Before publishing Why The Rabbi Carries Three Guns, And I Carry One, I sent the copy to the rabbi for his comments. He added the following:
Having spoken to Robert of the subject of being a child of a holocaust survivor a few times, I both agree and disagree with Robert’s assessment and how it relates to my defensive readiness. Basically, I agree with most of his conclusions. We disagree as to the extent of its manifestation within my lifestyle. Robert believes that it is of greater influence than I. Honestly, I don’t know who’s right. Either way, the reason that I carry three guns is based on practicality, not psychology. I don’t consider myself an optimist, nor a pessimist, I consider myself a realist . . .
Realistically, most people, even TTAG readers, don’t truly comprehend the amount of violent crime in this country. As a police officer and police trainer, I have more exposure to it and a better comprehension of the veracity of the problem. FBI Stats show that are approximately three million violence crimes annually in this country. That means that Americans face a 1 in a 100 chance of becoming a victim of a violent crime.
It is true that living right – don’t do stupid things with studio people in stupid places – will reduce your likelihood of being a victim. But crime happens everywhere, at all times of the day. Yes, Robert is right, my mindset is that I expect to be attacked and I prepare for it, just as I expect and prepare for a fire.
To the meat of the question, why three guns . . .
It is an issue of practicality. They say that the more you know about gun fighting, the less you want to be in one. I would add that the more you know about gun fighting, the more you know what techniques and equipment work, and what doesn’t. I follow the teachings of the great American philosopher, Clint Eastwood: “A man has to know his limitations.” In training, you learn the limitations of your physical abilities and that of your equipment.
I carry a back-up pistol, accessible to my support hand because I know through study of both real and simulated gun fights, there is a strong probability of getting shot in the dominant hand/arm. In fights, adversaries focus on the threat and in gunfights, that’s the gun hand. With the eyes focused on the gun, the body and thus the aim point focuses there as well.
As a demonstration, take 10 shooters and have them shoot a cardboard target. Then have them shoot a photo-real target picturing an attacker pointing a gun at them. You will see the groups drift towards the gun. Happens even more intensely in a real fight. Secondly, most shooters hold their gun right in front of their center of mass, which coincidently, is the place that most people aim.
One reason a back-up may be needed: the primary gun may be disabled by being hit by a bullet, see above, or can jam for a multitude of reasons, such as being rolled around in the dirt during a fight, or simply a worn magazine spring. Additionally, guns, like all mechanical devices break, just because.
A back-up gun is also important if your primary gun gets taken in a gun grab. Many altercations start as a physical fight. If the gun is inadvertently discovered during the tussle, it may be grabbed from you. Likewise, it may be taken from you if deployed at the wrong time.
Running out of ammo is a good possibility as well, especially when faced with multiple attackers. The FBI states that nearly half of all violent crimes are perpetrated by multiple attackers and that percentage is increasing. Some folk prefer a NY Reload (changing guns) rather than reloading their primary weapon. For them, it is faster and presents a lower chance of fumbling and screwing up. Don’t forget the possibility of drugged up thugs, which are becoming more common. These attackers feel no pain and usually require numerous rounds on target to stop the body’s locomotion.
My third gun is on my ankle for two reasons. Through training, I know that accessing a belt-borne firearm, can be very difficult, if not impossible, if the fight goes to the ground–again a good likelihood. There are a few techniques that allow a draw from an ankle holster when your belt holsters are not able to be reached. Ankle holsters are also very good for use in the car since they are not encumbered by a seat-belt. Just like one type of gun, or one style of holster may not be perfect for all occasions, one carry location may not suit all needs either.
Lastly, having three guns allows me to give one to someone else (who is mistakenly, not carrying) in a emergency and still have a back-up.
Much of Robert’s comments are right. One thing is for sure, I am a stubborn bastard and I will not yield. If I go down, I will go down fighting. My choice of equipment, techniques, tactics and training are based on experience, others and my own—all chosen for specific, well, thought-out reasons. I live what I teach and I teach what I live.
