ilikepancakes
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2010
- Messages
- 145
Hm... every time I read it I still don't buy it... the attitude "CARRY ONE UP OR DONT CARRY AT ALL".
To those who say this, yes it makes sense that a full chamber is advantageous over an empty chamber, but do you seriously think it's better to not have a gun AT ALL than be at a split second disadvantage?
If the answer is "yes", let me ask you this:
What about car guns (ie glove box, console, under the seat)? Even a condition 3 gun on person is quicker than any condition gun in the glovebox. Should we not have those either?
Similarly, holster alternatives? Like purses? Or those planner mimics for office carry? Takes a couple seconds to draw so... Shouldn't have them???
According to this logic of all-or-nothing, YOU should all leave your gun at home because in any situation where you're going to use it IN DEFENSE, you're already at a tactical disadvantage. This is precisely why it is preferable in most situations to carry condition 1, but it by no means legitimizes being completely unarmed.
If your answer is still yes then please give me a reason that actually makes sense beyond "split seconds count" for why someone should go about unarmed.
Ahem... so anyway, no I don't. If my carry gun (Glock) had a manual safety (I'll save the whole "safe action" thing for another time, feel I've ranted enough ) or I carried it in a holster then yes I would.
To those who say this, yes it makes sense that a full chamber is advantageous over an empty chamber, but do you seriously think it's better to not have a gun AT ALL than be at a split second disadvantage?
If the answer is "yes", let me ask you this:
What about car guns (ie glove box, console, under the seat)? Even a condition 3 gun on person is quicker than any condition gun in the glovebox. Should we not have those either?
Similarly, holster alternatives? Like purses? Or those planner mimics for office carry? Takes a couple seconds to draw so... Shouldn't have them???
According to this logic of all-or-nothing, YOU should all leave your gun at home because in any situation where you're going to use it IN DEFENSE, you're already at a tactical disadvantage. This is precisely why it is preferable in most situations to carry condition 1, but it by no means legitimizes being completely unarmed.
If your answer is still yes then please give me a reason that actually makes sense beyond "split seconds count" for why someone should go about unarmed.
Ahem... so anyway, no I don't. If my carry gun (Glock) had a manual safety (I'll save the whole "safe action" thing for another time, feel I've ranted enough ) or I carried it in a holster then yes I would.