One in chamber? Yes / No
- Thread starter Genesis1
- Start date
- Status
AndeyHall
Active member
Actually Kleck's "implausibly large numbers" come about because he is one of the first to actually consider using the gun as self defense without actually discharging the weapon. If I can de-escalate a situation without firing, you better believe I'm going to (I actually had a guy try and hop in the front seat of my truck one night while I was driving through the bad part of town and as soon as he got the door open he was looking down the business end of a 1911). Am I going to report it to the cops? Hell no! Because then I have to first go through the hassle, knowing they won't catch the guy (at least not because of my report), and then I have to worry about getting an anti-gun cop or solicitor who wants to make an example out of me for brandishing or threatening someone with a firearm who may or may not have threatened me first (I'm the only witness). So since I'm not going to report it, there will be no addition to the crime statistics. And because no one was shot, there will be no hospital records. So this is why his numbers are "irreconcilable with crime rates or hospital records." Most people are distrustful towards the police and aren't going to report that they have pulled their gun on someone before. As Kleck has said, if you want that data you've gotta get out there and ask them yourself. And that is what he's done.
And let's say somewhere down the line he accidentally doubled or tripled his real number...you've still got a massive number. And there's all kinds of research that shows that resistance of any kind generally will deter crime. So to me it's easy to fathom a massive number like that when you account for threatening the use of the firearm you're carrying, not just using it.
Sent from my iPhone using Link Removed
kwimby
Banned
And as anybody who has actually examined his studies from an impartial scientific, statistical standpoint has said: "If you want a certain conclusion you've gotta go out there and contrive it yourself."
E
ezkl2230
Guest
That's the best you can come up with? One thing is lacking - you have still offered NOTHING of consequence to try to substantiate your suppositions.
So let me give you some more substance from a little publication entitled, "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence," published by a little known organization called the National Academy of Sciences as commissioned by the President of the US. The purpose of this research project was to boost the administration's position that gun control is an absolute necessity (this same publication concluded that there are AT LEAST as many uses of firearms in lawful self defense as there are uses of firearms by criminals in the US each year); it ended up doing the opposite.
The work of Gary Kleck is so flawed that it is referenced nine times in this publication as arguments against the administration's position; Don Kates is listed as the editor of three of those references:
I want you to note how many of those works referenced are juried, peer-reviewed publications.
Don Kates' work was foundational in establishing that the Second Amendment applies to INDIVIDUALS, not just to the militia. His work, begun in the 70's, was the foundation for the historic Heller case opinion (Watch Don Kates a Quarter Century Before the Washington Post Put Him on Its Front Page | Cato @ Liberty). Yeah, he sounds like a total crackpot to me.
Yes, John Lott continues to be a lighting rod, but, again, objections to his research methodology hardly take the place of hard data that actually REFUTES his research, and to-date, I don't recall ever seeing you provide anything that even LOOKS like hard data in any of your posts - just a series of drive-bys like you tried to run on us again today.
Well, I'm saying it: it's time for you to put up or shut up. You want us to take you seriously? Then start providing some hard evidence to back up your specious claims.
AndeyHall
Active member
There's an interview with Kleck where he actually states that he began researching gun/crime statistics after reading a research article where the guys' data actually suggested the opposite of what their conclusions stated (which was pro-gun control). Up to this point Kleck was anti-gun. He was curious about this research so he went out and reproduced it and got nearly the same results which showed that more guns reduced crime at a much higher rate than more gun control. That's what brought him to the pro-gun side. In the interview he concluded by saying "it just goes to show, when you want the finding bad enough, you can interpret even contrary results as favoring your ideological position."
Keep trying though, this is fun.
Sent from my iPhone using Link Removed
I typically carry either a Glock 19 or 22, and I typically carry them holstered with a round in the chamber and a full mag because "boy, I wish I had one less round, said nobody in a gunfight, ever". There are rare occasions where I violate the holster rule and stick a pistol in my waistband in a Mexican Loop (don't bother taking me to task over this, it's been done, :0 ). I'll just say that I do this when I want to minimize any lumps and maximize concealment. If that's the case then yeah, the chamber is empty.
This is one of those topics that ignites a storm of controversy, there are valid arguments both ways. My take is do what works for you, just practice what you do.