PS. I carry 3 handguns when I am 100% positive, without a doubt not going to get into a gun fight. If I thought I were getting into a gun fight I would carry a rifle and three handguns.
plus a carbine or folder (uzi or sig556 patrol) slung on the back, and possibly an autoloading shotgun if the fight will go indoors and crowd control may be an issue…. too much?
Which guns, what holsters and where for each?
You forgot frag grenades and CS canisters. Maybe a few flash-bangs for good measure… hmmmmm.
Don’t know exactly why, but this article made me start wondering about why is it the case that the parts of the US where there is a higher percentage of concealed carry is there also a lower percentage of motorcycle and bicycle helmet use? Obviously concealed carry is linked to a desire for self preservation, but isn’t it even more obvious that helmets are also?
Are you insinuating a link of some sort? What makes you think the ccw,ers and the bikers are the same people? It may just be a case of ccw states tend to have fewer nanny laws so people who want guns have guns and people who want helmets have helmets. I know people may take up the gun for safety while allowing other dangers in checked but that is only odd if you don’t believe that how you die matters.
Yes, the “nanny” principle may cause lower CCP rates and higher helmet rates, regardless of safety views. Another way of saying something similar is that people who want to “exercise their rights” would be more likely to carry and ride helmetless.
Another interesting factor could be ratios between helmet laws, actual helmets worn per biker, number of bikers, and actual number of bikers killed or unsafe bikers. For example, comparing #2 and #4, perhaps a high ratio of bikers don’t wear helmets but there are fewer biker deaths per biker. I doubt that between two localities the ratio of helmetless bikers to biker deaths is the same, and perhaps the discrepancy is large – just a thought. This could be related to the level of caution in bikers or the type/speed of biking done, geography, etc.
Of course, there are also value preferences, such as the importance of self-defense compared to overall desire to live. Some folks carry a weapon but eat (what even they would agree is) a horrible diet. I guess it’s more comfortable to know you are responsible for an early death than die because of someone else. Some people/cultures may disagree though. Some people who enjoy biking are less likely to wear helmets than people who enjoy it less, perhaps bike for other reasons or in less recreational settings.
On the topic of extremely complex data interpretation, I think that TTAG should find a list of “Reasons Why Guns Are Bad” or “Reasons That Gun Control Works”, and each main point should be a post. The best answer could be selected as the winner and put into a list arguing the benefits of gun ownership, etc.
There was an account on a blog of a SWAT cop who drew his Sig P226 during a firefight only to come up looking at the top of his lower receiver.The slide and barrel stayed in his holster, at exactly the worst time possible.He owes his life to a brother officer behind him in the stack.
What happened?Once the shooting started, one of the suspects bullets hit the officers left hand holster and nicked the takedown lever on its way out, at just the right point to drive it down.
If it’s your time, it’s your time.We can take steps to avoid problems, but random luck or lack thereof cannot be trained out.That SWAT officer lacked nothing for training, carried a quality handgun, and had the right mindset for a fight.
He still nearly bit it.
Life is short.Don’t be a hostage to Murphy.One tenet of freedom is controlling that which you can, and letting go of that which you cannot.
So, you’re saying carry a Glock?
I LOLed hard at that one. Well done, sir (or madam).
I’d bet that the officer was hyped up on adrenaline, partially dismantled his firearm on the way to the scene (one of those paranoid “gotta check it” things that stressed people sometimes do when they are waiting for something bad to happen), and then failed to properly reassemble his firearm.
I’ll never complain about having to remove the slide catch to field-strip ever again.
If I thought I was going to get in a fight i would depart the area or get lots of backup
The surprise and unexpected emergency is the scenario we need to prepare for and train to.
In my little town, the people involved in gun fights are usually (1) shooting at or getting shot by the police, (2) people who know each other and the fight is the result of an on-going dispute, or (3) engaged in the drug trade in some fashion. Most crime is burglaries and car thefts committed by our local drug addict and/or homeless population. There are very occasional armed robberies (which have dropped off dramatically now that all the pot clinics have been closed down); and the only home invasions I can recall all involved drugs. Not being in the drug “culture”, and not having anyone gunning for me, my odds of a home invasion are extraordinarily low. A single handgun and a pocket knife is thus more than adequate protection in the street.
