Bayou Renaissance Man

They are indeed.  I've seen them used as fighting weapons far too many times in the Third World, and the damage that results.

Click over to Gun Free Zone's post about that, and watch the video.  WARNING:  It's not for the squeamish or faint at heart.  You'll see a hand chopped right off, among other injuries.

Keep that in mind when you're next threatened by a machete, or a sharpened garden spade, or any improvised edged weapon (not to mention conventional knives).  If you get up close and personal in a knife fight, you almost certainly will get cut, if not much more severely injured.  It goes with the territory.

That's also why I tend towards larger, heavier calibers of handgun when in environments where that sort of danger may be a threat.  I want to stop anyone heading my way with such a weapon in their hands.  Smaller calibers and cartridges may work . . . but then again, they may not.

Peter

An article in the New York Post set me to thinking.

New Yorkers are fortifying their homes with panic rooms and bullet-proof doors like never before over fears about crime, migrants and national turmoil — and it’s not just the city’s elite partaking in the trend.

“Not every [customer] is an ultra-rich stockbroker — a lot of them are just people, middle-class kind of people,” said Steve Humble, founder of the home-defense contractor Creative Home Engineering.

“I’d say the pandemic really kicked off an uptick. Business was really good throughout the pandemic time, and it really hasn’t slowed down,” said Humble, who specializes in top-of-the-line secret doors disguised as bookshelves, fireplaces, mirrors, blank walls and whatever else a client can think of to conceal a safety room behind them.

He is one of numerous home-defense contractors who told The Post that the past four years have been a boon for business, with New Yorkers from all walks of life shelling out thousands of dollars to outfit their homes with hidden rooms, bulletproof doors and a swath of other covert security systems to keep the baddies at bay should they come knocking.

The driving force is a decline in New Yorkers’ sense of safety — assaults in the Big Apple reached 28,000 for the first time on record last year  — and the perceptible shift toward volatile instability that many people feel is ramping up across all of American society, Humble and others say.

There's more at the link.

I suppose a panic room might be a defense against a psycopathic nitwit who can't add two and two together to get four.  Such an assailant might not be able to distinguish between his shoe size and his IQ.  However, for almost all other attackers, a panic room simply gives them an excuse to rob the homeowner blind while he/she/they cower in their illusory "safe place", unable to stop them.  What's more, check the police response times in your neighborhood.  It often takes cops ten to fifteen minutes or more to respond to most 911 calls.  During that time, while you're cowering in your safe room, what are the home invaders doing to you and/or your possessions?

It gets worse.  Panic rooms offer an attacker an opportunity to murder everyone in the building, because they make it almost impossible to escape.  If the attacker simply strikes a match or two and sets fire to the place, how are those in the panic room to get away from the flames?  Panic rooms pin down their occupants, fix them in place.  It's no good saying that they can have hidden exits to escape such a fate;  those exits have to come out somewhere, and if (as it almost always is) those exits are on the same property (much less in the same building), who's to say they won't have caught fire by the time those in the panic room want to use them?  And what if they use them, only to emerge surrounded by frustrated attackers who've been looking for them?

Tying yourself down to a supposedly secure location, but one where you're unable to defend yourself against attackers, is a disaster waiting to happen.  I'd much rather harden the exterior of my home, making it as difficult as possible for someone to break in, and then defend my family and property from inside.  Even more tactically suitable would be to prevent the attackers from approaching in the first place.  This is why one should select a home in as safe a neighborhood as possible (although in today's climate of highly mobile criminals, street riots and other crimes, that safety may be illusory).

One last point.  If you're in an apartment building or condo complex, you've made yourself hostage to the security-mindedness and safety-consciousness (or lack thereof) of everyone else living there.  Trapping yourself above ground level is always a security risk.  You don't need an attacker to strike a match:  a domestic accident can start a fire just as easily as a criminal.  How are you going to get out of your apartment and down to ground level?  Are there multiple exits, and paths to reach those exits?  Is the building constructed of relatively fireproof materials?  What businesses or attractive targets are in the building that might attract criminals to it?  Unless and until those questions are satisfactorily answered (and, if necessary, their answers have persuaded you to move to a safer location), a panic or safe room is a lot lower on the priority list.

I won't worry about a panic room.  After eighteen years living (and frequently fighting) in a war zone, I'd rather arm myself and inflict panic on my attackers!

Peter

Friend of the blog Lawdog has written an emotive and (I think) very important article titled "Meditations On Duty".  Here are a few excerpts.

Every day we are bombarded with news articles about District Attorneys campaigning for “No bail requirements”, “Reduced sentencing”, “Alternate sentencing”, all of which appears — in some cases outrighted stated — to give felons and habitual criminals a leg up.

We are continually shown footage of riots in major cities and at universities where the rioters arsonists, and violent thugs are treated with kid gloves.

Just or otherwise, there is a very definite perception that District Attorneys would much rather throw the book at someone with no previous criminal history, while the felons and violent thugs get deals.

On the other paw, for a man to be even hinted at any variety of sexual offence, whether it be harassment or outright rape, is to be guilty until proven innocent.

And to certain parts of the howling Internet mobs you can never be innocent — and they will make it a crusade to destroy your life.

. . .

I find myself in a position that I’ve never been in before. All of my life I have known that if people needed to be helped, I should help them — I’ve literally been a Boy Scout. All of my adult life I have known that if there is gun-fire, I will run to that sound and protect people.

I … don’t know anymore.

It’s already started. If Rita isn’t with me, I will not stop to help a female stranger, or children. I will call local law enforcement and have them sent there, but without Rita being present I will not offer aid on my own. That goes double if there are children involved.

And that mortifies me, but the risk of having my life destroyed with false allegations is not worth it.

For the first time in my life I do not know what I will do if gunfire erupts in a public place where I am.

If a spree shooter attacks a public place where I am, or am near — I will get family and friends to safety, but after that I literally do not know.

Do I run to the sound of gunfire and solve the problem? I’ve already been the victim of wrongful prosecution once, do I risk that again? Do I take a chance going up against a protected class, and earning the “mostly peaceful” wrath of the howling mob, and a legacy media that lives for stirring up rioters?

There's more at the link.  Go read the whole thing.  It's worth your time.

Remember, too, that Lawdog is a retired officer of the law.  He's spent a career fighting crime and criminals.  If he, in his position, is no longer certain that he can engage evildoers without being tarred with their brush by a politically correct or "woke" justice system, how much more so should we, private citizens, be worried about the same reality?  We can't claim prior and extensive experience in dealing with crime to justify our intervening to help its victims.  We don't have the "protection", in the eyes of the law, that Lawdog has.

Today, we have to accept that in very large parts of these United States the justice system has been warped and twisted along "woke" lines, so that it today protects the politically correct cause du jour and its adherents.  If one doesn't belong to that group, one is almost automatically at greater risk from the authorities, irrespective of the facts of the situation.  Over the past few years I've written a number of articles about this conundrum.  In case you missed any of them, I'll link them below.  I highly recommend that you take time to read them and think about them, because the situations they describe might confront you at any time in this crazy world we live in.

