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 03-04-2013, 03:36   #551
Smooth_squeeze
CM9 - big bite
 
Smooth_squeeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gills63 View Post
Who cares if other people don't want to carry in C1? Its there choice. Racking a slide doesn't take very long. I preferred not to carry in C1 when I was carrying in a pocket holster and the gun didn't have an external safety. I no longer carry that setup, but I did. In my experience, accidents are more likely to involve those who don't respect the what ifs. A related thought is why do some guns have a safety?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Carrying in C1 or not, heck, why even have a mag full of cartridges in the gun, that presents its own problems. Just require that people carry their gun unloaded but allow them to have a loaded magazine close by, so they can do a quick mag insert, and rack the slide to get on with business. (Admittedly, being even allowed to carry a gun concealed or in the open is not yet allowed to law abiding citizens in the state of Illinois, although a 3 judge panel of the Federal courts struck down the Illinois law and gave them 6 months to come up with a concealed carry law, but I digress.) To be even safer, if safety is of the utmost concern, why not require carrying the gun in a zippered pouch, and the mags in another zippered pouch, to be absolutely positively certain there won't be an ND, at least until said mag is inserted into the gun. There are those who advocate such stuff.

As to why some guns have a safety... plenty of reasons. Safeties reduce the chances of having a gun go off when dropped, of if the carrier stumbles, and so on. There are also some circumstances where having a manual, on-off safety on a gun can be very good. One of the best reasons I've read has to do with those on SEAL teams, or similar teams, who have to board hostile ships by rope, for instance. Even with a DA action trigger like the one on the SIG, it's possible when falling to get an AD (ND might not even be the issue, we could open a can of worms here ). I'm not opposed to having a safety on a gun, although the sheer simplicity of the Glock 3-automatic safeties is excellent. On a self-defense handgun, in the stress of an attack, having the safety on and not realizing it can be life threatening. Chalk one up for Glock on that score. Ditto for FN Herstal, at least on the FNP-45, which has a long, heavy DA and crisp SA, with a separate safety too, if one wishes to engage it.

Besides that, why have a safety on a gun? Well, it can potentially reduce accidents if an unknowing third party gets ahold of the gun. Not supposed to happen, I know, but those things do happen. We don't live in a perfect world.
Smooth_squeeze is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 03:47   #552
happyguy
Na Ben Don Chat
 
happyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 14,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by vandros View Post
Agreed. Extensive training is absolutely lacking today. In some states, no training/exam is required - just shove the gun in your pants and you got yourself a ccw.
This is how it is here and has been for quite awhile. The State needs to keep its nose out and individuals need to be held accountable for their actions.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy
__________________
"Success isn't a result of spontaneous combustion. You have to set yourself on fire." - Arnold H. Glasgow
happyguy is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 06:03   #553
tnedator
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911pro View Post
If you are a gun person you should hold yourself to a higher standard.
And a lot do, by going to training or safety courses that are not mandated in any way.

However, that is a lot different than saying that the minimum qualification level for obtaining a CCL should be higher than most police departments require for their officers.
__________________
NRA Benefactor - Life Member
tnedator is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 06:32   #554
1911pro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
And a lot do, by going to training or safety courses that are not mandated in any way.

However, that is a lot different than saying that the minimum qualification level for obtaining a CCL should be higher than most police departments require for their officers.
Like I said before. Maybe not a pass or fail, but make them run the coarse and realize this is the type of training that will help you in the real world. Most would do well. I agree with your earlier posts about more training.
1911pro is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 06:37   #555
SouthernBoyVA
Senior Member
 
SouthernBoyVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Western Prince William County, VA
Posts: 2,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911pro View Post
It is in the end your choice to make. I believe all who carry a firearm should be competent enough and vigilant enough to carry with a round it the chamber. Should there be more strict standards to get a CCW permit? YES! I really had never thought that anyone would CC a firearm for personal defense with an empty chamber. Thank you for opening my eyes to this.
While this comes up somewhat frequently, it also runs up against a bit of a problem.... infringement. At what point does requiring training to some acceptable level become infringement? And is a requirement for training of any kind an infringement?

In the strict sense, any impediment to the ownership, bearing, and use of a firearm is an infringement, with the exception of those who should not possess firearms. So this is a bit of a slippery slope which if left to its own devices, could become much more than an infringement.

And then there is the issue of open carry. No training requirements there since in many states, that is the normal mode of carry (i.e. standard or default mode).

This does pose a bit of a dilemma in that on the one hand, many (most?) people want to impose some level of training on those who wish to carry concealed for the "common good" while others balk at any restrictions on exercising one of their most fundamental rights.

A whole other issue perhaps better left to another thread.
__________________
In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?
SouthernBoyVA is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 06:45   #556
1911pro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernBoyVA View Post
While this comes up somewhat frequently, it also runs up against a bit of a problem.... infringement. At what point does requiring training to some acceptable level become infringement? And is a requirement for training of any kind an infringement?

In the strict sense, any impediment to the ownership, bearing, and use of a firearm is an infringement, with the exception of those who should not possess firearms. So this is a bit of a slippery slope which if left to its own devices, could become much more than an infringement.

And then there is the issue of open carry. No training requirements there since in many states, that is the normal mode of carry (i.e. standard or default mode).

This does pose a bit of a dilemma in that on the one hand, many (most?) people want to impose some level of training on those who wish to carry concealed for the "common good" while others balk at any restrictions on exercising one of their most fundamental rights.

