Posts Tagged ‘SelfDefense’

postheadericon Another Sale Arranged Over The Internet, Another Self-Defense Shooting

YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO — A teenager looking to score a cell phone for free, was met with resistance when he tried to rob a person he met up with for an in-person meet from an online sale.

Here’s how it went down;

A 19-year-old man who police said was shot trying to rob someone Saturday evening died over the weekend.

Tyler Kitchen of Youngstown is the city’s 22nd homicide victim of the year.

Reports said Kitchen was shot about 6:10 p.m. at Belmont Avenue and Wirt Street.

Chief of Detectives Capt. Brad Blackburn said two men agreed to meet Kitchen to buy a phone from him over the internet but Kitchen tried to rob them.

The person who shot Kitchen, a 54-year-old man, is a concealed carry permit holder. He was with his son at the time of the meet-up.

The armed citizen told police that he carries his firearm often, and it’s a good thing that he decided to have it with him on this day.

The suspect is thought to have been responsible for numerous other armed robberies recently, although the cases have not yet been closed. If it were Kitchen who was responsible for the other robberies as well, I guess it was only a matter of time before he met up with someone who wasn’t willing to be victimized.

Concealed Nation

postheadericon Knife Attack Turns Shots Fired In Apparent Self-Defense Shooting

SISSONVILLE, WV — A man is dead after a bizarre chase with a knife turned into a prime example on why you don’t ever bring a knife to a gunfight.

The Charleston Gazette-Mail reports that a man shot and killed Tracy Stalnaker, 53, after being pursued with a knife.

“He was never right, but today he was really messed up in the head,” Debbie Carpenter, owner of the Raw Bar II, said.

About 15 minutes before his death, Stalnaker came into her bar and started an altercation.

He was carrying a can of beer not bought in the bar.

Carpenter told him to get rid of the beer, so he left. When he came back, she noticed that he was carrying a knife in his waistband.

Then she noticed that he was not carrying one knife, but several.

At one point, Stalnaker threatened her with a knife in each hand.

Although she could well have shot him and remained within legal bounds, she didn’t. That came shortly thereafter.

Stalnaker pursued another man, still armed with a knife, to the front of Smitty’s Auto Parts, when the man he was chasing turned, produced a firearm, and shot Stalnaker.

Stalnaker did not survive.

As for the man he was pursuing, it does not appear that he will be charged.

“No one is in custody,” said Kanawha County Sheriff’s Office’s Sgt. Brian Humphreys. “There is no ongoing danger.”

It is well that he was not charged — his life was clearly in danger, and it seems equally clear that the armed citizen couldn’t do a thing to break off from the engagement if had chose to evade rather than engage.

A relative of Stalnaker reported that he had a mental illness.

What do you think? Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know!

Concealed Nation

postheadericon Death Of Two Armed Robbers In Unrelated Home Invasions Ruled As Self-Defense — A Tale Of Two Crooks

HENRICO COUNTY, VIRGINIA — Two unrelated home invasions, two justifiable homicides. That’s the verdict from a recent ruling by the Henrico County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. Taivon M. Fox, 19, was a star high school quarterback that recently graduated and the other, Jarrelle J. Pringle, 21, wasn’t really known for much at all. Now they’re both dead after each took it upon himself to violently break into other people’s homes.

via Richmond Times-Dispatch

“After reviewing the facts of each case, we found that, in both cases, the evidence was clear that the person who discharged the weapon did so in self-defense,” Henrico Commonwealth’s Attorney Shannon Taylor said in an email.

In Fox’s case, he used a woman to lure a man out from his home. The woman claimed she had accidentally bumped into the man’s vehicle. When he went out to inspect damages, Fox and an accomplice snuck into the home. When they discovered the occupant’s girlfriend on the couch, Fox began beating her with a baseball bat.

Sensing something was off, the man returned to his apartment to find the door locked — which he confirmed he had left open when he walked outside. According to the man’s affidavit to police, he saw Fox standing over his girlfriend with a baseball bat.

The second intruder was upstairs rummaging through the couple’s belongings. The man entered the apartment and retrieved a gun from the kitchen. When Fox made a move towards the man, he opened fire. The girlfriend then got up and retrieved another handgun and shot Fox and the other intruder. Both intruders escaped the home but collapsed shortly thereafter. Fox succumbed to his injuries and died.

