spwenger
Member
There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See
Statistics? I've had to draw a gun once on a hostile adversary. As luck would have it, it was my left hand that was checking his knife hand so I was able to draw with my right (primary) hand. However, had it been my right hand that had first been committed, I would have been as prepared to draw the gun behind my left hip, with my left hand. Do I care if this is a statistcally significant sample? No, the lesson was well enough taught with one occurrence.
You have been furnished (often more than once) with tactical examples of where an additional handgun may either be more accessible (e.g., your right hand is occupied deflecting or controlling assailant's knife so you draw gun on left-hand side of body with left hand) or doubling the number of armed good guys on the scene (e.g., a companion knows how to shoot but is not carrying so you lend him a second gun).If everyone agrees that their primary carry is reliable or it wouldn't be in their holster, why in the world do you need two? Especially when so many carry a spare mag. It appears to me that some have an over-compensation factor or lack of confidence in their primary weapon with all the "what-ifs" scenarios...
Statistics? I've had to draw a gun once on a hostile adversary. As luck would have it, it was my left hand that was checking his knife hand so I was able to draw with my right (primary) hand. However, had it been my right hand that had first been committed, I would have been as prepared to draw the gun behind my left hip, with my left hand. Do I care if this is a statistcally significant sample? No, the lesson was well enough taught with one occurrence.