USA Carry

READING, PA — A dispute over a parking space in Reading took a violent turn Wednesday night, leaving one man with a stab wound and another with gunshot wounds to the legs.

As reported by WFMZ, police responded to the 1500 block of North 10th Street, where they found a man suffering from a stab wound. During their investigation, the stabbing victim informed officers that he had shot the person who attacked him. The alleged attacker, identified as 32-year-old Jerry Santos, was later found at Reading Hospital with a gunshot wound to the legs.

Authorities have since charged Santos with aggravated assault and related offenses. No other charges have been filed at this time, indicating that police believe the stabbing victim may have acted in self-defense.

While the full details of this incident remain unclear, it serves as an important reminder for those who carry concealed. Getting into an argument over something as trivial as a parking spot is never a good idea—especially if you’re armed. That’s not to say the shooter was in the wrong here; we don’t know how the confrontation escalated. Perhaps he tried to de-escalate but was unable to. It’s very possible.

However, this situation is a lesson for the rest of us: when carrying a firearm, we must keep our egos in check. If someone is yelling at you over a parking spot, it’s best to just let them have it. Personally, I’d rather swallow my pride and walk a little farther than be caught in a confrontation that forces me to use deadly force. At the end of the day, my goal is to make it home to my family—not win a parking dispute.

Read the original story: Parking Dispute in Reading, PA Ends in Stabbing and Defensive Shooting

TALLAHASSEE, FL — A newly introduced bill in the Florida House of Representatives, HB 759, aims to roll back the minimum age requirement for purchasing firearms in the state from 21 to 18 years old. The bill, filed by Rep. Michelle Salzman (R-1) on February 19, 2025, is currently making its way through legislative committees and is expected to be a key issue in the ongoing debate over Second Amendment rights in Florida.

The proposed legislation amends Section 790.065 of the Florida Statutes, specifically lowering the minimum age for purchasing firearms to 18. This change would reverse part of the 2018 law that raised the minimum age to 21 in the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting. The bill also maintains the prohibition on licensed firearm dealers selling or transferring guns to anyone under 18, meaning that those underage restrictions remain intact.

Notably, the bill removes an exception that previously allowed certain groups—such as law enforcement officers, correctional officers, and active-duty military personnel—to purchase rifles and shotguns under the age of 21. Under HB 759, all law-abiding citizens 18 and older would regain the right to purchase firearms.

If passed, the bill would take effect July 1, 2025.

Governor Ron DeSantis addressed the issue during his State of the State address on March 4, 2025, urging lawmakers to strengthen Florida’s gun rights laws. In his speech, DeSantis criticized Florida for having “some of the weaker laws in the country” compared to other conservative states. He specifically pointed to red flag laws and restrictions on young adults purchasing firearms as areas needing reform.

“We need to be a strong Second Amendment state… Look back in instances where legislation may have been passed in recent years, such as shifting the burden on red flag laws, such as taking away the rights of young adults to be able to purchase firearms… Let’s get some positive reform done.”

The bill was referred to the Criminal Justice Subcommittee and the Judiciary Committee, where it received a favorable vote on March 12, 2025. It is now awaiting further debate in the Judiciary Committee before heading to a potential floor vote in the Florida House.

If the bill passes both chambers of the Florida Legislature and is signed by the governor, it would reinstate the pre-2018 age limit for purchasing firearms. Florida would then join several other states that allow legal adults (18+) to buy rifles, shotguns, and handguns without additional age-based restrictions.

HB 759 is a critical step toward restoring the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding young adults in Florida. Under current law, 18- to 20-year-olds—legal adults—are unjustly barred from purchasing firearms, despite the fact that they can vote, serve in the military, sign contracts, and be held fully responsible under the law. This bill seeks to correct that unconstitutional overreach and ensure that all Floridians enjoy their fundamental right to self-defense.

Opponents will predictably claim that restricting gun rights for young adults somehow makes the public safer. However, punishing law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals is both unjust and ineffective. The vast majority of violent crime is committed by those who already disregard the law, not responsible gun owners. Stripping an entire group of adults of their right to bear arms does nothing to stop crime—it only makes it harder for them to protect themselves.

As HB 759 moves forward, it represents an important victory for gun rights advocates and a necessary correction to the misguided policies that have infringed on the rights of young adults for years. Florida has the opportunity to reaffirm its status as a strong pro-Second Amendment state, and this legislation is a major step in the right direction.