A whole other issue perhaps better left to another thread.
100% agree. I just wish everyone would seek out training on their own. I realize this is never going to happen with most.

Last edited by 1911pro; 03-04-2013 at 06:48..
1911pro is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 07:18   #557
Smooth_squeeze
CM9 - big bite
 
Smooth_squeeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911pro View Post
100% agree. I just wish everyone would seek out training on their own. I realize this is never going to happen with most.
While I have sought out training, and taken part in it, and practice regularly, nevertheless I have a good number of friends who haven't. They have a CCW, too. Much as I might wish they would go for training, it hasn't happened. Should they be then be deprived of a CCW just because they haven't spent a lot of time with folks who train, and earn their livelihood at it? Of course not.

Some months ago I was shooting at an indoor range, and there were a few young fellows who were shooting so-so, and the local fellow who gives lessons/training was all over them trying to get them to sign up for his training sessions. It was almost vulture-like. Would it help them? I'm sure it would. Nevertheless, after plunking down a lot of money with someone for lessons, I'm not so sure they'd think their money would be well spent.

IMHO, if someone is really serious about getting better, they'll probably sign up, or find a friend who is an instructor, or could easily become one if they went through the certification process. I have several such friends, and they freely dispense their advice to friends. After all, they're friends. Also, not all advice is good.....

And instructors do vary in their approach to many different topics.

Having a certified instructor as a friend and shooting buddy is great. Have to say though that having an Army Ranger sniper to teach me has been even better. No, let me rephrase that, it's been waaaaaay better.

I think a lot of the training stuff will be sought out by those who really want to learn. Making it a requirement though could well be a slippery slope.
Smooth_squeeze is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 07:18   #558
ModGlock17
Senior Member
 
ModGlock17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lalaland USA
Posts: 2,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smooth_squeeze View Post

Even with a DA action trigger like the one on the SIG, it's possible when falling to get an AD (ND might not even be the issue, we could open a can of worms here ). I'm not opposed to having a safety on a gun, although the sheer simplicity of the Glock 3-automatic safeties is excellent. On a self-defense handgun, in the stress of an attack, having the safety on and not realizing it can be life threatening. Chalk one up for Glock on that score. ...

Besides that, why have a safety on a gun? Well, it can potentially reduce accidents if an unknowing third party gets ahold of the gun. ....
Without the Glock design, I doubt if we even have this long winded discussion about C1 or C3. Thee is no impediment to firing a round once the finger, or anything, enters inside the trigger guard. While some view that ready-to-fire as a weakness, Glock manages to tout that as a "feature". Some have bought that argument, but our Armed Forces have not.

Police forces use Glocks, so you have their stats on ND. What we really need is stats on ND for SigSauerP226 and Beretta M9, per capita.

I carry a Glock with nothing in chamber, but I would carry an M9 with one in chamber. The time it takes to cock an M9 hammer is about the same, for me, as racking the slide on Glocks. The heavier DA on an M9 and a P226 is sufficient safety for anything unintentional that gets inside trigger guard. But then... I'm not living in Afghanistan nor am I a Mob target.

I think you've pointed out what this discussion lacks: the merit of C1 and C3 on a non-Glock design, for civilian carry, law abiding civilian that is.
ModGlock17 is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 07:24   #559
ModGlock17
Senior Member
 
ModGlock17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lalaland USA
Posts: 2,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911pro View Post
100% agree. I just wish everyone would seek out training on their own. I realize this is never going to happen with most.
Good point for freedom!

Just to point out another view, are we comfortable handing our driver licenses to young pups WITHOUT proof of successful completion of a driving school ???

Food for thoughts. It's a direct similarity. There are many young-pup likes, I'm sure you've seen them, at the guns counter for the first time.
ModGlock17 is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 07:46   #560
vandros
10mm fan
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: southwest
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyguy View Post
This is how it is here and has been for quite awhile. The State needs to keep its nose out and individuals need to be held accountable for their actions.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. But, this is a discussion for another day, my friend.
__________________
glock 4 gun; strider 4 knife
vandros is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 07:50   #561
Smooth_squeeze
CM9 - big bite
 
Smooth_squeeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModGlock17 View Post
Without the Glock design, I doubt if we even have this long winded discussion about C1 or C3. Thee is no impediment to firing a round once the finger, or anything, enters inside the trigger guard. While some view that ready-to-fire as a weakness, Glock manages to tout that as a "feature". Some have bought that argument, but our Armed Forces have not.

Police forces use Glocks, so you have their stats on ND. What we really need is stats on ND for SigSauerP226 and Beretta M9, per capita.

I carry a Glock with nothing in chamber, but I would carry an M9 with one in chamber. The time it takes to cock an M9 hammer is about the same, for me, as racking the slide on Glocks. The heavier DA on an M9 and a P226 is sufficient safety for anything unintentional that gets inside trigger guard. But then... I'm not living in Afghanistan nor am I a Mob target.

I think you've pointed out what this discussion lacks: the merit of C1 and C3 on a non-Glock design, for civilian carry, law abiding civilian that is.
Thank you for such an interesting post.


My Army Ranger sniper friend has quite a few pistols. A bunch of Glocks, also various 1911 variants in 45. His Glocks are mostly, if not all, in 9mm.

He was required to carry a pistol, I forget which, not a Glock, may have been a Beretta. He carried it with one in the chamber, the hammer down, and the safety off.