In particular, note the problems involved in trying to remain anonymous if you live in a "woke" judicial environment, and don't want to be connected to otherwise legitimate acts of self-defense.  The first article in the list above addresses that issue.  Also, I've said before that a revolver is no longer the optimum choice as a personal defense weapon, because it holds too few rounds to deal with a mob or gang situation.  That remains true:  but there's a countervailing argument that unlike a semi-automatic pistol, a revolver doesn't spit out cartridge cases all over the scene, which can later be analyzed.  There's something to be said for that if you're in a hostile, unreasonable, biased prosecutorial environment.  To make up for the limited number of rounds in a revolver, carry one chambered for the biggest, most powerful cartridge one can control in rapid, aimed fire.  Hitting harder is seldom a bad idea in defensive shooting.

Suffice it to say that in a prosecutorial environment that's as (or more) likely to punish the good guy as the bad, discretion is our watchword.  If, despite that, we choose to intervene, we'd better do so with our eyes wide open as to what trouble that may bring down on our heads.  We should have a good lawyer on speed dial, and refuse to say anything unless and until he/she is with us and has had an opportunity to brief us.  Furthermore, we should minimize the ease with which rogue prosecutors and shyster lawyers can go after us.  This does not include tampering with evidence (which is a crime in itself), but simply observing due caution and discretion is never a bad thing.  Our defense attorneys will thank us for that.

Finally, no matter why or how we've intervened, don't speak to police or anyone else after such an incident unless and until our lawyer(s) has/have interviewed us and briefed us about what may, or should not, be said.  It's too easy to talk ourselves into a jail cell!  Here's a law professor's view of that, and Massad Ayoob's limited corollary to that perspective.  Both are worth watching in full.

Food for thought.

Peter

The BBC reports that Colombia's armed forces are missing a whole bunch of ammunition and weapons.

Colombia's military has lost millions of bullets, thousands of grenades and several missiles, the nation's president has said.

Gustavo Petro ... said the missing items came to light during surprise visits to two military bases - Tolemaida and La Guajira - on 12 February and 1 April, respectively.

At Tolemaida, there was a shortfall of more than 808,000 bullets and nearly 10,000 fewer grenades than the inventory listed on official records.

Meanwhile at La Guajira, the discrepancies included nearly 4.2 million bullets and more than 9,300 grenades. Mr Petro also said the base had lost two Spike missiles, 37 Nimrod missiles and 550 rocket-propelled grenades.

He told reporters that the military supplies would have been passed on to armed groups within Colombia, but could have been smuggled to Haiti or the international black market.

There's more at the link.

I'm sure the personnel at those military bases were delighted (NOT!) to have snap inspections of their facilities, giving them no warning and leaving them no time to cover up the missing items.  I'm sure many of them made a lot of money by diverting them to weapons smugglers.  I hope it'll be enough to compensate them for the years in prison that will likely be coming their way.

That sort of chicanery is a real problem in the drug wars.  Mexico's cartels are armed with full-auto military weapons that they've largely obtained from the Mexican armed forces and those in countries to the south.  When they have so much money at their disposal, it's not difficult to bribe those in charge of the weapons to turn a blind eye to wholesale theft.  Trouble is, those cartels then turn their weapons against their own authorities, and against the US as well in the form of ambushes directed against the Border Patrol, Customs officers and other law enforcement personnel.  Many such weapons have been found smuggled into this country, and in the possession of local cartel distributors.  The latest one I heard of amounted to more than 20 full-auto assault rifles, more than 100 magazines and over 5,000 rounds of ammunition, plus several hand-grenades and a rocket launcher.  That's enough to give any local police force conniption fits.  They're severely outgunned.

Of course, the gun-grabbers' answer is to blame private firearms owners for "allowing" their guns to be stolen, or selling them to the cartels.  That's largely not the case.  Private owners seldom own full-auto weapons, and almost never explosive devices.  Those are sourced from corrupt militaries more than anywhere else.  It's not a comfortable thought that law-abiding citizens like you and I might have to face up to criminals armed in that fashion.  I feel outgunned already.

Peter

It's hard to feel much sympathy for the deceased in this faked crime.

Rasshauud Scott, 22, was seen on surveillance footage late Jan. 27 running up to a couple filling up their car at a Chevron gas station in Houston, Texas, according to court documents shared by Fox News Digital.

After seemingly robbing the pair of a purse and wallet, he turned and ran — before an alarmed witness pulled out a gun and shot him in the head, killing him, the affidavit notes.

However, a series of messages later showed that Scott wasn’t even really robbing the couple — with his widow, Sade Beverly, telling cops it “was a set up” as part of an ongoing crime ring, the docs said.

His alleged accomplice, William Winfrey, 30, told Scott the fatal robbery would be the “usual gas pump s–t,” telling him to “make all that s–t look real,” according to the affidavit.

In a police interview, one of the pretend victims “confirmed that the robbery was in fact a set-up, and the purpose of the scheme is to obtain a U-visa,” the affidavit said.

That refers to “U Nonimmigrant Status,” which is granted to victims of certain crimes who have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to authorities investigating or prosecuting suspects.

Police then realized there was a “pattern” of similar reported robberies — and that the victims “had applied for, or been granted U-visas due to their status as victims of these crimes,” the affidavit said.

Winfrey was arrested Wednesday and charged with murder in connection with Scottt’s death. He was denied bond Monday.

There's more at the link.

I've learned to assume that at least one in five of the people I see around me every day in north Texas are armed.  It used to be less, but now that Texas is a constitutional carry state (i.e. not requiring a permit to carry a gun), it could well be more.  People are fed up with criminals trying to make an easy buck off locals;  and they're ready, willing and able to do something about it.  Texas grand juries, too, have frequently proved to be less than sympathetic to deceased criminals, often no-true-billing those who shot them even when strictly speaking, they didn't have sufficient legal grounds to do so.  (See this recent case, also in Houston, for an example.)

Congratulations and thanks to the bystander who shot the criminal.  He obviously feared getting into trouble for his actions, because he initially fled, but he later handed himself over to police and was exonerated of any offense.  Scott's partner in crime, however, now stands accused of murder, because he was part of a crime that resulted in a death.  That's entirely as it should be, IMHO.  The late Mr. Scott thought he could get away with the same fake crime, repeatedly.  He learned better - or, rather, his surviving family and friends learned better.  It's a pity he no longer has that opportunity, but that's his own fault.

Peter

A murder in Chicago has a somewhat unusual sequel.

Officials say a murder victim managed to shoot his killer before dying, and, after the murderer fled, a passerby took the victim’s gun, hunted down the killer, and shot some more.

. . .

Quijuan Lewis, a 20-year-old on parole for less than two months for a gun conviction, got out of a car and crouched behind a vehicle as the victim, 36-year-old Delegance Crawl, walked down the street, prosecutors said in a detention petition.

