Carrying W/Empty Chamber

[cmort666]

Originally posted by Erich:
I have decided to unload my carry guns and keep the ammo in another room.

I'll load them if I have trouble and need to use them.

I think that's dangerously irresponsible!

I've decided to not have guns OR ammunition until I need them. If someone attacks me, I'll call my FFL and order a firearm and some ammunition!

 

[Erich]

You've got me thinking about safety for real now, cmort666. I'm not even sure they should stock firearms. Perhaps they should just manufacture them as they are needed.

 

[cmort666]

Originally posted by Erich:
You've got me thinking about safety for real now, cmort666. I'm not even sure they should stock firearms. Perhaps they should just manufacture them as they are needed.

But then how do we prevent "impulse manufacture"? I'm not even sure they should be allowed to have prints, much less the CNC program. I think they should have to design from scratch every time you need a gun!

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Originally posted by cmort666:
But then how do we prevent "impulse manufacture"? I'm not even sure they should be allowed to have prints, much less the CNC program. I think they should have to design from scratch every time you need a gun!

That's not funny.

You guys are making fun of a serious subject OOPS! I forgot - we're talking about Carrying W/Empty Chamber! I withdraw my objection.

 

[230therapy]

The idea of allowing an attacker the opportunity to reset and come at you again or access a weapon of his own when you don't have to is just asking for trouble.

You did not understand the statement. By resetting his OODA Loop, he has to start his process over...it's a BAD thing. The "reset" is due to the damage caused by the strike.

It's not dancing around in any negative sense. It's using movement as a defense (since most of us don't carry ballistic shields around) and combining it with the tools we have onhand: gun, knife, fist, etc. It may be more appropriate to use empty hand depending upon the situation because deploying a weapon may take longer than he reacts (so he gets a shot off while you're accessing the weapon).

 

[flop-shank]

Originally posted by cmort666:

Originally posted by Erich:
You've got me thinking about safety for real now, cmort666. I'm not even sure they should stock firearms. Perhaps they should just manufacture them as they are needed.

But then how do we prevent "impulse manufacture"? I'm not even sure they should be allowed to have prints, much less the CNC program. I think they should have to design from scratch every time you need a gun!

Only after a seven day waiting period!

 

[TwoGunsStanding]

At the very least, my topics are thought provoking, even joke provoking. Makes for good reading, yes? I will say this (and I've said a LOT), if you are very practiced, know your weapon and presentation, have plans in your head, and are now freed up mentally to ADAPT to the real situation, you are reacting, and responding, and moving about to avoid your attack, take cover, maybe even move closer and attack your attacker, well, these become options if the gun just seems to go into your hand by itself (that happened to me once on a traffic stop when a car backfired just as I got out of the cruiser. I don't remember drawing, just the gun in my hand, and I'm looking for someone with a gun anywhere around me.) I know a lot of cops that shake in their shoes because they are not very proficient, or confident with their gun, and they have scared me. I think some of you may know people like that. Anyway, confidence frees up the mind to adapt. PS: I recently heard a cop complaining about a high security holster that his department adopted. From what he described, I can EASILY rack the slide of a .45 before he is able to get his gun out of his holster, and that would be every time. Why do police departments do this? Apparently it's because a cop gets his gun snatched more often that he encounters point blank speed threats.

 

[ncy54]

I'll bet Plaxico B. wishes that he was carrying with an empty chamber (just couldn't resist).
On a more serious note, other than if you are carrying your SA Colt revolver, the empty chamber carry concept defies logic, IMHO.
NCY54 in the PR of NJ (where you can't carry anyway)

 

[Richard Simmons]

Originally posted by TwoGunsStanding:
PS: I recently heard a cop complaining about a high security holster that his department adopted. From what he described, I can EASILY rack the slide of a .45 before he is able to get his gun out of his holster, and that would be every time. Why do police departments do this? Apparently it's because a cop gets his gun snatched more often that he encounters point blank speed threats.

Cops also end up on the ground with a suspect which is where a lot of guns get grabbed. You can't compare a uniformed officer, across the board with someone carrying concealed.

The uniformed office is a visible threat and is most likely addressed that way by the criminal element. Someone carrying concealed can have the element of surprise in their favor. Police also enter into certain situations because they have to where as a civilian would not.

 

[TwoGunsStanding]

Regarding logic (one man's logic is another man's insanity - ever watch a debate? Both sides are logical). If speed and readiness were all that we were concerned with, police departments would NEVER require security holsters. A high security holster translates into a slower draw. If vital seconds can and ARE sacrificed at the officer's expense due to policy, a CCW carrier should have the OPTION to choose how they carry. That's what makes it a free country!

 

[BarbC]

True. You can't legislate common sense, although anti-gun people sure do try, because the bone-head and irresponsible antics are the ones that make the headlines.

