I have an elderly neighbor (she’s in her 80’s). She’s capable: she totally lucid, drives herself where she needs to go, and you can tell she’s got her pride — she wants to be self-sustaining and not be a burden on anyone. We do help her out as she needs, but again you can tell she does NOT want to burden anyone and only comes to us for help when she’s exhausted all options. I respect that, and am always happy to help her out when she asks.
But let’s face facts. She’s in her 80’s. She moves slow. She’s fairly frail.
She is vulnerable.
I admit, I think about her vulnerability. Some days ago I was over at her house helping her set up one of those “medical alert” systems. She knows her state in life (thus why she got the system for herself). But it still weighs on me. I often find myself thinking about her vulnerability, and if there’s anything I can do to alleviate it.
Then I step back and think about greater issues.
Our neighborhood has recently had a rash of break-ins. Thankfully it’s mostly been cars, but I do know from time to time homes are broken into.
I cringe at the thought of her home getting broken into. And let’s face it. Most break-ins are not random. The criminal has stalked and monitored and determined ahead of time what houses are good targets.
What can she do? Some 16-35 year old male breaks into her home. How vulnerable she is. What can she do in the face of such a threat?
She’s not like Mayor Bloomberg, with her own “private army”, which she can enjoy in her own retirement. She’s not so privileged as to have to have a security detail. What can she do?
There’s so much big talk about “leveling the playing field” in so many other areas of life, but what about here when life itself is at stake?
Anti-gun mantras ring hollow with me. If you’re going to throw worn arguments at me, I say you should look her in the eye and tell her the same. Think about how your actions to deny our society’s most vulnerable citizens with a means of an equalizer actually serve to hurt them more than help them.
Because that’s what a gun is: a force equalizer.
It allows folks like her to tell some evil person bent on hurting her, on destroying her life, to stop and go away.
Can you look her in the eye and deny her?
I’ll even take pro-gun folks to task.
There’s so much rah-rah about guns, calibers, and what’s acceptable for personal defense. It’s not just internet message board bravado, but it’s even things like how Texas law requires a certain “big caliber gun” (.32 caliber or greater) to pass the CHL test. You could carry a .22, but you can’t test with it. Yes, I understand why they required things in this way… but it still kinda bothers me.
I think about my frail neighbor.
Could she fire such a gun?
Pull that trigger weight?
Manage that level of recoil?
I don’t know, but given what I’ve seen of her frailty, I’m not sure.
But because of her condition in life, why should she be denied?
Stuff From Hsoi 
The problem I have with the CHL requirements — such as the caliber restriction for testing current and the previous semi / revolver issue — is that it does not seem to be based on science or evidence.
Nothing I’ve read shows a basis for the requirement other then someone’s opinion.
I support people carrying the largest caliber they can safely, repeatedly and effectively use.
And I fully understand the issue with your neighbor; we are in the same boat. Ours has family that stops by often and isn’t quite as old — merely in her 70s.
Or even my wife; after her bout with breast cancer her already weak hand/upper body strength isn’t the greatest — why should her limitations be a barrier to exercising her right AS SHE desires?
Personally I’m strongly considering a Kel-Tec PMR-30 as a possibility if we can’t find her a larger caliber concealable semi with a slide she can reliably work.
In part, the requirement is there to avoid gaming the system. Someone takes the test with a .22 LR — which they struggle with (let’s say) — then decides to carry a .44 magnum, which they can’t control or work properly at all. Is that right?
I mean, I even see it at the CHL Instructor renewals, with folks shooting guns well outside the lines of carry (e.g. some revolver with an 8″ barrel, designing for hunting). It’s legally acceptable, but not within the spirit of things.
So I am reluctant to remove the restriction (unless we start talking Constitutional Carry, which is another matter). But I would at least like to see some way to have waivers or exceptions for obvious and evident need. But I also fear if that was done, it too may become burdensome (e.g. medical note/documentation) and directly hinder those directly affected. Argh.
In other news…
If you are looking at even regular old .22 LR, look at CCI Velocitor. I’ve heard awesome things about it in terms of “if you gotta use .22 for self-defense, what’s the best ammo”. Unfortunately trouble right now is trying to find it….
Sorry but I have a real problem with coming up with anything against ‘gaming’ the system. Again — is there any evidence that suggest those who completed the class and proficiency exam perform better than those who don’t?
Any evidence that the people carrying a .44 after qualifying on a .32 have been shooting more people, shooting the wrong people, etc?