Crawl was walking and looking at his phone when Lewis jumped out from behind the vehicle and attacked him, the petition said. Lewis allegedly struck Crawl in the head with a gun multiple times as they fought on the street. Crawl eventually pulled out his own gun.

Ultimately, prosecutors say, Lewis shot Crawl in the back of the head. And Crawl shot Lewis in the leg. As Crawl lay gravely wounded, Lewis ran to a nearby gas station for help and stashed his gun in a potato chip display, according to police and prosecutors.

Back at the shooting scene, a passerby who has not been identified picked up Crawl’s gun from beside his motionless body and marched over to the gas station. They used Crawl’s gun to shoot Lewis “multiple” times in the buttocks and then ran away, officials said in court filings.

There's more at the link.

I can't figure out precisely what was the point in shooting the perpetrator multiple times in the ass, but I'm sure there's at least some sort of criminal logic in it . . . somewhere.  Just don't ask me where.

What I can't figure out is what the passerby's interest might have been.  Was he trying to avenge his friend's murder?  If so, he wasn't very successful.  In his shoes (if he wore any) I'd have picked a better target.  Was he just a local who's fed up with all the street crime?  If so, he merely added to it rather than solved the problem.  Was there some other reason?  If so, your guess is as good as mine.  (If the second shooter wanted to discourage criminals like Lewis, this will at least have the effect of making the latter a laughing-stock in whatever jail or prison he inhabits.  It's not every gangbanger who stashes his gun in a potato chip display, only to render himself defenseless against having his ass turned into a colander!  That sort of dumbassery demands real [lack of] talent.)

I'm afraid this is the dominant culture in large patches of the urban environment in America's large cities these days.  All I can say (as I've said often before) is, get out of them.  Now.  Because things are only going to get worse there - not better.

Peter

I refer to Seismic High Mass Ammunition, which offers very-heavy-for-caliber rounds in 12ga. shotgun slugs and 9mm. cartridges.  Their slogan appears to be "Heavier Hits Harder".

I've often been asked by readers and other acquaintances what I think of ammunition for which better-than-standard and/or super-high performance is claimed.  There's the Glaser Safety Slug, the infamous (and discredited) RBCD Performance Plus ammunition, the impressively named R.I.P. rounds from G2, and a host of others.  Seismic joins a long line of companies who've claimed that their ammunition is significantly better than the norm for one reason or another.

Unfortunately, all of its predecessors have failed a simple acid test.  There are people out there - not just police, who are often budget-constrained, but special forces units, private security firms contracting to governments, and so on - who literally depend for their lives upon the performance of their weapons and ammunition.  It's not just the organizations, either:  it's their individual members, most of whom earn enough to buy whatever extra gear they want, and who aren't about to waste their own money on something that's all hat and no cattle.  To the best of my knowledge, none of these units and their individual members carry any of these "specialty" rounds, because they don't perform better than standard defensive ammunition when push comes to shove.  If they did, such purchasers would be all over them.  The fact that they're not tells its own story.

Some of these ammo manufacturers have made vague claims about "As used by special forces", or something like that:  but if you press them, to pin down exactly which special forces they're talking about, they evade the issue by saying that they're contractually forbidden from identifying them.  Yeah, right.  You can rest assured that operators "on the ground" would be talking about it to their buddies if they found some hot new technology that really worked.  The almost complete absence of such chatter says it all.

If you want to take guesswork out of the equation, the solution is simple.  Buy ammunition that's been tested and approved, and is currently issued, by major law enforcement agencies and/or major security organizations.  They know what they're doing, and they trust the lives of their members to the ammunition they buy.  That's not a bad litmus test for the rest of us, and is why I carry rounds like Federal's HST or Hornady's Critical Duty in my defensive handguns.  If I have to go to court over a defensive shooting, no lawyer will be able to allege that I bought super-enhanced-lethality ammo because I wanted to "blow away" his client.  No, I'll have used rounds that any police agency might use.  That will be a perfectly adequate defense against such claims.

Peter

In the light of the influx of criminal migrants and the increased levels of urban crime (rapidly spreading to smaller towns and rural areas), I think it's worth reminding ourselves of the need to provide security for ourselves, our families and our loved ones.

To begin with, I'd like to refer you to several previous articles on the subject.  They're as relevant today as they were when I wrote them.  If you missed any of them, or can't remember them, please click on the links provided and read them before continuing here.

Updating and revising our approach to self-defense, Part 1

Updating and revising our approach to self-defense, Part 2

Updating and revising our approach to self-defense, Part 3

In two of those articles, I repeated the wisdom of John Farnam.  It bears repeating here, because it's absolutely fundamental to our personal security.  We ignore it at our literal peril.

The best way to handle any potentially injurious encounter is: Don’t be there. Arrange to be somewhere else. Don’t go to stupid places. Don’t associate with stupid people. Don’t do stupid things. This is the advice I give to all students of defensive firearms. Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the “penalty” for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable.

Crowds of any kind, particularly those with an agenda, such as political rallies, demonstrations, picket lines, etc are good examples of “stupid places.” Any crowd with a high collective energy level harbors potential catastrophe. To a lesser degree, bank buildings, hospital emergency rooms, airports, government buildings, and bars (particularly crowded ones) fall into the same category. All should be avoided. When they can’t be avoided, we should make it a practice to spend only the minimum time necessary there and then quickly get out.

“A superior gunman is best defined as one who uses his superior judgment in order to keep himself out of situations that would require the use of his superior skills.”

When I trained at Thunder Ranch (in its Texas location), one of the instructors told us that even if a defensive shooting was absolutely 100% legitimate, and no criminal charges were filed, we could still expect lawsuits from the person we shot and/or his survivors.  One phrase has stuck in my memory.  "Any defensive shooting, no matter how justified, may cost you a new Suburban in lawyer's fees."  That was scary enough back then.  At today's vehicle prices, it's a ghastly thought!

Nevertheless, there are times when only a kinetic response can ward off a criminal threat.  It's no good trying to plead with an attacker that you're really a good person and don't deserve this.  He isn't a good person, by definition, and doesn't care that you are (except for the fact that your timidity makes you easier prey for him).  Given that attackers often come in multiples, and are usually armed with weapons that can disable or kill you (even a rock can do that - I've seen it done, with my own eyes), you need weapons that can at least keep them off you and your loved ones, and stop any determined attack in its tracks.  That means a firearm.  There is simply no other adequate choice.

Go read the articles above for a discussion about choosing a firearm and training with it.  I won't repeat them here.  However, a handgun may no longer be enough when dealing with mobs of urban youth running wild and terrorizing a neighborhood (particularly if you live in a state or city where magazine capacities are legally restricted).  You may well need something more powerful, with longer range, and able to accept sights that allow you to shoot more accurately at those longer ranges.  That means a defensive rifle.  (Yes, a shotgun is not a bad choice, but it has limited range and carries with it the disadvantage of very heavy recoil, comparatively speaking, making it harder to control in accurate, rapid fire;  and its ammunition is bulky, heavy, and relatively slow to reload except for an expert.  Most of us can't afford to train to that level of expertise;  therefore, I no longer recommend shotguns as a primary defensive weapon for those who are not well trained in their use.)

