Carry and ammo fails

Hi, Briandg,

A few years back, I got tired of a young "gunshop gunster" who told us all about his fast draw "defense" exploits (in spite of MD's highly restrictive gun carry laws). Finally, I asked for some details. He loudly informed us benighted gun "experts" that he would prove to us all how fast he was as soon as he was old enough to buy a gun. I am waiting, waiting....

Jim
 
I do not care how many years you have been shooting how many years you were a champion shooter in competitions the human factor that most of us have never encountered in a real life shooting scenario is the fear of death. The adrenaline rush from competitions is not comparable to the fear once feels when your life is at stake.

Somehow all the practice you have done doing fast draws carrying all the ammo that gives you a fall sense of security in a moment like that whatever you seem to carry false short of your expectations and you wish you had a grenade launcher and a platoon backing you up. It is pointless to compare competitions and class instructions and years of experience as adequate training. The only thing that prepares to life and death situations is...life and death situations on a regular basis, and even than you may still not have the upper hand since you are the victim. You will be surprised if you do get lucky how easy it is to miss the perpetrator or perpetrators at very very close range. Yet you can hit a target at at 100 yards with your pistol but not a two hundred pound individual at 3 yards.
 
Last edited:
Lohman446 said:
I don't think condition 3 is absolutely untenable....
Click to expand...
A gun in condition 3 requires two hands to conveniently make the gun ready. (Yes, there are ways to rack the slide with one hand, but they are a good deal clumsier.)

On the other hand, sometimes in a defensive situation one might not have the use of both hands. Certainly a gun must at times in a critical incident be fired with only one hand.
The NYPD keeps detailed records of firearm discharges by officers and publishes an annual Firearm Discharge Report.

  • For 2011, of officers reporting the shooting technique used in an incident 71% used two hands, i. e., 29% fired their guns using only one hand.

  • For 2012, 23 officers reported the shooting technique they used in an incident; and of those only 43% used two hands, i. e., 57% fired their guns using one hand.

  • For 2013, 35 of 55 officers reported how they held their guns in a shooting incident. Of those 35, 80% used two hand, i. e., 20% fired their guns using only one hand.
 
I don't think condition 3 is absolutely untenable. Do I chose to carry condition 3? Nope. Do I care if others do? As long as they are aware of the compromises that they are making it is not my concern.
Click to expand...

I have seen you post this a couple of times. With no other option, maybe it is better than nothing. I am not sure that it is though. A pistol without a round chambered is of no value in a gunfight, or a knife fight, or any other violent attack. Yes, chambering a round doesn't take long if both hands are free and you don't short stroke it under stress. My concern is it gives the carrier the illusion of safety, and little more in many situations. Carrying a pistol condition 3 is dangerous in my opinion. I have never heard a good reason for it with all the choices available.
 
It's just another assumption of extremely good luck to assume that you would have two completely functioning hands, and if you think about it, you don't have to just lose a finger or two. You have an entire arm that is in harms way.

If there is some sort of fracas before you draw, and you break your wrist, or anything all the way up to the shoulder, on either hand, you are SOL.

I've had work done on my shoulder. there's a nerve ganglion that can disable your entire arm. It used to get clamped, and my arm would go as limp as a string. take a shoulder injury and that may happen.

Remember chaos. Or Murphy, whichever demon you fear the most.
 
I would think that if you had time to chamber a round you also have the time to go the other way...

none of the reasons Ive heard to carry in condition 3 ever made sense to me.
 
And since almost all the posters on site like this one CLAIM super experience in gun handling and self defense, how come there are so few reported cases of armed self defense, even by police?
Click to expand...

I am fairly sure that many here have good bit of gun handling experience and self-defense training. I am also fairly sure that very few of us have reported cases of armed self-defense. Without conversation about gun handling and self-defense we wouldn't have much to talk about here.
 
I have always carried condition 1 and concealed. I have been in 2 DGUs as a civilian, both times condition 3 would have gotten me killed or at least compromised my position Never ever forget the element of surprise.
 
Let's discuss why I figure condition 3 is not untenable for others

1) As long as the individual is aware of the ramifications of the decisions they are making it is not my place to tell them it is unacceptable. Carrying a concealed weapon is a series of compromises that each person decides based on his or her experiences, expectations, and needs. We are not call carrying battle rifles, shotguns, or other long guns that are more suited to self defense - we have all made some compromises. For instance I carry a pocket 9MM in... well a pocket. It is not nearly as effective as a full size firearm carried strong side - it is a compromise I have made.

2) I think there are two ways to survive a situation where the use of deadly force is required: A) To be able to remain calm, assess the situation, and react effectively to the situation even if injured or B) to have trained to such a degree that the response is nearly automated in nature. There is no way to know about A and B is not exactly objective - I don't expect the majority of people carrying fall into category B.

Because of 2A I think that those who can remain calm and react effectively can readily deal with carrying in condition 3. In regards to 2B while I have watched people train for condition 3 (including some actually being able to rack a slide on a stiff belt*) I have not actually watched anyone train much for condition 3 and not, through the use and familiarity with the firearm, move to condition 1 if permitted.

Now.. let's go back for a moment and consider a statement I made (though I cannot prove). It is my belief that a majority of people who carry (and I think this is likely a vast majority) on a regular basis are not properly trained in the use of their firearm. I believe that these individuals are unlikely to survive a situation where the difference between condition 1 and condition 3 is paramount. If you do not have the ability to draw from a concealed location while using your offhand to fend off an attacker the concern about needing two hands is far less vital. For the record I think even many us carrying in condition 1 overthink our ability in regard to being able to fend off an attacker at contact distance while drawing a weapon - it is extremely hard to do.

