Flawed Personal Defense Logic

        Self-Defense Instructors often form biases based on their individual experiences and training.Gun guys will see the gun as the solution to every defense problem and those from Military backgrounds will often filter Civilian self-defense through that perspective to try and make scenarios and solutions fit in with their training.The problem is real-world self-defense is not a Military battle nor a Police action.Case in point is Clint Smith who runs Thunder Ranch.I have all the respect in the world for Mr.Smith,but can't help but notice that he has a very limited view of what encompasses self-defense for the Civilian.
        Clint wrote an article entitled Personal Tactics and Awareness which appeared in American Handgunner's Personal Defense 2008 special edition issue. In one section Clint stated the following....

         "The range to the threat falls logically into three distances.First would be muzzle-contact,as in the threat at a distance their hands can touch you.This is very dangerous ground for fighting,contact gunfire,weapon retention and the fact it may negate or even delete even expert skill with guns.Knives and even Martial Art type skill should be considered.Whenever possible,or as soon as possible,a break of this contact would probably be best for the majority.If you're Bruce Lee or Luke Short incarnate,then go for it.The rest of us should back up.
        Second would be the "hole",generally described as just at arms length for both fighters.The proximity to the threat again negates skills.Everyone is a good shot at extended arms distances.You shoot them with a 1911 and they shoot they back with a cheapo .25 in the crotch-perfect.
          Third would be long range,and in my world this equates to about the width and length of a room or vehicle.There can be some work,yet my effort to extend the distance will probably be advantageous in the long run.So,anything creating distance provides time for decision-making and sometimes distance allows for better decisions.Distance provides time for marksmanship,and more distance could mean more or better or marksmanship or so it seems to work."

           Real civilian self-defense situations generally take place at 3 feet and under, so that is the ranges we should be most focused on rather than treat them as an after-thought as Mr.Smith does.He continually talks about creating distance as if it's something that is always available to the defender when that simply isn't true.He also repeats that close ranges negates skill. What does he even mean by that comment? Most modern reality-based self-defense instructors spend the majority of their time teaching and developing skill in close quarter ranges with guns, knives, sticks and bare hands. How does Mr.Smith propose to create this distance he speaks of since he doesn't spend much time cultivating skill in this range and most fights erupt suddenly face to face with ambush style attacks.Your assailant will not likely broadcast his nefarious intent from across the street and if you have such ample distance or were able to create it you would likely have time to escape and shooting would not be ethically or legally justified unless he was armed and point a gun or actually shooting at you. Distance and a drawn firearm would likely end most defense situations unless it was indeed an actual gun fight and those are extremely rare for Civilians and you're better of moving to cover/concealment or shooting while moving to cover/concealment than drawing and shooting from a static position or location unless you are already there.
            
             There are ways to create distance, but you will have to be well versed in the skills to be able to do so safe and effective and that involves more than simply backing up. Last I checked, most people can move forward faster than backwards plus there is the added time of having to draw your weapon, so we are going to have to deal with an initial attack with other integrated skills,tactical L's, lateral and circular evasive and defensive movements and tactics etc. before even transitioning to the firearm and even then if it's justified. What if you are knocked to the ground or have an assailant of top of you? There is no creating distance until your up on your feet and you need skills beyond marksmanship to accomplish that.Real-World self-defense takes a myriad of integrated skill and you must be able to effectively in all ranges especially the close ones where it will almost always start.  
            
           Mr.Smith's comment...... "Whenever possible,or as soon as possible,a break of this contact would probably be best for the majority.If you're Bruce Lee or Luke Short incarnate,then go for it.The rest of us should back up."    really struck me as irresponsible on two different front. First is that often breaking contact once engaged may indeed actually be the very worst thing to do tactically for gaining control or disarming depending on the circumstances and if & with what the assailant is armed as well as the timing or timeline of what is occurring at the moment in the particular incident .Or perhaps a temporary or momentary disengagement to reset, evade or gain position is what's warranted .If your unarmed and he has a gun that your grappling for, obviously disengaging will likely get you shot.You would not disengage from or "back up" from an assailant that you have disarmed or gained and let him regain his weapon or attack you again. Avoiding the conflict or escaping it altogether is ideal, but  the matter of escape once engaged  is a nuanced subject and is done so only if is safer or tactically better to do so although I feel it will most often likely be the most sound tactic.However, running or trying to escape from an attacker that is faster than you and armed with a knife or a club might very well get you stabbed in the back or hit over the head from behind.There's lot of specific sceanrio variables to contend with & explore as to when an escape is best accomplished. Backing up, tactical L's, lateral movement,circular movements whether strategic or purely defensive are situational specific as there is no one single best answer that applies to every scenario and what is occurring at a particular point in time of the specific incident.Smith is referring to backing up/creating space to draw a firearm,but the assailant will not stand likelyy idly by and let you do that since he is the aggressor that attacked you in the first place which leads me into my second point.
               