The Petit family in Cheshire, CT led a zero-exposure lifestyle, and except for Dr. Petit, they are now all dead. The Clutter family of Holcomb, Kansas led a zero-exposure lifestyle and they are all dead. Every single one of them. Dustin Friedland was shopping in Short Hills, NJ, one of the wealthiest communities in the Northeast, and now he’s dead.
Trouble has a way of finding us, my friend.
Good addition to the conversation
The Petits were wealthy and specifically targeted by career criminals. I don’t fit into that class. I am not rich and do not live in a big house in an upscale neighborhood. Further, the Petits had no firearms to protect the homestead, and I don’t fall into that class either. The Clutters were also targeted by career criminals who had been told that Mr. Clutter kept a large amount of cash in a safe in the home. I don’t have a safe or a large amount of cash, so again my risk of being targeted by a career criminal is negligible. And I think that one handgun is enough for two invaders.
Had any of the Petits been armed, with even a single handgun, that story may have turned out very differently.
If you are attacked by professional motivated armed career criminals survival is a matter of their decision and luck. I carry mainly to defend myself and family from the opportunistic unprepared criminals who attack assuming their target is soft and will just lay down and die for them. Any resistance especially armed resistance usually make them run away like the cowards they are.
I usually only carry one weapon and no spare magazine. Although I have to admit a second gun on the opposite ankle would be nice in the vehicle since the seat belt usually obstructs a smooth draw.
What does “studio people” have to do with being endangered? 😉 Sorry, caught a word-slip there in paragraph three where it’s said to not do stupid things with studio people in stupid places.
Friggin artists, it’s all their fault!
Note to self: never go to Hollywood.
Lastly, having three guns allows me to give one to someone else (who is mistakenly, not carrying) in a emergency and still have a back-up.
Ha! I guessed it in my comment on the previous, related article. Rabbi, I agree with all you have written and tip my hat to you. More than once, I’ve had to hand off my third sidearm to an unarmed buddy. I would’ve cringed at handing off my BUG but the 3rd sidearm was much easier to part with. IMHO, it’s always better to have it and not need it.
Very good point about having the ability to give another person a gun if needed.
i agree that is probably the best reason to carry 3.
Thank you for being willing to explain your reasoning. Not nearly as bizarre as it seemed right off the bat.
Per your own stats, 99% of people won’t be attacked. I’ll stick with just one gun and a lot less paranoia.
Ah, but that lottery is played every year. Eventually we’ll roll a seven, it just takes time; this year, the next, maybe fifty years down the track. Chance is funny like that. I once saw a man sit down at a roulette table and put $100 on a single number. Instant winner.
It’s only paranoia until it’s proven right; then it’s preparedness.
Even if you’re in the 1% who are a victim of a violent crime, the odds of you needing THREE guns to ward off your attackers are minuscule.
It’s all a matter of perspective Totoenglocke, to all the people that think like Shannon Watts: your paranoid, fearful, compensating for being inadequately endowed, wanna be Rambo, just waiting for a chance to shoot somebody; and that’s for carrying ONE gun.
What I find interesting, to those of us that think carrying a gun as being reasonable and rational; suddenly; if some one carries more guns than we do, THEY are the ones that are now paranoid and fearful.
It’s all rather hilarious; Human Beings, what a laugh riot we can be. You can laugh or you can cry; which ever is appropriate.
Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean “they” aren’t out to get you.
Bravo rabbi on explaining the why.
Having been in a few scrapes, your rule of three would have sure come in handy once.
I get it.
the chances of ever needing a gun to protect yourself are very small…but most of us on this site decide we need firearms to protect ourselves. we can each decide how many we need.
It’s amusing to see how many people are so paranoid that they think that they need more guns than they have hands just to go to the grocery store. There’s a huge difference between having a gun “just in case” and outgunning Rambo just to go about your boring daily life.
Seriously, if you think you need to carry more guns to go about your daily life than a soldier in a war zone does, you’ve crossed the line from being “prepared” to “paranoid and possibly needing psychiatric care”.
Yep, you can laugh or you can cry.
THx, but I work in a career where the chance of assault is 80-90% (across my career) and I am disarmed by my employer…. Let people carry what they want and where they want.
