GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-06-2013, 15:44   #241
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
PhotoFeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and SW Florida
Posts: 2,857
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arc Angel View Post
Thank you for the compliment. (Not, 'left-handed' I hope!) I'm going to treat your reply with the respect that it deserves. (A lot!)

You’re first question specifically alludes to this; doesn’t it:



Notice that I did NOT say anything about people in the general public not going armed. THAT is, indeed, the Socialist, ‘New World Order’ party line. A politically contrived abrogation of my (previously hard won) Constitutional Second Amendment Rights - An abrogation that I find particularly onerous and most strenuously resent.

‘New World Order’ politicians and the highly organized (but covert) national, ‘news’ media continue to incessantly find more and more diabolical new ways, and more and more meticulously contrived excuses to attack, undermine, and further abrogate one of the most important personal safeguards the American public has - NOT just the right to, ‘bear arms’, but the (God-given) historically inherent, and presumably, ‘unalienable’ right of self-defense! (N-1)

My objection is to, ‘HOW’ a majority of relatively unskilled, and modestly trained civilians choose to go armed: To wit, IN THE MOST DANGEROUS PERSONAL MANNER POSSIBLE! Yes, it is my considered opinion that far too many civilians are walking around all day long in C-1 when THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NECESSITY WITHIN THEIR DAILY ROUTINES FOR THEM TO DO SO.

Are these people, ‘being cool’? Well, ...... I’ve never seen a flagrant open carrier who wasn’t trying his very best to be as, ‘cool’ as he is moronic; and my thinking is no different about civilians who insist upon routine C-1 semi-auto carry. (I spend a lot of time on public firing lines; and much of what I've seen has, probably, helped to turn my hair white!)

The social guideline is a simple one: ‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.’ If a legal gun owner wants to advertise his Second Amendment Rights then, rather than flagrantly sporting a dangerous and deadly weapon on his hip, WEAR A T-SHIRT, CARRY A PLACARD, OR HAND OUT COPIES OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, AND THE BILL-OF-RIGHTS. Don’t run around the local shopping mall scaring, ‘the bejesus’ out of everybody else’s: moms, dads, children, and the elderly - That’s neither socially polite, nor intellectually indicative of the best Judeo-Christian ethics have to offer.

Now, if I’m reading you correct your second question touches on your first, and is offered in regard to my above final comment:



Let me try to put things into a more pertinent (and intended) perspective: I’m an individual who has carried at least one pistol, everywhere I go, 24 hours a day, and for the better part of two decades now. ‘Why’? Simple! I’ve previously been attacked; and, as another member of this board once (rather cleverly) pointed out: ‘The devil sends more trouble some people’s way than others.’ Apparently, and for whatever reasons, I appear to be one of those people.

Once I was attacked inside my own home; and, again, twice I’ve been attacked while outside on the property. In the in-home incident I was unarmed; and our Pit Bulldogs came to my rescue. In the other two outside incidents I was heavily armed; and I had to draw a pistol in order to defend myself from impending serious harm.

This should tell you that I, personally, would be among the very last of people to ever proscribe any honest, law abiding individual from going armed. What I’m questioning is THE MANNER in which armed semiautomatic carry is customarily (and habitually) done by the general public. (N-2)

Your questions put me in a position where I have to consider breaking one of my own (albeit recently acquired) rules. After the obscene (albeit continuingly suspicious) gun massacre at Newtown, CT I promised myself that I would never again post any comment on the Internet that teaches someone out in the general public how to be better with, or to more skillfully handle, a combat handgun. (I don’t usually write about rifles. I certainly could; but, I don’t.) You have, however, raised a valid and important objection. This one time I’m going to answer it. You have said:



I’m going to tell you now that: IF YOU HOLD TO THIS LINE-OF-REASONING - this erroneous personal gunfighting philosophy - then your chances of being seriously wounded, or killed, during your next armed encounter are NOTHING SHORT OF ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT!

Let me ask you this: 'What are you waiting for?' You watch police dash cam videos on television; right! When was the last time you saw a professionally trained police officer hesitate to draw his service pistol THE MOMENT HE REALIZED THAT HE MIGHT BE IN TROUBLE? In hundreds, if not thousands, of televised, real world, police programs I’ve never seen any such lapse in any police officer's personal security occur. (Just the opposite, actually!)

If you want to stay alive, you do NOT wait for an actor to get within arm’s reach of you. You carefully watch his hands; and, ideally, you make yourself ready-to-act at between 12 and 15 yards’ distance. (Don’t be shy about loudly warning a possible attacker off, either!) Anyone who waits until a half second’s time becomes critical has, in my carefully considered opinion, WAITED TOO LONG! Your most viable self-defense plan should have been, both, formulated and put into action LONG BEFORE, ‘arm’s reach and that last critical half second’ has arrived.

Personally, I don’t give a, ‘tinker’s damn’ about what, ‘they’ are teaching in today’s self-defense classes. While all of these classes are (I am certain.) fun and entertaining; as far as I’m concerned there are only three handgun self-defense classes I’d ever have any interest, whatsoever, in attending. I’d definitely be willing to study with and listen to: Dave Spaulding, D.R. Middlebrooks, and Louis Chiodo; but, that’s about it! As far as I’m concerned everybody else is actually in the entertainment business and is teaching CQB self-defense and pistol combat from, ‘behind the curve’. (N-3)

A more correct restatement of the remark, ‘The fact that the vast majority of armed encounters are very short distances.’ would be, ‘The fact is that the vast majority of armed encounters WHICH THE GOOD GUYS LOSE occur at very short distances.' I’m telling you, here, that if you end up grappling for your life inside an instantaneous CQB knife or pistol ambush, then, more than likely,

IT’S GOING TO BE YOUR OWN FAULT!

What is more, the usual Internet rational for going around all day long with your semiautomatic pistol in C-1, and exposing absolutely everyone - including yourself - to potential harm is most typically given as: In order to be supremely ready for just such a highly unlikely ambush attempt! (An ambush attempt, I might add, for which more than 90% of the, ‘Glockeroos’ out there are - as you, now, know - only very poorly prepared to defend themselves against.) (N-4), (N-5)

I hope I’ve satisfactorily answered your question.

NOTES:

(N-1) ‘Unalienable’, Thomas Jefferson’s careful choice-of-words, not mine! I would have used, ‘inalienable’; but, for reasons known only to himself, Jefferson chose to reintroduce this archaic word back into the English language from earlier 16th and 17th century usage.)

