The Things You Happen to See...

So, we were looking at an apartment building today as a possible purchase and rehab (short answer: nope). Going through the various units with trash littering the floor everywhere in addition to the bits and pieces of material that the metal scavengers missed you can come across little things piled together that just make you smile in amusement. This one, for example:

Ah... good times.

Yay Me!

Could it be? Could it really be? Could the whole panic buying fever be going away? Perhaps. Look what I was able to get at the last gun show:

It was like walking into the Garden of Eden: crates of bullets, boxes of primers piled high, keg after keg of powder. It puts a smile on my face just thinking about it.

Most of this is for loading stuff for my best friend: 5.56 and .270. I did manage to grab a couple hundred 147gr .308s for my Savage, though. Prices weren't bad either.

Maybe sanity is returning?

Ron Legrand - Real Estate Douche

I've met a lot of people over the years that I've been in real estate investing: wholesalers, realtors, rehabbers, multi-unit landlords, etc. One particular type of investor has become (thankfully) rare since the housing bust, but he still shows up once in a while: The Ron Legrand devotee.

Now most of you probably don't know who he is. He's a real estate educator that made a fortune selling his 'pretty house' / 'ugly house' investment courses years ago. People flocked to his seminars (thousands of dollars a pop) where they heard... advertising pitches for more seminars. People loved it. They lapped his pie in the sky 'tips and tricks' up like antifreeze at a petting zoo. People still do!

He's also a complete tool.




Now keep in mind he doesn't directly advocate anything illegal. Can his 'subject-to' and 'lease option' strategy work? Sort-of. (I do know one guy, ONE GUY, who still uses some of his strategy successfully in his business, but even he has drastically changed how the model is used.)

So what's wrong with him? A lot, actually.

Let's start with who his target audience is. Look over his website and you can get a good idea. He gears his pitch to people who know little to nothing about real estate or investing in general. He sells this "incredible success is just a seminar away" kind of hype. These people then buy his books, which are also full of this get rich quick BS. I know. I have two of his books in a box at home that I haven't gotten rid of yet. He sells an enormous amount of sizzle, along with a nugget or two of actual knowledge. He then urges people to "Take Action!"

Here's the trouble with that: Real estate is not that simple. Can his techniques work? Yes, you can get them to work in many places. Can they very easily get you into serious financial and legal trouble, as in 'spend the next few years in prison' kind of legal trouble? Ooooooohhhh yes.

Now keep in mind, he does not directly advocate anything illegal. He is very careful about that. But considering the rah! rah! BS his material is filled with, he is advocating people who know little or nothing about real estate take rash action that can destroy them financially and legally with a tiny misstep. If someone came to me looking for advice and I gave them the kind hype he does, my conscience would never leave me in peace.

Let's look at what information he actually gives. It all boils down to a couple of points: Taking title to property subject to the existing mortgage via a land trust and owner financing or lease optioning the property at a marked up price. (There, I just saved you thousands of dollars in course work. Go have fun with it! Take action!)

Can that work? Yes, yes it can, just like I said above. Is it legal? In some places yes, in some places no, and in lots of places... well, it's not easy to tell. Its legality could also not matter depending on what other trouble you may get into. What about land trusts? His info on those is great, right? Eh, no, not really, his info on trusts is not exactly up to date there either. Laws change fast all over this country, and land trusts are NOT some Star Trek shield that is invulnerable or gives total privacy.

OK, fine, but some of the info can still be used, right? Yes, it can. But... it is not worth the asinine, scalper prices he charges. It's not worth the cost no matter what his marketing says. The only people who could think so are complete newbies who think they are going to be given the secret of a lifetime which, as I've already pointed out, is who is target market is.

So how do you get what info he offers that's good without having your savings milked dry? The same way I would recommend to anyone who is starting out: Find your local Real Estate Investing Club, pay the membership fee, find the people who are doing the kind of deals you'd like to do, and learn from them. What you will find is that most of these people are very helpful and will be more than happy to give you excellent pointers, lend you books, point you toward good contacts, etc., provided that you don't act like a douche, show a degree of intelligence and actually listen. You will still have to work and learn a lot on your own, but you will be much further down the path to success, with real, actionable knowledge of your local market than if you had dumped thousands of dollars on a Ron Legrand course.

Honestly, it's the kind of advice I and several other people I know wish we had been given starting out.

We've ALL Been There

007 Sucks At His Job, And Some Other Stuff

(NOTE: This was originally published by me back in Feb 2013 on FB. I just wanted to reproduce it outside FB so others could read it as well.)