One carries to his or her abilities and comfort level. If one assesses his or her abilities and comfort level dictate carrying in condition 3 my only place is to kindly assure they are aware of the compromises they have made. If they are telling them that such is untenable is paternalism which is something I try to avoid at all costs. I believe that they are placing too much faith in 2A above - but that is not my call to make.

*Yes I realize that some very skilled people practice this as part of a clearing drill.
 
It is my belief that a majority of people who carry (and I think this is likely a vast majority) on a regular basis are not properly trained in the use of their firearm.
Click to expand...
No doubt about it.
Just ponder all the conversations on this forum alone.
Lots of it about stuff and very little about how to use the stuff.
And it's not just the lack of proper training, (whatever that is), it's the lack of any training to speak of.
Not only about shooting and self defense, but most everything else, too.
It's just the way of the world, it seems.
On the other hand, it's probably just as true for the bad guys. :)
 
Dr. Meyer, if the concerns that you express make one a grump, I am just as much a grump as you.

In the cited article about the Minnesota mall stabbings, the mayor is quoted as saying, “This could happen in any community in this country . . . " And he is right.

As I have said before, I can see carrying without a round chambered for a period of time in order to gain trust in one's pistol, holster, and handling technique, but that should be done with a goal of mind of gaining enough trust to carry a pistol ready to fire. Simply because the mayor was right.
 
The hero who stopped the terrorist was not a novice:

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/0...all-terrorist-uspsa-competitor-3-gun-shooter/

Says something about being not scared of your gun or knowing when to shoot?

The guy got up three times - so do you really want to start against that sort of opponent with no round in the chamber or a blank?

Condition 3 - Great if your mindset allows you to stay calm when you are being sliced and diced. Why - that's my ear on the floor!

So some folks are incompetent - get competent.
 
So some folks are incompetent - get competent.
Click to expand...

The problem I have with this statement is competence is not exactly objective. There are, no doubt, some people on this board who have a level of competence that carrying multiple firearms and multiple reloads makes some degree of sense. For me it does not because I am not that competent - if the situation dictates that I need 45 rounds of ammunition I am probably very screwed - having or not having that ammunition makes little difference.

The person who fires their gun once a month is likely more competent than the person who has never fired one or shoots once a year if he or she is lucky. Still that person is likely less competent than the person who shoots competition every week.

What exactly is competence? More so if carrying a gun in condition 1 takes a certain amount of competence are all those people doing it doing so because of competence or bravado?
 
If you cannot carry a chambered gun because you think you will shoot yourself, to be blunt - you are incompetent.

That's any easy level.

I cannot tolerate the rationalizations of the incompetent anymore.

Buy a holster and red or blue gun. Buy a SIRT - draw it for 10 to 20 reps a day.

Or very carefully dry fire your carry gun from the draw from a quality holster.

That's not hard is it?

If you think a situation that entails extra ammo is one where you are apriori screwed, that is also unacceptable, defeatist horsepoop.
 
I think those who carry condition 3 are making a generally informed decision based on their unique set of circumstances. It is not my place to call that decision untenable or unacceptable.
 
That is your call. Discussion that points out why someone's world view (which is usually - I don't trust myself) is not acceptable is acceptable discussion and judgement for some of us.

While there may be some unique circumstances - the common circumstance of self-defense in a typical environment doesn't not support the practice.
 
the common circumstance of self-defense in a typical environment
Click to expand...

Because I like having discussion I am going to question this premise.

I think we have discussed it before. Most of the time a firearm is used in a self defense situation no shots are actually fired and the act of brandishing the weapon ends the threat. Is that not an accurate statement?
 
That is true but you fail to understand the long standing discussion of where on the risk/incident continuum you make the cut for your personal situation.

The average is not what always happens. If that were the case, most of use would never need a gun. So what. Your statement tells us nothing. Understanding statistics and decision making are useful skills.

The reason to carry a gun is that you decide you might be in a critical incident.

In my view, they come in two flavors - now these are a touch fuzzy but:

1. The mugger be gone. Wave the gun or take a shot. BG goes away.

2. Another smaller but distinct population of an intense incident. A rampage, terrorist, multiple attackers. In that case, do you bring yourself up to speed and a reasonable equipment level.

In the first case, yeah - you probably carry the day just waving the gun or firing a shot into the guy's leg.

In the second - you may need competency. We have seen fails:

1. Tacoma Mall - couldn't take the shot - got shot
2. Tyler Courthouse - broke cover and killed.
3. WalMart guy - taken out by second and ignored bad guy.

Now we see success in St. Cloud by a trained individual. We've seen long range shots by law enforcement in several cases on a rampager. The Denver church - female with training.

It is your decision, but if you go for the average - you don't need the gun. Cut the crap and leave it home. You might shoot yourself.
 
Glenn with all due respect we are not discussing average. We are discussing that situation that occurs most often when someone uses a gun in self defense. In the majority of situations a presented gun ends the situation - no one ever finds out if its in condition 1, 2, 3, or 4.

You are also correlating the condition with competence. There are plenty of incompetent people carrying in condition 1.

I would also like to point out that in the rampaging shooter scenario if you are not one of the first random targets condition 1 or 3 likely does not matter that much. If you are one of the first random targets condition 1 or 3 probably does not matter either (a shooter walking in and randomly shooting probably does not give you time to clear the holster).

Before my argument gains its own momentum... There are times that condition 1 is going to matter greatly over condition 3. There are times that second (or half - or whatever) will matter.

I would rather focus on training than condition of firearm. If we dismiss all people carrying in condition 3 as incompetent we are probably dismissing some competent individuals. If we accept all people carrying in condition 1 as competent... we are simply wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top