Close call today

[Sharkbite]

Given that appendix carry does not magically eliminate the potential for fumbling around you express concern about above, it's absurd to carry in a way that has the muzzle covering a femoral artery. "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy!"--Jeff Cooper.

And a whole lot of current tactical trainers like and teach appendix carry. Times and techniques have changed since the Colonel was actively involved in promoting "State of the Art" techniques.

Don't disparage techniques because you don't think a past legend in the training realm would not like it. He didn't think much of the Isosceles stance either, but look at how well that is doing.

[K_Mac]

Let's not be bad-mouthing appendix carry! It is my favorite way of carrying...

[Limnophile]

And a whole lot of current tactical trainers like and teach appendix carry.

Argumentum ad populum. Logically invalid. Try again. A lot of current tactical trainers advocate buying and carrying less safe designs -- another reason to keep the muzzle always pointing in a safe direction.

Times and techniques have changed since the Colonel was actively involved in promoting "State of the Art" techniques.

What has changed in the realm of gun handling since Col. Cooper's passing. Which other of his four rules for safe handling do you ignore or have you amended? Have you amended or replaced the one I cited that prohibits appendix carry? Under what other circumstances do you condone pointing a muzzle at something you do not wish to destroy? Are appendix holsters bulletproof? Have you ever heard of a sidearm discharging inadvertently when holstering it, or when residing within a holster?

Don't disparage techniques because you don't think a past legend in the training realm would not like it. He didn't think much of the Isosceles stance either, but look at how well that is doing.

I have no idea what Col. Copper's stand on appendix carry was, although my guess is he'd be agin it. I just don't think it's responsible to be advocating unsafe gun handling in a firearms forum.

Let's not be bad-mouthing appendix carry! It is my favorite way of carrying...

That makes you a Darwin Award aspirant. But, there is no law against that, and I can't think of how appendix carry puts anyone in danger other than you, so go for it. I don't think you should be encouraging others to practice unsafe gun handling, though. What other gun safety rules do you ignore?

[TunnelRat]

Argumentum ad populum. Logically invalid. Try again.

Isn't bringing up Cooper's tenets the same argument? I have no desire to carry appendix, but I fail to see how Cooper's opinions somehow supersede all others that come after him.

[Limnophile]

Argumentum ad populum is an appeal to the masses, and such an appeal to no more than that is always fallacious. "All the tactical trainers are doing it, so it must be safe" is an appeal to the mass of tactical trainers.

An appeal to authority, argumentum ad verecundiam, is only fallacious if the authority cited is not an expert in the field in question. Feel free to try to prove that Col. Cooper was not an authority on gun safety. Besides, his four rules have their roots in the gun safety rules of the US Naval Services, and largely comport with those taught by the NRA and my father, and they just make sense all on their own.

Note that I did not invoke Cooper's name, but I did use his wording for the specific rule in question. I welcome attempts to explain why the rule was never valid or why it is no longer valid. A general appeal to an anonymous mass of trainers is nothing more than the balderdash argument every parent of a teen has heard and easily dismissed countless times.

Fill in the blank: It is acceptable to point the muzzle of a knowingly loaded gun at something you do not wish to destroy when __________.

Let me pop some corn and get a cold brew for this clustergrope.

[TunnelRat]

An appeal to authority, argumentum ad verecundiam, is only fallacious if the authority cited is not an expert in the field in question.

I'd argue that invoking Cooper's laws is both argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam. What he believed is believed by the masses. Why is invoking Cooper only argumentum ad verecundiam whereas referencing other instructors is only argumentum ad populum? What gives Cooper all the authority and the trainers of today none?

*Edited to follow forum rules.

[hartcreek]

The OP is a woman so disparity of force would also come into play so she automatically by law has a lower threshold of what is needed to draw her weapon.


The person sticking his head in her vehicle just got lucky and stopped advancing. If it had been a real attempt to sell some kind of drawing ticket he would have waved the ticket in front of her. That close she could have easily could have been in fear for her life and justified in what ever action she felt necessary.

[Limnophile]

The OP is a woman so disparity of force would also come into play so she automatically by law has a lower threshold of what is needed to draw her weapon.

But, she didn't draw her weapon, and by her actions it is safe to conclude that she did not believe it was appropriate to draw her weapon under the circumstances. Touching a pocketed pistol is a non-event.

[Pond, James Pond]

Hey Pond,

How would you know a bad guy's intention? You know, like like getting ready to put more rounds on you while he's on his back with a few beats of his heart keeping him from his next life.