So the wife and I have managed to make it half way through the latest Bond film Skyfall. I have to admit, that's one of the best opening songs they've had in a while. So far it's pretty entertaining. That being said, I have some thoughts...

After the opening scene fades to the introduction credits, several things ran through my head. "What happened to his P99? Why is he carrying an old PPK? After bailing from the vehicle, why didn't he grab the carbine? So, you were serving as backup for, I guess it was a sting operation, and all you brought were two magazines? That other guy is some kind of super spy/assassin, and yet he just blows all his ammo while accomplishing nothing by transforming rounds into noise? Is that the black girl that was in that terrible movie 'Wing Commander'?"

After viewing more, yeah, I get it: The PPK is the classic 'Bond gun'. They're trying to keep with the classic setup. At the same time, they're trying to make it 'grittier' and more 'realistic' and 'up to date'. Ok, fine. BUT... In the time that the Bond franchise first started, early 1960s, if you wanted a compact handgun you were pretty much stuck with something like a snub .38 revolver or a .25 or .32 semi of some type. There wasn't that much variety either and, from what I gather, the PPK was one of the better versions available. So really the Sean Connery Bond was getting some of the best firearms in that class at the time.

But, we're in 2013. The number of compact and subcompact pistols on the market now is legion. Is the PPK still a viable CCW piece? Sure, but it's at the bottom end. Its most modern incarnation is a low capacity, .380 ACP blowback. Yeah, a .380 is better than nothing, but it doesn't 'hit like a brick through a plate glass window', a phrase that has always irked me from "Dr. No". In that case it was only a .32, but I digress. The point is would Bond, as a professional, really want a PPK as a primary duty arm? Emergency backup, ok fine, but knowingly going into a running firefight packing only a low capacity .380, particularly when more powerful, higher capacity, extremely reliable pistols have been available for many years? Somehow I think Bond is with me on this one, particularly his expression of disgust when throwing down said PPK on the train. Of course, this was right after he wasted his ammunition shooting at, well, nothing, so maybe part of that disgust was aimed at himself for acting like such a tool. He was also probably kicking himself for not taking that black girl's carbine instead of leaving it to her to use this short barreled carbine to try to hit a moving target at long range. Had he taken the carbine, the movie would only have been 13 minutes long.

So, when handed the little box from Q, had I written the script, I would have had Bond say something like the following: "Oh, another PPK. Scraping the bottom of the barrel in performance on purpose are we, or are the budget cuts just that deep? Oh, and look, your idea of 'innovation' was to add a complex electronic feature that adds zero in performance and serves only as yet another point of failure on what WAS a totally reliable, simple device which also prevents me from being able to use the weapon if I wear gloves. Because God knows a secret agent never has to wear gloves on a mission, right? Tell you what. You keep the electronic bitch pistol and I'll just pop off to the Scotland Yard armory and acquire what I need on my own, alright?

Yes, I see some of you jumping up and down going "Oh yeah? Well it's a good thing he HAD it, because, you know, of that scene in the lizard pit!" To which I say 'no'. That scene happened because Bond sucks at his job so much that he failed a simple test of weapon retention, techniques that are practiced constantly by police at all levels to prevent anyone from getting their firearms from them. They only added that scene because they had to find a way to use the little gimmick that Q gave him. Might come up later, I don't know. We're only half way through the movie.

Which brings me to my main point, gun control.

Recently a well-known apologist I have great respect for decided that, instead of navigating skillfully down the highway of religious and theological discussion, the proper thing to do was to throw the wheel over, skid across the median and slam head-on into the post Sandy Hook firearm debate, apparently hoping that his totally unrelated knowledge, belligerent personality and the sheer weight of his pack of fan boys would carry him safely through. The result was actually a spectacular wreck which everyone, with the exception of he and his fan boys, were both amused and annoyed at in equal parts. Seriously, I haven't seen a train wreck that bad since Bill O'Reilly derided an Afgan war vet just back from multiple tours of duty on air for daring to disagree with him regarding fighting conditions in that country.

There are few things sadder than watching someone stamp their feet and demand to be taken seriously on a topic they admit they have no real knowledge of.

Anyway, the primary thing I wanted to talk about was one of his 'suggestions', which is how this all ties back in with James Bond (and I'm pretty sure that's where he got the idea in the first place.) The idea? Demand all modern firearms be manufactured with technology that prevents anyone but the person they are keyed to from firing them. Basically, make any new firearm made be exactly like Bond's Walther. We have electronic security on cell phones, why not guns? And anyone who disagreed on this point was called out as being 'actively passive', whatever that means, and insulting America's "Can-Do!" attitude.

Sounds like a good idea, right? It would prevent mass shootings, or something, right? What's wrong with the idea? Well, a lot as it turns out.

