What is the ARGUMENT for why one in chamber is dangerous?

[Frank Ettin]

...some people consider realistic and necessary to train for but which I find improbable. Such as, for example, a sudden, unprovoked attack at very close range by an innocent-appearing assailant, armed with deadly weapons. Yes, that can happen....

As you admit, it can happen. It would also be the most difficult sort of encounter to successfully defend. If you've not trained for it, and it happens, you'd really be up a creek.

Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

...I figured out twenty years ago that those guys [Gunsite, et al] were selling a fantasy lifestyle to overweight, middle-aged divorced guys....

I don't know where you come up with this garbage. It must be your penchant for fantasy.

In any case, in the handgun class I took at Gunsite, half the class were LEOs, two of whom were training offices. The class also included a Marine lieutenant. I've known other LEOs who have taken classes at Gunsite. And then again, three members of the rifle class I attended at Gunsite were rangers with the Alaskan Department of Fish and Game. There were also several LEOs in the recent LFI-1 (Massad Ayoob) class I took, two of whom were also training officers in their agency.

So really, Duke, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Safety only goes so far when eventually the trigger is going to have to be pulled and a round going down range.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

fiddletown: "So really, Duke, you don't know what you're talking about."

Oh, but I do; I do.

I'm just not easily impressed by some things, or easily excited.

Think back to all those guys you met at Gunsite, spending all that time and money to prepare for the most ridiculous possible confrontations and problems they might face. Think of the brilliant instructors. How much you want to bet most of them have lost a fortune this year in the stock market? How much you want to bet a lot of them are facing job loss and foreclosure? How many you suppose have a marriage on the rocks or a kid with a budding drug problem? Rather than plan for and avoid those real disasters, they focussed on the one that was FUN to prepare for, not the ones they OUGHT to have prepared for. Believe me, I know the type. Known it for years. And I'm not running down preparedness. I just don't like to waste my time on things that aren't going to happen. Sure, I could be jumped unexpectedly at close range with deadly weapons by an unanticipated threat. I could also be taken out by a sharpshooter at 300 meters. Not much I can do about those situations, and they probably won't happen anyway. But I do sometimes get into sketchy situations where I feel much more comfortable carrying a gun. I've even had to rely on it. So I prepare for those situations appropriately. It rubs me the wrong way when I am sarcastically told that I am making things easy for potential assailants, by people who know little about my situation and environment. Trust me -- I am not.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Trust me....

You've got to be kidding.

 

[Kleanbore]

I just don't like to waste my time on things that aren't going to happen.

Sounds intelligent, but "aren't going to happen" and "are unlikey to happen" are not the same thing.

Let's go back to JT1JT1's idea of applying risk management techniques. Regardless of whether they are applied in financial risk management (say, insurance planning, investment strategy, or internal controls design), system engineering, or battle planning, the techniques generally involve the same basic steps. Key among them are identifying the risks, evaluating the risks, and deciding how to handle them. Evaluating them involves assessing both the likelihood and the potential consequences; handling could comprise either accepting the risks or mitigating them. This is a widely accepted, structured approach, but it is dependent on a lot of judgement.

Two risks have already been identified:

I could be jumped unexpectedly at close range with deadly weapons by an unanticipated threat.

The likelihood is going to depend on the environment. I cannot visualize the environment where the Duke lives in Maine, so I'll discuss where I live--a large suburban area adjacent on two sides to an urban area with one of the highest murder rates in the nation, and on two sides with meth country. Three interstate highways that converge here give easy entry and egress to people from the surrounding areas--and by the way, two of them are major drug arteries. (Maybe it's now clear why I carry, but I'll try to complete the analysis).

So: how would one assess the likelihood of being jumped in a parking lot or at an ATM, or service station lot, or at curbside?

My assessment, assuming that I will try to avoid the most dangerous situations (more on that later) is that the likelihood is remote. Maybe that's understating it somewhat, but that doesn't really change the analysis....

...because you have to factor in the potential consequences, and the consequences of getting stabbed, slashed, or shot would be extremely severe.

For that reason, accepting the risk is out of the question, so we now turn to mitigation.

The mitigation approach I choose is multifaceted:

• Avoid high risk situations to the extent possible. Stay out of bad areas, don't go alone at night to some places, avoid the fringes of parking lots, get in and out quickly.
• Carry concealed a gun that can be put into use immediately, and train.
• Carry an effective less-than-lethal means of defense.

