This is the Concealed Carry Podcast, Season 14, Episode 7. And welcome to the Concealed Carry Podcast, part of the ConcealedCarry.com network, brought to you by HK. Today is Thursday, September 3rd, 2026, as of the recording of this live episode. And I am your host, Riley Bowman, joined today by Jacob Paulson, co-host, company president, founder, and man of many, many mysteries.

I'm really not that mysterious at all, but thank you. Well, okay. I mean, we probably talked about this on the podcast many, many years ago, but you're the guy who cannot stand, moseying about your own home barefoot. No, no, no, no. See, man of mystery. No, I mean, I don't understand people who do. You must have calloused feet and I don't know.

It's a painful thing. Being barefoot is painful unless you're on good carpet. On hardwood, tile, vinyl flooring, it just hurts to be barefoot. Even having socks, I will start to get pain after a while. Now maybe I'm just not indoctrinated or something, but I'm a guy who wears shoes. If there was carpet everywhere, that'd be fine. But unfortunately, in some places, it's gross to have carpet. Some people think carpet anywhere is gross.

It's a constant battle in my household, the carpet versus hardwood question. And yeah, luckily here in my home office there is carpet, so being barefoot here would be acceptable. You would not do well then if you were the father I saw at a recent outdoor event I went to with my family. And the venue was such that most of it was gravel, dirt, mostly like gravel.

And when I say gravel, it was like crushed asphalt, like recycled asphalt from roadways, right? There was some actual gravel, but a lot of it was just crushed asphalt. And uh i i marveled at this one dude walking through the place there pushing a double stroller with his kids in it barefoot he was barefoot. He was although it's not the kids might not have he was barefoot Yeah and it's like 100 degrees or you know close to it that day so it's hot it's black crushed asphalt surface and dude's just out there pushing the stroller while he's walking around barefoot i'm like that would so not be jacob and it would also not be me.

I find it impressive part of me is like wow dude you have worked hard at building up that tolerance and those calluses and whatever it is that allows you to do that props to you my feet are like little girl feet it's just like nothing I have zero tolerance for any discomfort at all on my feet He read that barefoot running book or whatever and he's like transform my life I'm never wearing shoes again.

I guess They have barefoot running shoes now, which is ironic for sure. But okay, yeah, I get it. Anyway, today's episode, by the way, is sponsored by HK, our title sponsor of the podcast, as well as CCW Safe. We'll get into – well, actually, first, let's do talk about HK for a moment. I want to make sure we give a shout out to both these sponsors for being supporters of our sixth annual Guardian Conference coming up here in, well, less than a month. It feels pretty.

I guess it's like three weeks from this weekend, isn't it? Yeah, it's like 15 days from the day we're recording this. Oh, maybe it's two weeks. Yeah, my calendar's all messed up then. Yeah, so coming up super quick, HK is a big supporter of the Guardian Conference, and our presenting sponsor of the Guardian Conference is CCW Safe.

So they're both sponsors of this episode today, and they're big-time sponsors and supporters of the Guardian Conference. It would not happen without their support. We'll have a number of HK pistols available for people to borrow and use or check out while they're at the event if they'd like to. And, of course, CCW Safe will be there throughout the weekend supporting the event.

A couple of their attorneys that work on CCW Safe cases and various things will also be presenting classes like Don West and Sean Vincent, Jennifer Chance. So anyway, great folks, great companies, both of them supporters of this podcast and this episode here today. And we're thankful for that. I think you're going to find in some of the stories we shared with you guys today, because this is a Justified Saves episode, if I didn't mention that already.

You want to have quality gear that supports your mission in life. And you want to make sure you have the stuff that works. That's what I'm going to stake my claim on. And so, you know, carrying my HK CC9 today, actually, kind of playing back around with the CC9 after some months with the VP9K. So just switching it up, but sticking with the HK pistols, of course, because we know they work. We trust them.

And we're thankful for their support of the podcast. HK-USA.com to learn more or check out your local dealer to buy your next HK gun. Well, we've got a whole slew of cool stories to share with you today. And we'll get to do a CCW Safe Sponsor message here in a little bit. But I wanted to jump into a couple of what not to do's.

So we've been doing these kind of stories for a long time. The idea here is there is some kind of lesson. Well, they all have lessons. But in this case, usually lessons is like, yeah, maybe you probably wouldn't do that. Uh so or or you know big time mistakes that were uh made uh legal ones tactical ones so we've got this first story, here out of florida and you were reading this one jacob and you're like oh this one's this one's wild so why don't you give us a rundown on this one out of, florida it's uh what is it called here?

The homeowner fatally shoots woman in Leesburg after reported break-in. It actually reminds me of a similar one. I think it happened here in Colorado like a decade or so ago. But yeah, give us the rundown. So, you're at home, you know, chilling, relaxing, having a good time. And this person comes to the house and starts trying to force their way in.

Now, it turns out that the BG, who's trying to force their way in, had been drinking the night of the shooting and apparently left the home angry regarding a personal situation. But you don't know that. This is just some random person trying to force their way into your house. So, what do you do about it? Well, what you do is you yell at them and tell them to back off and stop trying to force the way into the house. That's what you do.

And when they keep on going and keep on going, I don't know, I'm seeing in my mind that they're pulling on the doorknob or trying to jiggle it or kick it or, you know, it says they're trying to force the way into the house. But, you know, they're not being successful at it, which is kind of a key point here. But at some point you decide that it's just too scary.

So you shoot this woman, um, through the glass that's in the door. You know, because it's just, you know, you don't know. Are they about to open this door? And that would be too bad, you know, too late maybe. So you decide better proactively to shoot this person through the glass. Bad news though, you miss. Your shot probably deflects through the glass or something. And we don't know where it goes if it doesn't strike this woman.

And now you've created a hole in the glass. So the bg reaches their hand through said glass hole and tries to reach for the doorknob to open said door and now you're really panicked like oh crap like i have given this person their way in up till now my door was doing the job but i've just shot a hole through which the attacker can now reach their hand through and open my door i better shoot them again so you do you shoot a second time and this time darn it you make impact your your hit hits the woman and uh you know good job on your accuracy at what is effectively point blank range and now you're safe because this woman is done she dies at the scene and all you have to do is call 9-1-1 Yeah so i had to laugh a little bit there as you were describing you know glass hole because You know, anyway, I don't think I've ever heard, uh, you know, the word glass hole and that sounds almost naughty.

