Ok, Ill give you your comfort, but answer me this question please. If someone is on top of you, is your C3 gun any good to you while you are trying to fend of the attack?Quote:
Originally Posted by 3wggl
Printable View
Ok, Ill give you your comfort, but answer me this question please. If someone is on top of you, is your C3 gun any good to you while you are trying to fend of the attack?Quote:
Originally Posted by 3wggl
Lots of people have been killed by unchambered weapons too.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3wggl
Also, you're blaming negligent discharges on an inanimate object. That fault actually lies in the carrier.
My 2 cents: I don't care what one does as long as they do no harm to innocent folks. With that said, IMO you are delusional if you think you are just as fast or fast enough in every situation than a person that carries one in the chamber.
Isreali method: I have worked with some Isreali's and they do carry one in the chamber.
I disagree with statements to the effect that if you are not comftorable carrying one in the chamber you should not carry. It is not my life so it is none of my business.
I do not see any advantage to not carrying one the chamber. If it is a confidence issue and you are carrying to protect your loved one then you should really think the method of carrying, not whether you should carry.
You've pinpointed the exact scenario where carrying C3 can be a major disadvantage....I could be totally screwed. However, if someone is on top of me I might be better of with both hands in front of me rather than one behind me drawing the weapon. I'm a fitness nut at this point in my life and would have a good chance of subduing a bad guy pretty quickly. If the guy is that close to me I'd be better off going hand to hand against him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harryball
Yes I do, but I also don't put anyone down for their choice not to. Everyone has a comfort level and needs to assess their own risks vs benefits in this matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harryball
And last but not least...
Yeager? Take a look at his history, I think anyone who puts his word on a pedestal just doesn't know any better.
How have people been killed by unchambered weapons?Quote:
Originally Posted by DontTreadOnI
Where did I blame ND's on inanimate objects? The fault obviously lies with the carrier....but it still even happens to folks with lots of firearm experience.
Nice try, I have not put anyone down. Just stated my opinion.....Yeager is not my hero, but he does makes sense on this, Im sure if you have had any training you might agree, but o' well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder71
What about his history dont you like? Ever trained with him? Have you taken any professional training?
People tend to be less careful with firearms when they think they are unloaded. Most of the time, any accidental shooting involves a gun that was THOUGHT to be unloaded or at least not have one in the chamber.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3wggl
This thread seems to be long on arguments and short on statistics. Do we have a collection of tragedies (sorry, citing one or two isn't going to cut it) for chambered vs unchambered? Do we have verifiable details on any of these tragedies, sufficient to support that it could have been averted only by carrying empty? Can the other group of tragedies be attributed strictly to a chambered round with no other mitigating shenanigans? If switches, levers, and all manner of external safeties can be defeated by a chronic case of Stupid, then I see no guarantees coming from carrying with an empty chamber.
Stupidity and carelessness are the key ingredients to negligent discharge; and the law of averages will eventually catch up with the stupid and careless whether they have a round chambered or not. A gun is a gun, a car is a car, a power tool is a power tool; only a PERSON can achieve the status of "safe."
Your original statement was "Lots of people have been killed by unchambered weapons too." Your statement was false and not relevant to the discussion. If you were giving us all a safety reminder than I agree, yes, all guns should be considered loaded (until you need to draw and rack the slide in a SD scenario.) :smile:Quote:
Originally Posted by DontTreadOnI
One example... would you put a camera man in the line of fire? This is who you want as your training instructor? Anything for a good shot, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Harryball
The Firearm Blog » Highly controversial training video
I'm well aware of what my statements were, and also the fact that they seem to have flown straight over your head.
What do we have to support the apparent mass numbers of people who would be out of luck if they hadn't had a round chambered? Again, there are some... but what numbers are larger, the ones who have shot someone because their gun fired (ND/AD whatever) or the ones who's failed to protect themselves because of an empty chamber? Nobody knows.
Also, in Yaeger's opening comments he says something along the lines of round chambered, safety on (cocked and locked)... Safety On.
How many of you carry a gun that has a manual safety? Not many, in fact most of you seem to choose guns without a manual safety. Pretty sure he's a Glock fan, where's the safety to turn on there? His words are a bit misleading.
Only a person can achieve the status of safe? That statement is scary... people are the cause of almost every non-safe, non-environmental situation known to man.Quote:
Originally Posted by jumpwing
A C3 gun is much better than no gun at all.
Well all depends on the situation at that moment I guess but if right at the moment you need to fire your weapon it will be a little late to fix it then.
Yes it is everyone's choice as to the way they carry does not effect me in the least but not having the confidence to carry one in the chamber shows a lack of training, experience and knowledge but again that is on them not me.
I think Yeager is a tool... take a look at his history, I think anyone who puts his word on a pedestal is quite possibly a tool as well.
Well I don't put anyone's word on a pedestal except the man upstairs. I read, watch and evaluate what different folks in the training industry say and teach. I take away from that what "I" consider useful and file the rest away. This includes Costa, Haley, Ayoob and whomever else I find interesting.
As far as Yeager's history there are only two things that come to mind. The ambush in Iraq and the camera guy downrange. First Iraq, I watched the video and read the AAR's. I have driven and ridden that exact route on more than one occasion and my opinion is this. Until you have been on the receiving end of a PKM belt fed machine gun in an unarmored vehicle with guys headshot beside you I personally would be a little hesitant to judge but that is just me.
The camera guy downrange. Well this has been hashed and rehashed. Obviously the guy knows what he is doing as he is still alive and kicking. He must pick students that he feels comfortable with and who can shoot, again he is alive and kicking. I train and shoot with other people down range and I am downrange with other people shooting. I trust their abilities and they trust mine. It all depends on what you are comfortable with doing and with whom.
As an example, the first day on the range here I assisted with a class with some young soldiers. The class was taught by an SF Major. When the class was over we decided to keep on shooting since we had the pistol ammo available. The range rules were simple you stay on your side of the range I will stay on mine. He shot at 5 yards I shot at 25with my AK. I moved to the 3 with my pistol, he was firing his M4 at 10, we were about 20 feet apart but in my world it is just another day at the office.
If you don't like what Yeager teaches simply don't train with him, don't watch his videos and so on. I have never trained with him but I will when I am in the states long enough to do it. Who knows it might be good stuff but I can assure you I will come away with something good and again I will simply file away the rest that does not apply or work for me.
I agree and also struggle with each side of the argument as we don't have stats to go off of. What I do know is that every single concealed carry negligent discharge scenario I've read was caused by negligence with a gun with a loaded chamber/cylinder. I think of the guy that shot his wanker off in AZ adjusting his gun in his waist band, and the guy that dropped his pistol in Walmart and injured the child when the gun went off, and the gal who was shot in Detroit when she was hugging the off-duty cop (not sure we have the whole story on that one.....my point is chambered weapons + stupidity/carelessness can result in innocents being killed or injured. I'm sure the gun carriers and innocents in these recent scenarios all wish that gun would have been in C3.Quote:
Originally Posted by jumpwing