In my recent return to blogging, I have highlighted the importance of beginning discussions of guns with what we hold in common and my interest in empathy-driven conversations.

I thought these were new concerns born of my experiences in 2022. Little did I remember that these are actually longstanding concerns of mine that were reinforced last year.

To wit: Five years ago (thank you, Facebook Memories), I was a guest on John Johnston’s program Ballistic Radio. In the promo for my episode, John highlighted the following statement:

I don’t have much of a stomach for politics but I do think it’s important that we, as citizens of the United States, talk to one another about issues of common concern. And if we can start those discussions with more empathy… then I think we can get further in those discussions even if we never completely agree.

David Yamane on “Ballistic Radio”

I believe this all the more five years down the road.

I have been at this work for a long time. 10+ years and 900+ posts. I would be grateful if you could support my work by sharing it in your social networks. Likes, views, and followers help constitute my “platform” as an author, which I can use to sell my work to publishers.

You can also help me absorb the cost of my research and writing on gun culture by making one time or ongoing monetary contributions:

That said, John Johnston’s Ballistic Radio has been at the top of my diminishing list of must listen to podcasts for some time now. Recently he had on a guest who is an extremely high-level shooter, K.A. Clark. This is not unusual for Ballistic Radio, of course. What I found interesting was the advice Clark had for new gun owners.

The old saw has it that “those who can’t do, teach.” This is mostly false with a dash of truth mixed in, but so too is the opposite: “those can do, can’t teach.” When I was in graduate school there was a legendary story of one of the world’s top quantitative researchers in sociology who got so frustrated trying to teach graduate statistics that he flung an eraser across the room. Later when I was working at the University of Notre Dame, I tried to have one of the top 20 college tennis players in the country help me with my serve. I hit a few serves for him under his watchful eye as he formulated his advice: “Swing harder.” Uhhhh, okaaaayyyy.

It is a particular gift to be able to reach novices as an instructor, especially if you as the instructor are highly proficient at what you are teaching. Glenn Seaborg earned a share of the 1951 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his (co-)discovery of ten transuranium elements including plutonium and element 106 which was subsequently named seaborgium in his honor. He also taught freshman chemistry at my alma mater, UC-Berkeley, long after he needed to. In his words, “The education of young people in science is at least as important, maybe more so, than the research itself.”

This brings me back to K.A. Clark on Ballistic Radio. He is a Glenn Seaborg-level shooter. He and Johnston review his credentials at the start of the show. But when asked to talk about goal setting, his advice for new gun owners — of which there are an abundance these days — was spot on.

Johnston asked Clark if there was a difference in goal setting for new shooters. Clark responded that goal setting is even more important for the novice. And the particular approach to goal setting he advises is worth quoting at length:

I think the first place to start, piggybacking off the work of Claude Werner, is avoiding negative outcomes. The first goal is your involvement with firearms and firearms training should be a value-add and a positive to your life. Not a negative. And if you buy gun and you’re unsafe with it and you don’t know anything about negative outcomes and you don’t get training and you don’t take it seriously, man, it can mess up your life. It can ruin your life. And people don’t realize that. They just say, “Well, I got a gun, I’m good.” And it’s like, well, maybe. Now it’s just random. Maybe it’s good. Maybe it’s not. So setting that goal of “I want to be able to protect my family.” Fantastic. So, guns are good place to start. Get some training. But you’ve got to learn about safe storage, you’ve got to learn about negative outcomes, you’ve got to listen to Ballistic Radio. That’s where you start. That’s much more important than, “Well, I want to do a two-second Bill Drill tomorrow.” One, that’s not going to happen. And two, it doesn’t matter that much, right? So the beginners really need to hone in on what’s important. They really need to get their goals together early. And that’s a challenge. How do we do that as a training community? How do we help those new people set realistic goals and relevant goals to make firearms ownership and their involvement in this community a net add to their life.

K.A. Clark on Ballistic Radio (Ep. 354)

As host John Johnston said by way of reinforcing Clark’s take, “A lot of people, lately especially, get into guns as some form of risk mitigation. Now, whether or not the risk is real or imagined doesn’t really matter. When you [get a gun] you’re not necessarily mitigating risk so much as setting it to random. Like maybe you’re good, maybe you’re not. And, and I agree with you completely that if you’re introducing any level of new risk in your life and you don’t mitigate it, that is probably not a net value-added.”

Whether you’re already deeply involved or are new to guns, there is a lot of value-added to listening to the Ballistic Radio podcast. And if you are outside or critical of American gun culture, you should listen also so you can see what thoughtful gun owners sound like when they talk to each other.

This is the eighth and final final reflection essays, written by a student whose initial reflections on our field trip to the gun range can be found here. (Link to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh reflection essays.)

