Isn't that just pretty?

You ever have a relationship with a gun that's like a marriage?  You love it, but it drives you nuts at the same time?  My M1 carbine has been like that for me.

I originally wrote a glowing review about how much I loved the M1 carbine (original post), with only a few minor complaints.  Well, after the honeymoon phase I started to see the cranky side of the rifle.  I actually went back a couple weeks after the original post and added an edit to the end:

"EDIT (02-10-2013): I love my M1 carbine.  I love the history, the looks, and how it shoots.  However, the rear sight drives me bonkers.  It comes with a non-adjustable flip sight, one for 100 yards, one for 200 yards, in a dove tail joint.  On mine, it was really off to the left.  To "adjust" this sight you need the proper vice/tool, or a hammer, punch, and patience.  I ordered an adjustable sight for it, tried a dozen times to replace the flip sight... and broke down and ordered the proper removal tool.  These typically go for $150, the cheapest I could find was with Sarco for $70 (E-Sarco Inc).  It's been frustrating, especially since I'm probably only going to use it once.  So, great rifle, just keep that rear sight in mind.  On a plus note, the original M1 needed to have the front sight ground down in the field, whereas the front sight on my replica seems spot on."

So, let me summarize the time and money I put into getting my M1 accuracy even close to where I wanted it.

$55 Adjustable Rear Sight

$40 Various Vices, C-clamps, and scrap (trying to find something cheaper than the proper removal tool)

$20 Boresight Laser for 30car

$70 Proper Vice/Removal tool for Rear Sight

$20 on TWO new sets of Hex drivers to fit the Removal Tool

$60 on some 30 round magazines (ok, not entirely necessary, but why not?)

$265  (the cost of the entire rifle was only $900)

From start to finish, about TWO MONTHS of F****ing around to get it finally figured out...

I am pleased to say, with confidence, that it was totally worth it.  Check my baby:

I know there are plenty of AR-15 fan boys out there, lots, and lots of them!  However, I don't care what kind of rifle you like, you can't tell me this is not a helluva sexy rifle.  Folding stock, fully adjustable rear sight, 30rd mag, weights less than 6 lbs, full wood stock, that shoots like a dream?  Hell yeah! 

"What Will You Do If They Come For Your Guns?"

I have to say, I think that is probably one of the dumbest questions I've ever heard.

There is a thick streak of conspiracy theorists on the Survivalist websites, and that question has been bouncing around a lot recently.  Normally, I would ignore the conspiracy theorists but I had an interesting encounter the other day that prompted me to share some thoughts.

I was standing in line to register a new pistol.  The line was amazingly long, as it has been for the past two months... not too difficult to figure out why.  So, of course all of us were BSing as we waited in line.

The middle aged gentleman in front of me started to tell this story to a couple young rednecks ahead of him.  I'll paraphrase it here.

"You guys hear about the government in New Orleans?  The story was leaked by one of the SWAT officers, he took video and posted it on YouTube.  It only took them two days to get the video blocked and taken down, but that's how it got out.  The City wanted to know what would happen when they took away people's guns.  So, they got the SWAT team to raid a couple houses and demand any firearms they had.  The owner's didn't do anything, just let the officers take the guns.  They did this at a bunch of different houses and no one did anything about it!  Oh, they wouldn't get away with that at my house!"

It was at this point that I broke in to his conversation,  "Dude, if some SWAT team broke down my door and demanded my guns, I'd hold my hands up high, and point them to the safe."

"No way, man!  I'd show them my guns, fully loaded, barrel first!" wink, wink, nudge one of the rednecks.  They laughed.  I just shook my head.

First off, that's just a ignorant response.  It's like guys talking about who's caught the biggest fish, bagged the biggest buck, etc.  Guys talking themselves up, being stupid.

When someone in uniform yells "Freeze!  Police!", you're first reaction should be to f***ing freeze!  Then patiently await further instructions with your hands motionless and visible.  If you're first reaction is to do anything else, you're just stupid and going to make things worse.

"What will you do if they come for your guns?"

Secondly, no one is talking about taking away all of our guns.  They are talking about restrictions, there's popular support for restrictions.  However, there is no popular support for banning ALL fire arms.  I dislike politicians as much as the average person, but even I realize that they thrive on mass support.  No massive support, nothing gets done.  Hell, most of the time nothing gets done even with massive support.

If you have a problem with the the current legislation proposed, then get in contact with your legislator, gather support, and exercise your rights in the Democracy.

And then, if someday the police want to take your guns, you give them up, and then call a lawyer.  I'm sure the NRA would be happy to foot the bill.

Pistol Caliber Carbines

There is a propensity with gun nuts to downplay the value of a pistol caliber carbine.

For those of you who don't know, a pistol caliber carbine (PCC) is a rifle that fires a lower powered round that is typically associated with a pistol.  For example, a .357 fired out of a lever action rifle.  The extra barrel length gives the gas a longer time to expand, creating higher velocities, increased accuracy, lower bullet drop over a distance.