             I use the word assailant rather than opponent since we are referring to self-defense means we didn't start the conflict nor do we wish for it. Mr.Smith says "go for it" if you have superior abilities, but everyone else should back up or break the contact. Personal Defense special edition annual was the name of the name of the magazine his article appeared in not Street-Fighting special edition annual and such thinking has no place in self-defense and is in stark contrast contradicting the true nature of self-defense since if one can avoid the situation or escape it safely, then it is their moral, ethical & usually legal obligation to do so and what real self-defense is all about.   

The Best gun for Home Defense

An excellent article by Kathy Jackson.Check out her Cornered Cat website

The best gun for home defense is ...A Handgun?
By Kathy Jackson

     Conventional wisdom says a 12-gauge shotgun is best for home defense. I disagree with this conventional wisdom. To my way of thinking, the best gun for home defense is (drumroll please) ... the gun you can get to quickly and use efficiently. Whether or not that's a shotgun, a rifle, or a handgun depends entirely upon you and your circumstances. But there are some strong reasons to consider the handgun as a good tool for a home defense gun.A handgun is easily transported around the house, invisible to friends and casual callers but still within your direct control at all times. It is easy to answer the doorbell armed with a handgun, without anyone being the wiser. The handgun can even be drawn, discreetly concealed behind one leg as you open the door. Unlike a long gun, a handgun can always be available for instant use without unnecessarily threatening legitimate callers.

      Handguns are also most easily kept accessible to adults but out of the hands of small children, more so than shotguns and rifles. As I've written elsewhere, when our children were very small, I soon began to develop a well-earned skepticism about my ability to know what the little darlings were up to in the next room. The kids, bless their active little hearts, gave me more than a few exciting little lessons about why I should not trust "child-proof" locks, or (worse) simply rely on their good natures to stay out of trouble. And the day I found a two-year-old sitting on top of my refrigerator, I realized that putting things "up high where the kids can't get it" was just a sick little joke.

"He'll never look there!"

      My harrowing parenting experiences soon taught me that if I wanted the kids to stay out of something, I should not rely on anything less than a lock designed to keep adults out of that thing. A gun locked inside a sturdy safe would frustrate an adult thief, and so I could also trust the lock on the gun safe to keep my children out. But a gun balanced on the top shelf of the closet, hidden between the mattresses of the bed, or leaned casually against a wall in an off-limits bedroom would be just as easily accessible to a determined child as to an adult thief. If the gun was out of my sight, it had to be stored in a way designed to defeat an adult thief.With children in the home, the gun that is out of adult sight absolutely has to be locked up. But it is really a lot slower and less certain to get at the gun in a hurry if you have to force your terrified brain to remember a combination, or persuade your trembling fingers not to drop the keys or fumble them. When faced with an immediate and deadly danger, even split seconds count.

  Keeping the home defense gun out of my children's hands was problem one. Problem two, of course, was being sure I myself could get to the gun quickly enough if the unthinkable happened. I kept thinking about this second problem, and the more I thought about it, the less happy I was.

       Experts generally agree that the best plan for a home defense situation is to get yourself and your family behind a single locked door, such as in the master bedroom or some other "safe room." Then you can hunker down behind some large piece of furniture and await events with gun in hand. If the police arrive first, they can deal with the intruder for you. If they don't, you can protect yourself until they do arrive.
So it did seem to me that the sensible place to store my home defense shotgun, if I got one, was behind a good lock somewhere in my bedroom. Maybe it would be out of sight too, but definitely locked up where the kids could not get it. The inherent slowness of a lock worried me, but once I got the gun unlocked, it would be readily available if I awakened to the sound of a home intruder.
           But what if I wasn't in my bedroom when an intruder entered? What if I was, instead, in the front room with the children? Would I leave my children in the same room as the intruder in order to go fetch the long gun from my bedroom? What if, as soon as I bolted for the firearm, the intruder picked up one of my children and simply ... left? Perish the thought!

I found myself thinking, There has to be a better way.

   There was. Rather than struggling for ways to store and then to quickly release a long gun locked up in some out-of-the-way location at the back of the house, I could instead keep an easily accessible handgun in a holster on my body when I was at home. That solved both problems. First, while I might not know what my active little sweethearts were up to in the back room when the house went suspiciously quiet, I would always know whether or not their little fingers were prying the gun out of the holster on my hip. In this way, the loaded and easily accessible handgun on my hip was actually more secure than the "securely locked" long gun in another room.Second, with the gun on my belt (or in a fanny pack) at all times, there could be no question of having to abandon the children to the tender mercies of an intruder while I ran to fetch a gun. The gun would be with me and instantly available.

Sleeping

   At this point, some of my readers are probably wondering how in the world I keep a handgun on my body when I sleep. I don't, of course. At night, I habitually lock my bedroom door. I have done this ever since my children were very small. We used to have a row of baby monitors, one for each of the kids' rooms and one for the living room, lined up on my dresser at night. If one of the kids awakened in the night, I would know it -- and I would know it before the adorable munchkin dropped a full cup of juice on my face as I slept, or vomited onto my pillow just as I opened my eyes. Behind my locked bedroom door, the gun is secured in a fanny pack placed inside an open safe. Inside the fanny pack, there's a flashlight, a charging cell phone, and a spare magazine with extra ammunition -- any of which I might need in a hurry if an intruder is in our home. If something awakens me in the night, I can quickly pull the fanny pack on over my robe. Looks goofy, but it works. If I don't want to take the gun with me, I simply swing the safe door shut and lock it before opening my bedroom door.

