[tacman605]

Now that I have come to a new base with better internet I was able to go to a couple other gun sites and read and catch up so to speak. What I found both shocked and just plain scared me.
On one of the forums related to defensive carry there was topic after topic of CCW holders who were genuinely worried about AD/ND by carrying a round in the chamber or their semi auto pistol so they carry with a mag in and no round in the chamber thinking that they will have time and mindset to draw, chamber a round and hit their target before they are killed themselves. WTF? Have we degraded that much as a gun community?
The general idea that one topic pointed out is that it is ok that a person buy a gun, get a permit, strap on the gun and carry it with no further training because it is a constitutional right to carry and the government should not dictate that you have any further training beyond the CCW course. Some people should not use a fork much less a firearm. Guys I am a firm believer in the constitution and have defended it and will continue to defend it with my dying breath but are we as a society actually down to this horseshit level of belief of touchy, feely, dont make someone feel bad even in relation to firearms?
If a person takes on the responsibility to carry a firearm he should either on his own or by mandate be made to get to a certain skill level. If you want to keep a magnum in the cookie jar at home fine but when you leave the house you now run the risk of drawing and firing that weapon in a manner that will injure me or my family.
A teenager driving a car is required to have more training in most cases than someone carrying a weapon does this not bother anyone but me?
Just imagine this mall ninja sitting in Burger King when two gang bangers come up and start messing with him. He is threatened he draws his super blaster magnum, which he did not qualify with when taking his course because it recoiled to much, and hopefully the bad guy does not take it away from him before he cuts loose in a barrage of gunfire not hitting a damn thing because he has not trained with the weapon.
When the smoke clears bad guys have run off and an innocent is wounded you, me or a member of our family but by god he has his 2nd amendment right to carry and the government cannot dictate that he needed training. Have we reached a point in life that common sense is all but lost? Well I have vented enough I may just stay over here where it is simple carry a firearm someone shoots shoot back.

 

[TommyGunn]

.... Just imagine this mall ninja sitting in Burger King when two gang bangers come up and start messing with him. He is threatened he draws his super blaster magnum, which he did not qualify with when taking his course because it recoiled to much, and hopefully the bad guy does not take it away from him before he cuts loose in a barrage of gunfire not hitting a damn thing because he has not trained with the weapon.
When the smoke clears bad guys have run off and an innocent is wounded you, me or a member of our family but by god he has his 2nd amendment right to carry and the government cannot dictate that he needed training. Have we reached a point in life that common sense is all but lost? Well I have vented enough I may just stay over here where it is simple carry a firearm someone shoots shoot back.

Let me respond to part of what you're saying here. While I "get" the "Mall Ninja" analogy, one must also understand that training and education and practice is one thing. Sure, they are important. But keep in mind that in a real SHTF situation, there will be one thing that is very hard to reproduce in a training environment.
Fear.
And the adrenaline charge it produces. Police officers have spent a lot of time at ranges popping away at silhouettes and getting "kill" shots time after time to eventually get involved in a real altercation -- at shorter distances -- and wind up missing.
In fact, an FBI study indicated that, in situations where actual shots were fired, the police missed, or hit the wrong person, eleven per cent of the time, while civilians missed or hit the wrong person two per cent of the time.
Why the difference? I mean, if one were to listen to all the wrist-wringing liberals who claim only police should have guns, then the figures there should be reversed.
But they're not.
It seems that when the lone civie needs to fire on a BG, he's pretty much aware of what's going on, and who should be there, and who shouldn't. A policeman, OTOH, receives a basic info "Code ###" call at such and such address and a nutshell description of what's happening.... and that may or may not be accurate, or may even change by the time he's there.
He comes up to a unknown house, gets out, and examines the situation. He expects a criminal has made illegal entry.
Now, he sees a man inside, with what could be a gun.
QUERY:
Is that the criminal ... or the resident who is armed in his own defense?
Get the problem here? Eleven per cent may seem a high percentage .... but maybe we're lucky it isn't higher.
The real world is a complex dynamic changing thing.
Yeah ... "Mall Ninjas" can screw up. Police can screw up. And just because someone has gone to ABC Tactical Training Center doesn't really prove he'll get it right when the threat is real and the adrenaline is pumping, either.
Anyone who arms himself should:
1.) Get himself familiar with the weapon. Have a basic idea how it works. Know how to clear it. Know what kind of malfunctions it might be prone to. Keep it clean and maintain it correctly.
2.) Strongly consider what kind of person they are and will they really be able to act if there is a serious threat. This is a hard nut as no matter how much we might like to think we CAN do it, the only proof will come when it is real -- and no sane person wants that to happen. Sure, there are chest thumpers who will always claim they can and will. And maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong.