This is one of those topics that ignites a storm of controversy, there are valid arguments both ways. My take is do what works for you, just practice what you do.
I always carry with one in the chamber. I do not want to risk having to rack one when I need to respond to a threat. I also feel safer knowing I only need one hand to use my weapon just in case I have to use the other hand defensively while I draw. When I first started carrying I did not keep a round chambered until I got used to my gun and got more confident that there would not be an accidental discharge.
PistolPaKnPoppy
New member
Amen & Amen JCreek!!!
I'll second that motion...
I've gotta get to the range!
Yours in FREEDOM...
PistolPaKnPoppy
Last edited:
Scott Windelspecht
New member
Always carry with one in the chamber. Hope I never have to use in self defense, but if I do, don't know if I will always have the time to get one in the chamber.
N R A
New member
Do you read the owners manual of your guns?
rekotadrekoj187
New member
The example set wasn't made by criminals one in the chamber is the old military way find something else to nag about troll
Sent from my SCH-R950 using USA Carry mobile app
rekotadrekoj187
New member
HD-kutz
New member
Glock20, the answer from the Cybergunfighters will be the manual was written by lawyers to lesson product liability. There is no need to read anything since the internet provides all the training necessary. (sarcasm)
AndeyHall
Active member
Troll? Alright I'll let that fly since you're a fairly knew member and probably don't know any better.
But you kinda manipulated my words to make no sense. How is an example set made? Either way, I didn't say that criminals were the ones to set this example, I said they shouldn't be USED as an example, because criminals are idiots. It would be like trying to argue against mandatory helmet laws on motorcycles and using biker gangs as your example. They're probably not exactly the model of safety you want to base your argument around. And they didn't set the trend of not wearing helmets, but they're the example you're using (actually I know most biker gangs even wear helmets, but that's the best analogy I could come up with 20 minutes after waking up and thumb typing).
Sent from my iPhone using Link Removed
BourbonFan
New member
Ive been carring a Glock 19 for about two years now, and I have pondered this question of chambered or not for that long. To convince "myself" it would be safe for "me" to carry it with a round chambered. Which is what really matters here, (how safe is it for "me" to carry this way not how safe it is for others to carry)I carried my Glock in an IWB kydex holster with the magazine full and slide racked but no round in the chamber. This way I could see for myself if I would accidently snag,pull or hang the trigger on something and cause it to be fired.
In two years of carrying and holstering and reholstering and storing my firearm in a safe holster when not on my person I never once pulled the trigger causing what would have been an accidental discharge. That was enough proof for me to now feel safe carrying with a round chambered. So I can see both sides of this debate and I really comes down to how safe do "you" feel?
A concern for me with having to chamber a round was that there could be a threat situation where I wouldnt want the perp to know I had pulled my weapon, (example: the last part of Pulp Fiction where the resturant was being robbed and Jackson is sitting in a booth) racking the slide would defiinetly anounce that you are armed.
In two years of carrying and holstering and reholstering and storing my firearm in a safe holster when not on my person I never once pulled the trigger causing what would have been an accidental discharge. That was enough proof for me to now feel safe carrying with a round chambered. So I can see both sides of this debate and I really comes down to how safe do "you" feel?
A concern for me with having to chamber a round was that there could be a threat situation where I wouldnt want the perp to know I had pulled my weapon, (example: the last part of Pulp Fiction where the resturant was being robbed and Jackson is sitting in a booth) racking the slide would defiinetly anounce that you are armed.
Nightmare45
NRA LIFE MEMBER
This has been beat to death but a gun with an empty chamber is a rock.
AndeyHall
Active member
I think I've heard about all the metaphors I can take in one life time for what a gun without one in the chamber is. I'm gonna do a blanket one so there's no need for anyone to do one again:
A gun without one in the chamber is just a [insert blunt/non-gun object]
There. That applies to pretty much any and everything.
A gun without one in the chamber is just a [insert blunt/non-gun object]
There. That applies to pretty much any and everything.
telpinaro
New member
Heard a new reason to always have a round chambered recently... If you have a round in the chamber, unless it's bad ammo, the gun's gonna go bang when you pull the trigger, at least once. Racking the slide introduces an extra opportunity for failure; if for some reason you don't do it right or something goes wrong, you may wind up getting to clear malfunctions before you even shoot. Unlikely, but that would... not be fun.
- Status