By Grace Taylor

This class has made me think a lot about the role of guns in society, gun culture, and gun safety, as well as why different groups are so divided about whether the fact that so many people own guns is a good thing or a bad thing, and how we can make gun ownership less dangerous.

As I write this, it is hard to think about everything we read and talked about in class and not think about the terrible school shooting in Michigan last week, where parents bought their son a gun for a Christmas present, and then he went to school and used it to kill four of his classmates. I realize that these kinds of people are not the “normal” gun owners, and that millions and millions of people own and use guns safely and responsibly, but it is hard to think about the role of guns in society and not let the Michigan shooting, and all the school shootings before it, influence my thoughts.

I learned a lot this semester through our readings and our speakers, but I am not sure I completely “changed my mind” about guns in general. Going back to our field trip to the range, one thing that really stuck with me was just how dangerous the guns seemed when seeing them up close, and eventually using them. Firing them, especially the AR-15, felt intense, even violent, and it is not something that I particularly want to do again. We spent so much time on safety, and all the risks of shooting a gun, and I was very impressed by how good those rules were. But my first thought back then was that, if we need so many rules to treat guns safely, doesn’t that show how dangerous they really are, and do we think most people are going to be strict enough or smart enough to follow those rules.

That was also my reaction to several of our speakers. I respected how serious John Johnson and Melody Lauer were about training people to use guns safely. I respected how Rob Pincus wants gun-rights groups to be more honest about the dangers of “guns in the everyday,” and how he works with mental-health professionals to deal with the role of guns in youth suicide and other difficult situations. But I could never quite understand how they could be so clear about the risks and dangers of guns, and still be so enthusiastic about millions and millions of people owning guns as part of their everyday lives.

In general, I just could never understand or relate to this great excitement about guns, how guns are so tied up in people’s sense of culture and identity, and why people seem to need to own guns to somehow show the world who they are. There is a difference between saying owning a gun is a right, or shooting guns at a range is fun, and being so enthusiastic about people being able to do concealed carry of guns as they go into town or go shopping, because it makes them feel good or makes them feel safer.

The relationship between guns and personal safety is another thing I did not quite understand. Several of the articles we read, and several of the speakers we heard, talked about how people carry guns because they are so worried about the risk of crime and violence and threats to their personal safety: “No one needs a gun until they do” [quoting John Johnston]. But when I read interviews with these gun enthusiasts, or watched some of the videos we used in class, they seem to have such an extreme view of the dangers in society, like that there is a robber or a killer just waiting to attack them every time they leave the house. Every time I found this opinion, I wondered if they really believed that. Also, if gun-rights advocates are so concerned about risk, why aren’t they more concerned about all the risks of widespread gun ownership, from negligence, to accidental shootings, to mass shootings, to guns and mental health. I know all of our speakers were very worried about this kind of risk, and they have great training to help people deal with those risks, but pro-gun politicians do not seem to be, and so many laws are making it easier and easier for people to carry guns without training.

All of these issues about guns, personal safety, and what is happening with the current legislature came together for me in my final paper. In other sociology classes, I have looked at how to best try to address the problem of domestic abuse and intimate partner violence, and how to keep women and children safer and help them leave abusive relationships. Because of my prior knowledge on the problem of intimate partner violence, I thought it made sense for me to look at the role that guns play in the problem. The research was so clear that if there is a gun in the house, or if an abuser has access to a gun, the risk of the woman being killed by her abusive partner goes way up. With a gun, it is so much more likely that intimate partner violence turns into intimate partner homicide.

Yet the federal and state laws that could be used to protect women and children, and get guns out of the hands of abusers, are not nearly as strong as they should be, and the enforcement of the laws is weak and inconsistent. My paper talks about the Boyfriend Loophole and the Stalking Loophole in the federal laws. These are such obvious problems, but Congress has not been able to fix them in 20 years. State laws can be stronger, but there are still many states where judges and police cannot order guns to be removed from a home where abuse is taking place, and there are other states where guns can be removed but do not have to be removed. Again, I just do not understand how, if gun-rights advocates are so concerned about personal safety, they would not be doing everything they can to support laws to get guns out of the hands of abusers who threaten women and children.

In this class, I learned to respect people like John Johnston and Melody Lauer, Rob Pincus, and all the outside speakers who were so serious about minimizing the risks and dangers of gun ownership and maximizing safety. I still don’t understand their enthusiasm for guns, and I don’t agree with it, but I think if their view was more common, we could create a safer society, and deal with problems like the connection between guns, domestic abuse, and intimate partner homicide.

Here is the third of several such essays, written by a student whose initial reflections on our field trip to the gun range can be found here. (Link to the first and second reflection essays.)

By Hannah Coates

Honestly, when I signed up for this course last Spring, I was expecting it to be a class from a liberal-lens. In the context of Sociology and public health, I assumed we’d be discussing the harms of guns in society and better ways to circumvent their use. However, I think that naivety epitomizes why courses like this are necessary, especially within a liberal-leaning department.