But, uh, anyway, uh, you know, the crazy thing is this woman just lived like two or three blocks away from this home. And the story goes, according to, I think, a roommate or someone from, from that home that she had been drinking. Yeah. As a roommate, she told officers she'd been drinking the night of that, incident and was upset about something and left the home angry.

And so I guess she's drunk, out of her mind. She's angry. And so she decides to go and try to get into somebody else's home. Now, that's not, you know... Regardless if you're drunk or not, that's not a legal course of action. So what she did was obviously wrong. But what caught my eye about this story, as I'm sure it did with you, Jacob, was the fact that she hasn't yet gained access to the home.

It doesn't even indicate in the story that she's, I mean, it seems she's trying to gain access, you know, but like she's not the one breaking the window, at least yet. And, you know, it's more of like she's banging on the door or trying to, you know, jiggle a handle or whatever it is, right? It's actually the homeowner that shoots the glass of the window of the door out and that gives her the ability to reach in and try to gain access to the home.

That's really kind of what I see is certainly a tactical error in this case. And, yeah, I don't know, you know, It doesn't appear there's charges being filed or anything in this case. I think there's an investigation still taking place. It says that the state attorney's office is reviewing whether there's going to be criminal charges filed.

I don't anticipate that's going to be the case here. But, you know, it's like probably not the best thing to shoot through. I mean, we've talked about this before, shooting through doors. A lot of times it's a problem to shoot through doors when you can't see what's on the other side. In this case, maybe he could see kind of, you know, through the window and yet missed his target and then provided an opportunity for that target to reach in and try to open the door. So...

Yeah, it's a doozy. I mean, there could be context we don't have that's just not the news story, right? Like if I'm yelling at this woman to like, back off, this isn't your house. Go away. I'm calling the cops. And she keeps banging on the door. But then she reached down and picks up a metal pipe that's on the ground near the door and starts swinging it at the glass. That would be relevant.

I'm not saying it's the best course of action to shoot her through the glass, but it would change the way I would perceive the events. But that's not what we think happened based on the description we're given in the news story. Bad tactics put you in compromised decision-making positions. So if I'm standing on one side of a door and the BG is standing on the other side of the door and they're banging and trying to get in, my proximity to the door has removed a bunch of options I otherwise would have had.

Right? Because if they do suddenly break through that door, I am in immediate danger. Because I'm in arm's reach of the BG. Right? But if I had said, oh, geez, looks like someone's banging on my door, I'm going to go retreat further into the house, call 911, get a good position to cover, and maybe concealment and put myself maybe in a position where I can see the front door, but I have room so I can react.

I can give additional commands. If they happen to breach the door and come in, then I'll give myself some time, some space. That person doesn't have a weapon. They're pounding on the door or whatever. So again, it's like bad tactics put you in a compromised decision-making position where you limited the options you had because you chose to be in more imminent danger than you had to be in.

Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Now, the story this reminded me of out of Colorado, I think it was the Boulder area, if I'm not mistaken, but this is a long time ago. When I say a decade ago, it was probably more like 13 years ago. And I'm just guessing at that, but it was a good while ago. And I think it was similar in that it was like a younger lady, like college age or young 20s, early 20s, drunk or high or something, and manages to make her way into an older couple's home where this older man, became aware of this person looming over him and his wife as they slept in their bed, and he grabs a gun and shoots her.

And it's one of those things, and that was a little bit more clear cut because that person actually gained access to the home and was in the home, and it ends up being one of those lawful but awful kind of situations. Because, like, nobody wants to shoot somebody necessarily that, like, isn't actually intent on harming them.

I mean, I'm not saying that person wasn't intent on harming, but, you know, like, and you might even be wondering, why was this drunk lady trying to, you know, bust into this dude's house? She might have actually been angry, left, and then thought she went back to her house. I mean, I don't, yeah. I mean, if you're, like, many neighborhoods, we've all seen these neighborhoods where every house looks almost the same, you know?

And my neighborhood's not actually all that different from it as far as the houses can be sometimes. There's some uniqueness here and there, but I can definitely see somebody who's not quite with it mistaking their house for my house. And so it's definitely been a thing on my mind. Anyway, just mention that context is kind of food for thought as you're thinking about the potential scenarios you could maybe find yourself in one day.

Let's go now to Arizona. Another window shooting. Yeah, exactly. Seeing a pattern here. I mean, today's episode is titled Shooting at Shadows. I mean, you've got the triple S disease that you coined, Jacob, which is? Shapes, shadows, and sounds. Yeah. And we generally advise against shooting at shapes, shadows, and sounds. And that would include shooting through doors or in other contexts where you just can't clearly identify what it is you're shooting at.

Out of St. David, Arizona, you have an intruder who was shot and killed by a homeowner there. All right. Police were called there to burglary in progress. And what happened was there was a man, he's inside his home. He's got a couple of small children. Here's a window break. So this situation is a little different than that last one in that there is actually window breakage.

In other words, an attempt to gain access to a home that's now actually breaking that barrier of protection. And the man checks his security system and sees someone standing just outside. So they've broken a window, and I guess they haven't quite made entry or whatever. All right. So. The homeowner says that after he then entered the main living area, he spotted a, quote, shadow near a window. that appeared to be someone trying to get inside.

He then fired, shooting the man. The man standing just outside that window was a 67-year-old man who is probably not your typical criminal that does these kinds of things late at night, but you never know who that's going to be. We actually have known very little or really nothing about this guy or what his intent was, but that guy dies at the scene.

And this is also one that's still being investigated. There is some context about what Arizona's quote-unquote castle doctrine says, and that's, you know, you'll probably have some thoughts on that, Jacob. But in the statute in Arizona, this article quotes saying that, a person in lawful possession of a property to threaten or use deadly physical force against someone committing or attempting a criminal trespass on that property.

Allows for them to use... Let's see, I'm reading that weirdly now. It made more sense when I read it earlier. But allows a person in lawful possession of property to threaten, there we go, I read that wrong, to threaten or use deadly physical force against someone committing or attempting a criminal trespass on that property, if a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or stop the trespass.

However, deadly force is justified only when used in defense of the homeowner or another person. So I don't know what, you know, this particular incident makes of all of that. Usually, though, when we're talking about such things, Jacob, we advise caution to people about whether someone is actually breached into, the dwelling space or not.

Shooting someone outside of the dwelling is generally ill-advised. It might be legally justified in certain contexts, depending on your specific state's statutes. But at the very least, tactically speaking, you know, I think it makes sense to take up a good defensible position as long as they're still outside the home and you've got a good viewpoint of where they may be breaching access. I mean, And if you got good firepower too, I don't know. I'd probably wait till they actually make entry into the home. But that's just my opinion. What are your thoughts?