 Tactical Stuff

    During an emergency,you can easily carry a handgun in one hand, and you can easily shoot it with one hand. This emphasis on one-handed use might sound a bit silly to someone who does not expect to get injured during a crisis. Why would you need a gun which can easily be fired with one hand?
         An injury to one hand or the other really is not outside the realm of possibility. But even if we set that aside and do not consider it in our planning, you may very well need one hand free to do things like open or close bedroom doors, tote the phone, keep a tight hold on a child's hand, or carry a baby across the hall to the safe room. Any or all of these things may need to be done during a home invasion, and few of them can be done well (or at all) while carrying a long gun.

It is a good idea to study close-quarters retentions.2

     A handgun is also more easily used in tight quarters than a long gun is. If an intruder rushes you in the hallway, you may not have room to bring the long gun to bear before he is on you. But the handgun can be fired while it is very, very close to the body, and needs very little room to use.
        Whether you decide to use a long gun or a handgun for home defense, it is really a good idea to get some practice in close-quarters work. That means learning how to defend the gun from a sudden and unexpected grab, and also how to get the gun away from an opponent who has already gotten his hands on it. Which is easier to defend against a grab, a long gun or a handgun? That all depends. My personal experience has been that it is easier to prevent a handgun from getting grabbed in the first place, but if there's room to work, a long gun provides a lot of wonderful leverage to help you defeat the grab. Neither defense is instinctively natural, and both have to be learned from someone who knows the secrets.

      It is generally a bad idea to move through the home when intruders are present. As mentioned above, experts strongly recommend you just hunker down in a safe room with your family rather than wandering around looking for someone to kill you. But realistically, this hunkering-down is not always immediately possible. You might need to grab a young child and bodily move her to the safe room with you, for example.
If you do need to move through the home with gun in hand, handguns are generally easier to deal with while moving around corners and in tight spaces. Remember the intruder could be hiding anywhwere, and may be waiting for the opportunity to grab you or the gun. Even people who are highly trained sometimes have a hard time moving around corners with a long gun, without allowing the barrel of the long gun to precede them around the corner. This is less likely to happen with a handgun.

Other Considerations

      Money was an issue too. I'll admit that right up front. An important budget item to consider for any defensive weapon is training. I trust my handgun because I have trained extensively with it. I know how to load it and unload it. I know how to shoot it accurately, how to clear jams, how to reload it, how to fire accurately while walking, running, moving, hiding behind cover. I learned all those things in classes where talented (and stubborn) instructors taught me the most efficient ways to do them. And I have practiced with the handgun so much that it feels very nearly like an extension of my hand when I am holding it.
          Could I get all that training and do all that practice with a long gun? Of course I could! But I already had the handgun, and was already getting handgun training. Although from the size of this website, you might think I'm a little obsessive about firearms, the truth is that I have a whole lot of other things to do with my time and money. Learning a new firearm as well as I already knew my handgun, would have literally doubled the amount of time and money I spent on training. For me, given my budget and time constraints, it just made more sense to focus all my training time and training money into learning one system really really well.

           If you are a concealed carry permit holder, you probably consider the handgun an acceptable defensive choice while you are out and about during the day. All other things being equal, it will be less expensive and simpler to just use that same defensive firearm at home at night, too. The handgun might produce less overall power than the shotgun or the rifle, but it is no less effective at home than it is when you are out and about. And you trust it with your life when you are out and about.
         But if carrying a handgun at home seems too much of a hassle to you, and if you do not have small children to complicate the issue, or if you are able to secure a long gun in such a way that you are confident you could get to it in a hurry, then a shotgun or carbine may indeed be the best choice for your home defense.

Reasons to Avoid a Long Gun

     Rifles and shotguns do have a lot going for them: power, ease of aim, and the intimidation factor. Shotguns offer another important benefit, which is the huge versatility of ammunition choices. But long guns are also bulky, do not lend themselves to being discreetly carried to the door when someone knocks after dark, and are not easily kept quickly accessible to responsible adults while safely secured from children and the clueless. They can't get dropped into a fanny pack and it's difficult (not impossible with adequate training) to operate a long gun one-handed. These drawbacks are worth taking into account too.
          The myths about a shotgun not needing to be aimed, or about the mere sound of it driving intruders off, are just that: myths. Don't bet your life on those! But like all myths, both of these have a small germ of truth hidden inside them: a long gun is easier to aim than a handgun, and shotguns are powerful enough that a marginal hit may be enough to do the job anyway.
       As for the sound being enough to drive an intruder away, if you have not squarely faced and accepted the notion of killing someone else to defend your own life, a firearm -- any firearm! -- is nothing but a dangerous nuisance. If that's a factor for you, you need to get your own ethical/moral/religious issues worked out before you arm yourself with a deadly weapon.

