Self Defense

Building a Tiered Carry System: Matching the Gun to the Day

We carry a pistol just in case we find ourselves in a gun fight. If we know we will be in a gunfight, the best option is to not be there. Failing that, we should bring the most gun we can, along with a lot of friends who also bring the most gun they can. Still, that’s inconvenient to do 24/7. My friends and I can’t live our lives as if we were a Marine platoon about to be ambushed.

So we carry a pistol. Most people spend a lot of time trying to find the one perfect carry pistol.
Experienced shooters eventually realize something different:

There is no perfect gun—only the best gun for today’s constraints.

What I’ve built is a four-tier carry system that scales with clothing, concealment, and performance needs. It’s not just practical—it’s exactly how I maximize capability without sacrificing consistency.

Smith & Wesson Model 642 Airweight (Pocket Carry)

This is the “always gun.” It has some advantages:
Extremely light (~18 oz loaded)
Minimal grip height → very low printing
Works in gym shorts, light clothing, or no-belt situations. I can drop it in my shorts pocket as I head out the door, and now I am armed for a quick run to the store. In Florida’s heat and humidity, this is far more important than you realize. It’s rounded profile hides well in pockets, it’s highly reliable regardless of grip or draw angle.

The disadvantages are low capacity, and they are nearly impossible to reload. This revolver doesn’t deal with speed strips or speedloaders very well, so this pistol is 5 shots and done. Not only that, but with this extremely short barrel, high pressure loads aren’t possible, meaning the bullets are just not great performers.

This relegates the J frame to a niche role: The gun you carry when carrying anything else is difficult or unlikely. The reality is this is not my most capable gun, but it’s the one that ensures I’m never unarmed, not even for a quick run to the store. It’s my “get off of me” gun that I will push into an attacker’s midsection and pull the trigger 5 quick times, an “oh shit” gun.

Concealable IWB Upgrade: Smith & Wesson M&P Shield Plus (10-round)

This is where you step into a true fighting handgun while staying highly concealable. The advantages here are the Shield has a thin, flat profile, which makes for excellent IWB concealment. The ten round magazine capacity is double that of the 642. The 9mm has better terminal performance than the J frame, the reloads are faster and more easily accomplished, the handgun is more controllable than a snub revolver, and the XS DXT sights on mine are exponentially better than the sights on that pocket pistol.

I carry my 9mm with 124gr +P gold dots. That bullet is a proven performer, and in the +P loading, it is a superior performer. I will admit that I own compact automatic pistols in 9mm, .40S&W, .45ACP, .357Sig, and .380ACP. Bullet design has come a long way, and in a sub-4 inch barrel and limited magazine size, 9mm is equal in performance to any of the others.

That places this pistol in the role of best balance of concealability and capability when I can wear a belt and holster. Still, it’s the pistol I carry least often, as it is only marginally more concealable than my tier 3 gun:

Smith & Wesson M&P Shield Plus Performance Center (Ported + Microdot, 13-round)

The most useful carry gun I have. It’s an optimized defensive system. The advantages here over the stock shield plus are faster follow-up shots and target reacquisition due to the compensated porting and the microdot sight. A thirteen round magazine gives me enough firepower to face multiple attackers without reloading. This is, in my opinion, the best EDC pistol that I own. It’s my primary carry gun when concealment allows slightly more size and weight.

Some time has passed since I bought this pistol in 2021. I bought it with the intention of volunteering for the Guardian program that turned out to be a farce. The only thing that was wrong with it is the Crimson Trace microdot failed and I replaced it with a Holosun about two years ago.

Tier 4: Smith & Wesson M&P 10mm M2.0

  • This is my no-compromise option. Advantages:
  • Full-power 10mm performance
  • Superior penetration and energy
  • Larger grip and sight radius
  • Maximum capability in worst-case scenarios

I carry this one when clothing allows full concealment (jackets, winter wear) and want full power available. That doesn’t happen often here in Florida. Maybe 30 or 40 days out of the year. This is not about convenience, it’s about maximum capability when concealment constraints disappear. Loaded with full power Underwood 180 grain XTP, which gives me 1300 fps and 676 foot pounds. This is great for delivering a lot of energy into a target wearing heavy clothes or behind a barrier like a car door. The only real disadvantage here is the size of the handgun and the risk of overpenetration. When I can carry a large boat anchor of a handgun, this is my go-to.

Summing It Up

What makes this system effective isn’t just the guns—it’s the decision-making framework behind it. I’m doing something most people don’t: Adapting my carry gun to the environment instead of forcing one gun into every situation.