The laws on this are the same everywhere. So I don't buy for a second that it matters at all what state you're in when we have this conversation. This guy was alerted because his home alarm system said that this window had been opened. So, okay, that's weird. Why is this window open kind of thing? I'm going to go check it out.

Walk into the living room. The window's wide open. I don't remember leaving. And oh, wait, there's a shadow out there. So the law in all 50 states is pretty much the same on this deal. Am I in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury? That would be the question in this moment. I'm certainly the innocent party. It's my house.

So that seems pretty clear. It's not like unless I kicked this guy in the junk and I ran to my house and he's like trying to chase me or something, then maybe we have a little debate. But I'm the innocent party, so this is really a question of imminence, and this is a question of proportional use of force. So do I have an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury or not?

And I think that the answer to that is maybe. That's maybe. If that guy in the window points a gun at me, I do. Oh, yeah. Right? So when weapons revolve, it's always a lot more straightforward. Right, right. So we can't just blanketly say like no under no circumstances. But if I just see a shadow out in the side yard through my window or the backyard through my window, that's a pretty hard sell for me personally to suggest that there's an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

So that's why I think from a legal perspective, we generally have exercised a little caution. They're like, probably not in your best interest legally. But I think a lot of this comes back to the ethical, moral stuff. Like, yeah, like we just, you know, the last story, we didn't know what this lady's issue was. She was attempting to commit a crime, no question about it.

But she probably didn't deserve to die, right? And now we have a 67-year-old dude. Maybe he's like the best cat burglar of all time, and he just freaking breaks into people's houses for a living. And he's been doing it for 50 years. He's really good at it. I don't know. Maybe he's a serial killer for all I know. We don't know.

But at this moment when we fire on this man, it was probably unnecessary to protect human life. And that's kind of the point I think that the journalist was trying to make when they put the statute, which they started to quote. They quoted it wrong. I just looked at it. I just read it too. But the point that I think they were trying to make is this idea of, hey, in Arizona, you have a right to defend your stuff using some degree of physical force, which could be said in basically any state in America.

But you only have the right to use a gun to defend your stuff when you're really not defending the stuff, when you're defending humans. And that's also true. That's the point in all 50 states, right? And so in this point, is there an imminent threat to humans? Hard sell. Hard sell. Yeah, and this case is still under investigation, and that may be something that they are, you know, looking at.

So Cochise County is where this took place, and that's a fairly rural county. And it's probably one of those that's probably like, hey, bad guy, bad guy dead, you know, and he broke window. They're probably going to look the other way on this one. It wouldn't surprise me. But the key, and this is actually interesting. You say the law is pretty much the same everywhere you go as far as use of deadly physical force.

This one's interesting, though, this statute, because it talks about how the person is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force. I don't recall reading a statute that says it in quite that way, where there's a situation you can threaten to use deadly force, like it's specifically called out like that. But then it says, or using physical force, which, no, is not deadly physical force.

That's where the journalist gets it wrong, to stop that attempted commission of a criminal trespass. And then the next section is where it says, they may only use deadly physical force if it's in defense of yourself or third persons. And that gives additional subsections or sections, which reference basically what you just covered, Jacob. So anyway, that's an important clarification for people to know.

So, and anyway, what we're mostly interested in the story and why it's in the what not to do category is you got a guy who's not yet breached the, he's not in the home. He's not actually threatening you yet. He's threatened your, I mean, he's broken your property. That doesn't necessarily constitute a physical threat. I know there's people out there who probably disagree with us on that. That's fine.

But then the other bigger, big problem here is shooting at a shape on the other side of, you know, that window. Yeah. Identify your target. Know what it is exactly you're shooting. And exercise some better tactics, man. Yeah. Like, where's the verbal command? Where's the use of cover? Where's the creating distance? Like, if we think that's a bad guy, because, you know, we don't know what other shadow it would be.

All right. Like, I buy into, like, that's cool. But, like, probably, like, sending bullets is premature. You know, I think that we just have other options right now. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Totally. Totally. All right. Let's go to Chesapeake, Virginia. This is also a doozy. It's in our what not to do category. And I would say in a couple of different ways, it's in the what not to do category from both sides of the situation here.

I do think in the end that the use of deadly force that was used in this situation is justified, but getting there is pretty messy. And I look forward to your input on that, Jacob. But basically, actually, I just did the details in that last story. So let's let you break this one down. Okay. Well, what you have is a delivery driver.

That's the generic term used in the news stories. So in my mind, I'm seeing like an Amazon or a FedEx driver or something, you know. Yeah. Uber Eats, maybe. Right, right. And they're, quote, speeding through the neighborhood. Okay. Now, the victim in this case, ends up being the victim, yells at the delivery driver to slow down because his children are playing in the yard.

Okay? So, it's like, hey, you know, dude, slow down. You're going too fast. You're going to hurt my kids kind of thing. Now, the delivery driver, I guess, takes offense at this maybe. And you kind of have to read like four different news stories to totally wrap your head around on this one. But the delivery driver returns.

It's clear that he comes back and a verbal battle ensues. Keep in mind, we have like three or four different stories we read on this one. And I had to read several different stories to kind of start trying to, you know, put the picture together. And in one of those, it seemed to imply that maybe this was a dead end street, maybe like a cul-de-sac or that kind of thing. And I think that's why the delivery driver came back.

I didn't get the impression he came back because he's like, I'm going to go back and settle this. It was that he was, in the course of his duties, traveling down the street and then had to come back up the street. Yeah, that could be. There's also one news story who said that our homeowner blocked him in, prevented him from being able to drive away.

So I don't know if he pulled his car out. I mean, unclear what that looked like, but basically forced a confrontation. Yeah. So our homeowner forces a confrontation, presumably. I should also add that another one of the stories suggested it was not the homeowner, but the homeowner's wife who originally had words with this gentleman about slowing down. You're driving too fast. My kids are playing the arts. So that's unclear.

The homeowner, he blocks in the driver and prevents his escape. And that's when the verbal fight really escalates, right? Because he can't drive off. And so now we're going to say our piece, man. We're going to let him know what we think about his driving or whatever. So the homeowner probably did not consider that this delivery driver was armed.