Read the original story: Florida Bill HB 759 Seeks to Lower Minimum Firearm Purchase Age to 18

Recent research from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) provides compelling evidence that legally armed civilians play a crucial role in stopping active shooter incidents. The study addresses common concerns raised by critics—such as the risks of mistaken identity, bystander injuries, and interference with law enforcement—and finds little evidence to support these fears.

According to the CPRC’s extensive database, from 2014 to 2024, at least 157 active shooter incidents were successfully stopped by legally armed civilians. In many of these cases, the intervention occurred before police arrived, potentially saving lives that might have otherwise been lost.

When comparing response times, the study suggests that armed civilians frequently stop attacks within seconds to minutes, while law enforcement may take significantly longer to arrive, depending on location and circumstances. This reinforces the idea that in many cases, a legally armed citizen is the first and best line of defense.

Despite the effectiveness of armed citizens in stopping mass shootings, some critics argue that civilian involvement could lead to unintended harm. The CPRC report specifically analyzed several of these concerns:

One of the most persistent fears is that a well-intentioned civilian might hit an innocent bystander. However, the CPRC found no documented cases where an armed civilian, acting to stop an active shooter, unintentionally shot a bystander. This suggests that responsible gun owners who intervene in these high-stress situations generally demonstrate disciplined firearm use.

Another major argument against civilian intervention is that law enforcement officers might mistake an armed citizen for the shooter. The CPRC found zero cases where police officers mistakenly shot a civilian who had stopped an active shooter. Additionally, the study found no evidence that an armed citizen prevented police from effectively doing their job.

Opponents of civilian intervention sometimes claim that an armed citizen might lose control of their weapon, allowing the attacker to turn it against them. However, the CPRC study did not find any cases where this occurred. In most instances, armed citizens were able to engage the shooter with controlled accuracy, ending the threat quickly.

The CPRC’s database contains numerous examples of successful interventions by legally armed civilians. Here are a few key incidents:

These cases highlight how law-abiding gun owners have successfully intervened to protect innocent lives.

One of the most significant findings in the CPRC study is the media’s tendency to underreport instances where armed citizens stop active shooters. While high-profile mass shootings dominate headlines, stories about successful civilian interventions often receive minimal coverage.

The CPRC study suggests that the FBI’s data on active shooter incidents undercounts cases where armed citizens stop attackers. Their research indicates that armed citizens stopped at least 34.4% of active shooter incidents from 2014-2024, compared to the FBI’s much lower estimate.

The CPRC’s findings reinforce the importance of responsible concealed carry and self-defense training. Given the study’s evidence that legally armed citizens can effectively stop active threats without causing additional harm, those who choose to carry should ensure they are well-trained and prepared to act decisively if necessary.

While law enforcement officers do their best to respond quickly, the reality is that when seconds count, an armed citizen may be the only line of defense between life and death. This study serves as a reminder of the critical role law-abiding gun owners play in enhancing public safety.

For more details, you can view the full CPRC report and case database here.

Read the original story: Do Armed Civilians Really Stop Mass Shootings? This Study Has the Answer

SANTA FE, NM — A controversial new bill, Senate Bill 279 (SB 279), threatens to upend the rights of law-abiding gun owners across New Mexico by enacting some of the most restrictive firearm regulations in the nation. Introduced by a group of Democratic lawmakers, the Gas-Operated Semiautomatic Firearms Exclusion Act would ban the sale, transfer, and possession of nearly all semiautomatic firearms that use gas-operated cycling systems—which includes many of the most common rifles and handguns used for self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting.

If passed, this legislation would:

Failure to comply with these new restrictions could turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals overnight, with violations carrying misdemeanor or felony penalties.

Proponents of the bill argue that restricting access to semiautomatic firearms will reduce violent crime. However, the bill is a thinly veiled attempt to strip New Mexicans of their Second Amendment rights while doing nothing to address the state’s real crime problems.

State Representative Stefani Lord (R-District 22) condemned the bill as “the worst gun grab in the country,”pointing out that it bans firearms already owned by thousands of New Mexicans. She warned that the bill’s vague language could criminalize responsible gun owners and lead to selective enforcement.

Walter Bracken, owner of BMC Tactical in Albuquerque, also criticized the bill, highlighting its sweeping scope. “They want to ban anything gas-operated, including classic firearms like the M1 Carbine and Mini-14—guns that have been in civilian hands for decades. This bill is pure overreach.”