A bad guy with his heart destroyed can live 8 seconds, more than long enough to reduce you to ambient temperature, which ain't a good thing.

Why would you suppose that cops are trained to shoot and keep shooting until bad guys trying to murder them stop moving? Do you know of a single case where a cop was prosecuted for following his training?

#1. Most reading about this in the T&T forum are unlikely to be a cop, so using the "what would the cops do?" approach serves next to no purpose.

#2. Not moving and dead are not necessarily the same.

So I'd like to turn this around, so it's nice and clear for all on the internet.

Are you saying that if attacked you'd shoot to kill?

Because let's be clear; if you are arguing against my rebuttal of the advice I quoted earlier: "shoot till down and dead" then you are advocating shooting an assailant until they are dead.
You make their death your stated end goal and I'm pretty sure that is illegal with a capital “I”.

So once again, are you saying that if attacked, you would not stop shooting until they were dead?

Remember that is a Yes/No question.

[Limnophile]

I'd argue that invoking Cooper's laws is both argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam. What he believed is believed by the masses. Why is invoking Cooper only argumentum ad verecundiam whereas referencing other instructors is only argumentum ad populum? What gives Cooper all the authority and the trainers of today none?

I'll categorize the above as argumentum ad cerritulum, silly argument.

I learned basic gun handling safety from my father at age 8, when he gave me my first gun. As one who hunted with his father, a veteran of the US Navy, a physician, and an excellent wing shot (twice the live pigeon shoot state champion), he was an expert on gun safety and familiar with the consequences of unsafe gun handling. I also attended two NRA hunter safety classes in my youth -- the first oriented toward deer hunting, the second toward bird hunting. The instructors were NRA members, experienced hunters, and certified by the NRA to conduct the training. Their version of gun safety conformed closely with the version I had learned from my father, although Dad's version was a tad more strict.

I did not invoke Cooper or the masses or anyone else. Thus, my argument is not correctly categorized as either fallacy, let alone both at once. You and another have invoked Cooper, with the other doing so in a lame attempt to discredit my argument. My argument is simple -- it is always unsafe to point the muzzle of a loaded gun at something you are unwilling to destroy. I don't care who agrees with me. If someone disagrees they have the burden of demonstrating the flaw my argument, which is that appendix carry requires the muzzle of a loaded gun be pointed at something most would not be willing to destroy; thus, appendix carry is inherently unsafe. Either this is untrue (that appendix carry involves unsafe muzzle orientation), or one must present a valid argument for why it is sometimes safe to point the muzzle of a loaded gun in an unsafe direction.

It would be fallacious for me to conclude your use of faulty logic (in this case, straw manning me by putting words into my mouth instead of addressing my argument) is proof that you are wrong. But, life history has taught me that the probability of that being the correct conclusion is in my favor.

What are the gun safety rules you adhere to?

[TunnelRat]

I learned basic gun handling safety from my father at age 8, when he gave me my first gun. As one who hunted with his father, a veteran of the US Navy, a physician, and an excellent wing shot (twice the live pigeon shoot state champion), he was an expert on gun safety and familiar with the consequences of unsafe gun handling. I also attended two NRA hunter safety classes in my youth -- the first oriented toward deer hunting, the second toward bird hunting. The instructors were NRA members and experienced hunters. Their version of gun safety conformed closely with the version I had learned from my father, although Dad's version was a tad more strict.

That's very nice story, but how is this relevant to my question?

I did not invoke Cooper or the masses or anyone else.

But you did:

Given that appendix carry does not magically eliminate the potential for fumbling around you express concern about above, it's absurd to carry in a way that has the muzzle covering a femoral artery. "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy!"--Jeff Cooper.

in this case, straw manning me by putting words into my mouth instead of addressing my argument

This is not remotely what I am doing. I am continuing to ask you a question that you continue to not answer. I can't tell whether you are being obtuse, or this is some attempt to discredit me for no apparent reason.

You referred to a "mass of tactical trainers". My question remains this: if someone references modern trainers as using appendix carry, why is that reference automatically regarded as argumentum ad populum in your perspective whereas referencing Cooper's tenets are automatically argumentum ad verecundiam?

What are the gun safety rules you adhere to?

They're in my signature, and have been for a long time. More so, this isn't relevant to my actual question.

[Limnophile]

But you did: ...

Yes, I did. I stand corrected, and I apologize.

I am continuing to ask you a question that you continue to not answer. I can't tell whether you are being obtuse, or this is some attempt to discredit me for no apparent reason.