Jarrelle J. Pringle died in a separate home invasion. Both he and an accomplice broke into a home only to discover a guest sleeping on the couch. When they pointed their guns at him, he used his own handgun to shoot both of them. Pringle died at the scene.

We’re covering this story to highlight an important detail about home defense.

The situations surrounding each case were extremely different. In the first case, the victim was lured out from his home. They used a simple ruse and it backfired. In the second, the crooks came in guns drawn.

That’s how fast and insidious these situations can be. There’s not a whole lot of warning and even with the killing of both of these intruders ruled as self-defense, there can still be a lengthy investigation process that can take months to fully wrap up.

Prepare for the moment. It’s the only reliable way you can deal with a situation that completely spirals out of control. Whenever possible, the closer that gun is to you, the better the chance you can use it should the need arise.

Concealed Nation

postheadericon Essential Self-Defense Law Part II: Appropriate Force

Read ‘Essential Self-Defense Law Part I: Imminence’ Here

In the first installment of this article I laid out three legal principles that I firmly believe all armed citizens should be well aware of as a bare minimum of self-defense law understanding: The ability to recognize an imminent threat, an understanding of appropriate force, and an understanding of maintaining innocence. We went on to analyze how to recognize imminence in part one. Now, we will proceed with our discussion and explore the legalities and use of appropriate force.

Understanding Appropriate versus Excessive Lethal Force

When we use force as a citizen to mitigate a violent threat we are legally entitled to only one thing: neutralization of the threat. The textbook definition of neutralize typically reads to “render (something) ineffective or harmless by applying an opposite force or effect.” When we shoot we shoot to neutralize. That is all. Terms such as “shoot to kill” or “shoot to wound” are for the movies, they have no bearing on legal self-defense for the armed citizen. If a threat is indeed an imminent lethal threat then we are justified in a lethal response, and in the case of shooting we shoot to neutralize the threat. A threat becomes neutralized when it no longer poses a danger to innocent life. This may result in the threat dying, or being crippled, or in the threat simply running away. How much force is needed is situationally dependent.

You are not in any way obligated to put yourself or another innocent party in harm’s way by holding back on the use of force. You are not obligated to take a single shot then pause to see if another is needed. You can legally shoot a threat to the ground. If an attacker is on the ground but still fighting, such as still pointing a gun at you from the ground, then you can keep shooting. The attacker is not neutralized until he ceases the violent activity that is endangering lives. However, you are obligated to cease in using force once a threat is truly neutralized. This is the area where a lot of legitimate self-defense events go bad. What if the attacker hits the ground after being shot multiple times and the gun flies out of his hand and across the floor. If the attacker is now unarmed and immobilized so that he no longer poses an imminent threat, and you then stand over the attacker and finish him off with one to the head, guess what? You have used excessive force and will probably do some time in the big house for it. Did he deserve to die? Perhaps, but that is not your call.

What are some neutralization possibilities as it applies to criminal attackers? Well, if you produce your concealed firearm when faced with a lethal threat and at the first sign of the gun the criminal turns around and runs out the door as fast as possible, guess what, you have neutralized the threat. Now, if he is still pointing a gun at you as he flees you are legally entitled to use force. Shooting people in the back is not always wrong, it depends on what they are doing when they get shot in the back. But, if he flees and all you have presented to you is his back as he now runs down the ally and around the corner, if you shoot him in the back, you have used excessive force that is not justified.

On the opposite extreme, a neutralization may entail emptying an entire magazine worth of ammunition into a determined and violent criminal, and then beating him the remainder of his way to death with the empty gun if that is what it takes to get him to cease his dangerous and violent activity. The bottom line is this, the amount of force that is appropriate and required varies completely based on the circumstances. So, we should be ready to use any level of force required without hesitation if it is needed, but we must avoid excessive force. If a threat is still capable of hurting people the continued use of lethal force against that individual is usually justified. However, once that individual is no longer posing a threat, you are legally obligated to cease using force and if you fail to do so you are in for big legal trouble.