What he really likes though are the Glocks. With a round chambered. He told me most of the Army guys he worked with agree with him on that. Anecdotal, I know. Still.....


I have an FNP-45. At my bedside or wherever it's always loaded with the hammer down, safety off. Heavy trigger pull on DA, a litte over 4 lbs on SA. Not as fast as my G17 drawing and firing from the leather, but more than adequate.

I think much of the to-do about the ND stuff is about folks who don't practice good weapons handling protocols. One must always be alert when handling any gun. That said, loading and unloading, racking the slide and so on, aren't a problem if one keeps the finger out of the trigger guard, points the weapon in a safe direction when loading/unloading, etc. I could do it in the dark, blindfolded, and also swap mags blindfolded, without a problem. Not difficult, at all. Am I special?? Definitely not.
Smooth_squeeze is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 07:58   #562
Smooth_squeeze
CM9 - big bite
 
Smooth_squeeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModGlock17 View Post
Good point for freedom!

Just to point out another view, are we comfortable handing our driver licenses to young pups WITHOUT proof of successful completion of a driving school ???

Food for thoughts. It's a direct similarity. There are many young-pup likes, I'm sure you've seen them, at the guns counter for the first time.
Without proof of driving school?? Back when I got my license at 16, driving school was not a requirement. Even though I took driver's ed in high school, and passed, and so on, when I took the driver's test the first time I was so nervous that I did stupid things, and failed it. Second time I passed. The driver's school didn't help me a bit, just made me feel good. However, after driving for a time, and having to take the test again when my license was up for renewal was the easiest thing. Aced it. The key was the practice, not the school, not the certificate, none of that extraneous stuff.

Today, so many are soooo into the safety thing that it makes me sick. We should all get a grip, and understand if we keep our knives sharp, every once in a while we might get cut a bit. So what, life's like that.

That said, a wicked sharp pocket knife and a gun are very different things. It doesn't matter how many courses someone takes to be safe with guns, and learn good weapons handling, and so on, if they are inattentive, or not alert, or have a lackadaisical attitude when handling firearms, they might just have a problem or two. If someone is careless with a gun, a problem can easily arise, and no amount of courses or permits or requirements can fix that.
Smooth_squeeze is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 07:59   #563
tnedator
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911pro View Post
Like I said before. Maybe not a pass or fail, but make them run the coarse and realize this is the type of training that will help you in the real world. Most would do well. I agree with your earlier posts about more training.
During Ayoob's MAG40, he has you run a qualification course that he put together. He basically put it together not based on one police/FBI qualification, but he sort of picked and chose the ones he thought most fit civilians (I think that's how he explained it).

If I remember correctly, you shot 60 rounds. We shot at varying distances from 4-15 yards, and various stances (one hand, weak hand, two hand, kneeling, squatting, standing).

If I remember correctly we were using B-27 targets (might have been 29, can't remember for sure, but it's what many police officers use to qualify).

My recollection is if every round was inside the inside the 7 ring, you would have a perfect score (300). In my case, I had one round miss the 7 ring by about 1/8", and everything else was 8 ring or better. I think 225 out of 300 was the passing mark, and I was 295 or something like that (I think it was a simple -5 points for each round outside the zone, but I might be remembering wrong, but I know I was in the low to mid 290's out of 300 and only missed one shot).

Anyway, my point being, something like that would be far more reasonable. It would be in line with many of the police qualification courses and recognizing this is a civilian qualification after 2-4 days of training.

A head shot at 25 yards is just a bit over the top for a CCL qualification, especially since nobody getting basic self defense/tactical training should be taught to attempt a head shot anyway.

Anyway, we are splitting hairs on the exact details, but I both think we agree that it would be good to have better training/qualifications for CCL's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernBoyVA View Post
While this comes up somewhat frequently, it also runs up against a bit of a problem.... infringement. At what point does requiring training to some acceptable level become infringement? And is a requirement for training of any kind an infringement?

In the strict sense, any impediment to the ownership, bearing, and use of a firearm is an infringement, with the exception of those who should not possess firearms. So this is a bit of a slippery slope which if left to its own devices, could become much more than an infringement.

And then there is the issue of open carry. No training requirements there since in many states, that is the normal mode of carry (i.e. standard or default mode).

This does pose a bit of a dilemma in that on the one hand, many (most?) people want to impose some level of training on those who wish to carry concealed for the "common good" while others balk at any restrictions on exercising one of their most fundamental rights.

A whole other issue perhaps better left to another thread.
Yes, it's a slippery slope, hence why I talking about the fear of it being a "path to single payer" which refers to small incremental infringements that would ultimately lead to VERY strict gun control, not just limits on CCL.

This is why I prefaced my comments on training with something about "if I wasn't afraid this would lead to further restrictions...."

Like you say, better for another thread.
__________________
NRA Benefactor - Life Member
tnedator is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 08:02   #564
SouthernBoyVA
Senior Member
 
SouthernBoyVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Western Prince William County, VA
Posts: 2,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911pro View Post
100% agree. I just wish everyone would seek out training on their own. I realize this is never going to happen with most.
All of the people with whom I associate who carry a sidearm have training of some kind and level, and some quite extensive. All take this very seriously. It is a bit of a predicament in that I'm sure most of us who consider ourselves part of the gun culture are very serious about this and want people who go about armed, to not only know how to use their sidearms properly and effectively, but also have a good handle on the laws of their resident states.