I’m right there with you ThomasR.
If its not for you fine don’t do it, we as a group (gun owners that is) have pretty much adopted that as an unofficial motto. Its as smile as that, don’t want to carry more than one gun don’t but you have no right to limit my actions and choices. Its on the razor’s edge of becoming a well used anti gun argument.
Next I’m expecting totenglock to tell me my dick is small because I carry two revolvers sometimes or because one of them is ‘big’!
In most cases, he’ll only *needs* one gun. He carries 3 to ensure he has 1.
An extension to the adage, “two is one; one is none.”
The chance of needing to mount a violent defense to a violent attack is little.
The chance of needing to mount a violent defense to a violent attack AND having an catastrophic equipment failure is even less.
The chance of needing to mount a violent defense to a violent attack AND having an catastrophic equipment failure AND needing to arm an unarmed buddy is less, still.
The the risk, however unlikely, doesn’t get any higher. The cost is “only” to carry 3 guns.
That’s yearly. In your life time you have a very good chance of suffering a violent assault. Something like 1 in 4 or 5
Thanks very much for the reply, rabbi. I appreciate the food for thought. I’m still not sure it’s for me, but like most things, explanation helps understanding. Many prima facie questionable things seem a lot more sensible after someone says “…and here’s why.”
Welcome. One size does not fit all. Carrying one gun is better than 99.9999% of Americans
Rabbi, i would like to know what your 3 carry guns are? also do you carry a non lethal… taser, pepper spray, etc?
In the original post that prompted my question, he said he carries a semi-auto (XD), extra mag, two SP101s, pepper spray, a knife and a flashlight.
XD45, SP101 and S;W 640 (or 2nd SP101)along with a spare mag, light, knife, pepper spray, and cell phone
wow! thats impressive. you have a good taste in firearms. I’m a ca slave so i can’t carry, so what would you recommend for pepper spray?
it also helps to be in shape, mentally and physically and not look like you get winded walking from the car to the gas pump. That’s why I am up at 5 am every morning. . . . .I will not go without a fight and taking 3 or 4 MotherF**kers with me.
You just beat me to it, Dirk.
Rabbi, if you want to be so prepared and think you’re very likely to get into a gun fight or end up rolling around on the ground in a struggle for your life, shouldn’t you lose 50 pounds?
Regardless, I agree that this is an interesting conversation.
There’s truth to this. I’m an athlete, but most gun owners I know are not. Fitness is important in dangerous and confrontational situations.
I carry two guns, and one firearm (flexes in mirror, kisses biceps).
My only question after reading this article is why not four? I could easily rationalize the need for a backup to my backup’s backup. Crap, what if…ok, five. Five will do. Ok I’m ready to get groceries.
Four would be ostentatious.
It would be ostentatious only if you’re OPEN carrying four guns. In that case, definitely.
I like to think I put a lot of thought into being prepared. I see that clearly, this is not the case.
While I do occasionally carry more than 1 sidearm, I still
abide by the advice from Col. Applegate; a sidearm is
not for fighting but to provide cover while you get a real
weapon (i.e. shotgun or rifle).
While I would much rather have a rifle, given the fact that most gunfights are over in a few seconds, with all respect to the Col., I don’t see that as practical.
I suppose the practicality is dependent more on whether or
not you can have a shouldered firearm readily available.
It’s not bad in your house, vehicle or if you’re self-employed,
but obviously more of an issue if you’re around the general
public all day.
On another note, you mention you carry an SP101. Which
version do you prefer? I generally pocket carry the 2.25″
bobbed hammer version.
I carry two guns; one on my hip and one in my pocket; having a third on the ankle that could be accessed while driving, in a ground fight or to give to friend makes a lot of sense.
Great video Uncle Rico
Why carry 3? Because he can. End of discussion.
My state – New Mexico – is mostly very firearms friendly: all NFA items allowed, concealed carry is cheap and easy, open carry everywhere is legal (including in most government buildings), absolutely no registration, etc. But its concealed carry laws have a restriction I have not seen anywhere else: you can only carry one gun at a time.
Anyone else ever experienced such a law?