Avoiding Excessive Less-Lethal Force

Proportional and necessary force are terms that are sub-sections to our topic of appropriate force and it is important so I bring it up here. You may be forced to defend yourself against threats that are violent, but not deadly. This is when we need to understand the realities of using only force that is proportional. Proportional force means using only force that is at the same level as that used by the aggressor. Generally, proportional force is going to stipulate that a non-lethal threat only warrants less-lethal force. If a drunk slaps you in the face after you accidently knock over his beer and you immediately produce your gun and give him a quick Mozambique drill, do you think that is a proportional response? I think most would agree that it is excessive force. “Proportional” can get murky as disparity of force can upset this seemingly straight-forward concept. Sometimes what is necessary may go beyond just proportional force, or sometimes what is necessary may actually be less than proportional, so my advice is to use only necessary force: the level of force needed to end the threat, but nothing more. A deadly threat such as an armed attacker typically demands a lethal response as this is necessary to neutralize such a threat. An unarmed threat, in most cases, will call for only a less-lethal response, be it open hand skills or less-lethal weaponry like OC spray.

Typically lethal force is not going to be justifiable against an unarmed aggressor, but, as discussed before, disparity of force can make a lethal response to an unarmed attacker necessary for some individuals in some circumstances. Again, consider a large strong male assaulting a small female. In that case the lethal response becomes necessary force. But, what if a small female were to assault a large strong male, perhaps swing a baseball bat at him? If the larger stronger male dodges the bat and closes on her so that he can simply restrain her so that she cannot injure him, or simply get away from her without risking his safety, would it be right for him to use truly “proportional” force and beat her up if he does not have to just because that is the level of force she is using? Technically, a ball bat is a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law and a lethal response may be justified, but perhaps it is not necessary. So, again, my advice as a good policy to default to is use ONLY the force necessary in any given situation to deal with the threat as this is usually going to be more legally defensible.

I am a firm advocate that all concealed carriers should have some open hand fighting skills and perhaps should carry a less-lethal alternative such as pepper spray for such events. What is required of you in your force response will also vary once again based on disparity of force. A strong and trained man will obviously be expected to handle non-lethal threats in less-lethal ways. An older person, a female, or someone who is in some way frail is not expected to go into hand-to-hand combat with a younger or stronger opponent. In some circumstances a strong and capable male may have need for a less-lethal option such as pepper spray because such a force tool can be used instead of going hands on which may put the defender, as well as the aggressor, at greater risk. Pepper spray and other less-lethal options are not just for females who don’t want to carry a gun, they are for anyone serious about self-defense.

Generally I find that far too many concealed carriers spend no time at all considering less-lethal self-defense. I will point out to you that per FBI crime statistics the average American is 5 times more likely to face a non-lethal assault than a lethal assault. That means you are 5 times more likely to need to employ your hands or a less-lethal weapon system than you are to have to deploy your gun. This is something you really need to take into account. Over-reliance on the singular tool can set you up for disaster if it leads you to escalate to an excessive force option because you have no lesser force abilities. Again, this is even more critical for the younger and stronger male than it is for the elderly, infirm, or small female because the young and strong are legally held to a higher expectation of being more proportional in defensive options.

In closing let me again reiterate that this article should be only the beginning for you if this is your first foray into this world of understanding self-defense law. The more versed you are in this knowledge base the more likely you are to make good decisions quickly, making you more likely to protect your physical life, as well as your legal and financial future. In part three of this article we will discuss the principles of maintaining innocence in a self-defense encounter.

Disclaimer: The above are opinions of the author. In any situation dealing with self-defense, it is your responsibility to understand the laws in your area, and what you can and cannot legally do. It is also your responsibility to use your best judgement, given the situation that you may find yourself in. In no way should this information be viewed as legal advice. When in doubt, consult a lawyer for any clarification that you may require. Simply put, use your best judgement and always abide by the law.

Concealed Nation

postheadericon Essential Self-Defense Law Part I: Imminence

I am not an attorney, nor do I propose to offer legal advice of any kind. I am, however, a gun writer and trainer that has become propelled to pen this article because I see an incredible deficiency in many a concealed carrier’s knowledge base regarding what constitutes the justifiable and legal use of force. The problem is that this ignorance can end up putting well-intentioned people in jail, or at least through a costly legal ordeal. For those new to this discipline this three-part article is intended to provide you with a solid starting point. Those of you that are knowledgeable in this field should seek to educate your fellow armed citizen and my synthesis of the primary concepts involved may prove helpful to you as well.