But as it were, the delivery driver shows a lot of restraint because the homeowner just starts beating on this dude. It says he punched him in the face several times. I mean, that seems like he's giving him a good beating. And somewhere as this what was verbal, now physical fight is escalating, a I think a neighbor hands or a family member a family member brings and hands the homeowner a hatchet I'd love to talk to that dude You know, it's like, look, Uncle Bob's beating that guy good.

Someone get him a hatchet. Like, what is going on here? Like, who would think that was a good idea? Like, he might be outgunned. Let's get him a hatchet. So someone. This is like a WWF match, you know? Like, you know, tap me in, buddy. Or, you know, like, here's a chair. You know, here's a hatchet, you know? Yeah, that's what happened. So someone hands the homeowner, a family member, hands the homeowner a hatchet.

And now our hatchet-wielding homeowner is looking way more concerning to our delivery driver. So this is the point where the delivery driver decides the line has been crossed, and he draws his gun and shoots the homeowner. Yeah. Which I would call highly justified. I think this can be in the what's not category or what not to do because we've never, it just should never have gotten to this point.

Like this is one of those, this is like the, remember the shooting in Tennessee? It was like 2018 or something over the seat in the movie theater. I always sit in that seat. Well, now I'm sitting in the seat. We got to shoot each other over it. This feels like that. It should never have happened, but it did happen. And in the moment that the shot was fired, it seems pretty justified.

In fact, like I said, I think the delivery driver showed a whole lot of good restraint to not bring that gun into the fight while he's getting beat on. Agreed. That was exactly my takeaway. I was like, I think the actual chute itself is justified. It's just getting there was, yeah, it's just a mess. This all started because delivery driver was speeding through the neighborhood.

Whether it was actually speeding or not, who knows, but I know what that's like. Like I live on a street that sometimes I got some drivers that will zoom down the street way faster than they should. I've got kids. They're a lot less little now, but it's still a concern. And, you know, that's irritating. You know, like we live here and we'd like to keep it safe for, you know, our kids to like.

I appreciate the America I grew up in where, you know, kids just ran around and played together in the streets. I frankly think we need more of that than, you know, what kids do for fun a lot of times nowadays. But so that's kind of like the first what not to do, like be mindful in your driving, you know, like it's amazing some of the problems you would avoid if you actually just drive like a law abiding, decent human being.

You know, and then so many what not to do is on the other side, like be careful who you confront. You don't know who you're facing, you know, you don't know how that's going to go down. And, and ego is like the number one thing. I think that's the number one lesson here. Jacob is ego is such a problem. That was the movie theater example you just gave. That was an ego thing, right?

Dudes arguing over, maybe it was a seat, maybe it was noise, whatever it was in the movie theater, right? In the end, like if somebody just said, you know what, bro, my bad, I'm sorry. Have a nice day. And you just walk away like, okay, cool. We're all set. Like everything's done. Um, and that could be, and that's a hard, hard thing to do because maybe delivery driver doesn't feel like he's in the wrong at all. Maybe he doesn't feel like he was going too fast. Right.

But sometimes that's the right answer. You know, like you, you're being accosted by this guy who's telling, you know, he's telling you, you're driving too fast and how dare you drive like that in my neighborhood. And you might not necessarily feel like you're in the wrong for whatever reason. But sometimes the right answer is just be like, hey, bro, I'm sorry.

I'll be a little bit more mindful, you know, or whatever. And then just that goes a long way to prevent things from spilling out of hand. I suspect, and I don't see this in the stories, but I suspect when the wife confronted the delivery driver to begin with, that the delivery driver said something to the wife that was not very kind.

Probably. Because I think this is a husband trying to defend his wife. Yeah, the honor of his. Family yeah you flipped off my wife you insulted my wife like whatever that's how i suspect because like i don't know i'm just i'm just guessing but it's it's it's the one up it's like my ego is bigger than your ego well let me show you that my ego is bigger than your ego and i'll put it in your face yep like that that's that's the fight here And we see so many deadly force incidents that go down just like this, as far as it being driven by egos, where nobody is willing to back down, take any amount of accountability, even where it's not warranted.

To just try to go about their day and live to see another day. So that's the advice that I offer our listeners and our viewers from this story. Again, in the end, I think the deadly force that was used was justified. The guy ended up with an edged weapon at some point, apparently handed to him by a family member, a hatchet.

Like, yeah, okay, at that point, game on, gun out, bang, you know. But it's unfortunate it had to get to that point in the first place. And some people might be like, well, dude did what he had to do. Okay, cool. But what if, what if he had managed to de-escalate that situation from the very beginning? Instead of whatever happened, like even if you don't have any reason or part in escalating it initially, let's just say, if you can still be the better person and de-escalate, guess what?

You're no longer getting hauled down to the police station to answer questions. You're no longer having to call your attorney. You're no longer having to call CCW safe, which we'll talk about here in just a second. You're no longer having to do all sorts of things that can be life altering, because you just said you know what bro I'm sorry have a nice day.

So yeah and I suspect that often times the firearm in your pants makes you feel emboldened and invincible and more inclined to defend your honor and assert your ego and that's problematic Yep, That is also true, Well, we've got more stories to cover. We're getting to some more good ones here. But first, a quick message from our sponsor, CCW Safe.

As I just mentioned, you know, we would rather not have to call CCW Safe. But in the event that something does happen, and you are involved in an incident, where a gun is drawn, a gun is used, or any kind of weapon is used for that matter, to defend yourself, you do want to be able to have somebody to call as opposed to, well, crap.

Now what? Who do I call? How do I find an attorney? Who's a good attorney? How do I afford an attorney? How about you just have a CCW Safe Ultimate membership today? Because that would be really fantastic. Then you've got one phone number. I mean, besides maybe calling 911, but you've got one number to call. And they will handle the rest. They'll do everything you need them to do.

To back you up, to hold your hand, to walk you through the process, to advise you on what to say, what not to say, who to talk to, who to not talk to, what questions to answer or not answer. That's the kind of team. Can I add something? Yeah, absolutely. This week, I saw a post on Facebook that was posted by, I don't have permission to share this, so I'm going to kind of leave some of the details out.

But it was posted by someone who had been retained as an expert witness in a use of force legal case. And the post talked about some of the circumstances of the case, but then it added on an interesting note. It said that this person who was the defendant who used force was a member of a competitor of CCWSAFE. It specified the company and said that it took a long time and lots of arguing and phone calls to finally get that competitor to pay the attorney's bill.

It said that the adjusters had to get involved. And when I saw the word adjuster, I was like, oh, Jeez. That is not what you want. Yeah. And this is a company that most of you listening to this have heard of. So if you currently are relying on a company who's looking for excuses to not pay, you know, well, maybe you shouldn't have shot that guy through the window.