IMO, no weirder than “no booze until noon Sunday”. It’s as if the Catholics are afraid you’ll get a head start on ’em.
In NM, even the Democrats, mostly, own firearms. I think that’s a big part of the state’s gun-friendliness.
Hi, William (ex of Taos). You are very right. Everyone owns guns. I even know a vegetarian that hunts deer and elk. Does it to assist in the “predation stewardship” or some such. Just gives the meat away. She’s a pretty good hunter.
From what I understand 505markf, if you get a CCL, you can’t OC a gun if you’re carrying concealed; but I’m no aware of a law the specifically says you can’t carry more than one gun at a time in NM.
Do you have a link as to the law of which you speak?
ThomasR – info is from some printed materials that I now cannot find. I probably asked a bad question, as it sounded weird even as I typed it. Let me see if I can find something, though I suspect you are right. Glad to hear from a fellow resident of the Land of Enchantment.
Yep, the same, good to hear from you.
I agree, land of enchantment, not of entrapment. I love New Mexico.
You’re absolutely right, 505. From the NM Administrative Code Title 10, Chapter 8, Part 2 (“Carrying Concealed Handguns”), 10.8.2.16:
“A. Carrying only handguns listed on license. No person shall carry a concealed
handgun of a different category or higher caliber than is indicated on the license issued to that
person by the department. A licensee shall only carry one (1) concealed handgun at any given
time.” (link to DPS doc http://bit.ly/1dJ3Ft2)
The wording of this section does not make it sound like you are prohibited from having one or more weapons carried openly along with your CCW (per what ThomasR said), but that may be covered in a different statute.
” I don’t consider myself an optimist, nor a pessimist, I consider myself a realist . . . Realistically, most people, even TTAG readers, don’t truly comprehend the amount of violent crime in this country. As a police officer and police trainer…”
In every group of officers there’s always that one that has gone a bit off the deep end with tacticool stuff and acts like they’re always in a war zone. If you don’t know one, you’re probably him. Obviously “scanning” everyone in a room, twitching their hand with every backfire, and probably looking like a 5.11 advertisement. Everything in life is about perspective, and these guys have lost it. They see crime but can’t see past it. They spend time in a uniform but can’t take it off. They need ‘backups’ of backups and try to rationalize what is not rational, given the reality of what a person faces in life, even in a bad place. That’s unfortunately what I see above.
Most cops see the crime, integrate the lessons into their lives, but don’t lose themselves in it. They carry a gun off-duty in most cases, because crime does happen. They try to talk about things unconnected from work, and ideally have friends who aren’t OTJ. The guys who have the best lives after retirement are always the ones that don’t lose themselves.
One should be able to make their own choices, but that doesn’t make everyone’s choices healthy or reasonable.
Aside from the fact that this is in the Huffington Post, this is an interesting read (and video) that very much exemplifies that sort of mentality:
I could not agree more. I like TTAG a lot but sometimes the authors fuel the fire of the other side.
“As a demonstration, take 10 shooters and have them shoot a cardboard target. Then have them shoot a photo-real target picturing an attacker pointing a gun at them. You will see the groups drift towards the gun.”
Sorry but I just don’t believe this for a second. You read all the time about how people in a gun fight, fueled by adrenaline forget most things and don’t even use their sights. Hence practice, practice, practice teaches muscle memory.
“Bad guys” that use guns, 99% of are punk/thugs that have ZERO skill or technique when using a gun in a crime. They still kill a lot of people because they point at center mass and jerk a trigger from close range and sometimes that gets the job done.
I hardly ever carry, let alone carry 3 multiple guns.
It is a documented fact. Even while driving the tendency is to go where you look. That people don’t use sights in some cases dose not change the fact that the gun tends to be pointed where your attention is and your attention tends to be on the perceived threat.
If I had to go into a gunfight with someone, the rabbi would be on the top of my list. You would be at the bottom.
The Rabbi is up there on my list despite my differences of opinion on what a civilian needs to know but having worked with many Marines, airborne troopers, rangers and spec ops guys there are many more people I know who are in front of him.
I don’t know who the hell this person is. Is he an extra from Hebrew Hammer?