Getting the opportunity to grapple with all of the opposing viewpoints, sentiments, beliefs, passions, and genuine fears in the process of this course, through live speakers as well as merely through raw research analysis, I feel like I have gained a much more comprehensive understanding of the role guns do serve in America for so many people and why.

While I wouldn’t say I have a concrete opinion on all gun issues now, I feel like I can understand and anticipate the nuances that make them controversial, and I could engage (and probably at least partially agree) with advocates from both sides. In my life going forward, I am eager to see how this knowledge will shape my opinions, conversations, and policy pursuits in the future.

Overall, I feel like the best way to frame the growth I’ve made is to outline some of the beliefs that I came into the class with, and then to update them with where I stand now.

Beliefs I had about guns:

(1) We would be better off if nobody had guns at all

While I could understand the need for guns out of self defense of other people with guns, I thought that not having them in the first place would eradicate much of the violence. It is true that the presence of guns makes the likelihood of violence/harm by guns greater. However, it is also true that there are times that guns are the only form of defense against other forms of violence, especially when differences between power and ability come into play.

Melody Lauer really helped elucidate this point to me when she spoke about females in situations of actual or threatened domestic abuse or whose former abusers were being released from prison. Going through the thought process of how I would handle a situation like that in my own life helped me realize the difficult binds that people are forced to face and the ways that guns have the potential to minimize some of that vulnerability––or at least give people some peace of mind that it will.

(2) Giving up guns would be a small sacrifice in the name of public safety

Guns are also a big part of people’s lives in the context of sport. In the same ways that darts, slingshots, archery, and golf are enjoyable outlets for people who like target-based activities, guns can be very cathartic and enjoyable for people. While I used to think that it was nonsensical to put someone’s life at risk for the sake of sport, this class helped reveal to me that that is a phenomenon that occurs all the time, and which we tolerate in a million other contexts. The danger comes more from the user than from the gun, and there is a natural adrenaline release that comes from shooting one.

Something powerful for me was the class discussion that one of the speakers [Randy Miyan of the Liberal Gun Owners] brought up regarding humanity’s evolution alongside, and sometimes even attributed to, projectiles. This relationship is predisposed, and for many people it would be a detrimental loss, even in the name of sport alone. Additionally, war, hunting, policing, and personal safety are all areas in which guns are invaluable to countless Americans, and I’ve learned that this is not a relationship I really have a right to judge, especially because those who respect and appreciate guns are usually not the ones causing the problems (though accidental gun injuries and death are common, as they are with many kinds of equipment). Many people truly believe that they are furthering justice and protecting others by carrying a gun, and while I don’t agree with that or think it is safe for non-professional civilians to feel as though they can mitigate controversial, split-second life-or-death decisions regarding the lives of others, I can understand why some people would think this way. 

(3) Different types of guns make a big difference in the amount of violence committed

I really believed that military-grade weapons and the big automatic rifles and AK-47s were a big component of the problem, and that if civilians were disallowed from accessing them that there would be fewer mass shootings. A lot of this opinion came from the Las Vegas Strip shooting in 2017 with an AR-15, which felt (and was) so unnecessary and egregious. However, I have learned that the vast majority of shootings occur with handguns, which are hard to even regulate due to their prevalence on and off the mainstream market. Changing this would likely put more people in harm’s way (or believed harm’s way) than it would protect, seeing as Gun Culture 2.0 predominantly endorses guns for the sake of self-defense. Perceptions of danger, societal instability, gun prevalence in the area, and having a family can be big indicators of people feeling the need to take extra precautions to defend themselves, and now more than ever since the spike of 2020+. Seeing that most people who choose to buy a gun do feel safer in mental preparation for an emergency, there is real ease that guns can provide for people, even if they never end up using them. And, in general, the guns most commonly in the home/used by individuals who are not using guns for sport are handguns. Though guns are often the source of threat, they can also be the only source of a sense of safety for many.

(4) Gun owners are mostly White, southern, conservative, middle aged men (Duck Dynasty vibes)

While this trend of Gun Culture 1.0 has irrefutably carried into Gun Culture 2.0, there is also a much broader range of gun owners that have stepped into the picture. Gun ownership is not bound by race, gender, age, political orientation, or geography, as recent times have been especially indicative of. The phrase “Guns are normal. Normal people own guns,” has really come to shape my current conception of gun owners, rather than secluding the image to this one subgroup.

Watching the videos, hearing about the rise in female gun ownership, and speaking to a female gun advocate who is regularly surrounded by female gun advocates was especially eye opening to me. It was also helpful to read the literature related to masculinity-driven ownership, which can help to explain why this had so much of an impression in my mind. Additionally, hearing from so many liberal gun owners and listening to the arguments there was interesting for understanding the ways that guns have been unnecessarily politicized and could actually help promote aspects of a liberal agenda.

