Carry and ammo fails

FireForged said:
... Once I understand.. I have no use for the terms, color codes, conditions or decision tree's outside a classroom and will simply consider myself ready to fight or unready to fight. Its not really any deeper than that.....
Click to expand...
It can indeed be deeper than that. After an incident you might very well need to articulate how and why you decided (and a reasonable person would decide) to do what you did. Understanding one or more accepted decision process models might very well help you to do that in a convincing way.
 
Empty chamber gives you an extra few seconds if your gun is taken from you. Don't think it cant happen to you. One of my fellow officers was shot three times with his duty revolver after it was taken from him. Would an empty chamber helped? Maybe not but couldn't have hurt.
Click to expand...

This was a comment early on that seemed to be largely ignored, but it made me wonder if this was the logic for carrying with an empty chamber then would it not just be better all the way around to not carry a gun at all? :rolleyes:
 
there are no reasons to carry condition 3, its not safer.
Click to expand...

It's not safer for the individual carrying. It is safer for an organization.

Military rules for empty chambers are for the benefit of the military, overall, NOT any benefit to the individual soldiers!

Remember that the military is dealing with THOUSANDS of young, undertrained, men (and some women) who are ALSO taught to be aggressive. No one is as creatively stupid as a 19yr old GI without his/her Sgt looking over their shoulder 24/7.

As to required training, for a CCW license, I am opposed in principle, to the REQUIRED part. Sure, its a good idea, but as others have already said, the bureaucrats simply will NOT leave the "required" standards alone.

For that reason, and that reason alone, I think permits and required training is a bad idea. yes, I have personally seen a required 8 hr class become a required 24 hr class, and then a required 40 hr class over the space of a few years.

If it is there, they WILL abuse it, and we are the ones who must suffer the consequences.
 
It's not safer for the individual carrying. It is safer for an organization.

Military rules for empty chambers are for the benefit of the military, overall, NOT any benefit to the individual soldiers!
Click to expand...

Would that suggest there are less N/Ds when handguns are carried in con 3. The advice seems to be carry with a round in the chamber, would that include someone that had never handled a firearm and had no training. ?
 
Would that suggest there are less N/Ds when handguns are carried in con 3. The advice seems to be carry with a round in the chamber, would that include someone that had never handled a firearm and had no training. ?
Click to expand...

Carrying with a chambered round is absolutely the recommendation of any credible trainer for self-defense. Someone who has never handled a firearm, with no training has no business carrying a gun, period.
 
Someone who has never handled a firearm, with no training has no business carrying a gun, period.
Click to expand...
Is their mandatory training in America before someone can have a CCW or open cary or a PPW as they call them here. ?
 
Is their mandatory training in America before someone can have a CCW or open cary or a PPW as they call them here. ?
Click to expand...

Depends on where you are. Some states require training, others don't. Carrying a gun without training and experience is a bad idea in my view. The problem is once government gets into the mix, reason can go out the window. Some places use the need to qualify as a way of denying the right. Others use time and money to make it more difficult to qualify. I'm all for common sense training and qualification. Governmental control and common sense are often at odds when it comes to gun rights.
 
Depends on where you are. Some states require training, others don't. Carrying a gun without training and experience is a bad idea in my view. The problem is once government gets into the mix, reason can go out the window. Some places use the need to qualify as a way of denying the right. Others use time and money to make it more difficult to qualify. I'm all for common sense training and qualification. Governmental control and common sense are often at odds when it comes to gun rights.
Click to expand...

You have a dilemma then you either have manatory training or untrained people walking around with concealed firearms, being advised to carry with a round in the chamber. you say.
Someone who has never handled a firearm, with no training has no business carrying a gun, period.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
No dilemma for me. My recommendation is not to carry at all without some training. Whether mandatory training makes a bit of difference is unclear though. Anti-gun gun advocates will insist that anyone carrying a gun is a danger, trained or not. Statistically that is not supported by the facts.

I think everyone who wants to carry a gun has the right to do so. Any law abiding citizen who asks me about carrying a gun will get my support. Take a class or two, practice regularly to get proficient, and carry a gun that's ready to use. Anyone not willing to do that should buy some pepper spray in my opinion, but that is not the law in some places. So be it. Freedom a tricky thing.
 
Generally, I agree firearms carried for self-defense should be carried in a ready condition. However, an exception that would make Condition 3 carry appropriate would be if it were unsafe to carry otherwise: A firearm without a positive firing pin block being pocket-carried, for example.

Of course, that begs the question, "Why are you choosing a weapon and/or carry method that puts you at a tactical disadvantage when your life is at stake?'' Life is about trade-offs, but make sure you know what you're doing.

The rationale for "Israeli Carry" was supposedly that at the time many different handguns, often obsolete, were being issued, so that it was felt that troops should just train to draw and chamber as standard operating procedure: Hopefully, you have access to better equipment.

However, I generally store my home defense weapon(s) Condition 3 because I think I would have the time to deploy it properly and that it is more important to store it safely. This is also in line with standard law enforcement practice for rack-stored weapons.

The more important point is that whatever condition the weapon is in, it is always the same and the user trains with it.

A firearm should only be used in an absolutely unavoidable last-ditch attempt to save your life or somebody else's life. If it comes to that, you usually only have one chance, and you better be ready. You definitely do NOT want to be dicking around with various manipulations, but whatever you do, make sure it is ingrained in your "lizard brain".
 
