Archive for Concealed Carry

Knives: Part One

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on August 28, 2013 by blackshepherd

Why I carry knives…

I have spent a lot of time on this blog, and in the real world, talking and writing about guns. I believe that guns are the most efficient, portable, and easily mastered form of self-defense available to the common person. That fact has not changed, I am just elaborating on the concept of self-defense.

I always carry knives (emphasis on the plural) and maybe you should too. This is a daunting concept for many to accept. After all, most of you are already carrying a gun. However, once you carry a blade for a while you will never be without one again.

A knife is probably the most useful tool that you can constantly carry on your person. Guns are good for exactly one thing, shooting people that need to be shot. Knives are used for opening packages, opening mail, opening people. Cutting food, string, tape, seat-belts, and attackers. The only thing that could be more utilitarian than a quality folding knife is a good multi-tool. Although, if you walk around wearing a multi-tool on your belt:  you will look like a first class nerd. Nine times out of ten that you need a multi-tool it will be for the knife inside of it, and it is next to worthless for self-defense. Buy a decent multi-tool and leave it in your car. Carry a knife (or knives).

The quotidian usefulness of a good knife should be obvious to almost anyone with a pulse. This blog being what it is, I am going to talk about the self-defense aspects of knives.

Why should anyone carry a knife when they can carry a gun? The answer is, some things work well in certain tactical situations, and others do not. Every contingency plan should be based upon this idea. The penalty for having the wrong plan or misunderstanding the situation, for not getting it right, is serious injury or death. Firearms cover most of the deadly force contingencies out there, but not all of them. If you can learn to use a blade, it takes care of a great number of the rest. Knives and pistols are a good complement for one another, with knives being the secondary weapon.  Knives are not for everyone but if you have the stomach for it you should definitely consider the idea.

The first use of tools by human is widely believed to have taken place around 2.5 million years ago. Possibly not quite so long ago, depending on your accepted chain of custody for human development. In any case, the first tool mankind used was the knife. It was first developed by one of our innovative ancestors to slice, chop, and process meat to make it more edible. I imagine shortly after that invention, the same enterprising progenitor used his creation to cut the shit out of someone that was trying to take his knife-prepared food. Human nature has not changed that much, some people must be shuffled off of this mortal coil and someone must be prepared to do so.

So a knife was great for cavemen, why for us? As a good friend of mine is fond of saying, “Either your gun is a tool and you are the weapon; or your gun is the weapon and you are a tool.” To once again steal from Heinlein, “There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, only dangerous men.”

Owning or carrying a gun does not make you dangerous. Your willingness to do whatever is necessary, to defend yourself and those that you love, is what makes you dangerous to those that would do you harm. Once you are in this mental state you are dangerous, everything else is a tool. Some are more effective than others.

By virtue of being a law-abiding citizen, one is almost always surprised by violence. A threat always presents itself at a time, in a place, and by a method not of our choosing. This may give the bad guy time to get within bad breath range. Bad-breath range MAY not be the time to introduce your pistol to the fight. It is your life. Do what you want to with it. However, you fight with the training, intensity, and tools that you have available. I am an American at heart. I enjoy certain excesses;  I believe that more, of all three, is better.

A general rule is: if the bad guy can reach you, he can reach your pistol. It is very easy for someone who knows what they are doing, or is just scared, to take your gun away from you. Failing that, it is very easy for someone who is panicking, as people do when they realize that they may be shot, to make your pistol inoperable. Pushing or grabbing the muzzle and slide of almost any automatic pistol will take it slightly out of battery. An out of battery pistol will not fire. Safeties can be reengaged and magazines unengaged. A finger between an exposed hammer and the firing pin will prevent a pistol from firing. The same finger inserted behind the trigger of any gun will keep it from firing. This maneuver is extremely painful and will likely result in the practitioner having the tip of their finger broken. However, that is a small price to pay for not being shot at contact range. All of these simple manipulations can leave you holding a dead-man’s gun.

My pistol-wise compatriots are already congratulating themselves on not having to worry about these types of things. I can hear you saying, “I shoot from retention!” Call it what you like: retention, hip positions (you have to love Fairbairn and Sykes), position two, the speed rock (you also have to love Chuck Taylor), whatever you want to term it, the idea is variations on a theme. For the uninitiated, retention shooting is firing from a position intended to protect the gun, gun hand, or gun arm from an opponent’s control. This is accomplished in slightly different ways, depending on the school you subscribe to, and your level of expertise. It is usually accomplished by holding some portion of the pistol against a part of your body, and then using your bodily orientation to aim the gun. It works. Retention shooting is something that anyone who carries a gun should be proficient with. However, it is not the answer to every situation. What about when you cannot, or do not want to, draw your pistol? This is usually when an attacker(s) has you in a position of physical control.

Example one: An unseen assailant has knocked you to the ground and assumed the mount position, also known as an MMA “ground and pound.” I am going to talk about martial arts and their implications in another article. However, the mount is fairly common (George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin) and any school-yard bully is familiar with it. It can also be deadly if you are on the receiving end. Your head is getting bounced off of the ground every time you take a punch, meaning that you are exactly one shot away from being knocked out. This effect is intensified if you are on concrete or some other hard surface.

If you carry behind the hip, your pistol is trapped between you and the ground. Reaching behind you to get it is a terrible idea. Any attacker with reasonable intelligence will trap your arm behind your back, leaving you only one arm with which to protect yourself. Your situation has gotten much worse.

If you carry on the hip, or appendix carry, your pistol is as accessible to your assailant as it is to you, and he has the leverage. If you reach for it he is going to draw it first, take it away from you, or simply use his thigh to trap your arm. None of these are an improvement on your situation.

If there is more than one assailant, his associate has carte blanche to kick you, punch you, or hit you with whatever is handy. You will not last long. Even worse, the second, third, or fourth guy has the ability to assault your companions, spouse, or children. You have to get this guy off of you NOW and get your pistol into action. Enter the knife.

Example two: An assailant that is perceived an instant too late traps you up against a wall, a parked car, or any other obstacle. You get your hand on your pistol but your attacker traps your hand, or you decide not to produce the gun. All of the above scenarios are valid, except for the facts that you have retained your feet and have a little more leverage. You need to get this guy off of you NOW and get your pistol into action.

