like in the movies, or if bands of disease-ridden zombies were roaming the countryside looking for brains, living in your personal bomb shelter may be the best defense against those threats. In short, a defense method for one threat may not make any sense, but the same defense against a different threat may make a lot of sense.

As I point out in my book, however, there is a common objection even when you understand the threat. This example would be: “Roves of disease-ridden zombies are not likely, but if they do occur, would you rather be in a personal bomb shelter or not?” The objection would boil down to:  “There are no downsides to living in a personal bomb shelter. Therefore, even if roves of disease-ridden zombies are not likely, you should stay in your bomb shelter because any possibility of disease-ridden zombies is too great to ignore.”

Obviously, the objection to this line of thought is to attack the sentence: “There are no downsides to living in a personal bomb shelter.” On the contrary, it would seem to be that there are considerable downsides. Imagine living a life devoid of physical contact. Imagine not being able to help the people you care about physically. Life as only a spectator to the people you care about would be horrible.

But you are in luck. You just won the multi-billion-dollar Powerball. Now, you can build a bomb shelter resembling a small city. Complete with hospitals, clubs, restaurants, parks, and it can be self-sustaining – you’ll never have to open the bomb shelter door. Now, you can invite family, extended family, friends, and their friends. However, the night before work starts on the shelter-metropolis, some questions pop into your head. How do I ensure there are no violent crime threats within our shelter-metropolis? If I make any mistakes in vetting people, is my violent crime threat greater inside my locked shelter-metropolis than outside of it? Should I allow weapons? If there are no weapons for the physically disadvantaged, how would they protect themselves from those who are bigger and stronger?

These questions have a lot in common with the injurious violent crime threats ordinary civilians in America face. Injurious aggravated assault looks a lot like domestic violence. Injurious robbery by people you know at a location you feel comfortable is about as common as being robbed by strangers in public areas. Rape is almost always perpetrated by someone you know and happens in a place you feel comfortable. Injurious violent crime for ordinary civilians is very personal, much like the people you would invite to your shelter-metropolis.

My book is about a practical assessment of civilian threats, an assessment of CCF as a civilian self-defense method, and a practical guide to other civilian self-defense methods. However, I suspect there may be people who use aspects of my book to attack gun rights. For example, someone may say:

• Most injurious, violent crime doesn’t involve weapons
• Most DGUs don’t involve the discharge of a firearm
• Conclusion: firearms are not needed for self-defense and should be regulated

This type of argument confuses practical assessments of risk with rights. A similar confusion occurs when people say that Americans only need weapons for hunting. We need to go back to the Founders and the beginning of our Republic to understand where this confusion begins.

The General Government

It is essential to understand the colonies that formed the first States were considered to be independent countries. When the British surrendered, they listed each colony as separate and distinct. This separation continued into the thought process of our Republic. The States and the people of the states held power. The Federal government also referred to as the general or central government, did not hold power. The best way to think of our Republic is to think of each U.S. State as an independent country that allows a glorified arbitrator, the general government, to perform three basic things: Inter-State trade, Inter-State defense, and foreign policy for the Republic.

The Founding Fathers

The founding fathers believed a standing army would result in tyranny. All the pride many Americans have in their military would be met with disgust by most of the Founders. So the States had militias composed of every able-bodied man in the State, and there was to be no Republic standing army. The general government was the enabler of arming and helping if there was ever an invasion, but the militias from the States did the work.

For example, let’s assume North Carolina was invaded from the sea by an army of ravenous mermaids. The general government could coordinate volunteers from other States and arms to North Carolina. The general government might even hire mercenaries to attack the ravenous mermaid’s flank. However, most of the battle would be fought by the North Carolina militia. Every able-bodied male in North Carolina was expected to be proficient with weapons of war should the militia be called up to defend the State.

During the constitutional conventions, a couple of objections were raised. First, if the general government could arm a militia, could it disarm them? Second, could the general government force the people of a State to board troops? This boarding of soldiers was a sore spot due to the experience with the British. These objections resulted in the 2^nd Amendment and the 3^rd Amendment, respectively.

The Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence states quite explicitly that the people institute the government. When the government no longer functions for the people, the people get rid of it and institute a new government.

Unarmed people don’t get rid of governments. On the contrary, history shows that governments tyrannize the unarmed. The Founding Fathers understood this, and you can research quote after quote showing their support for an armed citizenry.

The State Constitutions

Many people believe the Bill of Rights was about the Federal government granting universal rights to the citizenry of the Republic. Therefore, these people scratch their heads in wonder why State Constitutions are even necessary.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions imposed on the Federal government in dealing with the States and the people of the States. Each State was assumed to represent a given set of people who shared a value system. This value system is encoded in their State Constitutions.

For example, suppose a State had a populace that was 100% Catholic, and the people of that State believed State functions should reflect their beliefs. In that case, there is nothing against a State Constitution from specifying that all State functions begin with a Catholic prayer or requiring State Representatives or State Senators to be a Catholic in good standing. Many people would scream separation of Church and State at this point, but that is a restriction against the Federal government, in all honesty. There can be no “Church of the United States” like there was a Church of England. In short, the people of a State can have the State Constitution reflect their values. If their values conflict with your values, don’t move to that State.

Similarly, a State Constitution can certainly restrict firearms based on the values of the people of the State. However, the Federal government assumes the State has a militia because the Federal government isn’t supposed to have a standing army. Therefore, the State would have to show that it could defend itself via its militia if the Federal government armed the militia. Furthermore, based on the Founding Father’s comments, they would think it absurd that a populace would choose to disarm itself as they would be opening themselves up to tyranny.

Moving Forward

To better understand the founding of our Republic, our citizenry should think that each U.S. State’s border is about 0.5 miles wide. The Federal government controls the land comprising the border. Federal law only applies to that section of land, and Federal courts rulings apply only to that section of land. Anything inside the U.S. State should be almost unknown to the Federal government. The Federal government can impose restrictions or taxes on goods that go back and forth across that border. Militia volunteers and arms that go back and forth across that border are under the Federal government’s direction.

There are two fundamental problems with America and its government at this point: First, the Federal government is too big and shows no signs of getting smaller. Second, the representation to citizen ratio is over 750,000 per representative. Essentially, we’ve lost representative government, and the Federal government has become an oligarchy of sorts, as they’ve been left to their own devices.

One possible solution is to turn the 50 U.S. States into Republics. The United States of America would be renamed The United Republics of America. For instance, The State of Arizona would become The Republic of Arizona. At this point, Incorporation, the belief that the Bill of Rights applies to the States, would make more sense as it would be talking about Republics instead. The Federal government manages the borders of the Republics. Inside the Republics, the Federal government has no say.

In keeping with The Republic of Arizona example, a distinction would be made between Rural-States and City-States to ensure representation. Rural-States have populations of less than one million, and City-States have density and populations of greater than one million. Arizona has about 7 million people. Phoenix and its surrounding suburbs would be a City-State, and Tucson and its surrounding suburbs would also be one. There would be 3 Rural states: Southern, Central, and Northern Arizona. The goal of representation for the Rural-State legislature would be one representative for a maximum of 2,500 people. If that were exceeded, a new Rural-State (or City-State) would need to be formed. City-States have more people per representative due to population density, and to ensure a functioning legislature, the number of representatives would need to be capped.

Representation in The Republic of Arizona would be each Rural-State had one representative and two senators. Each City-State would have two representatives and two senators. For The United Republics of America, each Republic would have one representative for every 10 million people and always just two senators regardless of population. Hopefully, a new structure would allow the citizenry to focus on its local State government to get things done, protect their values via the State constitution, etc. In addition, republic governments would be appropriately limited to their respective borders.  