(N-2) For the neophytes and mentally confused: A revolver is NOT ever carried in C-1. Only a semiautomatic pistol can be carried that way; and for those who insist there is no difference between carrying a modern revolver with a fully loaded cylinder, and a C-1 Glock, ...... well, these guys have been spending too much time on the Internet. REVOLVERS DO NOT HAVE 74% + PRETENSIONED TRIGGER MECHANISMS!

(N-3) If Jim Cirillo were still alive I would have included him in this list, too.

(N-4) Don’t tell me about what police officers do, either. Uniformed police officers use, ‘Level Three’ high security holsters - NOT the open-topped, lightly secured holster designs that most of us who go about, ‘in mufti’ all day long prefer to use. An open-topped holster, and a minimally-secured pistol that’s, also, carried in C-1, all, lead up to only one thing: Thee most potentially volatile manner in which a civilian might holster and carry a semiautomatic combat handgun.

(N-5) I use the term, ‘combat handgun’ because that’s actually what it is; and, one more time, at the very least I think C-3 is how members of the general public should routinely carry their semiautomatic pistols! I've been able to survive, twice now, doing it; other competent and knowing gunmen should be able to do it, too.
Thanks for adding much-needed balance to the debate.

We always hear a deafening chorus of voices promoting C1 as the best method, but your comments demonstrate that the C3 technique is sensible, safe and unfairly critisized by people who say its too slow in most SD situations.

I hope your late-in-the-game opinions will receive the attention they deserve.
PhotoFeller is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 17:27   #242
NMOFT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 121
Saftey of C1 vs. C3

I agree that it seems intuitive that a pistol in C3 is safer to carry than one in C1, but there’s a fallacy in that line of reasoning. Some of you have cited the fact that even LEOs with their greater level of training and experience have NDs and thus C1 carry must be inherently unsafe. In fact a good friend of mine who happens to be an LEO and an experienced gun handler experienced an ND recently that wreaked his hand.

However, the rest of the story is that the ND happened with an “unloaded” pistol. I think if you averaged the number of hours that cops carry C1 pistols vs. the number of NDs they suffer you would find the ND rate to be surprisingly low. Maybe lower than the rate of NDs suffered by non-LEO C3 carriers. And no, I have no data to back up that statement; it’s purely supposition on my part.

The point is complacency kills. And complacency is what causes NDs, not carry mode. And people that habitually carry such as LEOs will be more vulnerable to complacency than most others.

It seems to me that those with the C3 mindset view pistols as either “safe” to carry or “unsafe” based on whether or not the chamber is loaded. The C3 mindset seems to be “if my carry piece is unloaded I can still make a mistake and not suffer an ND". This breeds complacency and violates one of the four basic rules of gun handling, i.e. “treat all guns as if they are loaded at all times”. You might protest that you do that anyway. Well, if that’s so, then you are just as safe carrying in C1 as in C3.
NMOFT is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 18:42   #243
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
PhotoFeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and SW Florida
Posts: 2,857
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMOFT View Post
I agree that it seems intuitive that a pistol in C3 is safer to carry than one in C1, but there’s a fallacy in that line of reasoning. Some of you have cited the fact that even LEOs with their greater level of training and experience have NDs and thus C1 carry must be inherently unsafe. In fact a good friend of mine who happens to be an LEO and an experienced gun handler experienced an ND recently that wreaked his hand.

However, the rest of the story is that the ND happened with an “unloaded” pistol. I think if you averaged the number of hours that cops carry C1 pistols vs. the number of NDs they suffer you would find the ND rate to be surprisingly low. Maybe lower than the rate of NDs suffered by non-LEO C3 carriers. And no, I have no data to back up that statement; it’s purely supposition on my part.

The point is complacency kills. And complacency is what causes NDs, not carry mode. And people that habitually carry such as LEOs will be more vulnerable to complacency than most others.

It seems to me that those with the C3 mindset view pistols as either “safe” to carry or “unsafe” based on whether or not the chamber is loaded. The C3 mindset seems to be “if my carry piece is unloaded I can still make a mistake and not suffer an ND". This breeds complacency and violates one of the four basic rules of gun handling, i.e. “treat all guns as if they are loaded at all times”. You might protest that you do that anyway. Well, if that’s so, then you are just as safe carrying in C1 as in C3.
As I understand your position, (1) eliminating complacency makes C1 with a Glock perfectly safe and (2) C3 is less safe than C1 because the former leads to complacency. It follows that a disciplined gun handler who overcomes complacency, as one must do to carry C1 safely, can manage any automatic pistol without fear of committing a ND, including a 1911 in C0.

I'm just trying to understand your logic and its practical application. Applying your logic to a cocked and unlocked 1911 simply amplifies the need for handling perfection with a firearm that is less tolerant of careless mistakes. However, if our handling technique is complacency free, any pistol can be carried in any condition without fear of a ND. Is that a reasonable interpretation?

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 02-06-2013 at 18:55..
PhotoFeller is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 20:48   #244
unit1069
Senior Member
 
unit1069's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: So. Central US
Posts: 8,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
Thanks (to Arc Angel) for adding much-needed balance to the debate.
+1


Quote:
Originally Posted by NMOFT View Post
I agree that it seems intuitive that a pistol in C3 is safer to carry than one in C1, but there’s a fallacy in that line of reasoning. Some of you have cited the fact that even LEOs with their greater level of training and experience have NDs and thus C1 carry must be inherently unsafe. In fact a good friend of mine who happens to be an LEO and an experienced gun handler experienced an ND recently that wreaked his hand.
In my opinion C1 doesn't render a semi-auto inherently unsafe, but it does place the highest priority on awareness and safety.

Quote:
However, the rest of the story is that the ND happened with an “unloaded” pistol. I think if you averaged the number of hours that cops carry C1 pistols vs. the number of NDs they suffer you would find the ND rate to be surprisingly low. Maybe lower than the rate of NDs suffered by non-LEO C3 carriers. And no, I have no data to back up that statement; it’s purely supposition on my part.

The point is complacency kills. And complacency is what causes NDs, not carry mode. And people that habitually carry such as LEOs will be more vulnerable to complacency than most others.
Certainly true, and complacency happens to the well-trained as it does with civilians, regardless of the condition the carrier believes the gun is in.