Now, not all of those steps are available to everyone, unfortunately.

Moreover, the assessment of likelihood may not be the same for the Duke as it is for me. If the likelihood is less than remote, one may come up with a different strategy.

Let's turn to the other one:

I could also be taken out by a sharpshooter at 300 meters.

Where I live, the likelihood is less than remote, and I don't know of a viable mitigation technique, so I think I have to accept the risk.

That wouldn't be true for the soldier in Iraq. The chance is at least greater than remote, the consequences are very severe, and there are mitigation strategies that can be and are being applied.

Now, downtown here is somewhere in between. About every two weeks someone is shot while sitting on his porch. That requires doing something--moving, or staying off the porch.

Not much I can do about those situations...

Probably true for one, but fortunately not true for the other --unless you live in [fill in the blank].

...and they probably won't happen anyway.

That assessment is step one in risk management.

We've looked at two risks. The OP asked about another one: the risk of a negligent discharge at various stages of drawing a semi-automatic pistol with a round in the chamber. That was the original question.

Unmitigated, the likelihood and potential consequences combine to lead to the conclusion that accepting the risk is not indicated. So, what are the mitigation techniques?

Obviously, one alternative is to not carry chambered. For me that conflicts with the approach selected for mitigating another risk. Maybe that's not true for the Duke, but it is for me.

Another is to select a weapon that can be safely carried with a round in the chamber and to keep it in a proper holster. That's my choice, except for off-body cary, which was brought up earlier by rbernie.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Kleanbore: "I cannot visualize the environment where the Duke lives in Maine, so I'll discuss where I live--a large suburban area adjacent on two sides to an urban area with one of the highest murder rates in the nation, and on two sides with meth country. Three interstate highways that converge here give easy entry and egress to people from the surrounding areas--and by the way, two of them are major drug arteries. (Maybe it's now clear why I carry, but I'll try to complete the analysis)."

The above goes a long way to explain your threat analysis, which is cogent and convincing. It caused me, in fact, to reassess a little, to see if I was being overly optimistic. On doing so, I stumbled onto the real underlying reasons I downplay the sort of scenario some here worry about.

First, my environment is a series of small cities and towns, separated by vacant forest, pretty much, and connected by river, rail and highways without drive cuts. Each city and town, even the larger ones, are its own self-contained world. People recognize each other.

Which brings me to "second": I had sort of overlooked the reason I may be a little complacent. While we certainly do have a serious drug problem in this area (plenty of "perky vikings"), it probably is a lot less "intense" than that in your area. And most of those involved in that scene, I am a little chagrined to realize and admit, recognize and know me. NOT because I am involved in those activities -- I certainly am not -- but because I represent their sources in criminal defense matters. They recognize me in the pool hall and in the taverns. They nod acknowledgement in the courthouse, the post office, the street. The idea of most of them actually sneaking up and stabbing me would be pretty bizarre. Not physically impossible, but bizarre. In your situation, that wouldn't be all that bizarre. Improbable, yes, but not so improbable as in my situation, as you are not a known figure to that element.

Despite homogenization, this great country still has a lot of regional and local variation. On the other hand, the other Mainers on this board may be reading my description and saying, "huh?".

 

[Claude Clay]

David E: "And would you please share with us how, specifically, you train?"

...........keyboard ninja

 

[Kleanbore]

First, my environment is a series of small cities and towns, separated by vacant forest, pretty much, and connected by river, rail and highways without drive cuts. Each city and town, even the larger ones, are its own self-contained world. People recognize each other.

Pretty close to what I had envisioned, both by inferring from other posts and from your risk analysis.

Which brings me to "second": I had sort of overlooked the reason I may be a little complacent. While we certainly do have a serious drug problem in this area (plenty of "perky vikings"), it probably is a lot less "intense" than that in your area. And most of those involved in that scene, I am a little chagrined to realize and admit, recognize and know me. NOT because I am involved in those activities -- I certainly am not -- but because I represent their sources in criminal defense matters. They recognize me in the pool hall and in the taverns. They nod acknowledgement in the courthouse, the post office, the street. The idea of most of them actually sneaking up and stabbing me would be pretty bizarre.

That is interesting. Let me ask two questions: (1) are the kind of users up there rational, and (2) do you see any likelihood of revenge from a client who expected a better outcome than what he got and blames you?