The reality is that we cannot eliminate all legal danger from our lives, any more than we can eliminate physical danger entirely. However, a complete ignorance of self-defense law is a good way to ensure that you will have legal trouble in the aftermath of a use of force defensive encounter. A solid understanding of these principles will not eliminate that possibility, but will certainly go a long way to mitigate it.

There are, unfortunately, very few attorneys that focus specifically on the field of self-defense law. The foremost one that I do know of is Andrew Branca, and he has an excellent book called The Law of Self Defense: The Indispensable Guide to the Armed Citizen. Read it if you can. Trainer and author Massad Ayoob also does significant work on this issue, and while not a lawyer he has extensive experience in the courtroom as an expert witness. What I provide here is not at all in depth, but it is the absolute essentials of the knowledge that you should have if you carry a firearm for self-defense. Let this article be only your beginning into this self-education, but here I seek to pass along the most essential elements of this crucial topic.

When I first obtained a carry permit at the age of 21 I did so in a state that had a really good program in which the bulk of the required state-mandated CCW course focused on legalities related to using lethal force in self-defense. I think that proves a good model as it exposes new concealed carriers to at least some knowledge of self-defense law. Most states do not require this and the vast majority of concealed carriers have absolutely no training in self-defense law. Therefore, all responsible armed citizens should take personal responsibility to educate themselves in these legal principles and seek this knowledge out. I have spent a great deal of effort in further refining my knowledge of self-defense law throughout the years and I wish to share with you here what I have come to consider the three most critical points that you need to be conscious of and these three principles will serve as a good knowledge foundation:

Three Basic Tenants of Self-Defense Law to be Aware of:

1) Recognize Imminence: Only a threat that poses an imminent and reasonable risk of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or others justifies a lethal force response.

2) Appropriate Force: You only have the legal right to use the force necessary to neutralize a threat. Anything further than neutralization may be considered excessive force.

3) Maintain Innocence: You must be an innocent party in the confrontation for you to argue that you used self-defense, not an active aggressor that starts or escalates a situation.

These are three big picture principles to hold in mind and they are the three I offer for your consideration as a bare minimum in understanding self-defense legalities. These are the areas in which a lot of well-intentioned people have made costly mistakes. Regardless of state specific laws such as stand your ground, castle doctrine, or the lack thereof, these principles I lay out here usually apply. In the remainder of the first installment of this article I am going to provide an overview of the first principle and in part two and three we will discuss the others. So, to begin, how can we identify a legitimate threat that warrants lethal force? Let’s discuss:

Recognize Imminence and the Reasonable Risk of Death or Grave Bodily Harm

It is time to learn three new terms if you are unfamiliar with these: Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. These are the three traits that a threat MUST display to be reasonably considered a lethal threat that warrants a lethal force defensive response. If even one of these elements is absent then lethal force is not justified. Let’s take a look at these basic legal tenants:

Ability: The principle of ability stipulates that for a violent actor to be reasonably considered a deadly threat he (or she, or they) must actually have the ability to kill or significantly injure you. Sounds obvious right? So, for example, a guy pointing a gun at you obviously has the ability to kill or hurt you. An old lady in a wheel chair who is angry at you for bumping into her while standing in line and swinging her pocket book at you probably does not have the ability to kill or seriously hurt you. The most obvious example of an attacker’s ability to hurt you is when armed with a weapon. If an aggressor has a gun, knife, or blunt instrument the ability is legally there. If an adversary is armed the decision to use force is typically clearer cut, at least as it concerns the ability clause.

Now, within the domain of the ability principle comes the subject of disparity of force. This means that an opponent may legally be considered to have the ability to pose you grave bodily harm or death even if unarmed because he or she is a superior combatant for some reason. The most obvious example of this is male-on-female violence. The average man is significantly stronger than the average female and a violent attack perpetrated by a male against a female usually constitutes ability even if the male is unarmed. Superior numbers can also constitute disparity of force, for example, if a male defender faces multiple male attackers. Also, some circumstances can constitute disparity of force, such as one appointment being in a position of advantage, such as punching another physically equal person who is at the moment strapped into a seatbelt, or an aggressor mounted on top of a grounded combatant and bashing his head into the pavement. So, disparity of force is not at all straight forward, but it is often at play. A general understanding of these principles is warranted.