Quote:
It seems to me that those with the C3 mindset view pistols as either “safe” to carry or “unsafe” based on whether or not the chamber is loaded. The C3 mindset seems to be “if my carry piece is unloaded I can still make a mistake and not suffer an ND". This breeds complacency and violates one of the four basic rules of gun handling, i.e. “treat all guns as if they are loaded at all times”. You might protest that you do that anyway. Well, if that’s so, then you are just as safe carrying in C1 as in C3.
The big difference is that trained LEO must always be prepared for a life-threatening confrontation, as part of their sworn duties. Conversely, civilians --- except in the most extreme, dire situations --- are wisely counseled to withdraw (if possible), immediately call 911, and seek safety until the police arrive. But as for the immediate issue, anyone may at an unexpected moment experience a ND; if one's habit is to carry C3 it does not inoculate him/her from that experience but it does by habit place one additional safety check into the process. LEO must carry C1; I choose to normally stay one step behind LEO and one step ahead of Barney Fife.

In the example of LEO dashboard cameras, when was the last time you read, heard, or saw a civilian deliberately walk into an unknown situation where CQB might suddenly occur? I think police have the most difficult job in America, given the criminals and political sharks they have to successfully defend against. Again, there's a great difference between my personal circumstances and those of LEO, and I'm determined not to become a poster child for the Brady Campaign. When I think conditions warrant I will carry C1; when not I'll continue to be a cautious civilian. This question is always an individual, personal decision and one only the individual can decide. There is no right-wrong, in my opinion, and I fully accept the views of those who for their own reasons always carry C1.
__________________
Rocket Scientist

Last edited by unit1069; 02-07-2013 at 00:07..
unit1069 is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 21:06   #245
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,628


Wow, 7 years and there always seems to be one of these threads here......

I prefer one in the chamber, always have, always will. You can all do what you want, at least you have a gun, that's a step in the right direction.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 21:39   #246
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
PhotoFeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and SW Florida
Posts: 2,857
Blog Entries: 2
Hey, Doc, the question hasn't been definitively settled in 7 years...or maybe as long as Glocks have been available. In your mind, yes. In my mind, yes. But you and I have different opinions. Maybe there is no 'right' answer.
PhotoFeller is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 21:59   #247
splitfinger09
Member
 
splitfinger09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 68
This was posted anonymously by someone claiming to be USMC.

"I am an Iraq and Afghan Veteran with the USMC. We didnt even carry our weapons at condition 1 the entire time while in country. We only went condition 1 when we went outside the wire. SO why if I was condition 3 while in Iraq would I need to be condition 1 while carrying around town? A weapon does nothing if you dont have situational awarness. Please people carry condition 3 and if you sense danger go condition 1. Because as he said NDs are WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more common than a shootout at Starbucks!!!!!"
splitfinger09 is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 22:31   #248
VinnieG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Iowa
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitfinger09 View Post
This was posted anonymously by someone claiming to be USMC.

"I am an Iraq and Afghan Veteran with the USMC. We didnt even carry our weapons at condition 1 the entire time while in country. We only went condition 1 when we went outside the wire. SO why if I was condition 3 while in Iraq would I need to be condition 1 while carrying around town? A weapon does nothing if you dont have situational awarness. Please people carry condition 3 and if you sense danger go condition 1. Because as he said NDs are WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more common than a shootout at Starbucks!!!!!"
I have spoken my opinion already and am in no way trying to argue but this quote is a lil off in my opinion.
He said that they only carried c1 when outside the wire. During civilian carry in this country there is no inside or outside the wire.
I carry c1 but I'm an Leo and am used to it (by no means am I better than anyone) but it is what I am used to and like.
I am always aware of my surroundings but there are some places that I feel more comfortable than others to let my guard down a lil.
But in my opinion that I gathered from having a bunch of buddies in different branches of the military, from seals, special forces and regular military. When behind the wire for the most part you don't have to worry about an armed confrontation inside the wire (only rockets,mortars and sniper fire).
I guess what I'm tryin to get across while a lil deep in the captain Morgan is that it's comparing apples to oranges
VinnieG is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 22:39   #249
mingaa
Senior Member
 
mingaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 825
One in the chamber - proper holster. Anything else is a huge risk. Like a gun in the lockbox in the vehicle - enter vehicle, retrieve weapon WITH one in the pipe. Period. Having a gun nearby or almost ready is a setup for disaster.
__________________
If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion. Noam Chomsky
mingaa is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 22:40   #250
NMOFT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
As I understand your position, (1) eliminating complacency makes C1 with a Glock perfectly safe and (2) C3 is less safe than C1 because the former leads to complacency. It follows that a disciplined gun handler who overcomes complacency, as one must do to carry C1 safely, can manage any automatic pistol without fear of committing a ND, including a 1911 in C0.

I'm just trying to understand your logic and its practical application. Applying your logic to a cocked and unlocked 1911 simply amplifies the need for handling perfection with a firearm that is less tolerant of careless mistakes. However, if our handling technique is complacency free, any pistol can be carried in any condition without fear of a ND. Is that a reasonable interpretation?
Do you treat your "unloaded" Glock any differently than you would a chamber loaded 1911?
NMOFT is offline  
Old 02-07-2013, 00:14   #251
unit1069
Senior Member
 
unit1069's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: So. Central US
Posts: 8,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Wow, 7 years and there always seems to be one of these threads here......
It's an issue that will never be definitively resolved until technology produces the firearm that eliminates human error. And because sensible people understand how counter-intuitive it is to carry a deadly weapon outside one's comfort level it's always going to be an individual choice.
__________________
Rocket Scientist
unit1069 is offline  
Old 02-07-2013, 00:18   #252
Firefightermdc
Senior Member
 
Firefightermdc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: El paso tx
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three-Five-Seven View Post
A proper holster is an essential piece of the safety mechanism of a Glock pistol.

If, after acquiring a proper holster you still feel uncomfortable, get a trigger block for your Glock.

If you're still uncomfortable after that, you need a Smith & Wesson revolver.
This...quality holster for any gun. Worries averted

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
Rimfire club member 2021
Glock 21 club member 2120
Firefightermdc is offline  
Old 02-07-2013, 00:59   #253
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
PhotoFeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and SW Florida
Posts: 2,857
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMOFT View Post
Do you treat your "unloaded" Glock any differently than you would a chamber loaded 1911?
I asked you first, thanks.

Remember your points: Carry mode doesn't kill, complacency does, and, C3 breeds complacency while C1 does not.

If one has eliminated human error (complacency) from his gun handling technique and mode doesn't matter, the Glock in C1 and the 1911 in C0 could, theoretically, be carried, drawn, fired, reholstered and handled admistratively with equal safety. Because the 1911 has a grip safety, it even provides a measure of additional protection against a ND. All one has to do is keep his finger off of the trigger of these or any other semi-auto.

Despite the above, I know of no one who recommends civilian, LEO or military carry of 1911s cocked and unlocked.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 02-07-2013 at 04:57..
PhotoFeller is offline  
Old 02-07-2013, 05:02   #254
Arc Angel
Deus Vult!
 