Walter Bracken, owner of @BMCTactical, explains the nonsensical SB 279 language that aims to criminalize a majority of commonly used self defense firearms.

SB 279 is in Senate Judiciary today!

Tune in AND contact your legislator via https://t.co/inarp3FJm1#nmpol #2A pic.twitter.com/PqRek5rMZt

While SB 279’s sponsors claim it does not ban previously owned firearms outright, it forces existing owners to register their guns with the state by January 1, 2026—a move that gun rights groups argue is just the first step toward confiscation.

Under the bill’s provisions:

This is a clear gun registry, something historically used in other countries as a prelude to outright confiscation.

New Mexico currently ranks as one of the most dangerous states in the country, with Albuquerque’s violent crime rate soaring over recent years. Yet, instead of cracking down on criminals, SB 279 targets law-abiding citizens who responsibly own and use firearms for protection.

Law enforcement agencies already struggle to enforce existing gun laws against violent offenders. Instead of addressing gang violence, drug trafficking, and repeat offenders, this bill diverts resources to tracking and policing legal gun owners.

SB 279 is currently in the New Mexico Senate Finance Committee, and gun owners still have time to voice their opposition. If this bill becomes law, it will set a dangerous precedent not just for New Mexico, but for the rest of the country.

The fight for gun rights in New Mexico is far from over, but SB 279 is a serious threat that cannot be ignored. Every New Mexican who values their right to self-defense, hunting, and shooting sports should stand up against this radical and unconstitutional legislation before it’s too late.

Read the original story: New Mexico’s SB 279 Seeks to Ban Most Semiautomatic Rifles, Handguns, and Standard Magazines

NEWINGTON, NH — A federal lawsuit alleging that a SIG SAUER P320 pistol discharged without a trigger pull has been officially dismissed after the plaintiff, a Puerto Rico police officer, admitted in court that his firearm was not defective. The case, Berrios v. SIG SAUER, was dismissed by the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico following the officer’s admission that the P320 cannot fire without a trigger pull.

This marks the 18th case dismissed against SIG SAUER concerning claims of unintended discharges of the P320. Over the past three years of litigation, SIG SAUER has consistently defended the safety and reliability of its striker-fired pistol. The company presented detailed scientific evidence demonstrating that the P320 does not fire without the trigger being pulled and contains no manufacturing defects.

SIG SAUER’s Senior Director of Communications, Samantha Piatt, responded to the case’s dismissal, stating:

“We are extremely pleased with the result in this case, which further demonstrates what so many in our industry already know: the P320 cannot fire without the trigger being pulled and is the gold standard for safety, innovation, engineering, and quality, among striker-fired pistols.”

Piatt also emphasized SIG SAUER’s commitment to addressing what the company describes as “malicious and misleading attacks” against the P320, while continuing to support the millions of civilian, law enforcement, and military users of the pistol worldwide.

While SIG SAUER has successfully defended multiple lawsuits regarding the P320, controversy around alleged unintended discharges persists. As previously reported on USACarry.com, some users have claimed their P320s discharged without a trigger pull, leading to ongoing debates within the firearms community. However, SIG SAUER maintains that all verified cases involve an external force on the trigger, mechanical interference, or user error.

The P320 has been rigorously tested and adopted by various military and law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. military as the M17/M18 service pistol. It remains one of the most widely used and trusted striker-fired handguns on the market.

For more details on the P320, SIG SAUER has directed users to visit P320Truth.com, where they provide information addressing concerns and legal cases surrounding the pistol.

Read the original story: Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against SIG SAUER as Officer Admits P320 Did Not Fire on Its Own

LOS ANGELES, CA — A burglary suspect was shot and killed by a security guard early Monday morning after he crashed his car into a West Los Angeles dispensary in what appeared to be a break-in attempt. Authorities are investigating whether a second suspect was involved.

As reported by Fox 11, the incident occurred at 3:12 a.m. at ERBA Markets’ West LA dispensary, located at the intersection of Pico Boulevard and Centinela Avenue. According to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), a suspect wearing a ski mask deliberately drove a Hyundai sedan through the glass entrance of the dispensary. A security guard, who was stationed inside, saw the suspect wearing a ski mask and believed a robbery was taking place, prompting him to fire at the suspect, striking him at least once.

LAPD officers arrived shortly after and took the wounded suspect into custody. He was transported to a nearby hospital, where he later died from his injuries. Authorities have not yet released his identity, but reports indicate he was approximately 16 years old.