Conclusion

  The best gun for self-defense is the one you can get to in a hurry and use efficiently. For me, that was a handgun. For you, it might be something else. Whatever you choose, take careful thought to how you will safely secure the firearm. Purchase appropriate accessories for it. And get training in how to use it effectively.

    SOURCE: http://www.corneredcat.com/A_Handgun_for_Home_Defense/

Massad Ayoob - Cato Institute - Stand Your Ground Laws

         Mas does a fantastic job of laying out the facts from the nonsense & flat out lies that a lot of folks in the liberal media are putting forth regarding the true nature & details of stand your ground laws.If these laws were in reality shoot first/license to kill & allow someone to use force including deadly force if simply scared/nervous/feel threatened as some falsely describe them as then I would be against them myself, but that is simply not true at all.If you read them over you'll see they are not all that different from the self-defense laws that were already on the books and that stand your ground laws are in fact quite reasonable & sensible common sense pieces of legislature.

Military Operations vs Civilian Self-Defense

       Military training & skills simply are not all that conducive to real-world self-defense.Navy SEALS and other SF "Tier 1" operators are often put on a pedestal as being the ultimate in practical & functional skills that translate to the Real-World ,but they really only applicable to the battlefield and in the context of the mission descriptions that they work under.Civilian Self-Defense is a whole different matter needing a different skill set and consisting of different scenarios.
           First and most importantly is the weapons used.You don't and can't carry an M4 or HK416 around in daily Civilian life.At best your allowed to carry a small handgun and it must be concealed and SEALs and other don't spend much time on drawing from concealment or even a whole lot of time training with Civilian CCW style handguns.And sometime you will have to defend without weapons at all.CCW is not allowed in Illinois,on airplanes or in Federal building as well as in many businesses etc.Secondly,SEALs operate in teams.You always have someone watching your back and each member has his own tasks he performs.In real-world Civvie self-defense,your on your own. Third,SEAL and other similar units generally operate in an offensive manner picking and choosing when & where the fight will take place.You are not normally afforded such luxuries and will have to fight from a defensive position against an attack that will likely be sudden and unexpected.
         Most of these concepts apply to the Military overall ,SWAT and much Police work as well although Law Enforcement has more in common with Civilian defense than does the Military. There are many gun-fighting schools and many Instructors teaching gunfighting & self-defense.Many of the Instructors are ex-Military and look at everything through that prism.They try and apply tactics from the battlefield and apply them to self-defense.They drill long-range gun-fight scenarios when civilian real-world self-defense situations usually take place at very close ranges.Handgun skills as well as Unarmed training is a prerequisite for the civilian whereas they are an afterthought for the Military.
          I think perhaps many of these Instructors actually do know the difference, but they have a business to run & need to keep signing students up for their courses teaching skills that Civilians interested in self-defense generally don't need.They will focus and 25 & 50 yard engagements with pistols & even farther distances with Rifles and Carbines.In what realistic legal scenario will these skills come in useful? They won't!  A self-defense situation will likely start and end at contact distances and be over quickly with it being resolved with violence or fleeing.There are exceptions,but they are just that rather than the rule and it makes sense to focus on what's 90-95% probably rather than the the 1-5%.       

The Necessity of Unarmed & Improvised Weapon Skills

                       A lot of people are under the impression that a gun will solve all critical self-defense situations or that just some integrated unarmed skills to deal with surprise unexpected ambush attacks & that allow them to transition to their firearm is all that's needed, but that is completely false. Those skills are important, but what they fail to realize are that there are many times when individuals are not allowed to carry a firearm and often it is in places where the possibility of having a violent confrontation and needed to defend yourself is relatively high since they are often hotspot targets for those bent on committing mayhem.Airports and on Airplanes is one as well as the Post Office, Court Houses & any Federal building.Carrying any type of weapon in these places is pretty much off limits and why you need to be well versed in unarmed self-defense against armed individuals as well as unarmed ones.

                  Improvised weapons is also a skill you should also be proficient in should the SHTF in one of these locations.You need the ability to recognize and be able to use effectively items that are available in your environment as potential self-defense weapons. Most of your improvised weapon training & preparation should focus should be on items that are commonly available across the board in these places so familiarize yourself with what would most likely be available. There are also a few "non-weapons" such as canes, pens and even combs, keys some of which are purpose built weapons and other that are not purpose built weapons that will serve as defensive weapons and that you can generally take with you & carry anywhere.I would avoid items or graphics that would imply that  it's primary purpose & design is that of a weapon.Unarmed skills are still an essential part of the foundation and are of vital importance irregardless of what's in environment since a weapon can be dropped, lost or simply unavailable, but you'll always have your unarmed skills with you no matter where you go.

                  Aside from the possibility of not being allowed to carry a firearm or other weapon is the likely scenario where lethal force or even any type of escalated force beyond unarmed skill is not warranted.You can't shoot someone who throws a hay-maker your way and you can punch someone in the face because they pushed you.Law dictates that we use force according to the deal with/defend against the threat and anything beyond that is unlawful or excessive use of force and you will be charged and go to jail. 

