CCW: Keep one in the pipe?

[Well Armed]

I don't holster once a day... well, let me rephrase, I don't place the firearm into the holster once a day. My pistol stays in my holster... I take the holster off with the pistol still inside and place it in the safe when I am not carrying it. When I am going to carry it, the pistol stays in the holster and I put the whole thing on. The trigger is protected the whole time...

Does his point not still apply? Still, you're firearm is unholstered and reholstered more often than you'd logically would ever be in a gun fight correct?

 

[Arik]

No but we have had our yard broken into several times at night. Catalytic converters stolen. Vehicles stolen. Wheels stolen. My first day closing up 2 bounty hunters chased down and tackled a perp just feet away from me. Next door one prostitute was raped and the room set on fire in an attempt to destroy evidence. A prostitute was run over. Fights. Unsavory people. Every so often the police have a parade of cruisers and waggons pull in.

 

[RevolverDen]

I'll gladly be the 542nd comment...

Carrying pistol without one in the chamber, to me, is akin to telling your assailant to take the first shot...

 

[Well Armed]

Ok but how do I know that the person I just walked past isn't some psycho?

My work is next door to a section 8 motel. Lots of cars in and out every day, prostitutes, strange license plates. I'd say that my odds are a little more than miniscule of encountering a violent assailant.

I've been carrying since 98. Never carried a gun with external safies. Holster everyday. It's not hard to turn your head and look at the holster while inserting the handgun. Oh look nothing in the holster, nothing in the trigger guard! You make it sound like people twirl their guns like Cowboys before holstering

Wow that is a pretty bad neighborhood you're working around. Have you ever been robbed or had to shoot or kill anyone before?

No but we have had our yard broken into several times at night. Catalytic converters stolen. Vehicles stolen. Wheels stolen. My first day closing up 2 bounty hunters chased down and tackled a perp just feet away from me. Next door one prostitute was raped and the room set on fire in an attempt to destroy evidence. A prostitute was run over. Fights. Unsavory people. Every so often the police have a parade of cruisers and waggons pull in.

So no, you never had you personally use your firearm. To paraphrase, you claim that you do not need a safety because you have "been carrying since 98" and basically never had an accidental discharge. So using that same logic, why are you still carrying a gun? I mean, you've been carrying one since 98, and you never had to use it correct? According to your logic, it can never happen because it hasn't happened yet, so there's no threat that it will ever or could ever happen... Yet oddly enough, within the next minute or so, I could find several cases of accidental discharges on the web and on youtube. According to the CDC, thousands happen every year...

How many and how long will it take you to show me an example of a law abiding citizen being killed because he forgot his safety was on... I'll wait..

 

[RevolverDen]

No but we have had our yard broken into several times at night. Catalytic converters stolen. Vehicles stolen. Wheels stolen. My first day closing up 2 bounty hunters chased down and tackled a perp just feet away from me. Next door one prostitute was raped and the room set on fire in an attempt to destroy evidence. A prostitute was run over. Fights. Unsavory people. Every so often the police have a parade of cruisers and waggons pull in.

And that's the good side of town? LOL! ;-)

 

[RalphMP9FS]

I'll gladly be the 542nd comment...

Carrying pistol without one in the chamber, to me, is akin to telling your assailant to take the first shot...

Understandable, but the discussion has evolved to one in the chamber with no manual safety or double action pull.

 

[RevolverDen]

Understandable, but the discussion has evolved to one in the chamber with no manual safety or double action pull.

That's fine. I was responding to the portion of the thread that focused on not having one in the chamber.

As for one in the chamber without a manual safety or a double action pull: The answer falls squarely in regular training and practice to consistently achieve being able to properly draw and holster your handgun safely. And for those having a a manual safety, to achieve that the manual safety off by the time it is raised to your sight picture.

 

[drolen]

The only logical conclusion is that on balance, the person is more afraid of a negligent discharge than a deadly force attack.

You could be right in they are more afraid of a NG than violent attack but then again their decision may be made based on something else. Therefore, their logic may not follow your assertion. They could be making a decision based not on fear but on some factors that are theirs and theirs alone or maybe on their understanding of the probabilities. I have no idea what the actual statistics are here and I doubt you do either. Please educate me if I'm wrong. But what is the actual number of assaults that occur with almost no warning whatsoever? Sure, it's different for different towns but let me know your town and I'll do the research.

I'm no criminologist but I do have an undergraduate degree in criminology. What I remember is that most violent crimes include people who know one another and the majority of the rest of violent crimes come in areas or around activities that the average legal CCW holder probably does not partake in.

My point is I'm asserting that most of us responsible CCW folks avoid activities and areas where high crime is prevalent. In addition, I'm asserting that most of us live in areas where random violent crime is extremely rare to the point where it may not happen more than a few times a year in our towns regardless of size. Even if I'm wrong about all of you, this is true for me but like all of us I still carry on the off chance it does happen.

Now, since I'm saying random no warning crimes are very rare, and that most situations where you'd draw probably come with a minute or two of reaction time, and that some people probably don't feel it necessary to carry C1 to deal with the no notice assault, then your logic doesn't hold. Fear may not even be a factor in their decision making even if you don't agree.

I'm not begrudging C1 in any way. I carry C1 myself and see no need for me to carry C3 with either my revolver or M&P 9mm. However, I don't automatically use the word terror, fear, or untrained to describe how someone else may feel about their handgun and I don't assume that someone who decides on C3 is somehow scared or in terror or anything else.

Quite simply, I just let them make their own decision based on whatever logical or illogical factors they choose. Their gun, their CCW, their decision. Only if they are actually advocating that everyone else do what they do would I question their logic.