A witness at the scene reported seeing a second suspect fleeing after the shooting. Investigators believe this individual may have dropped evidence while running away. As of now, no additional arrests have been made, and authorities are reviewing witness statements to determine if another suspect is being sought.

At this time, the security guard is not facing any charges. The intersection of Pico and Centinela remained closed for several hours as detectives processed the scene.

This case raises important self-defense legal considerations, particularly regarding the use of a vehicle as a weapon. Driving a car through a building’s entrance can be considered an act of deadly force, as a vehicle used in this manner poses a serious risk of death or great bodily harm to anyone inside. Given this, the security guard likely had legal justification to use deadly force in self-defense, believing the suspect’s actions presented an immediate threat.

However, as with any defensive shooting, the full legal picture will depend on the investigation’s findings. Authorities will review evidence, including surveillance footage and witness statements, to determine whether the guard’s response was within the bounds of California’s self-defense laws.

For armed citizens and security personnel, this incident underscores the importance of understanding self-defense laws and recognizing what constitutes an imminent threat. Proper training in assessing threats and making legally sound decisions under pressure is essential for those who carry for protection.

Read the original story: Security Guard Shoots and Kills Burglary Suspect Who Crashed Car Into West LA Dispensary

TUCSON, AZ — A 19-year-old man has been arrested and charged after a toddler accidentally shot himself with an unsecured handgun earlier this month.

According to AZ Family, deputies responded to a reported medical emergency on March 3 at a home near Hartman and Linda Vista. Upon arrival, they found a 2-year-old child suffering from a gunshot wound to the hand. A neighbor transported the child to a local hospital for treatment.

Investigators determined that 19-year-old Jeremiah Vaughn had placed a loaded handgun on the end of a bed, allegedly unaware that the child had picked it up. The victim, identified as Vaughn’s half-brother, was able to access the firearm before the negligent discharge occurred.

Vaughn was arrested and charged with domestic violence-child abuse. During his initial court appearance, a judge set his bond at $2,500, despite the state’s request for $50,000, citing what prosecutors called “the height of negligence.” Vaughn is scheduled to appear in court again on March 14. The Arizona Department of Child Safety has been contacted and is involved in the investigation.

This marks at least the third accidental shooting involving a child in the Tucson area this year.

This incident is a tragic yet avoidable reminder of the importance of responsible firearm storage. Leaving a loaded handgun within reach of a child is not just negligent—it can have life-altering consequences. Firearms should always be stored in a locked safe or secured with a trigger lock when not in use. Simple precautions, such as using biometric safes or placing guns out of reach, can prevent accidents like this from happening.

While many gun owners understand these safety measures as common sense, incidents like this prove that not everyone follows them. If you own a firearm, ensure that it is stored safely and responsibly. A moment of carelessness can lead to devastating consequences.

Read the original story: Man Arrested After Toddler Shoots Himself with Handgun Left on Bed

AUGUSTA, ME — A newly introduced bill in the Maine Legislature, LD 885 (HP 571), aims to amend existing firearm restrictions on school property by allowing certain concealed carry permit holders to legally carry and discharge firearms on school grounds.

The bill, titled An Act to Allow Certain Persons with a Permit to Carry Concealed Handguns to Possess or Discharge a Firearm on School Property, was introduced by Representative James White (R-Guilford) and co-sponsored by several Republican lawmakers.

Currently, Maine law prohibits firearms on school property, with exceptions for law enforcement, school-sanctioned programs, and other limited circumstances. LD 885 would create a new exemption for certain concealed carry permit holders, provided they meet the following criteria:

If passed, the bill would allow these individuals to lawfully carry and discharge a firearm on school property, marking a significant change to current regulations.

LD 885 has been the subject of debate within the Maine Legislature. Initially, the Maine House referred it to the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs, while the Senate sent it to the Judiciary Committee, leading to a procedural non-concurrence. As of March 11, 2025, the bill remains tabled in the House as unfinished business, awaiting further consideration.

Supporters argue that responsible, law-abiding concealed carriers could serve as a deterrent to potential threats and enhance school security. They emphasize that concealed carry permit holders undergo background checks and training, ensuring they are vetted individuals.

Opponents, however, raise concerns about safety, citing the risks of introducing more firearms into school environments. Some worry that allowing armed individuals on campus—even legally—could complicate law enforcement responses during emergencies.