Opportunity: The second trait that must be present and demonstrated by an attacker to justify a lethal response is opportunity. This means the attacker must have the opportunity to harm you. For example, a guy with a knife who is 100 yards away and screaming at you, as you are getting into your vehicle so that you can safely drive away, has the ability to do you harm, but due to the distance he does not reasonably have the opportunity to hurt you yet. Now, what if that same knife wielding lunatic was standing only a few yards away and you are not yet in your vehicle? Now the opportunity is certainly there. Despite having the ability to do you harm, an assailant must have the opportunity, which typically means he needs to be present and at a close enough distance to do you harm. Otherwise, there is no opportunity as it stands legally.

Jeopardy: What jeopardy means is essentially that the assailant is clearly manifesting the will to hurt you or another innocent party. A good example is this: if you live in a gun friendly state like my own state of Virginia it is common to see people open-carrying guns in public. If you are standing in McDonalds and a guy with an openly carried gun stands in line next to you, do you have the right to respond to that with lethal force? He has the ability to hurt you because he is armed. He has the opportunity to hurt you because he is standing right next to you. But, is he showing any signs of threatening you or others? No. He has ability and opportunity but he is not placing anyone in jeopardy. Now, if a guy walks into the establishment with a gun in hand pointing it at people and screaming to put the money in the bag, now ability, opportunity, AND jeopardy are all present, and now we are dealing with a legitimate lethal threat.

Going further on with this discussion on these conditions let me say that it often boils down to using common sense, but things are not always clear cut. There are a lot of situations that may be gray, not black and white. For example, an active shooter that starts massacring people in a public space in front of you is going to pose an obvious lethal threat to yourself and others, and an immediate lethal force response like gunfire is going to be warranted and entirely justified. The ability, opportunity, and jeopardy are all clearly present. But, what about a suspicious looking fellow following you in a dark parking garage? Even if he gives you a bad feeling, has he done anything yet? If confronted by a seemingly hostile individual who may be aggressive but is not yet attacking and does not appear armed, how do you handle that? If you act too soon and pull a gun on a person who ends up being innocent then you are going to be charged with aggravated assault. If you act to late and don’t take action against a legitimate threat then you may end up dead.

The more knowledgeable you are about self-defense law, the more likely you are to make the right decisions, which often must be made in fractions of a second. Spend some time thinking about these principles and do some research so that your understanding of these legalities becomes familiar and instantly available in your mind. In part two of this article we will continue our discussion and analyze appropriate force.

Disclaimer: The above are opinions of the author. In any situation dealing with self-defense, it is your responsibility to understand the laws in your area, and what you can and cannot legally do. It is also your responsibility to use your best judgement, given the situation that you may find yourself in. In no way should this information be viewed as legal advice. When in doubt, consult a lawyer for any clarification that you may require. Simply put, use your best judgement and always abide by the law.

Concealed Nation

postheadericon Teen Who Shot And Killed Mother’s Boyfriend Ruled Self-Defense

CENTRAL ISLIP, NEW YORK — One 18-year-old defended his mother and his own life from his mother’s aggressive boyfriend. Despite using a firearm in self defense, he was still charged with second degree murder. We’ve just received word that charges have been dropped.

According to the Oneida Daily Dispatch, 28-year-old Rashad Woolridge got tossed out of the teenager’s house after the teen broke up a fight between him and his mother. Woolridge allegedly left the premises but returned and called out to the teenager to come out outside.

The procession of incidents has not been fully determined but the teenager’s mother claims she heard a single gunshot. When she stepped outside, Woolridge was dead on the ground.

This is a stark reminder to gun owners that just because self defense can be established, it doesn’t mean the prosecutor will immediately take it. In this case, the New York prosecutor thought he might have a case for charging this youth with murder. Thankfully, the jury backed up the teen’s actions and the case was dismissed.

For all we think we know about self defense and lawful gun use, there will always be some shadow of a doubt. If the prosecutor decides that presents an opportunity for him to make a case, you can bet he will.

We covered another story not too long ago that involved a 14-year-old girl who shot and killed her abusive father. Believe it or not, despite multiple corroborating stories confirming the physical abuse, the prosecutor is still going ahead with charges.

Protect your life — make sure you have all your ducks in a row.