          Jail is another place where your likely to be attacked and you definitely won't be packing heat or any weapon for that matter nor even likely have access to any real effective improvised weapons unless your some hardcore felon making an illegal homemade shiv. Even if your a law-abiding Citizen, people often can get arrested for pretty minor & mundane stuff such as a bar scuffle or even something as slight as a shoving match or perhaps some type traffic violation, DUI etc. but they all still go to the same jail as the hardcore criminals. Just something else to consider even for the mostly law-abiding citizen that makes a mistake with a momentary error in judgement to be a little better in putting oneself in situations that might end with potentially bad consequences & simply staying out of high risk and dangerous places.
             The primary goal of self-defense irregardless if you have a weapon or not is to avoid violent confrontation in the first place.Personal defense exponents often focus so much on their actual skills that they neglect the giving much attention on how to avoid conflicts.Situational Awareness of potential threats, recognizing and reacting to a real threat once it occurs,de-escalation skills as well as possible escape routes in your environment to simply remove you and your family away from the situation altogether are of top importance.
     I would also stress that overall & even just basic general physical fitness is often overlooked as well by many reality-based self-defense exponents.The stronger & fitter you are, the better you'll be able to defend you and yours as well be more likely able to deal with and survive & thrive in any situation. Cross-Fit/Cross Training programs that combine and cover the complete spectrum of total fitness are ideal.You never know what you might encounter or what you may have to physically do in a real life-threatening self-defense(or any)situation & the adaptability and enhanced abilities that fitness will give you is priceless. As Bruce Lee once one said....."too much time is given to the development of skill and too little too the development of the individual for participation".  

Non-Toxic Gun Care

  

       Due to Pantheon Chemical taking M-Pro 7 & Hoppes Elite Gun Oils & CLP's down a toxic turn, I'm looking for some new non-toxic gun care products once my stock of M-Pro 7 CLP is completely used up. I'll continue to add(or delete)products as I come across them or find out more information regarding their safety and efficiency.In determining if a particular product is non-toxic........
                    1.) the first thing to do is look at the label itself.If it's truly non-toxic, then it will be on the label since that is a big plus in any circumstance that the company will want to advertise .
                   2.) Second, look for any warnings on the label regarding inhalation of vapors, using adequate venilation,exposure causing brain & nervous system damage, harmful or fatal if swallowed etc. If it's truly non-toxic, it shouldn't have these warnings.(Ballistol has such a warning about ingestion,but according to the company it's actually consumed elsewhere in the World for medicinal purposes,but since it hasn't gone through the legal processes and expense to have it approved here,consumer laws mandate the label.I've poured over the ingredients many times and can find nothing hazardous about it,especially in liquid form which is what I'd recommend)
                3.)Third and most important is too look over the MSDS sheet as this will alert you of any hazardous chemicals.It's true the companies themselves prepare their own MSDS, but they must be law list any potentially hazardous ingredients.If they don't and get caught leaving something out,they will face major consequences. Some companies will tweak the MSDS to make it not sound as bad as it really is or mislabel Health risk ratings,so look up the ingredients listed yourself.

CLPs
Froglube
SEAL1
Weapon 3X(formerly Weapon CLP)
Ballistol
Slip 2000 ELW
Gunzilla
WeaponShield
Firepower FP-10
Green CLP
Pro-Shot 1 step solvent/lube

Other
MiraChem
Mil-Comm
Shooter's Choice (lots of non-tox products)
M-Pro 7 (Cleaners only)-Gun Cleaner & Copper Remover
Hoppes Elite(Cleaners only)-Gun Cleaner & Copper Terminator
Blue Wonder
Slip 2000
Bore-Tech
RB-17
Limbsaver Ecosafe Gun Oil
Militec (referred to this, but haven't read information or MSDS for it yet)

Is M-Pro 7 Gun Oil LPX Toxic?

         

                           
      M-Pro 7 has replaced their CLP and Gun Oil with something called Gun Oil LPX .Gone from the LPX label is the Non-Toxic/Non-Hazardous/Bio-Degradable/Environmentally safe banner that was so familiar on M-Pro 7 products.

                I looked up the MSDS sheet on the M-Pro 7 website to see if there was anything that would make them lose the non-toxic label and I immediately noticed the Health Rating for the LPX is a 1 instead of a 0 like the CLP & Gun Oil(The companies are responsible for writing up their own MSDS sheets by the way). I then looked up a new ingredient listed called Tritolyl Phosphate aka TCP among other names which is actually a neurotoxin according to the Wikipedia entry.The MSDS for Tritolyl Phosphate labels it as Toxic to the Nervous System of Humans and a Permeator. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organ damage. Routes of entry are inhalation,ingestion,eye contact & dermal contact. Carcinogenic,Mutagenic & Teratogenic effects & Developmental toxicity: "Not available". Biodegradable ? I don't think so since MSDS  says "the products of Bio degradation are MORE TOXIC".  DOT classification-Poisonous Material,OHSA-Hazardous.WHMIS-TOXIC,HMIS & NFPA heath ratings are a 2. Granted these are for TCP by itself, but LPX is approximatly 10% Tritolyl Phoshate according to their MSDS. 

From the CDC........
*Routes of exposure

Triorthocresyl Phosphate can affect the body if it is inhaled,comes in contact with the eyes or skin,or is swallowed.It may enter the body through the skin.