The reason for the first one: I'm told by police officers and parole officers I know that meth users are non-sensical, inherently extremely violent, and cannot be reasoned with. Often, not even the point of the guns of a SWAT team dissuades them. Last year, someone killed six or seven people over the course of a week or ten days and was caught. Turned out to me a meth addict. By chance, a camping friend had been to a barbecue with him. Charming fellow, at times, it seems.

The second? Well, there's Cape Fear.

A couple of years ago a young boy died after having some kind of seizure. His addicted, deranged brother blamed the police for not having responded quickly enough, grabbed a gun, went out with the stated intention of killing the first policeman he saw, and did just that.

Food for thought--though you may already have considered all of that.

 

[I_AM_LEGEND]

How many times we going to address this issue???

And holy crap Duke, 1900 posts in 2 months!!! Do you ever leave THR??? lol

 

[Mad Chemist]

Duke Of Doubt, you smell like a troll to me.

Practicing basic gunhandling skills, drawstroke, retention and firing from close quarters does not make one some sort of wanna-be commando.

It makes one proficient with their weapon.

If you can't take the time to bother training basic gunhandling skills them IMO you have no business carrying a weapon in the first place. This does not require an inordinate amount of time or attendance at a fancy resort school like Thunder Ranch. Rather, these skills are developed the same way any other skill is developed, through consistent regular practice using proven training techniques.

If you are afraid to keep a properly holstered weapon (that is carried on your body) in a condition that is immediately ready to fire, then there is some flaw with your weapon, your training, your holster, or some combination thereof.

 

[scottgun]

Duke Of Doubt, you smell like a troll to me.

DoD isn't a troll, he's a lawyer. If he wrote anything meaningful he would have to bill it at his regular rate.

 

[Mad Chemist]

I get it. So he's practicing his skills of argumentation while offering very little of substance.
Peachy.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Kleenbore: "Let me ask two questions: (1) are the kind of users up there rational, and (2) do you see any likelihood of revenge from a client who expected a better outcome than what he got and blames you?"

1. The meth crowd was pretty wierd around here too; exhibiting behavior similar to a bipolar personality in manic phase and intoxicated at the same time. But meth was much bigger around here a few years ago. Not as much now. The typical user around here snorts powdered percocet or vicodin tablets. Those appear to mess the user up a little, but not like meth.

What's going on is, Maine has a lot of old people, and a lot of sick people. And we have a lot of naive second-rate medical practitioners, some of them poor and easily corrupted, and an antiquated system of record-keeping. The amount of painkiller medication prescribed around here is just unbelievable. The old and the sick are vulnerable to strong-arm tactics, and the practitioners are vulnerable to bribery.

The father of an old friend recently passed away after a long illness. His widow was confronted with disposal of his unused medication. I happened to see it. Tens of thousands of dollars of street value. And that was just the tiny little bit left over after he stopped taking his meds. I joked about it, but it was a little eye-popping.

2. I've never had a client come after me, but that may be because I screen out the crazies with help from my other clients. Another benefit of the "free initial consultation" is, I am not yet his attorney, and can decline to represent him. My clients tend to be realistic about their situations, and I try to underpromise and overdeliver. Court appointed cases are a little different; those guys are used to dealing with social service agencies and can get the idea that they somehow are "entitled" to my particular representation on their terms. I quickly disabuse them of this delusion. I DO, however, sometimes run into the following issue, going back to private clients:

Around here, there is no single monolithic organized criminal community. Some factions are based out of state, some are local but with other ties, and some are sort of local entrepreneurs. If I get associated too closely with some particular figures in one particular faction, and someone else has a personal or business dispute with that person or faction, I can get uncomfortable. BUT, I will often know the person, I almost always hear about it before I see him, and I always see him coming. I can leave the place I ran into him, I can ask somebody else to talk to him, or I can talk to him myself. And since I'm not involved in any criminal enterprises myself, I'm unlikely to face assassination by a stranger for business purposes. What sometimes happens is, a respected neutral party known to me and to the other individual will explain to the **** that I'm not a member of any criminal organization or involved in any criminal enterprise, and so I am not a legitimate target for his disdain.

 

[Kleanbore]

I get it. So he's practicing his skills of argumentation while offering very little of substance.
Peachy.

A word to the wise:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1114999&postcount=1

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I get it. So he's practicing his skills of argumentation...Peachy.

Hmmmm

What is the ARGUMENT for why one in chamber is dangerous?

Seems like that is EXACTLY what the OP was asking.