There are several interesting studies out there concerning the mechanism of injury generated by knives and stabbing or slashing incidents. If medical language and autopsy photos do not bother you, I encourage you to take a look. Knife wounds are devastating. The cliff notes version i

: It takes very little force to penetrate the human body. Typically between one and six pounds of pressure, depending on how sharp the knife is. It requires a little more force when using an implement not necessarily designed to be sharp, like an ink pen, but not much more.

Studies have demonstrated that the average elite level boxer lands punches of around 700 pounds of force. Some have been recorded at around 1300 pounds of force per punch. Most of us are not elite level fighters. However, the average person can wield a knife with levels of force many orders of magnitude above what is required for effectiveness. What would be considered a puny punch changes its character when it is no longer a punch.

The average human can deliver 3-4 strikes, across an area approximately 2-3 feet in length, in the space of a second. Imagine for a moment that you have a knife in your hand instead of just making a fist, what does that look like?

Now imagine that you are old, slow, and arthritic. The guy on top of you is young, strong, and intent on smashing your head in. His first couple of punches have dazed you and made everything fuzzy. You manage to get your small pocket-knife deployed but your reaction times are garbage. While he is punching you the first stab goes in just above his waistline. He starts to react but a half-second later (literally twice the time it would take the average person) you hit him again in the middle of the rib cage. Depending on which side you stabbed your assailant likely has damage to a major organ and definitely has a punctured lung. The lung wound alone is incredibly painful and obviously detrimental to his breathing. Lack of oxygen makes it hard to think, move, or fight. All of these things are good for the home team. Your attacker may not even know that he had been stabbed, he does know that he is in intense pain and can’t breathe. Do you think that this guy wants to punch you anymore? Do you think he wants to stay on top of you?

You may have already ended the fight, but you have absolutely given yourself room to run, control the situation, or go to guns.

The question in this situation is: Do you have a knife (knives), and do you know how to use one?

In the next sections we will discuss the ubiquitous nature of knives and their global availability, what knife training to acquire and what knives to carry and how…

Continuing Attacks on “Stand Your Ground”

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , on August 20, 2013 by blackshepherd

Anti-gun associations have missed no opportunity to degrade so called “Stand Your Ground,” laws. All these laws say, is that an individual has no obligation to flee a deadly threat before responding in kind. An idea that is so much a part of natural law, that it is absurd that our society requires it to be enumerated.

There is a new anti-“Stand Your Ground,” public service announcement released by the “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.” PSA  One only needs to visit the site of the “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” to understand their point of view:

This PSA is based upon the emotion surrounding the Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman case; and little more. The video shows a highly inaccurate and stylized portrayal of the events surrounding the case. Then uses the generated emotion to denigrate “Stand Your Ground,” laws. This is yet another case of those who are aghast at the idea of average citizens having weapons, using negative emotion in lieu of fact and reason.

I will again, recommend Mike McDaniel’s researched and professional view of events as authoritative. If you have the guts, begin at the beginning:  Trayvon Martin- 1 of 30-something

I could editorialize this thing all night but I have to get up at 3:00am and go to do some real work.

Let me know what you think…

Paper Targets: Part Five- Conclusion

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on August 18, 2013 by blackshepherd

In the last four articles on this subject we have established that the ideal pistol target is three-dimensional and wearing clothes. It has the correct vital areas outlined on it and it moves. This target also drops when rounds are fired into the correct vital areas.

 Unfortunately, the only commercially available targets that meet these requirements are very expensive.  Even if we could afford them, most range facilities will not let us use them to their full advantage due to safety and liability concerns. So what do we do?

Failing perfection, we work with what we have. We train where, when, and how we can. We train with clear goals and tasks in mind. This is why I have broken down the problems with paper targets into five separate issues. No matter the constraints of your training area, time, or finances, each one of the issues with paper targets and their underlying training limiters, can be addressed every time you go to the range. My purpose was not harangue shooters about the type of target they use but to encourage you to think critically about your objectives, training plan, and performance.

For example: Our local range is antiquated, indoor, and only accommodates 2D targets. It will not even let you draw from the holster, much less move with a loaded handgun.

Even with these restraints, we can create targets that indicate the correct areas for shot placement, and then put clothes on them. This meets two of our training goals. With the addition of a good training partner, we can verbally simulate a target dropping to the ground after the requisite number of shots to the vital zone, meeting a third training objective.

By outlining our training goals, we can identify obstacles to our desired outcomes and can look for ways to get around them. We can also identify deficiencies in our training that need to be rectified.  This is far better than assuming that we are trained for a deadly force encounter solely because we can punch small shot groups into static targets, on a well-lit range. We are forcing ourselves to recognize that we are responsible for our own level of readiness and we must find ways to train. If that means working on everything that we can at our local range, and then make occasional extended trips to a different range that will allow us to draw from the holster and move with a loaded weapon, then so be it. As long as we are conscious of our training objectives, aware of our own deficiencies, and working to rectify them.

For my own amusement I decided to see how cheaply I could make a target that answers all five of the issues that we talked about. I bought a remote control ATV from Wal-Mart, pulled some bamboo planting stakes out of the yard, and grabbed some zip ties and cardboard from the garage. One hour,  $21.66, and half of a roll of duct tape later I had this:

RC ATV with bamboo planter

RC ATV with bamboo planter

Cardboard torso and head

Cardboard torso and head

Final product with old T-shirt and creepy facial features.

Final product with old T-shirt and creepy facial features.

It still requires another person to operate but it works pretty well. If you plan to go this route yourself, I would advise spending a little more on a wider and more powerful remote control vehicle. Version 2 will definitely incorporate that change. This is basically a cardboard scare crow. Your only limiting factors are your imagination and your willingness to think critically about training.

Paper Targets: Part One

Posted in Concealed Carry, Firearms with tags , , , , , , on July 14, 2013 by blackshepherd

I have received several questions generated by, “What Are You Training For?” Most of these questions were about ways to improve personal training and how to make the transition from training to shoot, to training to fight. In the next couple of posts I will write a bit about how we can both improve from, and be limited by, our training.

