Pretty cool deal - sign up for a course, and they give you a handgun - your choice of a brand new, in-the-box, Springfield XD pistol in 9mm, or .40SW or .45 ACP!

Check out Front Sight Firearms Training Institute.

Great story — go read it.

The FBI'S Legendary Sharpshooter - Jelly Bryce

She is in all likelihood the most knowledgeable female on the planet concerning firearms and shooting, and is apparently a full-blood Viking.

Not only that, she can turn a phrase — one guess who this refers to:

…the most amoral, power-hungry weathervane to wear a skirt in Washington since J. Edgar Hoover.

Go read Tamara at View From The Porch.

Tamara gets it right again:

I've said it before and I'm going to say it again: Never in the history of our republic have guns been more difficult to purchase. Prior to 1968 they could be purchased through the mail. Between 1968 and 1993, all you needed to do was sign a form, in pink crayon if you felt like it, saying you weren't a junkie, commie spy, or crazy, and you took your gun home with no questions asked. The background check didn't appear until the passage of the Brady Law in 1993.

Name a mass shooting that occurred before 1968. How many between 1969 and 1993? How about 1994 and beyond? Folks, whatever the causative variable is here, it is not the ease of purchasing a firearm.

Just after serving as Governor of California, Reagan wrote this for the September 1975 issue of Guns and Ammo. Even after John W. Hinckley, Jr. attempted to assassinate him in 1981 he stuck to his guns, noting in 1983, "You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time. . . It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience." Following is the column Reagan wrote:

There are tales of robbery victims that are shot down in cold blood or executed "gangland style." There are stories of deranged parents killing their children or deranged children killing their parents. There are reports of snipers. And now and then the headlines blurt out that an assassin has struck again, killing a prominent official or citizen. All of these stories involve the use of guns, or seem to. As a result, there is growing clamor to outlaw guns, to ban guns, to confiscate guns in the name of public safety and public good.

These demands come from people genuinely concerned about rising crime rates, persons such as Sheriff Peter Pitchess of Los Angeles, who says gun control is an idea whose time has come. They come from people who see the outlawing of guns as a way of outlawing violence. And they come from those who see confiscation of weapons as one way of keeping the people under control.

Now I yield to no one in my concern about crime, and especially crimes of violence. As governor of California for eight years, I struggled daily with that problem. I appointed judges who, to the best of my information, would be tough on criminals. We approved legislation to make it more difficult for persons with records of crime or instability to purchase firearms legally. We worked to bring about swift and certain punishment for persons guilty of crimes of violence.

We fought hard to reinstate the death sentence after our state Supreme Court outlawed it, and after the U.S. Supreme Court followed suit, we won.

Now, however, the California court that sought eagerly to be the first to outlaw the death penalty is dragging its heels as it waits for the U.S. Court to rule. The Chief Justice in California, whom I appointed with such high hopes, in this regard has disappointed many of us who looked to him to help again make our streets, our shops and our homes safe. I find it difficult to understand persons like President Ford's new Attorney General, Edward H. Levi. Attorney General Levi would ban guns in areas with high rates of crime.

Mr. Levi is confused. He thinks somehow that banning guns keeps them out of the hands of criminals. New Yorkers who suffer under the Sullivan Act know better, they know that the Sullivan Act makes law-abiding citizens sitting ducks for criminals who have no qualms about violating it in the process of killing and robbing and burglarizing. Despite this, Mr. Levi apparently thinks that criminals will be willing to give up their guns if he makes carrying them against the law. What naivete!

Mightn't it be better in those areas of high crime to arm the homeowner and the shopkeeper, teach him how to use his weapons and put the word out to the underworld that it is not longer totally safe to rob and murder?

Our nation was built and civilized by men and women who used guns in self-defense and in pursuit of peace. One wonders indeed, if the rising crime rate, isn't due as much as anything to the criminal's instinctive knowledge that the average victim no longer has means of self-protection.

No one knows how many crimes are committed because the criminal knows he has a soft touch. No one knows how many stores have been let alone because the criminals knew it was guarded by a man with a gun or manned by a proprietor who knew how to use a gun.