If this means taking Tom's Tactical Shooting for Self Defense course, do it. But consider, it's still training. It isn't reality.

I probably ought to add, parenthetically, a wise man should become clear what laws are in place concerning justifiable uses of guns in their jurisdiction.....


Anyway, the above is hardly complete ... but will do for now.

 

[ShootingSight]

I'm not sure I follow the point of your post.

I am a competitive shooter, mostly highpower rifle, but also steel plate pistol, a little bit of bullseye pistol, I am an NRA instructor in Basic Pistol, and a concealed carry permit holder.

Despite all of that, carrying a round in the chamber can be a scary thing, especially in eg a 1911, where it is cocked & locked, so I might make the conscious decision to reduce my safety in self defense/readiness slightly, in exchange for increasing my safety in the area of ND/AD.

Lots of things we do in our lives require balancing needs or threats. I could get out of a flaming vehicle one second faster if I didn't have a safety belt holding me back, but I chose to accept that risk, and wear a safety belt, because to me, the added safety of wearing it is better than the risk of not.

Why is that any different that deciding I would rather add a second to my armed response time, because I perceive the added safety of avoiding a ND/AC to be higher than the risk of reducing my response time by a second?

Recall, we are talking civilians here, where the risk of getting shot at in daily life is very low. This is not a combat patrol.

 

[ullie]

On one of the forums related to defensive carry there was topic after topic of CCW holders who were genuinely worried about AD/ND by carrying a round in the chamber or their semi auto pistol so they carry with a mag in and no round in the chamber thinking that they will have time and mindset to draw, chamber a round and hit their target before they are killed themselves. WTF?

The general idea that one topic pointed out is that it is ok that a person buy a gun, get a permit, strap on the gun and carry it with no further training because it is a constitutional right to carry and the government should not dictate that you have any further training beyond the CCW course. Some people should not use a fork much less a firearm.

If a person takes on the responsibility to carry a firearm he should either on his own or by mandate be made to get to a certain skill level. If you want to keep a magnum in the cookie jar at home fine but when you leave the house you now run the risk of drawing and firing that weapon in a manner that will injure me or my family.
A teenager driving a car is required to have more training in most cases than someone carrying a weapon does this not bother anyone but me?.

Just imagine this mall ninja sitting in Burger King when two gang bangers come up and start messing with him. He is threatened he draws his super blaster magnum.

Have we reached a point in life that common sense is all but lost?

...YES...most people haven't a clue...but only a false sense of security when they are carrying a weapon...and will fail miserably if the occasion ever arises in which they will need to defend themselves or their family...

 

[Zeus]

That's why it's our job to help the new shooters/gun owners. If you see someone at the range that needs help or is unsure of what they are doing, "POLITELY" ask them if you can help (that is if you are sure YOU know wth you are doing) and give them some pointers on safety, shooting stance, grip, holstering and reholstering properly etc. If we want a competent gun friendly society it's everyones job to help each other, just like we do here

 

[ullie]

2.) Strongly consider what kind of person they are and will they really be able to act if there is a serious threat. This is a hard nut as no matter how much we might like to think we CAN do it, the only proof will come when it is real -- and no sane person wants that to happen. Sure, there are chest thumpers who will always claim they can and will. And maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong.

[I probably ought to add, parenthetically, a wise man should become clear what laws are in place concerning justifiable uses of guns in their jurisdiction.....

...know yourself...your capabilities and your limitations...and the lawful use of deadly force...no amount of "so called training" alone will prepare you for a situation that "may" require the use of deadly force...for many people...it's may be better "not" to carry a weapon...carrying a weapon "may" only place you in greater jeopardy...

...my thoughts anyway...

 

[ullie]

Despite all of that, carrying a round in the chamber can be a scary thing, especially in eg a 1911, where it is cocked & locked, so I might make the conscious decision to reduce my safety in self defense/readiness slightly, in exchange for increasing my safety in the area of ND/AD..

...if you ever had an instructer even "allude" to carrying a weapon capable of concealment without a round in the chamber...that is a pistol or revolver...you should demand your money back !