Arc Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 10,956
Blog Entries: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMOFT View Post
I agree that it seems intuitive that a pistol in C3 is safer to carry than one in C1, but there’s a fallacy in that line of reasoning. Some of you have cited the fact that even LEO’s with their greater level of training and experience have ND’s and thus C1 carry must be inherently unsafe. In fact a good friend of mine who happens to be an LEO and an experienced gun handler experienced an ND recently that wreaked his hand.
Interesting comments! It’s early morning; I can’t sleep; so I guess I’ll take the time to reply to this one, too: Any pistol routinely kept in C-3 IS inherently safer than another pistol kept in C-1; and this additional safety has little or nothing to do with an individual user’s personal skill level with firearms. Neither is it entirely correct to place all the responsibility for gun safety on the user; nor all of the blame for ND’s upon him, either. Sometimes a gun problem can be mechanical, and have little to do with exactly, ‘How’ the gun was handled.

Mechanical anomalies can happen with: a Glock, a Remington, a Browning, or a Sako firearm. Personally, I’ve had both a Browning, ‘A-5’, and a Sako, ‘Finnbear’ ND on me. I, also, have a little personal experience ND’ing a Glock (one episode); BUT, I’ve certainly read about and heard of numerous other instances of mechanical problems with Glock pistols; AND, I know that a Glock’s trigger mechanism can be induced to, ‘stack’. In fact, I’ve done this myself; and, based on recent changes made on Glock trigger bars, I am certain the factory knows about this, ‘stacking problem’ too.

The expression, ‘inherently unsafe’ actually applies to much more than just the manner in which a firearm is loaded and maintained. When it comes to gun safety there is never an acceptable reason to rationalize that one carry condition is safer than another.

ALL FIREARMS ARE INHERENTLY UNSAFE!

Hence the validity of Cooper’s first rule of firearm safety. Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy, it doesn’t matter who you are, or what you do for a living: Unsafe gun handling is still unsafe gun handling! All any gunman can do is to, ‘play the odds’, and attempt to, ‘stack the deck’ in his favor. THIS is the essential advantage to placing a semiautomatic pistol in C-3 rather than in C-1.

Personal safety with a firearm - especially with a firearm that is frequently carried and handled - is just such a tradeoff. The user, ‘trades off’ several thousand hours of the greater potential lethality entailed in C-1 carry against a possible few seconds of sudden and unexpected (?) dire necessity while carrying in C-3.

There IS some justification for law enforcement personnel to carry their handguns in C-1; however, nobody can convince me that the huge numbers of private citizens who presently carry - just like law enforcement - actually need to do so. In fact there is plenty of evidence to prove that the vast majority of private citizens do NOT need to do so.

I associate, and have associated, with a large number of young gunmen who: carry their Glocks in C-1, remain confident in their gun handling ability, irrationally trust to fate that, ‘nothing’s going to go wrong’, remain instantly ready to, ‘repel all boarders’, and repeatedly take that C-1 pistol with them everywhere they go - Into their cars, and into their homes every single day. Do these fellows REALLY NEED to expose: themselves, their families, and everyone else they come into contact with to such potential danger?

(Here the likelihood of needing an instantly available, ‘one-handed’ pistol should - with a considerate frame of mind - be thoughtfully compared to the real, the definite, risks any C-1 semi-auto poses to EVERYONE in the vicinity.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NMOFT View Post
However, the rest of the story is that the ND happened with an “unloaded” pistol. I think if you averaged the number of hours that cops carry C1 pistols vs. the number of ND’s they suffer you would find the ND rate to be surprisingly low. Maybe lower than the rate of ND’s suffered by non-LEO C3 carriers; and no, I have no data to back up that statement; it’s purely supposition on my part.
That’s it, right there! 'Administratively' there is no such thing as an unloaded firearm! ‘The gun is always loaded.’ CANNOT be only a rule. When properly learned it becomes A HABIT, instead - A habit that a seasoned gunman should never break! Yes, I know of law enforcement personnel who have ND’d their firearms. I, also, know about several children of law enforcement personnel who have ND’d a parent’s firearm, too! (One of these children survived his, ‘ND event’; and his father brought him to me for training. I turned that young man into an excellent rifleman. When he graduated college and got his commission he told me that several of the Army's rifle range instructors had asked him, ‘Where’ he learned to shoot like that!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NMOFT View Post
The point is complacency kills. And complacency is what causes ND’s, not carry mode. And people that habitually carry such as LEO’s will be more vulnerable to complacency than most others.

It seems to me that those with the C3 mindset view pistols as either “safe” to carry or “unsafe” based on whether or not the chamber is loaded. The C3 mindset seems to be “if my carry piece is unloaded I can still make a mistake and not suffer an ND". This breeds complacency and violates one of the four basic rules of gun handling, i.e. “treat all guns as if they are loaded at all times”. You might protest that you do that anyway. Well, if that’s so, then you are just as safe carrying in C1 as in C3.
Nope! I do not agree with the above statement. It might read well on the Internet; but it doesn’t truly reflect reality. Complacency does kill; BUT, the various factors entailed in complacency with a gun are too numerous to support the assertion that the method and mode of carry are not involved. Method and mode of carry ARE both involved! So are mechanical anomalies inherent to the gun, mental lapses in a user’s concentration, and personal physical failures to (consistently) perform as expected. All of these deviations from, ‘life in a perfect world’ can be, and usually are, offset by carrying a pistol in C-3.

Personally, I do not consider anyone who regularly carries his semiautomatic pistol in C-3 to be, ‘less of a man’; BUT, at the same time, I know a whole lot of other people who do. Neither do I consider such a person to be, ‘less ready’ to skillfully defend himself. I’m not just, ‘talking out of my hat', either. I spend a lot of time on isolated public firing ranges. Murders have occurred at some of these ranges! Not being, ‘the new kid on the block’ I do worry about who’s going to be there or show up while I’m using the range. Know what?

THE BRUTAL TRUTH IS THAT IF YOU’RE GOING TO GET IT, YOU’RE GOING TO GET IT; AND THE FACT THAT YOU ARE IN C-1, OR C-3; HAVE TWO GUNS ON YOUR PERSON; OR, ‘CAN SHOOT WITH THE BEST OF THEM’ IS NOT GOING TO SAVE YOU!