Criminals are not dissuaded by soft words, soft judges or easy laws. They are dissuaded by fear and they are prevented from repeating their crimes by death or by incarceration.

In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea. We are never going to prevent murder; we are never going to eliminate crime; we are never going to end violent action by the criminals and the crazies–with or without guns.

True, guns are a means for committing murder and other crimes. But they are not an essential means. The Los Angeles Slasher of last winter killed nine men without using a gun. People kill and rob with knives and clubs. Yet we have not talked about outlawing them. Poisons are easy to come by for the silent killer.

The automobile is the greatest peacetime killer in history. There is no talk of banning the auto. With the auto we have cracked down on drunken drivers and on careless drivers. We need also to crack down on people who use guns carelessly or with criminal intent.

I believe criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime, or who carry guns, should be given mandatory sentences with no opportunity for parole. That would put the burden where it belongs–on the criminal, not on the law abiding citizen.

Let's not kid ourselves about what the purpose of prison should be: It should be to remove criminals from circulation so that they cannot prey upon society. Punishment for deterrent purposes, also plays a part. Rehabilitation, as many experts, including California Attorney General Evelle Younger, have discovered, is not a very good reason for imprisoning people. People don't rehabilitate very well in prison.

There is an old saying that slaves remain slaves while free men set themselves free. It is true with rehabilitation, also. Criminals rehabilitate themselves, there is little you and I can do about it. But back to the purpose of this article which, hopefully, is to make the case against gun control.

The starting point must be the Constitution, because, above all, we are a nation of laws and the foundation for our laws, or lack of same, is the Constitution.

It is amazing to me how so many people pay lip service to the Constitution, yet set out to twist and distort it when it stands in the way of things they think ought to be done or laws they believe ought to be passed. It is also amazing to me how often our courts do the same thing.

The Second Amendment is clear, or ought to be. It appears to leave little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate. It reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There are those who say that, since we have no militia, the amendment no longer applies; they would just ignore it. Others say nuclear weapons have made the right to keep and bear arms irrelevant, since arms are of little use against weapons of such terrible destructive power. Both arguments are specious.

We may not have a well-regulated militia, but it does not necessarily follow that we should not be prepared to have one. The day could easily come when we need one.

The nuclear weapon argument is even more silly. Many wars have been fought since World War II and no nuclear bomb has been dropped. We have no assurance that the next world war will be a nuclear war. But, regardless of any possible merit they might have, both these arguments beg the question, which is: Shall the people have a right to keep and bear arms?

There is little doubt that the founding fathers thought they should have this right, and for a very specific reason: They distrusted government. All of the first 10 amendments make that clear. Each of them specifies an area where government cannot impose itself on the individual or where the individual must be protected from government.

The second amendment gives the individual citizen a means of protection against the despotism of the state. Look what it refers to: "The security of a free state." The word "free" should be underlined because that is what they are talking about and that is what the Constitution is about–a free nation and a free people, where the rights of the individual are pre-eminent. The founding fathers had seen, as the Declaration of Independence tells us, what a despotic government can do to its own people. Indeed, every American should read the Declaration of Independence before he reads the Constitution, and he will see that the Constitution aims at preventing a recurrence of the way George III's government treated the colonies.

The declaration states this plainly: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new Guards for their future security."

There is no question that the first 10 amendments are a part of those "new guards" for their future security. And one of the most basic of those guards is the right to keep and bear arms.

There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism–government.

Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it. When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons. It makes it so much easier for the secret police to operate, it makes it so much easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled.

Now I believe our nation's leaders are good and well-meaning people. I do not believe that they have any desire to impose a dictatorship upon us. But this does not mean that such will always be the case. A nation rent internally, as ours has been in recent years, is always ripe for a "man on a white horse." A deterrent to that man, or to any man seeking unlawful power, is the knowledge that those who oppose him are not helpless.

The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all.

I am not ready to take that risk. I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.