...a 1911 type can be carried safely with the hammer cocked and the safty on...although my perfered method would be to carry it chambered with the hammer down...you can draw a 1911 and cock her without a meaningful increase in response time...although it would not be my weapon of choice for defensive carry...

Why is that any different that deciding I would rather add a second to my armed response time, because I perceive the added safety of avoiding a ND/AC to be higher than the risk of reducing my response time by a second?

...sometimes you may not even have time to draw it...much less rack it...a defensive weapon should always be carried with a round chambered and the safty off...in fact...i would not recomend a defensive carry weapen that has a manual safty because most people will tend to carry it with the safty on...as long as the weapon is "inhearently" safe to carry due to some mechanical means incorporated in it's design...such as a "firing pin blocking device" in pistols or transfer bar safty or hammer block safty in a revolver...etc...

Recall, we are talking civilians here, where the risk of getting shot at in daily life is very low. This is not a combat patrol.

...then why carry at all ? ...not picking on youi Art...but there's a right way that will increase your chances of survival or to avoid grave bodily injury...and a wrong way...that will increase the chances that you will fail to be able to adequately defend yourself against a legitimate threat justifying the use of deadly force......

 

[ftboomer1]

Please take this in the spirit given. By your signature you are owed a great deal of respect, gratitude and deference for your service in Iraq. I too am a veteran but have never been overseas, so our common experience on this matter only goes so far.

Having said that, here I go. Anytime lethal force is employed, there are chances of terrible tragedies. The relative amount of training that someone has decreases the likelihood of unintended consequences, but they do not reduce them to zero. There have been many blue-on-blue kills in every war ever fought. It is not always due to a lack of training or weapon familiarity.
There was a recent tragedy not too far from my house where the police opened up on a fleeing bank robber that carjacked a sedan with a 2 year old in the back seat and her mom at the wheel. The robber was killed, the 2 year old came within an inch of her life,the woman was hit and a 7 year old was not injured from a barrage of fire from about 1/2 dozen officers that fired 40+ rounds into the car at a suspect that witness claim did not even point his weapon at the officers, let alone shoot at them. (Full disclosure, there are also claims that he did fire or point his weapon at the officers, these details have not been officially released yet and I have no knowledge of this incident other than the news.)
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/news ... yid=153908
I have no doubt in my mind that they could have avoided shooting into the car if they had reacted more rationally. Instead they cowboy'd their way into a hellstorm for the folks sitting in the Wendy's drive through.

Bottom Line: There is nothing that you or I can ever do to train the stupid out of anyone. We can only train to remove ignorance.

 

[ShootingSight]

Ullie,

The safety on a 1911 will not engage if the hammer is not cocked, thus, the correct way to carry it is hammer back and safety on. However, everyone makes their choices.

My point is that everyone makes decisions as to how they perceive the level of threat to their safety, and what the appropriate way to respond is. If you are in a real CZ, you carry cocked with a round in the chamber, and the gun is in your hands, pointing where you are looking. Your idea of stand down might be if you go to cocked & locked when you are sitting on the toilet, or in the shower.

Civilians will carry the gun concealed in a holster with a safety on, rather than having it out, in their hand, at the ready, and often stand down even further, by taking their gun out and putting it away when they get home (gasp!). They don't live in a CZ.

I suspect you yourself are one of these people whose defenses are not at the highest level of readyness, because you carry in a holster, not in your hand.

So, once we have agreed that there are different levels of readyness, each appropriate based on perceived threat, we have to accept that different people will balance risks differently, as they see fit.

A soccer mom might decide that a cocked gun with no safety in her purse is a little too dangerous, because she might drop the purse, or because she is afraid car keys might snag on the trigger. She might decide that decreasing her response time from 0.5 sec for ready in the hand to 1.5 sec for concealed in a holster, to 2.5 sec for unchambered in her purse is a risk she is willing to take, and who here gets to decide that her rationale is a: wrong, or b: makes her less deserving to carry a gun? The same guys who are willing to move from 0.5 sec to 1.5 sec by carrying in a holster?

Heck, there are days I go out where I don't carry at all. Is this because i am not feeling competent to carry a gun? No. It is because I feel the perceived threat to me is low enough that I am willing to decrease my response time from 1.5 sec to 15 minutes (when the cops arrive).