A lot of gun nuts consider the PCC to be an intermediate, and therefore pointless, long arm.  They say that a pistol round is better out of a long arm, but not as good as a rifle round out of a long arm.  "If you're going to carry a rifle, why shoot less effective rounds?"  Technically, and ballistically, they are correct.  A rifle round is almost always better than a pistol round out of a rifle, that's what they were designed for.  However, a pistol round is far more efficient, with less kick, and more accuracy out of a longer barrel.

It's my opinion that those gun nuts are being a short sighted (no pun intended).  I love the idea of the intermediate firearm.  Kind of like the scout rifle concept, the idea that a firearm can be used adequately for multiple purposes really appeals to me.  A PCC is a good example of this.

If you want a long range hunting rifle, there are plenty of long range hunting rifles out there, but they are exactly long range hunting rifles.  Not much good at anything else.

Just like a hand gun for personal defense, they are designed for their purpose specifically.  Not much good for accurate distance shooting.

Gun nuts want a rifle that is exceptional, a general purpose firearm is almost by definition average... but it's average at a lot of things, an expert at none.  Personally, I like the idea of a firearm that can be used for multiple purposes over carrying multiple firearms that each have a specialty.

There are quite a few PCC options out there.  I lean toward lever actions, there are plenty of good revolver/rifle combos out there.  .22lr, .357, .44 mag, .45lc... Historically, cowboys liked having a long gun and a pistol that used the same ammunition, that way they only had to carry one.  So, cowboy combos are easily adapter to a pistol-rifle combo.

However, in this modern age, there are quite a few options for semi-auto rifle and pistol combinations.  With a little research, it's quite possible that your favorite mag fed semi-auto pistol has an equivalent carbine.

If you like Glock, there is a Hi-point carbine for you.

If you like Beretta, there is a Beretta CX4 storm for you.

Even the M1 carbine, which shoots ".30 carbine", has a Ruger revolver that uses the same round.

Almost all of the big gun manufacturers have a PCC available, that uses their variety of magazine and ammunition.  It's only too bad that there isn't a good PCC that will take a large variety of magazines, it would make acquiring and matching magazines so much easier.  Personally, I like Glocks but want a CX4... those magazines don't match up.

Or you could look at something like Mech Tech where you can convert your favorite pistol into a PCC.  This is of course depending on your local laws.  There are a couple of companies that offer packages like this, it's an interesting option.

The other benefit is the range time fun... They're a blast to shoot, very low recoil, and pistol ammo is usually far cheaper than rifle rounds.  For a box of common ammo it is around the same price, around $25, but rifle rounds usually come in a box of 20, pistol rounds usually come in a box of 50.

The PCC might not be the best at anything, but it will get the job done in most situations.  That's what I like about them.

Right now, it might be the M&P 22 and the M&P 15 combo.  Or I could do the Rossi R92 and the Ruger Blackhawk.  Neither option is too shabby, if you ask me.

Killings and Conversations

First off, I'd like to say that I have nothing but my sincerest condolences toward the families of recent firearm violence. The crimes are horrific, horrible, and I can't imagine that kind of devastation. I'm writing this to honor the memories of the victims by trying to start a conversation about what we can do to try and curb the kind of recent crimes that have dominated the news.  Just give me to the end of the post before deciding if I'm crazy or not.

I started writing this about a week ago, after a mall shooting was all over the news, as a pure opinion piece on the Second Amendment. Then came the school shooting only days later and I realized that if I was going to write this than I wanted to do something better. I didn't want to be another talking head, spouting my opinions as if you should care or my opinions mattered. So, I want to talk about some facts that seem to be desperately missing from most of the conversations and offer some suggestions on things we can do to decrease future crimes.

This morning the news was all about the possibility of reintroducing the assault weapon ban. The politicians and news personalities were all talking about how “something needs to be done” and now might be the time to start a “real conversation about fire arm rights”.

I agree, something needs to be done, but banning or restricting firearms is a knee-jerk reaction that is highly unlikely to make any difference. It's far easier to blame the “assault rifle” than it is to try and and actually find the root causes of mass violence.

First off, if you look at the statistics, the original “Assault Gun Ban” made little to no impact on homicide rates. When the Ban expired in 2004, again it made little to no difference on homicide rates. Homicide rates have been in decline for the past 20 years, whatever the fire arm laws, and is currently as low as it was in the 1960's (FBI's Uniform Crime Review).

Secondly, if you look at the homicide rates, you're about three times more likely to be killed by a hand gun than an assault rifle. In fact, you're just about as likely to be killed with a knife as with an assault rifle (Wikipedia, Gun Violence in the United States). Are the politicians and news personalities talking about banning hand guns or knives?  