Well written, with lots of good advice for gentle persuasion of gun-control advocates.

Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality, By Sarah Thompson, M.D.

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He shoots straight in the NY Daily News:

Police can't be everywhere, and as incidents from Columbine to Virginia Tech demonstrate, by the time they show up at a mass shooting, it's usually too late. On the other hand, one group of people is, by definition, always on the scene: the victims. Only if they're armed, they may wind up not being victims at all.

"Gun-free zones" are premised on a fantasy: That murderers will follow rules, and that [legally-armed students] . . . are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers like Cho Seung-hui. That's an insult. Sometimes, it's a deadly one.

Obviously, banning guns in certain locations doesn't prevent gun crime in those locations. How about if we ban all guns everywhere?

Marko explains:

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society.

I posted this link last month, but it remains topical: Why the Gun Is Civilization

My reactions yesterday come from years of being a conservative gunowner; I knew which way the mainstream media would jump, and the idea of forced helplessness in the face of someone like Cho Seung-Hui is abhorrent.

But the main thing to remember is that despite finger pointing at VA Tech officials, gun-fearing congressmen, lax gun laws, socio-economic factors, etc., is that ultimate blame belongs to Cho Seung-Hui. He made the decision to do what he did; no others.

Lots of unanswered questions, and much finger-pointing to come, but one thing we already know, via the Roanoke Times, Tuesday, January 31, 2006:

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Obviously the shooter was safe as he went from classroom to classroom in search of unarmed victims.

Also, from the University's "Campus and Workplace Violence Prevention Policy:"

The university’s employees, students, and volunteers, or any visitor or other third party attending a sporting, entertainment, or educational event, or visiting an academic or administrative office building or residence hall, are further prohibited from carrying, maintaining, or storing a firearm or weapon on any university facility, even if the owner has a valid permit

From CNN:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.

"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in Florida's capital city.

A video clip of the then-mayoral candidate issuing a similar declaration in 1989 in a speech to the "Women's Coalition" appeared recently on the Internet.

"There must be public funding for abortions for poor women," Giuliani says in the speech that is posted on the video sharing site YouTube. "We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decisions about abortion."

When asked directly Wednesday if he still supported the use of public funding for abortions, Giuliani said "Yes."

"If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right," he explained, "If that's the status of the law, yes."

I'm reading between the lines a little, but it's pretty obvious that Rudy not only supports the 2nd Amendment, but wants to make sure that people who can't afford a gun, or could only afford a dangerous Saturday Night Special, can safely exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Here's a subject that really needs serious study; how much violence do assault weapons really cause?

You — yes, you – can actually help with the research.

Opinion by Anonymous

[Note - this is rather lengthy, but since it's so good and since the author wanted it to be widely disseminated, I'm copying the whole thing here instead of linking to it elsewhere. –SteveO]

This is a guide to help you select the best ammunition for your defensive firearm. Most of these opinions are based upon the work of Massad Ayoob, Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow, police officers who have extensively studied the issue of firearms, ammunition and stopping power. I refer all interested parties to the excellent series by Ayoob ('In the Gravest Extreme,"Stressfire,' 'The Semi-Automatic Pistol in Police Service and Self-Defense', 'Stressfire II: Advanced Combat Shotgun') and the comprehensive book 'Stopping Power' by Marshall and Sanow.In particular, it cannot be stressed too heavily that all gun owners should own a copy of 'In the Gravest Extreme' and re-read it periodically. Once you have read it you will understand why. Buy it. (The Ayoob titles - and other items like Cor-Bon ammunition and Spyderco 'Clipit' folding knives - are available mail order ($9.95@ and $3.95 shipping and handling) from "Police Bookshelf," P.O. Box 122, Concord NH 03302; telephone # 1-800-624-9049. American Express, VISA, Mastercard, and Discover cards gladly accepted. Order today - you will be grateful.)

These three policemen are the world's foremost authorities on choosing ammunition for real-world defensive use. Their views are based on exhaustive review of thousands of police and civilian shooting incidents, autopsies, and ballistic tests.

