I know I said I was liberal but honestly, I feel, if you can’t trust a person with a gun, then what good are they? (Set aside accidents form misuse and/or irresponsible handling) Many feel that eliminating guns is a solution to violence in America. I feel that America (and our culture/society) itself causes it’s own violence and guns are just a tool used to express that. It’s really not that far out of an idea to understand. But gun control is another issue. What I really am saying is that I do not agree with this type of legislation.

Basically people want to kill and the gun allows them that ability much more conveniently than a knife or other means. But it’s important to remember that the gun isn’t doing the killing. Guns don’t have emotions like fear, hatred or happiness. A gun is indiscriminate. However, an individual pulling the trigger does have these emotions and so does that person on the other end of the barrel.

To me getting rid of guns is like taking a drug. In this statement I feel as though trying to legislate the removal of guns in our American society is more of a cover up than a fix. It is an attempt to remove the aggression that our fellow Americans have towards each other but at best it just eliminates the symptoms of the problem it does not strive for long term successful removal of violence, hatred, anger, fear or any of the many reasons that people rationalize killing in our society. In fact I believe that simply trying to remove guns and not addressing the cultural, social issues pertaining to violence is irresponsible.

For example, lets say you have chronic heart burn. But you also eat poorly. You can continue to eat poorly and take Prevacid (heart burn medication). This works and gets rid of the heart burn but really isn’t fixing the problem cause you are still eating poorly. Or you can change your diet. This will also get rid of the heart burn. However, you will not have to take Prevacid. Not to mention that the other effects of eating healthy will help increase your chances of living longer. So….. what is the better choice? It’s just like gun control.

You can legislate removing all non hunting type firearms (oxymoron BTW) and remove the effects of having firearms available to people even though they are the same person with the same potentially violent aggressive behavior towards each other. Or you can try and fix this violent aggressive behavior that the murders in our society possess which would be inherently good because the side effects of such actions would positively benefit everyone else gun violence included. The side effect instead or murder or heartburn would be peace and tranquility or as close as we could come to it.

So I pose a side question to the US government. How do we rationalize spending more than half the money the US has on weapons and literally war and then when it comes to spending money on loving each other…….people get confused or somehow pervert it with hippie stereotypes and/or blissful and/or irresponsible thinking?

I know that in reality it is much more complicated of a situation than the way I have painted a picture in this article. But, I can’t be the only who thinks like this? To me it just makes sense.

Moreover, I think the problem with anti-gunners is that they think the fact someone wants to possess a gun in the first place is a problem. To them I say…..

“happiness is a warm gun” -The Beatles

NO, really though! There are a lot of legitimate reasons for owning a firearm. The first and foremost reason I bought a firearm is for hunting. The second is for personal protection and the third reason is for protection of others. I feel these three reasons alone are perfectly legitimate not to mention recreational purposes like competition shooting, plinking and/or tactical shooting. Then there are the obvious reasons the military needs them and no I don’t think that our government can do no evil. All one needs to do is pick up a history book and read between the lines, to figure out how evil/cruel people can be to one another. But again I would pose that this can be done without a firearm after all weapons such as a gun didn’t always exist but cruelty, temptation and evil certainly have. It doesn’t matter what book you read.

OK so, I did a lot of thinking about a supposed best survivalist weapon. I figured for this post I would do more of a pros & cons/talking type list to make sure I get all the info without the boring.

The first weapon I would like to propose is the Glock 17L (L is for longs lide). This might sound ridiculous but hear me out on this one. First and foremost it’s a 9mm semi automatic pistol that holds 17 rounds. I’ll go right into the things that appeal most to me about this gun then the downsides and maybe a little hypothetical at the end.

PROS
1. Weight and size. All together it weighs in at like 24oz (670g). That’s light and it’s mostly do to the fact that a lot of the gun is made of high strength polymer i.e. plastic and yes the “I don’t trust plastic guns people” are slowly fading away. Weight is important. The fact that you can put the gun fully loaded on your belt and walk around all day with it is a superb bonus not to mention it’s not in the way. The fact that it’s small enough to hide easily in a back pack or under a loose jacket/vest or even a shirt or pant is even better. It’s not super concealable like some small guns but it’s probably the smallest gun I one could still consider adequate self defense. This may be more or less important depending on the situation. For example, if your trying to appear non-threatening or trying to not let on you have a weapon i.e. You can’t do that with a giant assault rifle on your back.

2. Reliability It’s a Glock, people have laid claims to shooting over 100,000 rounds through them without replacing major parts. The thing was designed well. No it’s not like an AK-47 but yes it will work through the extremes if well attended. Anyone who claims you can pour dirt into the barrel and so and so forth is half full of it anyways. Even if you could why would you not clean/clear you gun before firing? Even if a gun did fire with dirt in the chamber or barrel it would still eventually wear it or ruin it over time if not right away.

