Documented risks of SOB carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nigelcorn

I don't carry a knife on my person with out a sheath. I am not referring to a locking/folding blade, I am referring to a fixed blade knife.

I would think that most of us would agree that placing a fixed blade knife directly into a pocket, sans sheath, and going about normal daily activities would not be prudent, especially in the long run.

Try to find documentation for the dangers of this activity; just for fun, or to "prove" something.

I believe that the founding fathers had a bit of common sense, I find myself often times wondering just what ever became of that legacy.
 
One, lots of cops used to carry things SOB and it didn't seem to be much of a problem.
Click to expand...
So you think the departmental prohibitions against LEO's carrying SOB today are not a result of problems encountered as a result of SOB carry in years past?

In your opinion, why did the policy change?
Of course most people who fall when carrying SOB also don't permanently lose the use (or partial use) of their lower extremities either, so it is sort of a moot point.
Click to expand...
Interesting reasoning. So, for example, because most people who dive into shallow water aren't paralyzed it's wrong to warn people against it?

Here I thought that the severity and permanence of the injury was the reason for the warnings, I didn't realize that it had to be a likely outcome before a warning was justified. Silly me... :rolleyes:
And they managed to get the job done without much difference than we see today, and if LE went back to revolvers it wouldn't change the qualityh of ability of LE much, if any.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that they would muddle through, and I'm equally sure that there would be folks who were happy to see things go back to "the old ways". That's not the point. The point is that in 30 years there have been a lot of lessons learned and a lot of improvements in tactics, equipment & practices as a result of those lessons learned. As there should be.
Nigelcorn asked for any documantation and all he has gotten is ridicule and smart ass remarks.
Click to expand...
Sometimes an idea deserves ridicule.

Look, no one claims that simply carrying SOB will paralyze you. The only statement I've ever seen made is that under certain very specific and fairly unlikely circumstances if you carry SOB, the holster & gun can result in a spinal injury.

Grownups can make their own decisions based on that information (assuming they're not LE and have to follow departmental policy). There's nothing to be gained by trying to "debunk" the myth of SOB. First, because it's not a myth, second, because if a person wants to carry SOB there's nothing preventing them as long as they're willing to take the risk.
 
John, I would appreciate if you could show me where, exactly, I said that people should be carrying SOB. I believe that I did say it probably does increase the risk of spinal cord injury, though the amount I believe is grossly overstated.

All I did was ask where the documentation is. Time and time again people say that you shouldn't carry SOB because it is "well documented" that it will cause spinal cord injury. The point is that it is not well documented. It is opinion. That isn't saying it is wrong, just that if you haven't ever actually seen documentation for it, you should probably just say that it is your opinion. You shouldn't go around telling anybody who disagrees or behaves differently than you that your opinion is well documented when it isn't. It is your opinion, just like the person that disagrees with you is using their opinion.

Again, I am not telling people they should carry SOB. As for the examples, there are obvious flaws with using examples to generalize. I agree that there will never be a double blind clinical trial about the safety of SOB for obvious ethical reasons, but that doesn't mean that we should give absolute trust to a story we heard about someone. What I mean by that can be illustrated by some of the examples given here. Somebody who was thrown down a staircase (while carrying SOB) had spinal problems. You could implicate the SOB carry, or you could probably more logically implicate the fall down the stairs. Another example was given where somebody was in an accident while carrying SOB. Injury was attributed to the SOB, but I would have to say that the car accident was probably at fault. Now, you can say that the SOB made the injury more severe, but that is complete speculation. It quite possibly did, but then again, it could have been completely unrelated.

So, while it might not be the best idea to carry SOB, I also don't think it is using sound logic to say something like the risks of doing so are "well documented."

As a side note, whatever happened to having an adult conversation with someone that disagrees with you? Is it necessary to personally insult and "ridicule" when somebody disagrees with you? I think that probably says a little more about you than you realize.
 
So, the idea of going to a forum and asking for information deserves ridicule. Nice concept John. I see nothing that says anyone is trying to debunk anything. Perhaps, he is trying to get documented information so he can truly assess the actual dangers of sob carry. That would be a way of trying to make an informed decision before carrying that way. The sanctimonious attitudes of the staff and some of the members of this site on this thread make me wonder why in hell I ever bother to read much less join this forum. :barf:
 
So, the idea of going to a forum and asking for information deserves ridicule.
Click to expand...

First of all, that's not what the OP did, the OP wasn't and isn't interested in information, the OP is involved in a personal crusade. (Explained later in the post.)

Second, that's not what I said. What deserves ridicule is:

1. The idea/implication that SOB carry doesn't involve a risk. It clearly does involve a risk. We can argue about the LEVEL of risk, but it's silly (worthy of ridicule) to imply that there is no risk.

2. The attempt to restrict "documented evidence" exclusively to case studies involving injuries resulting from SOB carry. Expert opinions also constitute documented evidence. It is ridiculous to pretend that the opinions of experts are null and void and that it's necessary to "find someone who's eaten the rotten egg" before we can determine that it's a bad idea.
As a side note, whatever happened to having an adult conversation with someone that disagrees with you?
Click to expand...
That went out the window early in the thread when it became clear that the OP wouldn't brook any evidence or reasoning that disagreed with his point of view. At that point it's no longer an "adult conversation" (or debate if you prefer), it's obvious that it's a personal crusade.
Is it necessary to personally insult and "ridicule" when somebody disagrees with you?
Click to expand...
I haven't insulted or ridiculed you, but I have certainly ridiculed some of the things you said. And it's not because I disagree with you, it's because some of the things you said are definitely worthy of ridicule.