Me? I’d rather be lucky; I’d rather be alert; I’d rather possess that unique (perhaps, ‘seasoned’) ability to suddenly, ‘switch mental gears’ and instantly surpass psychological, ‘fright mode’ and pass into a smooth, ‘killing mode’ rather than to just walk around like a thoughtless, inconsiderate, and well-armed goofball who has deluded himself into believing that he’s safer because he’s in C-1.

In my experience NOTHING could be farther from the truth! In varying degrees everyman, ‘walks with God’; some walk more; and some walk less. In the end, however, (and as unpleasant a reality it may be to the conscious mind) NONE of us are actually, ‘masters of our own souls’. We, all, ‘play the percentages’; and, at least to my mind, C-3 carry of a semiautomatic weapon is a safer, more considerate, ‘bet’ for civilian everyday carry. C-3 carry involves far less uncertainty and risk than C-1 carry ever would, or could.

I’ve got a lifetime of shooting experience that has taught me: It’s not how fast you come out of the holster; it’s not how quick you are to fire; using one hand, or two hands does not matter, either. It’s how well - how, 'squarely' - you place your muzzle on COM and take those first two or three shots that really counts. All of these things said:

THERE IS NO ADEQUATE DEFENSE AGAINST SOMEONE WHO EITHER SHOOTS YOU IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD, OR HAS HIS GUN OUT, AND GOING, BEFORE YOU DO.

In this regard every single one of us, ‘walks with God’; and neither C-1, nor C-3 carry is going to have anything to do with the outcome of such a catastrophic event.

Last edited by Arc Angel; 02-08-2013 at 21:50..
Arc Angel is offline  
Old 02-07-2013, 07:33   #255
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,628


Quote:
Originally Posted by unit1069 View Post
It's an issue that will never be definitively resolved until technology produces the firearm that eliminates human error. And because sensible people understand how counter-intuitive it is to carry a deadly weapon outside one's comfort level it's always going to be an individual choice.

Just my take on it, but most ND's occur because someone thought there was not a round in the chamber.

Human faults will never be a 0% possibility. There's a quote out there about people designing fool proof systems underestimating the ingenuity of fools.

The guns are fine, it's people that need to be tweaked.

Carry one in the chamber, carry without one in the chamber, carry with no cartridges at all, don't carry at all, it's a personal choice, do what you think is beat and let everyone else do the same.

Problem solved.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-07-2013, 08:38   #256
RichardB
Silver Membership
Senior Member
 
RichardB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 1,438
Arch Angel,

Amen. If I don't have the time or wits to rack my slide back I wasn't meant to win that day.
__________________
Richard

“Food for thought is no substitute for the real thing”
RichardB is online now  
Old 02-07-2013, 08:40   #257
tnedator
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arc Angel View Post
Thank you for the compliment. (Not, 'left-handed' I hope!) I'm going to treat your reply with the respect that it deserves. (A lot!)

You’re first question specifically alludes to this; doesn’t it:


Notice that I did NOT say anything about people in the general public not going armed. THAT is, indeed, the Socialist, ‘New World Order’ party line. A politically contrived abrogation of my (previously hard won) Constitutional Second Amendment Rights - An abrogation that I find particularly onerous and most strenuously resent.

‘New World Order’ politicians and the highly organized (but covert) national, ‘news’ media continue to incessantly find more and more diabolical new ways, and more and more meticulously contrived excuses to attack, undermine, and further abrogate one of the most important personal safeguards the American public has - NOT just the right to, ‘bear arms’, but the (God-given) historically inherent, and presumably, ‘unalienable’ right of self-defense! (N-1)

My objection is to, ‘HOW’ a majority of relatively unskilled, and modestly trained civilians choose to go armed: To wit, IN THE MOST DANGEROUS PERSONAL MANNER POSSIBLE! Yes, it is my considered opinion that far too many civilians are walking around all day long in C-1 when THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NECESSITY WITHIN THEIR DAILY ROUTINES FOR THEM TO DO SO.

Are these people, ‘being cool’? Well, ...... I’ve never seen a flagrant open carrier who wasn’t trying his very best to be as, ‘cool’ as he is moronic; and my thinking is no different about civilians who insist upon routine C-1 semi-auto carry. (I spend a lot of time on public firing lines; and much of what I've seen has, probably, helped to turn my hair white!)

The social guideline is a simple one: ‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.’ If a legal gun owner wants to advertise his Second Amendment Rights then, rather than flagrantly sporting a dangerous and deadly weapon on his hip, WEAR A T-SHIRT, CARRY A PLACARD, OR HAND OUT COPIES OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, AND THE BILL-OF-RIGHTS. Don’t run around the local shopping mall scaring, ‘the bejesus’ out of everybody else’s: moms, dads, children, and the elderly - That’s neither socially polite, nor intellectually indicative of the best Judeo-Christian ethics have to offer.

Now, if I’m reading you correct your second question touches on your first, and is offered in regard to my above final comment:



Let me try to put things into a more pertinent (and intended) perspective: I’m an individual who has carried at least one pistol, everywhere I go, 24 hours a day, and for the better part of two decades now. ‘Why’? Simple! I’ve previously been attacked; and, as another member of this board once (rather cleverly) pointed out: ‘The devil sends more trouble some people’s way than others.’ Apparently, and for whatever reasons, I appear to be one of those people.

Once I was attacked inside my own home; and, again, twice I’ve been attacked while outside on the property. In the in-home incident I was unarmed; and our Pit Bulldogs came to my rescue. In the other two outside incidents I was heavily armed; and I had to draw a pistol in order to defend myself from impending serious harm.

This should tell you that I, personally, would be among the very last of people to ever proscribe any honest, law abiding individual from going armed. What I’m questioning is THE MANNER in which armed semiautomatic carry is customarily (and habitually) done by the general public. (N-2)

Your questions put me in a position where I have to consider breaking one of my own (albeit recently acquired) rules. After the obscene (albeit continuingly suspicious) gun massacre at Newtown, CT I promised myself that I would never again post any comment on the Internet that teaches someone out in the general public how to be better with, or to more skillfully handle, a combat handgun. (I don’t usually write about rifles. I certainly could; but, I don’t.) You have, however, raised a valid and important objection. This one time I’m going to answer it. You have said:



I’m going to tell you now that: IF YOU HOLD TO THIS LINE-OF-REASONING - this erroneous personal gunfighting philosophy - then your chances of being seriously wounded, or killed, during your next armed encounter are NOTHING SHORT OF ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT!

Let me ask you this: 'What are you waiting for?' You watch police dash cam videos on television; right! When was the last time you saw a professionally trained police officer hesitate to draw his service pistol THE MOMENT HE REALIZED THAT HE MIGHT BE IN TROUBLE? In hundreds, if not thousands, of televised, real world, police programs I’ve never seen any such lapse in any police officer's personal security occur. (Just the opposite, actually!)