Conclusion

Both sides often misplace gun rights discussions. For example, one side feels that only the 2^nd Amendment protects the National Guard, while others think the 2^nd Amendment guarantees individual rights. Only by being sensitive to the founding of the Republic can we understand what the Bill of Rights was trying to accomplish.

It is certainly appropriate for State Constitutions to reflect the people’s values. But unfortunately, some of our counties in U.S. States are larger than America was when it was formed. Only by getting back to clear local representative governments and focusing Republic governments on borders will we get back to what the Founding Fathers believed and discussed.

It is instructive to read an interview about Jani Lane from Bobbi Brown, who was his ex-wife. Jani Lane fronted the rock band Warrant during their most successful period in the late 1980s. In short, two men raped Jani Lane before he became famous. Here is a quote from the interview (language warning).:

“At the moment that he admitted [that he was drugged and raped by a member of a famous heavy metal band and their manager], it was devastating to hear. He admitted this to me before his death. It was traumatizing to watch him reveal those things and how much it had affected his life up to that point. When we were married I had no clue. This occurred when he was just starting out on the Strip. So when I’m hearing all of this with him, I’m crying with him. I was going, “We have to do something, we have to say something.” He was like, “No! No!” It was a humiliation for a man to be in that position.

It’s so emasculating and humiliating. It would have been humiliating for him. So we couldn’t say anything. Instead he lived with this anger inside. He felt like he couldn’t say anything because he was a man. He was raised to be a man, not to cry. It was all mind-fucking. I could see how it would have been devastating and humiliating for him to speak up. I got his perspective from it, but at the same time, I felt so hopeless for him, knowing that he felt he couldn’t say anything. And wouldn’t. That affected him greatly his whole life. It was part of the reason he drank. It’s sad really.”

This story highlights things to always keep in mind, regardless of the sex of the victim:

• Rape is traumatizing for the victim.
• Rape is significantly underreported.
• The rape victim typically knows the offender(s).
• Rape drugs can be used, which impacts your self-defense strategy against it. For example, the typical “carry a gun” strategy may not be effective against a drug-induced rape. I cover other self-defense methods in my book.

My highlighting of Jani Lane’s story is directed at men. I hope that men try to internalize Jani Lane’s plight and the impact it had on his life. Then, men may be in a better position to understand the trauma of raped women. Importantly, men may be better positioned to understand why rape is so underreported to law enforcement.

I discussed Varg Freeborn’s concept of a mission, which he outlines in the book Violence of the Mind. I want to expand on it briefly here with a Storytime concerning your mission and being armed.

Storytime

Your mission as a father is to protect your daughter, who is all of twelve years old while allowing you both to live authentic, meaningful lives. You have planned a night out; she wants to go to a popular restaurant. You check in at the front, survey the place and ask to be seated in a particular portion of the restaurant that is very close to an emergency exit. If any trouble happens, you can grab your daughter and quickly exit the establishment. You and your daughter are having a lovely time when someone comes into the restaurant and starts shooting.

#

Let’s cover a few scenarios:

Storytime Scenario 1

You are unarmed. You grab your daughter and dash out the emergency exit.

Storytime Scenario 2

You are armed with a less-than-lethal weapon. You grab your daughter and dash out the emergency exit.

Storytime Scenario 3

You are armed with a firearm. You grab your daughter, push her to the floor, and begin to fire at the active shooter.

Compare Scenario 3 with Scenarios 1 and 2. Did you make the right decision regarding your mission? Your mission was not to protect the public. It was to protect your daughter. Did your decision place your daughter in a safer situation or a more dangerous one? In Scenario 3, your actions put you and your daughter in this new situation:

• The active shooter’s attention is now directed at you.

• If the active shooter had planned this attack, they might be wearing body armor. If so, your bullets may not bring them down even if they find their mark.

• Should you seek cover in a restaurant, an inch of drywall and 2×4 studs spaced 16 inches apart do not provide reasonable protection against bullets.

Storytime Scenario 4

You are armed with a pistol. You grab your daughter and dash out the emergency exit. As soon as you are at a safe location, you call 911.

