Idea for those afraid to carry chambered.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by policemedic

I reject the idea that simply because it was done in the past by a particular group of people it is the right way. Tactics evolve, and to ignore that only brings peril.

It's not a matter of tactics evolving. It's a matter of this or that doctrine (MT in this case) becoming trendy, and the next generation of shooters being so US-centric in their knowledge base that they think that if things were ever done differently, it must have been wrong, or deficient.

As an example of that, see the refusal of MT instructors to even consider the value of a proven system like point shooting, until very recently.

Don't confuse "fad du jour" with "it must be an improvement."

The experienced professional knows that introducing any unnecessary steps into a highly stressful situation is, quite simply, dangerous and stupid.

Except, once again, it's not free. For that one gunfight which the CCW holder will probably never be in, there are thousands of administrative handlings. It's a matter of trade-off between risks. You don't see that, because -- as is typical in long time gun people -- youe entire frame of reference is gunfights.

I have yet to hear a credible reason for introducing another variable and additional time into a stressful situation.

That's because you're only listening for gunfight reasons. The primary reason has nothing to do with gunfights.

For most people, defensive gun uses are the very definition of what we in the medical field refer to as low-volume/high-risk. Adding an additional level of difficulty simply makes no sense.

That's a flatly wrong statement. People trade off between low-volume/high-risk and high-volume/medium risk all the time, every single day. Otherwise we'd all be driving 6,000 lb cars, just to be safe for that one low-volume/high-risk accident we could be in, or we'd all have super high insurance coverage for everything.

The reality is that where we choose to shift risks is highly subjective. To assert that your personal choice is the law of the universe is absurd and fallacious.

The possibility of a negligent discharge can never be eliminated, merely reduced. This is true regardless of the manner of carry.

The point is, c/e carry does greatly reduce that risk. Hence the notion of risk trade-offs.

Having said that, I restate my position that there is no compelling reason to carry a modern pistol with an empty chamber. None.

Then you have created your own cognitive dissonance. You have heard the reason and you have more or less stated it yourself. But because you are simply not receiving messages at the "non-gunfight risk" frequency, you can't absorb them.

Carry chamber empty if you like, but understand that doing so puts you at a unnecessary disadvantage.

...during some small set of gunfights, which are unlikely to happen to most people. That's the cost. The benefit is reduced ND chance.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by policemedic

Here again, I disagree. Virtually all LEOs will carry a concealed weapon. Some will do this by virtue of their assignment in plainclothes; others will do so off-duty.

Huh? The stated numbers come overwhelmingly from on-duty cops, typically patrolmen. Aside from that, plainclothesmen and detectives are still the ones largely approaching BGs, rather than vice verse. The dynamics of the interaction between LE and BG is very different than between CCW and BG. This is inarguable.

Should the data from these incidents be disregarded simply because I carry a badge?

Show me what percentage of those numbers come from off-duty cops, then we'll talk. I predict less than 1%.

[policemedic]

Originally Posted by dgg9

It's not a matter of tactics evolving. It's a matter of this or that doctrine (MT in this case) becoming trendy, and the next generation of shooters being so US-centric in their knowledge base that they think that if things were ever done differently, it must have been wrong, or deficient.

I will agree that some schools of thought become, as you say, the fad du jour. Where we diverge is the assertion that people accept the method they've been taught blindly to the exclusion of all others.

I've had the good fortune to interact and train with soldiers and police from various nations, both here and in their home countries. I keep an open mind, because to assume one knows everything is the height of arrogance. Where they have had a demonstrably superior technique in any discipline, I have rapidly and gladly adopted it.

Originally Posted by dgg9

As an example of that, see the refusal of MT instructors to even consider the value of a proven system like point shooting, until very recently.

There is a place for point shooting. I simply prefer to arrange the battlespace such that it isn't an issue, to the extent that it is possible to do so.

Originally Posted by dgg9

Don't confuse "fad du jour" with "it must be an improvement."

Agreed.

Originally Posted by dgg9

Except, once again, it's not free. For that one gunfight which the CCW holder will probably never be in, there are thousands of administrative handlings. It's a matter of trade-off between risks. You don't see that, because -- as is typical in long time gun people -- youe entire frame of reference is gunfights.

Nothing is free. However, you've not addressed my point. We agree that the average armed citizen will not engage in a gunfight (your term). For the few that do, it will be a shocking and life altering experience, filled with stress. This is the time to emphasize economy of movement and simplicity, not to make things more difficult by adding unnecessary steps.

Originally Posted by dgg9

That's because you're only listening for gunfight reasons. The primary reason has nothing to do with gunfights.

Well, I'd say that my focus is on the defensive use of guns, as gunfighting implies the exchange of fire. Defense of self is why people carry guns, hence it is logical to approach the entire issue from that perspective. If we were talking about how to transport a shotgun to a skeet match, I'd agree that it made sense to have an empty chamber. But we're not.

You'll also have noted I said '...credible reason'. I've heard some reasons; I've given them some thought, but given the circumstances for which people prepare by choosing to carry a handgun I don't find them convincing.

Originally Posted by dgg9

That's a flatly wrong statement. People trade off between low-volume/high-risk and high-volume/medium risk all the time, every single day. Otherwise we'd all be driving 6,000 lb cars, just to be safe for that one low-volume/high-risk accident we could be in, or we'd all have super high insurance coverage for everything.

No, it's a precisely accurate statement. Drawing a handgun and indexing it on another human being who has threatened them sufficiently that they fear death or serious injury is a rare occurrence for most people. How many times have you pointed a gun at someone and decided whether or not to pull the trigger? Have you ever fired a shot in defense of your life? How many other people on this forum do you think would answer those questions affirmatively? Despite your arguments regarding trade-offs, the fact remains that most armed citizens will never even display their weapon, and those that do won't have to fire, and those that fire will only do it once in their lifetimes.

Originally Posted by dgg9

The reality is that where we choose to shift risks is highly subjective. To assert that your personal choice is the law of the universe is absurd and fallacious.

We all have the right and responsibility to choose the level of risk we are comfortable with. I don't feel that carrying with a loaded chamber presents significant risk. I don't assert my choices are the law of the universe, simply that from a defensive standpoint they are more practical than the alternative method presented.

Originally Posted by dgg9

The point is, c/e carry does greatly reduce that risk. Hence the notion of risk trade-offs.

The concept of trading risks is very appropriate, as choosing to carry with an empty chamber creates its own inherent risks.

Originally Posted by dgg9

Then you have created your own cognitive dissonance. You have heard the reason and you have more or less stated it yourself. But because you are simply not receiving messages at the "non-gunfight risk" frequency, you can't absorb them.

Again, the issue is not whether or not I've heard reasons, it's whether or not the reasons presented are compelling to someone who carries a gun for the sole purpose of defending themselves and perhaps others. From my standpoint, there is no compelling reason.

Originally Posted by dgg9

...during some small set of gunfights, which are unlikely to happen to most people. That's the cost. The benefit is reduced ND chance.

An empty chamber puts you at risk in any defensive encounter, not just the rapid draw and fire scenario you seem to be suggesting.

Interestingly, and this is of course anecdotal, I would posit that the majority of people who carry guns daily carry with a loaded chamber. Yet, there is no epidemic of negligent discharges, despite the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of administrative loadings, holstering, presentations, etc., performed on a daily basis in this country.

[policemedic]

Originally Posted by dgg9

Huh? The stated numbers come overwhelmingly from on-duty cops, typically patrolmen. Aside from that, plainclothesmen and detectives are still the ones largely approaching BGs, rather than vice verse. The dynamics of the interaction between LE and BG is very different than between CCW and BG. This is inarguable.

You said that LE data is not relevant to the armed citizen, I simply countered by saying that some of it is. Of course the dynamics of some encounters are different, but some encounters are similar enough that the data is relevant.

Originally Posted by dgg9

Show me what percentage of those numbers come from off-duty cops, then we'll talk. I predict less than 1%.

The percentage may be low, but the fact remains that you cannot disregard all data from law enforcement encounters. In fact, I think it's safe to say that a significant portion (though by no means a majority) of our body of knowledge in this area was developed and refined as a result of the experience of law enforcement with dangerous folks.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by policemedic

I will agree that some schools of thought become, as you say, the fad du jour. Where we diverge is the assertion that people accept the method they've been taught blindly to the exclusion of all others.

"People" often do. Whether you do is another matter.

There is a place for point shooting. I simply prefer to arrange the battlespace such that it isn't an issue, to the extent that it is possible to do so.

In CCW self defense, you seldom get to arrange the battlespace.

Nothing is free. However, you've not addressed my point. We agree that the average armed citizen will not engage in a gunfight (your term). For the few that do, it will be a shocking and life altering experience, filled with stress. This is the time to emphasize economy of movement and simplicity, not to make things more difficult by adding unnecessary steps.

I have addressed your point. It's a simple matter of risk trade-off, since an ND can also be life altering. Learning to rack as a habit upon draw is not difficult. Millions of people have managed to do just that over the decades.

We make concessions to other factors (concealability, practicality, cost, comfort, etc etc etc) in the CCW realm. In the stressful environment of a DGU, it's harder to find and draw from an IWB holster at 5:00 rather than an offset IDPA style OWB at 3:00. But there are reasons for doing so, which no one quibbles about. And so on. This is simply one more such choice, not categorically different from all the rest.

Well, I'd say that my focus is on the defensive use of guns, as gunfighting implies the exchange of fire. Defense of self is why people carry guns, hence it is logical to approach the entire issue from that perspective.

Wrong! And it's important to know why that's wrong. You're confusing short term means with ends. The end of carrying a gun is not self defense or shooting BGs or anything like that. The ultimate end is to make you safer. If you lose sight of that, you can confuse the short term goal of "enhancing gunfight efficacy" with the real goal of making you safer.

Once you step back and realize what the larger goal is, you're able to see how the complete picture is only formed when you add the gunfight efficacy (plus its rarity) to the administrative dangers (and their greater frequency) to you and others of owning and maintaining a firearm. The total of the costs and benefits is what makes you safer, not only the one aspect.

Rational people can decide what the costs are FOR THEM, what the benefits are FOR THEM, what their tolerance for the various risk factors is FOR THEM, and make a personalized decision of where to shift the risks.

You'll also have noted I said '...credible reason'. I've heard some reasons; I've given them some thought, but given the circumstances for which people prepare by choosing to carry a handgun I don't find them convincing.

Sorry, but words have meanings. Not "credible" means objectively deficient, which implies numbers. Since you don't even have any of the numbers in question (nor could you, since they vary from person to person), you are confusing "my decision" with "credible." But there's a lot of that thinking in the firearm arena.

No, it's a precisely accurate statement.

Wrong. You said:

"For most people, defensive gun uses are the very definition of what we in the medical field refer to as low-volume/high-risk. Adding an additional level of difficulty simply makes no sense."

But this is flatly wrong. We DO -- all of us -- make that trade-off on a daily basis. There are in fact countless LV/HR risks out there, too many to prepare for even a fraction of them. Is your roof hardened against meteors? After all, if that happens, you could die. Do you carry a .416 Rigby around in case an elephant escapes from a zoo? No? If not, why not?

The reality is, there are too many LV/HR risks to prepare for, so we make choices. There's a cut-off all of us decide to make about what level of LV/HR to prepare for (with attendent opportunity costs of all the other risks you're now NOT preparing for) and which to intentionally ignore.

Your argument that just because something is a LV/HR event, therefore it is ipso facto wrong to shift risk into that event is absurdly false, and contradicted by all human beings daily.