Color me obtuse. I forgot I had invoked Cooper in my initial reference to appendix carry. My tablet is very boggy tonight, and it is midnight. Please forgive me. I would never try to discredit you or anyone else without a reason -- it's the scientist in me not to do that.

You referred to a "mass of tactical trainers". My question remains this: if someone references modern trainers as using appendix carry, why is that reference automatically regarded as argumentum ad populum in your perspective whereas referencing Cooper's tenets are automatically argumentum ad verecundiam?

Because appealing to a mass of trainers is an appeal to popularity without any attempt to address safety. My argument stands whether or not Cooper is invoked, and invoking Cooper is not fallacious, because Cooper is a recognized expert in gun safety. Argumentum ad verecundiam is a fallacy, and it arises only when the expert is invoked on a topic outside his field of expertise. Invoking Cooper as an expert on gun safety is valid; invoking him as an expert on ballet is likely not and, thus, would be fallacious.

Anyone who has been around guns for anytime or watched YouTube videos by so-called safety experts knows there are incompetent trainers. Invoking the behavior of a bunch of nameless trainers as an endorsement of safety is the epitome of the fallacy of the appeal to the masses. If appeal to the masses were valid argumentation, we'd all be eating fecal matter, because billions of flies can't be wrong.

They're in my signature, and have been for a long time. More so, this isn't relevant to my actual question.

Thank you for pointing them out. It appears your rules also preclude appendix carry.

[TunnelRat]

Anyone who has been around guns for anytime or watched YouTube videos by so-called safety experts knows there are incompetent trainers. Invoking the behavior of a bunch of nameless trainers as an endorsement of safety is the epitome of the fallacy of the appeal to the masses. If appeal to the masses were valid argumentation, we'd all be eating fecal matter, because billions of flies can't be wrong.

Certainly there are incompetent trainers. My criticism is you seemed very willing to write the other trainers off without any information on who those trainers are and what experience they might have (this was my perception at the time and may well have been wrong). I see now that your point is that the person you were responding to didn't give you specifics in return and was making a general statement in an attempt to ward off discussion entirely. Fair enough and I can see how that's a fallacious argument.

I guess my point is rather than throw argumentum ad populum back at him/her I'd rather have that person try to explain how he/she gets around the standard safety tenets, or how his/her trainer explained it. One of the best trainers I had always encouraged us to not blindly accept what we were told but to ask questions and consider for ourselves. I find it interesting hearing those I disagree with explain their point of view, if only once , as I like to question my own viewpoints on occasion.

Thank you for pointing them out. It appears your rules also preclude appendix carry.

Absolutely. As I said above:

I have no desire to carry appendix

But that doesn't mean that I wasn't curious on your explanation of your viewpoint in regards to the argumentum ad populum. While I have heard people argue in favor of appendix carry for speed and added concealability for some, I've never seen anyone actually address the added risk in a satisfying way. But maybe one day someone will make such an argument.

[Limnophile]

Certainly there are incompetent trainers. My criticism is you seemed very willing to write the other trainers off without any information on who those trainers are and what experience they might have (this was my perception at the time and may well have been wrong).

No specifics as to who the other trainers are was offered. Invoking a mass of faceless trainers is logically invalid. I have no burden to identify them and am unable to do so without further information.

I see now that your point is that the person you were responding to didn't give you specifics in return and was making a general statement in an attempt to ward off discussion entirely. Fair enough and I can see how that's a fallacious argument.

Thank you for confirming that my transmission received and understood.

I guess my point is rather than throw argumentum ad populum back at him/her I'd rather have that person try to explain how he/she gets around the standard safety tenets, or how his/her trainer explained it. One of the best trainers I had always encouraged us to not blindly accept what we were told but to ask questions and consider for ourselves. I find it interesting hearing those I disagree with explain their point of view, if only once , as I like to question my own viewpoints on occasion.

I believe I invited those who disagree with or (in your case) question my position on appendix carry to offer their rules that justify the practice. You were kind enough to point out the rules you follow, and that led to agreement. If there is a safety justification for appendix carry I am truly interested in learning what it is.

I have no desire to carry appendix

But that doesn't mean that I wasn't curious on your explanation of your viewpoint in regards to the argumentum ad populum. While I have heard people argue in favor of appendix carry for speed and added concealability for some, I've never seen anyone actually address the added risk in a satisfying way. But maybe one day someone will make such an argument.

My understanding is similar to yours. There are advantages to appendix carry, but I've never seen anyone address the increased risk, except by dismissing it as irrelevant. I do not consider the increased risk irrelevant, but I am willing to accept that the increased risk may be de minimus. For example, I've read of only one instance of someone dying because he appendix carried. His death was quick. Admittedly, the man wasn't using a holster and he was carrying a handgun of less safe design. He was sitting in his car, reached down to adjust his gun, and was dead a few minutes later, after his family members watched in horror as he bled out.