(5) The Second Amendment is outdated and would not have been intended to apply to the technological advancement level of guns today

While I formerly really believed that this was an oversight in the Bill of Rights, and the Founding Fathers would regret this today (you know, along with things like slavery and mass discrimination),  I am coming to understand the degree to which guns are woven into the fabric of the nation’s spirit. While I don’t necessarily agree that it should be this way, I can see why, in a country founded upon the premise of individualism, freedom, and anti-monarchy representation, this would be something that would carry into the realm of guns. Obviously, in the 18th century there was a greater need for guns in order to hunt for food, protect one’s property, police, etc., however, guns also served, and continue to serve, social and emotional needs as well.

(6) Stricter gun laws and mandatory trainings would be universally good

I had always thought that gun control was a no brainer, and the thought of not requiring training sessions legitimately correlated in my mind to trying to drive without going through Driver’s Ed/a Driver’s Test. However, Rob Pincus, John Johnston (still not over this name), and Melody Lauer were helpful in explaining the downfalls of increased requirements for many people.

I thought that a lot of their arguments took a pretty dismissive approach towards the prospect of an actually-useful state-administered training program, and I was more inclined to think that this is something that could be improved in a manner that makes it worthwhile. But overall, I liked Rob Pincus’s discussion of how trainings can be promoted commercially, and I think that is a compelling route in our highly capitalistic nation. I think training is so important, and I’m glad that trainers/educators like Rob, John, Melody, and Craig Douglas help teach people to use guns responsibly, I just don’t think the existence of training options alone is enough to drive people to pursue them. There needs to be an actual requirement or a highly compelling incentive for people to get comprehensively trained.

The readings and the speakers’ explanations of the complications that requiring training makes in owners’ lives for issues of time, money, travel, etc. is definitely valid, and could discriminate and criminalize the poor, who likely would need the guns more, which makes this a tricky issue to navigate. I’m definitely still on the fence with this, but I think the best hope comes from manufacturers and shop-owners incentivizing training with discounts and rewards of that manner.

Overall, throughout the course I struggled with the concept that one human life is more valuable than another in the context of self-defense, but I guess I’ve landed in the opinion that if the perpetrator is taking multiple lives then their elimination would be net-positive. In a very ideal situation though, alternative measures could be taken to detain them and then provide help. There were some conversations that took place where comments were made that relied upon the presumption that feelings of threat could warrant the taking of another life, and I struggled to conceptualize that considering how much subjective bias goes into one’s interpretation of threat.

Areas I still would love to know more about in order to cement some of these ideas and develop more objective opinions include:

(1) International context

I know that the US is a really unique case when it comes to guns, so in many ways this would not be comparable to other nations whatsoever, but I do find it really interesting to think about some of the countries where not even police carry guns, and to think about other approaches entirely. I think this could help in presenting alternative perspectives to a myriad of gun issues.

(2) The process of constitutional appeal

As Rob Pincus made clear, the 2nd Amendment stands, meaning that no matter how much we debate about it, it is still the law of the land. What is the process like though in order to change it? Is this an option that would ever be remotely possible in America’s future? Though I don’t think it should be eradicated, it would be helpful to better understand the process of modifying it or the level of reality that it will ever not exist when contemplating approaches and options.

(3) The future of gun advancement and availability

In order to develop opinions about gun control and policy in general, I think it’s important to try to look into the future and make predictions about their progression, so policy can be flexible towards their shifting role and presence. 

(4) More about guns themselves, how they work, what the differences are between kinds

We definitely did a brief overview of some of this, but I remember thinking multiple times throughout the course that I would be able to better understand arguments and references that were being made if I knew more about the inner workings and uses of certain types of guns when and where. While I have a sense of  “handguns,” “rifles,” “assault weapons,” as general categories, I don’t know which gun names fall into the specific category, and I think a chart, graphic, index, or guide could help in understanding what the guns are capable of and how much access the general public has to getting them (/levels of regulation depending on type of gun).

Thank you for a wonderful and highly informative semester! This has been invaluable in my development and understanding of guns in America.

COVID made some things different this semester. In fall 2020, I taught the course online. I was happy to be able to meet this semester face-to-face, but we were required to wear masks in the classroom, which definitely inhibited discussion. Perhaps not more than meeting on Zoom inhibits discussion, but certainly compared to the first 5 times I taught the course under normal circumstances. I also kept the enrollment down to 13 students (instead of 16-18) in order to allow for more social distancing in class.

Despite the challenges, the course realized my aspirations in teaching it. This can be seen most clearly in the final reflection papers students submitted for the course. Over the next week or so I will be posting some of these papers here, so stay tuned.

And read on for a brief review of the course and additional information about the final reflection assignment.