Last edited:
No dilemma for me. My recommendation is not to carry at all without some training. Whether mandatory training makes a bit of difference is unclear though. Anti-gun gun advocates will insist that anyone carrying a gun is a danger, trained or not. Statistically that is not supported by the facts.
Click to expand...

Are you not contracting yourself you say. ( Someone who has never handled a firearm, with no training has no business carrying a gun, period.) And you recommend training. So if someone with no training wanted a CCW you would support them and advice C1 carry.
 
Mantra it is not my business to tell anyone else what they can do. There is no contradiction in my position. If someone asks me, I tell them get some training before carrying. I would explain that without training a gun does not make anyone safer. Whether they follow my recommendation is up to them, and the law where they are located.

This may be difficult to understand for you. When government tries to control every aspect of our lives we cease to be free. There are many things that are perfectly legal that I don't agree with. Truth is someone carrying a gun without training is probably more a threat to themselves than anyone else. Neither I, nor the government can fix stupid.
 
Let's be clear about something, the word "training" covers a lot of different territory, depending on who is using it.

For some people, it means some kind of formal / classroom instruction, only. For others, myself included, "training" is like "education". It includes, but is not limited to classroom instruction, it also includes ALL experience and familiarity.

Still today in the US there are a LOT of people who literally "grow up with guns". Daily carry and use of firearms for sport and agriculture is normal for many. And while there are a few idiots (which can be found everywhere) the majority of these folk know what they are doing, and do it safely.

The only real "training" these kind of folks need, or benefit from is instruction about their legal roles and responsibilities. They already know how to operate firearms, often quite well.

And that instruction need not be in a classroom setting to be both correct and effective.

Unfortunately, in the modern age, we have a lot of people who think the only way people learn anything is to learn it from a "certified instructor" and have some kind of paper to stick on their wall "proving" it.

For almost opposite ends of the spectrum, compare the enthusiastic "cilvilian" (or amateur if you prefer that word) who spends their own time and money, hundreds of hours, if not thousands or tens of thousands of hours over a lifetime, "training" with firearms, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO, against a police officer who has little interest in firearms, and despite wearing one every day, only "trains" with their arm for their annual range qualifications, and only does that because it is a job requirement.

Yet to the general public that police officer is assumed to be knowing and skilled, while the private citizen is not, UNLESS he/she has some paper from a recognized, "certified" instructor.

A curious double standard, but a real one, nonetheless...
 
44 Amp, I completely agree. My concern is for someone who has never handled a firearm. Even in that situation formal training is not required if there is someone with the skills to help. Without some training and experience we just don't know what we don't know.
 
Let's be clear about something, the word "training" covers a lot of different territory, depending on who is using it.

For some people, it means some kind of formal / classroom instruction, only. For others, myself included, "training" is like "education". It includes, but is not limited to classroom instruction, it also includes ALL experience and familiarity
Click to expand...
I am sure plenty of Americans have never handled a firearm, obviously you can train someone and that doesn't mean they woint do something stupid but at lest they know how to operate a firearm safely after that its up to them. When i say training i mean how a firearm operates, and how to operate it safely, not how to storm a building and release hostages. Do you think anyone with no knowledge on how a handgun operates, and how to do that safely should have a CCW in C1 or any other condition.? Do you think someone with no knowledge of how a firearm operates, and how to operate it safely is more likely to have a N/D.?

Yet to the general public that police officer is assumed to be knowing and skilled, while the private citizen is not, UNLESS he/she has some paper from a recognized, "certified" instructor.
Click to expand...
I know i doint assume that police officers have training on firearms at least their function and safe use, their skill level is another matter.

They already know how to operate firearms, often quite well.
Click to expand...
In all cases. ?
 
Last edited:
manta49 said:
Do you think anyone with no knowledge on how a handgun operates, and how to do that safely should have a CCW in C1 or any other condition.? Do you think someone with no knowledge of how a firearm operates, and how to operate it safely is more likely to have a N/D.?
Click to expand...

8 states out of 50 require NO permit or training for CCW. Their firearm accident rates are no different than any of the other 42 states, some of which do not permit CCW at all or require extensive training and/or government permits.

It appears that mandatory training and/or permits do not affect the chances of having an N/D.
 
8 states out of 50 require NO permit or training for CCW. Their firearm accident rates are no different than any of the other 42 states, some of which do not permit CCW at all or require extensive training and/or government permits.

It appears that mandatory training and/or permits do not affect the chances of having an N/D.
Click to expand...

Have you the stats. ? So training on safe handling of firearms has no effect and a waist of time. :confused:
 
Page 4, left hand side of page.

No one said training was a waste of time. I would guess that the vast majority of people who choose to carry a gun do not want to shoot theirself and partake of some minimum level of training in their own self-interest, irregardless of whether governmental paperwork is involved or not.
Click to expand...

There is no mandatory training for CCW in the UK i know plenty that have a Personal Protection Firearm, and some never handled a firearm in their life. One near shot me a few years age, i am sure there similar in America, if basic training was introduced i would find it hard to argue with. As for carry i have changed my view to an extent i would carry in CON1 depending on the area i was in and the circumstances.
 
The "training" requirement, at least in some states, is laughable. I asked an instructor once if anyone had ever failed (and he had thousands of students I would guess). He told me that he had failed one student who had absolutely unsafe range practices. He said no one ever reviewed the targets for accuracy and it was no required under the training standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top