Thirdly, mass killings account for about 1/10^th of 1% of all homicides in the United States (Criminologist James Alan Fox on Discovery News). Yet, look at the time spent on them in the news. Obviously, these crimes are horrific, but if you look at the news coverage you'd think that they were far more frequent than they actually are. The average murders doesn't make national news, but several at once, in an especially violent manner... that's headlines for weeks.

Fourth, Why aren't any of the above facts a factor in the conversation? Because the average situations don't make national news, they don't sell news papers or commercial time. For it to be picked up by the national news the story needs victims, lots of violence, and a bad guy, thus the focus on the “assault rifle” (it even sounds bad, perfect for TV). All of that media time means more people calling their politicians. The politicians want to be seen as doing something, so they go ahead and make some rapid policy decision, namely blame the "bad guy". The media is happy, the politicians are happy, and the general populace is satisfied that something has been done. But does any of that actually change anything?

There are already good, mostly rational laws on fire arms. Look at Connecticut, one of the recent states victimized by fire arm violence, it has some of the most restrictive laws on fire arms, and the violence still happened. Criminals and psychos are not limited by the law.

Let's look at it another way, will suicides drop if you ban pistols? Or will those people just find another way to commit suicide? It's the same with homicidal people. Will banning assault rifles stop them, or will they just find another way to commit homicide? In Japan, where fire arms are severely restricted, there is a history of mass violence with bladed weapons (I'm not going to go into the details, the crimes are horrific. If you're that morbidly curious you can look them up yourself).  The mental issues that drive these people to do horrible things will not be shrugged off just because they can't find an AR-15.

Banning or restricting fire arms will not affect violent crime or mass killings. So what can we do? What are the answers? Well, isn't that the conversation we should be having? We should be finding out the roots behind the crimes, warning signs to look for, better mental health screening, better education, better security in public spaces, quicker response time from law enforcement officers... there are literally dozens of topics that should be examined right now. By limiting the discussion to fire arms we are missing everything else.

My opinion? I think the media is largely to blame for mass killings. Sounds stupid? I've got a couple reasons.

Have you ever heard of “Suicide Contagion”? It's been studied by psychologists for years, where one suicide is covered in the media and it leads to others committing suicide. Now, the follow on suicides are often people that already have mental issues and are encouraged by the media coverage of the first to go ahead and do it themselves. The bigger the news, the more the coverage, the more it influences follow on suicides (NPR, Media Should Tread Carefully in Covering Suicide). How big a leap is it to think that a mass killing getting major coverage might influence some other mentally disturbed person to do the same? I bet there are psychologists studying this right now.

Also, if someone who already has mental issues has decided to go out in a big way, to be remembered, to make history... they see all the coverage of other grisly murders as a way to do that. That might sounds stupid but do you know who James Wilkes Booth is? Or Hitler?  Or Charles Manson? Or O.J. Simpson (even without being convicted)? Or the Unabomber?  Or Ted Bundy?  

Our society, and especially our media, makes a really big deal out of murderers. There's books, hours and hours of news stories, TV movies, big budget movies, and dozens of websites. The underlying message to the mentally ill is “I'll be a big deal if I'm a murderer, the bigger, the messier, the more disturbing, the bigger I'll be and the longer I'll be remembered”.

So, my suggestion for curbing the mass killing rate is to ban or severely limit media coverage. Ban anyone mentioning the killer's name. Erase the killer from the public record, make sure no one will ever remember them. Send the message that criminals like that don't deserve to be remembered by anyone.  No movies about them, no biographies, or true crime books.  Nothing.  Be extremely respectful of the victim's families, funerals, and their personal space. Don't release victim information, photos, or videos without express consent of the families (ban the media from paying for those things). If a family member wants to talk, that's up to them, but absolutely nothing without permission. Don't glorify the event, keep the coverage short, to the point, and move on.

In that spirit, I'm not listing any of the names or specifics on this site. Notice, I've referenced several of these events in this post without going into any detail (the only ones I mentioned were to make a point and are already infamous). I'll be the first, I don't mind.

Failing media restrictions, at the very least I want us to have a very honest, open, and thorough discussion on the topic. Maybe we can come up with some real solutions.

Religious and Political aspects of Prepping

Survivalists and Preppers are an interesting cross section of society.  It's not an evenly distributed cross section though, it sometimes seems to be predominantly conservative and Christian.  Or, it might just be that some people with those traits tend to be very vocal on those forums and websites.  Now, I have no problem with someone being conservative or being Christian, even though I'm not particularly conservative or religious myself.  However, that tolerance can be tested when those views are so frequently, vocally, preached.

You see all sorts of threads like:
"Obama re-elected, better buy your guns now before they all get banned!"
"Can Liberals be Survivalists?"
"Top 10 Reasons Democrats Are Ruining Our Country"
"You remember what life was like when we had a REAL leader?"
"Signs the Apocalypse is coming!"

