Monday, January 21, 2013

Ban the AR-15, then what?


"I would rather live in dangerous freedom than I would peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson                    

                   The AR-15 is the primary target that anti-gunners have focused in on as representing all that ills society and all that is wrong with the world. They make it sound as if it(an inanimate object) is somehow inherently and intrinsically evil. They don't blame the actual shooter for the mass carnage they inflict, but rather look toward and blame the weapon itself as if it made the shooter commit his dastardly deeds with some sort hypnotic demonic influence that called out to him.

             During the push for the 1994 assault weapons ban, you'll remember it was the Intratec Tec-9/Tec-DC9 that the anti-gunners has such a problem with and blamed it for just about any shooting death that occurred. Blaming a particular weapon made as little sense then as it does now. Piers Morgan keeps pointing out and shouting that in the last few mass shootings, an AR-15 was used  as if that is supposed to mean something. The guys who committed these acts were not some well trained special-ops guys selective and knowledgeable in choice of preferred weapon, but for the same reason gang-bangers choose the Tec-9 and why uninformed anti-gunners have such an aversion to certain weapons and that is because they look SCARY. And by scary, I mean anything that is Black and Tactical i.e. Military in appearance. The Tec-9 was an absolute piece of junk, but it looked like a the sub-machine guns so popular in 80's and 90's action movies and in heavy use by certain Police SWAT teams at the time. The AR-15 fires a Varmint round, but there is no telling Piers or any other anti-gunner that information since they have a narrative to maintain and anything that might derail their agenda is off limits.

 Is the argument the high capacity magazines then? I say it's not.

   So, what if we ban the AR-15, then what?

The truth is that the AR-15 is just the poster child of the push for more gun control. They hold it up and point to it being used in the last few mass shootings using it as leverage to try and convince the public that it is indeed certain gun themselves that are indeed the problem. Will they be happy if the actually passed their assault weapons ban? For a time being it would seem so, but then there would be a mass shooting with a gun that didn't look or seem so scary, but was nonetheless used and effective in killing other human beings.
                   In response they will "re-evaluate" their position and then push to strip even more of our rights exploiting whatever latest shooting happens as an excuse to push through their legislature.It's what Politicians have always done and what they will do in the future.

                  Piers Morgan says he not for banning hand-guns. Does that apply to my Glocks with the 33 round magazines? How about 17 or 15 or 10 rounds? What's the "magic number"? The truth is that there is no magic number. Seung-Hui Cho used two common run of the mill handguns to kill 32 people at Virginia Tech
             Cho's weapons were a 9mm Glock 19 and a .22LR Walther P22 plus he didn't use the 33 round magazines that the Glock 19 will accept, but rather standard capacity ones. So, how would baning the AR-15 have prevented this from happening? Simple, it wouldn't.
                  Truth be told, I would feel pretty well armed in just about any likely home invasions with my Glocks provided I had at least the standard round magazines which in my case are 17 and 15 rounds. Although I would prefer my 33 rounders, I wouldn't feel all that inadequately armed with the standard mags, but limited to 10 would be a very big problem that I find unacceptable as I've studied the data, looked at the stats and there are simply too many examples of and incidents where 10 is simply not enough. Of course I could have multiples, but would chose not to have to reload if I can help it during a home-invasion or gun fight.See that mitigating carnage due to having reload(can be disarmed) concept goes both ways and I would rather me and I family not be the carnage. I wouldn't miss the AR-15 all that much. I own one, but it's not my go-to home defense gun. The problem is I know they won't stop with just a few "Military style Assault weapons" even though they are trying to convince the general public and sheeple of that. Here is Sen. Dianne Feinsteins proposal

        These anti-gunners often state that they "believe in the 2nd amendment" and say we don't want to infringe on the Hunter's and Sportsman's rights and that it doesn't take 10, 20 or 30 rounds to kill a Deer. Of course, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with that since it specifically uses the word ARMS, and that doesn't mean hunting or target shooting. So either they have a distorted inaccurate view of the 2nd amendment which I know isn't the case with these highly educated people or they simply don't like it or truly believe in it. They says Sportsman and Hunters have rights under the second amendment, but never say that you have a right to defend yourself or your family. So, do they actually think you don't have a right to defend yourself? I can't speak for them, but based on what they say, I can only surmise that the answer is no.

      Where does it stop? Ban all guns? Ban all knives? What about banning the right to even defend yourself at all? Don't think it can happen, look at England's self-defense laws where they have pretty much made it illegal to effectively defend your self in any way. They even once went so far as to ban self-defense expert Tim Larkin from even entering the Country!

           Do you want to be free or live in oppression like a slave? Our Country was founded on the idea and principles of general overall Freedom and Liberty for everyone and especiallyy(at the time), freedom from the Monarchy and British Tyranny specifically.We have to stand up for our rights, our individual liberty and our very humanity at some point.Will it be now or after it's too late? It's your choice, decide carefully.

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."~ George Mason 


Wednesday, January 16, 2013

What's the Best gun for for Home Defense?

          Americans are scrambling to buy firearms in droves after the President announced his Draconian Executive Order on gun control. Many first time gum buyers are asking what kind of gun they should get. It boils down to three basic choices and that would be 1.) Rifle 2.) Shotgun 3.) Handgun.  

                          For the skilled and serious gun enthusiast, having all three is usually the preference and probably best, but that is not who I'm referring to here. I'm talking about and to the ordinary individual who just simply wants a simple solution to defend themselves and their family. They may have done a little shooting at some time in their life, but for the most part are uninformed and unskilled and don't know what they should purchase.  

                   If they ask various armchair experts what to get, I can guarantee the most common recommendation they have received is to get a Shotgun, most likely a pump action variety. This is conventional wisdom for many hobby shooters who despite having none or very little knowledge of or training in the tactical use of firearms in self-defense, nonetheless think they are qualified. This would even extend to those who are ex-Military because although there is some cross-over in general as there is in many things, the training they received, the scenarios it was designed for and the context in which it was performed has little in common with armed Civilian self-defense. Military personnel and Police SWAT units operate as teams and conduct offensive operations vs reactive defense like the Civilian.

       So what's wrong with the Shotgun or the Rifle as the one choice for Home Defense?

                         Although it has been used effectively in all sorts of home-defense scenarios(which the same could be said about any firearm), It is simply not the overall one best or usually the first choice(even if own all three) if you are under attack. It is essentially a special purpose firearm that should be left as a last line of defense("the artillery") for when you and your family are all together in a fixed location such as a safe room which could simply be a pre-determined bedroom or even a barricaded room or fortified structure/area in your home where you would all gather in the event of a home invasion. 