I know what I've done, and continue to do, to educate and prepare myself along these lines and that is what matters to me. If I had to choose between mandatory governmental required training to own and carry a firearm versus no training at all, I would go with the no training at all. I believe Section 13 of my state's constitution and the Second Amendment trumps any attempts at infringing upon my rights to keep and bear arms.
__________________
In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?
SouthernBoyVA is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 08:09   #565
ModGlock17
Senior Member
 
ModGlock17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lalaland USA
Posts: 2,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smooth_squeeze View Post
Without proof of driving school?? Back when I got my license at 16, driving school was not a requirement. ........
LOL. Did you ever shake the hand of Harry S Truman ? LOL

Just kidding.

Last edited by ModGlock17; 03-04-2013 at 08:09..
ModGlock17 is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 08:25   #566
Smooth_squeeze
CM9 - big bite
 
Smooth_squeeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModGlock17 View Post
LOL. Did you ever shake the hand of Harry S Truman ? LOL

Just kidding.
Harry Truman? Hmmm... thank you, young feller!!

No, I was still in High School when he died.

Let's see whose hand I shook way back when... when I was 4, I shook the hand of Santa Claus, at Famous and Barr in St. Louis. How's that?
Smooth_squeeze is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 08:28   #567
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 tnedator View Post
As you have stated you won't be replying in this thread again, I won't bother going through point by point and responding to your post to me. Clearly, your posting style does not appeal to me, and mine does not appeal to you. Kind of an oil and water thing, I suppose. ......
Naaa, that’s you trying to, ‘slip the lead’ again. I’ve decided you deserve another answer. (Feel free to address anything I’ve written in anyway you like. I don’t care!)

You, really, don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about - Do you! Because I owe it to this board, in general, and to you, in particular, I got more to say. (There’s just something about giving you, ‘unfettered intellectual rein’ that really annoys me.) For the sake of other family-orientated gun owners, like myself, I am, now, going to address your latest comments:

You’re still qualifying your assertions with the word, ‘routinely’. This modifier implies frequency; and most armed citizens I know don’t handle their pistols anywhere near as much as you insist upon asserting. Out in the real world these, ‘Nervous Nellie’ switching behaviors simply do not occur among people who are experienced gunmen, and licensed-to-carry, (‘LTCF’)

I ought to know. Over the years I’ve corresponded with dozens of these people, right here, on this board. (Where’s David Armstrong when you need him!) I’ve been carrying semi-automatic pistols in C-3 for more than 3 decades. So far, I haven’t had any sort of problem with my draw - My C-3 draw! Neither have I shot myself in the foot, yet!

I’ve, also, attended numerous IDPA matches where there was extensive gun-handling and manipulation. Yes, there were moments when I’ve watched pistol competitors push themselves hard; and, yes again, I did begin to become concerned that something might go wrong; BUT, in all these years, I’ve never seen someone I regarded as a competent pistolero make a serious mistake with a pistol. (I think this is an impressive firearm-handling, safety record - Don’t you!)

Apparently what is, ‘routine’ and highly probable in your world isn’t equally, ‘routine’ and highly probable in mine; and, I’m starting to get the sense that, ‘behind all the noise you make’ you’re nowhere near as experienced with firearms as I am. (I’m correct; aren’t I!) I’ve been carrying in C-3, now, for many years. Unfortunately I’m, also, not able to say that in all this time I’ve never walked into one of your much-dreaded, ‘CQB instant ambushes’. I have; and (Ready?) I didn’t need your over-vaunted C-1 carry in order to get myself out of trouble. C-3 worked just fine for me!

In fact, my EDC pistol is, right here, on my desk and in its usual C-3 condition as I type. Contrary to your imaginary, ‘switcheroo mentality’ my C-3 EDC pistol has constantly remained in this condition for, at least, the past 6 months (maybe longer)! There ain’t none of your ‘frequent and routine’, back and forth, C-3 carry going on at my house. All of this store-to-store, street-to-street, neighborhood-to-neighborhood, slide racking you insist is taking place, simply doesn’t happen in the real world! ‘How’ do I know? Because I live in the real world - Not some imaginary cyberspace alternate reality where you apparently dwell. Another thing: Unlike yourself (and that gun course you took at the Sheriff’s Office) I’m a real pistolero with a gunman’s safety habits and reflexive instincts.

During the past 6 months my C-3 EDC piece has been disassembled and reassembled for cleaning, at least, a half dozen times - No worry! My pistol has been left out, exposed to others, handled by my wife, one or two friends; and, all the while, their personal safety has never been in any real jeopardy of accidental discharge.

Two days ago I pulled into an isolated parking lot and parked my car right next to a pair of very unsavory looking dudes. They had their hands in their pockets; they were watching all around the lot; and, for sure, there wasn’t a hint of a smile on their faces! Know what? Unlike the fictitious internet scenario you weave I didn’t get all antsy, and switch to C-1 before I got out of the car. What for?

When I was unsure of, ‘Why’ they were there; and, ‘What’ they were doing I simply obeyed my usual personal security instincts, and did the following: First, I kept close track of their concealed hands. Next, I made sure that all of my car doors and windows were locked. Then I checked that the seat belt, and the front flap on my over-garment wouldn’t prevent me from getting to my pistol IF I really needed to.