*Effects of overexposure
Triorthocresyl phosphate may cause paralyses of the lower arms and legs if it is swallowed,inhaled(as a fog,mist or aerosol),or absorbed through skin

CDC link http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0642.pdf


Triorthocresyl phoshate is simply another name for Tritolyl Phosphate as OHSA states here  http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_274200.html

According to the New Jersey Departent of Health and Senior Services Harzadous Sustance Fact Sheet  (page 2)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         TCP May Damage the Male Reproductive System(TESTES)in animals 

 I think it's clear why the non-toxic banner is now gone.The M-Pro 7 CLP & Gun Oil as well as the Hoppes Elite Field Cleaner CLP and Gun Oil have all been discontinued and replaced with products containing TCP which include M-pro 7 LPX, Hoppes Elite Gun Oil T3 and Venom Gun Oil T3.Pantheon makes the Hoppes Elite line and the products have been nearly identical in chemistry & use for all intents and purposes.The Hoppes Elite "Field Cleaner" was a great non-toxic CLP, but was marketed very poorly with a bad name choice . My opinion is Pantheon should simply bring back the safe M-Pro 7 and Hoppes Elite products(especially both CLPs)and work a little more diligently on their marketing .Rebranding the CLPs M-Pro 7 Gun Oil CLP and Hoppes Elite Gun Oil CLP as one option or simply CLP for both leaving out the Gun oil on the label.

The products with TCP are supposed to perform a little better, but at what cost?  The old products met all requirements and performed perfectly adequate, so what & where is there anything to gain? You get a little extra performance when no extra performance was actually needed at the expense of being exposed to toxic chemicals.It's a toxic solution to a problem that didn't even exist.

I've read enough that I won't personally be using anything with TCP in it, but thankfully there are a lot of good non-toxic CLPs on the market that don't have it as an ingredient.      

Spyderco Delica: First Generation

          I've been a fan of the Spyderco Clip-it's since their inception over 20 years ago.I have owned many Spyderco's over the years, but the Endura and Delica remain my two favorite EDC choices & I primarily carry the Delica due to local legal requirements.
           The Delica pictured on the bottom is a first generation model # C11SBK.It's a rather rare and hard to find model that Spyderco only made one year(1995) and it's been my constant companion for 17 years.It has a black coated G2/Gin-1 blade and is fully serrated.I actually prefer partially-serrated or plain edge for EDC,but this is all they had and the positive attributeses of this knife outweigh any negatives of a fully serrated blade(catching on clothing, harder to sharpen, less dexterity for delicate everyday tasks).
      The first Gen Clip-its had a integrated frame molded plastic clip which I still prefer. Most people don't like them since it's not ambidextrous(most are for righties)and you can't switch sides or positions(choose tip up or tip down carry), but it works for me and my preferred carry method(I'm right-handed and only carry tip down).
             I've heard complaints about the plastic clips breaking,but mine have always been very sturdy and I've had more problems with the metal clips coming loose(they are screwed into the frame)or scratching anything I've leaned against of bumped into(i.e. car doors).
              The G2/Gin 1 has always preformed well and never shown an ounce of rust or corrosion whereas I've had AUS 8 clip-it's show both rust and pitting in the metal. The VG-10 used on newer models is good as well and I own knives that have it and I've never had a problem with them either although Spyderco Customer Service has told me that the G2 might have a slight edge over the VG-10 from a pure rust/corrosion resistant standpoint. It is not as hard and won't hold an edge & perform as well as the newer "super-steels",but  I can accept that since I like the design so much more and carry it primarily as an emergency & self-defense knife, not as as box-cutter or work knife.The frame is pinned together, so their isn't any screws to work loose and it is not metal lined which might not quite as durable, but less metal to possibly rust and a little lighter.
        The knife on top is a First Gen Delica model # C11SBK which I recently acquired from a gunshop that had it stashed in the back of a case. It was NIB(new in the box)and a very rare find so I was thrilled to find it to compliment my favorite EDC knife. It's identical to my #C11SBK except it doesn't have have a black finished blade(which I would have preferred)and would have been manufactured between 1990 & 1994,but it's looks like came right out of the factory yesterday.I don't plan on carrying it, but just have it as a spare to my EDC and maybe one day I'll actually find another #C11SBK.

Competitive Shooting is Merely a Game

      Shooting sports such as the IDPA(International Defensive, IPSC (International Practical Shooting Confederation)and USPSA (United States Practical Shooting Association)are very popular and often considered by many to be a good measure of your self-defense capability with a pistol.I have to disagree.
        While these events can be fun and that's fine if you like to participate,but they are not reflective of the reality of what happen or all that valuable in preparing you to defend yourself in a real gunfight or self-defense shooting and can even develop some very bad habits.
      The most glaring and obvious thing lacking in competitive sport shooting is the lack of an opponent.There is no one shooting back at you! In a recent issue of GUNS magazine the following was stated................

“Why do Defensive Handgun Owners Compete? For the same reason Professional Fighters spar.”