Most of us think of our local range as our training area, but every range has its range-isms. “Range-ism” is the term that many professionals use to refer to the limits placed upon our training environment by safety, level of assumed risk, range construction, convenience, and cost. Simply put, a rang-ism is any discrepancy between how we must act during training and how we would really act in a real scenario. It is a generally accepted fact that the closer our training mimics the real world, within the bounds of safety, then the better it is.   Range-isms are a necessary part of any training environment (not just stereotypical gun ranges), but we must be aware of them and understand how they influence our training and mindset. As one of my associates is fond of saying, in contravention of a corporate aphorism, “You have to know where the box is before you can start to think outside of it.” However, sometimes we do not realize self-induced constraints until someone else points them out to us. I intend to talk about multiple types of “range-isms,” and how we can get outside of them, starting with targets.

Firstly, shoot targets that look like humans or are reasonably humanoid in shape. If you have a gun for home defense, or carry a gun for self-defense, you need to spend the majority of your time shooting at targets that look like people. Training is the art and science of preparing yourself for eventualities. The most likely eventuality necessitating the use of a firearm, is a two-legged predator. Prepare your mind and body for that situation. Even when shooting at small or colorful targets of varied shapes, I staple them to a backer that looks like the outline of a person. This trains the brain to be ready to shoot people, should they make it necessary. If you are uncomfortable with that idea, don’t own a gun for defense. Be a shooter if you like, but unload the piece before you leave the range. Don’t depend on your firearm as a tool for the defense of yourself, or your family, if you are incapable of shooting another human.  Take a martial art, buy pepper spray, or get a rape whistle. Just don’t depend on a gun for your life if you are unwilling to discharge it at a person who means you harm. Enough on that for now…

One of the most ubiquitous range-isms is the use of paper targets. By paper targets I mean any target printed on cardboard or paper that is two dimensional and affixed to some manner of target stand. Lest I be labeled a hypocrite, I will admit up front that I do about 70% of my personal training with paper targets. Every new and novice shooter I work with starts on them. Paper targets are convenient, cheap, easy to transport, easy to store, easy to use, and easy to replace. They are so easy that the vast majority of shooters only shoot at paper targets. However…

There are five main drawbacks to paper targets and I will discuss each one in depth in this series:

They do not move.

They do not drop when they are shot.

They are two-dimensional instead of three dimensional.

The teach you to shoot at the wrong places.

They make it too easy to identify bullet holes.

Problem #1: Paper targets do not move. Their lack of movement tricks us into not moving.

This problem sounds simple but it is in fact multifaceted and can cause several issues with our response cycles during a dangerous situation. Think about how other people move, in relation to you, during your everyday life. At the basic level, people going about their business move towards and away from you (depth), from side to side (width), up and down (level) and at different speeds (velocity). In addition to these dimensions of movement, people typically bob their heads, swing their arms, and talk with their hands. People also turn their bodies in relation to their direction of movement (orientation). Imagine for a moment how odd it would be if people only moved about their daily business with their shoulders and torso oriented towards you. Bizarre is it not? Yet, this is what most paper targets teach us about our relation to a threat.

 In the real world, if your produce a firearm, potential threats are going to run away from you or towards you, from side to side, or change their level in relation to where you are. They may also strike out at you, throw their hands up as if to ward off a blow, or attempt to get a weapon of their own into action. Normally they are going to perform several of these actions simultaneously, or in direct sequence. What is guaranteed, is that they will not be directly facing you the whole time that they are doing these things.

Legally we are required to use the requisite amount of force to stop a threat and no more. However, just because a threat initially ducks and runs away from you (changes in level and depth), or turns their back (orientation), does not mean that they cannot subsequently turn with a weapon in hand, and injure or kill you. Paper targets cannot imitate or simulate this.

The lack of locomotion inherent to paper targets also precipitates our own lack of movement. Think about how many times you have stood in front of a paper target that already had a “gun” in its hand, calmly drawn your own pistol, fired one or two rounds, and then re-holstered. Would you really do this in a life or death scenario? I hope not! The only things that will save you in that situation are divine intervention, the bad guy’s terrible marksmanship, and movement. I don’t try to predict the deity (I think he may have pulled me out of a few scrapes already, I don’t want to wear out my welcome) and I don’t want to bet my life on someone else’s ineptness. The best option is movement.

Every fight, with any tool: empty hands, knives, improvised, impact, or projectile weapons; is a time and distance equation. Our survival depends on our ability to deploy and employ a given weapon before our enemy can do the same; to do unto others before they can do unto us. The time that we have to do so is determined by several factors: our speed of weapons deployment in relation to our opponent’s, the difference in our weapons, the distance between us, and the number of opponents. The problem is that attackers, by definition, have the tactical advantage because they have chosen the time, place, and method of attack. This means that anyone defending themselves or others, is automatically at a tactical disadvantage. So how do we circumvent this disadvantage? We must steal time from our enemies. Time equals movement and movement equals time. We must force our opponents to move (with our own actions) in order to create time for ourselves.

How do we do this? The not so simple answer is: lateral movement, movement in depth, and level change, or a combination of two, or all three, at the same time. These movements cause your opponent(s) to drastically change their fighting stance, weapons posture, effective range (for impact weapons), lose their sight picture or miss (projectile weapons) and get in one another’s way (multiple opponents). The goal being to provide yourself time. Time to: produce your own weapon, seek cover, end the fight (stop the aggressor by injuring or killing him) or conduct a tactical egress (run like hell). The most efficacious methods of tactical movement are determined by distance and the perceived abilities of our attacker. Again, our goal is to steal time from our opponent but there are no constant answers. This is a case by case proposition. You must be familiar with some concepts and then make your own choices. It is your life.

Assume a place that is flat, empty, and level; like a football field. You are standing in the end-zone, with your pistol already in your hand, but not yet ready to fire.  If a man who stands 5’9” (the average height for a male in the United States) rushes straight at you from the 50 yard line, how long does it take for you to get a correct sight picture on him? While you aim your pistol at the vital organs in his upper body, as he rushes straight at you, how much is it necessary to move the pistol to make an effective shot? Not very much. As he comes at you, he appears to get larger within your pistol sights. This requires you to adjust your front sight post a few millimeters, something quickly and easily accomplished by changing your shoulder angle a few degrees. In other words, the amount of distance (time) between you and your opponent is fairly large, while the amount of time required for you to deploy your weapon and accurately adjust the sight picture is fairly small. In gunfight math, the odds are heavily stacked in your favor.