The bill’s future remains uncertain as it awaits further action in the Maine House and Senate. If it progresses through committee discussions and legislative votes, it could be signed into law or vetoed by the governor.

With school safety remaining a major issue nationwide, LD 885 is likely to continue sparking debate in Maine and beyond.

Read the original story: Maine Bill Seeks to Expand Firearm Rights for Concealed Carry Permit Holders on School Property

FRANKFORT, KY — The Kentucky Senate has passed a bill that would allow 18-year-olds to carry concealed firearms without a permit. Senate Bill 75, sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Tichenor, cleared the Senate floor on March 11, 2025, with a 26-11 vote. The bill now heads to the House, where it will be considered for final approval.

SB 75 lowers the minimum age for permitless concealed carry from 21 to 18, provided the individual is legally allowed to own a firearm. The bill does not change existing prohibitions on carrying in restricted areas such as schools, courthouses, and federal buildings.

Supporters argue that 18-year-olds, who can already legally own and openly carry firearms in Kentucky, should have the same right to carry concealed as those 21 and older. “Legal adults should not be denied their Second Amendment rights,” said Sen. Tichenor during Senate discussions.

Opponents, including some law enforcement officials and gun control advocates, express concerns that younger adults may lack the maturity and decision-making skills needed for responsible concealed carry. They also worry about potential safety risks in high-traffic areas like college campuses and entertainment districts.

After passing the Senate, the bill was sent to the House, where it received its first reading and was assigned to the Committee on Committees. If it clears committee review, SB 75 will proceed to a vote on the House floor. If passed, the bill would then be sent to Gov. Andy Beshear for approval or veto.

If SB 75 becomes law, Kentucky would join several other states—including Missouri and Mississippi—that allow 18-year-olds to carry concealed firearms without a permit.

For young adults who may soon gain the right to carry concealed, responsible gun ownership is key. Training, understanding self-defense laws, and practicing safe firearm handling are essential for carrying legally and responsibly.

Read the original story: Kentucky Senate Passes Bill to Lower Concealed Carry Age to 18, Moves to House for Consideration

How often do you carry a gun? Be honest. People go through a great deal of preparation, training, and expense to legally carry a concealed firearm for self-defense, but, unfortunately, many of those same people fail to carry their firearms daily. Their reasons are many, maybe it’s uncomfortable or heavy. Maybe they worry about it being seen. Whatever the reason, owning a gun and having a concealed carry permit won’t do you any good if you do not have it with you when you need it.

It used to be simple to get an idea of how many people legally carried a gun by checking how many permits were issued by each state. However, since 29 states currently allow permitless carry, getting reliable statistics is more difficult. The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) tracks all aspects of gun ownership and crime across the United States, and unlike some organizations with a bias for gun control like Everytown for Gun Safety, the CPRC presents fair and accurate research results.

According to the CPRC, the number of Americans with concealed carry permits spiked in 2022 at 22 million, a 2.3% increase over 2021. That number dropped to 21.5 million in 2024 or about 8.2% of the overall population, a 1.8% drop from 2023. However, before believing the anti-2A claim that the drop in the number of permits indicates that fewer people are legally carrying firearms, consider that the number of states allowing permitless carry has increased since 2022 meaning more people than ever do not need a permit in their home state. 

To get a more accurate idea of the number of people legally carrying a concealed firearm, the CPRC commissioned a survey of general election voters on December 17th, 2024, asking whether they carry concealed handguns. The survey found that 24% of those surveyed carry a concealed handgun. Breaking the 24% who said they carry further, 13% carried all or most of the time and 11% carried rarely or some of the time. Unsurprisingly, the results indicated that people living in permitless carry states carried more often than those living in shall-issue permit states. So much for the accuracy of measuring carry rates by the number of permits issued. Although the survey sample only consisted of general election voters, which leaves out anyone who did not vote, it does give us some numbers to work with. The survey also provided a lot of other information breaking carry rates down by gender, ethnicity, political party affiliation, age, and even who they voted for. The full survey can be found here.

So, given how much effort and expense people go through to legally carry a gun for self-defense, why did almost half of the survey respondents who said they carry a gun say they only carry some of the time or even rarely? Why would someone go to all that trouble and then not carry their gun? Presumably, they originally decided to carry a gun because they were concerned about crime and keeping themselves and their loved ones safe. What changed? Did they decide they were safe enough and did not need to carry a gun anymore? It’s much simpler than that, the main reasons people do not carry daily center around comfort and convenience. 