        OK fine, but the problem is pro-fighter spar with an opponent not the air or against a heavy bag or target.They must have an opponent to build reflexes,tactics,strategies and learn to be able to be reactive and respond to unplanned. Sport shooting is simply pre-arranged course of shooting paper targets,there is no one to react to and "pro-fighters" are sportsman not self-defense exponents as I pointed out in my previous post. If you do a lot of these sport shooting competitions you will get good at doing sport-shooting competitions, not real-world defense.Their goal is to run the course and hit the paper target as fast they can since the are timed. Real fights are not timed and since you have to worry about someone shooting back at you,stabbing you,hitting you with a tire iron,grabbing you,punching you,taking you down,stomping you etc,,you can see that simply running a pre-arranged course does little to address this and prepare you for them.Getting in the habit of using cover as an after-thought and using methods that allow you to run the course as fast as possible can instill bad habits through repetition.
            Your going to be concentrating on hitting the paper targets,getting to the next stage as quick as possible all coordinated withe organizations rules.Proper use of cover & concealment is not taught nor advantageous in these sports nor is a full awareness of ones environment all which are every pertinent for real world gunplay.Is there some possible cross-over skills? I say yes,but the bad outweighs the good.
         If you wanting to prepare for real-world scenarios,shooting paper is fine, but do so using visualization and set up your course so that is mimics real-life as best as possible and mix it up doing various types of simulated situations and changing how you run the course,directions,timing imagining different scenarios since things in real-life don't happen according toe-arranged choreographed movements.
    Chuck Taylor has written extensively about the differences between Sport and Real Shooting,so check out his articles.Gabe Suarez is another Instructor that has a lot of info outline the stark contrast between the two.
              The best single training method is FoF(Force on Force)training using airsoft guns, simunitions or even paintball guns(not ideal though) where you safely run scenarios and actually have someone that you are not in control of shooting back at you.You can also do close-quarter contact training using training knives,guns and incorporate actual free-style dynamic movements that force you to actually respond & react.You work some specific situational based scenarios to unpredictable full scale defense scenarios.There is a lot of good protective gear such as Tony Blauers High Gear,Red-Man Suits and the like on the market that will allow you to engage in pretty much full out FoF.
           None of the best Reality-Based Instructors such as Gabe Suarez, Kelly McCann, Mike Janich, Chuck Taylor, Rob Pincus,Tony Blauer just to name a few compete in gun games & that should speak volumes..    

 Consider the following comments by Chuck Taylor........

 Competition vs. Combat

           Many shooters today have been led to believe that the top IDPA/IPSC competition shooters are appropriate role models for self-defense training. The truth is there is a vast difference between using a handgun for competition and combat, so vast that many of the techniques commonly used in competition are in fact suicidal in a real gunfight and others are an open invitation to legal or civil liability problems. If your interest is competition, find an instructor who is a successful competitor and possesses good teaching skills. There are very many highly skilled shooters that fall into this category and the worst that can happen if you pick one with a second rate training program is that your score at the next match will be a bit lower than expected. Choosing an instructor for self-defense training that bases the techniques they teach on “competition results” can have much more serious consequences.

        Now don’t misunderstand, we are not saying that anyone who shoots in competition is automatically disqualified to teach self-defense. What you need to know is where the techniques they will teach you come from – playing games or fighting? Nor are we saying only winners of a gunfight should teach, you don’t have to break your own leg to know how to set one. (Besides, many who have won gunfights have done so more by luck than skill and because they won, have failed to recognize the inadequacies of the techniques they used.) Instructors must be evaluated on an individual basis, including those trading primarily on having a police or military background. The truth is the military spends very little time training with pistols compared with other small arms, neither organization is known for their use of cutting edge techniques and much of what both organizations do is inappropriate or illegal for the average citizen. Time spent in one of these occupations does not in itself either make anyone an expert or disqualify them from being knowledgeable in the field. To repeat, it is the totality of the instructor's training and experience, along with his ability to select material that appropriately fills your actually needs, that must be considered.

       Much of what has appeared in the last four decades is relatively worthless for self-defense because it's the result of competition target shooting in one form or another.From good old-fashioned bulls-eye competition to PPC shooting to ISPC and it's related endeavors,competition has contributed little to self-defense.Not surprisingly,a number of instructors from the realm of competition have also surfaced,presenting the concepts and techniques used to win pistol matches as being state-of-the-art. However,inasmuch as their methods were developed solely for competition in mind, some tend to reflect a lack of cognizance,a lack of knowledge and lack of perspective on the critical fact that competition bears absolutely no resemblance to combat. Competitive shooting allows the participant to pre-examine the course of fire,determine how to best deal with it and even practice it in advance until he feels he has reached an acceptable efficiency level.In other words,he has the luxury of pre-solving his problems. In combat,the opposite is true,which is why for well over 100 years,competition shooting techniques have always failed save lives when applied to life-and-death situations.You can't pre-solve self-defense problems.Self-defense is a serious business,a business in which ego-drive,the primary motivator of all forms of competition,cam quite literally get you killed.