My collected posts post provides links to a description of every course module we covered this semester. As usual, the course hits its peak at our very first meeting when we make our annual field trip to the gun range.

The students’ first assignment is to write a reflection on the field trip experience and think about how it fits in with their prior understanding of guns. Some of those field trip reflections were posted on this blog in September.

Although in a sense the course is downhill from the range trip, there are still plenty of highlights. Guest speakers who graciously make their way to Winston-Salem provide many of those. This year we welcomed John Johnston (again) and his colleague Melody Lauer (first visit) from Citizens Defense Research to discuss the place of training in the concealed carry revolution.

Gun educator Rob Pincus of the Second Amendment Organization and Center for Gun Rights and Responsibilities made his fourth class appearance to discuss gun injuries (especially suicide) and ways of encouraging gun owner responsibility while protecting gun rights.

Craig Douglas of Shivworks also made a return visit to class to discuss the issue of police use of force. In addition to discussing issues of policing with the students, he also ran an experiential learning lab scenario with two student volunteers to highlight the challenges of police decision-making under stress.

And Executive Director of the Liberal Gun Owners Randy Miyan made a second trip out of the North Carolina mountains to share his perspectives on guns and liberalism. As he told my students, “You can have a soft heart and believe in armed self-defense.” He also introduced the students to the idea of projectile weapons as an anthropological reality among Homo sapiens.

The major assignment students complete in the course is a seminar paper in which they move beyond their personal views (articulated in their field trip reflection essays) and adopt a scholarly approach to the question of guns in society. Students consider the role guns actually play in society by systematically engaging sociological theories and studies (called “the scholarly literature”) on one specific aspect of the broader phenomenon. Because there is a limited number of topics I can cover in a single semester, I encourage the students to choose a topic that is of interest to them that they want to investigate further. The topics students chose this semester can be found here.

Before submitting their final seminar papers, students present their seminar paper works-in-progress to their classmates at semester-ending Celebration of Learning. After submitting their seminar papers, they write a final short essay reflecting on the semester:

In this final essay, you will revisit your previous personal experience with and understanding of guns in the U.S. (as expressed, e.g., in the field trip reflection essay) in light of your consideration of the role guns actually do play in American society. Reflecting on what you learned from completing your major writing assignment, as well as the class more generally, discuss how your mind has (and/or has not) changed. Conclude this paper by considering what more you need to know in order to make informed choices about your own participation with and the place of guns in the communities in which you live and will live in the future.

The first of these reflection essays will be posted here tomorrow, so tune in then.

Some time earlier this year, I received a letter from Forsyth County Sheriff Bobby Kimbrough saying it was time to renew my permit. I first got the permit in 2011, did a 5 year renewal in 2016, and needed to renew again in 2021. I set the letter aside and by the time I unearthed it on my desk in August, it was too late.

Having to apply for a new permit, however, did force/allow me to take a concealed handgun permit course with a training group I have been hearing more about in the past year or, Apache Solutions Firearms Training in nearby Yadkinville, NC. Although we have not yet crossed paths, the owner and chief instructor Tim Kelly and I have traveled in some of the same circles — e.g., he trains with Tom Givens of Rangemaster and hosts John Murphy of FPF Training. That’s what I call a clue, and it gave me some confidence going in to this class.

I paid my $80 tuition and took — and passed both the written and shooting “tests” for — the NC concealed handgun permit on Saturday, September 25th. On Monday, September 27th I submitted my paperwork and money at the Sheriff’s Office. At the time I was told that the office was taking the full 90 days allowed by law to process permit applications. In 2011 and 2016, I received my permits in weeks, not months.

If I get killed on the streets between now and Christmas, you know why and you know who to blame. No, not me for failing to renew my permit. Blame the State of North Carolina for requiring permit renewals in the first place.

I have written previously about the requirements to receive a concealed carry permit in the state of North Carolina. There is a prescribed classroom curriculum followed by a written test and a shooting test. In the case of Apache Solutions, they use the actual book produced by the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission, projecting quotes from the book and having students alternate reading sections out loud.

Frank Horvath, who taught the course, would intersperse his perspectives from time-to-time, often making clear “I am taking off my Apache hat and speaking for myself here.” For example, during the material on Castle Doctrine, he observed, “Just because you have a right to shoot someone in your home, doesn’t mean you should.” He gave examples of mistaken identity shootings in people’s houses to support his point. Another example: When one of the students suggested he would brandish a gun at someone approaching him at a gas station, Horvath suggested not going immediately to the gun but using “verbal judo” instead as a first line of defense.

Perhaps because the first firearms course I ever took was Massad Ayoob’s MAG-40 (Armed Citizens’ Rules of Engagement, back in 2012), I have always been interested in the legal and ethical dimensions of concealed carry and the use of lethal force in self-defense. So I actually don’t mind discussing these issues and reviewing the applicable state laws. It’s important for armed citizens to know the law and think about the ethics in advance. Not to mention the many practical considerations involved.

