Let me start by saying - this is meant to be a discussion, not an argument. I'd like to share my thought process and learn from yours, I'm not questioning anyone's judgement, needless to say - you can (and should) carry however you feel like is best for you.
Having said that, I'd like to better understand - how come so many people (majority?) are carrying with a round in the chamber?
To me, concealed carry is all about risk management. For me, the gun's purpose is to protect the people I care about, myself, and others when facing extreme circumstances.
That being said, I also understand that in reality the gun can inflict damage to the aforementioned group, so I'm always trying to find a balance. Case in point: Even though I'd like it to be quickly available in the case of intruder, I also don't want it to be available to guests (and/or dwellers) that may lack proper training or judgement - so the final outcome is locking it in a quick access safe instead of just keeping it in a drawer next to my bed.
But that's not the point, I'm here to discuss about a round in the chamber -
What's the difference between carrying with or without it?
The positives: In case you got to the point of presenting the firearm, you're ready to engage without the delay of cocking it. Additionally, if you don't carry S/A D/A or revolver, you gain the benefit of single hand operation.
The negatives: Significantly easier to misfire, riskier in a situations of someone getting their hands on the gun (even without malicious intent), generally can cause a lot more damage in case of any "user error".
Now, I see myself as a responsible gun owner, but I also acknowledge the fact that probably 99.99% of the people that suffered any kind of self-inflicted accidental discharge (whether by themselves, or by someone they care about) also saw themselves this way, so if the entire argument is "it cannot happen to me because I'm me" then there's no actual discussion here.
To me, it's about comparing probabilities - very very low probabilities, but since there's a HUGE damage involved it's important enough to evaluate. It seems to me that the probability of [having to present] x [failing to operate because of the extra step required] is lower than the probability of [any accidental discharge].
What's your take on the subject?
(and again, I'm not trying to prove me/you right/wrong(!), it's about sharing thoughts and learning from each other, if you sensed that I mean something else then please know that I didn't)
Having said that, I'd like to better understand - how come so many people (majority?) are carrying with a round in the chamber?
To me, concealed carry is all about risk management. For me, the gun's purpose is to protect the people I care about, myself, and others when facing extreme circumstances.
That being said, I also understand that in reality the gun can inflict damage to the aforementioned group, so I'm always trying to find a balance. Case in point: Even though I'd like it to be quickly available in the case of intruder, I also don't want it to be available to guests (and/or dwellers) that may lack proper training or judgement - so the final outcome is locking it in a quick access safe instead of just keeping it in a drawer next to my bed.
But that's not the point, I'm here to discuss about a round in the chamber -
What's the difference between carrying with or without it?
The positives: In case you got to the point of presenting the firearm, you're ready to engage without the delay of cocking it. Additionally, if you don't carry S/A D/A or revolver, you gain the benefit of single hand operation.
The negatives: Significantly easier to misfire, riskier in a situations of someone getting their hands on the gun (even without malicious intent), generally can cause a lot more damage in case of any "user error".
Now, I see myself as a responsible gun owner, but I also acknowledge the fact that probably 99.99% of the people that suffered any kind of self-inflicted accidental discharge (whether by themselves, or by someone they care about) also saw themselves this way, so if the entire argument is "it cannot happen to me because I'm me" then there's no actual discussion here.
To me, it's about comparing probabilities - very very low probabilities, but since there's a HUGE damage involved it's important enough to evaluate. It seems to me that the probability of [having to present] x [failing to operate because of the extra step required] is lower than the probability of [any accidental discharge].
What's your take on the subject?
(and again, I'm not trying to prove me/you right/wrong(!), it's about sharing thoughts and learning from each other, if you sensed that I mean something else then please know that I didn't)