Good point about multiple handguns and whether the CCW laws in your state allow multiple weapons. I just re-read my CCW book for the umptenth time and it does not say. Worth looking into if just for clarity.
I really appreciate that you addressed the “disabled strong side”. In my state, when you test for permit, you’re required to shoot both left and right handed (because they actually want license holders to be prepared to fight!) I was discussing this in a training course with a long time BCI investigator who explained that he’s sat through many autopsies. Every single time a body is on the table the strong hand is torn to shreds. When presented with a weapon, people are physiologically inclined to take out the weapon. When they kick in a door and smoke a guy who pulls a gun, it’s a head and chest full of holes and all the fingers shot off his hand.
I think you meant to write “a better comprehension of the extent of the problem”. Veracity doesn’t work in that sentence.
We all do things that are based upon our personal experience. The Rabbi was a police officer whose job it was/is to seek out and engage law breakers. It makes perfect sense that he would feel the need to carry multiple firearms and a whole bunch of other stuff
A private citizen who prepares himself for armed self defense has a different mission and experience. We don’t seek out bad guys, or at least we shouldn’t. We seek to avoid them. We also have a different set of ROE and the BGs know that. In general they can run away from us but not the police. Why do you think most DGUs don’t involve firing a shot.
From my perspective I don’t need to know infantry tactics because I am not now nor ever have been in the infantry. I don’t need to know police tactics because I am not enforcing any laws. What I, and every other armed citizen, needs to know is how to spot trouble, avoid when possible but at least create enough time to prepare a defense. This I know and have been trained for at taxpayer expense. It also helps to have dogs that act like the neighborhood busy bodies. They can give you a critical ten seconds of prep time to get ready for someone who might be interested in paying you an unannounced visit.
But after reading this article I may consider getting more use out of my Nano.
I carry primarily as a private citizen, and I teach private citizens. And, yes, avoiding trouble is always best.
I understand that but it’s not a question of training but what kind of training. A police officer sees trouble and approaches it. If a private citizen sees trouble he runs away or at least he should. How each party uses a firearm requires different gun handling skills and tactics. Success is a function of mindset. You have to train to the mindset. Being off duty is not the same thing as a being private citizen. You still have authorities that I don’t. The training syllabus for the private citizen should be 75% surveillance/countersurveillance tactic, techniques and procedures, and 25% gun handling skills. One of the reasons it’s not is the difficulty in practical training. It is much easier to set a range and teach police or military style tactics.
How do you know what I teach and don’t teach to LE and private citizens?
So, did I miss the how/where are you carrying your guns? Are they concealed or OC’d on a daily basis? . If CC’ing the logistics of hauling that much hardware seems rather impractical to conceal effectively. So how?
I’m fond of the notion of 2 gun carry, but not as a backup, rather a “hold out” as it were. I’m just struggling with the where do I put it all. Where do you put it all?
Always concealed. Dominant hand is an IWB. Back up in left pocket and ankle. Spare mag and light behind support hip. Pepper spray in front of left hip. Knife in strong side pocket. I use a kubaton to carry my keys in my waist band.
Rabbi = Officer Tackleberry.
At the risk of being banished from this site forever, can I ask why (other than the fact that RF is friends with him) is Kenik so revered? His credentials seem a little thin. He claims to be a police officer,”with a New Mexico police agency”, but unlike other gun gurus who work as police officers he never mentions WHICH police department he works for, and none of his writings ever mentions anything related to his job as a police officer. For all we know he’s a reserve officer for a mall security outfit that has some kind of special police powers of arrest. None of this would really matter if he demonstrated some above average shooting skills, but seriously, I’ve watched a fair number of his videos and to me he shoots about as well as the average guy next to you at the range, and that’s about it. Lastly, he claims to be the executive director of an organization that exists to further the training and preparedness of police officers, but if you look at the financials for that organization it turns out that only about 10% of the money he collects actually makes it to the intended recipients, with the bulk of it going to the jerks who call you during dinner to ask for donations and the rest of it (quite a nice sum, more than I made last year for going to work every day) going to Kenik.
