Carrying first shot as a blank

Status
Not open for further replies.
That has to be the mostest dumbest thing I've ever heard..............

You just can't make this stuff up.................
 
Agreed, a truly terrible, poorly thought out idea. It is the kind of idea you would expect to see come out of a committee. This person needs to do a bit of soul searching and decide what he is really willing to do to defend self and family.
 
He never specifically said "semi-auto" so perhaps he does carry a revolver.

No clue.

Years ago when I had summer jobs in a computer story, "Some Guy" was always to blame when someone came in with an old floppy disk shoved into a CD drive or some other goofy problem. So I don't intend to take "Some Guy's" advice on guns either :)

Just thought I'd ask since I never heard of such a thing before and I'm still pretty new to it all.
 
Blanks are not harmless. They have killed several people, including a soap opera actor on the set.

2. It allows him to deliberately fire a warning shot that can't hurt anyone but might scare off a robber or intruder.
Click to expand...

And if the intruder fires back thinking you shot at them?

Nope, the gun is a deadly weapon. Use it as such.

Deaf
 
I personally think firing a blank as your 1st shot is not the best idea. You may only have enough time to pull off 1 shot. I'd hate to think that my 1st and possibly my only life saving shot was just noise. Aside from that it won't cycle a semi and if it's a standard CCW revolver there's a good chance it's only a 5 shot. That leaves you with 4 usable rounds. One more thing that comes to mind. A blank doesn't generate enough pressure to expand in the cylinder. You run the risk of the blank backing out and locking up the cylinder.
 
Last edited:
Let's count some of the ways this is a bad idea:

1) A blank will not cycle an unmodified semi-auto, so the pistol will choke after the blank. In a revolver, you are taking an already low capacity firearm loaded with pistol caliber rounds and reducing its capacity by one.

2) Blanks are dangerous and can in fact be lethal at close ranges, so there is atill a potential for injury.

3) People don't buy a shovel and then cut slots in it so they can use it as a rake. Use the right tool for the right job. If the situation doesn't involve an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, a gun is probably the wrong self defense tool to be using. If it does involve that, a blank is the wrong tool to be using.

4)Legally, the law may make no distinction between you firing a blank (see #2) and a live round.

My main issue is somebody thinking that way just has their head in the wrong place. It is like a guy buying a chainsaw to mow his lawn - he just doesn't even understand his task or his tools.
 
I still want to consider the initial concern that results in carrying a blank and ignore the tactical and legal ramifications. The person carrying a blank is concerned about the risk of injury due to an accidental or negligent discharge.

While a blank may help in some concerns it is in no way "fool proof" A blank going off on an improperly handled firearm has the potential to cause serious injury or death.
 
Anyone who has had even a little training knows that survival in a self-defense situation where lethal force is used is almost always based on fast, accurate shot placement. Once you pull a gun, empty or loaded with blanks, lethal force is in play. That is not to say that just presenting a gun won't stop the fight. Just don't bet your life on it.
Click to expand...

I would not bet my life on it either, but the reality of guns and lethal force is that survival in a self defense situation is most often NOT based on fast, accurate shot placement. The estimates of 500,000 to 3,000,000 times a year guns are used for self defense each year http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent doesn't jive with fast, accurate shot placement. It jives with just having a gun. Beyond that, of the self defense situations where triggers are pulled, there are lots of times when the bad guys are not hit. Tremendous numbers of shots are fired that never hit the intended target, but still manage to stop the threat.

By and large, most people are not great shots under stress. Heck, based on what I see at the gun range and LTC classes, a lot of folks are poor shooters when not under stress. It doesn't help that many police departments think they are doing good if 30% of their rounds hit the bad guys.

No, you can't count on having a gun or inaccurate fire to stop a threat. That is true. However, fast, accurate fire is not a dominant parameter of self defense shootings in general.

Still, the blank is a stupid idea that comes with all the legal ramifications but none of the lethal benefits. If the guy thinks he needs it as a safety device to keep from having a ND, maybe he should not be carrying a gun.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes I swear that gunshop guys say stuff like this to screw with people when they are bored. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but mine is that this is a terrible idea and more likely to get you shot as you try to manually eject that blank to get a real round into play.
 
DNS I read the posted report. I think that it is probably correct that just having a gun often prevents violent attacks. I will say that I believe the CDC is not an unbiased source of information related to guns.

My statement stands though. If just presenting a gun stops the attack, lethal force has not been used just threatened, and that is the desirable result. Yes, I understand under the law presenting a gun is use of lethal force. In a situation where firing a gun is required to stop a violent attack, being able to put rounds on target quickly is the only option that reliably works. We can hope that shots fired, whether on target or not, will end the encounter. The only predictable way of doing it is to incapacitate the attacker before he succeeds in doing it to you. Fast, accurate shot placement is what gets that done.
 
I will not use my firearm as some sort of exclamation point. As far as the safety implications go, I would say that guns are dangerous and people need to be trained. Trying to render your gun inert is not the answer
 
1. Keeping the first shot as a blank is some insurance against pulling the trigger out of some startled response (which happens) and shooting too soon
***Or alternatively, he is now 1/2 second behind on trying to stop the threat.

2. It allows him to deliberately fire a warning shot that can't hurt anyone but might scare off a robber or intruder.
***This is not Hollywood.

Asked what he'd do if he knew he'd have to shoot for real, he said "shoot twice real damn fast."
***ONe should be prepared to shoot as many times as needed to stop the BG. He is intentionally increasing his disadvantage against a BG who likely already has an advantage over him.

His funeral.
 
The average self-defense fight is 3 shots, 3 feet, 3 seconds. I cannot see how giving away a third of two component parts of your survival is being smart.
 
^^^^^ What kilimanjaro said.
And you're effectively giving the first 2 'real shots' to the opponent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top