To this end, Apache Solutions’ concealed carry course makes use of various videos to introduce the complexity of the decision-making that goes along with being an armed citizen. These include John Correia’s Active Self Protection videos. We watched and discussed two. The first showed a Good Samaritan intervening in a situation of social violence in Los Angeles and getting murdered for it, and the second was a Good Guy with a Gun intervening in an active killer situation in a Las Vegas and getting murdered for it. We also watched video of the Florida quick stop parking lot shooting involving Michael Drejka (now serving 20 years in jail for his actions) and the infamous Pennsylvania snow shoveling argument turned murder.

Each of these videos provided cautionary tales worth considering if you are going to keep and/or carry a firearm for self-defense.

After about 4 hours of instruction — including extremely brief mentions of required topics like types of firearms and ammo, presentation techniques, and gun cleaning — we took a 20 question written test. 16 questions were true/false, such as “Deadly force may be used to stop a simple assault” (false). 4 questions were multiple choice. Insofar as the test was open book, I thankfully scored 100% on it.

After a lunch break we reconvened on the Apache Solutions range just down the road from the classroom building. Horvath reviewed the basics of firearms safety, grip, stance, and trigger press. When we took our positions on the line, we did some dry practice under the supervision of Horvath and two assistant instructors (one of whom was, coincidentally, my chiropractor – “Doc” as he is called at Apache, on the far left in the picture below).

This instruction and supervision is actually more than I have seen in most concealed handgun permit courses I have observed over the past 10 years. It wasn’t like taking an actual pistol shooting course, but it was certainly more than they are required by law to teach. The other students and I appreciated it.

The North Carolina live fire standards state: (a) The student shall fire 30 rounds of ammunition at a bulls-eye or silhouette target from three, five and seven yard distances; (b) At each yard distance the student shall fire ten rounds; (c) 21 of the 30 rounds fired by the student must hit the target.

Apache Solutions modifies this by using a smaller than required target for qualification. This conveys to the student the importance of accuracy and being responsible for every round fired. Although a more challenging target than legally required, Apache also promises to coach any student to passage for free.

I am happy to report that I shot this qualification course of fire much better in 2021 than in 2011, when I had only been a gun owner for a few months. I was only disappointed that I did not keep all my rounds in the 3×5 box, which would have entitled me to a free Apache Solutions patch.

Although I passed both the written and shooting tests for the NC concealed carry permit with flying colors, I don’t take much pride in this accomplishment. As I highlight in the chapter on training in my mini-book, Concealed Carry Revolution, “concealed carry is a licensing class, not a training class,” to quote Rob Jennings of Get Trained Be Ready in Arkansas. “If gun training is a ladder, a concealed carry course is just walking up to the ladder.”

Similarly, Karl Rehn and John Daub of KR Training argue in their book, Strategies and Standards for Defensive Handgun Training, that “state standards aren’t realistic minimum performance standards” because they “don’t include all the skills the average gun owner should be trained in” if they carry a handgun for self-defense.

And John Johnston of Citizens Defense Research and Ballistic Radio concludes, “It’s unrealistic to think I can give you an 8 hour class on a life-saving practice and think that class is going to be meaningful. Nothing about those classes teaches you how to carry a gun on a daily basis and defend your life with a gun if the need arises.”

To their credit, the folks at Apache Solutions appear to understand that teaching the NC concealed handgun permit course is a necessary evil. And perhaps a gateway to their other actual training courses. As their website states, owner Tim Kelly “understands that a simple eight-hour course and an NC CCH permit allows you to legally conceal carry a handgun in North Carolina. However, it does not prepare you for the use of deadly force incident. The one thing that will keep you safe is EDUCATION and TRAINING.”

I hope to have the opportunity to learn more about the education and training offered at Apache Solutions in the months and years to come. Don’t let their motto, “Train like a warrior,” dissuade you. There was no chest-pounding or knife-handing, and thankfully politics were checked at the door. Indeed, their mission statement better captures the vibe of the place in my experience.

If you find anything of value in this work, please consider sharing it with your social networks. This helps people outside my own narrow social networks find my work. Sharing is caring.

I am very excited to welcome John Johnston and Melody Lauer of Citizens Defense Research. This will be John’s fourth consecutive appearance in the class (including last year via ZOOM).

Melody has only appeared in class via photograph (see below), so I am excited for her to share her expertise with the students and grateful for the effort she is making to be in Winston-Salem for the class next Wednesday.

John and Melody will bring their expertise in firearms training to bear on the course. In particular, John will address the issue of mandatory firearms training that I raise in Chapter 5 of my book on the history of concealed carry laws in the US, Concealed Carry Revolution: Liberalizing the Right to Bear Arms in America.