I wrote three articles a few years ago about the personal defense rifle.  Again, I refer you to those rather than trying to repeat all that information here.

The personal defense rifle, part 1: a few thoughts

The personal defense rifle, part 2: reader's questions

The personal defense rifle, part 3: choosing ammunition

Those articles focused on an AR-15-style firearm.  Sadly, due to misguided legislators in various states, you may live in an area where it's not legal to own one, or where its features are so restricted as to remove many of its advantages.  Not to worry:  there's another option that's well worth having - a lever-action rifle or carbine.  Those in pistol calibers (.357 Magnum, which can also fire .38 Special ammunition, or .44 Magnum, which can also shoot .44 Special cartridges) are particularly useful in urban situations, where you don't want a higher-powered rifle cartridge that might shoot through multiple walls or carry much further than you intend, possibly injuring an innocent person in the process.  The late, great Jeff Cooper referred to such firearms as "urban assault rifles", and I think that's not a bad description.  Sheriff Jim Wilson has written an article about using them for defensive purposes, and I recommend you read it for yourself.

My preferred lever-action defensive carbine is a Marlin 1894 chambered in .44 Magnum.  Its solid frame lets me mount a red-dot or low-power telescopic sight without difficulty, making aiming easier on my older eyes.  I load .44 Specials for short-range urban use, and full-patch .44 Magnums for longer ranges.  I've had the barrel shortened to 16", which makes it very easy to handle in confined spaces;  and I haven't heard anyone complain yet that a heavy .44 slug doesn't hit hard enough, if placed in the right spot.  If I travel to a place where an AR-15 is illegal, guess what I'm taking with me?

(There are those who would argue - quite legitimately - that a .357 Magnum carbine is just as good for defensive purposes, with less recoil.  I agree with them, if they expect to use it only in locations where hollow-point ammunition is legal for civilians.  There are jurisdictions - take a bow, New Jersey - where civilians are forbidden to own or use such rounds;  and I don't think anyone would argue that a 158-grain solid from a .38/.357 will hit as hard as a 240- to 250-grain solid from a .44.  That's why I've chosen the larger round.  My .44 Special load uses a 250gr. flat-nose lead bullet moving at over 1,000 feet per second out of a 16" carbine barrel.  That's enough to take a black bear at short to medium range if it has to - its performance is comparable to the .44-40 round of the Old West, and I don't recall anyone complaining about the .44-40's man-stopping ability.  If I want more oomph, I load Federal's 300gr. CastCore load in .44 Magnum, which will do even better.)

Finally, consider the possible need for multiple firearms.  You should ideally have access to one wherever you are, in case of need.  If you carry a handgun on your person, that takes care of that problem;  but some people can't do that for whatever reason.  In that case, I suggest stashing additional firearms in a secure manner in areas where they might be needed in a hurry.  (Obviously, if you have children around this is not a viable solution, because they'll almost certainly find them.)  I use revolvers for the purpose, since they can remain loaded indefinitely and are about as maintenance-free as any firearm is going to get.  I've concealed them in places where a casual thief is unlikely to find them, but where I can reach them in a hurry.  (If you can use an X-acto knife or something similar, try carving a concealed hiding place inside an old book, and position it on your bookshelf in a location you won't forget.  If you aren't that handy with a knife, you can buy a fake book that conceals a gun.  In emergency, take out the book, open the cover, and there you are.)

Depending on your needs, you might also consider stashing a defensive rifle in multiple locations, because it's a lot harder to carry a rifle inconspicuously on your person or in a vehicle.  That won't apply to most of my readers, I know, but in high-threat areas such as a farm or smallholding, where you might have to move between two or three buildings on a regular basis, it might be a handy solution to your security needs.  You'll have to make up your own mind about that.

Anyway, I hope these thoughts have helped readers who haven't given much thought to the subject.

Peter

The cleanup and repair process following our flooding incident in November has kept me too busy for many normal activities, including visiting a local gun shop where I'm friendly with the owner and his staff, and they sometimes have nice little things needing a home.  I dropped in there on Thursday to renew acquaintance, only to be confronted with this little beauty in a display case.  Click the image for a larger view (it doesn't show my gun, but another example thereof in the same pristine condition).

It's a Smith & Wesson Model 325 Night Guard.  You can read reviews of it (and the rest of the Night Guard series) here and here, if you're interested.  I always liked the look and feel of them, but by the time I could afford one, they'd been discontinued.  One seldom sees them on the used gun market, because those who have them tend to hold on to them, but this one had taken up temporary residence at our local dealer shortly before I arrived.  It was anything but cheap, thanks to its scarcity value, but that's what trade-ins are for.

It's in minty condition, with a heavy-ish but very smooth action.  The XS Sights fitted to it make rapid sighting easier, and work better with my aging eyes that can no longer focus on a front sight with the clarity they once did.  I'm looking forward to taking it out to the range soon, to see how it shoots.  It'll make a very handy winter carry piece for a heavy coat, which might restrict access to a holstered gun at the waist.  This one's short and light enough (thanks to its Scandium alloy frame) that I can carry it in an outer pocket, ready to hand if and when needed.  (I wish someone made a hammer shroud for N-frame revolvers, but even without one, if one keeps a thumb on the hammer while drawing the gun, it won't catch on the pocket material.)  The recoil won't be a problem;  I've fired .45 ACP out of pistols lighter than this gun and found it controllable.

I'll install a set of Crimson Trace laser grips to help with sighting and recoil control, and probably drop in an Apex Tactical hammer to lighten the trigger pull and convert the gun to double-action only (something I prefer for fighting - as opposed to sport - revolvers).

(By the way, if anyone knows of another example of this revolver - or one like it - for sale, in very good to excellent condition and chambered for .45 ACP, please contact me;  my e-mail address is in the sidebar.  Having seen mine, a buddy wants one too, and - if it's out of state - is quite happy to pay for it to be shipped to a local dealer to comply with transfer regulations.)

Peter

We've spoken before in these pages about the advisability (or otherwise) of downloading higher-capacity magazines by a round or two to increase firearm reliability and keep magazines in good condition.  I'm a fan.  I was taught in the South African military to download by plus-or-minus 10% for routine carry.  Thus, 10% of a 35-round R4 magazine would be 3.5 rounds:  therefore, it would be loaded with 32 rounds for routine everyday carry.  The older R1 rifle (a license-built version of the FN FAL) had a 20-round magazine, which I usually carried with 18 rounds in it.  In a combat area, where a fight was more likely, we'd download by only 5%, and some would load right up to capacity (although I never did, preferring to reduce the strain on the magazine spring and ease the cycling of the bolt).  I've continued the practice in civilian life, downloading most higher-capacity magazines by 5-10% on a routine basis.