Some other authorities rely entirely on the latter (e.g. Dr. Martin Fackler, the FBI Wound Ballistics Lab, the National Institute of Justice Ballistic Research Laboratory) which is insufficient to make reliable predictions. Human beings react differently to being shot than gelatin, goats, or other test media, and bullets that perform spectacular feats in the laboratory sometimes give mediocre results on the street.

A perfect example of this are the silly 1989-90 FBI tests which resulted in the FBI choosing the mediocre 10mm S&W Model 1076 and the 180 grain JHP round. For this reason, I have chosen to rely on Ayoob, Marshall, and Sanow when it comes to selecting my ammunition and strongly advise you do the same. What follows is essentially a distillation of their opinions. I urge you to research thesources listed for a more detailed discussion than is possible here.

I cannot stress too heavily that the primary determinant of stopping power is BULLET PLACEMENT. A cool, deliberate marksman with a little .32 Walther PPK will beat a panicky, inaccurate man with a .357 Magnum or $1200 customized .45 auto every time. Whatever firearm and caliber you select, you must practice firing hundreds - thousands - of rounds in realistic defensive scenarios until you can confidently make disabling hits on your target. Tactics and marksmanship win gunfights - not having the latest 'wonder bullet' in your gun.

Unfortunately, I cannot teach you tactics in this short essay, only recommend proven ammunition. You MUST seek out competent training in tactics and marksmanship from a qualified instructor in your area. In the meanwhile, studying Ayoob's great book 'Stressfire' will get you off to an excellent start.

Self Defense Ammunition Generally

American ammunition is the best in the world. Stick to Federal, Cor-Bon, Hornady, Remington, Winchester or CCI ammunition. Some foreign stuff is pretty good (PMC, IMI-Samson, Fiocci), some foreign stuff is great (Dynamit-Nobel, Norma, GECO), some foreign stuff is practice-only junk (e.g. Wolf, CDM - Mexico, military surplus), but no foreign stuff is anywhere near as good as domestic ammunition when it comes to vanquishing hostile attackers. Buy American.

Never use hand-loaded or re-loaded ammunition for self-defense!You may encounter some joker who says he can hand-load ammunition so powerful it will knock anything on two legs down for the count, but don't buy it. This junk will either misfire or ruin your gun. Use only fresh factory-loaded cartridges, period. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to this rule: use factory-loaded cartridges only.

Handguns

One should carry only hollowpoint ammunition in a defensive handgun. Hollowpoint ammunition has much better stopping power than full metal jacket or round-nose lead, and stopping power is what you need when being assaulted.

The point is not to wound or kill the adversary: the point is to stop him in his tracks and make him cease attacking you. "Stopping power" (sometimes called "knock-down power") refers to a particular bullet's ability to incapacitate an attacker - the greater that ability, the less chance that your attacker will be able to continue shooting, stabbing, or beating you after you have shot him.

Handguns are not death-rays; despite what you see in the movies, the vast majority of people shot with handguns survive (over 80%). Handguns are weak compared to rifles and shotguns, and thus you want every edge you can get. Great ammunition is no more expensive than mediocre ammunition, so carry the best. Rifles and shotguns have stopping power to spare; handguns do not. Thus you must select your handgun load very carefully, and the detail of the handgun ammunition section reflects this.

Hollowpoint ammunition is NOT more lethal than ball (full metal jacket) ammunition. You may have seen media hype about "killer dum-dum bullets" but this is nonsense. Hollowpoint bullets usually expand and stop in the human body, and thus the attacker absorbs much more of the bullet's kinetic energy than if the bullet had merely zipped through him and left two small holes. Hollowpoint ammunition is also safer for all parties concerned.