I leave it at that and can't understand why someone else feels the need to tell them what to do or to try and decipher their decisions and thoughts that go into it.

I also don't question anyone who decides on C1 carry. For instance I could see a point made where the likelihood of NG is raised in a C1 status regardless of training and the likelihood of actually needing to be in C1 vs C3 is low. With that in mind, I could see how someone may advocate for C3 for everyone. Of course, I'd go back to my "your gun, your CCW, your decision" to counter that argument but it would be a logical stance.

What is not logical in all of this is to place your idea of their thought patterns on them and then discredit their decisions based on those perceived assumptions.

 

[Arik]

So no, you never had you personally use your firearm. To paraphrase, you claim that you do not need a safety because you have "been carrying since 98" and basically never had an accidental discharge. So using that same logic, why are you still carrying a gun? I mean, you've been carrying one since 98, and you never had to use it correct? According to your logic, it can never happen because it hasn't happened yet, so there's no threat that it will ever or could ever happen... Yet oddly enough, within the next minute or so, I could find several cases of accidental discharges on the web and on youtube. According to the CDC, thousands happen every year...

How many and how long will it take you to show me an example of a law abiding citizen being killed because he forgot his safety was on... I'll wait..

That's a trick question. You can't because that's never listed. Also never listed is the type of bullet used. Was it a fmj? Hp? Which type? Bonded? All you ever get are the main facts. Person (name) shot in (city/neighborhood) and a few other things. But never such minute details. However youtube ND with a 1911 and you get plenty so I guess 2 safeties plus the one between the ears wasn't enough.

I'm the other hand I have been in instances where there wouldn't have been time to chamber because the perp didn't hold up a sign saying I will attack you in 4...3....2...1

There is no where where carrying with an empty chamber is a good thing. None, zero, zilch. What's the point of carrying in the first place

 

[Muss Muggins]

Understandable, but the discussion has evolved to one in the chamber with no manual safety or double action pull.

I can't think of a modern pistol that doesn't meet this criteria . .

 

[drolen]

So no, you never had you personally use your firearm. To paraphrase, you claim that you do not need a safety because you have "been carrying since 98" and basically never had an accidental discharge. So using that same logic, why are you still carrying a gun? I mean, you've been carrying one since 98, and you never had to use it correct? According to your logic, it can never happen because it hasn't happened yet, so there's no threat that it will ever or could ever happen... Yet oddly enough, within the next minute or so, I could find several cases of accidental discharges on the web and on youtube. According to the CDC, thousands happen every year...

How many and how long will it take you to show me an example of a law abiding citizen being killed because he forgot his safety was on... I'll wait..

Well said and the argument is kind of hard to beat with logic. I'm curious to see the counterpoint.

 

[RalphMP9FS]

I believe in probablities, so limiting them is important to me. All I said in my postings was that if your semi does not have a manual safety or double action first pull, my preference would be not to carry with one in the chamber. I was a little taken back by all the posters that basically said that you shouldn't carry a gun if those parameters are important to you.

 

[RalphMP9FS]

I can't think of a modern pistol that doesn't meet this criteria . .

My M&P 9 does not meet that criteria. The M&P 9 optional manual safety is badly designed IMO.

 

[cmort666]

I believe in probablities, so limiting them is important to me.

I'm interested in limiting the probabilities that I'll be:

1. shot.
2. stabbed.
3. disarmed and 1 or 2.

If I was so afraid of my firearm that I'd carry it in a condition conducive to 1-3, I'd either carry a different firearm or not at all.

 

[cmort666]

You could be right in they are more afraid of a NG than violent attack but then again their decision may be made based on something else.

However, apart from police or military rules/regulations, I've virtually never seen anybody whose decision to carry in condition 3 wasn't based on fear, or at least uncertainty, whether they admitted it or not.

I carried a Norinco M1911 in condition 3 (but cocked and locked) for less than half a day to test the safety. After I'd assured myself that the safety was working properly, I never carried that way again.

I took a calculated risk that I wouldn't need a loaded chamber for FOUR HOURS. I didn't hamper my ability to defend myself permanently and make excuses to justify it.

 

[drolen]

Cmort,

I think we just disagree. I think that I really don't care why they make a decision and believe that fear may not be the only reason. I also think that no one has any obligation to defend or clarify their position. My perception of your posts is that you think you know better than them and will not accept that there may be a reason other than fear for their decision.

Please clarify if I'm wrong.

 

[RalphMP9FS]

It's not a gun fear factor at all. Everyone has a brain fart every now and then, and the thought of severely injuring/killing an innocent bystander or myself, has irreversible consequences.

 

[Muss Muggins]

My M&P 9 does not meet that criteria. The M&P 9 optional manual safety is badly designed IMO.

Your M&P9, like a Glock, has three safeties. The optional manual safety would make 4, and is superfluous at best. I would suggest not carrying it until you understand how it works.

 

[drolen]

It's not a gun fear factor at all. Everyone has a brain fart every now and then, and the thought of severely injuring/killing an innocent bystander or myself, has irreversible consequences.

C1 arguers always point to fear and preparedness as the reason that C1 is the only condition acceptable and that there are no reasons whatsoever for anything else unless you're scared or willing to die quick. Matter of fact, someone will come along shortly and say that you are actually expressing fear in your post.

Sometimes there are other reasons. Sometimes we differ on our decisions. To each their own.

Your gun, your CCW permit, your decision.

 

[RalphMP9FS]

Your M&P9, like a Glock, has three safeties. The optional manual safety would make 4, and is superfluous at best. I would suggest not carrying it until you understand how it works.

I clearly understand how it works, and that's why I have a new 12 round semi ordered with a true DA/SA and a well designed manual safety. Thank you for looking out for my interests.