(Another common practice in some military units was to load tracer for the last 2 or 3 rounds in the magazine, to provide a visual warning to the shooter that it was almost empty and he needed to reload.  I didn't do so, as the line showing the passage of a tracer bullet points right back to the shooter, and I didn't want to make myself an even more visible target, particularly at night.  Also, in bush warfare in Africa, tracer bullets had the upsetting habit of setting fire to dry grass and leaves - not a good idea if the prevailing wind blew the resulting bushfire in your direction!  In one incident, a fire started by a patrol during a firefight didn't bother them, but gained strength over the following day and intercepted their resupply truck that evening, destroying it and its cargo and forcing a premature end to their excursion.  There was a certain amount of consternation and monkeyhouse over that, particularly from the infuriated truck crew . . . )

In answer to a reader's question about functioning problems with fully loaded 17-round SIG handgun magazines, a recent article discusses the downloading question more fully.

The top round in a loaded magazine contacts the bottom of the slide when the slide is forward and the magazine is fully inserted into the magazine well of a semi-automatic pistol. Although there is normally friction on the bottom of the slide from contact with the top cartridge in the magazine, it has minimal effect on the movement of the slide if the ammunition stack can compress slightly back into the magazine body against the magazine spring. If there is no room for the ammunition stack to compress, the friction resistance of the top cartridge in the seated magazine is too great to allow the slide to cycle properly, which causes the phenomenon that you are experiencing with the slide failing to fully cycle.

I would first suggest that you load your magazines to their capacity of 17 rounds, and then apply pressure to the top cartridge with your thumb. The cartridge should move against the magazine spring until it is visibly clear of all contact with the feed lips at the top of the magazine. This small space is necessary for the magazine to seat properly in the magazine well, and also for the gun to cycle properly and shoot reliably.

If you download your magazines to 16 rounds, I suspect your gun will exhibit the reliability you expect from it.

This phenomenon is not only limited to pistols, but should also be considered when loading and topping off any firearm utilizing a spring-loaded, box-type magazine. For example, it is a somewhat common practice to download an AR-15-style rifle magazine (particularly military-surplus magazines) from 30 rounds to 28 rounds to enhance reliability by ensuring the magazine will seat properly in the magazine well and the top rounds in the magazine will flow through the gun without causing any restriction or stoppage.

There's more at the link.

I believe the practice also extends your magazine's life, in that the spring is not kept in a fully compressed condition for long periods.  I know many assert that modern magazine springs won't "take a set", as it used to be called, and be weakened by this;  but I've had some older magazines that did, even from original equipment manufacturers.  Third-party magazines. and some of Third World manufacture, may exhibit the problem more often.  For example, I can't comment on their more recent production, but in my experience some older magazines from ProMag and KKK appeared to suffer from that issue.  (YMMV, of course.)

Food for thought for those among us who rely on magazines to feed our firearms.

Peter

My favorite ammo vendor, SGAmmo of Oklahoma, has just published their latest newsletter.  They warn:

News from Shotshow 2024: I just got home from 4 days in Las Vegas at the shotshow, where I met with the people from the factories we work with, factory sales people, factory directors and owners, importers, etc. The big point of discussion seemed to be shortness in supply for nitrocellulose, which is the raw material used to make gunpowder and other propellants and explosives. Based on these conversations, the issue seems to be based on 2 factors, decreased availability in the supply chain and increased demand for the manufacturing of military ordnance.

Getting into the details and a little more, a huge percentage of the nitrocellulose used to make gunpowder historically came from China and Russia, however according to my conversations with industry partners, the Chinese manufacturers who historically were the biggest suppliers at over 30% of the market share are no longer willing to ship raw nitrocellulose to the USA or NATO member countries in attempt to reduce the USA & NATO's ability to supply Ukrainian forces with artillery shells, and of course Russia who historically was the 2nd biggest supplier is out of the supply chain as well. This decrease in supply in raw material has gunpowder manufacturers in the USA raising prices dramatically and cutting off many of the smaller ammo manufacturers.

The 2nd part of this issue is the demand for military ordnance, like 155mm artillery shells that use huge quantities gunpowder propellants, and the gunpowder manufacturers switching production to this type of gunpowder with what supply of nitrocellulose they do get. The first reason is that they always put the US government's needs before those of the commercial market, and the second reason is that it is simply much more profitable to manufacturer military ordnance than it is small caliber ammunition, so they get a much more profitable price manufacturing powder for artillery shells.

In conclusion, while most of  the factories seem to have gunpowder stockpiled today, this issue is expected to catch up to them no later than the summer of 2024 and possibly within a few months, and when it does it will mean the factories will be capable of producing much less small caliber ammunition to sell to the US commercial market. If demand for ammo is low to moderate, you may not see a big change, but if demand were to go way up as it does periodically, the factories will not be able to ramp up capacity to fill that demand. In my opinion, a lot could go wrong in the commercial ammo supply chain in 2024 and it would be wise to stock up sooner than later as 2024 price increases have just started to set in on just a handful of select items so far, and availability is still good which has held prices down temporarily.

This makes sense to me.  For example, a single 155mm. artillery round can consume up to 25 pounds of propellant, whereas that same weight of propellant could make many thousands of rounds of rifle or handgun ammunition.  Military demand has been off the charts, thanks to sending tens of thousands of artillery and tank ammunition to Ukraine and Israel, and having to replenish our own depleted stocks (not to mention those of several NATO countries).

It's worth thinking about the availability of ammunition if a shooting war should erupt that involves the USA.  I know that during World War II, civilian ammunition supplies were almost completely curtailed.  Manufacturers simply didn't produce most civilian cartridges and calibers, and everything that was produced went straight to the military.  Civilian hunters and shooters who loaded their own ammunition and cast their own bullets were able to continue, but many others hung up their firearms for the duration - they had no choice.  Back then the internal security situation was a lot more stable than it is these days, so that didn't pose too much of a problem.  Now?  I'd be very, very skittish at the thought that I might not be able to defend my family and home.

(There's also the factor that an anti-gun government might use the opportunity to simply ban all civilian sales of ammo and firearms, and even turn to confiscation to get its hands on the millions of rounds in private hands.  One can't predict that with any certainty, but I'd regard it as not unlikely.)

Friends, if you use firearms in common military calibers (e.g. 5.56x45mm NATO, 7.62x51mm NATO, 9mm Parabellum, etc.) I'd very strongly suggest that you stockpile enough ammo in those cartridges to see you through a few years of shooting.  I also encourage you to stockpile enough .22LR ammo to use for training purposes (either using conversion kits to fit your existing firearms, or dedicated .22LR weapons), because that'll be a whole lot cheaper (and better for your supplies) than using full-patch ammo.  However many rounds you store for each of your "service" weapons, I think three to four times as many rounds of .22LR would be a useful accompaniment - and that's for each weapon.  YMMV, of course.

Each of us will have to make hard choices as to what we consider essential.  I've made mine.  I can only suggest that you make your own, quickly, and take steps to implement them while ammo supplies are still relatively freely available, at relatively low cost.  That could change almost overnight.  It has, in the past.  Also . . . it's an election year.  Who knows what might come down the pike aimed at gun owners?