When concealment is hardest → I still carry (642)
When possible → I upgrade capability (Shield)
When conditions allow → I maximize performance (PC Shield / 10mm)

Are any of my readers doing anything like this? Let me know in the comments.

By Divemedic, ago

Serious Question

Three masked men are trying to enter your home. They announce through your Ring Doorbell that they are going to enter your home and kill everyone inside. When you don’t open the front door, they kick in the gate to enter the back yard before slashing your screen to enter your porch and pound on the sliding glass door to your lanai. Watch the video, then ask yourself what you would do in this situation:

In Florida, you can use deadly force in your home if you reasonably believe you or another are facing imminent death or serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony is about to happen, and you are lawfully present in your home. Because the statute provides a presumption of reasonableness when an intruder is unlawfully and forcibly entering your home (or attempting to), the law strongly favors the occupant in that scenario.

So the questions that must be answered are:

  1. Is the person attempting to enter your home?
  2. Are you lawfully in your home? (that is, are you breaking any laws, say by dealing drugs?)
  3. Have they threatened to cause serious harm or death, and would a reasonable person believe them?
  4. Is deadly force reasonably necessary to stop them?
  5. Is the threat imminent?

I would say that the answers to 1, 2, and 3 are a definite yes. Question 4 and 5 are a no. After all, jiggling the doorhandle isn’t enough to say the threat was imminent. After all, they are being stopped by a locked door, so deadly force likely won’t be viewed as necessary. Right up until they entered the curtilage of your home Let me take a moment to explain:

Curtilage refers to the immediate area surrounding and associated with your home — the space that is considered part of the home for purposes of privacy and legal protection. Florida courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have described it as the area that harbors the “intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a person’s home and the privacies of life.”
That typically includes:

  • The front porch, back porch, and deck
  • Driveway and walkways immediately adjoining the home
  • Fenced yard areas directly around the home
  • Attached garage or carport

It does not usually include open fields, detached outbuildings far from the house, or unfenced areas that are visible and accessible to the public. Under both Florida criminal law and the Fourth Amendment, curtilage is defined as:

“The area immediately surrounding and associated with the home, which is considered part of the home itself for many legal purposes.”
— Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013); Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)

Florida courts have consistently held that curtilage is an extension of the home for purposes of:

  • Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure
  • Self-defense laws (e.g., the “Castle Doctrine” under § 776.013, Fla. Stat.)

Courts look at several factors to decide whether an area is part of the home’s curtilage:

  1. Proximity — how close the area is to the actual dwelling
  2. Enclosure — whether the area is within a fence, wall, or natural boundary that encloses the home
  3. Use — whether the area is used for domestic purposes (e.g., sitting area, grill, kids’ play space, parking)
  4. Visibility and steps taken to protect privacy — whether the resident has taken measures to shield the area from public view (such as fences or hedges)

(See: United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987); State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1995).)

Under Florida Statute § 776.013(1), the “dwelling” includes the building and its curtilage. Florida courts treat screened porches, lanais, or enclosed patios attached to the home as part of the dwelling. (See State v. Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). This means:

  • The castle doctrine protections — the legal presumption that you are in reasonable fear of imminent harm — extend to the immediate area surrounding your home.
  • If someone unlawfully and forcibly enters your porch, attached garage, or fenced yard, you may be justified in using defensive force, including deadly force, under certain circumstances.

This means you can’t shoot someone for trying to open your door, standing on your porch, or walking up the driveway. Postal workers and Amazon delivery drivers are happy about this. However, if they kick in a fence or forcibly enter through a locked portal, such as slashing a screen, they have crossed over into breaking and entering.

At that moment, under § 776.013(2), Florida law presumes you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, because:

  • The person has unlawfully and forcibly entered your dwelling’s curtilage.
  • You are lawfully present.
  • You are not engaged in criminal activity.

That presumption legally justifies deadly force, unless one of the exceptions in § 776.013(3) applies (for example, if the intruder is a lawful resident, or if you provoked the incident, etc.).

So back to this situation: I don’t breach my perimeter for idiots. I sit safely inside and call the cops. I would be wearing electronic hearing protection and body armor. I would be armed with a long gun that has lots of ammo. Why? Because we carry a handgun if we think we might be in a gunfight. If we think we WILL be in a gunfight, bring a long gun, and bring friends with long guns. My wife would be safely in the closet, also with hearing protection, body armor, and armed.

