In the discussion of Rule Three on his web site, jthhapkido refers to a guy "carrying a 44 Magnum Revolver with an optic and a 10? barrel, loaded with alternating FMJ and Black Rhino Teflon-Coated Spinning-Wheels-O’-Death-brand bullets out of a SERPA OWB holster carried in a small-of-the-back position". That reminded me a 1965 spoof of the James Bond movies entitled, "The 2nd Best Secret Agent in the Whole Wide World". Instead of a .44 magnum, the protagonist carries a broomhandle Mauser also at the small of his back.
In the opening scene of the movie, a man in a city park is approached by a young mother pushing a baby carriage holding twins. She fusses with the babies for a few seconds, then pulls a Sten submachine gun out of the carriage and empties the magazine into the man before calmly exiting the park. On her way out, she encounters a British bobby. He politely greets her with, "Good morning, Number Six" and she replies, "Good morning, Number Ten."
I've seen that clip!
Regarding other posts in this thread:
It is amazing (so much so that most people don't realize it) how often a successful defensive gun use doesn't include a single shot fired. As long as it is recognizably a gun to the bad guy, having it and pulling it often is all that is needed.
(Note: this isn't the same as "talisman thinking" which is the idea that merely having the object keeps you safe. Nor is it the same as me advocating "just buy a gun and carry it, that'll work most of the time." If you don't know how to be safe with a gun, just like any other powerful tool it may end up hurting you because you don't know what you are doing--just like chainsaws, power drills, and bandsaws. Unsafely handling an object every day means you are likely to make a serious mistake at some point in time.)
But....just having the gun on you and knowing when to draw it is often fully sufficient. If you have to take a shot, often one single shot is sufficient.
That's why for me, Rule Three is so far down the list. If you have a gun, and know enough to safely handle it, and can draw it and make an accurate shot in time, that will cease the vast majority of lethal-level assaults on your person (based on all data currently known). Sure, the better you are with the gun (above a basic competency level), the better your chances. Sure, the better gun you have, the better your chances. But those are far less important than simply having the gun with you, and being able to get it out and make an accurate shot.
That doesn't mean it might not BE important. Just that it is LESS important---priorities mean first things first.
The reason I get annoyed by people who don't follow Rule Three for their situation is that like I said, Rule Three is the
easiest one to follow. Rule One measn you have to commit to carrying a heavy hunk of metal on your hip every day. Rule Two means you have to spend the time and money in training and practice to get to a competent level.
Rule Three? None of that! You just have to make a decent choice of defensive tool in the first place---but apparently THAT is the hard part for people who first make a choice, then get emotionally invested in it, and then make up rationalizations for their choice that they then argue with other people about.
Rule Three
should be the easy one!
I suppose that since many people (in the population overall) don't follow Rule One or Two, it stands to reason that Rule Three would be no different.