The majority of the preaching I see on threads like this are those who say things like "if you aren't going to carry in Condition One, you shouldn't be carrying".

 

[rbernie]

I get it. So he's practicing his skills of argumentation while offering very little of substance.

Careful, folk. You may disagree with the argument but you cannot resort to personal attacks. Calling someone a troll or a keyboard ninja qualifies as a personal attack, in these parts.

If you disagree with DoD's risk analysis, prove him wrong. But name-calling is not allowed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

If you disagree with DoD's risk analysis, prove him wrong....

I respectfully submit that it is first his burden to at least make a prima facia case for his contentions. He has offered precious little in the way of evidence, outside of conjecture and fanciful hypotheticals.

When asked specifically on what evidence he based his contentions that:

Carrying...gun ... without a round in chamber is perfectly adequate to deal with nearly every threat we may face where a gun will be useful....

and

...The tiny fraction of improbable situations, where we are attacked without warning at close range, are barely worth thinking about...

he responded

Direct personal experience

And I respectfully submit that the direct, personal experience of one person is a completely inadequate foundation for a self defense doctrine.

One of the benefits of training at one of the major schools is that the doctrine taught is based on collective experience and collective wisdom. People like Clint Smith, Massad Ayoob, Louis Awerbuck and the late Jeff Cooper have not relied simply on their personal experiences but have studied the experiences of others.

Since Duke of Doubt's views conflict with what is taught at most of the major schools, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect him to support his views with something better than "direct, personal experience", which, since he is just one person in a unique environment, of necessity is limited. Of course he dismisses, without direct, personal experience, these schools and trainers as

...selling a fantasy lifestyle to overweight, middle-aged divorced guys....

The Duke of Doubt may have concluded, for his own reasons and for his own purposes, that he is happier carrying his gun without a round in the chamber. That's fine with me.

But I do object to categorical statements, without solid evidence to back them up, to the effect that "carrying without a round in the chamber is adequate for nearly every threat we (not "I") may face in which a gun may be useful" or "that the risk of sudden attack at close range isn't worth thinking about." I also object when he characterizes those of us who prefer to carry with a round in the chamber as indulging in

...some mall ninja fantasy of sudden attack from above by assassins disguised as little old ladies.

And I further object to Duke of Doubt's offhand denigration of some well respected schools and trainers.

If the Duke of Doubt were clear that carrying with an empty chamber was simply his personal choice and that he didn't expect anyone else to do so, fine. But if he proposes that carrying with an empty chamber is appropriate self defense doctrine of general application, he should support that proposition with better evidence than his direct, personal experience.

 

[David E]

DoD, I must say, you're an "interesting" fellow.....

I asked how you train, if you cover all the things I listed, if any of it at all.

Nope, you can't comment, due to "legal reasons...."

You admit you do NOT understand the mechanics of a Glock pistol yet fear a "spontaneous discharge," and cite it as if that were a valid concern !

Further, without having attended a single well known shooting school, you trash them all, dismissing anything (everything?) they may have to offer regarding shooting skills.

There is a firearms instructor that once threw his gun away during an encounter and survived. Another fired a warning shot and survived. Based on their "personal experience," they should teach that firing a warning shot then throwing the gun away is a viable technique, since it "worked" for them.

Your view reminds me of another exchange I had with a guy relating to the benefits of a speedy draw. I said the faster you can get it out, the sooner you can make a shot on target. He wasn't concerned one bit about a fast draw and dismissed every valid point I made. Just like you, he "knew" he'd have time to draw his gun and make the shot. Later, I learned he'd been killed in a confrontation that, from the newspaper account, he may have survived, had he drawn his gun a 1/2 second sooner.

I also find it very interesting to note that NOWHERE IN AMERICA does any credible instructor teach "chamber empty" carry for a defense handgun carried on the body. If you can name one, please do so.

I hope your chamber empty carry "works" for you, but you're needlessly putting yourself further behind the reaction curve by doing so.

 

[JT1JT1]

Actually, there are over 10 pages of THR members' own stories about using a sidearm in self defense that largely support DoD's contention that carrying in his preferred mode would be sufficient for a good outcome (General Forum: Have you ever used your sidearm in self defense?)

So, it seems unfair to state that his argument is based on nothing more than conjecture and hypotheticals.

Of course, the THR members' experiences may not be representative. And it would surely suck to be one of the exceptions. And it doesn't change my view that carry weapons ought to carried ready to go.