           The handgun on the other hand would be the "infantry" compared to the Shotgun and Rifles "artillery". The handgun is best when you are mobile and allows for mobility and one handed operation for opening doors, flicking light switches, carrying Children or simply directing family members to where they need to go while the long-gun is a two handed weapon and doesn't offer this freedom. The handgun also offers better weapon retention against attempted gun grabs and disarms when navigating the close confines,enclosed spaces and corners of a personal residence. The handgun is also easily concealable if need be such as when answering the door or venturing out into your neighborhood. 

           If your going to get just ONE GUN, get a HANDGUN!

         Revolver vs Semi-Automatic: If you aren't real maintenance conscience, don't plan to get any training other than shooting paper targets in your backyard, then I would probably recommend a revolver despite it's limited ammunition capacity and specifically one with a enclosed hammer such as the Smith & Wesson 340 M&P or Smith & Wesson 640. They are both DAO(Double Action Only) meaning there isn't any exposed hammer to allow it to be cocked to single action creating a "hair trigger", which isn't a good thing in a personal defense encounter,  especially involving a firearm in the hands of nervous, adrenaline charged individual lacking skill. The enclosed hammer snub revolver is also the hardest handgun to disarm from it's rightful owner and will function even if grabbed or entangled in clothing and bedding (awake to intruder standing over you in bed) and will even fire from inside a jacket pocket (the fastest draw being no draw). You can also press a revolver's muzzle against the assailant and it will still work unlike a semi-auto which would likely be pushed "out of battery".             Considering that many self-defense encounters occur at very close ranges and that touch/contact distances, muzzle contact shots/grappling etc. are real possibities and the ability of the revolver to function in these scenarios could prove a huge benefit that could save your life. There are weapon retention and other functional tactical techniques to enhance the autoloaders effectiveness at close quarter defense ranges, but are really the realm of the more serious minded individual who seeks out more intensive instruction, but even then the same basic pro's/con's and functionality of the revolver/semi-automatic still apply, just perhaps not as drastic in effect when actually applied in real defense situations.

           If you are willing to get some training as well as being more safety and maintenance conscience, then I'd probably recommend a semi-automatic pistol such as a Glock. Not only that, I'd second Massad Ayoobs common recommendation of the addition of a NY trigger module which increases the trigger pull weight slightly for added safety. Many gun dealers are also Glock armorers and will install the NY trigger module for free or very minor fee. The 1911 is very popular, but best left to the highly skilled individual or even professional and/or reserved for sporting competition IMO.

              Some will talk argue about shooting accuracy and ammunition capacity , but the vast majority of armed Civilian self-defense scenarios happen very quickly, take place at very close ranges and are resolved with very few rounds. The same even extends to Law Enforcement although not as dramatically as wit the Civilian. The FBI finally figured out what many of us Civilian Self-Defense Instructors have known and been preaching for years...

        So, does the rifle or shotgun have a place in home/self-defense?

                           Sure, if you have the funds and commitment, I think multiple platforms make a good deal of sense, although  let me repeat that if you only have budget and intent for just one only, stick with the handgun.
                        Once you in that fixed location/safe room, then the greater power of the shotgun and/or rifle makes a lot of sense or in the scenario that you go directly to a safe-room, then the long-gun would be your first choice. Also if you live in a rural area with wide open spaces, such as along the southern border, it would be perfectly sensible to have a rifle. Many also like to keep a Rifle in their Vehicle just in case of some worst case scenario occurring such as while their car breaks down/flat tire in the middle of nowhere and they relatively immobile and vulnerable. As with anything,there are exceptions and there have been extreme cases where the best first immediate go-to option was a high capacity rifle and there have many instances where suspects have taken withstood a very high number or rounds and in that sense, it's better to be safe than sorry by being prepared for anything and why our rights to own such weapon should not be infringed.  

Monday, January 14, 2013

Who should be speaking for Gun owners?

    Who should be speaking for gun owners in the media? The crux of the issue than many are hung up by up is the notion of Civilians possessing firearms they wrongly perceive to be military weapons or what many refer to using the manufactured and inaccurate term."assault weapons" as well as high-capacity magazines.What is needed is someone who can give simple common sense explanations of why a Civilian would want or need these weapons to defend themselves and their family.
                    Who is that person? I am sure that person isn't Ben Shapiro who failed miserably in his debate with Piers Morgan calling for broad scope registrations, perpetuating the term "assault weapon" and going off the rails giving resistance to Tyranny as the only reason as to why a Citizen needs an AR-15.While actually true and valid, the average person won't relate and think of you simply as a paranoid irrational individual.
             The reason Shapiro couldn't give any other practical everyday reason is that Mr.Shapiro is a journalist who knows little about the real-world application of these weapons and should stick to what he's best at, which is penning fringe right-wing articles, smirking inappropriately and playing the violin.
              Shapiro is also calling for the invasion of private medical records in the form of screening for "mental illness". He even goes farther in one article by advocating in fascist form for more involuntary commitment of the mentally ill in the last paragraph.....
                  Then there is Alex Jones who although actually despite making a few valid points actually did more harm than good I think with his ranting paranoid sounding tirade. Larry Pratt is often a booked guest on cable television programs and Mr.Pratt although as decent and reasonable man capable of making an overall valid argument at times and a few good points is just another gun rights group talking head who talks in abstract terms about the 2nd amendment without giving viewers that might side with our cause any tangible reason for these high-capacity defense weapons. There is also various right-wing TV and Radio program hosts and journalists that love to put their two cents thinking they are an expert on the matter simply because they own firearms, go to indoor range occasionally  and maybe took a class or two. I've been doing this for over 25 years and trust me, these folks are no experts.

               The answer for who should be speaking for us right now based on the context the debate has been framed is those who specialize in the real-world application of the weapons in question. I'm talking Tactical Firearm Instructors, Self-Defense Trainers specializing in or highly skilled in the defensive firearms.These men do this day in and day out, author books about it, host television programs about it, write online about it as well as print magazine articles about it.Quite simply it is their life, so doesn't it then make sense that is those men that could best explain to the American people the true functions, application and need for these firearms?

       Specific recommendations...