Once the critters breach my perimeter to enter my rear yard, then enter my second perimeter to enter my back porch, this threat becomes imminent, making both my fear of harm and my use of deadly force reasonable. In a case like this, there would be at least one dead body and perhaps some blood trails for the police to follow when they eventually arrived ten minutes after I called for them.

Florida appellate courts have repeatedly found deadly force justified when:

  • An intruder broke through a fence or gate and approached the home aggressively. (State v. Giles, 579 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991))
  • A homeowner shot someone who forced entry onto a porch or patio. (Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997))

In such cases, the courts held that fenced yards, porches, and patios are part of the dwelling — the “castle” — so the presumption of reasonable fear applies.

Then my homeowners’ insurance would have to replace the glass in my back door, and pay to clean the gizzards from by rear porch furniture. I might even sue the estates of the decedents for the damages to include mental anguish, if they had any assets I could take.

It’s a great reason to have a fenced yard and a screened in porch with a locked door, even if the lock is flimsy like the ones found on a screen door.

Relevant Cases

State v. Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) Martinez shot an intruder who broke through a screened porch attached to his home late at night. The state argued the porch was not part of the “dwelling,” so deadly force was not justified. The court held that the attached, screened porch was part of the dwelling’s curtilage. The homeowner was protected under the castle doctrine. The court reasoned that a porch “integrated with the home’s living space” and enclosed by screens “serves the same privacy and security functions as the interior.”

State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1995) A man was shot in a fenced backyard after threatening and attempting to enter the home. The issue was whether the fenced yard counted as the home’s “curtilage.” The Florida Supreme Court held that a fenced backyard was part of the dwelling’s curtilage for self-defense and burglary statutes. The fence “manifested an intent to exclude the public and protect the area as part of the home.”

State v. Giles, 579 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) A homeowner shot a man trying to break into the house after entering the yard aggressively and ignoring commands to leave. The court found that deadly force was justified because the intruder’s actions created a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. The “no duty to retreat” principle applied — the homeowner was lawfully in his dwelling.

Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999) A woman shot her abusive husband inside their shared home and was prosecuted for murder. The case helped establish Florida’s “no duty to retreat” inside one’s home rule (before Stand Your Ground). The Florida Supreme Court recognized the castle doctrine as firmly established: you are not required to retreat in your home before using deadly force against an aggressor posing imminent danger.

State v. Hill, 95 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) A man shot someone outside his home during a violent confrontation. The court examined whether the shooter could claim immunity under § 776.032 (the Stand Your Ground immunity statute). The court reaffirmed that § 776.012(2) justifies deadly force when a person reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm — even outside the home, if the shooter has a right to be there and is not engaged in a crime.

If the intruder crossed into your yard and made explicit death threats, the standard of “reasonable fear” would almost certainly be satisfied — even if the intruder had not yet crossed the threshold.

By Divemedic, ago

Pushing Back

When my son was young, he was small for his age. He came home from school one day, upset that while playing soccer, he accidentally kicked the ball through his own team’s goal. Because of this mistake, a 5th-grade kid had physically assaulted him. He told me that this kid had been hitting him and bullying him for the past several weeks, and was telling me that he no longer wanted to go to school. I called the school and was told: “Well, there are a lot of children out there for recess, so many that the teachers can’t watch everyone, all of the time.”

I told my son that the next time someone hit him, he should defend himself. He told me that he didn’t want to get in trouble. I responded by telling him to let me worry about that. I also pointed out to him that he had been playing Pop Warner football, and the kid who had hit him was no bigger than some of the other kids on his team.

A couple of days went by before he again came home from school, this time telling me that the kid had hit him, and he had done what I told him to and beat the snot out of the other kid. My son was upset, because he had a letter telling him that he was to be suspended for fighting.

I called the school and told them that I wanted a meeting immediately. I got one for the next day.

At this meeting, the answer that I got was that they had a “zero tolerance” policy for fighting, and the result of this was all kids who fight receive 3 days of out of school suspension. I pointed out that I had come to them just the previous week and was told they couldn’t watch everyone, so why now?

“Well, we saw the fight.” I told them that they have a legal duty to keep my child safe, and when they fail in that duty, even after being told that my child was being physically attacked, they were failing in that duty. To compound this by suspending my child when he defends himself from a physical attack is the height of irresponsible behavior.

I also told them, should this discipline stand, I would be back to the school the following day with an attorney, and we would see where that would take us. I had every intention of doing so- it wasn’t an idle threat.