Again — the license and the requirements seem to be entry barriers thought up by people (I’m betting a huge number of supposed ‘experts’ from the LEO, training industry, etc) based on their feelings and opinions instead of solid evidence.
Mostly, think about how that comes across “gaming the system” – a system of what? Barriers to prevent people from exercising their rights, from learning effective self defense. Man, I would rather see a town full of people carrying 10″ .22LR revolvers than one person in town carrying a .45 ACP (s)he qualified expert on. Then again, I tend to trust the average person’s judgment; something politicians seem to have trouble with.
No offense to you as an instructor but I see a huge aspect of self interest in the requirements. If someone has to qualify on a .32 or larger – then they are likely to qualify with a gun they will need training or experience on. Something the instructors encourage. Frankly,. If there is going to be a training requirements I would love to see a restriction preventing those from providing instruction from also doing the CHL class/qualification. See how many people actually seek out training and a CHL class.
Help me understand why you ‘fear removing the restriction’?
Speaking for myself as an instructor….
I walk a fine line. There are the preservation of God-given rights on the one hand, then there’s education, knowledge, and ignorance on the other. I want both: I want to preserve our rights, but I also want people to have as much education and knowledge as possible, because ignorance tends to lead to slavery.
I believe that more education and knowledge leads to a better citizenry, and you’ll just have a better quality of life because the more you know, the more you can do, the better you can do it, well, that works in your favor. If you can be skilled at defending yourself, that’s going to serve you better than having a talisman and hoping for the best…. which is what a lot of people do when they buy a gun.
Should education be mandated? No, because that doesn’t really work. When you have to sit through some class or training because you are forced to, instead of because you want to be there, then you are unlikely to listen, to take in the information, to try, etc.. It sometimes can work out, but often not. Alas, so many people are content to sit in ignorance. Or worse, believe they have adequate knowledge and skill to handle a particular situation. I see it often in classes, where students come in expecting their having a Y-chromosome is sufficient for the task at hand, and 3 hours later have their eyes opened and ego humbled because they got their ass handed to them. Which is good, because learning has taken place and they are better off for the experience.
To me, that’s what I want.
I want people to learn. I want people to have true and honest knowledge of their skills and abilities. I do not want people to have a false sense of security, or to have ego drive them… because that will get them killed.
And so, doing things like “gaming the system” can lead to that. I mean, if you want to carry a .44 magnum, fine… but then you better be able to pass the test with it. Because if you cannot, if you have to “game” things and use a .22 because that’s the only way you can pass, then you are fooling yourself and doing yourself a disservice. You are going to injure yourself because your chances of successful personal defense are reduced, and you increase chances of other injury to yourself perhaps in the form of lawsuits because the bullets you couldn’t adequately fire hit Baby Johnny in the crossfire and now you’re going to jail. What good does such “gaming” do for you? If all you can effectively shoot is a .22, then master that .22 and carry that .22 (with some good ammo like CCI Velocitor); don’t game for the sake of ego or other things… because at least to me, life isn’t worth such a game.
So for me, this isn’t a legal issue… it’s a skill and knowledge issue, an issue of honesty with yourself. The Texas CHL test is not a difficult test (we can coach a total n00b to be able to pass that test in half a day), but believe me there are people that struggle to pass it. Ignore the fact it’s a legal requirement to get a TX CHL, just look at it as a simple shooting drill/test. If you cannot pass this test with a 100% score, then you do not have the skill you think you have, nor the skill you will likely need when things go pear-shaped.
Does this mean your only recourse is to spend money on an instructor? Nope. Some people are able to improve themselves and teach themselves (and these days, hooray for the Internet because there’s lots of good resources out there to help… tho that borders on “instruction”). Of course, you could just remain unskilled and ignorant too. I’m not saying one should seek and instructor because it keeps me in business… I’m saying one should seek a teacher because that’s just how knowledge and learning works best. Hell, if I was so greedy about the money aspect, I wouldn’t be writing so much on a free blog.
Would I prefer 10 people walking around with .22’s? Sure. I’d more prefer 10 people walking around with .22’s that were humble but confident, and proven and demonstrably effective in their use of that .22 (don’t have to show me or some state representative, just meaning a true and honest ability here). I’m not saying we should legislate to that end, but I will do my best to convince and encourage people that the more they know, the more skill they have, the more honest ability they give themselves, that will take them and all of us further.