Very good advice, thank you for sharing. 👍🙏🇺🇸

@@paulpatriot1776 no problem. Hopefully it helps someone out. One thing I forgot to mention is training and familiarization. I had a ton of broken glass amd glass powder in my eyes and couldn't open my left eye at all so I had to do it with impaired vision so maybe practice with your eyes closed too.

@@Paulio91184 Wow! Thanks again for sharing your experience, it helps a lot. Godspeed.

Yeah, I was in the Army when tourniquets started being a thing. I didn't think much of them at the time. But well after retirement I've been watching videos and hearing the stories. Now I carry one everywhere but the shower.

Great point

24k

An American Treasure

Wrapped in rawhide and barbedwire ☠

Thanks. Yes, you would enjoy the entire. Interview. I did.

When on a trip, i pack a multitool, in my bag. Always a pistol, decent holster, and spare mags. At least 2. And at least 1 light. And i have carried a knife since about 8 years old.

Glad you enjoyed it!

You never will

Glad it was helpful!

It was a pleasure to meet you too. I told James you said hello.

You would be glad you did.

We agree!

I'd be sure to believe what he says, or else... "but it's nothing personal."

You are welcome!

It was an honor to spend a few days with him and Heidi

Thanks for sharing!

@@SurvivalOnPurpose sure thing! If folks won't listen to us, maybe they will listen to Clint!

Glad you enjoyed it

Me too.

Thanks for watching!

There is no greater tool for protecting yourself and your loved ones than a firearm (and competence with its use). That is not a cultural phenomenon, it is just a logical fact. A 130 pound woman with a firearm who knows how to use it is in a vastly superior position against a 250 pound stronger male attacker than an unarmed woman in the same situation. The same can be said for a smaller, weaker male. So it is completely reasonable to me that a gun should be the first essential EDC because it is the only thing that offers the best chance of defense against what is potentially one of the most dangerous events in a person's life: an aggressive assault. Admittedly, it is also the least likely item on the list to ever be needed but if it is needed there is no substitute and it will be needed right now with no delay. Stay safe over there across the pond ;-)

@@SurvivalOnPurpose Cheers Brian! I would not disagree with a single word that you have set down. The trouble ism if everybody has the firearm, you are just back to square one. If only sane 130 pound women had firearms I would not worry about them at all. Anyway, just is case you might be interested, I thought that you might like to read about our cultural history with the firearm. A little 'potted' history so as to put things in context and allow you to make a comparison to your own jurisdiction. As the nineteenth century came to a close in Britain the press had not as yet persuaded the public to adopt gun controls. Buyers of any type of gun, from derringers to Gatling guns faced no background check, no need for police permission, and no registration. As criminologist Colin Greenwood wrote, "[a]nyone, be he convicted criminal, lunatic, drunkard or child, could legally acquire any type of firearm." Additionally, anyone could carry any gun anywhere. The English gun crime rate was at its all-time low. A somewhat similar situation prevailed on the American frontier in the 1880s where everyone who chose to be, was armed, and "[t]he old, the young, the unwilling, the weak and the female ... were ... safe from harm." The frontier crime rates, except for the results of "voluntary" bar fights among dissolute young men, were less than a tenth of the rates in modern-day United States and British cities. HOWEVER…. As revolvers got cheaper and better, concern arose regarding the increase in firepower available to the public. And in fact, the change from one or two shot weapons to the repeat-firing, five or six shot revolver represented perhaps the greatest advance in small arms civilian firepower that has ever occurred. Compared to the seemingly more benign single-shot muzzle-loaders of the past, the revolver seemed a frightening innovation. Revolvers were also getting less expensive, and concerns began to grow about the availability to criminals of cheap German revolvers. Cheap guns were, in some eyes, associated with hated minority groups. For example, in the late 1860s, the London Lloyd's Newspaper blamed a crime wave on "foreign refuse" with their guns and knives. The newspaper stated that "[t]he revolver's appearance ... we owe to the importation of reckless characters from America .... The Fenian [Irish-American] desperadoes have sown weapons of violence in our poorer districts." This led to the Pistols Act 1903. (This arose from a worry about children, drunkards and the mad obtaining these weapons). It was completely ineffective as it did not regulate private sale. Then, we have the Firearms Act 1920. Why? (1). Number of firearms after the War; (2). The Russian Revolution; (3). The Irish. The right of individuals to bear arms had previously been, in the words of the 1689 Bill of Rights, "as allowed by law". The 1920 Act made this right conditional upon the Home Secretary and the police. A series of classified Home Office directives defined for the benefit of chief constables what constituted good reason to grant a certificate. The certificate, which lasted for three years, specified not only the firearm but also the amount of ammunition the holder could buy or possess. Local chief constables decided who could obtain a certificate and had the power to exclude anyone of "intemperate habits" or "unsound mind", or anyone considered "...for any reason unfitted to be trusted with firearms". Applicants for certificates also had to convince the police that they had a good reason for needing a certificate. They originally included self-defence. The law did not affect smooth-bore guns, which were available for purchase without any form of paperwork. See now: The Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) MORAL: "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." Ernest Benn. Once again Brian, thanks for all your great work, and thank you for entertaining and enlightening us, no matter how far away we may be.

@@mrstrellisfromnorthwales2704 very interesting

@@mrstrellisfromnorthwales2704 if everyone has a gun you're not back to square one since "square one" was a physical contest. Everyone having a gun just levels the field.

@@politicallyinsensitive4200 And an interesting field it is to be in! Last year we had 155 gun-related deaths in the UK. That includes suicides, accidents, the lot. We have 6.5 guns per 100 people. The US, which has a population six times larger than ours and has a figure on gun-related deaths that might interest you. In 2020 45,222 died from gun-related injuries in the US. In the US there are also 101 guns per 100 people. As they say, "go do the math." Moreover, in 2020 more Americans died of gun-related injuries than in any other year on record. However, judging by reported facts, there will be an increase on this figure in 2021/2022. This is not a matter the law can change (don't get me wrong!) This is rather a reflection on "different cultures" and law is very poor at changing culture. You can make a very similar comparison on (gun) cultural differences with regard to the US and Canada by the way. Anyway, all the more reason to listen to the wise advice given in the interview.

First, thank you for your service. I hope to always be able to say "I have never needed a gun", but would hate to ever have to say "if only I had a gun".

Welcome home, sir.

me

Me too.

A tourniquet does no one any good if it is in the car. I carry an ankle trauma kit now. And, to be honest, it does require some adaptation in finding pants that don’t make it obvious (and it probably would look weird with shorts) but it is worth the effort to me since I am MUCH more likely to need med gear than a gun. But before I carried that I started with just a tourniquet carried on my body at a minimum

You are far more likely to need a tourniquet than a gun

Lol, I thought while reading your story, you were going to say he put the tourniquet around his neck after slicing his nose on half!🤣

Me too. Thanks.

You did hear that the reason for the extra magazines is not primarily for more ammo but t o fix a potential magazine problem.

@@SurvivalOnPurpose yes i did. I personally just dont think they are needed. I like carrying as little as possible. I pretty much carry the smallest 380 they make and it doesnt bump up against anything. My get home bag is the same principal. Basically all it has in it is a few granola bars and water. I wanna be light and fast and dont wanna stop if i need to get home to my family if its that bad out there. I was just giving my opinion thats all

@@seanwhitman4365 ....if I was you, I would carry to extra mags with that lcp....

The topic is about what "things" to have on your person.