The suspension was lifted, and the kid never touched my son again. The best part was that my son learned a couple of important lessons that day on how not to be pushed around by others.

You can’t let bullies, in this case a child and a lazy set of school staff, run roughshod over you. You exhaust your options for a peaceful solution, but once that has been seen to its completion, you have to go on to the next step. Unless you fight back, bullying behavior will always continue. The corollary to that was eloquently stated by Mike Tyson: “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

That’s the lesson for today. I’m sure each of you understands where that line of thought leads.

By Divemedic, ago

Juneteenth

Those of us who carry guns are often told that we don’t need guns to protect ourselves, we just need to remember that the robbers are just people trying to feed their families. If we just give them what they want, we will be fine. This assumes that robbery is merely a business transaction, and depends upon a criminal threatening violence being a moral and upstanding citizen.

What if he isn’t? What if that criminal is just someone who sees other people as mere objects who are simply standing in the way of their happiness and success? Killing you is no more problematic to such a person than stepping on a bug. That’s how things like this happen- a man in Miami is robbed, and hands over the goods. They kill him anyway.

The last two posts are why:

  • I carry a gun everywhere I go.
  • I don’t go to places where there are violence and crime.
  • I avoid crowds of feral negros.
  • I pay attention to my surroundings. More than once, we have left an event because I didn’t like the vibe.

Last night, we went shopping and then to a swanky restaurant in an artsy district of a nearby town. I had a filet, my wife had garlic mussels. I was dressed in khaki slacks and a loose fitting Guayabera shirt. It hid my 9mm Shield Plus with microdot sight and my can of pepper spray very well. That gives me a less lethal option for boorish behavior, and also gives me 14 rounds of “I am not going to die unless you come with me.”

I’m not willing to bet my life, or the life of my spouse, on a criminal’s sense of good will and conscience.

By Divemedic, ago

Defense Isn’t Magic

One opinion that I have had since I was in high school is this:

I don’t care what martial art you study, what color belt you have, or how skilled you are, physical defense has limits. A 6 year old with a black belt in karate can’t beat up a full grown adult. A 100 pound woman isn’t going to beat up a 250 pound man, unless that man is in poor physical condition.

That opinion wasn’t a popular one, but it’s true. Skill can only do so much, but at the end of the day, physical strength, stamina, and size are just as important. Let me show you:

That doesn’t mean that skill is to be ignored. It means that what skills you do have should be viewed through a realistic lens. A 100 pound woman still is far outclassed in strength. That 100 pound woman believing that taking some krav maga classes is going to enable her to take on and disarm a full sized man is going to give her the overconfidence to go places and get into situations that she is not equipped to handle.

She let her classes where she practices set moves against compliant adversaries give her the false confidence that she can take on grown men armed with weapons and prevail, when in reality, she can’t even take on a man when given a distinct advantage, and in this case, the man was holding back and trying not to hurt her.

The same is true of people who carry guns. Many people only carry in “bad neighborhoods” and allow that firearm to pull them into places where they wouldn’t go if they weren’t armed.

Have a realistic idea of what training and weapons do for you, what your capabilities are, and know how and where you should be. One thing that I have learned by taking BJJ is that I have flexibility as my advantage, but I don’t have the stamina and cardio of a 23 year old any longer. In many cases, a 22 year old will be stronger and will be in condition to outlast me in a protracted fight. In any hand to hand, I must endeavor to win the fight early, because I will lose a protracted battle.

Be realistic in your own assessment of your abilities.

By Divemedic, ago

Stupid Pranks

I have posted about stupid pranks that the current generation is playing, thinking that placing people in fear for their lives to get views of their social media is funny. Two years ago, it was staging a scene where unsuspecting people came upon what looked like a person dressed as a clown that had just murdered someone then began chasing the prank victim.

Let me show you an example of the current trend in these so-called prank videos:

This idiot approaches people saying, “I am gonna burn your car up, bro” before pouring a liquid from a gas can onto the hood while holding a lighter, then compounding it by chasing the victim with the gas can and lighter.

I am going to shoot your ass just as quickly as I can clear leather. Then I am going to keep shooting you until you fall to the ground, and I am going to walk away without being convicted of a crime, AND I am going to be paid for my troubles. Let me explain:

It doesn’t matter that the liquid is not a flammable one, just like it doesn’t matter if a person robs you with a toy gun. What matters is the person defending themselves reasonably believes that the threat is a real one. The moron clearly indicated that it was his intent to set my car, and possibly me, on fire before pouring what appears to be a flammable liquid on my car. It’s clearly his intent to make the person being “pranked” to believe they are imminently going to be the victim of arson. After all, if that belief didn’t exist, the prank wouldn’t work as a prank. Therefore, it is reasonable for a person to believe that an arson is imminent.