* You are safer because your attacker is more likely to be incapacitated after one or two shots and thus unable to fire back, stab you, or whatever. The decreased likelihood of your attacker dying from hollowpoint bullets saves you the moral and legal complications and expense you will experience from killing a man.
* Innocent bystanders are safer because hollowpoint bullets are less likely to exit the attacker's body and go on to injure anyone else. The ricochet danger is also much lower than that of ball ammunition, and hollowpoint bullets are less likely to penetrate walls or doors and strike uninvolved third parties. Furthermore, if your foe is incapacitated quickly he won't be spraying wild bullets around, endangering uninvolved third parties.
* Lastly, your attacker is safer because he is far less likely to die from one or two hollowpoint bullets than the five or six round-nose slugs you would have had to fire to put him down. Most gunshot deaths occur from shock and loss of blood, and ball rounds tend to make entry and exit wounds, whereas hollowpoints go in and stay put. An attacker shot twice with ball ammo will probably have four holes in him rather than two, and is thus in far greater danger of death from blood loss. If you can avoid killing your attacker you should, for both moral and legal reasons.

There are some exceptions to the "carry only hollowpoints in a handgun" rule. Some older or cheaper automatic pistols, will jam with hollowpoint rounds. With these guns one must use ball rounds (or "full metal jacket" rounds - the terms are synonymous), and I specify "reliable with ball only" models by caliber. It is crucial for you to test your pistol to make certain it is reliable with specific loads - don't rely on my advice. My life will never depend on the reliability of your handgun. Your life may.

Rifles

Generally speaking, fast expanding bullets are the best choice for rifles. Hollow point and plastic tipped bullets usually expand rapidly. Some soft-point designs are recommended, and these will be specified.

Shotguns

Use buckshot. Slugs and birdshot are useful in some limited and uncommon situations.

A Note On Exotic Ammunition

Marko explains why the gun is civilization.

Use this in conversation:

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society.

My wife was going to help me celebrate my upcoming 44th birthday with a brand new .44 Magnum (I had to sell all my guns shortly after we married, and I've only acquired a couple since), but since her new job has been postponed for several weeks, we decided to be frugal. 

I debated soliciting funds online for a couple of weeks, but I finally decided 1) I'm shameless enough and 2) I can offer something of value in return.

A couple of months ago, I first saw the Smith & Wesson Model 329, a .44 Magnum revolver made with Scandium, a lightweight alloy. It weighs just a little over half of the all-steel Model 29. Those sculpted wooden grips fit my hand perfectly, so it makes me wonder about the recoil. I'm not especially recoil-sensitive, but ya gotta figure you'll know when it goes off.

(click for larger view)

Here's my offer: if y'all help me raise the funds to purchase it, I'll post a video of me shooting it one-handed. If that's not very dramatic, I'll 'splode whatever large vegetables I can get at the grocery store, and the obligatory water-filled gallon jug. 

You can donate by PayPal, and I'll save your email address so I can notify you when the video is posted. The total cost will be about $950, so as soon as I get $700, I'll buy it.

Thanks for helping!

(from www.TheSconce.com) 

Several months ago Jeff suffered three new fractures of his vertebrae. This has caused him severe and constant pain and he has been unable to do anything but concentrate on pain relief — this is why there have been no Commentaries since Vol. 14, No. 4, April/May, 2006.

The doctors suggested kyphoplasty, a procedure to separate the spine at the fracture sites and relieve the pain — unfortunately, this does not normally work on old fractures, or it would have been done a long time ago. Jeff went into the hospital with the goal of getting prepped for having this procedure done, but the doctors pronounced that he is not strong enough to have it done. As it stands now, Jeff has a partially collapsed lung and has been on oxygen for several months, and additionally his heart is now showing signs of distress.

On Wednesday 13 Sept, Jeff came home from the hospital and hospice care has been arranged to assist Janelle and the family with Jeff's care. While Jeff is alert and in good spirits it is likely he will will not be out of bed much in the future. Right now everyones' focus is on keeping him as comfortable as possible. While phone calls are not a good idea, cards and short letters for both Jeff and Janelle would be greatly appreciated. The family has asked that flowers not be sent.