But it begs the question whether THR posters on this thread overestimate their perceived risks relative to what THR posters on self-defense thread have actually experienced.

Maybe we need a separate thread about risk. After all, the answer to the OP's original question is pretty clear...we've moved a bit afield from that original inquiry.

 

[Claude Clay]

in a restraunt being robbed ( other thread); if it happened that you had to act, i doubt that you would be able to draw and chamber a round without attracting thier attention and possibly some lead. id rather be able to duke it out with the element of supprise intact: that is to say --a loaded gun ready to fire.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...there are over 10 pages of THR members' own stories about using a sidearm in self defense that largely support DoD's contention...So, it seems unfair to state that his argument is based on nothing more than conjecture and hypotheticals....

Except he didn't cite that when asked to support his position. He cited only his direct personal experience.

...it begs the question whether THR posters on this thread overestimate their perceived risks...

Personally, I'm not estimating my risks. I have no basis upon which to independently evaluate the risk. Rather, I base my practices on my training. I have had what I would consider to be good training with trainers who are well regarded. None of us really know for certain what the correct answer is. We can only base our choice on the information available to us and which we believe to be credible: direct, personal experience, which is, as the experience of only one person in certain places at certain times, limited; posts on the Internet; the books we have read on the subject by authors who are well regarded in the field and appear to have done adequate research; and/or training from competent and respected instructors.

... it would surely suck to be one of the exceptions....

And that's the other side of the risk management equation. Yes, the likelihood of a sudden attack may be small. But if it happens and you haven't prepared for it, you won't like the outcome one little bit. So why not spend some time and money preparing? I still attend to other matters in my life, but I don't see any problem with spending some time and money preparing for something that may very well never happen -- but if it does happen and I don't have some preparation for it, I'll be very sorry.

 

[OregonJohnny]

I read the first 3 pages and then skipped to the end. I'll add a small tidbit to the "discussion". The Beretta 92FS (Duke of Doubt's CCW choice) is my all-time favorite handgun. But it also has the worst double-action trigger pull of all my handguns, including DAO revolvers. By "worst" I mean the longest and the hardest, at almost 12 lbs, from doing some Googling. When you take into account the mechanical firing pin block safety plus the enormous and wretched double-action trigger pull of a factory-stock 92FS, I'd say it's one of the safest (meaning least-likely to fire by accident or by operator negligence) firearms in the world to carry chamber-loaded, hammer down, safety off. It takes an incredibly deliberate trigger pull to get a 92FS to fire in double-action mode. Beretta has been making the 92 for a LONG time and so far, I don't believe there have been any reports of the decocker failing. It's a fantastic handgun. It's too big for me to conceal comfortably, so I carry a 642 with all 5 chambers loaded.

 

[rbernie]

Personally, I'm not estimating my risks. I have no basis upon which to independently evaluate the risk. Rather, I base my practices on my training.

This makes no sense to me. How can you choose what training to take if you have not identified the skills you'll likely need (which in turn are driven by the risks that you're likely to see realized)?

I can resonate with DoD's point, even if I come to a differing conclusion for my own purposes and circumstances.

Life is full of undesirable risks. We attempt to avoid many of them, and we also attempt to mitigate those that are realized (cannot be avoided) if their consequence is significantly bad. Most of us, consciously or subconsciously, make a list of the potential risks to our existence and apply a likelihood to each based upon personal circumstances. We then actively work to avoid those risks with the more serious consequences, and then we train to mitigate those risks that have both the highest consequence *and* the highest likelihood of being realized.

I think that DoD's point with regard to the 'tactical training' is that it is foolish to train to mitigate a risk that is high-consequence but low in likelihood at the expense of training to mitigate risks of equal consequence and higher likelihood. Watching overweight middle-age guys place a heavy emphasis on cutting the perfect El Presidente while in fact their biggest risk statistically lies in their obesity seems, well, ill-founded. I suspect that is DoD's point.

However, DoD and I part ways in his conclusion. I believe that I can train to mitigate less-than-likely-but-bad-in-consequence events such as a close-up personal attack and also address the more-likely risks/issues such as keeping my income stream intact, appropriately fostering my children into healthy adult lives, and keeping myself from looking like a blimp.