Peter

The announcement of Gaston Glock's death last week, at the age of 94, has brought forth a wave of obituaries and reminiscences about "the way things used to be" in the firearms industry.  Very few individuals can be said to have changed the way arms manufacturers designed, built and marketed their products.  Glock stands tall in the most illustrious of that group, including inventors such as John Moses Browning, Samuel Colt and Hiram Maxim.  He does so, not because he improved the technology in the market at the time, but because he drastically streamlined and improved the productivity of the industry.  Since then, no-one's looked back.

Glock got into semi-auto pistol manufacturing in 1980 when by chance, he overheard two Austrian Army officers discussing the bidding process for a new service sidearm.  Initially rebuffed by the military powers that be, because he'd never built a firearm before and they presumed him to be ignorant, he took his case to the Austrian Minister of Defense and gained permission to compete for the Army's handgun program.  He won the contest, and - over the next couple of decades - the worldwide handgun market as well.

"That I knew nothing [about guns] was my advantage," Mr. Glock said in an interview. He bought a number of handguns and disassembled them in his workshop, examining each component for its function while weighing potential improvements. He made prototypes and test-fired them with his left hand; if he was maimed by an explosion, he could still draw blueprints with his right. The product of his efforts was a nine-millimeter semi-automatic pistol that he designated the Glock 17 because it was his 17th invention.

Most notably, the frame of the new Glock pistol was built of industrial plastic, making it lighter and more resistant to corrosion than the conventional all-steel guns in use up to that time. The handgun's various parts were housed in separate subgroups, making them easy to remove and replace. There was no safety or decocking lever to confuse the user. (The safety was built right into the trigger.) All told, the Glock 17 was a revolutionary new version of a weapon that had remained largely unchanged for a century.

There's more at the link.

Glock was in the right place at the right time, with a thoroughly modern engineering approach to his work that defied older stereotypes.  While more "traditional" manufacturers made each of their successive models an improvement over their predecessor, never differing that much from their forebears, Glock was willing to ask every time, "Why should this be done like that?  Is there any good reason to uphold the status quo, or can we get rid of older, more time-consuming, more material-dependent processes and use modern engineering to come at the problem(s) in a completely new way?"  To everyone's surprise, asking that question was the key to the handgun market;  and Glock made very sure to grab hold of that key and retain it as long as he possibly could.  Today, his firm dominates the handgun industry, with many clones of his designs available worldwide.

I liked the Glock from the first time I handled one.  It was lighter than most of its early competitors, and had far fewer parts (34 of them in most full-size Glocks).  That's a major step forward in simplicity.  As one who'd seen combat in the worst terrain in Africa, where complex weapons systems tended to get chewed up and spat out by the surrounding landscape at the drop of a hat, I'd long been a believer in the old proverb, "Keep It Simple, Stupid!" (K.I.S.S.).  In my personal firearms today, I continue to maintain that perspective, which is why I own more Glocks than any other brand of pistol.  They may look and feel clunky compared to a race-tuned competition pistol, and lack all the little details that illustrate that a gun is a prized possession that's been "tweaked" to express its owner's pride of ownership;  but they've never let out a "Click" instead of a "Bang!" when failure was not an option.  That sort of reliability in a personal defense weapon is worth gold, and then some.

Well, Mr. Glock has now gone to his reward.  I wonder if he was met with an honor guard of Glock-toting angels at the Pearly Gates?  If ever a man deserved such an accolade, it's him.

Peter

Two ghastly crimes caught my eye among the news headlines this week.

Murfreesboro man sentenced to life for rape of 5-year-old boy

Dad who drowned 3 kids to spite estranged wife pleads guilty: ‘If I can’t have them, neither can you’

I won't publish details of them here.  If you want to know more, click on either headline to be taken to the article concerned.  Be advised, the details are not safe for work, family or children.

I saw a lot of that kind of attitude when working as a prison chaplain.  An individual with that sort of mindset - "What I want is all that matters;  if you won't let me have it, or won't do as I say, I'll destroy you" - is as unsafe to handle as old, sweating dynamite.  Anything can prompt an explosion, and there's no telling when or where it might happen.  There's no sense of morality on the part of the perpetrator except "I want it, therefore I have the right to take it/do it/make it happen, no matter what the cost to you".

I wrote about a man like that in one of the "Convict To Chaplain" vignettes in my prison ministry memoir.  WARNING:  If you're squeamish or easily triggered, you don't want to read any further.

Yeah, you ain’t seen me before ’cause I just got transferred here, Chaplain. Why am I inside? I killed two old ****s. Didn’t mean to, though. It was their own stupid ****ing fault. Should never have happened.

**** it, man, I needed a car to go see my woman, and they had one. I jumped ’em as they stopped at the corner. Hadn’t even locked their doors, the dumb ****s! If they’d only listened and showed sense they’d have been all right, but that old **** started acting up when I hauled his woman out in a hurry. ****, he musta bin eighty years old, a real feeble old ****er. I punched him. That’s all — I just hit him. He fell down and hit his head on the curb and went real quiet. Out like a light. Then his damn fool bitch started screamin’ and hollerin’ that I’d killed him. I had to shut her up — people were startin’ to look outta their windows. I tried to put my hand over her mouth, but I musta twisted her neck somehow. There was this funny crackin’ noise, and she went limp. I didn’t stop to check, man — I dropped her and jumped into that old car and burned rubber outta there. Damn thing even smelt like old ****s inside.

The cops stopped me before I got halfway to my woman’s place. Those ****ers were mean, man! They ****ed me up real good. Rights? What rights? If the cops want you, they park their cruisers so those dash cameras don’t see ****, and they walk you down the road a bit so the mikes won’t hear the noise, and they go ape**** on your ***, man. They took me back to town and threw my *** in a cell, still bleeding and hurting bad, and those ******s wouldn’t even get me to a doctor for almost a whole day. Mother******s!

****in’ DA charged me with murder and I drew life twice. Murder? **** no! I didn’t mean to kill either of ’em. Those two old ****s were on their last legs anyway. I only did what they made me do with their damnfool hollerin’. Hell, I probably did ’em a favor! No pain, no waiting to die while their minds went crazy — just a quick, easy out, both together, no mess, no fuss. At worst I shoulda got five years for each of ’em. It’s all they had left! ****in’ judge an’ jury didn’t see it that way, of course.

I’m twenty-five years old, and they tell me I’ll live another fifty years or more in here. No way, man. I’m not taking this **** for the rest of my life. I’ll be outta here one way or another. Either I’ll escape, or they’ll kill me when I try. They’ll have to, ’cause I’ll sure as hell kill them if they try to stop me or bring me back here. No other way, man. You watch. You’ll see my name on the news one night. I’ll be dead, or I’ll be out — and either way I’ll be ****in’ free.

Now, what about that phone call, Chaplain? I gotta talk to my woman. Word is she’s goin’ with some other ****. Can’t have that, man, her dis-ree-spectin’ me like that. If she don’t listen to me, I’ll have to get my homeys to take care of the bitch — and her new guy. I mean, you unnerstan’, right? A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do. Right, Chaplain?