                     There are countless fine men that would be up to it, but I can think of no one better than Massad Ayoob who would simply be ideal for the task of explaining in rational common sense terms, why the armed Civilian  would benefit from having high capacity tactical defense weapons to defend themselves and their families. Mas has been teaching, writing and speaking all things real-world self-defense literally for decades.He has a great deal of television and public speaking experience, has been an expert defense witness for decades as well as devoting a great deal of time to the judicious use of deadly force. 

       The second man that comes to mind is Rob Pincus.Another guy with an impressive resume who is well -spoken and articulate enough to explain in simple terms and language that anyone could grasp, the 'why' of  the weapons in question. Pincus flat out knows his stuff plain and simple and is able to convey that knowledge in a way most with his skill and knowledge simply aren't able to do.He is also a very experienced television personality, hosting various tactical shooting and self-defense programs. 

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Keep Guns away from the Mentally-ill?

Mental Health and Guns                          

                     There has been talk from both ends of the political spectrum and by people everywhere in between about the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. At first blush that sounds like a sensible and common sense idea that everyone would and should support, but once you actually delve into the issue, you'll see that it is much more complex as well as having the potential to become a gross violation of rights and a truly hostile invasion of privacy depriving millions of Americans of their Liberty.
                                    Who exactly is "mentally ill"?  I have yet to see any of the many people making proposals calling for the broad scope screening of the mentally ill with the intent to identify and then keep guns away from them to define who it is exactly they are looking for or what criteria they would use to restrict them from firearms or even who they consider they consider mentally ill. Is it anyone on or has ever in their lifetime (or how long ago before "cleared") taken psychotropic medications or perhaps just certain types of psych meds?  Receives or has ever had counseling? A certain diagnosis? Anyone and everyone that has any history of Mental Health issues or treatment? Who and what are they looking for? All of them perhaps ...that's a pretty big task that will take an army of workers to screen, a monumental amount of currency that would add substantially to the already obscenely bloated national debt as well as being wasteful, unnecessary and flat out immoral. Sounds like something Liberals would like to do, but I'm hearing it from self-labeled Conservatives as well. It's simply unreasonable and unjust and I find it even worse than the ridiculous notion of banning certain types of firearms and ammunition magazines simply by how they look (like Military weapons i.e. black and scary) or how many rounds/bullets they hold.                   
              Mental Illness is an extremely broad term that includes people suffering from simple and mild clinical depression to delusional schizophrenics. As a whole, those with mentally illness are actually less violent and commit less crimes than the general population, so why would we target all of them specifically based on the actions of just a handful or people? We say we can't racially profile certain groups of people even though statistics show that some racial and ethnic groups do indeed commit more violent crime and by very large numbers (Fact :Young Black Males ages 16-25 commit the majority of violent crime in the US, but make up a low single digit amount of total population), but to focus on on them is considered "racial profiling" and taboo, so how can we then ethically "profile" people based on a medical diagnosis or just from receiving mental health treatment.
                 The Radical Islamic Terrorists that have committed the Mass Murders of thousands of Americans were all Young Arab Males with none being known to be or declared "mentally-ill" that I'm ware of, but we refuse to profile or screen all Young Arab Male's or say they they as a group can't use airliners based on the actions of a few. Instead we focus on actual tangible threats via the Terror watch list based on actual hard evidence of threats etc. and that individuals history and fact rather than simply banning all young Arab males from air travel. Tim McVeigh was not known to be "Mentally-ill", so start banning young Irish guys from renting Ryder trucks?
          How about my elderly Grandma who lives alone in a rural area taking an anti-depressants to deal with the lose of her Husband/My Grandfather of 65 years? Do we invade her medical records and take her firearms away?
                       Or what about the passive agoraphobic(think Sigourney weaver's character in the movie copycat) who never leaves their house or experiences panic attacks or how about the guy with OCD/Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder who washes his hand 50 times a day, but is otherwise a mild mannered guy and asset to his community. How about someone suffering from Generalized Anxiety Disorder, there are literally Millions of them.The list of productive members of society as well as great leaders, innovators, authors, artists and patriots with one mental health issue or another is long indeed. How about many of our Troops coming back from the Sandbox?   
                    Or what about our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln who was almost for sure suffering from clinical depression or perhaps even a Bipolar Disorder(likely BPII). All are technically "mentally ill", but does the 2nd Amendment not apply to them? Would you and should you deprive them of the right to defend themselves or invade their right to privacy when they are not guilty of anything?

         Most mass murders throughout history had no diagnosed mental condition nor received any treatment and even recent school shooters even though some may have had an underlying psychiatric disorder,developmental disorder or mental illness of some kind or another, most never sought nor received any treatment, so perhaps expanding mental health services makes more sense than going after everyone simply receiving some type of treatment. If the ones that did have a history such as Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza and even Jared Loughner, there wasn't anything real substantial that could have predicted what was coming or indicate that some form of urgent preventive intervention was needed to stop mass murder aside from perhaps Loughner getting suspended from College with Mental Health evaluation being required for re-admittance. Most of these kids perpetrating mass school shootings were cases of them being systematically bullied and then retaliated against their peers(with the exception of Lanza)and bullying today is much different and more brutal than the simple hazing that went on when I was a kid. Partly due to kids being armed with smart phones recording and then broadcasting any and every embarrassing moment and abuse of their target as well as from the overall coarsening of our society. Even cartoons today are obscene, abusive and flat out vulgar.There are many reasons to that complex issue and those are just two observations. Loughner was also a drug and alcohol user, so are we to start screening any one that drinks alcohol as well? Think of the deaths from DIU's and from intoxicated violent behavior causes each year, but no one says much about it or thinks there needs to be some form of intervening type legislature in regards to alcohol use. One could go on for days with fitting analogies.
            Some have gone a step further than simply violating privacy and restricting gun and are talking involuntary commitment! Is this modern day America that we're talking about? Are we to return to the paranoid dark days where men in little white coats would come and take people away in straight-jackets for the most minor of reasons? You had better have a damn fine reason for taking away an Americans Freedom or any ones for that matter as well as some hard evidence and factual proof that justifies such actions.
                       Here is an article from Ben Shapiro from with the last paragraph being appalling and truly horrific. It smacks of fascism which I find ironic considering how often Mr.Shapiro likes to invoke NAZI Germany.  There was simply no signs or evidence to indicate that Adam Lanza was capable of planning what he did that would justify involuntary commitment. Ben Shapiro is simply unable to see the big picture in context nor is he able to convey practical common sense information and solutions. He among others represents the the irrational fringe of the far right and that I find just as unsavory as the far left. His ideas are dangerous, narrow in scope and Conservatives as a whole would be wise to separate themselves from him.