If you want to stay alive, you do NOT wait for an actor to get within arm’s reach of you. You carefully watch his hands; and, ideally, you make yourself ready-to-act at between 12 and 15 yards’ distance. (Don’t be shy about loudly warning a possible attacker off, either!) Anyone who waits until a half second’s time becomes critical has, in my carefully considered opinion, WAITED TOO LONG! Your most viable self-defense plan should have been, both, formulated and put into action LONG BEFORE, ‘arm’s reach and that last critical half second’ has arrived.

Personally, I don’t give a, ‘tinker’s damn’ about what, ‘they’ are teaching in today’s self-defense classes. While all of these classes are (I am certain.) fun and entertaining; as far as I’m concerned there are only three handgun self-defense classes I’d ever have any interest, whatsoever, in attending. I’d definitely be willing to study with and listen to: Dave Spaulding, D.R. Middlebrooks, and Louis Chiodo; but, that’s about it! As far as I’m concerned everybody else is actually in the entertainment business and is teaching CQB self-defense and pistol combat from, ‘behind the curve’. (N-3)

A more correct restatement of the remark, ‘The fact that the vast majority of armed encounters are very short distances.’ would be, ‘The fact is that the vast majority of armed encounters WHICH THE GOOD GUYS LOSE occur at very short distances.' I’m telling you, here, that if you end up grappling for your life inside an instantaneous CQB knife or pistol ambush, then, more than likely,

IT’S GOING TO BE YOUR OWN FAULT!

What is more, the usual Internet rational for going around all day long with your semiautomatic pistol in C-1, and exposing absolutely everyone - including yourself - to potential harm is most typically given as: In order to be supremely ready for just such a highly unlikely ambush attempt! (An ambush attempt, I might add, for which more than 90% of the, ‘Glockeroos’ out there are - as you, now, know - only very poorly prepared to defend themselves against.) (N-4), (N-5)

I hope I’ve satisfactorily answered your question.

NOTES:

(N-1) ‘Unalienable’, Thomas Jefferson’s careful choice-of-words, not mine! I would have used, ‘inalienable’; but, for reasons known only to himself, Jefferson chose to reintroduce this archaic word back into the English language from earlier 16th and 17th century usage.)

(N-2) For the neophytes and mentally confused: A revolver is NOT ever carried in C-1. Only a semiautomatic pistol can be carried that way; and for those who insist there is no difference between carrying a modern revolver with a fully loaded cylinder, and a C-1 Glock, ...... well, these guys have been spending too much time on the Internet. REVOLVERS DO NOT HAVE 74% + PRETENSIONED TRIGGER MECHANISMS!

(N-3) If Jim Cirillo were still alive I would have included him in this list, too.

(N-4) Don’t tell me about what police officers do, either. Uniformed police officers use, ‘Level Three’ high security holsters - NOT the open-topped, lightly secured holster designs that most of us who go about, ‘in mufti’ all day long prefer to use. An open-topped holster, and a minimally-secured pistol that’s, also, carried in C-1, all, lead up to only one thing: Thee most potentially volatile manner in which a civilian might holster and carry a semiautomatic combat handgun.

(N-5) I use the term, ‘combat handgun’ because that’s actually what it is; and, one more time, at the very least I think C-3 is how members of the general public should routinely carry their semiautomatic pistols! I've been able to survive, twice now, doing it; other competent and knowing gunmen should be able to do it, too.

About to run out the door, so don't have time to break it down, but will just add three more points.

First, I fully agree that far too many people carrying are under-trained in my opinion. While not supported by most gun owners, and certainly not the gun owners that frequent GT and other forums, I think we should have a nationally recognized concealed carry license, BUT that it should require much more training (multi-day, lot's of hands on/range/tactics).

Second, I was not inferring that you were saying nobody should carry or be allowed to carry. Instead, I was simply saying that the logic used to defend not having a weapon prepared for a self defense situation (C1), which is that most people will never have to defend themselves in their lifetime, is the same argument that the anti-gun crowd uses as the reason why nobody should be carrying period. Personally, I don't know why people carry a concealed weapon if it isn't with the sole purpose of defending themselves if that one in a million attack is on them.

Third, as to drawing too late and using the dash cams as evidence. While I commend, even when disagreeing, with most of your comments, in this one, I think you are way off base and making a dangerous and non-reality based argument.

Police have been given far greater latitude in their ability to draw (brandish if you will) a weapon, especially in situations where they are making a traffic stop or in some other way temporarily detailing someone, as compared to the ability for regular civilians to draw their weapon.

The bar is very high for citizens to draw and brandish a handgun. In many, if not most, states the bar for brandishing a weapon is the same or roughly the same as firing it in self defense. In many, if not most, states it is aggravated assault or something similar and is a felony and sometimes a minimum prison sentence.

So, the law has already put the honest, law abiding citizen "behind the curve."

I've posted elsewhere the importance of situational awareness and trying to to allow yourself to be put in a situation where you have a close encounter, but the fact is that it isn't always under our control. We can't pull a gun on every person that looks dodgy that is about to pass us on the street. Fact is that if you are going to be mugged/robbed the person likely will not draw their weapon, make it clear until they are only feet away. They aren't going to stand 20' away (forget 15-20 yards), pull their knife and say, "throw your wallet on the ground or i'm gonna come over there and take it from you."

There is no question that part of that awareness is to switch to the others side of the street if you see someone that you believe could be a bad guy, or take an alternate route. If someone suspicious is approaching them, you can and should loudly ask them what they want, tell them not to approach, etc. However, that simply doesn't come close to covering every situation, such as walking down a street and having someone pop out of a darkened entrance way, out between two cars or any one of hundreds of other examples I could give.

So, while we all need to do our best to avoid putting ourselves in the situation of having a close encounter, the fact is that's what is likely to happen if in that VERY rare circumstance we have to draw a gun to defend ourselves.

As such, as responsible gun owners with concealed carry permits that are carrying a gun in a responsible way, we should be trained (as well as possible) to defend ourselves in the manner we are most likely to be attacked, which on the street is in a very close encounter.