You can send cards and letters to them at:
    Jeff Cooper
    2950 W Gunsite Rd
    Paulden AZ 86334-4301
    USA

***New Update - Col. Cooper has passed away. Details are here.

In an earlier post, I explained the psychosis of Bush-hatred using the psychological term reaction formation — "behavior or emotion that is the polar opposite of the way someone is or should be feeling, because the authentic emotion is too frightening to deal with." I think it's also a good explanation of why some people hate guns, or are irrationally scared of them.

Many people believe the liberal notion that criminals become such for reasons almost completely outside their control. They believe that otherwise law-abiding people turn to crime because of poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity, discrimination or other factors. And it's society's fault that this happened, because we didn't adequately address these wrongs.

Sometimes it's almost as if liberals wish to convey some sort of dignity to criminals. I remember talking to my cousin and his wife almost twenty years ago; my cousin was a parole officer in Dallas, and his job required face-to-face contact with dozens of parolees each week. I asked him if he carried a gun, and he seemed shocked at the idea. His wife said, "But it might make them mad if they knew he had a gun." It took me a while to decipher her response; she was essentially saying that the parolees had a right to be indignant if they found that that they weren't explicitly trusted. It wasn't their fault they were convicted criminals, and they were fine now, unless society failed them again. And if my cousin carried a gun because some of them had been violent in the past, well, he was failing them.

It's true that many people make a series of bad choices due to bad experiences, and if helped, they turn their lives around. Christian prison ministries prove that daily. But these changes take time – they don't happen instantly. Despite that, many of the anti-gun crowd also insist that we not resist when attacked, I suppose in hope that it will make the attacker rethink his whole life on the spot, and go home and pick daisies.

An even more radical offshoot of this philosophy is that many people commit crimes that wouldn't otherwise, just because they had access to a gun. 

So liberals have the idea that no one is inherently bad, and it's our fault when they are, either by failing them as a society or by leaving guns laying around. It's a warm, fuzzy little idea, and gives the impression that if we just do the right things, no one will do bad things. 

The reality is the opposite: some people are just bad. Just because we can trace the circumstances and decisions that lead them to become bad doesn't mean that if we are nice to them that they will become nice.

Apparently that reality is so frightening or abhorrent that many people subconsciously decide to fear and/or hate the concept of self-defense and the most effective means to that defense, a personal firearm.

The good news is that this psychosis can be "unlearned." Sometimes it happens just by an honest evaluation of facts. Other times it's because someone introduces them to the sport of shooting, and they find out that guns are actually enjoyable. Sadly, sometimes it's because of personal experience with violent crime.

If gunowners will introduce as many people as possible to lawful enjoyment of firearms, we can reduce violent crime. That's a fact.

A good credo for anyone, man or woman, prompted by the Montreal college shooting.

I believe Tamara when she says "I ain't goin' out like that…" 

Frank J. has some ideas to help fight terrorism at IMAO.

I'd add my favorite - pack your hollowpoints with bacon grease, so that when you shoot them, they don't become martyrs. Plus, you get that yummy bacon smell with each shot!

A couple of happy endings (well, not for the bad guys) from Texas, chronicled at The Other Side of Kim du Toit.

I've been wanting one of these since I saw my cousin's P-32 a couple of years ago. I decided to get the .380 because of slightly better ballistics, and greater ammo availability.

I've been carrying it in my front pants pocket ever since I got it, and found that in slacks the outline gets broken up easily by my keys and a tube of ChapStick. The outline is a little more distinct when wearing jeans, especially when seated, but still not too obvious. The weight isn't enough to make it flop around very much, and I could probably be satisfied carrying it unholstered. I intend to get the belt clip anyway, and I'll probably build a holster like JF Ridgeway's, I've built a lot of holsters over the years, and they all add at least a little bulk, so it's nice that — for me, at least — naked in the pocket will work. I learned years ago that carrying concealed is largely a matter of mindset, so your mileage may vary.

I dissambled the pistol and cleaned it well with MPro7 yesterday before I ever fired it. (Is there an easy way to pull that assembly pin out?) I lubed everything lightly with MPro7 lube and reassembled it. Except for the initial assembly pin extraction, everything went smoothly. As far as fit and finish, it was what I expected from a small, inexpensive gun. Exterior finish is nice enough, and there are some tool-marks inside the slide and on the outside of the barrel. The inside of the barrel and the feed ramp are well finished, and barrel-slide-frame fit is nicely solid.