The bottom line is that the idea that carrying a hard object next to your spine does not increase the risk of spinal injury should you fall on that hard object is definitely an idea worthy of ridicule. As I said, we can argue about how much the risk is increased, but it's ridiculous to imply that there is no increased risk.
 
So, while it might not be the best idea to carry SOB, I also don't think it is using sound logic to say something like the risks of doing so are "well documented."
Click to expand...

Fair enough, although I for one don't think I ever claimed that such injuries are well documented in the literature. Again this doesn't mean that the evidence is not there should one actually dig through the medical records. Another obvious place to look would be in the work related injury records of PD's.

Still, since each injury would have its own set of variables that can confuse any easy conclusions (exact type of object/place of carry, angle, direction and force of hit/fall, weight and anatomy of the individual including the pre-injury anatomic state of the spine including the state of the vertebral arches/facets/pedicles, etc etc) I think cadaver studies might be more useful as one can control the variables involved and see how much additional injury a hard object overlying the spine would cause. Like I said though, it is doubtful that anyone will go through the trouble since it is simpler to just not carry SOB, in light of the serious injuries potentially associated with it.

Heck I would just say that we all hug and make up and all start appendix carry but then maybe a GI doc would come in and warn us about a possible increase in burst appendixes so I'll just shut up :D
 
Nigelcorn

The point is that it is not well documented. It is opinion.
Click to expand...

Two thoughts:
All documented "facts" are just opinion.
If you don't think so... Well the Earth is the center of the Universe; just ask the Catholic Church several hundred years ago; think Galileo. Just how many planets are in our solar system these days? Check your science books; remember to check the publishing dates. And I could go on and on... if you can, you get the picture and if you can't, no point in my going on. If you are still not certain, I might suggest taking a statistics class.
Topicality.
Think the rebuttal side of an argument. If you can, great! If you can't, no point in my going on. Double blind studies, et al.
 
So you think the departmental prohibitions against LEO's carrying SOB today are not a result of problems encountered as a result of SOB carry in years past?
Click to expand...
I am aware that a few agencies have some unusual rules, including prohibiting ankle carry, or carrying in shoulder holsters, or cross-draw carry, etc. I don't see a wide prohibition against SOB carry in the business, and in fact still regularly see officers carrying cuffs in the SOB position and regularly encounter off-duty/plainclothes officers carrying firearms SOB.
Interesting reasoning. So, for example, because most people who dive into shallow water aren't paralyzed it's wrong to warn people against it?
Click to expand...
I fail to see how the two are related. Because some football players get neck injuries and are paralyzed, should we tell everyone not to play football?
I didn't realize that it had to be a likely outcome before a warning was justified. Silly me...
Click to expand...
One might want to consider likelihood of outcome, yes. Just because something is possible doesn't mean you should get too worried about it actually happening. One should balance the cost versus the benefit and make an informed choice.
I'm sure that they would muddle through, and I'm equally sure that there would be folks who were happy to see things go back to "the old ways". That's not the point.
Click to expand...
Right, and nobody said anything about going back to "the old ways." The point is that we do have a history of a practice that does not show the problem being discussed as much of a problem. If one wishes to discuss the danger of an action one might want to actually look at the history of the action.
 
Last edited:
David A., are you back at it again? Did you order your HiPoint?
Click to expand...
Once again a post from you of no relevance to the thread at hand. You'll excuse me if I don't take firearms-related advice from someone who doesn't even know about Wolff Gun Springs.:eek:
 
In other words, one doesn't have to find a person who's actually eaten a rotten egg to prove that it's a bad idea, it's quite reasonable to find a person who knows a lot about/has a lot of experience with rotten eggs and ask him for his expert opinion.
Click to expand...

actually people all over the world eat rotten eggs, as a part of thier diet, and they dont get sick... just as we eat rotten milk here in america( cottage cheese, sour cream) to each his own.:p

i find it very interasting, how someone just asking for what the OP has asked for should be met with the amount of negative remarks as he has. When someone asks for documented results of a certain bullet velocity he does not get accused of stating that that bullet is fast, or slow. he gets honest replies to his post.

Nigelcorn gave us a breath of fresh ar, by asking a challanging question that not too many people seemed to be able to answer, and instead of being intrigued people bash him. it seems they would rather Nigelcorn post a thread asking Show me your glock 17s!, or which is better the ak-47 or the m-16?:confused:

so much for creativity.:barf:
 
I've never seen this "heavily biased" perspective.
Click to expand...

i think im seeing it right now:rolleyes:

Try to find documentation for the dangers of this activity; just for fun, or to "prove" something.
Click to expand...

we can all think of really stupid stuff that has not been docuemented. howabout we keep those out of this thread and just focus on the question at hand. if you think its not worth your time to google it, why waste your time posting at all?
 
Yeah, but we we don't run around saying that everything we personally disagree with is a "well documented" risk. We just say that we think it is stupid. THAT is the point.
 
You'll excuse me if I don't take firearms-related advice from someone who doesn't even know about Wolff Gun Springs.
Click to expand...

You don't need advice from anyone. You already know it all. Now, show me where I said that I don't know about Wolff Gun Springs. You are being ridiculous as usual with your "spin". I didn't believe what you said about springs, and I still don't. Quit hiding behind Wolff Gun Springs. I'll say again that springs are not weakened by being compressed. They are weakened by the back and forth use. Most everyone knows that, David. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top