A lot of the shooters I deal with are slightly built, young and relatively inexperienced with firearms. When they go beyond .22, it helps to teach them on relatively quiet and low-kick guns. That’s where the 380ACP carbine comes in handy, likewise Aguila Mini Shells. More than .22, they would also serve the secondary role of being useful defensive tools in case of need.
Range learning goes a lot better, with less flinching, if the student doesn’t end up with bruises. Full-power ammunition can be used once techniques have been honed on lighter loads.
Assuming an ideal spherical teenager in vacuum…ok, let’s not. Let’s use this very specific 12 year old in a hypothetical situation of being threatened by something human-like. From the perspective of the predator, which of her weapons would pose the greatest threat to the attacker?
- Two throwing knives
- Glock 41
Now, let’s further assume a very well informed goblin who has done his homework on the girl. It knows that she’s fairly experienced with the throwing knives, untrained with the sword and minimally trained with the pistol.
Despite the relative lack of experience with the firearm, she would most likely be considered the hardest prey with it in hand. “She just might get lucky.” With the throwing knives, she has two tries and there’s a possibility that the foe could deflect them or not be incapacitated quickly enough. With the sword, there’s a possibility that she would strike out from inexperience and be disarmed or knocked out. With the pistol…it’s possible to rush her but, with adequate situational awareness, she would have fourteen tries at stopping the foe, starting at considerable range. The power of the hit would be only slightly related to the defender’s strength and agility.
I am not suggesting that pistols are magic wands. They require training for full effectiveness. But even a very slightly trained person would have more of a chance with one in hand than most criminals would find sporting. Guns give credibility to the manifested intent to fight back. That would be true even if she was holding a .22 instead of a .45 — nobody likes getting shot, not even a little bit.
I use P22 quite a bit when training people with small hands. In suppressed form, it eventually gunks up and has to be cleaned. Re-assembly used to be a pain because of the recoil assembly design. Not anymore! Now it’s about as uncomplicated as a Glock.
Desert Tech Covert .308 with 3-17x US Optics scope. Short, handy and effective up to the limit of the cartridge range. People look like this after shooting it.
The person, incidentally, is a talented photographer in her own right. She works mainly in the Salt Lake City area, with a dual specialization of people and firearms.
US has numerous state level prohibitions on alcohol before the national one was enacted. I wondered how people stood for those and didn’t shoot the culprits out of hand. Then, a thought occurred to me that explained how prohibitions of all kind endure.
Two parties benefit from prohibitions, politicians for the graft and the criminals for smuggling. Both groups are used to using violence to enforce their interests, and neither wants the prohibition to end. Prohibiting something is the quickest way for criminals and politicians acting in de-facto cooperation to capture an existing industry.
Of the people affected by prohibitions, the vast majority is inconvenienced on a practical level and just wants continued access. That serves the politicians and the criminals just fine, that where much of their money comes from. The minority opposed to prohibitions on ethical grounds seldom takes direct actions because they are non-violent by nature, and because killing the individuals responsible wouldn’t change laws for the better.
This holds on prohibitions on alcohol, drugs, tobacco and other consumables. It also holds for prohibitions on most technologies because few realize what they are missing. That does not hold for prohibitions on weapons though. Unlike all other goods, weapons are the main tool by which enforcement of a prohibition can be challenged. One doesn’t fight the ban on drugs with cocaine or pot, nor on alcohol with whiskey or wine. But a prohibition on rifles can be fought with rifles. And that’s there the “fight, flight or submit” decision fork may be resolved in favor of fight. Giving up means much reduced future opportunity to resist and, unlike recreational drugs, booze or other optional goods, weapons are in the same category as water and food — it’s possible to live without them, but not for very long or very well. And definitely not at all free.
I am getting an upgraded IR camera, so my Canon EOS REBEL T3 will be available. Selling it with a second battery and charger, $275 for everything, plus shipping cost from zip code 37076. Example of B&W image (it will also produce color):
Imagine a farm animal, like a steer, that only exists because it was bred and raised to be slaughtered for meat and leather. Is it better (by whatever definition of “better” you have) for it to have lived or to have never been born at all? Is it any worse to be killed and made into steaks and shoes than to die of old age diseases and become worm food?
Imagine a congenitally deaf and blind puppy? It can still enjoy life, but people who keep it wouldn’t have room for a healthy puppy they’d keep otherwise. What’s better, for the deaf and blind puppy to have a life, or for a healthy one? Or would those two lives be equivalently good, by whatever definition we use.
If you think pop culture should better represent the voices of conservatives and libertarians, check out the new releases.
Alexis has been shooting for about a year now. Until his untimely death in early March, her grandfather Tryce was her coach, chauffeur, inspiration and support. Now, Alexis is persevering through her own ability and the help of her friends and sponsors. You too can help — and get Team Tryce swag in the process. All proceeds from your purchase go towards the shooting scholarship for Alexis to cover travel, training and competition entry fees.
Есть ли жители того города среди моих читателей? У меня исторический вопрос.
Reading anti-gunner comments about guns being compensations for small genitals, I wonder if they realize the assertion is a compliment. In nature, species with relatively large genitals are engaged in sperm competition, generally stemming from non-monogamous mating habits. Developing large genitals isn’t free, biologically speaking. So, if the theory of guns being compensations for small penises is correct, it would also correlate gun use with more developed brains. Guns being a subset of “tools”, that’s not an unreasonable theory. Equating “small genitals” with weakness, which is the aim of the detractors, is a logical fallacy: gorillas are a typical example of a species with small penises and rather impressive muscle.
Looking closer at that theory, I wonder why “compensating” would be bad. The same overall political group thinks that gender reassignment surgery is a fine way to compensate for mismatched software and hardware — merely owning or carrying a firearm is a much less onerous compensation for not being a cave bear with big teeth and claws. Wearing clothes to compensate for lack of fur is ok, wearing glasses to compensate for poor eyesight is ok, why would wearing sidearms to compensate for lack of built-in weapons be somehow an exception?
I am considering offering seminars on photographic technique. The two topics most often requested are people and product, specifically firearms. Could I see a show of hands — who would be interested in one-day seminars, conducted on weekends?
- Product photography, with emphasis on Blades and Firearms
- Portrait and people photography in general
Both classes would include demonstrations and hands-on experience. The classes would be limited to four participants each, and the cost would be $375 per person. For those traveling into Nashville, I plan on offering the classes on consecutive days, and with $700 cost for attending both (a $50 discount).
A very close friend, a college professor, is looking for assistance with a research project. He’s looking for a student (high school or college) studying international affairs, or US history/government, or Eastern European or Russian history, or archival/librarian study, etc. and willing to complete a course project with him as the adviser. Should have the right mindset (including respecting confidentiality).
If interested, or know someone who would be, please let me know.