Yeah, if you went to any of these forums or sites after Obama got re-elected...  Wow, that was quite an interesting time.  A lot of very vocal people expressing their 1st Amendment rights.

Now, I'm not a huge Obama fan, I'm definitely not a fan of Romney, but why would those topics matter on a Survival website?  What do politics or religion have to do with prepping or survival?

I go to these sites looking for tips on how to survive, gear reviews, get along better in the wilderness, and anything else outdoor related.  I don't go to those sites for religious or political reasons.  I don't want or need lectures, or opinions on unrelated topics, or interpretations on world events.  It can be a big distraction though, detracting from the real benefits on the rest of the site.

I try not to preach my own beliefs, as difficult as that is at times, because the disagreements don't do anyone any good.  I'm not going to change their mind, they aren't going to change my mind, so what is the point of starting the argument?  What is the point of contributing to the argument?  It's doesn't benefit anyone and just distracts from the reason we go to those sites in the first place.

So, I would encourage all preppers and survivalists to get over their differences and embrace the similarities.  If you are an expert at starting a friction fire, awesome, I'm sure I can learn something from you.  Does that mean that I need your opinion on the latest political scandal?  Nope.  Just like I'm sure you don't need my opinion on it.

Bringing up polarizing topics, opinions, and beliefs just builds barriers.  We might have different reasons but we all have the same goals, religion and politics have nothing to do with those goals.  Leave them at home.

And when faced with those beliefs?  Don't fall into the trap of continuing the argument, drop it and move on to a different thread.  There are still plenty of good threads out there to enjoy and learn from.

Some thoughts on Guns and Caliber

Left to Right:  .22lr, 9mm, .38sp, .308

I was doing really good for a long time.  When I got into survivalism and prepping I did a lot of research and thinking and planning...  I decided to get a pistol and a rifle that could share the same ammunition, a common round, reliable and easy to work on. 

Eventually I decided on the Ruger Blackhawk Convertible, a revolver that shoots .38sp/.357 and can convert to 9mm, and a Rossi R92 lever action rifle in .38sp/.357.  (Note: I haven't been able to do a review of the Rossi because it broke the first day at the range, there will be a full post on that later on).  I figured that if things ever got so bad that I should get out to the woods for a while I'd have a nice rifle and pistol that shared and fired a good variety of common/cheap ammunition.

However, by the time I had my "survival gun" set up I'd already been bitten by the shooting bug.  Once you have the basics it's hard to stop there.  What if I want to go hunt bigger game or at a larger range?  I should probably get something a little heavier.  Or when you stumble over a super-cool gun at the store that would be a blast at the range (Henry Golden Boy .22lr).  

In recent times I've started to more closely examine the differences between calibers.  You can see the drastic difference between the ones that I shoot in that first photo. 

.22lr is a great round for the range, low recoil, nice accuracy at shorter distances, all around fun.  It's amazingly cheap, light, and you can put a thousand rounds in a pack without crippling yourself.  It doesn't hit very hard compared to most other rounds, but you could probably shoot 10 for the cost/weight of most other rounds.  Great in a short range rifle and is available in a lot of great pistols.

9mm is a great round for hand guns.  It's cheap, light, extremely common, and packs a decent punch.  Arguments have been made against 9mm stopping power but honestly, I think it comes down to what you're comfortable shooting. If you can shoot really well with a .40 or .45 than great, but for those who want lower recoil, faster handling, and usually a higher capacity, than 9mm is hardly a slouch.  As for stopping power, there are studies that show that usually a torso shot will stop a person pretty quickly, caliber doesn't seem to be as much of an issue as where it's placed.  Thus, shoot what you're comfortable with.  There are some 9mm rifles as well, good to pair with a 9mm pistol, but there aren't many options and they are somewhat uncommon.  The Thureon Defense rifle, Hi-Point, and AR-15 style Colt model 6450 in 9mm are some options.

.38sp/.357, I group these together because there is not a lot of difference between the two.  The .357 is a slightly longer version of the .38sp with a few more grains of powder behind it.  Almost all guns that can shoot .357 will also shoot .38sp.  It's got a little more kick than 9mm, it's common in revolvers and was THE round in police revolvers for decades.  It's slightly heavier, slightly more expensive than 9mm.  What I like about this round is the variety, between the different .38sp and .357 rounds it's pretty easy to find the round you're comfortable shooting.  The other benefit is how easy it is to find a good lever action rifle that shares the ammo.  Some rifle nerds poo-poo lever actions but they have been historically proven and remain a good general purpose rifle.

.308 is by far the largest round that I shoot.  This is a big round, kicks hard, and hits harder.  It's the most expensive round, the heaviest round, and also the most accurate at longer ranges.  The .308 is commonly used in long distance matches.  It's also used in most military sniper rifles.  When you just need to reach out and touch something... .308 is a good round to have available.  This is basically just a rifle round though, you'd be hard placed to find a pistol to use the same round (and probably wouldn't want to shoot it if you did), which would mean packing at least two different rounds with you.  Also, this isn't that much fun at the range, you put more than twenty rounds downrange and you're shoulder will be pissed for the next couple days.  Good for one-shot one-kill, but follow ups will be more painful than with other rounds.