 

[230therapy]

2Gun...this has been a very fun thread!!!

Thanks for starting it!!

 

[BarbC]

Regarding logic (one man's logic is another man's insanity - ever watch a debate? Both sides are logical). If speed and readiness were all that we were concerned with, police departments would NEVER require security holsters. A high security holster translates into a slower draw. If vital seconds can and ARE sacrificed at the officer's expense due to policy, a CCW carrier should have the OPTION to choose how they carry.

But your logic/argument is flawed here. You cannot equate the duty and liability of a trained police officer, who has multiple options including calls for backup, sprays, a baton, a Taser, etc., intensive physical training and strict policies to be followed, with the average CCW citizen on the street.

These are mutually exclusive scenarios and therefore are to be analyzed independently.

 

[cmort666]

Originally posted by BarbC:
True. You can't legislate common sense, although anti-gun people sure do try, because the bone-head and irresponsible antics are the ones that make the headlines.

Correction, EVERY anti-gunner I've seen (and being from Chicago, I've seen a LOT) has wanted to legislate AGAINST common sense.

 

[Evil One]

Originally posted by Richard Simmons:
Cops also end up on the ground with a suspect which is where a lot of guns get grabbed. You can't compare a uniformed officer, across the board with someone carrying concealed.

If you are attacked, there is no telling where you will end up.


Jim

 

[Erich]

But then how do we prevent "impulse manufacture"? I'm not even sure they should be allowed to have prints, much less the CNC program. I think they should have to design from scratch every time you need a gun!

Right! We should keep the DNA of JMB on file, and then make up a clone of him (the 9 months in utero should be an adequate waiting period for flop-shank's valid concerns

) whenever a weapon might be needed.

After a finding by the international court that there is probable cause to design and manufacture a weapon, of course!

 

[TNDixieGirl]

ever watch a debate? Both sides are logical

Not always.

 

[rj8806]

I find these kinds of threads very informative. I have read all 10 pages now and the one thing that sticks out most in my mind is the original poster merely asked for others opinions. He did not impose his will (or carry method) on others and yet, some of you took to belittling(sp?) him because of his choice to carry w/o one in the chamber?

Why couldn't this have been a calm, debated topic rather than a "I'm right, you're wrong and stupid" thread?

The new member, jeff13 I think, said he wasn't completely comfortable yet with his gun so he carried w/o one chambered and all I kept reading was "why bother", "you're better off not carrying at all", "might as well carry a brick" etc....
G-man took alot of time and effort posting his thoughts and even 2 videos to backup his opinion and that was great but most of you just bashed him (the OP)without any factual proof?

I sold my 4506-1 awhile back and now only own and carry my Kimber but I still liked coming here because I got the impression that this was a friendly forum that has alot of friendly, helpful, knowledgeable members on it. Now it's just 1 out of 2.

When I first joined here, I was asking alot of questions(some dumb, I'm sure) and all of them were answered in a polite, non-condescending manner. Since then, I have noticed a trend of bashing and condescending attitudes, mostly from the long-timers here and I just don't get it?

If I were a brand new noob here, I would think twice about posting/asking questions for fear of being ridiculed and that's just not right.

Just my .02....


Richard

 

[Big Foot]

Well put Richard....

 

[WC145]

Originally posted by 230therapy:

The idea of allowing an attacker the opportunity to reset and come at you again or access a weapon of his own when you don't have to is just asking for trouble.

You did not understand the statement. By resetting his OODA Loop, he has to start his process over...it's a BAD thing. The "reset" is due to the damage caused by the strike.

It's not dancing around in any negative sense. It's using movement as a defense (since most of us don't carry ballistic shields around) and combining it with the tools we have onhand: gun, knife, fist, etc. It may be more appropriate to use empty hand depending upon the situation because deploying a weapon may take longer than he reacts (so he gets a shot off while you're accessing the weapon).

I understood your statement and your reasoning, your idea (without the OODA loop reference) is a boxing strategy that's been around forever - stick and move. My point was that in a self defense situation you capitalize on that moment and your position of advantage by staying close and maintaining the bridge. That allows you to control the opponent (to some degree) and to know by feel how it is that they are trying to move or retaliate. You do everything you can to overwhelm them and end the fight or create an opportunity to go to your gun.

To hit and move, hit and move, and so on, can work great in the ring and wear your opponent down for a finishing blow or move. But on the street anything you do that drags out the fight any longer than necessary is just more time for something to go wrong and it only takes one hit to turn a fight around and for you to find yourself losing.

Also, don't believe that your blow is guaranteed to disrupt his "OODA loop", whatever that is. I've hit plenty of people with good hard shots only to have them shake it off or not even notice. When you start believing that what you have is going to work the first time, every time, you can start expecting your first good ass whoopin' because it won't be long before someone comes along and debunks your theory.