Or, well, maybe if you hadn't been speeding through the neighborhood, this guy would not have cut you off and beat you up and swung a hatchet at you, right? So you don't want a partner who's looking to not pay. That sucks. And you certainly don't want a partner who, even if they think they have to pay, they're looking to pay as little as possible.

And they want to haggle over the attorney fees. That sucks too. And that is not how CCW Safe rules. These guys, like if you're a member, it's game on. Like that's all that matters for them. They will defend you. I mean, it's just, that's the game. They allow that the court can decide if you're guilty. They don't judge you themselves. That's not their job. Their job is to back you up as the member of the organization.

And they want to give you the best chance of success possible. So they want to pay whatever's got to be paid, not just attorney fees, but expert witnesses and investigators and jury consultants. They have a track record rolling out all the things because it matters if they win to them, not just to you. So anyway, a little bit of a soapbox issue there, but it was on my mind because I saw that this week and I thought, holy crap.

People just do not get it. That is the last thing you want to hear the day you're trying to get your attorney paid who's trying to keep you out of jail. 100 percent that's why we believe ccwsafe is the best we hope that you'll check them out at ccwsafe.com, and they got a number of plans to choose from i'm sure you can find something that'll suit your needs and budget and yeah also you can join us the guardian conference and talk to some of the folks that the top folks there yourself, uh if you'd like to meet them get to know them you'll see them on the ground at the Guardian Conference, September 18th to the 20th, so later this month.

And there's still time to sign up for the conference too, guardianconference.com. Anyway, all right. Thank you, CW Safe, for your support of this episode and the Concealed Carry Podcast. Going to our next story out of Tulsa, Oklahoma. This one. It's a justified save of sorts, but I was like, you know, this is its own thing.

And I just called it, the gun is not a talisman category today. What I mean by that is, it's a pretty unfortunate situation. You actually have a towing business, a towing company. So they got obviously a tow yard where the vehicles are stored. And a vehicle had been repossessed. A couple of guys who were not happy about that vehicle being repossessed, and I understand. I mean, that would make me upset too if my vehicle got repossessed. But pay your bills, people.

Anyway, two guys go to basically figure out, hey, where's my car, and who took it, and okay, track down this towing company, and they've gone there to get their vehicle presumably out of this tow yard. Uh, while there, there's a, you know, an argument of sorts that, uh, takes, you know, that starts, uh, tempers flare, all that kind of stuff.

And the, one of the individuals that, uh, you know, that had his vehicle repossessed or whatever, pulls a gun out and the owner of the business pulls his gun out. Now shots are exchanged between these two guys. Both the business owner and his wife who's there are shot as the end result of this. While the bad guy... And die.

Yeah, yeah. She dies for sure. He dies at the hospital. He dies later, yes. So, I mean, yeah. And he got his gun out and he got some shots off, but he only wounded the bad guy in the arm, okay? Which obviously didn't do enough and it didn't do it soon enough to save the business owner's life or the life of his wife. So it was like, oh man, that's, that's heavy, man. Like that's, that's rough. I mean, you didn't pick this fight.

You know, you're just doing your, your business. You're just running your business. And a couple of upset guys show up and next thing you know, guns are coming out. So what do you do? You draw your gun. Cause you're trying to defend yourself. We don't know the exact circumstances of that, like how it all played out, what distances were like, what the shots were actually like, whether a cover was available or not, whether the dude, you know, the business owner waited for his turn or had an opportunity to wait for a turn.

It sounds like a gun just came right out. He may not have had any time. So it might not have been anything he could have done about it at that point. However, clearly multiple shots were fired on multiple targets, right? Because the bad guy here shot the business owner and his wife. And so that tells you that there's some amount of time. And if the only good shot you get off is one that strikes the arm of the bad guy and nothing else...

Well, that's why we want to be the first one to land good shots in the, as John Correa calls it, the meaty bits of the person to get an effectual stop like ASAP. Training is paramount. Skill is important. Speed and all that is not always everything it is, you know, that people want it to be. But it can be important. And I don't know. I mean, it sounds like it was probably pretty important in this situation, but so is accuracy, right?

You need both. You need both and you need them right now. So, you know, one other thing I have here, and I, of course, want to hear your thoughts, would be, hey, you got a situation. Are you and your wife or anybody else that you, you know, significant others or family members, are you in tune with one another as far as like, hey, if such and such thing goes down? I mean, this is a towing business.

They are in the business of upsetting people a lot of times, unfortunately. Right. So it might be good to have conversations with your loved ones or people you work with or whatever about like, Hey, if such and such thing happens, here's how we're going to handle that. If dude pulls out a gun, like I need you going this way while I'm going that way kind of thing. Like we're both getting off the X here.

So we're not both in the line of fire. Yeah. That kind of thing, you know? So anyway, tough, tough questions, tough lessons. This was a rough one. Here's a thought that is not specifically about this incident, but I think has some validity. I see us kind of transitioning a little bit. Like if you went back and listened to Justified Saves episode of the podcast five years ago, 10 years ago, and if you went before our podcast 15 years ago, you tend to see a lot more incidents where whoever has the gun wins.

Because it only seems to be one person with a gun. We do see some, not to say it didn't happen, there wasn't bad guys and good guys exchanging gunfire, but a lot more of the Justifies felt back then. It was more about when to deploy your gun. But more recently, in recent years, and I think this is because there's more guns in America than ever before.

That's just true. There are more guns in America than people, right? By a significant margin. And that number increases constantly. We are only adding guns at a much faster rate than we have population. So we're seeing more and more stories where good guy and bad guy have gun. And sometimes it's hard to tell who's the good guy and who's the bad guy, frankly.

Like the last one with the delivery driver and the homeowner. It just kind of gets murky in that case. This one seems a little bit clearer. But when more and more guns exist in America, the necessity of you bringing more to the fight than just having a gun with you increases. You actually being competent with the deployment of that gun becomes more important is what I'm trying to say.

I think that the numbers, the stats, the nature of our society is such that it is becoming more important as time goes on that you show up with more than just a gun. You show up with gun skill, gun competency, capability, whatever thing you want to use. And to your point, Riley, in this one, we don't know if this was a question of, hey, I needed to wait till this guy was distracted enough to get my gun and then, you know, and counter this ambush.