3. Efficiency This is probably the last strong point and I think grossly overlooked by many in terms of quality for value. I think the word efficiency get’s a bad rap especially when it comes to guns. To start with 9×19 or 9mm rounds are very cheap not to mention you can find them almost anywhere on the planet where bullets can be found. They were meant to be fired out a semi auto gun as well as have been around for quite some time (over 100years). No it’s not renown as the “crazed native stopper” but yes… it is deemed effective by our military. So it doesn’t have the knock down power of a .45 but usually it holds around twice the capacity, this is called a trade off. And yes smaller rounds have their advantages such as lower recoil which means quicker shots, less noise and generally a more manageable weapon for smaller folks. Anyone who does not take into consideration shooting a .45 can be cumbersome to the shooter is either a pro shooter or full of man ego.

Also the gun is fairly priced. Around $600.00 new which is about the same as many other military/law enforcement type guns in this category. The beauty of the long slide is it’s almost the same as it’s shorter counter part. Just go to an online auction site if your local dealer gives you the “you can’t find it anywhere schpeel” and no you don’t really need an add-on. Personally, I dislike laser sites but highly recommend a tactical light. Don’t cheap out on the light either. A good light will make your pistol a universally effective weapon. This can all be done with a comparable budget to most things. Even a good sword or crossbow is going to run you $300+ only that Glock is probably 100 times more deadly if properly used. Also the ammo is cheap too. You can pick up 1000 rounds of ammo online for less then $100.00. And going back to the knock down power issue. Accuracy is the first factor then size/power. Who is going to be more deadly accurate the person who shot a 1000 rounds through their weapon cause it’s cheap or the person who shoots 100 and then saves the rest of their ammo cause it’s expensive? Price out .44 magnum costs. They’re not cheap. Try and find a 10mm round, good luck!

4. Capacity It holds 17 rounds or 19 if you ad the extension and yes you can buy a 30 round magazine for it too. This is superb. It also speaks to the plausibility of a survival concept. If you have to fire more than 17 rounds you probably should have been long gone by then. Not to say that this is always an option so if it isn’t you should still find a 30 round magazine or an extra 17 round magazine adequate as an extra magazine can be.

5. Accuracy This is where the strengths can also be considered weaknesses in other words a conundrum. Also why I suggest a long slide instead of regular Glock 17. For a out of the box handgun it’s superbly accurate. But compared to thousands of other guns it’s lacking. Usually the effective range for a hand gun is around 45yds tops in the military or 15yds if your talking practical self defense. I think with practice you can put a Glock 17L out further than 60yds. How much further would depend on the target. But really it’s not at all a long range weapon. So yes it’s accurate for what it is but no it’s not ideal for longer ranges. That being said it will be quite effective at closer ranges and for very close ranges I would say ideal.

6. Overall plausibility The over all plausibility could also depend on a whole slew of factors whether it be availability or the application in which the weapon would need to be used. I know that you could kill a deer with it if you had to even a bear (yes a bear) but really by no means is it practical for that. So really it depends and yes you would have to consider what type of options you really would have in a survival type situation as the circumstances would vary. I think the fact that it could be so easily carried is probably the first and foremost logic behind having one.

I have considered using it for hunting as the 6″ barrel and center fire round makes it legal in Wisconsin to hunt deer with it. However, I think that I would be restricted to more of a bow and arrow range and definitely wouldn’t have make sure the shot would be in a vital area. Also, not sure how other hunters would feel about it as some might consider using a 9mm inhuman if you didn’t quickly kill the game. Although if I had a dollar every time someone shot a deer with a high power rifle and it ran away, I’d still be poor, but at least it’d pay for the ammo. Perhaps the gun would also be a better compliment to a larger weapon system in survival circumstances. As in the glock is the gun you always have with you and you can rely on something else for bigger problems.

OTHER THOUGHTS:
1) Another good option for a survival weapon would be the bigger brother to the Glock 17L is the Glock 24 the first thing better than a Glock 9mm is a Glock 40 cal. pistol. And yes follow the link it has been used to kill a Kodiak brown bear. This is a just like the regular glock 40 caliber but like the 17L it has an extra long barrel for more accuracy. Also, 40 caliber rounds are still in the cheaper price range. They are consider more effective at penetration than 45 and 9mm calibers. More powerful than a 9mm less cumbersome than a 45 to shoot. The bullet still has significant knock down power and a high velocity and a readily available supply of ammunition at least in the us.

2) Another suggestion for the pistol would be to make either a temporary shoulder stock and/or lanyard to more accurately aim your shots. I would confidently say that these two items can/will easily put either a Glock 17L or Glock 24 out to 100 yard effective ranges. Simply being able to hold the gun steady is sometimes the hardest part about long range shooting. A 9mm will most definitely go that far with a loss of power I wouldn’t go shooting large or dangerous game with it but it won’t drop nearly as much as a .45 which is a much slower moving bullet. The 9mm relies on it’s higher velocity to make the smaller bullet effective and means it’s trajectory is flatter i.e. it drops less over the same distance/time. Also, I say a temporary stock because adding a stock to your pistol could make it illegal (class 3 without a license) and harder to carry. So something that could be used to hold the pistol steady and against your should allowing you to precisely aim with the sites that could easily be taken off would be ideal. I am working on making a stock that slides in the back space of the gun handle and wedges secure with a chunk of rubber. That way it’s more of a shooting stick against your should as apposed to an actual stock.