Want another example?

Finally, let’s take Howard. He got drunk one night and began to smash the furniture and fittings in his uncle’s home. His uncle tried to stop him… a fatal mistake. Howard beat him until he collapsed, then for two days and nights drank himself into a stupor, periodically getting up to kick and stomp his uncle as he lay moaning on the floor. Howard eventually passed out. He was found next morning, unconscious at the table, with his uncle dead on the floor beside him. He’d been in enough trouble with the law on previous occasions that this crime earned him a life sentence without parole. He’s still a relatively young man, and still just as violent. He’s been known to get bombed out of his skull on prison hooch (of which more later). When he gets that way, everyone steers clear of him, even the prison ‘hard men’ — all except the reaction squad, who have to subdue him and put him in the Hole to sober up. He’s quite capable of killing anyone who crosses him.

Howard’s eyes scare me. They’re pitch-black and utterly lifeless. When one looks into them, one strives to detect a spark of life, of humanity, of the person inside the body… but it’s not there. I’ve never looked into the bottomless pits of Hell, but I’ve got a good idea what they must be like after working with Howard. He’s one of the few convicts who genuinely frightens me. I take care not to show it, but I also try to have support available if I’ve got to see him about something. He could snap at any moment (and has in the past). I want to make sure that if he does so while I’m around, I have the best possible chance of coming out of it relatively unscathed.

There's no point in my saying, "Don't get involved with people like that".  All too many victims do, because such people are past masters at hiding their warped, twisted, self-centered evil until it's too late to avoid crashing headlong into it.  Please join me in praying for the mother who's lost all three of her children, and the five-year-old boy who's had the innocence of childhood ripped away from him.  They may never recover from such trauma.  A lot of people don't.

As for the guilty . . . we're supposed to leave open the possibility of Divine intervention, of repentance and genuine conversion.  However, in my experience, once one is so steeped in evil, it's almost impossible for the person concerned to turn around.  It's not altogether impossible - I've seen a few conversions that I can only regard as miraculous - but it's very, very difficult and, sadly, very, very unlikely.

You'd be horrified to know how many people like that are out on the streets around you every day.  I'd guesstimate that at least one out of every hundred people is a genuine danger to those around them, and perhaps one in a thousand is so psychopathic as to resemble the individuals mentioned in the headlines above.  In a United States with about 330 million inhabitants, that works out to three million, three hundred thousand seriously dangerous criminals, of whom three hundred and thirty thousand are psychopathic and/or potentially violent to an extreme degree.  I'd say the odds of any one of us running into one of them at some time are so high as to be almost guaranteed, over the course of a lifetime.  The fortunate among us won't even realize their presence, and will go away undisturbed.  The unfortunate . . . not so much.  Go click on those headlines and read for yourself.

I've said for years that the most die-hard opponents of the right to keep and bear arms should work behind the walls of a high-security penitentiary for just a day or two.  They'd come out with a completely different outlook, and head straight for the nearest gun shop to equip themselves for defense, because their eyes would have been opened the hard way.

Peter

A Massachusetts man has died after an "accident" with a knife he was wearing attached to a lanyard around his neck.

Police initially feared Patrick Kenney Jr. had been attacked Saturday night when he was found collapsed in the parking lot of Kowloon restaurant in Saugus, about 11 miles north of Boston, WCVB said.

But they later ruled that the 42-year-old dad of young twins had somehow stabbed himself with a knife around his neck in what his family also called a “horrible tragedy.”

“This incident appears to be accidental, and no additional parties are believed to be involved,” District Attorney Paul Tucker and Saugus Police Chief Michael Ricciardelli said in a joint statement.

There's more at the link.

This news hits hard for my wife and myself, because we both carry neck knives from time to time.  There are situations where clothing requirements make it difficult to carry a knife anywhere else, but where security issues make it advisable to have ready access to a knife because one can't carry any other defensive tool in a particular venue or environment.  There are lots of different examples available, and variations on the theme such as push daggers.  We own several examples between us.

It's hard to envisage a situation where one could be stabbed with one's own neck knife.  Was the victim fiddling with it, and fell with the blade in a dangerous position?  Was he wearing a blade without a sheath (something I'd never do in that location)?  Did something or someone knock into him with sufficient force to make the blade penetrate his skin and puncture a blood vessel?  I guess we'll never know all the details.  Suffice it to say, his death is a grim warning to all of us to keep our guard up and never let it down for a moment.  Safety, and our lives, are in our hands, and we'd better be paying attention to them - or else!

May Mr. Kenney rest in peace, and may his wife, children and extended family find what comfort they may.

Peter

We've written a lot about the AR-15 rifle and related matters in these pages over the years.  I'm sure many of my readers own one or more examples of it;  it's been the single best-selling US-made firearm for several years, AFAIK.

Having the firearm is all very well, but it has to be maintained and kept in good working order.  Given the pressures on firearms manufacturers from the left-wing progressive anti-gun lobby, that's hard to guarantee.  They're trying to make ammunition both more expensive and more difficult to obtain;  they're trying to use lawsuits and other pressures to restrict the number of manufacturers and retailers willing to make and sell such firearms;  and, through the ATF, they're targeting firearms dealers and gunsmiths, trying to put them out of business for any infraction of the rules and make it more difficult for you and I to find the firearms we want.

That's why it's a good idea to have spare parts for your firearm(s) ready to hand, in case they may be needed in a hurry.  Right now, there are great deals to be had on AR-15 rifles and parts from several dealers.  To name just one example, Cheaper Than Dirt is offering the CMMG AR-15 lower receiver parts kit for the ridiculously low price of $29.99 (I've paid three to four times that on occasion in the past).  Even though I already have spare parts, I couldn't resist a deal that good, particularly on a name-branded parts kit like that, and bought several of them.  As for complete AR-15 rifles, CDNN has some available for less than $400, which is the lowest price I've been able to find anywhere.  For what I think is a slightly higher quality level, Palmetto State Armory has some good Black Friday deals on its PA-15 clones.  If you shop around online, you'll find several vendors offering similar weapons and parts kits at very reasonable prices.

Sadly, I suspect we're more likely than not to need such weapons in the not too distant future, given the crime rates and social unrest all around us.  Take advantage of such deals while they're available, and stock up on ammunition and magazines while you're at it.

(No, I'm not getting any compensation in cash or in kind for mentioning those companies and providing those links.  They're just good deals in today's market, and I like to share that sort of thing with my readers.)

Peter

The host of the Shadiversity channel on YouTube gives us the lowdown on nunchaku.

He has a lot more to say about nunchaku in a series of videos.  Click over there to enjoy them all.  His entire channel is worth a look, if you like your weapons lore with a heavy side of snark and satire, as is his Shadlands channel on how to build your own medieval castle. 

Peter

Earlier this week I published an article titled "Organized mayhem on American streets", analyzing a demonstration in Minneapolis last weekend and pointing out that it was highly organized and directed.