One of the things that surprised me when I was shooting more often was the different effects of the different rounds on wood.  The targets I shoot are wood frames with a cardboard center, paper target stapled onto the cardboard.  9mm and .38sp when they missed the target and hit the wooden frame would have a small entry, big splintering exit.  The low speed entry meant that the bullets had time to expand in the wood before exiting.  When I hit the wood with .308 I thought it would be destroyed, blow the frame in half.  Yet the opposite was true.  Small entry, small exit, as though the bullet didn't even notice it had hit anything.  It just went straight through it.  Straight through two inches of wood at 100 yards?  That's penetration.

That's something to keep in mind when hunting, the expansion of the bullet when it hits something solid.  For short range hunting (or defense) a 9mm or .38 will work, it will hit, expand, and stop.  On a small target at shoerter ranges that should be enough, something bigger and it might expand too fast, not penetrate far enough.  For a larger animal .308 will pass through far more tissue before starting to expand.  With most animals I wouldn't be surprised if the .308 went straight through.  For larger animals that could easily be the difference between a wound and a kill shot.

The other thing to keep in mind is that pistol calibers in a longer barrel (like a rifle) will perform way better than out of a pistol.  The longer barrel gives a longer area for the explosive gasses to expand before the bullet leaves the barrel, that gives the bullet a lot more velocity and range.  A .357 in a pistol is a powerful pistol round, put it in a longer barrel and it starts to rival a rifle round for velocity and effectiveness.  Yet, the rifle recoil in a pistol caliber is significantly reduced from a rifle round (they're designed to be shot from a hand gun, there's more weight in a rifle, less felt recoil).  The .38sp in a lever is only slightly more recoil than a .22lr but the bullet hits a lot harder.  They won't be a match for .308 in accuracy or distance, but it gives some credence to sharing a round between a pistol and a long gun.

There are articles, graphs, and websites that will back up the information here and others that will totally disagree.  Feel free to peruse them and see if you can wade through the all various view points.  The information here is based on my own experiences and you might find that your's varies.  There is no substitute for personal experience and practice, so experience and practice as much as you can to find out what works best for you.

Hopefully some of these thoughts help you in choosing your calibers.

You Know What Drives Me Nuts? Tight Jeans

Ok, we were all happy when tight jeans and parachute pants faded out with the eighties.  And yet, they seem to be making a come back.  Tight jeans are bad enough, but I'll be more specific.  I really, really, hate this new "fashion trend" of wearing tight jeans and then "sagging" the waste of the pants half way down the ass.  It's like two bad fashion faux pas in one.

You want to wear super baggy jeans, stupid but whatever.  You want to wear super tight jeans, stupid but whatever.  You want to sag your baggy jeans, stupid but they're baggy and going to sag a bit anyway.  But sagging tight jeans?  That's retarded on a whole new level.  That's like shaving your head but keeping your mullet.

I blame Zac Effron...

"Yup, just saggin' my tight jeans and fueling my Audi... " That just about screams "Metrosexual"!  As if that was a good thing.  I'm not entirely sure why any man would think it was a good idea to reject all things masculine.  And some women find that appealing?  Women are from Mars... crazy.

I've also heard that this is something that comes from the Twilight movies.  Having never seen a Twilight movie, I cannot confirm nor deny that.  If a woman decides to watch the movies, whatever, but I am not going to turn in my man-card to accompany one to the movies (possibly why I'm single).  Either way, sagging tight jeans certainly seems like symptom of this Twilight generation.

Does this mean I'm getting old?  I kind of feel like that old guy yelling at the kids to get off his property... like this new generation has nothing positive to offer and it's better off to just avoid them.

But seriously?  Sagging tight jeans?  It's beyond the point of ridiculousness.  I was walking through a store today and saw at least three people in this "style".  Makes me question my sanity... or at least the sanity of all those around me.

You Know What Drives Me Nuts? Cell Phones

About a week ago I had to do a urine drug test as part of a job application.  These are annoying but I understand the necessity, so that morning I drank about a gallon of coffee and checked in to the medical center.  I sat down in the waiting area and waited for the coffee to kick in.  As I was the only person there, I started to wish I'd brought a book.

A couple minutes later a woman walked in, we did the nod at each in other greeting.   She checked in to the desk and sat down.  

As soon as she sat down she pulled out her phone and was instantly glued to the screen.

A little while later a guy came in.  We nodded at each other, he checked in, then he sat down and pulled out his phone.

Now, I'm not an old fashioned, anti-technology, kind of guy, but it really disturbed me that over the next half an hour not a word passed between the three of us.  I sat there, twiddling my thumbs, memorizing the health posters on the walls... and they were entirely occupied by "angry birds", or whatever it was they were doing, thumb-typing away.