ALL OF THESE PRECAUTIONS ARE NECESSARY, VIABLE, AND PRAGMATIC ALTERNATIVES TO YOUR RIDICULOUS METHODS OF SWITCHEROO GUN-HANDLING! (You don’t really know what you’re supposed to be doing with an EDC gun, now, do you!)

‘Why’ should I jeopardize my own personal safety, or that of my friends and family by resorting to any of your, ‘routine’ switcheroo gun-handling behaviors when it’s not really necessary for me to do so? Maybe you’re a, ‘Nervous Nellie’; but, me, I’m an experienced gunman who knows when, and when not to be concerned. These, ‘routine’ internet gun-handling behaviors you assert are, simply, not indicative of life with a gun out in the real world.

All this, ‘extra risk’ you’re so quick to assume, simply, does NOT take place! Want to know something else? Your presumed, ‘better’, ‘smarter’, pistol-handling recommendations are NOT shared by the people who manufactured your Glock! (Imagine that, huh!) Read this:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/blog.php?b=576

Now, we ARE in agreement on the risks involved in both drawing and reholstering a pistol. That actually is a, ‘given’; these activities are always inherently dangerous! This does NOT, however, address the other, more significant dangers of having a, ‘lazy trigger finger’. In my experience, if someone is going to have a safety problem with a gun, it’s more than likely going to be with Jeff Cooper’s Gun Safety Rules #2 and #3, rather than from any holster work.

THIS IS WHERE MUCH SAFER C-3 CARRY GIVES EVERY PISTOLERO - BOTH HIGHLY SKILLED, OR ONLY CASUALLY SO - A VALUABLE ADVANTAGE IN PERSONAL AND SOCIAL GUN HANDLING SAFETY! (That is an irrefutable fact!)

Neither does it matter how many times other respondents in this thread have used the word, ‘routinely’. YOU have been using this word in an entirely different context. You use, ‘routinely’ as a modifier in order to qualify your arguments and, thus, limit the scope of any disagreement against what you have to say. You have, also, expanded the meaning of the word, ‘routinely’ beyond what others (including myself) intend to imply. Your use of the word, ‘routinely’ suggests much greater frequency than what those of us who carry in C-3 would ever realistically resort to. Now, if I can find all of them, I’m going to address each of your subsequent points:

Point #1: I do NOT believe that civilians who insist upon carrying their semi-auto pistols in C-1 are anymore skillful, tougher, or more competent than those who carry in C-3. I’m beginning to tire of writing this, but, ‘It ain’t all about you!’ As long as American society remains reasonably stable there is little or no need, and little or no justification, for a vast majority of civilians to expose everyone they comes into daily contact with to the inherent dangers of C-1 carry - For many (but, admittedly, not all) American civilians, C-1 carry is flat-out extraneous, as well as needlessly reckless to others.

(I’m going back to, ‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you!’) Neither do I think it ethical for any gunman to selfishly place the personal safety of others - innocent others - in jeopardy because that gunman wants to be a local, ‘Glockeroo Badass’ and walk around all day long ready to engage some mysterious (or imagined) opponent inside of a highly unlikely, ‘instantaneous CQB ambush’.

THIS DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY LETHAL METHOD OF PISTOL-HANDLING IS WHAT IS HAPPENING ALL ACROSS AMERICA, RIGHT NOW, AS WE DEBATE THE SUBJECT; AND IT IS WRONG!

(To use your term) ‘Comfort’, psychological or otherwise, should have little, if anything, to do with how a person carries an EDC pistol. SAFETY to one’s own self, and to others should always come first. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that I don’t know just how much practice and training it takes to be genuinely proficient with a pistol - I KNOW! I’ll tell you something else, too: Many of these, ‘hot shot’ Glockeroos I see carrying their pistols around in C-1,

DO NOT HAVE EITHER THE TRAINING, THE PERSONAL ACUMEN, OR THE LIFE EXPERIENCE THEY NEED IN ORDER TO HANDLE AN EDC PISTOL WELL INSIDE AN URBAN COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT. (That is an, ‘indisputable fact’!)

Point #2: You’re forcing me to repeat myself: There are a lot of other ways and other behaviors that a person NEEDS TO DO - besides simply carrying a pistol in C-1 - in order to be genuinely ready to effectively defend himself. Other than this, I have nothing to disagree with here. I’m only going to add that, in recent years, I’ve begun carrying my EDC @ 2:00 o’clock and on the outside my belt. I use polymer holsters, too. All these changes are designed to pare my draw times down to as little as possible; AND, these things really do work! (As I’ve previously stated: A .5 second Mossad draw time is, for someone who’s well practiced, a little slow.)

Point #3: ??? (I couldn’t find it.) With regard to your presumed need to use your support hand in order to get an opponent off you? (Here, it’s interesting to notice that you weaken your own argument by using the expression, ‘very unlikely’.) All I can say is, ‘Spoken like a true Occidental!’ My old Tai Chi Chuan teacher would get a, ‘real kick’ out of that remark!

Rather than simply being in C-1, rather than quickly tying up both of your hands, what you MUST do, first, is to get off the other guy’s vertical body centerline! (With all your supposed expertise you didn’t know that - Did you!) There are a number of different ways to do this; but, I have no intention of teaching any of these things, here.

I will say, however, that for someone who already knows how to fight, you do not need to, ‘sacrifice’ either your pistol or support arm when you are suddenly engaged at close quarters! From hard-won experience I, also, know that, sometimes, and at extremely close quarters, waiting to draw your pistol can actually be an advantage! (They don’t teach any of this in the gun schools, though; do they!)