What if the same man rushes laterally, or at a diagonal to you, while you aim your pistol? When you finally line up the sights, he suddenly goes to a knee, dropping entirely out of your sight picture. How long will it take you to recover your sight picture and fire? How much more time has he created for himself than in the original scenario? What if instead of a football field, we are on a city street, in a parking lot, or inside of a convenience store. Now there is a much greater chance that our imaginary man is hiding behind a car, a building, a merchandise display, or has simply turned a corner (sight line) and is running away as fast as his feet can go. If he has a pistol, there is a decent chance it is already deployed (in his hands) and may have already been employed (he is shooting at you).

Now the imaginary man is you. Your attacker has the advantage and you have to create time for yourself with movement. You must get your weapon into action. You need to get to cover because you do not know how many people may be attacking you, or what their threshold for action is (What action on your part can make them stop their aggression). You have to move or die. Please understand, I am not advocating running, or even moving, while shooting. What I am talking about is, taking the best advantage of the time available, depending on the situation. Making dynamic movement in the direction of best tactical advantage, while accomplishing a simultaneous task related to deploying or employing your weapon. Draw while moving, (pistol, knife, baton, pepper spray- whatever you have, you must get it out) close the distance if necessary, (every weapon and operator combination has a range that works best, I cannot knife someone from 10 meters, conversely “far away” is sometimes the preferred range) plant your feet and go to work. If there is an issue with your weapon, (failure to fire, combat reload, anything that causes you to stop fighting) move while you are fixing it, or get the hell out of Dodge. Just remember that no fight is a static event and real-world ranges cover 360 degrees. I am going to talk about this later but always look 360 degrees by turning your head!

 Because paper targets do not move, they train us not to move. We have to recognize this and train as if a paper target is an actual moving and thinking enemy. We have to move. This is understanding the box that we have created for ourselves and alleviating the ways in which we allow it to limit us. How do we fix the lack of motion inherent to our targets and subsequently ourselves?

If you propose running around and shooting at most firearms ranges, the folks that own or insure said range will start doing cheetah-flips. Find a range that will let you do so. You may have to travel, you may have to pay some instructors, but find a place to get the experience. I can hear people now, “That’s great mister “expert,” but I have to work. I have limited training time and even less money.” I’m with you brothers and sisters. We all have to make the most out of the training time and budget that we have available. We do that by cutting expenses, not corners, and getting the most bang for our buck out of our range time.  So what are some things that we can do to prepare for better training experiences?

Firstly, learn to shoot. As I said previously, I do all of my new shooter training with paper targets. If we cannot safely and effectively shoot an unmoving paper target, standing directly in front of us, in the location of our choosing, during the daytime, then how can we trust our skills enough to progress? Shot placement is key.  Before anything else, be able to make your rounds go where you want them to go. Once you can do that, do it from the draw. Very few honest people begin a fight with a gun already in hand, learn to deploy your weapon. Once you can do that, offset the target from your line of sight. Move it left or right, as much or as little as your range will allow.

 I will discuss this later, but keep in mind that paper targets are not three-dimensional. A center of target hit, if the shot is taken from extreme angles, may miss everything that you are actually shooting at (vital organs and major blood vessels). Think about the areas that you want your bullets to impact and make the requisite adjustments to point of aim. This exercise alone will teach you how your point of aim changes with your spatial relationship to the target. This lesson is not to be discounted. I would wager that 90% of civilian shooters have only addressed targets that are directly in front of them. Do you think that this is realistic?

Remember that all training is a progression. Whenever you add a new skill or drill start dry (without ammo). Ensure that you can complete the drill safely with an unloaded gun. Once you have done that, start slowly with ammo. As you get better speed it up and add complexity.

 If your range will allow, start changing your level as you draw (many ranges will let you do this, but not let you move in width and depth). Drop to a knee or a squat as the pistol comes out of the holster. Keep in mind that this also changes your angles in relation to your target and your desired point of impact will also change. Please keep in mind that changing your level limits your immediate ability to move in width and depth and is something of an emergency reaction, unless you are dropping behind cover. It does teach you to move while performing a simultaneous action and to focus on your target and not what you are doing with your weapon. Obviously full movement is best but if your training area is not allowing you to train for a fight, then something is better than nothing.

So we have covered our movement, what about that of our opponent. In order to train for shooting moving people, we have to shoot moving targets. The best way to do so is an actual force on force scenario (real people) using simunitions (actual pistols using actual rounds loaded with a reduced powder charge and a detergent filled plastic cap, instead of a bullet: Sims website ). Simunitions allow us to get as close to the reality of a fight as closely as possible, which is what we want from our training. If you give two guys simunitions and let them face off, you will see some things you have never seen on any range.  However, the safety and financial implications of simunitions make them beyond the reach of most people, outside of a professionally run training course.

Paintball guns are an option, but they obviously limit our draw and weapon’s handling techniques. This makes them much less valuable as a training aid but they do force one to think through tactical scenarios.

Airsoft guns have made massive strides towards realism in recent years and can be an interesting training tool. My real problem with airsoft, is that they do not hurt enough for role players to tell if they have been hit through clothing. Simunitions sting badly enough that most people really do not want to be shot with them. This causes people to act as they would if someone were actually shooting at them.

Aside from force on force scenarios, our options for moving targets are limited only by our imaginations. Other targets train us to shoot at moving targets, not fight them. But, we have to learn to shoot before we can fight so this is a logical progression.

 There are targets that spin, flip, and swing. The only real problem with these, is that they are usually static until you shoot them the first time. Have a partner shoot them first so that they are moving, then go to work. Get an RC truck, tie a helium balloon to it, and put a sadistic operator at the controls. Not an easy target. There are other, usually expensive, systems that will “run” targets in any direction you chose. There are also multiple DIY ideas on the internet. Get out there and come up with something. Start shooting at moving targets. Remember that all training is a progression. Get better than where you are now.

We will continue the next article by discussing the fact that not only do paper targets not move when you are drawing and pointing a gun at them, they do not move once they have been shot…

What are you training for?