Students have been assigned to read that book, as well as to watch the Lucky Gunner video in which John and Chris Baker shoot the Texas License to Carry qualification course of fire blindfolded.

Among other things, Melody will take up the question of fear in motivating and guiding defensive firearms training. Student have been assigned to watch the Vice Canada Reports video that features Melody, “Fear and Loading: Meet the NRA’s Most Wanted Customer.”

They are also reading an article by University of Texas sociologist of guns, Harel Shapira, that emphasizes the role of fear (danger, risk, uneasiness) in “Learning to Need a Gun.”

People often ask if these guest appearances in class will be recorded for external consumption. They will not. Part of what makes the conversations we have in Sociology of Guns productive — unfortunately, I admit — is that they take place out of the public eye. This allows students to ask authentic questions and experts to speak with complete candor.

In this module we will review the development of concealed carry laws in U.S. history and consider how and why people choose to keep and carry guns for protection.

We also consider the issue of gun training in general and as part of concealed carry permit requirements. For their expertise on these issues, I welcome to class gun trainers John Johnston (for the fourth consecutive year) and Melody Lauer of Citizens Defense Research.

Required readings for Module 4 are:

• David Yamane, Concealed Carry Revolution: Expanding the Right to Bear Arms in America (2021). My self-published mini-book that reviews the history of concealed carry laws up to the present.
• Harel Shapira and Samantha Simon, “Learning to Need a Gun,” Qualitative Sociology (2018). Still one of the only studies of gun owners that focus on social practices and embodied experiences. Don’t agree entirely with their analysis and conclusions, but it is a unique study worthy of consideration.

Recommended readings for Module 4 are:

• Lawrence Northwood, et al., “Law-abiding One-Man Armies,” Society (1978). As far as I can tell, this is the first ever study of concealed carry permit applicants/holders, using data from Seattle in 1972. Read my thoughts on the study here.
• Elisabeth Anker, “Mobile Sovereigns: Agency Panic and the Feeling of Gun Ownership,” in The Lives of Guns (2019). Assigned this book chapter the last time I taught this class and I really like the concept of “mobile sovereigns” (akin to the idea of “law-abiding one-man armies,” but more critical). But the empirical foundation for the work proves too thin in the end so I subbed in Shapira and Simon.
• Malone, Chad A., and Trent Steidley. “Determinants of Variation in State Concealed Carry Laws, 1970–2016.” Sociological Forum (2019). Although my mini-book looks at the rise of shall issue (and now permitless) concealed carry regimes, it does not systematically explain them. This article begins to do so. Also Steidley’s solo-authored, “Sharing the Monopoly on Violence? Shall-Issue Concealed Handgun License Laws and Responsibilization.” Sociological Perspectives (2019).
• Barnhart, Michelle, Aimee Dinnin Huff, Brandon McAlexander, and James H. McAlexander. “Preparing for the Attack: Mitigating Risk through Routines in Armed Self-Defense.” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research (2018). I have required this article the past few years because it is one of the only existing studies that covers gun training.
• David Yamane, “The First Rule of Gunfighting is Have a Gun: Technologies of Concealed Carry in Gun Culture 2.0,” in The Lives of Guns (2019). Study of the material culture of defensive gun ownership based on my field research.

I don’t take the recommended readings to be comprehensive or complete. Suggestions are welcome.

Although some aspects of the course do not change — the class field trip to the gun range, most importantly — I do try to tweak the courses materials from year to year to reflect my own interests and developments in the field of gun studies.

Following are the broad outlines of where I am going with the Sociology of Guns Ver 7.0 this fall, including some guest lecturers who will be reprising their previous visits.

MODULE 1: Range Day (Thanks to Chris Baker of Lucky Gunner Lounge and Lucky Gunner for providing ammo for the students)

MODULE 2: Introductions, debrief range visit (students submit papers reflecting on the experience), overview of guns in history and the shift in the US from Gun Culture 1.0 to Gun Culture 2.0

MODULE 3: Who owns how many guns, Great Gun Buying Spree of 2020-21, new gun owners

MODULE 4: The Concealed Carry Revolution and self-defense gun training. –>Guest lecturers: John Johnston and Melody Lauer of Citizens Defense Research

MODULE 5: Race and guns

MODULE 6: Gender, sexuality, and guns

MODULE 7: Gun rights and responsibilities, suicide and unintentional injury. –> Guest lecturer: Rob Pincus of the Center for Gun Rights & Responsibilities

MODULE 8: Homicide

MODULE 9: Police use of force. –> Guest lecturer: Craig Douglas of Shivworks

MODULE 10: Cultural cognition and the human-weapon relationship. –> Guest lecturer: Randy Miyan of the Liberal Gun Owners

More details on the particular readings I am assigning for each module as I determine them.