This means getting a restraining order. Put in a home surveillance system so you can monitor what goes on outside your home. Distance yourself from abusive or toxic people. Buy and carry a gun every single day. Take a pistol safety class. Become confident and proficient in your own defense. Have an attorney on speed dial in the event of an emergency.

A lot of people will not do the things I mentioned above. They may do a couple but they won’t do all of them. If any of us ever run into a self defense situation and have to use a gun to defend our own life or the life of another, we will have wished we had done every single one of those things.

Pay now or pay later — everyone pays some time. Our lives are worth it.

Concealed Nation

postheadericon HuffPo Blogger: ‘Self-Defense Is Unjust’ Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love My Attacker

We truly live in interesting times, people. When there’s generations of people who have never grown up under the guise of ever fearing for their mortal lives or, worse, have become complacent with the idea their attacker will show them and their family any mercy, we end up with a recent piece like what was recently published in the Huffington Post. Long divorced from any semblance of the real world or what happens to people when they’re attacked, we have no shortage of Ivory Tower prescriptions for a society that is increasingly gearing up and training for self defense.

Published in part, via the HuffPo Hug Shed

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.

Actually, the use of force is completely is legal. Every single state in the United States has specific codified law (you know, rule of law?) designating precisely when and where and under what conditions the use of deadly force is authorized. Maybe the writer has not familiarized himself with these terms but concealed carriers are obliged to know those conditions should they need to employ deadly force.

In addition, one’s mental capacity is a major factor in deciding whether a man or woman has the right to have a firearm. There are two reasons for ensuring mental capacity. First, one of the Five Aims is to ensure domestic tranquility and there can be no tranquility if one does not have the capacity. Second, if one’s brain is distorting his or her reality, they do not have the proper reasoning and deduction skills to use a firearm.

When a human being is placed into a perceived life or death situation where the application of deadly force would apply, his brain is flooded with a hormone called cortisol. This will alter the shape of the crystalline lens of the person’s eyeball so he has better visual acuity at longer distances for detecting threats but it will also impair his short term memory while it remains at elevated levels.

This process can take 72 hours or more. A life or death situation will permanently alter your brain chemistry and your physical body, as one NRA instructor, Ed Santos, recently informed me during an interview I conducted on his experience with concealed carry instruction. He’s been teaching for over thirty years for law enforcement, military, and civilian audiences and he’s also a professionally certified expert witness on the after-effects of a defensive gun use.

Therefore, if we ponder and meditate on the recent events in news about guns, it would be obvious that the current state is incorrect.

  • A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use.

  • The belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one is counterintuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons.

  • In addition, there are reasons why cops are trained to use a firearm in stressful situations. It is not to keep their mind at ease or anything of that sort, but to be able to fire accurately at the target in the correct location.

We’ve literally disconnected from the concept of using logic and reason to illustrate out our arguments. I’m not sure where this precisely occurred but it appears now, more than ever, that the people informing us on how we should feel about an issue — based upon irrelevant, fallacious arguments — are no longer concerned with attempting discussion. It is now, quite simply: “I’m sure you’ll all agree that removing your basic right to defend your life is for the best.”

I fear for the future where people such as the writer of this recent HuffPo piece are allowed to make or influence any policy decision governing the lives of millions of people.

Concealed Nation

postheadericon Father Shoots 3, Son Wrestles Gun Away And Shoots Father; DA Deciding Over This Case. Does This Sound Like Self-Defense To You?

On New Years Eve, a 54-year-old father shot and killed three people, and then his own son shot and killed him in what has yet to be ruled self-defense. It’s a story that is truly disturbing, and one that the … Continue reading
Concealed Nation

postheadericon UNPRECEDENTED TEST: Tests 117 Different Self-Defense Rounds In Ballistic Gel With Amazing Results

Have you ever wanted to compare a massive amount of self-defense ammunition against other brands? Have you had trouble finding an easy way of doing this? Enter and their massive collection of data on this very subject. If you … Continue reading
Concealed Nation

postheadericon Are You Carrying The Right Self-Defense Ammo?

When a bullet strikes a living thing, it creates a pathway for blood and bodily fluid to flow out.  That’s what inevitably causes death – outside of direct hits to the brain, heart, or other vital organs.  When blood pressure … Continue reading
Concealed Nation