[Branko]

Going by the police rules of engagement is a fast track to prison as a civilian, and the city/state won't cover your back.

[WVsig]

My understanding is similar to yours. There are advantages to appendix carry, but I've never seen anyone address the increased risk, except by dismissing it as irrelevant. I do not consider the increased risk irrelevant, but I am willing to accept that the increased risk may be de minimus. For example, I've read of only one instance of someone dying because he appendix carried. His death was quick. Admittedly, the man wasn't using a holster and he was carrying a handgun of less safe design. He was sitting in his car, reached down to adjust his gun, and was dead a few minutes later, after his family members watched in horror as he bled out.

Our resident admin and professional trainer Pax carries a Glock appendix. Here is a quote from her sight. http://www.corneredcat.com/article/h...he-four-rules/

Another example. Since I carry my IWB holster in the appendix carry position, I never reholster while sitting down. Ever. If I did so, the gun’s muzzle would be pointed directly at my femoral artery while I handled the gun — a very dangerous combination of circumstances! Even standing up, I’m always very conscious of where my trigger finger is while I am reholstering, and hold my trigger finger far outside the trigger guard at all times. And I don’t simply stand up straight. Instead, I put my right leg slightly to the rear, suck my gut in as far as it will go, and lean back slightly while reholstering. This allows me to angle the muzzle away from me during the process. Doing it this way, if a shot were to fire it would most likely strike the ground in front of me rather than hitting any of my favorite body parts. Nevertheless, I’m always very conscious of the risk while reholstering, and never reholster in a hurry.

My point here is that the combination of human hand plus loaded gun is dangerous. Every carry method you might choose will probably allow the gun to point at stuff you don’t want shot during the day, and there’s simply no way around that fact. For safety’s sake, remember that if the gun is pointed in an unsafe direction, you must never be the one doing the pointing.

If you are uncertain whether you have been using your holster safely, please be sure to read the article titled, “Safe Drawing & Reholstering Techniques.” Contact a qualified instructor to discuss any specific concerns you might have.

As to someone dying from appendix carry I do not know of any but I do know that Larry Vickers banned the practice from all of his classes.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...n-his-classes/

He stated that 2 students had shot themselves in 2 different classes held by other instructors and they with the holster and unholstering of a pistol 100+ times in his courses with varying degrees of student skill level he did not want to have to deal with the added risk. He does not support or non-support appendix carry he just does not want the added risk in his classes.

I do not carry appendix because my toro is too short and it does not allow me to sit with anything but the smallest pistol. I could probably do it with an LCP. The one defensive of appendix carry that I have heard repeated it that it only violates the 4 rules during holstering and the draw. At other times when carrying the gun is not being "pointed" because it is not in your hand and is in a holster where the trigger is covered by the holster and it not able to fire. I am not sure I agree with that but i can understand the justification.

[K_Mac]

This thread has taken an unexpected turn! While I have done things along the way that might qualify me for the aforementioned award, I do not believe appendix carry is one of them. I very well understand holstering or unholstering a weapon requires care and practice regardless of carry position. I carry a modern, well maintained pistol with an external thumb safety that is disengaged as I 'present' the weapon for firing. I have done this hundreds of times with the weapon unloaded and many more loaded. I have absolute confidence that my pistol will not fire while holstered on my belt. The idea that loaded weapons fire spontaneously is very popular in the anti-gun world, I didn't think it was believed here as well. Looks like l was wrong.

EDIT: I am also very careful to reengage the safety as the weapon is returned to the ready position. It is the way it is done every time.

[Branko]

I don't think there is any risk while the gun is in the holster.

Unholstering and reholstering are places where there is room for human error. Hence, some care should be applied so you don't sweep yourself with the muzzle of the gun while holstering, that's all. Some carry positions make avoiding sweeping yourself easier then other ones, that's all.

[Limnophile]

Going by the police rules of engagement is a fast track to prison as a civilian, and the city/state won't cover your back.

In my jurisdiction the civilian standard for use of deadly force is more liberal than that applied to law enforcement, as noted by the codified legislative intent appended to RCW 9A.16.040:

Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]

This isn't an excuse to shoot people without excellent cause, but it hopefully makes it harder for a progressive prosecutor to Zimmerman someone in Washington State.

[zincwarrior]

This thread got...weird.

[JohnKSa]

Not just weird, but also closed.