I’m ready for the flaming, but I’m really hoping someone explains to me what makes Kenik any more deserving of attention and praise than any other overweight middle aged crabgrass commando with no combat or gunfight experience.
Play a pickup game of airsoft with a team thats never played together. Realize everyone ran off in different directions. Realize you have almost no chance against the other team. Almost no chance while carrying a pistol is still a better chance than that one dude running around trying to karate chop guys with a blue training knife.
I have no delusions about how bad the odds are in an unexpected gun fight, but the first step is to have a gun.
So, Bob, a bad guy is roaming around your house at three in the morning. Which side of a door should your position yourself?
If liberalism is a disease and relation to a Holocaust survivor breed conservativism, why are so many Jews infested with the disease? I posted the same question before and was deleted, Don’t tell the truth and all ways be politically correct right? Deteling a legitimate question is just like Obama sensorship.
A majority of Holocaust survivors who emigrated to the US were old fashion Democrats. They supported the welfare state but also strong national defense, were socially conservative and believed in self defense. A majority went to Israel. Why the original Jewish immigrants leaned left is no surprise since most were from Czarist Russia. That their descendants maintained their politics is somewhat baffling. The most likely explanation is that their parents became secularized and substituted socialism for Old Testament faith. Liberal Rabbis, and I may add all liberal members of the cloth, taught their parishioners that Torah was essentially a socialist document. If you read the Old Testament you will see that it preaches that the individual is responsible for providing charity not the state.
So It looks like its safe to say that the Jews are a problem for America and the world for that matter, considering they were responcible for the Bolshevik revolution. The denial that the fact that the counterfeit Jews are a problem is the problem. Thus the federal reserve, Obama administration Jews.
OK, you showed your hand. “It looks like its safe to say that the Jews are a problem for America and the world.” Ah, the old “Jewish Question.” Precisely the sort of beliefs that drive many of us to arm ourselves for self-protection. Jews, like any other ethnic group, are human beings capable of many different beliefs. Sure, there are plenty of left-wing and anti-gun Jews. There are plenty of conservative and pro-gun Jews as well. Reference Robert Farago and David Kenik above, reference Jewish individuals and organization well outside the mainstream like Adam Koresh and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, still the most uncompromising organization I know when it comes to preserving the individual right to keep and bear arms (what other organizations make “Boot the BATFE” lapel pins?) If you don’t believe in the individual, and insist on saying that all Jews/blacks/Irish/Japanese/etc. think the same, than fuck you you ignorant asshole, I’m glad I can own a weapon to prevent people with your ideas from murdering me for their stupid ignorant assumptions about what I believe because of my ancestry.
If the Rabbi is comfortable with 3 guns what’s it to anyone else? I favor two myself with a total of 5 magazines plus 2 knives, flashlight, pepper spray and cell phone. All concealed. It’s not that difficult really, the mag carrier and spray are hidden behind my cellphone holster on my weak side belt and under the same cover up that conceals the pistol on the strong side at about 4 o’clock with the light behind the pistol (5 inch 1911). Second pistol, a S&W bodyguard .380 on the inside of my left ankle and it’s spare mag on right ankle along with the second knife. First knife rides in my right front pocket. If I wear a coat the spray and light migrate to those pockets which makes sitting/driving more comfortable, and that’s in casual clothes.
My work attire is a suit and tie and I still manage all the gear without looking burdened or disturbing the lines of my suit. It’s not paranoia, its the logical extension of the justification to carry the first gun, you might need it and if you do you’ll need it very badly. Once you work out the placement of the gear you get used to it just like anything else, you don’t feel burdened by it it’s just sort of there.
I’ll echo a couple of things that the Rabbi mentioned; Fights tend to go to the ground, you may be disarmed in a standing altercation before it gets to the lethal force level and sometimes stuff just doesn’t work. For me three guns is impractical but if it’s working for him then more power to him. If I could get a third on board without it being onerously uncomfortable to conceal I would.
Two is one, one is none. Also, if you have to use a gun, you’re already having the unluckiest day of your life – just go ahead and assume EVERYTHING else that can go wrong is going to. Two guns is a minimum, three is a lot more versatile. There’s no such thing as too many unless you can’t walk under the weight.