                   Are we to start screening everyone that applies for a gun permit/license/CCW or simply purchases a gun to check and see if they have any mental health issues? How are we going to do that exactly? Are we going to keep a massive national database on everyone and anyone that does or has received any Mental Health Treatment? And if they do or did, are we then going to scrutinize those records to determine whether they are mentally fit and deserving of the right to purchase and own or carry a firearms despite having no past history of violence(what degree) or criminality (any?). To so do violates every principle this Great Country was founded on as it prejudges someone as being guilty for something they've never done. Last time I checked, your innocent until proven guilty in this Country irregardless of your Race, Creed, Religion or medical History.
                            Now if you are talking about scrutinizing and restricting those that have been institutionalized (forcibly or voluntarily), adjudicated a danger to self and others(this doesn't include automatically include social security disability benefits since the determination to receive those benefits is an administrative decision, even if rendered by judge on an appeal, who in this case would be an administrative law judge, rather than one of a ruling in and by a court of law), have a violent(what?)/criminal (felony) past, then I would agree that makes sense and is indeed justified although I would allow them to appeal to a Court of Law to have their rights restored if they can provide tangible evidence that they are now healthy(and more likely than not to remain so) and responsible enough to own firearms. In almost all of the mass-shooting cases there were obvious warning signs ignored or dismissed by various authorities.They simply passed the buck if you will. Perhaps require some type of reporting or even intervention if someone receiving intensive(definition?) mental health treatment is believed to be an imminent and substantive and substantial(degree?) danger to themselves and/pr others, has made actual substantive and substantial violent threats(again degree) or has been shown to have an inclination to violence(once gain degree) despite having no criminal record. I'm really getting into that grey area here, but as I said at the onset, it's a very complex issue that we must tread lightly when addressing so as to not violate any persons privacy rights or their God-given Liberty. Proceed with caution indeed. I guess it should be an issue of that individual just simply perhaps getting some form of greater scrutiny(what would that be,what is the proper and right balance...Doctors alerting LE etc. or perhaps some broader comprehensive approach etc., but there are countless incompetent and unethical doctors and psychiatrists as well as law enforcement officers so this approach has the potential for grave abuses of power) rather than some type of actual legal intervention until something is indeed proven and a then those findings, actions required and the decision rendered in an actual Court of Law.

               All medical records are private and should remain that way unless there is definite proof and just cause to violate that individuals right to privacy and the only way that can truly be the case is if that person has shown by their past or current behavior and actions to be a threat to others or themselves. Innocent until proven guilty is and always has been our standard and should remain so, since to do otherwise is to start down that infamous slippery slope as well as inflict a big slap in the face to Freedom and Liberty.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Practical Reasons for owning an AR-15

 We carry a line of AR-15, M4,

            Piers Morgan has repeatedly asked numerous guests on his cable television program the same question  .... "give me one coherent reason why a civilian needs an AR-15 assault rifle?"

            What Piers is wanting as is many others watching the show is an easy understood, everyday practical reason as to why someone wants or needs an AR-15. Many of his viewers although they may actually support 2nd amendment rights, may not know a whole lot about firearms in general or the dynamics of self-defense seeing only a rather sinister looking black rifle that looks like a "machine gun" when they look at an AR-15, so any practical reason alludes them and it's those people who we really need to reach..          
                Responses to piers question of  "I should be able to own one because the 2nd amendment says I can" or "to fight possible tyranny" while although technically correct, those answers simply won't register or sit well with uninformed viewers who might have sided with you if you give them practical explanations and facts.There is no use in arguing with the far-left anti-gunners fully set and entrenched in their ideology as they only seek to frame the context of the debate, not in learning anything new or reconsidering their beliefs or perspective. It's the middle ground folks on the fence, those people with open minds that we need to be convincing, talking to and speaking the truth to and it's these individuals I'm writing to here.

        The simple answer of why we need high capacity AR-15 assault rifles is for the same reason Police have them, need them and use them since the Criminals we face are the same ones they do. Notice I did not include the Military in that statement.The reason is Civilian self-defense has very little in common with Military operations of any kind, but the situations an armed Civilian could find themselves involved in(either on street or at home) are often identical to the ones Police find themselves in. Also, the Military doesn't actually use the AR-15 at all, but rather the M16 and M4 which are fully automatic ("machine gun") or Select Fire(choice of fully automatic or multiple bullets fired per single pull trigger).
             Although the AR-15 looks almost exactly like the M16 and M4, it is actually semi-automatic, which means that it fires only one bullet when you pull the trigger.To shoot another bullet, you have to release and then pull the trigger again. It's really no different than a revolver(one trigger pull, one shot) and it's likely the "automatic" part of semi-automatic that gets peoples attention. What the automatic means is that it automatically loads a round(bullet) from the magazine(what some call clips) into the chamber(barrel). Nothing sinister at all going on there.

          Now on to some real-world practical reasons to own a high capacity AR-15 to which just about any sensible person should be able to understand and relate...

1.) Insurance .....  Ever had a car accident or been involved in a wreck? What about a  house fire? Flood or Storm damage? How about a break-in?
                  Even if you've never had a single one of these incidents occur, you likely think it's prudent to take measures to mitigate loss, injury or damage even if you don't think such things aren't likely to ever happen to you. Do you lock your doors and windows when you leave your home and when you sleep at night? Do you have insurance on your car and your home? Do you wear your a seat belt when you drive a car and think it's wise to do so?  Isn't "just in case" valid logical thinking? Owning an AR-15 is just that. It's insurance just in case of a home invasion/home intrusion. Do you personally know anyone that has ever been the victim of a home invasion or otherwise had their home broken into or burglarized? Most likely you do know someone or even have Family members that have experienced it. So, since it is so common, doesn't it makes sense to have a safety policy in place to protect you and your family?

2.) It often takes multiple rounds/bullets to stop just one single determined assailant....      
         Unlike in the movies, the bad guys don't go flying across the room after being shot or even always go down after being shot one time. It's kind of analogous to when Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee beats up 30 Men at a time, knocking out each one with a single kick or punch,which simply is realistic either. Attackers are often large males able to withstand more gun shot hits and are often on drugs, severely mentally ill or both. Here is an incident where a Police Officer had to shoot an armed maniac 22 times before stopping him.The whole time the guy still kept shooting back.
          The gun the the officer used is a .40 caliber Glock Handgun which for all intents and purposes has similar stopping power to the AR-15. Can see why a Cop or an armed Civilian would want to have 30 round magazines knowing this can and does happen? While the Soulis incident is exceptionally rare, wouldn't you rather have ammo left over after a defensive shooting rather than run out during one. Imagine the terror after your gun runs out of bullets while trying to defend your Family against an armed thug who broke into you home who is still active and intent on getting to and harming you and your family.