Before anyone freaks out, “stupid human tricks” is the title of a humorous segment from the classic Late Show with David Letterman. In using this as an alternative title for his “Technical Handgun” class, Johnston seemingly tries to downplay its importance. As he told me over dinner following the class, “For self-defense, this course is a waste of time and resources.”

As with the “stupid human tricks” title, there is a significant amount of self-deprecation in this statement. Although he does not teach self-defense tactics, techniques, and procedures in “Technical Handgun,” there is in fact a huge self-defense implication to the course. One which Johnston himself highlights in his introductory comments.

Compared to the better-known “Contextual Handgun: The Armed Parent/Guardian” he developed and teaches with his Citizens Defense Research partner Melody Lauer, the self-defense significance of “Technical Handgun” is not as readily apparent. But focusing on pure technical shooting ability does confer self-defense benefits.

Johnston connects this to the core learning outcome for the class:

Improvement runs through the four stages of competence from (1) unconscious incompetence (you don’t even know what you unable to do) to (2) conscious incompetence (you know what you can’t do) to (3) conscious competence (you can do something but it takes concentrated effort to do it) to (4) unconscious competence (doing the thing has become second nature and does not require conscious thought).

According to Johnston, “If you have a gun in your hand, lots of bad things can happen to you or others. The more you have to think about the gun, the harder it is to do good things. So, we need to strive for automaticity, unconscious competence. This has practical applications, of course.”

The ability to quickly and accurately access and fire a gun with unconscious competence frees our minds to make good decisions during dynamic critical incidents that require us to defend ourselves or others. Including decisions not to access or fire a gun.

Johnston has no illusions that he can in a one-day class get students anywhere near the desired level of unconscious competence. It is not even remotely a goal of the course. Rather, Johnston wants to show students where they are and teach them how to understand their shooting in a way that they can improve themselves.

As he says, “I want to introduce thoughts, a vocabulary, and mental and physical awareness of what’s going on during shooting. You need this to improve yourself.” He gives the example of a shooting drill in a typical class. The instructor asks the student, “How did that go for you?” The student looks at the target to see the results of her shooting and responds accordingly. “But what produced the result in the target?” Johnston asks me, rhetorically. “What created that target has already passed. But the feelings you have when you do something right or wrong carry over.” So it is imperative that students pay attention to what is happening in their minds and bodies when they are shooting so they can improve their technique and move toward the high end of the competence continuum.

To wit: The first part of the course ends with students shooting “Dot Assessment Madness” (DAM). DAM requires students to shoot rounds on each of 10 2-inch circles numbered 1 to 10 (on the Langdon Technical Technology LTT-1 target pictured above). They shoot the number of rounds indicated by the number in the circle, in the following order: 1, 10, 2, 9, 3, 8, 4, 7, 5, 6. The assessment is total time with each miss adding 1 second. 10 misses is a DQ. (For reference, Johnston shot DAM in 35.20 with 5 misses for a total par time of 40.20 seconds.)

In reflecting with me on DAM, Johnston says “DAM is allegedly ‘dot assessment madness’ but really it is ‘doesn’t actually matter.’” Which is to say, the manifest purpose of the assessment in terms of establishing a time/score does not matter as much as the latent purpose which is to induce certain feelings in the student that they can learn from. In fact, in the debrief during the lunch break that followed, Johnston asked the students, “What did you experience when you were shooting the DAM assessment?”

According to Johnston, “The ideal student for this class is someone who is good enough for other instructors to ignore.” As this person is rarely me, I did not participate in “Technical Handgun.” As it turns out, there was a very broad range of shooters in this particular student body, from novice to advanced. Here Johnston’s ability to adapt the course to his students really stood out.

The fact that he spends a significant amount of time – more time than in any other class I have ever taken or observed, in fact – working with students individually helped him manage the diverse student body.

As befits a course called “stupid human tricks,” working with students individually allows Johnston to get deep into the minutiae of shooting basics like stance, grip, presentation, sight picture, and trigger press. But rather than just telling students what to do and checking whether they do it, Johnston emphasizes the importance of students learning for themselves what shooting well or poorly feels like.

Although this is not a high round count course – in the first 6 hours students shot about 125 rounds, including 55 for DAM – it is intense in other ways. As the day wore on I observed students breaking down more and more in their fundamentals. This highlighted Johnston’s initial point about competence and how without unconscious competence the cognitive load on the shooter gets too high. If this manifests on a square range, one can only imagine how it might manifest in real life.

The fact that John Johnston taught this course in a “Don’t Worry [Image of a Bee] Happy” t-shirt was not an accident. It reflects his personal disposition, which I have characterized as a “Granola Libertarian.”

The orientation emerged also in his concluding comments to his students. “Thanks for your money,” he said, “but more for your time. You don’t know how much you have and you can’t get any more.” He then reminded them: