One in the Chamber

[dgg9]

ahhhh.... no, you just spend countless pages "debating" in favor of techniques you dont use,

...like all the people spending countless pages obsessing about and slandering a technique they don't use.

Arguing for the sake of it, with no end in sight, on and on and on answering questions with questions and on and on.

You can tell someone has a personal animus going when, after a thread where there are TWO parties, both pressing a case, and both voluntarily continuing, you single out one side as "Arguing for the sake of it." And why, pray tell, isn't the other side arguing for the sake of it?

I call that trolling, semi-sophisticated trolling, but trolling nonetheless.

And the day I actually care about your opinion, I'll let you know.

Of course you can get away with that here,

Right, because civil debate that people might learn something from is encouraged here, unlike other sites I could mention where a self-righteous petty autocrat plays favorites.

[orionz06]

...like all the people spending countless pages obsessing about and slandering a technique they don't use.

Slander? It is a poor technique that was taught by a country that assumed all of its citizens were too dumb to train to any appreciable level so instead they teach them a technique that any idiot could perform.

I actually tried this briefly (forgot to time it) and I also was with a new shooter who participated as well, doing slow draws, and you know what his thoughts were?

"Why the hell would I do this? It is too many actions to perform when I can have a loaded gun in the holster."

I then explained the perceived safety advantage and he replied "WTF?"...


I suppose that sums it up...

[Deanimator]

It must come as some news to the countless people who carried C3 for many decades, in many dangerous parts of the world, that none of them survived all their gunfights.

I'm betting that a large portion of them didn't actually HAVE "gunfights" as we commonly understand the term.

• Army officer or senior NCO leading an attack - NOT a "gunfight".
• Army officer or senior NCO rounding up (and or shooting) deserters - NOT a "gunfight".
• Army or security personnel shooting hostages or prisoners - NOT a "gunfight".

Every time somebody cites the number of people shot with .32acps or 9x19mms during WWII, I merely point out that shooting women and children in the back of the head at Babi Yar doesn't count as a "gunfight". Likewise in the case of carrying with an empty chamber. The officers and men of Auxiliary Police Battalion 101 had the luxury of time and mostly unarmed "opponents". I doubt there were many "fast draws" performed at Babi Yar, Ouradour sur Glaine, or at Malmedy for that matter.

[dgg9]

Slander? It is a poor technique that was taught by a country that assumed all of its citizens were too dumb to train to any appreciable level so instead they teach them a technique that any idiot could perform.

And this reveals basic ignorance of the subject. Israel is by far not the only place to have used C3, nor was it invented there. C3 was the norm for carrying semi-autos before 1950, and was used in many places after that as well.

Israel, at the time, adopted an existing technique to suit their purposes.

[orionz06]

And this reveals basic ignorance of the subject. Israel is by far not the only place to have used C3, nor was it invented there. C3 was the norm for carrying semi-autos before 1950, and was used in many places after that as well.

Israel, at the time, adopted an existing technique to suit their purposes.

It is an example of it, and their reasons as they have been perpetuated, even by pro-C3 people....

How many techniques from 1950 have not been improved upon?

[dgg9]

I'm betting that a large portion of them didn't actually HAVE "gunfights" as we commonly understand the term.

Huh????

Or perhaps you're ass-u-ming I was referring to strictly military uses. No, I was talking about rank and file citizens, as well as many police departments.

You think crime was invented in the modern era?

The officers and men of Auxiliary Police Battalion 101 had the luxury of time and mostly unarmed "opponents". I doubt there were many "fast draws" performed at Babi Yar, Ouradour sur Glaine, or at Malmedy for that matter.

I have to laugh when I read nonsense like that. Google "Shanghai Municipal Police" of the 1920s and tell me they that "a large portion of them didn't actually HAVE "gunfights" as we commonly understand the term."

[orionz06]

Huh????

Or perhaps you're ass-u-ming I was referring to strictly military uses. No, I was talking about rank and file citizens, as well as many police departments.

Side note: Cops in England carry clubs (at best), does that mean my gun is not a good idea and a stick is better?

[dgg9]

It is an example of it, and their reasons as they have been perpetuated, even by pro-C3 people....

Their reasons are not touted by anyone I know advocating C3 as a civilian option. The reasons center on having a large bin of mismatched guns, and needing a common manual of arms to teach for all. It's hard to see how that rationale applies to single individuals.

How many techniques from 1950 have not been improved upon?

Plenty. It's cyclical. 10 years ago, you could barely find anyone to teach point shooting in the US. Now you can. Point shooting, then as now, is useful, but simply fell out of fashion once Modern Technique was ascendant.

It worked then, and it works now. C1 is "better" in some ways, not in others.

[aferr1973]

As I anxiously await my LTCF I've been contemplating if I should carry my Glock 19 with one in the chamber. I have strong reasons for carrying one in the chamber and strong reasons against carrying one in the chamber. My main reason against carrying one in the chamber is that I have two young children ages 6 and 8 and I'm not sure how many of you actually have young children but my children love to jump all over me and play. I have a horrible vision that one of my two children may grab my gun from the holster and pull the trigger. Yes I can educate them over and over again about gun safety, but keep in mind that they are small children and may not fully understand. On the other hand, I want to protect my family and if I am ever in a situation where I need to use my gun having one in the chamber would be the best scenario because I wouldn't need to waste time racking my gun. If I did not have small children I would always carry with one in the chamber, but because I have small children I have second thoughts of carrying with one in the chamber. So unless you have small children you honestly will not understand my current dilemma.

[dgg9]

Side note: Cops in England carry clubs (at best), does that mean my gun is not a good idea and a stick is better?

Do cops in England have a personal choice in the matter?

If not, then what's the relevance?