3.) Multiple Assailants or Home Invaders... Wolves travel in packs is a common saying in the gun community and very applicable to the criminal element considering that a home invasion is very likely to be perpetrated by multiple intruders rather than a single individual. Gangs of all types are also still very real and present everywhere. A couple of years ago, three armed thugs broke into a home just up the street from me murdering the home owner.The homeowner lived in a large home, was rather wealthy and the perps were high looking for cash and drugs. Who is to say they couldn't have hit my house next or could have needed refuge and chose my home to hide out in from Police. If you and your family were to gather in a safe room after three armed thugs kicked in your door, would you rather be armed with a 5 or 6 shot revolver or a 30 round AR-15 knowing even though you already called 911, the Police are still minutes away.

4.) Civil Unrest, Flash Mobs, Riots ... I think most people can relate to these scenarios that seem to occur more and more frequently all the time. During the Rodney King riots, Korean store merchants were able to effectively defend themselves, their families and their property from the violent and destructive mobs very effectively using high capacity forearms(including the AR-15) after Police completely abandoned them refusing to re-enter the situation after being overwhelmed by the sheer number of rioters. We saw looting and violent chaos after Katrina  and I suspect if George Zimmerman is acquitted as I think he will and must be, there may be similar outbreaks of violence. I hope and pray there isn't, but I would sleep a lot better knowing a had effective tool to protect my family if a violent mob entered my neighborhood or targeted my home.

5.)The AR-15 itself. .... One of the main reasons that anti-gunners dislike the AR-15 is because it's scary looking. It's Black and looks like what most consider a Military type weapon.That could actually play heavily into your favor in a civil unrest scenario where you have rioting and looting mobs. Are they likely to target you, your family, your home and property if you are standing guard with an AR-15. Seems likely to be effective deterrent. This concept would also apply to armed citizens forming community watch on "sentry/guard duty" looking out for neighborhood/neighbors during times of civil unrest. However, you would want to be mindful not to make yourself a "shoot first" target/someone that needs to be taken out by accessing the specific situation if dealing with armed or potentially armed hooligans.  
                          If someone is trying to do you and your Family harm, you'll want to stop them as quickly as possible before they can physically reach you, get to you with some type of a weapon such as a knife or club or actually shoot you or family members if armed with a firearm themselves and the best way to do that is usually to put as many high energy rounds on target as quickly and as accurately possible and the AR-15 is a great tool to do just that. The AR-15 is ergonomic, extremely easy to shoot and very inherently accurate which means that your likely to hit what your shooting at rather than have your shots go astray possibly hitting innocent bystanders. Also, the AR-15 shoots  a rather small .22 caliber bullet(the .223/5.56)which is as a Hunting round/bullet is truly only only suitable for small animals and why it's often called a Varmint round and is very marginal for Deer sized game. The media like to call it a high-power round and that it is exceptionally devastating,but that is simply not the truth. One advantage to the small round is that there is very little recoil which means just about anybody can handle it(even petite Women and the elderly), which simply cannot be said for most defense caliber handguns and especially a 12 gauge shotgun.
                       I have also heard arguments from anti-gunner's that an AR-15 simply isn't necessary and is "overkill" for use in home defense by Civilians.They say a limited capacity handgun will more than suffice since most intruders will be armed with a handgun. First,what are their qualifications to be giving advice on what is effective for home defense and if an armed thug or group of thugs invade my home, I want a superior weapon to theirs.
                For most sceanrios, a handgun will indeed suffice although I would not want to be limited to 5 or 6 six shots. I would adequately prepared and armed if left with my Glock 17 along with plenty of 17 and 33 rounds loaded with hot hollow-point ammunition.
                   Still, there are many scenarios where a long-gun is simply better and more effective and therefore it is a good idea to have a high capacity Carbine/Rifle handy for more serious situations and in cases where you have gathered the family together in a fixed location(such as a safe room etc.) which is usually the best option when possible(often there simply isn't time to safely do so) in the even an intruder is in your home.

5.) The "Impractical". ...The Second Amendment does in fact give us the right to own an AR-15,  it doesn't only apply to muskets as many anti-gunners mock otherwise it would have specified muskets rather than just simply 'arms'. And to say the Founders couldn't have envisioned the AR-15 is simply irrelevant because they knew firearm technology would change, for it was changing and progressing at an alarming rate during their lifetime, so they knew would continue onward into the future and despite how some portray it, the AR-15 is still just an ordinary rifle/carbine shooting a comparatively(with other truly powerful hunting rifles) small bullet and not some weapon of mass destruction. Plus, the Founders couldn't have envisioned the Internet, Cable TV and Smart-Phones, so does the 1st amendment not apply to them?

        The Resistance to Tyranny isn't something the average person ever thinks about and I don't like that answer at all as a response when asked for a coherent or "practical" reason as to why someone needs an High Capacity "Assault Rifle" AR-15, but it was in fact a very large part of the motivation and reason of why the Founders created and included the 2nd amendment. The other major reason was one of protecting the rights of individuals to be able to defend themselves. To say such things are one of past cultures is being misinformed or just unaware of what is going on elsewhere in the World. Tyranny does in fact happen today around the World. Look at Syria, Iran, Egypt. It can't happen to the US you say? Such arrogance has been a common trait shared among all the past great empires who all said the same thing, but they also have one other thing in common....they all collapsed and are gone. Everybody said 9-11-2001 couldn't happen, that Pearl Harbor couldn't happen. Nobody saw what Adolf Hitler had planned coming or simply ignored the signs thinking that what he wrote and outlined in Mein Kampf can't really be his intent or true thoughts. And looked at how many went along with him blindly following his orders of mass murder and destruction. And that is not some distant event, there are still people very much alive today that actually lived through it.These things are indeed real, have happened and can and will happen again even if they don't seem like practical reasons.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Why not just ban high capacity magazines?