My point had nothing to do with entertainment or some "cool" notion of gunfighting, ti was pointing out the reality, which is that it's far more likely that the issue with chambering a round will not relate to the .5 seconds it takes, but the ability to use your weak hand to rack the slide, and it has nothing to do with it hanging limp from being shot (the example you gave and discounted as unrealistic).
__________________
NRA Benefactor - Life Member

Last edited by tnedator; 02-07-2013 at 08:42..
tnedator is offline  
Old 02-07-2013, 15:23   #258
NMOFT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 121
Final Points. (for me)

1. Safety is not a mechanical device it is an attitude backed up with good habits.
2. If you treat all firearms as if they are always loaded all the time then it doesn’t matter if the mechanical device that blocks the firing mechanism is engaged or not.
3. “Complacency Kills” is not an internet cliché, it’s a literal truth and I’ve seen it happen it the most literal way possible
4. No matter how many times you’ve had the discussion safety is always worth discussing.
5. Some of you don’t post responses, you write novels.
6. I wish I could take some of you guys to work with me. You might gain a whole new perspective on safety and you’d probably have a pretty good time as well.
NMOFT is offline  
Old 02-07-2013, 16:29   #259
SpitFyRRe
Bang Bang
 
SpitFyRRe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Field of Riches, MN
Posts: 302
I always always always have one in the chamber when I carry. When you need your gun, seconds can mean the difference between life and death.

If I need my gun right then, I don't want to have to pull the gun out then fumble as I rack the slide. I would rather be able to pull the gun out and start firing if needed.

Personal preference is all.
__________________
Expecting a criminal to care that his gun is illegal is like expecting a terrorist to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces.
SpitFyRRe is offline  
Old 02-07-2013, 17:53   #260
Arc Angel
Deus Vult!
 
Arc Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 10,956
Blog Entries: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardB View Post
Arc Angel,

Amen. If I don't have the time or wits to rack my slide back I wasn't meant to win that day.
I see you understand!

Still, it's that nagging doubt that SHOULD always be, 'rubbing away at the back of your mind' that will keep you sharp and prevent you from becoming either distracted or complacent. (Two of the three outstanding personal attributes that every predator always looks for! The third, of course, being any perceived weakness in an intended victim.)

As for, 'time and wits'? I'd suggest you never forget that, in addition to your hands, you've, also, got your feet; and the other guy always has knees. Whenever there's no time to do anything else, first thing, get off the other guy's vertical body centerline. Then - somehow, someway - disrupt the other guy's balance and clear yourself from any weapon BEFORE completing your, 'reply'.

At CQB distances savvy gunfighting is exactly the same thing as good knife fighting technique; AND, considering the prerequisite level of personal skill, methodology, and necessary acquired reflexes, skillful infighting techniques are next to impossible to teach during one of these 3-5 day handgun self-defense courses!

In all fairness to many of the shooting schools, though: At CQB distances it makes more sense to simply teach a typical student how to defend himself by shooting his pistol from high retention (As nutty as it is!) than it does to attempt to teach someone how to minimize his body's silhouette, and become a much more difficult-to-hit physical target BEFORE beginning to, 'reply'. (Paper doesn't shoot back, isn't evasive, and is only rarely moving! It, also, doesn’t require, ‘squat’ in order to get someone shooting quickly from, literally, under his nose! Hence the true origin of, self-defense shooting, ‘from high retention’.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
…… First, I fully agree that far too many people carrying are under-trained in my opinion. While not supported by most gun owners, and certainly not the gun owners that frequent GT and other forums, I think we should have a nationally recognized concealed carry license, BUT that it should require much more training (multi-day, lot's of hands on/range/tactics).
You are soooo ….. right! At risk of exposing my age and acquired doubtful nature: I, personally, believe that antithetical, anti-Second Amendment politicians - Who realize that they will not succeed in preventing people from exercising their Second Amendment rights - actually encourage and allow these incredibly lax gun laws to pass through the legislation process in order to foster safety problems among all of their fellow citizens who insist upon carrying deadly weapons. Sometimes, after a long day at the range, I’ll think to myself that it’s, actually, amazing more of us don’t end up by, ‘shooting ourselves or each other in the foot’, so to speak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Second, I was not inferring that you were saying nobody should carry or be allowed to carry. Instead, I was simply saying that the logic used to defend not having a weapon prepared for a self defense situation (C1), which is that most people will never have to defend themselves in their lifetime, is the same argument that the anti-gun crowd uses as the reason why nobody should be carrying period. Personally, I don't know why people carry a concealed weapon if it isn't with the sole purpose of defending themselves if that one in a million attack is on them.
OK, got ya! Nevertheless, crime in the United States has never been greater; street gangs (drug gangs) have never been more numerous, or covered as much territory; and as long as: crime, drug abuse, and sexual license continue to escalate among the American population, then, more and more Americans are going to need to, AT LEAST, have effective means of self-defense immediately available to them.

Ironically - and I do mean IRONICALLY - it’s often these very same politicians that are so anxious to disarm America who are, simultaneously, responsible for allowing numerous adverse social factors and lax laws to exist! Aberrant social situations, (e.g.: out-of-control illegal immigration) and weak or unenforced laws which both actively contribute to, or actually increase: the growing number of criminals, the growing number of crimes, and the corresponding increases in increasingly depressed, increasingly violent, and increasingly unstable, socio-economic living conditions, e.g.; Large American cities like: Detroit, Trenton, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia.

I live in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Who in their right mind would want to travel to Philly without wearing a gun? Paradoxically, though, Philadelphia politicians are among the most staunchly anti-Second Amendment politicos in America today! Far from being, ‘The birthplace Of The Nation’, Philadelphia, today, is more of an absolute caricature of what the American nation was, originally, intended to be.

Which should tell any thinking human being that all of these incessant political calls to disarm America - To stop, ‘gun violence’ - are, in reality, nothing more than a tacit admission that we have failed as a national society, and Western civilization’s great experiment in forming a democratic republic has, ...... failed!

Getting rid of guns, and severely limiting their use and effectiveness is NOT going to stop violence - Not at all! Instead, all that’s going to happen here is what the news media presently refers to as, ‘gun violence’ will simply morph into some other form of painful and bloody social terror. The problem really truly isn’t with guns; the real problem is with people and what’s going on inside of their godless reprobate heads. Getting rid of guns didn’t solve any of Great Britain’s social ills. Boycotting numerous firearms only made things worse; and, if the same dumbass logic is applied, here, in America then we may only expect things to get even worse here, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Third, as to drawing too late and using the dash cams as evidence. While I commend, even when disagreeing, with most of your comments, in this one, I think you are way off base and making a dangerous and non-reality based argument.
Ahh, I never said that! In fact I didn’t even mean to imply it, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Police have been given far greater latitude in their ability to draw (brandish if you will) a weapon, especially in situations where they are making a traffic stop or in some other way temporarily detailing someone, as compared to the ability for regular civilians to draw their weapon.