Posted in Concealed Carry, Firearms with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 23, 2013 by blackshepherd

My apologies to all for the brief hiatus. We were busy with the local wildfires and then I took some time to attend to my own training. I had the rare opportunity to attend two very different firearms courses within one week. The juxtaposition of the two highlighted the differences between shooting and fighting.

The first class was the NRA Basic Pistol Instructor’s Course. I decided to take this class because I regularly get asked for advice and there has been a lot of interest in the NRA sponsored courses from friends, family, and associates. I refuse to dispense advice about things that I have no experience with, so I cowboy-ed up and paid for the class. All shooters are teachers and coaches, even if you are simply trying to improve yourself, you have to be your own instructor so taking a basic instructor’s course is not a bad idea for anyone. This particular course was very professionally managed and run. The lead instructor makes his living teaching NRA courses and was entirely proficient with his subject matter. The students ranged in experience and attitude from an ordained minister to active duty military personnel and everything in between.  Course materiel was appropriately oriented towards safety and training progression. Suggested lesson plans provide a framework for beginning with a student who has never fired a handgun and progressing through safe handling and shooting of the most common types of pistols and revolvers. I have never been to a firearms course where I did not take away something but I have taught hundreds of people how to shoot. As a result, most of my personal learning in this course was from interaction with the other students as they instructed. Some people seriously underestimate the value of this kind of interaction. Someone teaching you a skill that you already possess provides a fresh point of view that can improve your shooting or help you to instruct someone else. Everyone learns in different ways and everyone’s window on the world is a bit different. The more ways that you can describe, demonstrate, and relate to the same skill, the better. I would recommend that anyone with baseline firearms proficiency take this course. Learning to teach others to shoot, even if you don’t plan to  actively instruct, will improve your own shooting immensely.

My one real complaint about the course materiel is the NRA’s desire for its instructors to drop the word “weapon,” from the lexicon when teaching. The organization’s reasoning is that “weapon” may have a negative connotation which may be detrimental to the learning processes of some students. Utterly ridiculous, poppycock, goose feathers, elephant dung, oxen shit, take your pick of appropriate adjectives.

A weapon, any weapon, is an inanimate object, a tool. Something that is in the literal sense “motivated” by the will of the operator. As such, the word “weapon” holds nothing but a neutral connotation. This is beside the fact that many people taking the NRA Basic Pistol course will be primarily interested in learning about handguns on order to put them to their intended purpose, the defense of self and family. Denying the essence of a firearm is off-putting to many more people than calling it what it is. It also smacks of semantic trickery and intellectual dishonesty, tactics of those that want to disarm the populace, not those that are on the side of liberty.

As a group, gun owners cannot hammer gun control advocates for failure to use proper terminology and then censor ourselves from using one of the most correct terms for firearms; at least not if we expect to retain any intellectual honesty. I can avoid calling a Fairbairn-Sykes a “dagger” all that I like. I can even use one to slice bread and put jam on toast, it is still not a butter knife. It remains what its designers intended it to be, and what thousands have used it for, a fighting knife. In the same sense I can use a pistol for any number of innocuous competitions and shooting events. It still retains its purpose. It is a tool used to equalize and neutralize adverse situations. An object that can be used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of damage delivered to an opponent. A weapon. To deny that is disingenuous and the NRA should absolutely reconsider this teaching point.

The second class was a high-intensity course attended only by professionals and run by some of the best instructors in the country. We fired in excess of one thousand rounds per student, through many types of weapons, within a five day period. However, this was not a shooting course, it was a fighting course. Nine hours a day we were fighting with something. Empty hands, improvised weapons, contact weapons, rifles and pistols of multiple makes, models, and calibers. Single opponents, multiple opponents, single targets, multiple targets; no breaks.  At the end of the day we would limp our way back to our homes or hotel rooms to slam a handful of ibuprofens and a beer or four. Then we were back at it the next day. Every student was hurt, several were injured, but no one quit working.

The stark difference in the two student bodies reminded me of a truism that I discovered early in life and have seen proven again and again:

“There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.” -Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Everyone in the first class was competent, everyone in the second class was dangerous. I am glad that the first group represents the American population.  I thank God that the second group is on our side. These men are not mean or brutal, they are not arrogant and they are certainly not psychopaths. (Yes, they all happened to be men but if you think that a woman can’t take you apart, you are not hanging around with the right women. Weapons don’t have a gender.) In fact, if you were given the chance to hang out with them, you would find that they are some of the most engaging, intelligent and witty people that you will ever meet; until they are not. They are extreme sheepdogs.

Why was there such a disparity between student bodies?  Part of the answer is level of training. The second group of students had a much higher level of training than the first, but that is not the whole answer. Increased training just makes a dangerous individual more dangerous.  The answer is intensity of training. The first class of students accomplished exactly what they intended. They drove to the range, went to the line, put some rounds through paper targets, packed up their stuff and left. No big deal, except for the fact that many of them finished a shooting drill and immediately concealed their pistols for the drive home. With the exception of three students, myself included, no one fired any combat drills prior to leaving. They took the lessons that they reinforced on the range out into the dangerous places of the world.

The second group of student started every day on the range with shooting drills. Exercises designed to hone accuracy, precision, and speed. However, shooting drills were used as a warm up for gun-fighting drills. Exercises emphasizing movement, speed, necessary accuracy, lethality, and preparation for worst case scenarios. Everyone on the line was training like their lives depended on it, because they do. Guys made things as difficult as possible on one another and themselves by starting drills from positions of disadvantage and inducing malfunctions on one another’s guns.  It was not uncommon to see pistols or knives instinctively punched through a close target when a student ran out of ammo. It was also not uncommon for a student to sprint away from a target to find cover once an engagement was complete. Students were training like they were in the real world, not a flat range. They understand that guns are just tools, the man is the dangerous weapon. They took the dangerous places of the world onto the range and trained for a fight. The last thing every student did on the range for the day was run a successful combat drill.