          The high capacity magazines seem to be the crux of the argument for wanting to ban certain types of firearms, but why then do they also want to ban the weapon itself ? Why not simply restrict magazine capacity?
            I think because the proposed banning of "assault weapons" has little to do with a concern over actually saving lives, but one of pushing a political agenda. The liberal left simply hates guns, all guns and this is just an easy way to get rid of at least some of them. Just label certain guns that cosmetically have a military appearance "assault weapons" to attach a negative connotation to them, so they will be maligned by the uneducated general public and  they will back your proposed "common sense" legislation. They are now attacking silly irrelevant details such as pistol grips, adjustable stocks and flash suppressors that do nothing to truly actually increase the weapons lethality and more to do with shooter comfort/ergonomics and outward appearance.
        There is no doubt that the anti-gunners are exploiting this tragedy to push this AWB through as fast as possible, because emotions are raw right now and they don't want to wait until things cool down and more rational minds prevail. Or, heaven forbid , some might educate themselves about the actual truth of the matter and see how futility is all of this nonsense. The AWB/Assault Weapons Ban did nothing last time it was passed to reduce crime and/or mass shootings nor will it do anything this time either.
           "Semi-automatic" is another term that many anti-gunners in the media keeps trying to put a negative spin on as if it means "machine gun" or something that belongs on a battlefield. The truth is that the Military generally doesn't use semi-automatics, but rather, full auto or select fire weapons. If you don't know what those terms mean, please look them up and educate yourself.
            Most firearms available today are in fact semi-automatic, they are indeed just "regular guns", not something sinister or exceedingly lethal. Your Grand-Fathers .45 handgun is in fact a semi-automatic as well. In handguns, the only other option is a revolver, which actually discharges it rounds just about as fast as any semi-automatic.The difference is the semi-automatic is easier to reload unless of course your reloading empty magazines and in that particular case, it's actually slower to load than a revolver. In rifles, there are scores of hunting rifles that are semi-automatic and there are as just many semi-automatic hunting shotguns to choose from as as well. The AR-15 is nothing special and quite underpowered compared to the true high-powered hunting rifles out there despite what the likes of Piers Morgan would have you believe. He states fire rates of fully automatic weapons(which the AR-15 is not)and then when caught in his lie, will say that he is referring to "modified" AR-15's that have been coverted to full auto and state that it is easy to do so. He is flat out wrong and and trying to mislead those that aren't so gun technology savvy. He doesn't mention that NONE of the AR-15's used in these shootings were modified in such a way or the facts of about such modifications are in no way "easy" as if any laymen could do it. Read History section of this article    The AR-15 simply doesn't discharge/shoot any faster than any other semi-automatic and shoots a varmint/small game bullet So, whether a firearm is semi-automatic or not should be of no concern to anyone and a non-issue in this debate.

       So, if the argument then boils down to one of being against the super high-capacity magazines, then why not simply ban those and leave the particular weapons themselves alone. I don't see why anyone sees a need to do otherwise unless their true agenda and goal is complete disarmament of the American people with this is just a step in that direction. Never let a crisis go to waste indeed. 

Thursday, December 20, 2012

High Capacity Magazines & Assault Weapons

       In the wake of the abomination that was the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut, the anti-gunners are out in full force demanding a ban on "assault weapons" as a matter of human decency.They claim a AWB ban is a sensible and viable common sense solution to stop such atrocities. If you don't agree, then you are the target of vile insults and accused of being apathetic and of loving your guns more than you care about protecting Children and so on.
           The term assault weapon is not truly a type of particular weapon, but  a label conjured up by liberal gun haters to try and malign and create negative connotations attached to certain weapons they feel should be kept from private ownership. Most of the law-makers calling for these bans, appear to base a weapons effectiveness or "evilness" on a purely cosmetic basis, which is one of whether a particular weapon has a Militarized appearance. Most have trouble describing what constitutes an "assault weapon" or explaining why certain traits should be banned  Rep.Carolyn McCarthy along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein are once again at the forefront of calling for a new AWB, but neither are any more informed now than they were then.How can you possibly call for a ban on something that you know nothing about. It's absolutely ludicrous.

         Piers Morgan was telling blatant lies on his program last night, calling the AR-15 a "machine gun" that shoots "exploding bullets".In truth, the AR-15 is not a machine gun capable of full auto fire(hold the trigger down) or Select Fire(Can choose Full Auto, Burst or Semi-Auto modes), but is rather semi-automatic like the vast majority of privately owned firearms. Semi-Auto is another term anti-gunners have tried to make something sinister, all means is that the for each time you pull the trigger, the gun fires one round only. All semi-automatics are very similar in rate of fire.
            What many older Americans simply call a "45" pistol  is one example of a semi-automatic and has been around for over 100 years.  The AR-15 does not cycle/shoot rounds off any faster than any other semi-automatic and our Military does not use the AR-15 , but rather the M4 and M16 which although very similar in appearance, simply are not the same weapons. The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite(the company that designed and first manufactured them) NOT "assault rifle" as some have incorrectly reported.It shoots a relatively small .223/5.56 "varmint round" which means it is not really powerful enough for even medium sized game like deer despite many in the media claiming it is "high powered". The fact is that Adam Lanza horrifically targeted tiny Children with tiny bodies, which means almost any firearm would have been devastating. Some talk in terms of "mitigating" causalities which I find almost a obscene discussion when talking about the murder of young School Children.The focus should be on stopping, not splitting hairs about type of weapon used. Lanza could have inflicted the same carnage with a couple of handguns just as Cho did at Virginia Tech(who used standard capacity magazines) and in close and confined quarters, the handgun is often more effective and deadly.
        The higher capacity magazines (or clips as they are incorrectly called by the media) are one item that ban supporters want removed from the hands of Civilians stating that these are "weapons of war"(which they simply are not) or that no Civilian needs one for Home Defense. The Practical  reason We the People need them is for the same reason the Police need them as we are surrounded by and may have to defend against the same Criminals.  The Philosophical reason is that we have a Second Amendment that gives us that right and has to be maintained for Liberty and uphold the founding principles of out Country. Some say the possibility of Government Tyranny is why we should be well armed which many scoff at, but the founders thought such things were not laughable at all. Look at history and what goes on around the World everyday and tell me Government tyranny is not real. Can't possibly ever happen here you say? Why? Such arrogance and denial and have collapses and brought down every great nation and empire history, so why are we so immune?

