Quote:
|
The problem with stats, as I see it, is seldom would you be able to gather data on SUCCESSFUL use of the technique because there would be little need to break down a successful shooting, nor any reason to draw attention to that kind of detail.
|
The post you made that BR responded to was focused on the speed difference in the two techniques and was oriented towards making a case that the speed difference wasn't really a pressing requirement.
BR responded that the speed requirement wasn't, in his opinion, the primary reason for avoiding C3 carry, citing 3 cases where injured hands would have greatly complicated the defender's situation had they chosen C3 carry.
You respond that in your opinion, in most cases, C3 carry is ok because there's sufficient time to deal with the exigencies of C3 successfully.
That's all well and good, but that doesn't address the point BR made. There was no claim that C3 carry is complicated by an injured hand
in most cases, nor did he attempt to counter your claim that the time issue isn't significant. His post was merely pointing out that focusing on the time difference (the primary focus of both your initial and second post) misses the point that whether or not time is an issue, hand injuries certainly can be an issue and demonstrably are an issue in some cases.
It's possible to take that one more step and consider cases where both hands are uninjured but one hand might be otherwise occupied and wouldn't be readily available to rack the slide. Here's a list of reasonable and likely tasks that might occupy the defender's other hand are:
Pushing the attacker away.
Holding a light, phone or other object.
Opening a door.
Controlling a child in a home defense scenario.
That said, it's probably worth addressing your comments about likely scenarios. The Armed Citizen is full of stories where people actually go retrieve a gun from a storage location and then use it in self-defense. If we model our defensive scenarios after the "typical" Armed Citizen incident then we would be driven to the conclusion that there's no need to carry a gun at all, and even if we have one, we might as well store it unloaded because we will likely have time to go find it and load it if we need to.
So why don't we use the "typical" Armed Citizen scenario? A couple of reasons.
First of all, and most importantly, The Armed Citizen is intended to highlight SUCCESSUL self defense stories. They don't list the incidents in which the defender died (or worse) because he or she couldn't retrieve and employ a firearm in time to use it.
Second, we have a plethora of information available to us beyond the very limited stories and information available from The Armed Citizen. It makes sense to use that information.
Quote:
|
Some will not, and have their reasons.
|
Forums are about discussing those reasons. Having a reason is one thing. Having a good reason, or a well thought-out reason is another thing entirely. All of us have brains, just like Albert Einstein had a brain, but that fact clearly doesn't mean everyone's brain is as good as his was.