      Pleased understand that I have nothing against competition.In fact,I was once a world-class IPSC shooter,but sport shooting did not teach me how to stay alive in the multiple gunfights I've been in during my lifetime. Though I'd shot small-bore competition as a boy and Service Pistol Bulls-eye competition for awhile in the U.S.Army .I subsequently discovered in the jungles of southeast Asia that such endeavors had no such semblance whatsoever to reality.

        Were the fun? Yes,absolutely. Did they demand skill,perseverance,dedication,time and energy? Yes,of course,and I admire all of those things,regardless of the activity to which they're applied. Still,the artificiality of it all-the known chronology of events,the failing to properly balance accuracy and speed,the irrelevant targets,foot-racing and a total lack of tactical awareness and understanding-invalidates competition as an effective combat training tool. A police officer I once knew always asked any instructor whose class he attended if he carried a gun for a living.If the answer was no, he'd then ask why the Instructor though he was qualified to teach him anything. Invariably,the Instructors reply was that he'd been a championship competitive shooter and his techniques were thus superior.The officer would then ask him,"In what way? You can't pre-solve self-defense problems.". Invariably silence followed.

        A handgun fight is close to the ultimate in uncontrolled environments,but the the competitor has no way of knowing that.His activities all take place in the most controlled environment as possible-a shooting range.How can he possibly understand the dynamics of deadly force? The answer is simple-he can't,and that's why competitive techniques and instructional programs prove to be less than optimum when the bullets fly for real.

          Again,in spite of what some competition shooters think, I am not anti-competition.On the other hand, having been both a successful competitor and a survivor of multiple gunfights,I believe I am uniquely qualified to judge the difference,which is nothing less than extreme. And as much, I can't in good faith recommend to anyone that pursues training with anyone whose background,concepts and techniques are based upon competition alone.
Competition is fine, but let's not call it combat.To do otherwise is plain wrong-dangerously wrong, in fact.

Chuck Taylor

SOURCES:    Tactical Handgun Training by Chuck Taylor- Guns & Ammo Book of Personal Defense
                       &
                      Defense Associates

MMA is a SPORT!

       










      This may once again fall on deaf ears, but I'll try again anyway. The UFC, MMA is not real street-fighting or combat.It doesn't prove what the most effective techniques are for real-world self-defense(participation would be contradictive in itself to the very core philosophy of self-defense anyway)and the participants are not the "worlds most dangerous men". Once upon a time, people thought Karate was the most deadly thing outside of having a .357 Magnum.  Karate Tournament winners such as Chuck Norris, Joe Lewis and Bill Wallace became famous as being the most deadly men on the planet ignoring that Sport Karate was a SPORT & not even real Karate with a bazillion rules rather than actual unarmed combat.Then came Kickboxing and people thought the same way with that as well even though it was a sport.Then in the Early 90's came the UFC and even though it did originally feature very few rules and would have eventually been very telling for what's effective in WEAPONLESS ONE-ON-ONE UNARMED FIGHTING. It was still a pre-arranged & organized sport set up in a structured setting.
              As competitors got more savvy and started learning techniques that were truly brutally effective and how to apply them,they started instituting rules against said techniques. If a technique was especially effective i.e. brutal(i.e. "soccer kicks",stomps,downward elbows,knees to grounded opponent etc.),they would simply ban it to avoid out-cry & objections from Politicians who wanted to ban these tournaments and in was it actually became illegal in many area's to hold NHB/MMA competitions back then .In those early days, it wasn't called MMA, but rather No-Holds-Barred/NHB which wasn't actually completely true, but they switched to the more politically correct MMA to sound less offensive plus they had instituted so many rules that it wasn't even remotely close to being "no-holds-barred". The Nevada Athletic commission got involved, the rules expanded even more,weight classes were created and we are left with a Sport that hardly resembles anything that could be called reality.
        Is there SOME crossover.....definitely, but only some things & select techniques,tactics,strategies and overall skills. Gross Motor Skills, Movements & Techniques are what tend to be what reliably works best in MOST(not all though however by any means)self-defense situations  for MOST(again, not in all situations for every/all individuals) people and the UFC/MMA does have plenty of those, but they also ban so many of them(just look through the list below)that your extremely limited in techniques for effectiveness in street encounters. 
             Could Fedor,Couture,Lesnar etc. handle themselves in a Street-Fight? Maybe, Maybe not, really depends on the circumstances. Are there multiple opponents, knives,guns etc.? Do they train to defend and counter the techniques that the UFC doesn't allow? Have these Men trained against & for those circumstances or have they focused solely on their sport and it's rules? They are Jocks in a Combative Sport, not Combatants,Warriors or Soldiers


  Here is an abridged version of the current MMA/UFC list of rules.I'm not sure it's even complete as it might be even longer by now,but look at the many core techniques of reality-based self-defense that are banned.


1. Butting with the head.
2. Eye gouging of any kind.
3. Biting.
4. Hair pulling.
5. Fish hooking.
6. Groin attacks of any kind.
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
8. Small joint manipulation.
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
13. Grabbing the clavicle.
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
21. Spitting at an opponent.
22. Engaging in any unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
23. Holding the ropes or the fence.
24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
30. Interference by the corner.
31. Throwing in the towel during competition.