What are you training for? If you carry a gun, or have one in the home for protection, an appropriate amount of your training time should be devoted to fighting with that gun, not just shooting it.  Yes, both skills are vital and one must be able to shoot a gun before being able to fight with it.  For most of us, training time is hard to come by and ammo (especially right now) is dear. This makes it even more imperative that we know what we are training for, identify personal weaknesses, and have a training plan. If you are new to firearms, take a basic course from a reputable instructor (I am going to do another article on how to find a good instructor) and learn to safely handle your weapon. If you have progressed past that point, it is time to stop admiring how small your shot-groups are and get serious with your tools. Know when you are training to shoot and when you are training to fight. Learn to fight with your guns and finish every training iteration with a fighting scenario. Then take those skills with you into the dangerous and unpredictable world in which we live.

Black Sheep

Posted in Black Sheep, Colorado, Concealed Carry, Firearms, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on May 24, 2013 by blackshepherd

This is a wolf:


Except for the fact that he is not a wolf;


he is a sheepdog, a German Shepherd. If he were a wolf, that baby would probably be a Scooby-snack. Instead, he is definitely the safest infant in the park.

How is one to tell the difference between the wolf and the sheepdog? Both are big and strong, they have fur, pointy ears, and fangs. They look very similar, in fact they are as close as cousins can be. They are two sides of the same coin. However, looks are deceiving. The best way to tell the difference between a shepherd and a wolf is by their actions. The same is true of people.

The metaphor of wolves, sheepdogs, and sheep is not new, nor is it mine. It was used extensively by LTC (ret) Dave Grossman in his books On Killing, and On Combat. There are those that love these books and those that hate them. Either way, they are worth a read simply because of their proliferation throughout the military and police forces. The particular chapter from On Killing, which I intend to pilfer mercilessly, is here: On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs.

The basic idea is that there are three kinds of people in the world. There are the sheep, the majority of the population that is non-violent:

“We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.”

The wolves are human predators and prey on others:

“Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds.”

Then there are the sheepdogs, people that have committed themselves to the defense of others:

“But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path.”

I love this metaphor but I think many people are put off by the absolutism of the comparisons. There is more of a sliding scale amongst personalities, degrees of ability and inclination. Obviously not every criminal is Hannibal Lector and not every member of the security forces is Captain America.

A sheepdog is a member of the “protectors.” People who have volunteered to put themselves between society and evil. Protectors with a particular talent for righteous violence often end up in the combat arms of the military or the more specialized portions of police forces. They can also be found working as highly paid personal protection (bodyguards) and “fixers” for people with the money to “fix” things. These people are highly trained professionals, with a finely-tuned set of skills. Those without the inclination to violence often work in the support arms of the military or the more standardized jobs within police forces. These people are still highly trained but usually with a much different skill set than the previous group. This is not to say that the sheepdog personality can only be found in the military or police, or that everyone in those professions is a sheepdog. However, the warrior mentality does tend to gravitate to warrior occupations. The “reduced violence” brand of sheepdogs can also be found working as firefighters, doctors, lawyers, teachers, almost any profession where protecting and nurturing others is necessary.

“Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.”

Not everyone has the time, inclination, or abilities to be a sheepdog, nor should they. Science, art, literature, music, any and all of the things that make life worth enjoying, would suffer in a purely warrior-based society. Pursuit of life and liberty is what the sheepdogs have signed-on to protect. Average people having a safe place to pursue these things is what makes the sheepdogs efforts valuable. However, no one wants to think of themselves as a sheep.

To torture the metaphor a little farther, I propose a fourth way. A place between the sheepdog and the sheep. One does not have to volunteer to protect society. Instead, learn to take care of yourself and your family. Go to a reputable trainer and learn how to do so in the most extreme of circumstances. The fact is, the sheepdog, to sheep, to wolf ratio is not in favor of the sheep. Getting eaten, even once, is kind of permanent. Ask yourself some hard questions about those that you love, and how far you are willing to go to keep them safe. You will learn some things about yourself that you were unaware of and come to terms with some hard truths. Some of the most adamant anti-violence activists I have ever met have admitted privately that they would violate their principles to protect their children, even if not themselves. Unfortunately for them, at that point in time it is too late to get ready.

Get prepared for worst case scenarios, then go on about your life. Pursue your chosen profession, care for your spouse, and raise your children. . My father, a teacher and one of the most amiable men I know (except when riled), read this before I posted it. He said, “I knew the day that you and your brother were born that I had two options protect to the utmost, or punish to the ends of the earth.” Always be ready to defend your family if the circumstances of life and the tyrannies of evil men make it necessary. Help will be coming but time will not be your friend. Please be prepared for that day if it ever comes. The world will be a better place for it. Be a black sheep.

Brian’s Comment and Response

Posted in Firearms, Gun Control Debate with tags , , , , , , , on May 12, 2013 by blackshepherd

The following comment from Brian in reference to “Gun Control Debate: Part Two,” was long enough and thoughtful enough that I think it deserves a whole post. His comment and my response are below:

In part 2, you state, “It is easy to miss; even more so under stress.” Yet, a few paragraphs later, you more-or-less state that it’s pretty much acceptable for the collateral damage done to innocent bystanders. Yes, police officers ARE trained/qualified. The same holds true to many concealed carry holders. However, with the exception of those permit holders who have been former military who have ACTIVELY seen combat, and those law enforcement members who have been in an ACTIVE shooting situation, I think it’s safe to assume that anyone with a concealed handgun would be scared shitless, in a situation such as this. Take Aurora for example… the shooter entered a darkened theater, used tear gas (or smoke canisters), was wearing some body armor and used an AR-15 clone, with a 100 rd drum magazine (more on that in a bit). Imagine the sheer chaos in this environment. I’ve got friends who said “Well, if I was there, I WOULD’VE shot him, myself.” The point is simply this: no one can truly say how they would react in such a situation. The “flight or fight” mechanism is a real thing. If someone were capable of the rational thought process needed to actually pull their own handgun is one thing. Being able to accurately level it and get off a “kill shot” against someone unarmed and unarmored is something else. Doing the same against someone in the above scenario is another thing entirely different, altogether. What happens if the permit holder kills innocents, in the process, and doesn’t stop the shooter? I would think that’s manslaughter, at the least. Again, no one can say how they’d react in this scenario. As you said, most of these terrible events are over with, as soon as they start. Is that enough time to thoroughly process the information at hand and react accordingly?