So, in summary, given that some ND/AD events do happen when there is a round in the chamber, and zero ND/AD events happen when there is no round in the chamber, it is statistically safer to carry without a round in the chamber. Training can minimize this risk difference, but cannot make it zero, and every one on this forum has made a mistake with guns or while driving a car at some point in their lives that could have been deadly. You therefore have a real risk in carrying chambered, and you can decrease that risk by carrying unchambered, though it will cost you a second in response time. You have a level of external threat, some of which will have lmited response time available. Everyone has to balance those factors and decide where they feel comfortable.

So unless you carry with your gun in your hand, at the ready 24 hours a day, you too have made that balance and arrived at a level that is good for you.

 

[ullie]

Ullie,

The safety on a 1911 will not engage if the hammer is not cocked, thus, the correct way to carry it is hammer back and safety on. However, everyone makes their choices.

...Art

...FYI...i was introduced to shooting...at the age of seven...in the woods of remote Northern California at my uncle's ranch...the first weapon i ever fired in my young childhood was an old 1911 45 ACP pistol while i vacationed with my uncle and aunt every summer as a child...by the time i was ten years old...i had already fired thousands of rounds through various 1911 pistols amoung other weapons...and have since owned several myself...

...if i were to train someone who "absolutely" insisted to carry a 1911 type pistol...i would train then to carry it with a round in the chamber and the hammer down...with the safty off...on some of the newer pistols...such as the 80 series of Colts introduced in 83" for example...there is a mechanical firing pin block that will prevent an accidental discharge if dropped...amoung other mechanical safties...on the older Colts...such as the 70 series...you can install a titanium firing pin and a slightly heavier firing pin spring...i could go on "ad nauseam"...with the numerous variations available to the consumer... but won't...

...this is not to say that "cocked and locked" is unsafe...it is just that this is not "my" perfered way to carry a 1911...a mute point since i don't carry a 1911 type...

...however you choose to carry "your" weapon is your decision alone...if i feel the need to carry...i will carry the appropiate weapon in an appropiate manner that will allow me to effectively defend myself and my family should the need arise...unfortunately...it has been my experience over the decades that people sometimes make poor choices...such is life...

 

[ShootingSight]

Ullie,

Both methods are probably safe enough, but if I teach a student something, it will be what the designer had in mind when he designed the gun, not a preferred variation that I happen to like better.

If there is ever an accident, I've got no interest in defending to a jury why I believe that my years of experience shooting somehow make me more qualified than John Moses Browning to determine how to best carry his gun.

Do you know what Colt officially recommends, since they introduced the Mod 80 with the firing pin block? I do know that the NRA says never to rely on a mechanical device for safety, as mechanical devices can fail ... which suggests not carrying one in the chamber in the first place. Colt probably won't make an official recco.

Art

 

[cwo4uscgret]

like driving...

carry responsibly. If you carry, no matter what gun or what condition you carry it it, you alone are responsible for what happens when you pull the trigger with the gun in hand.

In my military caree and now, I've either carried the 1911 in Condition I, II, of III depending on where I was in life. The Coast Guard used to have us carry our 1911s with a full magazine in the gun, hammer down, with an empty chamber. Some "smart" office type decided that chambering a round constitued a warning shot, just as they did when we racked a round into the pump shotgun's chamber...that's what they taught and believed in.

When I first began to carry one of my 1911s off-duty it would be hammer down on a loaded chamber; until I really thought long and hard about the consequences of having the hammer slip out of my fingers and my thumb not covering the firing pin at the same time...

So now I carry my 1911s cocked and locked; my personal preference. That's the joy of the 1911 we each have our choice of carry. When I carried hammer down I don't think I lost any time having to cock the hammer as I was drawing from the holster; mainly because I practiced that draw.

There in lies the key; you have to practice, practice, practice so regardless of how you carry, that it is automatic when you draw your gun you know that it is loaded with a round in the chamber by the time you have your gun pointed on target; then too you have positively identified the correct target.

