Archive for category Self-Defense
Advantages of Tactical Flashlights
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Self-Defense, Technology on October 14th, 2009
A tactical flashlight is one that has been designed for combat and self-defense use. To those who are unfamiliar with the concept, this might at first sound silly. Flashlights are for light, not fighting, right? But anybody who’s fought in the dark knows that illumination is important, and more fundamentally, so does anybody who’s fumbled around in the dark for their keys. Tactical flashlights make excellent day-to-day flashlights in addition to their combat utility.
Tactical flashlights have several useful features.
They are extremely bright. In combat, this means that they can blind and disorient people and animals. In day-to-day use, this means that they’re useful at distances where an ordinary flashlight would falter. For example, at Alchemy this year, I was working the perimeter for the main burn pageant. One of the other perimeter rangers noticed a participant walk off towards the trees in such a way that he could have wandered around the side of the perimeter line. He was about 50 yards away, and it was night time, so he was difficult to pick out from the trees. My flashlight was bright enough that, even at that distance, we could easily see that he was just taking a leak. In another case, I saw at a distance of about 20 yards what looked like the silhouette of a rifle in a participant’s hand. I was sure that it wasn’t actually a rifle, but I felt obligated to investigate further. Instead of running after the participant, yelling, or otherwise exerting myself and creating a disturbance, I lit him up the lower half of his body with my flashlight. This gave me a better look at the thing in his hand and also caused him to notice me and walk my direction. As he got closer, he explained that his very-real-looking firearm was actually a BB-gun loaded with glow-in-the-dark, biodegradable BB’s. They looked awesome! Finally, the extremely bright beam of the light was usable as a headlight on a golf cart at night, where a normal flashlight might not have had enough throw to allow us to drive at a convenient speed.
They are small, especially considering the brightness of their beams. Most of them are under six inches long and weigh less than eight ounces. This makes them more convenient to hold for longer periods of time and makes it more likely that you’ll be carrying it with you when you want it.
Finally, they are extremely rugged and difficult to break. Because they are designed for combat, they are often strong enough that you could hold them in your fist and hit a person with the lens end. This means you’re unlikely to break one by dropping it.
In the interest of fairness, I should point out some down-sides of tactical flashlights. The primary one is that they are expensive. They typically run from about $150 to about $300. Hey, a 6-ounce tube that can throw a 170-lumen beam and survive being run over by a car doesn’t come cheap.
Adding to the expense are the batteries. They usually run on CR123 camera batteries, which are more expensive than regular alkalines. A typical run-time is 90 minutes, so you can spend a lot on batteries if you use your flashlight regularly. Many flashlights mitigate this factor by offering a high-intensity beam for combat and a low-intensity beam for day-to-day use. Alternatively, some of them have built-in rechargeable batteries, which saves cost, but eliminates the possibility of quickly changing out a set of dead batteries in order to continue using the light in the field. A final option might be to buy rechargeable CR123 batteries. Unfortunately, these flashlights are usually designed to maximize the light output from a pair of regular CR123s, and many of them don’t work very well with the differing voltage pattern of rechargeable CR123s.
Taurus Judge: Not For Self-Defense
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Self-Defense on September 14th, 2009

The Taurus Judge is a revolver that can fire both .45 Long Colt cartridges and .410 gauge shotshells. This fine trick makes it a wonderfully versatile gun, perfect for certain jobs, but not for self-defense.
In one ad, Taurus shows two silhouette targets side-by-side. One has been punctured with six neat .45 holes. The other has a great gaping hole blasted into it by six .410 birdshot shells. “You Choose,” the ad suggests. And every time, I would grit my teeth and roll my eyes, until finally I couldn’t stand it anymore.
Birdshot is for birds. And maybe snakes. But not for larger predators like people. Oh, it’ll blow the hell out of a paper target, but birdshot has never penetrated particularly well on people, even when fired from a shotgun’s full-length barrel. Coming out of a tiny revolver barrel, the velocity, and therefore penetration, is dramatically reduced. The Box O’ Truth estimated that .410 birdshot penetration in flesh would be less than 2″. When fired into a plastic 2-liter cola bottle full of water, most of the shot didn’t even penetrate the back-side of the bottle. And when it comes to stopping an attack, penetration of the projectile to damage vital organs is key. Not that I’m volunteering to get shot by a Judge, but if someone was trying to kill me, I’d like a little more certainty. You shoot someone with 2″ of penetration, and maybe they will decide to stop attacking you. You get enough penetration to damage a major blood vessel or organ, and they will eventually stop whether they want to or not.
What about buckshot? You can get .410 shells loaded with 3 #00 balls. The Box O’ Truth found that these rounds would penetrate about 4.5″ in flesh, well short of the FBI’s desired 12″. Additionally, the rounds were squashed flat from pressing against each other in the barrel, which is not conducive to accuracy.
In fact, the only round that penetrated sufficiently from the Judge to be useful for defense was the .45 Long Colt. No surprise. There’s a reason that birdshot is shot (at birds) out of shotguns, buckshot out of shotguns, and bullets out of revolvers and pistols.