The bar is very high for citizens to draw and brandish a handgun. In many, if not most, states the bar for brandishing a weapon is the same or roughly the same as firing it in self defense. In many, if not most, states it is aggravated assault or something similar and is a felony and sometimes a minimum prison sentence.

So, the law has already put the honest, law abiding citizen "behind the curve."
Spot on! We are in complete agreement. There is a double legal standard which all American courts that I know of don’t hesitate to apply with supremely indifferent duplicity: One far more pragmatic (and lenient) standard for using firearms is applied to law enforcement, and another radically different, much more stringently interpreted, and far less useful standard for displaying or using firearms is applied to armed citizens among the general population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
I've posted elsewhere the importance of situational awareness and trying to allow yourself to be put in a situation where you have a close encounter, but the fact is that it isn't always under our control. We can't pull a gun on every person that looks dodgy that is about to pass us on the street. Fact is that if you are going to be mugged/robbed the person likely will not draw their weapon, make it clear until they are only feet away. They aren't going to stand 20' away (forget 15-20 yards), pull their knife and say, "throw your wallet on the ground or I'm gonna come over there and take it from you."
In my experience it isn’t necessary to, ‘pull a gun’ on everyone who looks dodgy. Usually, it’s more than sufficient to simply let them know that you’re aware, and are watching them. (Dodgy people tend to be cowards-at-heart; and it’s often enough to make them aware that whatever they have in mind isn’t going to be, either, easy or worth it.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
There is no question that part of that awareness is to switch to the other side of the street if you see someone that you believe could be a bad guy, or take an alternate route. If someone suspicious is approaching them, you can and should loudly ask them what they want, tell them not to approach, etc. However, that simply doesn't come close to covering every situation, such as walking down a street and having someone pop out of a darkened entrance way, out between two cars or any one of hundreds of other examples I could give.
Changing direction, or the speed at which you move are always good, ‘opening moves’. So, is loudly voicing your concern and verbally making your intentions clear. (You got that right out of the NRA self-defense manual; didn’t you!) I’ve already alluded to the concept that whether a man wants to, or not, ‘We, all, walk with God.’ That’s, ‘Why’ The Lord’s Prayer includes the words, ‘And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil’. Let me ask this: Between carrying my pistol in C-1, or repeating The Lord’s Prayer to myself everyday, and carrying in C-3 which practice do you think is going to keep me the most safe?

If it’s your time then it’s your time. The only reason, ‘Why’ I’m writing this right now is, try as they might, the doctors weren’t able to finish me off back in 2009. They did their damnedest; but, it wasn’t yet my time. All their efforts to, ‘heal’ me failed; and, finally, I made a miraculous recovery all by myself - One that a leading cardiologist who was reading my most recent test results remarked, ‘I don’t know what to say?’ ‘We don’t usually see this!’ I, however, knew exactly what to say; and I replied, ‘It’s not my time, yet; is it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
So, while we all need to do our best to avoid putting ourselves in the situation of having a close encounter, the fact is that's what is likely to happen if in that VERY rare circumstance we have to draw a gun to defend ourselves.
To get back to the original topic: Quite honestly I have no valid reason to feel disadvantaged by the way in which I usually carry my (C-3) pistol - No disadvantage at all. I have a whole regimen, a personal manual of arms, that I live by. I may be in C-3; but I never seatbelt my jacket or cover garment lapel over my gun. I tend to wear my pistol, forward, so that I’ll be just that much faster if I have to reach for it. I, also, keep a BUG readily available to my support arm and/or in an outside coat pocket if I’m forced to close my coat; etc., etc., etc.

(I suspect you’d be amazed at how well I watch out for myself, and move about as I go through what most people watching me would imagine to be the, 'normal behaviors' of a, ‘normal day'.)

On the Internet everybody talks like C-1 carry is the, ‘end all’ and, ‘be all’ of getting ready for a sudden, ‘ambush moment’. Trust me on this: C-1 carry is only one small part of being ready to defend yourself with a semi-auto; AND, in the real world, C-1 carry is NOT the most important thing a self-defense gunman needs to do in order to make and keep himself, ‘good-to-go’.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
As such, as responsible gun owners with concealed carry permits that are carrying a gun in a responsible way, we should be trained (as well as possible) to defend ourselves in the manner we are most likely to be attacked, which on the street is in a very close encounter.
While I will admit to a certain personal prescience, at the same time I can’t imagine what it must be like to be that psychic. Quite frankly I don’t think of myself as a, ‘responsible gun owner’. Instead, I think of myself as a, ‘morally-inclined gunman’. Accepting responsibility is fine; but, personally, I’ve always been more concerned about doing the right thing (the Christian thing). In fact, doing the, ‘Christian thing’ occupies a great deal of my life. I’m only going to be here for a little while longer; and concepts like the, ‘Golden Rule’ are of increased importance to me. I honestly believe and appreciate that I should, ‘Do unto others as I would have others do unto me.’ As I’ve previously explained: This is one of the reasons, ‘Why’ I extend the courtesy of CONCEALED C-3 CARRY to everyone with whom I come into daily contact. (Even the, ‘bad guys’!)

As for, 'responsible gun ownership'? I've got an entire lifetime (replete with a few mistakes) that - far from being just safety rules - are actually thoroughly inculcated GUN HANDLING HABITS. Hard won experience has taught me the folly of trying to be safe with a gun by following a bunch of memorized rules. A good memory is only marginally able to keep someone safe with a gun. On the other hand, impeccable gun handling habits - which a gun owner/user is emotionally unwilling to break - will always be the best and the most responsible way to properly handle and use a gun. Should I get into a sudden ambush type of CQB gunfight, I'm not going to be the one doing the shooting; my proprioceptive reflexes - MY HABITS - are what the other guy is going to be confronting!

(Which brings up that other great perennial argument about, 'fight or flight' physiological responses; but, that's a whole other topic for another controversial thread!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
My point had nothing to do with entertainment or some "cool" notion of gunfighting, I was pointing out the reality, which is that it's far more likely that the issue with chambering a round will not relate to the .5 seconds it takes, but the ability to use your weak hand to rack the slide, and it has nothing to do with it hanging limp from being shot (the example you gave and discounted as unrealistic).
I know. The remark wasn’t really aimed at you. It’s based more on my general experience with arguing this subject - Which, quite frankly, seems to have more lives than the little gray jungle cat that, at the moment, is sleeping next to me on the desk!

That's it! I'm done.

Last edited by Arc Angel; 02-07-2013 at 18:12..
Arc Angel is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:04.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 650
147 Members
503 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31