It really is all about personal preference,

 

[tacman605]

7art you are an accomplished shooter and have an intimate knowledge of firearms you make the informed choice of locked and cocked or none in the chamber, you may have the ability to recognize the threat, draw, chamber, and engage before the bad guy does something to you. Will you have the time probably not but you have the experience to make the decision.
The main ones I am talking about are carrying DAO guns that have a 27 pound trigger pull, extra super duty rubber bands to keep it from firing and every safety feature known to the free world, but they are not putting a round in the chamber out of fear and ingnorance thinking the mere sight or possession of a firearm constitutes safety.
Chief you are correct I to have had to carry 1911's, BHP and other single action autos in every condition known to man. At one point regs stated that the sidearm would be carried with no mag, chamber empty and safety engaged great but in the case of a SA auto this meant the hammer would have to be back to engage the safety. I cannot tell you how many times I got dirty looks and called to the side to inform me that the hammer was back on my weapon and this was from Police advisors and senior NCO's and officers. I would nicely ask them to tell me the reg and then have them put my BHP in that condition without the hammer back if it was possible at the time. After doing this a few times word spread on our small camp and when someone would mention that the hammer was back 15 people would all chime in with an explanation.
Ullie thanks for the support and someday I will learn how to do the quote in a block thing. Just a note we have closed down our beloved little FOB in the middle of nowhere, I turned in my special training weapons for destruction or reissue and now sit on a decent sized base for a month relieving another medic for leave. Will be headed to another permanent position after this then home on leave to shoot my SIG's and other toys.

 

[ullie]

...just some randon thoughts on concealed carry....take them for what they're worth...and i'll be extreamely brief...

...know yourself and your abilities and limitations...by this i don't only mean your level of proficiency with any particular weapon....but also your level of discipline in being able to handle a possibly stressful and very dynamic situation which may require the use of deadly force...for example...are you the type of person who will "respond" to a threat or simply "react"...will you be able to control yourself and your weapon...staying ahead of it so to speak...or will you be prone to draw and fire when not justified out of fear or panic...are you capable to "shoot" and possibly kill another human being "without hesitation" if required...be honest with yourself......

...choose your weapon and ammunition wisely...and carry your weapon in an approprate holster based on your needs for concealment...for most people i would recomend a double action / single action pistol with a decocker but "without" a manual safty...such as the Sig Sauer P series...or a HK so set up...don't allow small differences in accuracy and magazine capacity to flavor your decision...and don't go with a caliber you can't handle comfortably...especially in a light compact or sub compact pistol...you will most likely have to fire more than once to stop a dedicated attacker and shot placement is everything...

...i would avoid pistols that have a "Glock" type trigger system...or something like the HK LEM system...even though heavier...a double action first pull will afford you better control of the weapon under stress...and will require a more deliberate pull of the trigger to fire the first shot...just a little insurance to help keep you "ahead" of your weapon...

... certified instructors are as common as toys in a cracker jack box...find one that you can communicate with well...and be honest with him...choose one based of his "real world" experience...not his credentials...discuss your concerns and shortcommings...you're with him to learn...not to impress him...a good instructor will listen and tailor his training around you..."your" abilities and mindset...

...it is your responsibility to understand the legal ramifications of the use of deadly force...be certain you do...it will be you alone that will be held responsible for your actions...and this can...and sometimes will...become a questionable grey area without any well defined parameters...and the parameters will be determined by others...not by yourself...so know what it is all about before you carry......

 

[1stGenerationAmerican]

This discussion has a good lively debate.

Here’s my 2 cents:

OP (original post) discusses Ninja guy – first if Ninja guy has taken a CCW course and is spraying bullets all over, he hasn’t listened very well to the ramifications of using deadly force and will probably go to jail. Any prosecutor worth their weight will bypass the first three self-defense assessments; Ability to harm, Opportunity to harm, Jeopardy (analysis of fear), and jump straight to Preclusion. Did the CCW permit holder do everything possible to avoid having to fire? Once the prosecutor shows this they will look at what is called the F.B.I. Rule of Three. Did it last longer than 3 seconds? (the average self-defense duration). Did the CCW permit holder fire more than 3 rounds? (any more is questionable as to intent unless confronted by multiple attackers). Did the confrontation happen within 3 yards? (the average range for self-defense).

If the OP is concerned about states that allow CC without a permit, then I’m all for those states issuing a booklet with each handgun purchase that outlines the above and the ramifications for the CC if they decide to use deadly force. It’s up to them to get additional training and practice. The 2nd Amendment is a right not a privilege like driving a car, hence legally requiring training.

As for Open Carry, I’m not a proponent. It’s like letting the bad guy know your Achilles heel. If the BG knows ahead of time what I have and how to take me down, that’s the BG’s advantage not mine. He’ll see me coming miles away before I know he’s coming for me.

As for chambered or not. I carry at the 4 O’clock strong side and since my left hand has to cross over to raise my shirt, it’s right there to chamber the round as I draw to my eye/front of my body. When I shoulder carry it’s chambered since it’s under my weak arm.