Point #4: ??? (I couldn’t find this one, either.) Am I to assume that your comments on the missing Point #4 are about police officers getting shot at extremely close range? Man, you haven’t got so much as, ‘a clue’ about what’s really going on - Now; do you! I (almost) hate to be the one to tell you this; …… BUT, you seem to completely misunderstand the REAL DANGERS police officers have to face when they're successfully attacked AND, then, lose the contest at extremely close quarters.

I’m not going to repeat information I’ve already addressed in earlier posts; but, I will direct your attention to the research work done by retired Sheriff’s Department Deputy Lieutenant, Dave Spaulding. ** Perhaps Dave Spaulding will be able to get through to you where this, ‘magnificent pistolero’ (Me! ) has, otherwise, so completely failed to do so. Remember where I told you that,

IF YOU’RE SUCCESSFULLY JUMPED AT CLOSE QUARTERS, THEN, IT’S EITHER YOUR OWN FAULT, OR ELSE IT’S SIMPLY YOUR TIME; AND GOD REQUIRES IT OF YOU.

C-3, or C-1 carry has little, if anything, to do with getting assaulted or shot at very close quarters; AND as I’ve, also, already said: THIS is the most often repeated internet rationale for walking around in public, ‘cocked, locked, and ready-to-go’. (The average civilian’s chance of this happening are, roughly, the equivalent of me winning the Powerball lottery next week! Most likely it’s not going to happen.)

Point #5: (This one I’ve been able to locate!) I’ve said it, and said it, and said it; but, you just ain’t, ‘getting the message’ and are unwilling to let this one go. STOP USING THE WORD, ‘ROUTINELY’ inside the narrow definitions I, now, realize that you prefer to couch your arguments in. One last time: The unlikely scenarios and behaviors you assert ARE NOT TAKING PLACE OUT IN THE REAL WORLD! Just because you insist upon repeating your argument DOES NOT make any of it true!

Over the years Glock Talk has had several people swear up and down that their Glock pistols went off, unexpectedly, while they were in the holster! I’m going to guess that, IN ACCORD WITH RECENT CHANGES GLOCK, GmbH HAS MADE on their 4th (and now 3rd) generation trigger bars, the people who’ve insisted that their Glock pistols, ‘just went off’ while in the holster might have actually been telling the truth!

There have, also, been reports on this board of other holstered Glocks firing while in the holster. (It might depend on, ‘What’ holster is being used as well as the physical coordination and activity level of the wearer.) Now, one of your paragraphs requires special attention. (Man, this is B.S. internet rationalize like I’ve never seen before!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
A holstered weapon in C1 state will not result in an ND. A weapon routinely changed from C3 to C1 and then holstered, followed by unholstering and changing from C3 to C1 creates FAR more opportunities to have an ND. It doesn't mean you will, because if you follow correct safety measures, you should never have an ND, but obviously, if the argument is made that regularly switching between C3 and C1 is not increasing the odds of an ND if you follow proper safety protocols, then it's hard to make the argument that carrying a weapon C1 and following proper safety protocols increase the likelihood of having an ND. You can't argue both sides of it.
Ahh, …… who says you can’t argue both sides of it? (You do.) Nice to see, though, that you’ve finally caught up with the most glaring discrepancy in your own argument: Firearm Safety, And Safe-Handling Procedures! Much of what you’ve previously posted has completely ignored the usual habits of an experienced pistolero!

Kudos! You’ve finally shown an editor’s ability to analyze a written argument - This time, in your own carefully contrived words. (That wasn’t condescending; I promise!) Remember where I told you that you are using hyperbole and, 'sophistic examples'? Well, now you've really outdone yourself! Your logic on this, your most recent premise, is as twisted as it is seriously flawed.

In, 'alpha or beta' relationships, the fact that the statement, ‘Alpha is true.’ happens to be correct does NOT automatically imply that, ‘Beta is false.’ Beta may, or may not be either true or false. The problem with your, 'alpha statement', here, is that it is NOT stated correctly. (In other words your argument is sophistic!)

Your thoughts and opinions might sound real good on the Internet; but, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out: Your cyberspace definitions of reality, AND reality, itself, are NOT the same thing. So far, the only person who has asserted that, ‘routinely’ switching between C-3, and C-1 carry increases the odds of an AD/ND is, …… YOU; (and, a few gullible people have gone along with your specious line of fakakta reasoning).

I have now repeated, and repeated, and repeated that I’ve been carrying in C-3 for a prolonged period-of-time; AND, out in the real world, I HAVE NO SUCH, ‘ROUTINE’ PROBLEMS WITH C-3 CARRY. (Did you get it that time?) You have, albeit indirectly, just confessed that you know, ‘Why’ too! Among other talents, I have an experienced gunman’s safe gun-handling habits!

Furthermore, the fact that someone regularly follows routine, firearm-safety protocols does not, in any way, guarantee that an unexpected AD/ND will not occur. We don't live in a perfect world. The only thing that regularly following normal firearm safety protocols guarantees is that less - rather than more - firearm AD/ND’s are likely to occur - Nothing else! The point I would make is that, beyond Cooper’s Four Safety Rules,

C-3 CARRY IS LIKE A, ‘FIFTH FIREARM SAFETY PROTOCOL’. IF YOU USE C-3 CARRY THEN YOU ARE EVEN LESS LIKELY TO EXPERIENCE AN UNEXPECTED AD/ND; AND THIS IS TRUE FOR THE GUNMAN, HIMSELF, AS WELL AS FOR ALL OTHERS WHO MIGHT COME INTO CONTACT WITH HIM AND HIS GUN.