Not that long ago, before "smart phones", we might have been chatting away, BS'ing about our bosses or work (or how hydrated we were).  These days though, as soon as there is a slow second, out come the phones.  We're becoming a nation of ADD cell phone addicts.

It's almost like an insulation against the real world, against interacting with fellow human beings.  We don't talk to each other any more, we 'go online' and chat with like-minded people thousands of miles away, or we post/tweet about our day instead of actually talking to loved ones.

A while ago, I got an important phone call (about that job application previously mentioned) while I was waiting to get rung up at a UPS store.  I stepped away, conducted my conversation, and went to the back of the line.  When I eventually got to the front I apologized for the interruption to the cashier who had been helping me.  She said, "No big deal", and went on ringing me up.  I stopped her, told her that it was a pet peeve of mine when people were face to face and one answers their phone, ignoring the other.  She kept brushing me off, I kept telling her that it wasn't ok.  It seems that popular culture is adopting the attitude that a phone always takes priority over people in any situation.

Not only does it bother me when people are so rude, it bothers me that this is so common it is 'acceptable' behavior.  Seriously, look around when you're out in public, it's like everyone is buried in a phone screen.

When a society avoids face-to-face communication, how long can it last?  Right now, we are at a tipping point and leaning the wrong direction.  Think about that the next time you reach for your phone.

Best Home Defense Weapon

Now, this post is not meant to start a rabid debate.  This isn't about the best home defense weapon against hoards of zombies, or gangs of starving raiders.  For the sake of this post, a home defense weapon is what you grab on an average night when you wake up and hear something go 'bump'.

It's easy to be an "Arm Chair Rambo" and go on about how a Man's home is his CASTLE, it's should be manned with machine guns, and kill anyone who gets too close!!  That might be fine for tv and movies, but that doesn't work in real life.  Real life is always more complicated.

My goal with this post is to get you thinking realistically and practically about home defense.

The best home defense weapon is one of those topics that seems to instantly polarize people.  Is it a shot gun?  Is it a pistol?  What caliber?  What make and model?  There are hundreds of different options and thousands of different opinions.

Well, I recently picked up the absolute best home defense weapon.  For me.  For my situation.  Don't laugh, I'll be giving a thorough explanation why.  

Yes, for absolute best home defense weapon I chose a baseball bat (youth model, from Sports Authority, $19).  (A close runner up was pepper spray, another good option)

At this point, I'm sure you're all thinking "What the hell?!?"  Let me explain, I've got plenty of reasons.

I live in a very small apartment.  Like, insanely small.  I've seen bathrooms bigger than my apartment.  So, if something goes 'bump' in the night, it's already within spitting distance of my bed.  I need something that I can pick up and is immediately ready to defend me.  I won't have the time to stumble to the closet, rummage around, pull out a gun, rummage around some more for some bullets... 

I can see you thinking,  "Why not keep a loaded gun by the bed?"  

Well, there are a couple of problems with that.  I'm sure you can think of a few.  Half asleep, loaded gun...  

This is also where I need to mention that each state has different laws on what levels of force are acceptable when defending your home.  I'm not a lawyer, so DO NOT take this any of this as legal advice, look up the laws in your own state before you make your home defense plans.  Yes, you need to do the research and make a plan.  Do it now.  Just like everything else in life, it's better to have a plan in place BEFORE it's needed.

Now, from what I understand of Hawaiian law (again, do your own research), it is not legal to use a gun to defend your home.  It is legal to use a gun to defend against grievous harm or death, but not legal to defend property.  So, if you shot a burglar and he wasn't armed, theoretically you could be arrested.  In fact, in most home defense shootings the home owner is usually taken into custody until all the facts are sorted out.  Again, do not take these as facts, this is just what I understand from the documents I've read.  Research it for yourself in your state, it's amazingly convoluted.  There are huge differences between the laws in each state, it's important to learn the laws where you live.  It's probably also wise to talk to local law enforcement about home defense, learn their procedures, what to expect from them when they are responding to the call.  Remember, they will be coming to a potentially dangerous situation, knowing how they respond could make a big difference in the outcome when they show up.

That's why it's so important to do the research, talk to as many people as you can, gather all the information you can, and make a solid home defense plan.

There are also a lot of laws on how to keep and store your guns.  Again, I'm not a lawyer, but in Hawaii it is illegal to keep any firearms where children might be able to get them (ie, under my pillow).  They need to be out of the way, trigger locked, in a safe, something.  I'm not even sure if you can keep them loaded.  If I planned to use a gun as my primary home defense weapon I would know those laws inside and out.

So, those are the more legal-ish reasons for not wanting a loaded gun by my bed.  