If fulfilling your mission means running even though you are armed, that is what you should do. Many people who CCF do not think these scenarios through fully. That is why Freeborn’s mission concept is so helpful.

I quote from Varg Freeborn’s book Violence of the Mind in my book. One of my favorite concepts from his book is his mission concept. I try to put it to good use. Understanding what your mission is when carrying a firearm, what situations you are going to get involved in, and, importantly, what situations you are not going to get involved in is crucial to the success of your mission. I want to take another opportunity to look at Freeborn’s mission concept. This time I’ll be looking at it from a threat perspective. Essentially, the question is: what threat are you up against that could compromise the success of your mission?

Most people assume that the threat is a stranger who is an armed violent criminal. For a change, let’s go ahead and assume that is true. Another true thing is that there are many ways to be armed. Let’s look at a few (I’ll explain the bracketed numbers in a bit):

[1] rifle

[2] ar15 carbine

[3] ar15 pistol

[4] shotgun

[5] full-size pistol

[6] compact pistol

Other things besides firearms can be a factor:

[1] body armor

[2] lots of ammo

[3] night IR vision

[4] thermal vision

[5] optics

[6] light/laser

Of course, that’s only half the equation. Let’s look at the circumstances:

[1] morning

[2] midday

[3] afternoon

[4] early evening

[5] midnight

[6] early morning

And who you are with at this time:

[1] alone

[2] with your friends

[3] with your lover

[4] with your lover and child

[5] with your child

[6] with your parents

Okay, let’s play a game. Get some six-sided dice, take one die, and roll it for each section. You’ll develop a violent criminal threat scenario at the end of the process. For example, I’m up against a guy with a shotgun, with lots of ammo, in the early evening, and I’m with my friends. How does your Every Day Carry (EDC) stack up against this violent criminal threat?

I suspect, if your EDC is anything like mine, it doesn’t stack up well. Combining a mission (i.e., protect your family) with a well-armed threat is very disheartening for an ordinary civilian. Lucky for us, most criminals have the following characteristics:

a. They want an easy victim

b. They don’t want to get caught

c. They don’t want to get shot

d. For Common Violent Crimes (CVCs – everything violent except murder), criminals rarely use firearms when the victim is injured.

So far, so good as our EDC provides a good defense against these characteristics. However, the point of this post is to show that it doesn’t take much change for a violent criminal to have even more of an advantage over an ordinary civilian, even when the ordinary civilian is carrying.  In fact, in the last two years, some rather disturbing things have happened:

• Law enforcement has been ordered to stand down during violent riots
• Many participants in these riots who committed illegal acts were not arrested
• Some participants that were arrested were also released on bail quickly
• For those that were out on bail, criminal charges were later dropped (sometimes much later after publicity died down)
• Self-defense acts against the illegal actions of participants have been aggressively prosecuted against the civilian claiming self-defense
• Evidence destruction (e.g., destroying a witness’ cell phone)
• Witness intimidation
• Jury intimidation

If these changes become the new normal, violent criminals will no longer be deterred by getting caught or worrying about going to jail. They will only worry about getting shot. These changes could easily lead to well-armed violent criminals willing to shoot first. This possible behavior change is a disaster for ordinary civilians, as I hope the dice game revealed. Here is what you can do:

• Move out of states that allow/enable the behaviors detailed previously
• Move to states that (a) have strong gun rights, (b) have strong self-defense laws, and (c) have one-party consent to audio and video recording. Lastly, if you find states with all three things, look for one that does not have mandatory sentencing for gun crimes. In general, a state should have incentives that increase the likelihood of a fair jury trial rather than increase the likelihood of a plea bargain. Ordinary civilians who believe they are innocent should not be punished for exercising our Sixth Amendment rights, which mandatory prison sentences do by making a jury trial too risky.
• Get an attorney on retainer and discuss your various self-defense options. For example, can you carry a concealed body camera for audio/video recording that you selectively enable at certain times?