I finally got to shoot the P-3AT this evening after church. I bought a box of 50 95gr ball manufactured by American Ammunition when I bought the pistol, and bought a box of 100 88gr JHP manufactured by Remington UMC — their part #L380A1B — at Wal-Mart this afternoon. I anticipated having to break in the pistol, so first I shot through the whole box of ball ammo. No problems at all - no misfires, no feeding or ejection problems.

Next I tried the UMC JHP, and again, no problems at all. There was noticeably more muzzle flash, and I think there was slightly more recoil, too. It was getting dark, so I only shot 25 or 30 rounds of the UMC.

I shot mostly one-handed because that's probably how I'll use it, but with a two-handed grip, the muzzle flip was almost nil. I learned that a quick controlled pull worked better than trying to carefully squeeze off a shot. In fact, I tried raising the pistol from pocket level, starting the pull as I did so, and that got the best results of all. I was able to put three of five shots inside the target manufacturer's logo by that method, from 8 or 10 feet away. The logo is about the size of a quarter. Otherwise, most of my shots went high and left, in scattered groups of 3 or 4 inches. I'm pretty sure that's my fault, and I intend to practice quite a bit more, since placement is more important than bullet type in a .380. I'd like to be able to keep my groups mostly eyeball-size from 15 feet, and that seems reasonable after today's initial experience.

Speaking of practice, Wal-Mart had a box of 100 round-nose for under $21, but the box of 100 UMC JHP was only slightly more, still under $21. I can't think of a reason to buy any more ball ammo. In fact, since I believe shot placement trumps bullet design, I'll probably just stick with the UMC and practice regularly.

What would I change? Not much, really. As a habitual tinkerer, I'll be unable to avoid some polishing with the Dremel tool, even though I probably don't need to. I'll buy an extra magazine or two, and the belt clip, and probably finger extensions for the magazines. And I'm going to make some cleaning/lube changes. I'll use Gun Scrubber for the frame and firing mechanism (because I'm pretty sure I left some MPro7 cleaner in the firing assembly yesterday, and a rapidly-evaporating cleaner seems like a good idea) and MPro7 for the barrel and slide. The reps at MPro7 told me years ago that their lube is molecular, and actually binds with the metal to a limited extent, so when I first get a gun, I clean the barrel and slide thoroughly, then put a little too much lube on both and heat them with a blow-drier. I don't get them too hot to touch, and rub in/wipe off the excess lube. This procedure seems to make them easier to clean later. I used to use RemDriLube, a spray-on silicone lube that dries to a non-sticky powder after application (kind of like Arrid Extra Dry for androids), but so little MPro7 is required that I don't think lint accumulation is going to be an issue. I work for a computer company and canned air is everywhere, so I'll try to remember to blow it out occasionally.

My P-3AT cost just $245, by the way. It was marked $295, but the salesman gave me the discount right off the bat. He told me, "you have to be a real a$$hole around here for us to sell you something at sticker price." I'm glad I'm friendly…

Even at the Alpha Hotel price, I think this gun is a bargain. Other folks agree, too - check out the Kel-Tec Owners Group for more info.

***UPDATE - For the best Kel-Tec info from consumers, visit/join the KTOG group at Yahoo! Groups.

Tamara's got a pretty interesting blog, being a pretty girl who both enjoys - and can talk intelligently about - motorcycles and firearms. Plus, she's sarcastic. 

In response to some searches on her site, she "dredges up" the old bikini picture, which fits the alliterative title, and can only help…

That's right, fresh from trading starving children food for sex accomplishing nothing of usefulness, the United Nations wants to ban guns.

Somehow, by making it illegal to own personal firearms, terrorism will be thwarted. 

Kim du Toit helps us understand. 

I just found out Kim du Toit is blogging again, and followed a link from his site to "Miss Myra's Gun," which brought a lump to my throat.