I can see the merits of your argument for 30 rd magazines, even if it’s something I don’t agree with. To me, there is no practical purpose of such items. However, what argument can be made for 100 rd drum magazines? Granted, the way I understand it, there is a certain brand of them, that are crap, and are prone to jamming (the Aurora shooter’s 100 rd drum jammed, reportedly). However, I cannot find anyone to tell me the practical considerations of owning these (or 30 rd magazines, as well). The best argument someone gave me, was that recreational shooters like the idea (concerning 30 rds) of target shooting, without the need for constantly having to reload. Okay, I can see the economic standpoint of this. At the same time, however, I wonder about the financial feasibility of shooting 100 or 30 rounds at a time, versus only shooting 5.

Not many people understand the sheer damage that a .223/5.56 bullet can do to soft tissue. The 5.56 bullet was originally designed to tumble, ever so slightly. The effect this has on entering soft tissue, at a velocity of around 3000 ft/s is nothing short of devastating. Even without the tumbling effect, the higher velocity, alone, caused cavitation in the soft tissues. This is just as bad. In contrast, the 7.62×39 (lower velocity and without the tumbling) produces a more through and through type wound. I have never been in combat, however I’ve worked in EMS for 21 years, and I’ve seen the effects of close-range shootings done by a 5.56mm round. My point is, that the vast majority of people (I assume) have not seen the results of something like this. It’s easy to say “well, that happened in Colorado” or “well, Conneticut is so far away from here”. What happens if someone who’s anti-gun control had to look at the autopsy photographs of a 7 year old, with multiple GSWs done by this round?

That’s not to say we shouldn’t do away with all .223/5.56 guns and ammunition and only allow 7.62, .308, .30-30, or .30-06. However, the vast majority of the firearms (in the civilian market) are used as hunting rifles. The majority of these hunting rifles have a capacity of 6+/- rounds. Why do we limit ourselves to the number of rounds in a bolt action hunting rifle, and not in a modern semi-automatic sporting rifle (the correct term for the ambiguously used “assault rifle)?

I used to own a post-ban Norinco Mak-90. This rifle came with a 5 rd box magazine, and I later purchased a 30 round magazines. I admit, this gun was very fun to shoot. I also had no qualms about filling out the paperwork (circa 1995?) and submitting to a background check. Had I purchased this rifle at a gun show, and not a licensed dealer, I would have expected to pass the same scrutiny.

I don’t want anyone to lose their guns. However, I am perplexed as to why people aren’t keen on more thorough background checks and limiting magazine capacity. Some argue that it’s nothing more that getting added to a national gun registry. So? If they’ve ever bought a firearm at a licensed dealer, then they’re ALREADY on any supposed registry. If they’re only buying from private citizens, or gun shows, then what do they have to hide?? Others actually DO claim that they want to be able to defend “when the guvment comes to take mah gunz” (as much as you disagree with this, personally). One of my friends is fond of saying “you can’t weed out stupid”, and he may be right. More inclusive background checks won’t necessarily stop the drunk guy from showing off his prized .40 Glock to his buddies, at a party, and ending up shooting one of them. Nor will it necessarily stop the 8 y/o from accidentally shooting his younger sister. It’s also entirely conceivable that they wouldn’t keep another one of the 52 mass shootings perpetrated since 1982, from happening again.


What if it DID? Just one shooting stopped from ever taking place? Just one. Isn’t that worth it?

I fully realize that my argument is more about being pro-background check, yet I still dwell a lot on magazine capacity. I understand that someone can carry ten 5rd magazines and still do a terrible amount of damage. However, if we can focus on a) stopping certain people from getting guns, and b) have a better system of helping those who need it, then I believe that’s a huge step in the right direction.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.


Thank for reading this and taking the time to form such a comprehensive response to some of my points. If reasonable people cannot reasonably discuss basic ideas, then humanity is sunk. Hopefully, I can bring you a little closer to my point of view. If not, there is still value in the conversation:

In response to your first point: I think that irrespective of previous combat, anyone engaged in a fight for their life is going to be scared shitless. That is the nature of humanity and survival. The important point is that being scared to death and being able to function are not mutually exclusive. Some of the ability to function under pressure is personality driven, but most of it is performance based. Performance is based on training. As I said in part three: just because almost everyone CAN legally bear arms in public does not mean that everyone SHOULD bear arms. Training to carry a firearm means preparation for possible life and death scenarios. The tactical variables that you cite in reference to Aurora are: darkness, smoke, gunfire, an unknown number of assailants, and the perpetrator wearing body armor. All of these factors sound like normal training scenarios to me. Violent assaults often happen at night, in the dark. Gunfire or other loud noises and smoke are almost a given in a gunfight and one can never be sure of the number of assailants in any given situation. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have helped to provide the military with body armor undreamt of by previous generations. An unforeseen consequence of this proliferation of protective equipment is that it has become readily available to everyday criminals. The citizen’s response to body armor is the same as the citizen’s response to any target that does not react to gunfire: the failure drill. For the un-initiated, the failure drill is two shots to the chest and one to the head; repeated as necessary. This technique is not easy to execute but it is also not as hard as some would pretend. Mrs. Blackshepherd, Momma Blackshepherd, and Papa Blackshepherd, who has bad arthritis, all do it quite regularly during training. Some claim that the shooting of moving targets under duress is all but impossible. Not true at all, it just takes practice beforehand. Shoot moving targets during practice. Practice under stress. Know your limitations.

In the Aurora situation the public was dealing with a man that had committed to die, was wearing body armor and armed with a rifle in public. He had specifically chosen a gun-free zone as location of his attack. At most he could expect one, maybe two, civilians armed with concealable pistols. In fact there were none. Had you been there what do you THINK you would do?

People carrying deadly weapons in public are expected to know their own limitations. Learning your personal limitations only comes with training. Gunfights do not happen at noon, on the street, between two people who have agreed upon a mutual combat. If someone spends all of their training time on the seven meter-line, in the daytime, shooting at single, stationary, paper targets then perhaps they should reconsider the nature of violent conflicts and worst case scenarios.