Buy a Judge if you want to, but don’t be fooled by Taurus’s marketing. .410 birdshot may blow the hell out of a piece of paper, but it’s not appropriate for self-defense.
Oleg Volk: Parental Responsibility
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Self-Defense on August 28th, 2009
I love Oleg Volk (the creator of this photograph).
For more: http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
Ammunition Cache; Stockpile of Guns
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Self-Defense on August 24th, 2009
How many cartridges do you think it’s reasonable for a person to have? How many guns? At what point does it cross the line and become a “cache” or a “stockpile”?
People who are uncomfortable with guns may view owning even one as remarkable, but lots of people view guns as just another object, and we all know how people can accumulate objects. Some people plaster their walls with action-figures or collector’s plates. Other people collect guns. When a news story reports that a person had “a stockpile of fifty guns,” it’s intended to sensationalize. Absent of any evidence of malicious intent, I find it no more remarkable than if the person had a collection of Star Trek plates. Heck, at least guns are useful.
Buying a gun is kind of like getting at tattoo. Once you’ve got one, you often want to get another. I have no particular desire to “hoard” guns, and I’m not really a collector of anything, but every time I go into the range to shoot, I wander around the inventory, and I find myself thinking, “You know, I don’t have a lever action rifle yet!” That process will continue until I end up buying a lever-action, and then I’ll find myself thinking, “You know I don’t have a bolt-action distance-rifle yet!” Etc…
My point is that this behavior is completely normal and benign, and eventually it will result in me having a big, bad “stockpile” of guns. Keep that in mind when if you ever see me on the news being hauled out of my house in cuffs.
What about ammunition? I heard a great quote comparing a “cache” of thousands of rounds of ammo to the “cache” of thousands of grains of rice the person had in their pantry. It’s completely apt and I’m going to use it. When people hear that a person has 3,000, 5,000, 10,000 rounds of ammo, they tend to imagine one dead body for each round, and wonder what mass murder was going to be perpetrated. It’s just ignorance. Even conservatively, I shoot 100-200 rounds of pistol ammo every time I go to the range to practice. At that rate, I go through 1,000 rounds every 5-10 trips. Let’s just round up or down and call that a year’s worth of ammo. And I don’t shoot much at all compared to some competitive shooters, who might go through 500 to 1,000 rounds per practice session.
Okay, so say that 1,000 rounds is about a year’s worth of ammo. For one gun. Let’s say that I have a 9mm pistol (my carry gun), another pistol in .357 (because cowboy guns are beautiful historical artifacts), a rifle in 7.62x39mm (for medium game and home defense), a rifle in .22 (for cheap practice and small game), and a 12-gauge shotgun (for skeet-shooting, naturally, and home defense). Now, I could go out and buy ammo by the box for each of these guns, but it’s so much cheaper when you buy it by the case, and you see where I’m going. Five guns, five calibers, a thousand rounds here, a thousand rounds there, and voila. I’ve got a cache. A completely benign, harmless cache. Much like my cache of thousands of rice grains or beans.
Oh, and by the way, when the cops report that a person had thousands of rounds of ammo, they should be required to leave out .22. It’s not that .22 is harmless (although it’s certainly the least scary caliber a person could have), it’s just that .22 is so cheap (about 5 cents per round) that it’s common for people to have five or ten thousand rounds sitting around.
“Stay home” If You Need A Gun
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Self-Defense on August 14th, 2009
Somewhere on the Internet, someone recently wrote:
The rule is if you are not a cop or a soldier and you feel that you have to go somewhere with a gun stay home.
The sentiment expressed here is valid: a gun should be a last resort, and steps should always be taken to anticipate and avoid situations where a gun might be needed. But this guy’s “rule” presumes that you can always anticipate situations where a gun might be needed.
I don’t carry a gun because I feel that I am particularly likely to need it. In fact, I know that statistically I am very likely never to need it. I don’t carry a gun because I need an injection of courage to go into a particularly scary situation. Like the commenter suggests, I would just stay home. But the fact is that life-threatening situations happen in all kinds of places at all kinds of times. I carry a gun in preparation for the time when I have not anticipated that I would need it.
Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? What would you say to the argument, “If you are not a firefighter, and you feel that you need a fire extinguisher to be somewhere, you should just not be in that place.”
The quote also presumes that only police and soldiers should be using deadly force in my defense. Bull. Shit. Call it the do-it-yourself ethic if you want. Defending my life against someone or something who threatens it is arguably the most important thing I can ever do, since being dead will deprive me of the opportunity to do any of other other things that I might do. I’ll be damned if I’m going to farm that out to somebody else who isn’t actually obligated to defend me in particular. News flash: crime tends to occur in areas where police are not present. Saying that I should rely on a police officer to defend my life assumes a lot. That I or someone else is able to call 911. That I am not killed or injured in the time it takes for the cops to get there. That the cops are more capable and motivated to defend me than I am to defend myself. I don’t want to bet my life on those assumptions.