      A lot of folks in the media get their technical information from fictional television which portrays all firearms as instruments of untold power that will lift and a man off his feet, propelling him backwards and killing him before he even hits the ground. The truth is that even with relatively powerful firearms and relatively accurate shooting, it many times often takes several rounds to stop even a single assailant and it's always better to have some ammunition left over after a conflict than run out during one. Figure in Multiple attackers and the rounds needed multiply accordingly.Tactically, the larger magazines are often a trade off by on one hand they do offer longer sustained fire, but in close quarters they give a better handle at disarms which is exactly what happened in Tucson with Jared Loughner.Their practical application and use in self-defense has to be understood as well as does defending against the. The majority of Civilian self-defense scenarios are statistically resolved within a few or even sometimes a single shot, but often times it is not and there have many been actual examples of it taking a amazingly high number of shots to end the conflict.The following case(the Peter Soulis incident) was one of a Police officer who had to shot a crazed gunman 22 times before the man was stopped.17 of Soulis' bullets hit Center Mass, so even acceptably accurate combat shooting is no guarantee.

     Most anti-gunners oppose CCW/concealed carry claiming that innocent people will be hit in the crossfire.Would you really not want to take the risk of getting hit with friendly fire vs simply being slaughtered? You could say the same thing about the Police or Military. Such thinking is beyond comprehension and flat out ridiculous.The fact is that most CCW holders actually train more and better shooters than most LEO's. No one says YOU have to carry a weapon,but wouldn't it be nice to have an armed Citizen stop a crazed gunman from executing you?
            I've heard many political and media "pundits" claim to support home defense, but if that is the case, wouldn't one best be served by a high capacity weapon when your hunkered down in a safe room if multiple armed home invaders are trying to get to your and your family? What's the alternative, run out of ammo and wait to be slaughtered? The Police will likely arrive long after the carnage is over. Most shooting deaths occur in the inner-cities by illegally armed criminals which the media seems to care little about or report on.Where do these inner-city gangs get their guns? I am not completely sure of the main source of illegal gun traffic, but reducing it should be a primary focus not disarming law abiding suburban, small city and rural Americans which are the target of these silly laws.These mass school shooting are actually extremely rare, but get the most attention and used as tools to push a political agenda and claims that America is violently out of control which is true only in big cities which are controlled by Liberal lawmakers.

    The fact is that most anti-gunners are not going to be convinced of anything.They hate guns, they fear guns and they don't truly understand the concept of Liberty and Founding Principles our Country was founded on nor do they really care because they are "progressives" and think we need to move away from our roots and traditions irregardless of how special and unique in the World they truly are or how well they work.The problem is that they are not realists and think they can legislate a Utopian society or maybe they are just bitter and hostile looking for someone or something to blame. America is saturated with guns,you can't out the Genie back in the bottle and there is no easy simple answers.Bans and confiscation would only disarm the law abiding Citizen and make no one safer, in fact doing the exact opposite.Even if you could wave a magic wand and make all the guns disappear, I still would not support full disarmament. Why would I think that way? It is because Disparity of Force will still be present. Even if the violent criminals had no guns, some will be helpless to defend themselves against violence.The elderly, small women, the handicapped etc,but it could also refer to a positional or situational scenarios such as multiple opponent of someone armed with knife or club etc. or some has you in a helpless precarious position

        The American concept is one of Liberty for the Individual not a Collective, which for other nations is simply foreign and is incomprehensible."No man left behind".The good of the one or the good of the many concept for you Star Trek fans.We are Human not robots or emotionless Vulcans.The left is happy to let a few get slaughtered for a what they think is the greater good of reducing overall shootings(which isn't accurate either), but I'm not willing to give up my God given the right to use the most effective means to protect my Family.

        We all share the sorrow of what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary and I'm all for trying to prevent the next one, but banning certain weapons from law-abiding Citizens has proven not to work based on the effects of last AWB and renewing such a law will do nothing as well as stomping on our individual rights and Liberty.




Sunday, December 16, 2012

Newtown: Debating Gun Control, Abortion, Animal Rights, Mental Health... say what???

        Gun control once again is front and center following the tragic Sandy Hooks school of innocent Children. The liberal left is out in full force calling for widespread gun bans and some even calling for the confiscation of legally owned guns.They ignore that we already have gun control in this country and that it's more an issue of degree and perspective.Gun control like anything else is a subjective issue.
           Everyone shares outrage of this event as it is unique compared to other school shooting tragedies since this was an adult shooting early elementary aged Children rather than an older child murdering his peers.This shooting was simply an unspeakable abomination. But, how to proceed in preventing such atrocities from happening in the future. Liberals calling for anti-gun legislation should at least be familiar with gun technology,what it is they labeling an "assault weapon", before opening their mouth or making policy proposals. You only need to listen to 5 seconds of their rants to see they simply have no clue about what they are discussing or are arguing against.
Remember this classic... .Wanting to ban something and you don't even know what your banning. Brilliant!
         No one seems to really know for sure(I know I don't) despite their self-assured proclamations, but I am sure that ridiculous widespread gun bans that trample on the Constitution and stomp on personal Liberty are not the answer. Our friends in Europe that live under pseudo-Socialist Governments disagree, but they simply don't understand nor relate to the principles our County was founded on. America is about personal freedom and rights of the individual rather than the good of the collective.     
                You disarm the law abiding public leaving the vulnerable (the elderly, women, the handicapped etc.), you sacrifice some in the name of the collective. On the other hand, though we do our best to prevent tragedy, freedom always comes at some cost. People die in car accidents in general and from drunk drivers every single day, but we don't call on bans on cars  and alcohol as the failed experiment of prohibition showed that such bans don't work and lead to new problems. Plus they in direct opposition of what we stand.

     America is indeed saturated with guns(some 300 Million), so there is no easy way to go about preventing future tragedies and gun bans will do very little at this point. Irregardless, knee jerk sweeping reactions in response to Sandy Hook should be avoided and are no more an example of common sense than banning large soda's(thank you Bloomberg). It is not gun control(that we already actually have) that the left wants, but rather complete gun bans spawned from a misguided, simplistic way of thinking and unrealistic point of view.Objectivity is what is needed, not raw unbridled emotion.

          The issue of gun control is complex and nuanced much like the abortion debate. I say I'm pro-life and abortion absolutely sickens me, but if you pose to me the question of my Wife getting raped and subsequently pregnant, then I can honestly say not so much. If abortion is indeed Murder and I personally think it is, then how can it be allowed even in cases of rape and incest. I'm torn when confronted with the theoretical reality of my Wife's rape and there lies my personal dilemma with mixed feeling to say the least, but it does reframe the context of the argument. Rape though is an extremely small portion of the reasons why abortions are performed each year with nearly all being for casual convenience, so that should be considered and not forgotten in the discussion.  There is no easy answer although some with strong convictions and opinions say the issue is crystal clear.