In Florida, arson is a felony.

(1) Any person who willfully and unlawfully, or while in the commission of any felony, by fire or explosion, damages or causes to be damaged:

(a) Any dwelling, whether occupied or not, or its contents;

<snip irrelevant legalese>

(3) As used in this chapter, “structure” means any building of any kind, any enclosed area with a roof over it, any real property and appurtenances thereto, any tent or other portable building, and any vehicle, vessel, watercraft, or aircraft.

Not only that, but arson is also a forcible felony. In Florida, I can use deadly force to stop the imminent commission of a forcible felony. I could even argue that pouring a flammable liquid on a vehicle where I am in close proximity is a deadly threat upon my person. It doesn’t even have to be my car. It can be a car that I am standing close to. That isn’t even considering that this rocket scientist was chasing people with the gas can and lighter in his hand.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

It isn’t just vehicles. Now they have progressed to pouring a liquid from a gas can onto people.

The morons even brag about how “epic” it is that so many people were fooled.

After I shoot and kill you in self defense, every person involved in this production is now guilty of felony murder. They are also liable to me when I sue everyone involved in this so-called prank for the “emotional trauma” and PTSD I now have experienced because I had to shoot someone.

and yeah, I am going to include Youtube in the lawsuit because they allow these videos to be monetized.

By Divemedic, ago

Defense of Others?

Read this situation:

Aaron Carbo began speaking to me about the incident, where he informed me that he was approached by [REDACTED] in an aggressive manner, being asked to hurry up as he was holding other golfers up.

A “heated” argument ensued, causing Carbo to push the other person to the ground.

Carbo stated he then stood over [REDACTED] and called him a ‘pussy,’ at which time Carbo’s girlfriend pulled him away.

As Carbo was being pulled away by his girlfriend, Scott Throne ran over and punched Carbo in the face, which caused Carbo’s mouth to bleed.

Throne was arrested for battery for striking Carbo, and Carbo was arrested for battery on a person 65 years or older for striking [REDACTED]

I did a bit of editing on the original story to make it more readable, but the details are the same. Now let’s discuss my logic here:

So to me, this all comes down to the timing of the above events. If Cabo’s girlfriend had already pulled Cabo away from the altercation, and the altercation was over, then Throne was not justified in using force. If Cabo was still engaged in fighting with the elderly victim, or was attempting to do so then the altercation was not over, and Throne was legally justified in using force to stop his felonious attack on [REDACTED}.

No matter what, this case is a mess and is going to cost Throne a lot of money in legal bills.

EDITED TO ADD: So I pulled the case file from the court record, and the elderly victim was a 79 year old man. The report also reads:

Had [Scott] Throne punched him before the fight was over, then Throne would not have been arrested. As it is, getting involved is going to result in some trouble with the law. Again, better to mind your own business, especially if you aren’t sure of the law or the situation.

On a side note, Cabo is listed with the state as being a habitual felony offender.

By Divemedic, ago

Tulsa Cop Shooting

This is a great video of a police shooting from February 2023. Police responded to a local bar for a reported domestic violence incident as well as a hit and run. When the officer arrived, the female victim pointed out her assailant, who wound up being her boyfriend. I won’t describe what happened next, you can see it for yourself. I do marvel at how every shooting video seems to have a screaming woman in it. Righteous shoot, in my opinion.

The idiot tried drawing on a person who already had him at gunpoint. The cop dumped 10 rounds into him, moved to an area of semi-cover behind a vehicle, then executed a tactical reload, all while keeping the guy in his sight. Great tactics.

By Divemedic, ago

Self Defense Experts

There are morons on the Internet who are claiming the shooting of the CEO of UnitedHealth was self defense, because it is violence to refuse to pay for medical expenses.

These morons are claiming that New York, the state that just tried to prosecute Daniel Penny for holding a man down, authorizes you to shoot someone in the back if they are in charge of a company that won’t pay for your health care.

The claim here is actually a scary one. The left wants to use force against anyone who does anything that they don’t like. Remember that they thing speech is violence. They thing refusing to use their preferred pronouns is violence. They think refusing to give them anything that they want is violence.

This is the attitude that makes a Civil War inevitable.

By Divemedic, ago