Or if it was like, oh, crap, I'm getting shot. Like, I better get my gun into this fight now. But what is clear, though, is that it did not go well for the good guys in this one, for any number of potential reasons. But, yeah, I think we have to raise the bar a little bit, and we can no longer believe, we never should have believed, but it's less true than it's ever been before that you've got to bring more to the fight than just having a gun.

That alone will not save you. And it never really was highly reliable before, but it's less reliable now. Yeah. So that's why this is the a gun is not a talisman category today. So there you have it. That was well summed up, Jacob. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Alrighty, let's move on here. We've got four more stories to cover.

These are all good stories, good lessons. These are all, I felt like, solidly in the justified save category. So we've got the next up here out of San Antonio, Texas. Man dies after allegedly being shot by sister's boyfriend during family disturbance. This one's interesting. I suspect alcohol or drugs is involved. You know, people basically have a family argument or fight that's taking place at 3.30 a.m.

And it's not between husband and wife. Like it's a domestic situation here, but this is between brother, like fully grown, like adult brother and sister. 35 year old man is arguing with his sister and it says he's actively hitting her when her 25 year old boyfriend retrieves a handgun and shoots him, shoots him in the, in the, in the torso.

It says there was another report out there that suggested he shot him in the back and it's like, okay, that's fine. If you're using, though, deadly force to protect, not just yourself, but to protect a third party, another individual, and that's certainly a warrantable, like you can do that, right? Uh, it's possible that they may be shot in the back and you know what?

That's completely okay. So like, sometimes you have people that have this attitude and that's certainly prevalent in today's popular media of, Oh, they got shot in the back. We'll say what? Like, cause people like have this notion that, you know, shooting in the back should never happen. Right. But there's definitely context and we've talked about some others before, but what sounds like what happened here is boyfriend, uh, defended his, his girlfriend here who was being hit by her brother, and he shot him.

And it looks like, you know, this has been determined to be a good shoot, according to the reporting I saw. There doesn't seem there'll be any charges pressed. So, there you go. A detail that I think is important is that the brother who's hitting his sister also pulled out a weapon. In fact, it kind of creates a little bit of confusion for Me in the narrative.

Because you have a 35-year-old man hitting sister, pulls out weapon, unclear what weapon is, maybe a pocket knife for all we know, it doesn't matter, pulls out a weapon of some sort, and then sister's boyfriend retrieves gun, which I find interesting too. There's some amount of time that elapses while the 25-year-old has to go get the gun, during which time I guess the brother is still hitting the sister or threatening to use the weapon he pulled out, unclear.

And then our 25-year-old boyfriend returns, presumably, with the gun he retrieved and shoots the now weapon-holding assaulting brother. So that's a relevant, I think, context. It's very relevant. We're not just stopping a physical assault. There's some sort of weapon introduced that leads the boyfriend to make the decision that he needs to go retrieve a gun. And maybe he was already retrieving the gun.

That's unclear, too. I think we just don't have a good narrative from the journalist. But regardless, a weapon was introduced, and that makes the use of force probably more justifiable, depending on what the weapon was especially. Also, don't beat up your sister. What the crap, man? Yeah. Yeah. So that's a rough situation there. I mean, I say rough because it's family on family violence, and we just hate to see that, of course.

All right, Jacob, tell us about this story out of, I thought this was out of Texas, Cedar Hill, Texas, I think it is. Bank customer fatally shoots armed robber demanding money. Yeah i mean this one we don't have a lot of details but it's it's like reads like right out of a hollywood movie yeah guy has knife goes into bank with knife demands money from teller with knife at threat of knife things other customer not employee but customer of bank also in bank sees knife wielding guy threatening to do knife things while demanding money decides that his gun can solve this problem.

And so he shoots knife-wielding man. Knife-wielding man leaves bank bleeding, not doing so great. And he basically collapses in the parking lot where the police later find him, attempt to provide first aid, and then ultimately he dies at the hospital. So that's, I think those are the details we have. I think about this one, this kind of thing, This one does like what if scenarios that I think most of us have thought through.

Cause if you're a concealed carrier and you go to bank, like a bank is one of those like notorious places where robbers come in and try and get things like money. And so you kind of have it in your head. Like, well, if someone walks in here right now, like, what will I do? So, I think this is a tough one. I often run into scenarios like this where I have a hard time knowing what I would have done.

This is one of those. This is one of those like, well, what would I have done? I don't know. Because as a general rule, like the schema in my brain, the file that's in the archive of Jacob's brain, when you pull out the bank robbery file and read it, it says most of the time these people just leave with the money and no one gets hurt.

And this person doesn't even have a gun. They have a knife. and it's pretty hard to do a lot of damage to the bank teller across the counter. I mean, I shouldn't say it's hard, but the file in my brain from the information we have on this one suggests no one's going to get hurt. You know, FDIC insured, let it go. Right.

But to suggest that's always how it goes down would be super inaccurate. Like there are times that robbers just hurt and kill people for the kicks and giggles of it despite it not being necessary to achieve their objective of stealing the stuff. So this is one of those where, I don't know, I think that on average, I probably would not intervene in a bank robbery with some guy holding a knife asking for cash if I'm not directly involved.

Like I'm not, like, you know, he's over there, he's talking to a teller, I'm over here, like let him do the thing. I think it would take more than that to get me to act. Yeah. I totally understand your own personal hesitance there, thinking through that scenario. Again, because I think the fact that it is a knife, and not that knives aren't deadly, it's just that they are a short-range weapon, right?

So just depending on context, I think is really key here. How threatening this individual is acting towards these tellers or anybody else in the bank, how close he is, what's his proximity to those people. All those things would be factors, I think, as I would see it. And just trying to make the best judgment call of, hey, I really think this guy is a threat, like that he might and has the intent of hurting somebody.

Uh potentially like that's that's going to be a factor for sure but the fact that it's not a gun does change the equation for me at least in in in the overall scheme of things as well, um guns are just i mean they turn into a long range weapon very fast and so, things go sideways really quickly in other words too so um anyway yeah.

Uh oh i was gonna add one more thing on that yeah Something that also is worth discussing, though, is that what are you doing in the interim? What are your tactics in that moment, right? So is there anything you can do to shorten your draw stroke so that if something happens that causes you to think you do need to intervene, you can do it faster? Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

Is there anything you can put between you and that individual? They have a knife. So distance becomes relevant. Can I create distance? Can I take that stupid island where people fill out their deposit slips like idiots? Can I put that between me and them? I'm sorry to call you an idiot if you fill out your deposit slip but it's unnecessary the teller will fill it out for you just get in line so you know like what are the options I have to increase my odds of success should I have to intervene in those moments where I'm still making a decision or perhaps I've just decided not to do anything yet so I think that'd be the other thing to think about like in those what if scenarios like well what might I do like what are the things that I can take action on immediately should I be calling 911?