As far as I’m concerned: Anyone who is enough of a, ‘gun schmuck’ to do all the, ‘routine’ C-1/C-3 condition switches which you insist are taking place, deserves what he gets; and, probably, shouldn’t be carrying a pistol to begin with.

One final point: Someone has mentioned (NOT YOU, OK!) that the shooting schools teach only C-1 carry. Well, duh, it’s a shooting school! What do you think shooting school students want? What do you think shooting school students expect to receive for their money? (Shooting schools are, ‘for profit’ corporations; aren’t they! They need to provide a certain amount of entertainment value in their curriculums.)

Problems arise because it’s usually civilians who are being run through these schools; and, let’s be perfectly honest: These civilians want a certain amount of, ‘badass thrills’ for their money! Personally, I fault many of these shooting schools for their strong tendency to turn out, ‘civilian commandos’ rather than, 'armed civilians'! (A novel thought; isn’t it!) Most people with LTCF’s are NOT commandos; they are NOT police officers; instead, they are armed and only modestly trained civilians. Everybody needs to remember that,

SKILL WITH A FIREARM - AND, ESPECIALLY WITH A PISTOL - IS A DEPRECIATING PHYSICAL ASSET.

If you don’t regularly practice and refresh your firearm-handling skill sets, then you stand to lose, at least, some measure of whatever your former proficiency level used to be. There’s, also, the matter of, ‘fight or flight’ physiological response,

WHICH HAS THE POWER TO SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER, OR EVEN CHANGE, ALL OF A PERSON’S NORMAL PHYSICAL REACTIONS.

So, what’s the, ‘nitty gritty’? Even when you know what you’re supposed to be doing, even when you follow all of the safety rules, even when you’re heavily practiced, you’re still better off - NOT SWITCHING BETWEEN, BUT - regularly carrying in C-3.

Unless, of course, you’re in a war zone; but, even then, several of my uncles served in the South Pacific Theater during World War II; and the Corps required them to both download their pistols as well as to carry them in C-3. Know what? I never heard any of them complain about being handicapped by either downloading or carrying a 1911 in C-3. Contrary to another one of your remarks: It is NOT a personal decision to carry in either C-3, or C-1.

FOR MOST CIVILIANS IT IS, OR SHOULD BE, A SOCIAL DECISION THAT INVOLVES MORE THAN JUST ONE’S OWN LITTLE SELF, OR ANYONE’S PRESUMED NEED TO, ‘GO AROUND COCKED, LOCKED, AND READY-TO-GO’ ALL OF THE TIME! (Earth shattering concept; isn’t it!)

In order to experience this sort of a self-centered, but exceedingly popular, gun-handling myth in action, you’ve got to go onto an internet gun forum where all of the strongly opinionated, gun school commandos; and always, 'ready-to-go' Glockeroo cowboys repeatedly encourage one another to exercise such free rein with absolutely everybody's personal safety - Including, of course, their own! We are NOT commandos. We are NOT police officers. We are armed civilians who should be smart enough, skilled enough, civil enough, and socially well-adjusted enough to act accordingly.

I’ve been carrying semiautomatic pistols in C-3 for a long, long time. I have NONE of your imagined problems with C-3 carry; AND, while I’m forced to admit that I’m not the pistolero I used to be before the heart attack, (That guy was a, ‘master pistolero’. ) I’m still plenty good enough with a pistol; and I intend to continue to work to regain as much of my former shooting ability as possible.


** http://www.handgunsmag.com/2010/09/2...pens_gunfight/

Last edited by Arc Angel; 03-05-2013 at 04:26..
Arc Angel is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 08:29   #568
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,685
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smooth_squeeze View Post
Carrying in C1 or not, heck, why even have a mag full of cartridges in the gun, that presents its own problems. Just require that people carry their gun unloaded but allow them to have a loaded magazine close by, so they can do a quick mag insert, and rack the slide to get on with business.

Besides that, why have a safety on a gun? Well, it can potentially reduce accidents if an unknowing third party gets ahold of the gun. Not supposed to happen, I know, but those things do happen. We don't live in a perfect world.
You know Smooth, Barney Fife is named a lot in these threads because he carried an empty revolver with the bullets in his pocket. I believe Barney's carry mode was ultra-conservative because he never needed to use his gun in Mayberry. The Barney analogy kind of fits my preference for C3.

I think manual safeties have been provided on firearms primarily to prevent unintended discharges. Growing up, I never carried a gun without a safety, and I was taught to use them. The idea of carrying a chambered round in a cocked firearm without having the safety 'on' was never mentioned in my instruction.

I agree training is essential for anyone carrying a handgun. I'm not yet convinced, however, that training will condition anyone thoroughly enough to always keep his trigger finger out of the guard, particularly under stress of a potential threat. I'm just not convinced that a Glock pistol is safe in C1 for civilian users; it is unique because of its lack of a safety and a fairly light 5 lb. trigger, making it a tool best suited for highly trained, professional combatants.