      Animal rights is another topic that also has a lot in common with gun control and the abortion debate in that it is extremely complex and people have very strong opinions. Some pro-lifers say one is not pro-life if allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest just as many animal rights advocates say that unless your a vegan, your not concerned about the welfare of animals even of your against dog-fighting, rodeos, animal abuse and the killing of animals simply for sport and not food (all of which I oppose). The extreme vegan position is much like that of the far left liberal calling for complete bans of firearms.Such extreme perspectives are simply not sensible and not grounded in reality.They need to focus on the real problem and look for reasonable solutions that everyone can get behind and support.

                Then there will be the call from the left to keep guns out of the hands of the "Mentally Ill". Just who are they speaking about? Is it the elderly woman who lives alone in a rural area taking an anti-depressant after the death of her Husband of 60 plus years.....Is she "mentally ill" and therefore should be stripped of any means to defends herself ? My Grandmother is in that exact position right now. How about the harmless and passive shut-in that suffers from Agoraphobia(afraid to leave their house)? They are technically "mentally ill", so should they sitting ducks if someone should invade their home? Adjudicated mentally ill or ever an inpatient in a Mental Health facility? Those laws are already on the books.
               Some liberals are calling for mental health screening screening and extended vetting when purchasing a firearm.Who exactly is going to make the determination? Think of who our current administration labeled the greatest potential terrorist threats (Military Vets with Conservative views). Once again, the effort has to be focused and targeted on those that are violent and dangerous(have shown or been so in the past)or actually posing a danger (though can also often be hard to determine, so restraint and realistic, sensible measures are needed) rather than sweeping widespread measures that do more harm than good. This is exactly that slippery slope you hear about.

      I do think something does need to be done in the wake of Sandy Hooks, such as greater security and enforcement of current laws to start with, because it's just not being done. But we have to proceed with extreme caution erring on the side of it by stepping lightly to make sure we abide by our Constitution and Bill of Rights and not extinguish the flame of Liberty and Freedom.

Friday, December 7, 2012

Gun Control Is Killing Us- David Kenik


               The Virginia Tech shootings that occurred not long ago demonstrated a tragedy that runs far deeper than the obvious.The shootings are but one symptom of what is wrong with the mind-set and thought processes of all too many people. The second tragedy that day was that there was no one shooting back. Any potential heroes were disarmed by the school's "no guns" policy. Ironically,  just last year the Virginia General Assembly failed to pass a bill that would have enabled the carry of guns on campus. School officials hailed the decision by proclaiming that the students and faculty "can feel safe" knowing that there are no guns on campus.
            The reality is that there are guns on campus---guns in the hands of criminals. That is the problem with "gun -free zones" : They make the uninformed feel better when, in fact, they create victim-disarmament zones, or what I call "criminal empowerment zones."
               Just as a burglar will pick a home without a noisy dog, someone bent on human destruction will choose a location where their heinous crimes can be carried out unfettered by the return gunfire of potential victims. That's why shooting rampages don't take place at police stations or gun ranges. Israel solved the problem of school attacks by arming teachers. Hijackings of Israel's EL AL airliners ceased when armed marshals where placed on every flight.
             The most astonishing tragedy at Virginia Tech was the lack of survival mindset of the victims. Forensic evidence shows that many victims had wounds consistent with attempts to shield themselves, but there were no defensive wounds on the shooter. That tells us that the victims did not fight back and allowed themselves to be executed. The absence of a survival mindset is testament to the success of a liberal society's campaign to train us to not think for ourselves, not to act for ourselves and to rely on others for our safety and well being.
                   The Virginia Tech tragedy was one of several in recent years that illustrate liberal ideology at its worst. In many cases the consequences of not shooting back was death.-David Kenik

        This synopsis appeared in David Keniks "Heroic Consequences: article which was featured in the Guns & Ammos 2008 Book of Personal Defense. Mr.Keniks website is....

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Most Versatile Glock?

   While the Glock 17 is my personal favorite Glock model........
many consider the Glock 19 to be the most versatile and well rounded model that Glock makes, but I disagree and would give the title of most versatile Glock to the G26.I feel the Glock 19 is the ultimate compromise with it's reduced size not offering the shooting comfort,efficeny and ergonomics as the 17 while still being to big to offer much in concealment options as does the G26. Also, the finger grooves on the 19 are just spaced wrong with too little room on the top one under the trigger guard and it's hard for many men to get a full grip without pinkie sliding off.
           The Glock 26 on the other while having a shortened grip and lacking room for the pinkie at all, the spacing of the two finger grooves are full size just like the G17's and the good thing is that there are many option available if one wants a full grip or you can leave it stock for maximum concealability and CCW options such as ankle or pocket carry where the G19 is just way too big.The G26 will also accept the G19,G17 and 33 round G18 magazines and function perfectly fine although they will extend past the grip frame of course.
          If you want grip,you can get all your fingers on, Pearce Grip makes a variety of finger extensions which add length or length and rounds.There is also magazine grip adaptors like X-Grip which fit over a G19 or G17 mag giving you a full size grip, but my personal favorite is the Glock + which gives your pinkie a home(without the pinching of some extensions) as well as adding a couple more rounds. Some say extensions are pointless since they make the grip as long as a G19's, but that simply isn't the case.Most of the length added is at the front of the grip(but still isn't as long as a G19's) while length to the backstrap is minimal.The backstrap is the part of the grip most likely to print during CCW and the G19's backstrap is still significantly longer than the G26 even with extensions.And if need maximum concealment,pocket carry or ankle carry.....just use a standard G26 mag.
           A shorter barrel reduces velocity,but due to the Glocks particular hexagonal rifling, lost velocity isn't bad all and actually very minimal.
         The shortened muzzle of the G26 will carrying, drawing and accessing the weapon from concealment that much easier as well as making gun grabs/disarms harder and weapon retention easier and while the shorten grip does give you less of a solid, firm controlled grip during draw and shooting(especially dynamic/moving fire), it's is indeed trade-off although the G26 is a remarkably accurate, controllable and capable firearm on it's own in any circumstance.
      And why the G26 in 9mm specifically? Well,we are talking versatility and 9mm is an affordable round that is effective and that just about anyone can control and shoot well.Plus,it the most popular defense caliber in the world by far,so getting restocked anywhere won't likely be a problem.