One excuse is that their gun is too bulky. Granted, a full-size pistol like a 9mm Glock 17, is about 8” long and 5.4” tall with a 7” slide and a 4.5” barrel. That size makes it easier to shoot than a compact or micro-compact gun, but a lot more difficult to carry concealed. It can be done, I carried a Glock 21 concealed for years, but it is a lot more work than a smaller gun. A compact gun designed for concealed carry, like a 9mm Glock 26 is only about 6.5” long and 4” tall, and sub-compact guns like the S&W M&P Bodyguard are even smaller. If you are not carrying your gun whenever you leave your house because it is too bulky, then maybe you should consider a smaller gun.

Another common excuse is that their gun is too heavy or uncomfortable to carry. A steel 1911 pistol weighs around 38 ounces, almost 2.5 pounds. Add a loaded magazine and you are carrying around a lot of weight all day. So, yes, that might be a bit heavy for some folks. On the other hand, the very popular Sig P365 designed specifically for concealed carry, weighs a scant 17.8 ounces. There is no question that carrying a heavy gun can be tiring, so if your gun is too heavy, consider getting a lighter gun.

Another factor that can make a gun feel heavy or uncomfortable to carry is a poor-quality holster. Getting the right inside-the-waistband (IWB) holster requires some experimentation to find the best match for your body type, but once you do the difference in comfort is like night and day. A cheap and poorly designed holster will not support the weight of your gun evenly and will often hold it at such an angle that it digs into your body when you move and when you are sitting.

A third factor that makes a gun feel heavy and uncomfortable is a flimsy belt. The average off-the-rack belt at Walmart is designed to hold your pants up, and that’s it. Many belts are so pliant that when you add the weight of a gun, they will sag and drag your pants down on that side. Investing in a good stiff belt will alleviate the sagging problem and make carrying your gun easier and more comfortable. I use a 1.5” Lenwood Conveyor that is very rigid and completely waterproof, but there are numerous other excellent belts on the market. With the right combination of gun, holster, and belt you might forget you are even carrying a gun. It is just a matter of finding the right tool for the job.

There is a school of thought that says you should learn to dress around your gun. When people say they cannot carry a gun because the clothes they like make it difficult to conceal, they should rethink the situation. Carrying a concealed firearm is a lifestyle. I made the decision never to go anywhere I can legally carry a gun without one and have developed my wardrobe to maximize comfort and concealability while matching the way I like to dress. That may mean carrying a pocket-sized gun if I’m in shorts and a tank top, but I never have any difficulty dressing comfortably and still being able to carry my gun. There are all types of holsters on the market, and for women who often do not wear a belt or men when they are in workout clothes such as the PHLSTER Enigma. There are belly bands and concealment T-shirts that will enable you to conceal your handgun no matter how you are dressed. Finally, there are off-body options. After some experimentation, many people find that the necessary wardrobe adjustments are relatively minor. In the end, it comes down to deciding which is more important, dressing in a particular way or being able to defend yourself in a life-and-death situation.

Another reason people use to not carry their gun is that they are just running a short errand. It is true that some areas are safer than others. The CPRC study found that people from urban and rural areas are more likely to carry their guns than people living in suburban areas. This likely reflects suburban dwellers’ belief that their neighborhoods and the surrounding commercial businesses that serve them are safer than big cities. While this may be true, crime can occur anywhere. Interestingly, people living in rural areas carry more often than urban dwellers, possibly because guns have a bigger place in rural culture. The reality is that one can never predict when and where a crime will occur, or when they might find themselves threatened with death or grievous bodily harm. I live on five acres in a moderately rural area, and I carry a gun whenever I step out my door. That includes barbecuing and mowing the lawn because I always ask myself how I would feel if today was the day I needed my gun and I did not have it.

In the long run, whether you carry your gun depends entirely on whether you are willing to make the effort. It is that simple. If you are wearing shorts in the summer or heavy clothes in the winter, there are solutions for carrying a concealed firearm. You may feel that nothing is going to happen since you are just running up to fill the gas can for the lawnmower, but what if it does? Like anything else that is worthwhile in life, carrying a concealed firearm for personal protection takes a little work. If it sounds like I’m scolding, maybe I am a little. Just remember that you never need your gun until you do.

Read the original story: How Often Do You Carry Your Gun?