I'm guilty of beating the dead horse at this point, so I'm ready to bury the old mare and get on with life.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 03-04-2013 at 09:26..
PhotoFeller is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 08:40   #569
kingdong
Senior Member
 
kingdong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911pro View Post
The police qualification in Ohio is a joke and honestly most cops are not gun people and suck at shooting. FBI is better to be sure.
Absolutely disagree. Maybe their qualification is more difficult but the state qualifications are hardly a measure of officers ability. Local cops actually use their guns and don't drive desks. I agree that many cops aren't gun guys, and many leave a lot to be desired as far as knowledge goes. But FBI bubbas are even less gun guys. Most are ambitious investigators, not hands on cops. Even their swat guys (not hrt)are less than hands on. Just saying from years of first hand experience in a both patrol and swat sides of the house.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
|[(OO[_______R/T_]OO) ]|
kingdong is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 09:57   #570
tnedator
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 546
Arc, I'm not going to rise to your bait. This thread is currently stickied and is a good resource for those wanting to read the different viewpoints and considerations that should go into the deciding between C1 and C3. I didn't think you would keep your word and not post in this thread anymore, which is fine, it's your choice, but even though you backtracked on that I won't continue to engage you. It's not fair to the other's in this thread, and will probably lead to it being unstickied or locked.

I'll stick to discussing the topic with the others that are more open to honest discussion and not just focused winning internet arguments.
__________________
NRA Benefactor - Life Member
tnedator is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 10:01   #571
tnedator
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdong View Post
Absolutely disagree. Maybe their qualification is more difficult but the state qualifications are hardly a measure of officers ability. Local cops actually use their guns and don't drive desks. I agree that many cops aren't gun guys, and many leave a lot to be desired as far as knowledge goes. But FBI bubbas are even less gun guys. Most are ambitious investigators, not hands on cops. Even their swat guys (not hrt)are less than hands on. Just saying from years of first hand experience in a both patrol and swat sides of the house.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
I think he was just speaking of their qualification course. I believe the FBI qualification course is more stringent than most state or local qual courses.
__________________
NRA Benefactor - Life Member
tnedator is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 10:03   #572
ModGlock17
Senior Member
 
ModGlock17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lalaland USA
Posts: 2,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arc Angel View Post
.....

FOR MOST CIVILIANS IT IS, OR SHOULD BE, A SOCIAL DECISION THAT INVOLVES MORE THAN JUST ONE’S OWN LITTLE SELF, OR ANYONE’S PRESUMED NEED TO, ‘GO AROUND COCKED, LOCKED, AND READY-TO-GO’ ALL THE TIME! (Earth shattering concept; isn’t it!)
....
Exactly. I'm already uncomfortable with the prospect of C1 policemen, at a hit rate of 11-15%, to roam my business or home property while either customers or family members are in them. What about the safety of my customers and family members?

I hope I never have to make that "social" call!
ModGlock17 is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 10:16   #573
1911pro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
I think he was just speaking of their qualification course. I believe the FBI qualification course is more stringent than most state or local qual courses.
Yes. You are correct.
1911pro is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 12:03   #574
unit1069
Senior Member
 
unit1069's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: So. Central US
Posts: 8,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smooth_squeeze View Post
Carrying in C1 or not, heck, why even have a mag full of cartridges in the gun, that presents its own problems. Just require that people carry their gun unloaded but allow them to have a loaded magazine close by, so they can do a quick mag insert, and rack the slide to get on with business.
Reductio ad absurdam is not an argument either for C1 or against C3.

Suppose you're a highly-trained self-defense expert with a military background and decades of LEO experience, now conducting firearms and self-defense courses. I'm a civilian taking one of your basic courses and the hypothetical subject of a nighttime home intrusion comes up for discussion.

Do you think your own response to a real home intrusion emergency might differ from the recommendation you give me for dealing with it?
__________________
Rocket Scientist
unit1069 is offline  
Old 03-04-2013, 14:28   #575
Smooth_squeeze
CM9 - big bite
 
Smooth_squeeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by unit1069 View Post
Reductio ad absurdam is not an argument either for C1 or against C3.

Suppose you're a highly-trained self-defense expert with a military background and decades of LEO experience, now conducting firearms and self-defense courses. I'm a civilian taking one of your basic courses and the hypothetical subject of a nighttime home intrusion comes up for discussion.

Do you think your own response to a real home intrusion emergency might differ from the recommendation you give me for dealing with it?

One of my main problems with the C3 argument from the standpoint of safety has to do with the way proponents for that method of carry go about making their case.

From my standpoint, I could go C1 or C3 or separate pouches for mags and gun. I could do all three, and on different occasions do do all three, depending on where I am at the moment, as laws in the various states require different modes of carry, or lack thereof.

Now, if I am going to help someone learn to shoot and consider carrying, the mode I might suggest to them will have a lot to do with the way they handle a firearm, how dexterous they are, their psychology of dealing with fear, and so on. If someone isn't comfortable with the Glock's safety, the answer is pretty simple: get a gun with the features that are best for them.

I have a friend that CC'd a Glock 23. He sold it saying it was too thick, and bought a Ruger LC9. Reasons? Recoil from the 40 caliber Glock, slimness of the LC9, and safeties: the LC9 has a manual safety, plus a physical lock to totally lock the gun. He said it is good to have around children. I think the 3rd reason was the main one: safety. He said he *LIKES* safeties. Was he right, for his situation? I think so.
Smooth_squeeze 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 00:31.



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


Users Currently Online: 824
242 Members
582 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42