Which brings us back to the point of the thread, in a roundabout way. Carryin' with a round in the chamber may be more dangerous than not *if* the likelihood of an ND is greater than the likelihood of sudden close personal attack.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

in a restraunt being robbed ( other thread); if it happened that you had to act, i doubt that you would be able to draw and chamber a round without attracting thier attention and possibly some lead. id rather be able to duke it out with the element of supprise intact: that is to say --a loaded gun ready to fire.

I do not think anyone is arguing with your decision to carry condition one.

One of the benefits of training at one of the major schools is that the doctrine taught is based on collective experience and collective wisdom. People like Clint Smith, Massad Ayoob, Louis Awerbuck and the late Jeff Cooper have not relied simply on their personal experiences but have studied the experiences of others.

So what if a person does not choose to train at one of the major schools? Should that person not be allowed to carry?

Why do you care if a person's personal experience and comfort makes them choose to carry without a round in the chamber? Is that person inherently unsafe? Would that make you avoid visiting a country like Israel? How 'bout Mayberry?

 

[Frank Ettin]

This makes no sense to me. How can you choose what training to take if you have not identified the skills you'll likely need (which in turn are driven by the risks that you're likely to see realized)?...

How do I independently know from my limited, personal experience, with any specificity, what risks I might expect to face. Once upon a time, I had merely a vague and generalized, non-specific fear of crime. This came from ordinary life experience, reading the newspaper, etc. And I had an interest in guns and some understanding of the notion of one defending himself against violent attack. I read "The Armed Citizen" in The American Rifleman, but I wouldn't say that any of this gave me any solid, independent idea of what risks were likely.

Then my wife and I took our first handgun class and bought our first handgun for home defense. We began to study available accounts of violent encounters and I became increasingly interested in the topic. I started to compete in the USPSA and get interested in taking classes. I got suggestions from other more experienced shooter as to self defense oriented classes to take. I was also generally familiar the writings of Jeff Cooper and came to know about Gunsite.

My first class was with Bennie Cooley (http://www.benniecooley.com/), upon the recommendation of another person in my IPSC club (who is now a LEO). I've since been to Gunsite (twice), and taken classes with Louis Awerbuck and Massad Ayoob.

All of the above was a long winded way to explain that in the beginning, I didn't know much, and had no way to independently know much. That's why I studied. And among other things I chose schools and instructors with good reputations who could reasonable be expected to have the knowledge and experience to teach me things I ought to know but did not.

How would one otherwise learn? How would one know, without foundation, what risks to train for or what skills he needed? I might generally have the idea that it would be a good thing to learn to shoot a handgun with sufficient accuracy for self defense purposes, but I couldn't necessarily divine what that means in the solitude of my own mind.

...I think that DoD's point with regard to the 'tactical training' is that it is foolish to train to mitigate a risk that is high-consequence but low in likelihood at the expense of training to mitigate risks of equal consequence and higher likelihood...

But he didn't say that. He's an articulate man. Lawyers must be able to use language accurately and precisely. That's part of the job. He should be perfectly capable of writing exactly what he means. It need not be that sort of a trade off. Indeed, from a training perspective, if you learn to do what's hard, you will usually be able to even better handle the things that aren't so hard.

...Watching overweight middle-age guys place a heavy emphasis on cutting the perfect El Presidente while in fact their biggest risk statistically lies in their obesity seems, well, ill-founded. I suspect that is DoD's point....

And Duke of Doubt didn't say that either. If that's what he meant, he should be able, as a lawyer and someone whose profession requires the skilled use of language, to say it. In any case, these are indepent issues. Working on improving one's shooting doesn't prevent someone from, at the same time, dealing with a weight problem. It's not as if the road to a better El Presidente were paved with French pastry.

I believe that I can train to mitigate less-than-likely-but-bad-in-consequence events such as a close-up personal attack and also address the more-likely risks/issues such as keeping my income stream intact and appropriately fostering my children into healthy adult lives and keeping myself from looking like a blimp.

And that is true. Many folks have done. I've done it (except, candidly, I've never been able to fully deal with my weight, but that would be the case even if I had never touched a gun).

So what if a person does not choose to train at one of the major schools? Should that person not be allowed to carry? ...

First, I didn't say that. Second, that's a completely different discussion.

Why do you care if a person's personal experience and comfort makes them choose to carry without a round in the chamber? ...

I don't care. It's only an issue for me when that person goes further and promotes that as a superior self defense doctrine.

...Would that make you avoid visiting a country like Israel? How 'bout Mayberry? ...

How about Oz?