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe that's not something I should do. Something to think about. Yep. Oh, I'll, I'll very, and that's the whole reason we do these episodes like this is to give people things to think about. All right. Because we want you to make the best decisions you can in the moment when you are faced with something similar.

And I think one of the best learning opportunities we have to be able to do that is to talk about all these different scenarios and possibilities and, what ifs, you know, if this, then that, and so on and so forth, just because thinking about it ahead of time is the time to think about it, not when you're faced with it in the moment.

I'll give you one more real quick. I know we're running low on time, but this incident took place in Texas. But in most states, including Texas, there's no blanket prohibition about having a gun in a bank. It's kind of up to the bank if the bank wants to prohibit guns or not. Right, which in Texas they could enforce with a .30-06 sign or whatever.

Sure. Well, yes, .30-06 would be interesting. You know what I mean. Correct, yeah. But the point is that the average in most of America, you can probably take a gun into most banks. There's some exceptions. We've seen Citibank from time to time and Bank of America have had policies about no guns being in their branches.

We've had some reports of U.S. bank branches, Chase Bank branches, and Wells Fargo branches prohibiting guns. Those tend to be pretty isolated to single branches, maybe some branch manager's decision. At a corporate level or broadly speaking, those are not banks where we generally see those kinds of things. So it's pretty rare, is my point. Most banks allow guns.

But if this had taken place in a state that has a specific prohibition against banks or Or in a bank where that bank had a policy against it, that would be concerning, right? Like, yeah, like, I would... I would not want in that moment to have to wonder if I'm going to have an issue with the bank if I have to act. I would not want that to be a decision determining criteria.

So does your bank prohibit guns? That might be an interesting thing to look into because you don't want to find yourself in this situation. And then after the fact to deal with some sort of lawsuit or maybe just have your accounts closed out and sent packing, that would be rather inconvenient. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And that's, I think, the key thing here, what you're pointing out is, especially when you are, okay, when people rob a bank, the target is the bank. The target is the money, right?

Generally, patrons in the bank are not targets. They could, they can be, they have been. But this is the, if you are not the target, in other words, Because you're just an observer at this point, right? You're in there, dude's focused on the teller, give me the money, give me the money, whatever, right? And you just are choosing to engage, right?

In other words, it's an option for you. You're not even a part, like dude hasn't even directly threatened you or anything. And you're carrying in a place that's questionable. Like that's, yeah, that's where I think it would be a really iffy situation for you, the concealed carrier. That would definitely be a factor in my decision-making. I'd be like, you know, if he threatens me, then it's different, right?

But if I'm just an observer here and I'm carrying where I maybe shouldn't be, I'm probably not, you know, getting involved. Normandy, Missouri. This is a man was killed. This one caught my eye because of the weapon that's involved. This is very unusual. Assuming the reporting on this is accurate and true and everything.

But basically, the story goes, I'll try to give you it in a nutshell, but there was a guy who was at a home, and he was asked to leave. I don't know that he, like, I don't know if he showed up because like the reporting doesn't make it that clear. Like if he was actually a welcome guest of the home and then was asked to leave, or if he came to cause problems and was asked to leave and then came back. Either way, guy was at the home earlier.

He's told, hey, get out of here, leave, whatever, right? He does in fact leave, but then he comes back later armed with a gun. But this is not an ordinary gun, according to the report. It was an Uzi-style submachine gun, it says. Well, you don't see that every day because there's not that many of them out there. And there's not that many of them in the hands of your typical criminals anyway.

I'm not going to say it doesn't happen, but I'm sure there's a few out there on the streets that have been stolen. But generally people with machine guns keep them relatively safe. Anyway, a guy comes back with a machine gun. And the interesting thing here is that he begins punching his way inside is what the article says.

So he forces his way inside by punching his way in. So he's got a machine gun, but instead he punches his way into this home. And we don't really know exactly what happens at that point, but we just know the police arrive and they find him suffering from multiple gunshot wounds that he dies from later on. So he obviously gets shot by the occupants of the home in defense.

And again, he's carrying a machine gun. So good on whoever it was that defended themselves because they were up against pretty good firepower, it would seem. But he gets taken out. So kind of an interesting story there. Did I miss anything here, Jacob? Or what were your takeaways? It could be suicide by Uzi. We don't know. So we kind of are assuming the occupants of this house shot him, but we don't know that to be certain.

We don't know if that is the case. We don't know if the occupants shot them with their own gun or guns, or if they wrestled his gun away from him and shot him with it. Those are all possibilities. What is clear? I think a couple of things here. One is that These were people who were willing to fight, assuming that they shot him with his gun or with their own gun. It doesn't matter. They were not going to lay down and take it.

Guy shows up at my door with an Uzi, and he's like, let me in. These people were fighting. They were like, no. He had to fight his win. Even with a gun in his hand, they were like, no, you can't come in here, bro. These were people who were pushing back. This could be one of those things. For all we know, this is a drug house. and the good guys and bad guys are all drug dealers. I mean, we have no idea.

We just, we lack a ton of information here. Yeah. So. Even right down to who shot him. Yeah. Or with what? Yeah. Because we got nothing. That's what the report's so strange to me, Jacob, is like it tells the story up to the point that he forces his way in, and then it's like an officer's arrived and found him suffering with multiple gunshot wounds. It's like, how did we get there? Yeah.

That's the end of the story, more or less. So, you know, the investigation continues, but, yeah, I think if you show up at my house with an Uzi-style machine gun in your hand, end quote, like, yeah, I'm going to be taking this pretty seriously. Like, this is game on for sure. Yeah. Well, that was interesting. But now we're finally to our last story out of Deerfield Beach, Florida.

Okay, and the title here is Woman Claims Self-Defense After Fatally Shooting Man. This is, boy, yeah, there's some good lessons behind this one, I think, in a variety of ways. I'm curious to hear your take and also let you give us the rundown on this story, Jacob. Okay. So let's see if we can, this is definitely a domestic issue.

So we have a female homeowner and we have our BG. And it says that a neighbor told reporters that the female homeowner and the BG had been through a difficult relationship. Specifically that the BG had been abusive toward the homeowner and her children. Okay? And the children include a 4-year-old and an 11-year-old that we know of from this.