On a more personal level, I don't like the ramifications of potentially using lethal force in a questionable situation.  Obviously, if it is a clear cut "it's him or me or my family" scenario, I wouldn't hesitate to use lethal force.  But when is anything ever clear cut?  Wandering a dark hall way with a loaded gun, not quite awake, scared, doesn't lead to good decision making.  Or what if I shoot at the bad guy but one of the bullets goes through the wall?  There are families that live in my neighboring apartments.  If I made a mistake, or hurt a neighbor, I would have a hard time living with myself.  

A mistake with a baseball bat has far less consequences than making a mistake with any gun.  Worst case scenario with the bat is I hit my TV in the confusion ($250).  Worst case with a gun... well, you get the idea.

To sum it up:

Bat is always locked and loaded

easy to use without training

effective at close quarters

more legal for home defense
if the bad guy gets it first I'm not totally screwed
usually non-lethal

less consequence for a mistake

less likely to get me sued

never runs out of bullets

better reach than a knife
effective against zombies

And finally, when I'm half asleep, storming out of my apartment in my boxers, bat in hand, the cops are less likely to shoot me.

My goal with this post is to make people ask questions, think about their situation, and try to come up with the most practical solution for their situation.  Talk to the police, research the laws in your state.  Make a plan that fits your situation, your family, your house, and your state.  A gun is not always the best self defense weapon.

For me, a baseball bat is the absolute best home defense weapon. 

What's yours?

Why "The Doomsday Preppers" Hurt Us

I almost hate to admit that I've watched this show and found it entertaining.  I hate admitting that because half of the entertainment value of this show is in watching people and their beliefs held up for "review".  Now, I haven't seen every episode, so I could have missed a few, but have you noticed that they never show the more rational preppers?  You know, the family that lives in tornado country and is preparing for a tornado?  Or the ones that live with the drought and are stocking up on water?  No, it's always the ones that believe the military industrial complex is going to forcefully take over.  Or it's the ones that believe the poor economy will collapse the government.  It's always the ones that have conspiracy theories.

Have you ever watched American Idol when they show all those people that didn't make it onto the show?  They were terrible, like two cats fighting in an alley, and you feel sorry for them, but you still laughed?  "Doomsday Preppers" is kind of like that.

One, I'm not interested in holding people up for public ridicule, no matter how strange their ideas might be (or how bad their singing).

Two, this show makes preppers look like the love children of conspiracy theorists and that crazy homeless guy wearing the sandwich board sign "The End is Coming!!"


Now, I'm not saying that all preppers are completely rational.  Preppers are this interesting cross section of society, there's a little bit of everything.  Sometimes though, it seems like the loudest voices are the ones with the most outlandish reasons for prepping.

It's impossible to go to a "survival board" or "prepper board" without finding a fairly thick streak of doomsday theorists (there are also quite a few Zombie Survival boards).  There are preppers that ramble about how the government is going to implement martial law, or sun spots might wipe out all electronics, or people need to protect themselves from evil corporations that run the world... there are a million different theories.  There are a million threads on the best rifles, or gun calibers, to survive when the SHTF (sh!t hits the fan).

The reason I have a problem with the show is that it makes the rest of us seem like fellow conspirators .  I have some supplies stocked, I am working on a BOB, I want to have some things ready for an emergency.  Does that mean I think Zombies will be coming for my brains soon?  No.  But if I went in to work and said "Hey, I got a cool new first aid kit for my bug out bag!"  I would probably get laughed at, whether or not having a first aid kit was actually a good idea.

You see what I mean?

The show and the theories make conversations about disaster and emergency preparation extremely difficult.  And some of those conspiracy theorists might have some good ideas about prepping and survival, but nobody is going to take them seriously.

Let's look at prepping another way.  What are those things that you pay for every month and hope to God that you never need to use it?  Oh yeah, insurance.  Health insurance, life insurance, renters insurance, car insurance...  Is it crazy or is it smart?  Does it give you some piece of mind to know that you have it if something bad happens?

Let's say you have hurricane insurance and a nice little hurricane comes along and turns your house into a pile of lincoln logs.  Is the Aflac bird going to fly in and drop off some MRE's and bottled water for you?  No.  If you're lucky some National Guardsmen will.  Do you want to be cold, hungry, and thirsty when they show up or would you rather be sitting around a campfire, boiling water for some spaghetti, and offer the Guardsmen a cup of coffee?

Insurance is a vitally important thing and something that is missed on a lot of the 'Survivalist' boards.  Consider it a long term 'prep', something that will help you back on your feet when things are hopefully getting back to normal.  Having some supplies set aside is just another form of insurance, something else that we hope we never have to use.  It's another kind of peace of mind.  I can't tell you how comforting it is to have that GHB in my trunk and my BOB in my closet.

You don't have to believe in the upcoming Aztec prophecies to think storing some food is a good idea.  Doomsday has nothing to do with it.  Focus on the 'preppers' part, to be prepared or preparing.  There's nothing wrong with that.