Please see the recent shootout between the Boston Police and the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston. Reports indicate that over 300 rounds were exchanged; the vast majority were fired by the Boston PD. Many of them missed wildly, even going so far as to penetrate the second story windows of surrounding houses. See here:

However, what I wrote concerning the ability for anyone to miss their target under stress, and potential collateral damage, was not a hole in my argument. Yes, it is possible for anyone to miss under stress. Yes, those misses could result in the injury or death of bystanders. However, in the unlikely scenario that many have cited, a mass shooter who is indiscriminately killing others, I believe that the chance is worth the risk. See the links above. Would anyone have wanted the Boston police to NOT take those shots?

As I previously stated, I do not know what I would do in an active shooter scenario, there are too many tactical variables. But I always want the option. By that, I mean that I want to be legally carrying a gun. This gives me the option to draw, to shoot, or not. Disarming the responsible, law-abiding citizen is not going to make any situation better. An armed citizen, choosing not to shoot, will not change the situation. An armed citizen engaging an active shooter is likely going to slow them down and at best injure or kill them; stopping the attack entirely. Many mass shooters have killed themselves at the first sign of opposition, also ending the attack.

If my family was in the room I would want the armed citizen to take their shot. Even if they do not hit the attacker.  Even if they hit me in the background. People may escape with their lives because of the chance that armed citizen has taken. The only other option is for people to cower and die. If I should ever happen to be the armed citizen that missed, I would be happy to explain why my trained, well-aimed, and deliberate gun-fire; directed at a madman, was preferred to the continued execution of innocents.

In reference to 100-round drum magazines; I do not know any professionals that use them because they do not work. If mass-shooters are going to buy them, I hope that they remain legal and that they continue to result in type-III (very hard to correct) weapons malfunctions.

I believe that I made my point concerning 30-round magazines. They have nothing to do with having fun on the range.  The founding fathers of this country, backed up by the Supreme Court, intended for the citizenry of the United States to own militia weapons. The militia weapon of today is the AR-15, loaded with a 30-round magazine. If these weapons are not suitable for self-defense, take them away from the federal, state, and local, law-enforcement agencies that issue them. Standard-capacity magazines are also excellent for self-defense; especially for those that have difficulty manipulating weapons. Those that are willing to violate the law would have no issue acquiring or manufacturing such magazines. Do not take them from the hands of the law-abiding.

You seem to insinuate that 5.56mm/.223cal rounds inflict more damage to people than 7.62mm/.30cal rounds. I appreciate your service as an EMT but this argument does not hold up in real life. I am not going to get into ballistics just yet. I want people who have never fired a gun to be able to follow the conversation. However, the main causation of permanent cavitation in a bullet wound is the size of the round. A .30cal is bigger than a .223. Therefore it makes a bigger hole. The bottom line is that all bullets can tumble, regardless of their initial size. I have seen some gnarly entrance and exit wounds caused by everything from small caliber pistol rounds to legitimately high-powered rifle rounds. Getting shot with a rifle, any rifle, is just not going to be a good day for anyone. There is no death-ray caliber. If there were, it would certainly not be .223.

For shooting humans in a gunfight, given the choice between a 7.62mm/.30 cal rifle and a 5.56mm/.223cal rifle, nine times out of ten I am going to choose the 7.62/.30 cal. As long as these guns are AR-10/SCAR/M-14, variants they are going to be my weapon of choice. People shot with these caliber weapons typically drop like a puppet with its strings cut.  However, I am an unusually large and strong man. Recoil with standard rifles is a negligible factor to me. A .30 caliber battle-rifle often makes no sense for use in a home-defense scenario where over-penetration is an issue. Shooting a bad guy but potentially blowing a hole in my neighbor’s house is good for no one. Battle-rifles also make no sense for home defense when it may be me, or it may be my 115pd wife, behind the gun. Mrs. Blackshepherd shoots very well but I prefer that she be holding an AR-15 with a stock collapsible  to her small stature and a 30-round magazine containing appropriate home defense ammunition, and nothing larger, if things ever go really badly.

No child should ever be shot by anything, ever. I am aware that it does happen, I have seen it up close and personally. The deliberate, violent, death of children is unconscionable. Caliber does not matter, guns are not the issue, and evil exists in the world. Good men must oppose it at every turn. In my experience, evil men do not give a shit about good men that are unarmed. Gun-up and be a shepherd, not a sheep. If you cannot be a shepherd by vocation, be a black sheep by choice; one that is armed and trained. I am absolutely going to discuss this topic later.

We limit the number of rounds in a deer-rifle for sporting reasons and because the deer don’t shoot back. Criminals and tyrannical governments do. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. Enough said.

I am going to address background checks in a future posting. At this point it looks like it may be part 5 or even part 6. I promise you that I will try to answer all of your concerns. You may not care for my answers but I will provide them.

I agree with your buddy, one cannot fix stupid. Living in freedom is messy, annoying, and sometimes dangerous. Free people do unpredictable things at inconvenient times. Sometimes free people do stupid things and others suffer. I still believe that the unpredictability of being free is better than the alternative. More on that later also.

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote in part three. I never said that I disagree with the idea that some within in the government want to take citizen’s guns. In fact, part four of this series is all about that idea. I said that revolution in the current Unites States should only be discussed soberly and solemnly. I hope that I made the point that it should be discussed. If not, my writing is not as clear as I intended and I need to re-address the subject. The opposition of tyranny is the raison d’etre of the 2nd Amendment.

Your final question is one that I have planned to answer for months. I will get to it in part 5 or 6 of this series. You basically asked: “If we could stop one mass shooting wouldn’t it be worth it.”

The short answer is: NO!

The rights of 315,000,000 Americans to defend their families, lives, and property from criminals and tyranny should not be bartered away based upon the potential actions of madmen.

For what it is worth I agree with you about keeping the wrong people away from guns. Crazy people and guns do not mix. I am not a psychiatrist but I do have extensive experience with people that have psychiatric problems. I have dealt with the medical/legal system and have even had people involuntarily committed to psychiatric institutions.  That is not a fun process. I will address this in future posts but I absolutely believe that people with unaddressed mental illness can be dangerous. Conversely, armed and law-abiding citizens are a stabilizing factor within society.

Brian, I appreciate the thoughtful and deliberate way you have posed your concerns. If you feel that I have not adequately addressed your concerns or you have counterpoints please post them and I will share them. I started this blog to have this conversation.

If you are ever in the Colorado Springs area please get in touch. I would love to take you to the range. Ammo is on me.