91–100 of 445 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a reasonably experienced competitive shooter can draw from a holster and put two shots on target in ~1.25-1.5sec. racking a round while drawing would probably put it around 2-2.5sec. that 0.5-1sec advantage could make a pretty big difference.
Gun crimes tend to be ambushes rather than something that even remotely resembles a duel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This wasn't a case of an idiot, except perhaps placing the muzzle in a direction that a human would be present. The gun was in the holster, and the entire holster was removed from the belt and placed on a desk. There's nothing in that course of action that would allow a finger or anything to get into the trigger well. The gun should absolutely not have gone off.
Where did you get those details? I've read a couple stories on this incident and haven't seen that mentioned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t read nabla’s comment as accusing the deceased of being an idiot. Rather, it was a statement that the military is full of idiots (aka teenage boys) and therefore any standard issue weapon should be designed appropriately. A gun that can go off on its own even when handled properly is the opposite of idiot-proof.
> the military is full of idiots (aka teenage boys) The Air Force is not. (The average Air Force servicemember is older, better educated, better paid and subject to more demands than the average servicemember in the other branches.)
Given a large enough group of people you will have examples of just about anything (including idiots)
Another example, it's estimated that 1-2% of all military members are part of or connected to an illegal gang organization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t read nabla’s comment as accusing the deceased of being an idiot. Rather, it was a statement that the military is full of idiots (aka teenage boys) and therefore any standard issue weapon should be designed appropriately. A gun that can go off on its own even when handled properly is the opposite of idiot-proof.
> the military is full of idiots (aka teenage boys) The Air Force is not. (The average Air Force servicemember is older, better educated, better paid and subject to more demands than the average servicemember in the other branches.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
May be my age, but I wouldn't say any of those brands are a mark of quality. Rather the opposite in fact. They are all interesting in their own way (especially Tesla), but certainly not quality/reliability-first organizations.
Ford, GM, and Tesla are all bottom barrel automakers. All three of them relying on the government to prop them up, too. Otherwise, the Japanese market would have obliterated the American automotive industry ages ago.
Or the Chinese in the last 5 years like they have done in Europe and rest of the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may be personal preference, but IMHO there’s no reason to conceal carry if you’re going to do it without a round chambered. I’m a huge Sig collector and I’ve been a fan of theirs since the 90s. I’ve carried a Sig daily for 20+ years. I only carried a P320 for a few months until I finally downsized to the P365. But I’ve got to admit that their PR and response to these incidents is not a good look. But I am a bit…
> IMHO there’s no reason to conceal carry if you’re going to do it without a round chambered. Why is that your opinion? Surely there's a wide variety of plausible scenarios where carrying a concealed weapon without a round chambered is much better than not carrying a concealed weapon.
I recommend everyone who has access to it go into training where you take a real handgun that's been modified to shoot laser and has CO2 recoil. The setup is that you have a screen (perhaps all around you), playing out a scenario. You're in a convenience store, and something may happen that requires you to defend yourself.
Even with a fair amount of training, the adrenalin surge is significant, and the time you have to respond is very limited. Doing this eliminated any illusions I had regarding guns and safety. There's little time to rack the gun to put a round in the chamber. And if you haven't done it, it's not easy to rack a gun (you need the right grip, angle, etc). And racking can fail. Even I, with very limited experience, have experienced multiple failures while racking.
People mentioned videos where people practice doing all this, and time themselves. I saw a video where someone 3 yards away draws a machete and runs at the other person. The time he has to draw and defend is just not enough at 3 yards. One needs to actively dodge the machete while drawing. Adding the complexity of racking is almost a guaranteed failure. The person drawing was very experienced (and a handgun trainer), knew the attack was going to come, and still had a low success rate.
Other things I've had to unlearn:
"Why didn't they just shoot at the legs?" At short notice, in an emergency scenario, aim is very poor. People train for these situations to get a reasonable likelihood of hitting a person without needing to spend time aiming. And the primary way to do it is to aim at the body - not arms/head/legs.
"Why did they have to shoot the person 3 times?" See above. Aim is hard, and there's a good chance of missing. When your life is on the line, you are not going to shoot once and check if it hit. You'll shoot 3 rounds quickly. When I did the simulator, I often shot 4-6 rounds without even realizing it (and was told by the instructor to keep it down).
This may be hard for some to believe/digest. As I said, I didn't believe it until I was put in those (simulated) situations.
Another thing I thought was crazy: People sleeping with a loaded gun by their bed. A guy did a video where an intruder was in the house and running towards their room. They timed different scenarios (unloaded with magazine on the side, different gun safes, etc). He succeeded only with one particular gun safe, and only with the gun fully loaded.
If I ever keep a gun at home, it will not be for "defend against an intruder in the middle of the night". It's just too risky to keep a loaded gun next to your bed. But if you have good reason to believe someone is after you, this is the only way to go.
Having said all that, if I carried a gun, I'd likely not have a round in the chamber. But that's really me saying I'm not going to carry a gun for safety purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IMHO there’s no reason to conceal carry if you’re going to do it without a round chambered. Why is that your opinion? Surely there's a wide variety of plausible scenarios where carrying a concealed weapon without a round chambered is much better than not carrying a concealed weapon.
Not OP, but having a round chambered can be advantageous in a self-defense scenario, where every second counts. Having to think to rack the slide before firing could be enough for your opponent to get to you first.
I've been in my fair share of sus situations in my life and they've been either telegraphed (people starting with yelling, then intimidation, then getting into personal space) or ambiguous. I was recently at a block party with a loud DJ, and some guys fired several rounds and it took minutes to figure out what was going on. Even the first responders were amazingly sluggish in their response.
Hell, I had a guy sneak up behind me while I was parked in my car, bang on my window and tried to start shit with me. I had enough time to shoot off a text to my wife to stay put while defusing him.
So I personally think people with good situational awareness have plenty of time to act appropriately in a variety of common dangerous situations.
Beyond the tragedy here - the implication of this is that USAF security forces were carrying a widely understood to be mechanically unsafe handguns in the presence of nuclear weapons. I am not saying a stray round can cause a criticality but shooting a nuclear weapon or its associated delivery and logistics systems is suboptimal.
Not only that it looks callous if you say otherwise, but also the dollar cost the military put on a human life probably is higher than the typical cost of fixing a bullet hole in a nuclear weapon.
Lots of informative comments in the thread about how carrying with a chambered round reduces the time and complexity to getting a shot off. I have limited knowledge of guns. I understood that they had a physical safety switch that had to be manipulated before the firearm could be used. Is that the case? If so, is the safety left off when people are carrying with a round chambered? Or have I misunderstood the purpose…
Most newer handguns don't have manual safeties. The ones that do should be carried with it on. If you carry with it off, you won't have the muscle memory to switch it off in the event it is accidentally engaged. Basically, if it has the safety, you should be doing the motion for disengaging it regardless of it's starting position. Some people still choose to carry with it off. You get into all sorts of odd stuff the…