Firearms and the Neighbors

If you ever visit a survivalist or prepper forum, one of the first and most prolific threads will probably be the "AR vs. AK" debate.  Let's just say that there are a lot of gun nuts in the prepper community.  In case you are unfamiliar with firearms, the AR-15 and AK-47 are semi-automatic rifles primarily designed for shooting people and are not as practical when used for anything else.

Now, I believe that firearms can be an important part of survival planning.  They're useful for hunting game and to keep yourself from becoming a victim in the craziness surrounding an emergency situation.  You could be planning and storing for years, then have it all taken away in an instant by the guy next door who's never prepped a day in his life but inherited a dusty revolver from his grandpa.

That's a possibility, to be sure.

But how likely is that?  Like everything else in life, raiding is a risk vs reward question.  For someone to wave a gun around and intimidate people out of their supplies would mean that there is little or no law (low risk) and they need those supplies (high reward).

So, for raiding to be a realistic concern there would basically have to be a collapse on a massive scale for an extended period of time.  People are starving and there isn't anyone to enforce the rule of law.  Probably 99.999% of emergency scenarios that's not going to happen.  If there's an earthquake or flooding than within a fairly short period of time there will be an emergency response from the Federal and State governments (most of the time, obviously things like hurricane "Katrina" were not handled well).  Most of the time there will be National Guardsmen and emergency workers there within 72 hours and they will be providing food and clean water.

That means a guy waving a gun to take your supplies can be arrested by guardsmen or police (high-medium risk) for supplies that are in excess to what is needed to simply survive (low reward).

That means that in most scenarios the "AR vs AK" debate is a moot point.  They can be used for hunting small to medium sized game but that's not what they were made for.  They use fairly small rounds, low recoil, with the intent to rapidly fire a lot of accurate shots at a short distance.  For them to be a 'practical' survival tool then they would be used against people, like they were designed.  Otherwise, having bolt action hunting rifle would be by far the smarter choice (and a lot cheaper).

That said, if the situation is so bad that raiding is happening, having a fire arm is a quick way to change the risk vs reward question.  A guy waves a gun at you and you pull out yours, suddenly taking your supplies is a high risk prospect.  Imagine you're starving, you break into a house, and hear someone in the darkness rack a shotgun.  You'd run like hell back the way you came.

That's something else to keep in mind, becoming a 'raider' is not something that most people would be able to do easily.  We're not wired that way.  We don't walk around hurting each other, on the contrary, we often times go out of our way to help each other.  So, after decades of working together, helping each other, it's not like something bad happens and we suddenly turn into homicidal maniacs.  Maybe you you have a closet, Mad-Max wannabe in your neighborhood, but the vast majority of us are average joe's just trying to get by.

Maybe you have a local gang that looks pretty shady.  When something bad happens are they going to grab some guns and immediately start taking over?  Or are they going to run home and check on their family?  Make sure their parents and siblings are ok?  They are people too and will react the way that most of the population does.

Emergencies don't lead to desperate measures, desperation leads to desperate measures.  Under normal circumstances that means that they guy breaking into your house probably has a 'desperate' need for money or drugs.  When there is some sort of the disaster it might mean that the guy breaking into your house has two starving kids he's trying to feed.  Keep that in mind and maybe offer him a few MREs before you bust out your AK.

You Know What Drives Me Nuts?

You know what drives me nuts?  People in Horror Movies that walk around without a weapon.

I recently watched a bad Vampire movie. Against the Dark, on Netflix.  This isn't uncommon for me, I love watching cheesy horror movies, the cheesier the better.  In this movie a group of people are trapped in a Hospital, trying to get out.  They get attacked by vampires and separated into small groups.

Half of the movie is watching these people wander darkened hallways alone, bare handed, just waiting to get chomped on.  I understand that the reason directors typically have their people alone and empty handed is to increase the suspense, kind of like when the scantily clad woman is getting ready to open that door...  You see them as helpless, vulnerable, and that makes the peril seem all the more intense.

I understand the director's purpose, but on a personal level it drives me nuts because it goes against any sort of preservation instinct we have.  Especially in a situation where "if it bites you, you're dead" (ie, zombies, vampires), wouldn't you want SOMETHING to try to get between those teeth and your flesh?  Even if it's just a broomstick, it would be better than nothing.  Poke it in the eye and run like hell.

(Or you could shoot it, that's  even better)

If you don't have anything, when one comes after you, how will you defend yourself?  With your hands?  Your tasty, crunchy, oh-so-delicious and delicate hands?  Seems pretty stupid.  That's how I see unarmed people in these movies, dumb and just waiting to get eaten.  When one gets attacked it's like, "Yeah!  Eat the stupid people!  They don't deserve to survive!"

How hard is it to put on a jacket, some gloves, and grab a tire iron?  But maybe that's too realistic for Hollywood B-Movies.  Of course, then I wouldn't have anything to complain about.