Let's start with just basic operating principles.

On a cell phone, you can have multiple locks that prevent someone from using it other than you. Theoretically, there is nothing to prevent you from having a security measure that executes an NSA wipe on the entire phone on a certain number of failed attempts if you want to be REALLY secure.

On a firearm, short of having a powerful enough explosive charge inside be activated that would cause serious enough damage to the steel internals on a failed security check, such a thing is impossible.

Here's the thing. Aside from more complicated systems like the minigun, a firearm is not really complex at all. In fact, if you want to get right down to it, there hasn't been an actual big step forward in innovation for almost 100 years, and the main principles are much, much older than that. In the end, a firearm (assuming a semi-auto here, as other versions are even more simple) is nothing more than a very basic machine that pushes a cylinder into a tube, hits the back of it, and then uses the return force to pull the cylinder back out again. Comparing technologies, a firearm is less like a cell phone, or even a modern car engine (which is overrun with electronics) and more like a rowboat.

Take a look at the rowboats they have these days, particularly for racing. Sleek, composites, ultra lite components, precision engineering, the works! But, look again. Yeah, they're pretty slick, but it's still just a rowboat, it's still a floating container that is propelled by exerting force on a rod or beam that is transferred by a single (or in some cases now, multiple) pivot. When it comes down to it, the most modern rowboat is basically the same as one used for fishing 100+ years ago.

This base level of simplicity compared with actual high tech items is also why you can't get a bunch of raw, electronic scrap and manufacture a fully functional IPhone in your garage using only hand tools, but you CAN manufacture a fully functional machine pistol out of raw, metal scrap in your garage using only hand tools.



Anyway, after being taken to task on these points, he comes up with a link to 'Intelligun'. You can look it up on YouTube. It's a fingerprint reader that is a drop in modification you can use currently on 1911 style firearms. This kind of firearm security is not actually new at all. It's been around in several versions since the 90s in fact. There was a version even tested by law enforcement in the 2000s. Street law enforcement of course has a VERY keen desire for keeping people from grabbing their duty firearm and using it against them. They have entire drills to practice for this (as I pointed out above), holsters specially designed to retain their firearms, etc. But guess what? They decided against using this tech. But this individual still think this is a great idea to force people to use it.

So why is it not a good idea? Well, let's see, there's the idea of violating people's rights which I don't think registered with these people, that's kinda primary. But there's also very much a practical angle.

Think about it: With my current sidearm I can fire right handed, left handed, loose grip, hard grip, odd angle, with any finger on either hand manipulating the trigger. I can wear gloves, no gloves, dirty hands, clean, wet, bloody, shaking, steady, etc. My wife can use the weapon in all the same situations I have described as well. Add this drop in technology and what happens? All of that goes away. Now, I can only hold the weapon 'normally' which means fingers aligned in a way so the reader can correctly read the print. If my hands are dirty or greasy, it's cold and I'm wearing gloves, my hands don't have a complete 'normal' grip, I'm having to use my off hand, etc, well, I'm screwed. The weapon is also now useless to my wife as well. You're introducing an extra level of high complexity to what is right now a VERY simple and ULTRA reliable system. This is also made sillier when you consider that the most popular weapons for self-defense out there, like mine, have ZERO safety mechanisms of any kind. Usually nothing but a stiff trigger pull. It limits what can go wrong.

So what is the tradeoff for this degradation of utility? Well, let's examine what ends could possibly be the motivating factor.

KEEP CHILDREN SAFE!

OK, first of all, if you actually keep your weapons secure and away from children (whatever isn't on your person, of course) and they still manage to dig out and get ahold of your pistol, you have bigger problems. You either DON'T keep them secure, or you don't take care as a parent to teach your kids correctly, assuming VERY young kids here. Kids that are teenagers will be more than smart enough to disable said security if they wish (see below).

PREVENT SOMETHING LIKE SANDY HOOK!

No, this wouldn't prevent anything. First of all, nothing like this will ever sell, EVER, without a mechanical override. Looking at the website, oh, look at that, they DO provide one. So, said psycho simply disables the mechanism using the override or he simply removes the mechanism totally through field stripping the firearm.

PREVENT STOLEN FIREARMS FROM BEING USED IN CRIME!

See above.

PREVENT THE GUN BEING TAKEN AWAY AND USED ON YOU!