So that's some backstory here a little bit. Like this is a domestic issue. They were in a relationship. It wasn't going well. This guy was abusive. And that kind of lays some groundwork for what's going on. So we know That— One more interesting detail there is the ex-boyfriend here. And there's a previous story that's linked in the article. He was previously jailed, which is interesting because...

Because now he's not in jail? Yeah, but he was jailed in connection with the killing of his own father, which this woman probably knows about. So that gives you some context. She knows this guy is dangerous or potentially dangerous. Anyway, continue on. Yeah, specifically with an assault rifle. So this guy is facing second-degree murder charges, to be really specific, for allegedly shooting and killing his own dad with an assault rifle.

Take that at face value. That's what it says in the story. But presumably he's not in custody. He's cruising around town with that. And it's unclear if he forced his way into this woman's apartment or if she let him in. That's not clear. But it does say that he was physically assaulting her when she shot him In self-defense, that's what it says in the story.

So yeah, he dies there in the apartment, and the cops show up and take his body away, and they're investigating. So this one definitely plays out like, hey, I got a violent boyfriend slash ex-boyfriend. I'm going to go get me a gun, and if he shows up again, I'm taking action, and that's what happened. That's how it reads.

Yeah. Yeah. So this is one of, this is a perfect example that I think that, calls into question those that want to enforce gun control laws like extended waiting periods, you know, cool off periods or cool down periods or whatever they call them, which, you know, we just talked last week on the podcast actually about the one in New Mexico being overturned, which by the way, update on that story, apparently that ruling is so narrow, it's only applying to the two plaintiffs in that case, according to that judge.

So that, you know, more to come on that one, because that is ridiculously narrow. Because what is everybody else in New Mexico supposed to do? Or within that same circuit? Supposed to come up with their own lawsuit? Anyway. So, but this is a domestic violence situation. This is an ex-partner, lover, boyfriend, whatever, okay, to this woman.

He's obviously dangerous. He has a history of violence. She obviously doesn't want him to be around. It stated, I don't remember if it was this article that's in the show notes or not, but we're an additional one where I read it. But she had gotten away from him. In other words, she was living where she was living unbeknownst to him.

He managed to track her down. Yeah, so he found out where she lived or said something like that. Right, right. So she clearly does not want him around. And she's gone through a lot of effort to get away from him. And likely, I mean, she's got a gun. She uses it to kill him, presumably, right? I assume that's the gun. It's her own gun, not one that he brought and she took from him somehow or whatever.

This is a prime example of why there are circumstances that I think absolutely warrant a person being able to go in, purchase a gun today, because they have a known threat. And to have a process that they have to jump through, well, I've got to now apply with a county sheriff or police agency or the state or whatever to get a, you know, to override a waiting period kind of thing. Like that's just never going to happen, right?

So to have laws on the books with mandatory waiting periods to purchase guns would specifically put women like this in danger because of these kinds of domestic violence type situations. They have as much right as anybody else to defend themselves. And I mean, kudos to her. I'm happy that she was able to defend herself and her children from a violent, violent man. Yeah.

I think the world wants her to talk to the cops, get a restraining order. The world wants her to file a petition for an extreme risk protection order, the red flag laws, and have law enforcement go over to his house and take away his guns. That's what the world wants her to do. And those things just do – they might solve some problems. There might be some people who get a protection order and they're like, oh, geez, okay, message received. I'll stay away from you now.

But at large, these things do not solve problems. And this woman, like the problem, the only way to her to solve her problem was to be prepared to defend herself. And so that's what she did. And luckily, she lives in a place where there weren't a lot of barriers to do that. The only thing, well, I shouldn't say it's the only thing, but it's the only sure thing that those protective orders do is give law enforcement the legal power, to actually take somebody away from somewhere they shouldn't be.

Like meaning within the presence, within a certain amount of distance, or from the home of the person that's filed an order against them. I'm convinced in some situations, protective orders result in violence because it angers the person that that protective order goes against. Like, you know, difficult, you know, breakups, divorces, custody issues, woman files, or it doesn't have to be a woman, but partner files a protective order against the other partner.

And like, how dare you file that against me? You know, and like that might actually push them over the edge. Some people, it's like the thresholds of violence article Malcolm Gladwell published years ago. And I think I talked about the podcast once, which I think is still a very interesting, example, example theory, probably a better word of how maybe some things work for some people.

But like we all have like different thresholds that like a certain point that it's like, okay, that's a line too far or, you know, whatever. That now I'm willing to cross lines and commit violence, right? And different people's thresholds are at different places. Like some people, it doesn't require a whole lot. And there's definitely people out there that a protective order is not going to phase them one bit.

Whereas there's others that will be like, okay, yeah, I'm not going to violate that. So anyway. Ah, these things are messy, but one of the reasons why we have the Second Amendment is it is an individual right, which means that individuals have a right to defend themselves. And that includes every individual. And so that's what this woman did here.

And that's the sort of thing that should be protected, I think, at all costs. So that brings us to a conclusion of our episode here today. Oh, a lot of good stories covered, and I'm thankful we could do that together, Jacob. A reminder of today's episode sponsored by HK and CCW Safe. We would hope that you would support our sponsors that support the podcast and make this content possible to bring to you.

HK can be found at hk-usa.com and CCW Safe at ccwsafe.com. Any final parting words, Jacob? You are your own first responder, right? You are your own cavalry. Like you got to be prepared to defend yourself and you need to bring more to the fight than just the presence of a gun. That's going to require some good tactics and some competency with that tool.

Yeah. Good. Good stuff. Guys, a reminder, if you want to reach out to us, you can always contact us at podcast at concealed carry.com. Take your questions, your suggestions, your feedback, future episode suggestions whatever always want to hear from you and that's the best way to reach out to us and appreciate you following liking subscribing sharing the podcast wherever you can, until next time a reminder to train right train often and train safe.

So you can fight hard fight fast and fight true take care We'll see ya, A reminder that laws vary from place to place, and we encourage listeners to seek local legal advice to understand applicable laws. Concealed Carry, Inc., its brands and properties, and the Concealed Carry podcast is not a legal service, nor are we attorneys at law.

We make our best-fade effort to share Concealed Carry-related insights and information about firearm-related incidents and the laws pertaining, based on our own understanding and experience. But things can be different where you live, or laws may have changed by the time you listen to this. We cannot be held liable for your actions based on the information shared in this podcast. Please exercise care with all things pertaining to firearm use, Concealed Carry, and always practice following basic firearm safety rules.

More information about safety can be found at concealedcarry.com forward slash safety. Thank you.