William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, has analyzed the same incident, and offers a legal framework within which self-defense is justifiable under such circumstances.

Zero Hedge summarizes his recommendations like this:

Legal Standpoint:

- Understanding of self-defense laws is crucial.

- Key principles of self-defense:

• Force can be used in self-defense if it is necessary, reasonable, and proportional.
• Lethal force can only be used under specific conditions (imminent threat of death, serious injury, etc.).
• Driving into or over individuals can be considered deadly force.

- Defending property:

• Cannot use lethal force solely to defend property.
• Physical threats to individuals inside the car can justify the use of force.

Scenarios:

- If only the car is being damaged, lethal force is not justified [with the possible exception of Texas - see below].
- If windows are being smashed, the potential threat of serious bodily injury arises.
- If attackers are trying to pull people out of the car, it indicates an imminent threat, potentially justifying lethal force.
- The driver in the video showed restraint and did not use lethal force despite being surrounded twice.

There's more at the link.

Texas law does allow the use of lethal force to protect property under certain conditions and circumstances, but that's (as far as I know) unique to that state.  What's more, given liberal/progressive prosecuting authorities, I'd be careful about claiming that as a legal defense, because they might bring a bunch of extraneous factors into play to nullify it.  In general, no matter where you are, property is "stuff".  Let it go.  Human lives are more important - particularly human lives lived together in freedom, and not in prison.

Peter

Left-wing anti-gunners are dismayed to learn that their legislated bans, restrictions and prohibitions are not being obeyed by an American public with more common sense than they expected.

With Illinois’ gun and magazine ban still facing legal hurdles in federal court, a registry created in relation to the ban has been open for a week. A fraction of a percent of gun owners have complied so far. 

As part of the Protect Illinois Communities Act that was enacted earlier this year, the registration portal for firearms owners in Illinois that own certain semi-automatic firearms, accessories and ammunition opened Oct. 1. While the law bans more than 170 semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns, it also bans handgun magazines over 15 rounds and rifle magazines over 10 rounds. Magazines do not have to be registered. 

Illinois State Police published the first round of statistics Tuesday, and of more than 2.4 million Firearm Owner ID card holders, 1,050 individuals have registered a total of 3,202 firearms, .50 caliber ammunition and accessories. 

“You’re at 0.0004%. That’s a rounding error,” gun rights advocate Todd Vandermyde told The Center Square.

There's more at the link.

Good for Illinois gun owners!  They follow in the proud tradition established by Connecticut and New York State gun owners, who disobeyed restrictive legislation in such massive numbers as to render it a joke.  Clearly, they prefer to be labeled as felons under the new laws rather than submit to such authoritarian overreach.  The overreach is itself an insult to our intelligence, given repeated rulings that police are not legally liable or constitutionally responsible to protect individuals.  If they're not responsible, who is?  The only possible answer is, we are - and if laws make it difficult (even impossible) to equip ourselves with adequate means to do so, we're defenseless.

One hopes Illinois gun owners will continue their civil disobedience.  I think they're a lot safer doing that than complying with the new law.  For the rest of us, I suggest Illinois and states like it that restrict the rights of their citizens (and, of course, visitors) should be on our list of places to avoid, if at all possible.  That even includes transit through them.  Why place ourselves at risk through their misguided policies?  And why reward them by spending our hard-earned dollars within their borders?

Peter

I have no idea whether anything terroristic will happen tomorrow, but Hamas clearly hopes it will.

Hamas Calls for Global ‘Day of Jihad’ on Friday the 13th

Forewarned is forearmed.

Peter

My favorite online ammo supplier, SGAmmo, sent out an e-mail today.  In part, it reads:

We have seen a massive spike in demand this past 4 days, with double 'normal' sales Saturday and Sunday,  then triple normal on Monday, and already double normal at 11am today.  We have not raised a single price yet, however if order volume continues to overwhelm the warehouse crew's capacity to fill orders over the next few days we will have to make choices on how we reduce volume, which could involve increasing prices 5% to 10%, limiting selection to cases only, removing popular ammo options that are sold at extremely low profit margins from the website menu, minimum $$ orders, etc, all of which are highly unpopular with segments of out customer base, but necessary to maintain synchronization of warehouse capacity with order volume.

We guarantee the advertised price in this email until noon CST on October 11th or while supplies last, however prices are subject to change after that.

In my course of many conversations with clients, I commonly see that there is wide spread misunderstanding of 'how it works' in the ammo business, which is understandable because it takes decades of experience to learn the deeper details, and even then, there are always surprises along the way. One thing that a lot of people do not know is that the ammunition business is a fear-driven market, not consumption driven. Fear leads to stockpiling and hoarding beyond manufacturing's capacity, which leads to shortages. The masses react to scares of various types, driving demand up quickly, sharply and almost instantly, within minutes to hours of a disaster, swarming ammo suppliers like us with abnormally large order volume. Such is the case this weekend in reaction to the Israel - Palestine conflict, where sales skyrocketed Saturday morning and remained at double 'normal' order volume over the weekend.

How long this sort of elevation of demand lasts varies and depends greatly on 'aftershocks', as in shocking events that drive additional fear in the wake of what happened just before. It take a series of events to drive the market way up like it was in 2013, or 2020 and 2021, and a single event typically will not do it alone. That said, should a series of shocking events unfold, this could drive the market up in a substantial way. I have seen people on the gun forums often make fun of the people who 'panic buy' the day of the disaster, however in my observations over the years, the people that buy in the first hours or few days of the panic beat the potential price increases and almost always come out ahead of those that wait and buy later in the short term, especially if the market prices are down at the time of the panic like they are these days.

In my opinion, the market prices could turn back up so quickly and go up so far, that it is a safe to say it is a great time to buy ammo these days. Prices have come substantially from their peaks in 2021, and while it is always possible that they go slightly lower, there is currently a lot more room to go up which can happen in what seems like the blink of an eye. Stack it deep while it is selling cheap!

I can only endorse Sam Gabbert's sentiments.  People panic when confronted by what they see as an imminent threat.  If you haven't got enough ammunition for your foreseeable needs now, other people's panic may empty shelves faster than you'd believe, and you may have to wait a long, long time before you can buy more.

I urge you to check your ammo supplies now, and order tonight whatever you need for the foreseeable future.  I'd say that should include at least 100 rounds of fighting ammo (i.e. hollow- or soft-point) for every defensive weapon, plus at least 200-300 rounds of practice ammo for each of them.  That's a rock-bottom minimum, IMHO.  I have a lot more than that put away, and right now I'm very glad that I do.  I don't have to shop for a thing.  (If you don't already have a favorite online ammo supplier, I recommend SGAmmo unreservedly.  I've used them for well over a decade, and have been very pleased with their prices and the consistent quality of service they deliver.  No, I'm not getting any commission or kickback for endorsing them.  They're just good people with whom to do business.)

The threat we're facing is real.  Right now, people are responding to that threat.  In the ammo game, under such conditions, it's a case of "You snooze, you lose".  Act accordingly.

Peter