This is transparently retarded to anyone who has two brain cells to rub together. In a situation where you would have a weapon drawn and pointed at an aggressor several things would be in play. First, in a home invasion scenario, someone has attacked your home and forced entry. This is not a burglar, who go out of their way to avoid detection, it is a very special type of psychopath who has chosen to break in while you are there. That means he's probably looking for loot, and to inflict pain. He is also either already armed himself, or he is strong enough to not necessarily even need a weapon. It means you DIDN'T pull the trigger. If you are in public and you are a law abiding person, it means that you are in a situation where you are in genuine fear of your life (as you have drawn your weapon, say). It also means you DIDN'T pull the trigger. The real problem in both cases is not the firearm, it is YOU and your inability to pull the trigger when it matters. At that point, him using YOUR firearm against you is the LEAST of your concerns.

So, no, I will never use this kind of tech. Period. There are better ways to protect the innocent. If the police are against using it, instead of trying to make everyone else buy it, perhaps people should consider that just maybe the cops are on to something there.

On Never Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight

We’ve all heard the expression. I’m sure we’ve all heard the line uttered in numerous movies, particularly in the Untouchables uttered by Sean Connery.

“Never bring a knife to a gunfight.”

In modern conversation, the phrase is intended to emphasize not entering a conflict, verbal or otherwise, without the proper knowledge, weapon, etc. Never go against an opponent who totally outclasses you, etc.

But, in terms of actual fighting, if your opponent has brought a knife to a gunfight, are you secure in your ability win because you have a gun?

The answer is not just no but HELL NO. Enter the Tueller Drill.

How fast can you really draw your defensive sidearm? Less than a second and a half?

So no, if that knife user can get the jump and can close quickly, he can very well cut you to pieces before you even clear leather.

Practice, stay aware and be safe.

Open Carry / Concealed Carry

Recently there was a legal issue brought up in a local municipality that dealt with "open carry", that is, the carrying of firearms for defense openly and exposed for all to see instead of concealed under clothing. I won't dive into the legal aspects or the arguments made, as that's not what this post is about. What I want to cover is an often overlooked reason why I think concealed carry is a MUCH better idea than open carry. No, I don't think it should be illegal, but I don't think you should do it.

There are quite a few excellent sites out there that talk about which is better, tactics wise, so I also will not be talking about that aspect.

Dead, bleeding deer

Let's talk about hunting for a second. There are three types of people out there: Those who are pro-hunting, those who are anti-hunting and those who don't have really strong feelings about it one way or the other. There is a large chunk of people in the first block, a small but EXTREMELY VOCAL chunk in the second, and an enormous number in the third.

It is this third group of people you need to be careful around. Why? Because it might just take one instance of a hunter being an asshole or not paying attention to push someone from this third group into the second group.

Here's an example: When you transport your deer home, it is always good to make sure you have it covered up and have the tail gate closed so people don't see it there. (There are also very good sanitary reasons for this, but that's a different topic.) Now as you are driving home on county and perhaps city roads, a minivan with a soccer mom and her kids slowly passes you. Her kids look out the side window and see Bambi's dad in a jumble in the back of your truck, tongue hanging out and still dripping blood. The kids point "Mommy! Mommy! Look!" and suddenly BAM! you just possibly pushed someone who was in group three into group two.

It is a purely gut, emotional reaction in this case.

So how does this tie in with carrying a weapon?

I think a much overlooked reason to carry concealed is sensitivity to other people, i.e., the same reason we hunters cover our harvests on our way home. I have encountered two people in my local area that were carrying openly that I was certain were not police. One was a rather unassuming guy just walking downtown. The other was a rather loud, obnoxious asshole my wife and I watched at the grocery store for a while.

As I said, this guy was obviously not a cop. And he attracted attention in the same way that loud obnoxious assholes usually do. What kind of impressions did he give to people around him? This is important because when it comes to carrying weapons, the same three groups of people exist. How many people might he have pushed from group three to group two?

But the guy was an asshole anyway!

Yes, very true. But lots of non-shooters get weirded out around firearms anyway and they have been fed a steady diet of anti-gun propaganda for YEARS. Don't run the risk of affirming a stereotype.

Look, we pro-gun people have been fighting the lies and bullshit from the antis for... Good Lord, as long as I can remember. We are battling for the hearts and minds of that third group. AND WE ARE WINNING! The wind is at our back. Perhaps in the future people won't be weirded out when they see guns on people. BUT... until that time, we need to be careful. We need to always be on our best behavior, be friendly, be good neighbors, give good first impressions and be sensitive of people who may not be in our camp. (Actually, this is good advice at all times, period.)

As I said, there are MUCH better reasons for carrying concealed instead of openly (see the writings of Massad Ayoob and Jeff Cooper for starters). This is just an extra point I felt hadn't been addressed. Do I think open carry should be legal? Yes, yes I do. But even if legal, I still would urge you to carry concealed.