And that would ignore a host of other factors that may come into play for some. And I agree, "I carry condition 3 because I can't operate my semi-auto pistol in condition 1" is rather poor excuse making. But IMO many of those who choose C3 do because "I carry condition 3 because I have looked at my situation and feel C3 provides more advantages to me than does C1" which is pretty good decisionmaking, IMO.Originally Posted by nyeti
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
If they were truly honest about it, yes, good decision making. Were they truly honest or are they just being contrarian in hopes that they look smart or appear to be the voice of the voiceless?
People attempt to justify a lot of silly things by believing they are special and they have a unique set of circumstances.
Think for yourself. Question authority.
Weaver useless?
For me, yes, pretty much. :-) I like to learn and evolve.
There was a time I hooked my left index finger around the front of the trigger guard. That has also become quite useless for me.
As has been mentioned, given the long history of success in a large variety of circumstances I would tend to think they were probably being honest with themselves. Do you think most folks would really do an assessment and then pick somethign they thought would increase the danger to themselves??
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
And that is the key: "For ME, yes, pretty much." For someone else, maybe not so much.
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
To me, for what it is worth, this is a variant of the extremes argument. Perhaps for the vast majority of civilian DGUs, C3 would be just fine. But do we worry about the rare case? What is a reasonable cut-off for the rare but not astronomically rare case.
I can only offer my anecdotal view point. A few years ago, I fell down and broke my wrist, ribs and badly sprained my ankle. I had signed up for a wounded shooter class with Karl Rehn - how darn convenient. So I did everything with my off hand. Thus, I can reasonably manipulate a gun with one hand out of action. Might I fall down and go boom in a critical incident - yep, I might. I don't want to be using what I learned to chamber a round. I also took Ayoob's Stress fire class with my arm still in a cast - Wayne
Dobbs was the TA. By then, I had a few fingers sticking out so I could semi manipulate in a normal way but it was a pain.
Thus, I worry about the extreme end screw up. True, I shoot more than the average doofus. I once calculated and don't have available where I am what I called the Tueller Radius. Using his idea and the increase in time, you can figure out the expanded area that you have to worry about if think about what the BG can cover. It's large.
It's also fun to watch the 1911 guys at a match - even the best - every once in awhile, screw up taking off the safety and go HUH for half a second. Not that I ever did (cough, cough, blush).
Please define "extended contact with the 99% of gun owners". If it's your time spent working as a RSO, please stop. Your "ND waiting to happen" and scare monger argument about idiot Cleetus 99% gun owner guy ND'ing himself or shooting his family and neighbors sounds like it came right off the Brady Campaign website. How many untrained folks carry C1 everyday? Trained? How many ND's happen every year resulting in serious injury or death to the gun carrier or others around them? I would guess that when you consider how many people carry C1 everyday, and compare that to the number of ND's, it's probably as unlikely or less likely than needing to use the gun in the first place.
Sure Tex Grebner did it on video, so did dreadlock ATF guy a few years back, then there was that guy from Top Shot season 1 who isn't named Caleb that ND'd his leg after the show. Oh wait, they were all trained gun guys. Don't laugh when I refer to ol' Tex Grebner as trained because let's face it, even though most of the training he's received is from guys like Yeager, he's received training and it's probably a lot more training than most folks get. Would it also be best if trained gun owners carry C3 as well, based upon the because safety reasons? I honestly would not be surprised to learn that the majority of ND's that happen are at the hands of what most folks would considered trained individuals. Why? Because complacency. The guy that is 3 seconds away from an unwanted hole in his thigh has holstered up a few hundred or few thousand times before without incident so that's where his mind is.
Add me to camp of people who believe if you aren't competent to carry a hot weapon, you aren't competent to carry one at all. Trained or untrained.
Good point.
How many hours you got, GardoneVT? You're wielding the adjective "untrained" like a bludgeon here, after all, so I don't think that's an unfair question.
Last edited by Tamara; 02-16-2015 at 08:00 PM.
If they're dumb enough they would surely make a decision that increases the danger to themselves.
Think for yourself. Question authority.
Again, that is not dependent on the C1 -v- C3 issue. Lots of well-trained and pretty experienced folks have felt the smart decision was to carry C3, lots of dumb and inexperienced folks have felt the smart decision was C1, and vice-versa.
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