Despite your arguments regarding trade-offs, the fact remains that most armed citizens will never even display their weapon, and those that do won't have to fire, and those that fire will only do it once in their lifetimes.

I have to shake my head here. You seem like a bright guy, but you're not getting it at all. It is precisely because DGUs of the kind where chamber mode matters are indeed so rare that we CAN rationally decide to make a risk trade-off with administrative handling, which we DO perform daily.

I don't feel that carrying with a loaded chamber presents significant risk. I don't assert my choices are the law of the universe, simply that from a defensive standpoint they are more practical than the alternative method presented.

That's the essence of the problem -- you are unable to see the larger picture because you have falsely conflated the problem of gunfights with the larger problem of personal safety.

The concept of trading risks is very appropriate, as choosing to carry with an empty chamber creates its own inherent risks.

Of course it does. And doing thousands of administrative handlings on a loaded firearm creates ITS own inherent risks. Hence the concept of a trade-off.

Again, the issue is not whether or not I've heard reasons, it's whether or not the reasons presented are compelling to someone who carries a gun for the sole purpose of defending themselves and perhaps others.

Here again, we notice you confusing means with ends, with the resultant inability to frame the real question: namely, what is the safer thing to do when the totality of events are added up? I submit this depends so much on one's personal situation that no a priori rule can be valid for all people.

An empty chamber puts you at risk in any defensive encounter, not just the rapid draw and fire scenario you seem to be suggesting.

Wrong.

For the 75+% of the time you're just brandishing --> no risk.
For the majority of the remaining cases, where the 1/2 second or less of rack time are a non-issue --> no risk.

Yet, there is no epidemic of negligent discharges, despite the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of administrative loadings, holstering, presentations, etc., performed on a daily basis in this country.

Sorry, but "epidemic" is hopelessly sloppy terminology. There is no "epidemic" of DGUs where chamber mode matters either. It's the NUMBERS that matter. What is the DGU risk of c/e vs what is the ND-reduction gain? It's a quantitative matter, and again, the various risk factors depend on the individual and his situation so much, that no universal rule is possible.

And I note that you now admit you have no idea what the ND number is. Given that you admit you have no clue what's on the other side of the ledger, how is it you feel qualified to make a sweeping statement that you feel is binding on all CCWers? You've just admitted you don't even know half the argument.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by policemedic

You said that LE data is not relevant to the armed citizen, I simply countered by saying that some of it is. Of course the dynamics of some encounters are different, but some encounters are similar enough that the data is relevant.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. You have an aggregate number, of which an unknowably tiny subset resembles the CCW world. If you understand statistics, you know that this tiny subset is drowned out by the much larger number, hence invisible in the total.

The percentage may be low, but the fact remains that you cannot disregard all data from law enforcement encounters.

That's gibberish. If something is 1% of a total, yes you can and should disregard the numbers -- if your entire argument IS the numbers, as was the original post we're referring to.

[ChamberedRound]

Since this thread has gone off-topic from the OP's original comment about blanks for the last few pages, and the off-topic discussion has been had many times before on the site (use the search for more info), I'm closing this thread.

So, to recap:

- Most agree that, in a gun for self-defense, carrying with a blank in the chamber is bad. At best ineffective, and at worst a cause for an operating system failure.
- Education is KEY for those afraid to carry with a round chambered; learn the facts, practice a lot, and make an informed decision. Fear of such things discussed in this thread can typically be attributed to an individual making decisions with less than all the facts.
- For those unwilling to carry with a round chambered after being properly educated/trained, the Mossad or Israeli draw is a somewhat viable alternative. At the very least I think most can agree that it's better than carrying with a blank in the chamber. For more info, see here:

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/question-...html#post56013

- The finer points of how to carry a weapon and the tactical advantages/disadvantages of each method can be debated ad infinitum with rarely a consensus, which proves that in the end one's PERSONAL CHOICE on how to carry is best way, assuming one has been educated with all the facts.