All the rationalization defending an empty chamber is just that.
No matter what you say, it's still an extra step that you can avoid. Any number of things can happen to make that step go too slowly or not a all.
Since it's not necessary, why test fate? I don't work for the Israeli Army, or the US Army for that matter, so I can carry my gun any way I please, and I'll be damned if I'm going to hand any advantage at all to someone I might need to use it on.
Originally Posted by Pete E
The reality is that 99.99% of the time its not a speed draw contest and the most dangerous "delay" occurs as the shooter accesses the situation and decides whether he is going to use deadly force. Bascially folks freeze. ..
Your logic is backwards here Pete. If the gun is coming out, a CCW holder has already decided deadly force is warranted. But to carry on with your argument, do you want someone who is prone to freezing to have to go through the extra step of making his gun ready to fire? Seems like a bad plan to me.
Never said it was the best plan, just said that other folks carry on a cold chamber and it works ok for them. Pointed out the Israeli's simply as they tend to be a very pragmatic bunch, and are not prone to doing stuff that doesn't work in real life..
I have to say the guys I saw shooting were very impressive...
But each to their own, I was simply pointing there were other approaches, thats all..
I'm curious if you realize that this is feminist new-speak. It's politically correct but not grammatically correct, since the word each is singular and the word their is plural. A singular is supposed to match with a singular, so the traditional "To each his own" is grammatically correct because the singular "each" matches the singular "his." To all their own would be grammatically correct, but conveys a wholly different meaning.
I'm curious if you realize that this is feminist new-speak. It's politically correct but not grammatically correct, since the word each is singular and the word their is plural. A singular is supposed to match with a singular, so the traditional "To each his own" is grammatically correct because the singular "each" matches the singular "his." To all their own would be grammatically correct, but conveys a wholly different meaning.
I'll take your word on feminist issues, as you seem very well up on them....
I'm curious if you realize that this is feminist new-speak. It's politically correct but not grammatically correct, since the word each is singular and the word their is plural. A singular is supposed to match with a singular, so the traditional "To each his own" is grammatically correct because the singular "each" matches the singular "his." To all their own would be grammatically correct, but conveys a wholly different meaning.
I'll take your word on feminist issues, as you seem very well up on them....
I hope I didn't offend you. I take the English language seriously, and don't like what the left has attempted to do to it. Was just curious if you understood the origin of that grammatically nonsensical phrase.
Well, boys and girls, I�ve always hunted with a hot chamber. I�ve been doing it this way for close to 50 years and have not shot myself or anyone else.
I'll take your word on feminist issues, as you seem very well up on them....
that was mean
And out of place, IMHO. I think it was clear that I wasn't intending to insult him, but merely asking a question.
You're right it was out of place. The place would have been 7th grade English class and you would have been the PITA old spinster teacher and Pete, the little pimple faced kid, but Pete has no acne.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
I'll take your word on feminist issues, as you seem very well up on them....
that was mean
And out of place, IMHO. I think it was clear that I wasn't intending to insult him, but merely asking a question.
You're right it was out of place. The place would have been 7th grade English class and you would have been the PITA old spinster teacher and Pete, the little pimple faced kid, but Pete has no acne.
Had you read more carefully, you would have picked up that my point was a political one. Grammar was brought in only to reinforce my political point, and the grammar criticism was for the feminist language tyrants, not our friend from Great Britain who was merely expressing himself the way I'm sure he was taught by his instructors.
So how exactly is the grammatical error a feminist ruse?
When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are something to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honors are something to be ashamed of . Confucius
So how exactly is the grammatical error a feminist ruse?
Standard English uses the masculine form of personal pronoun when the gender is not known or specified. Feminists, juveniles that they are, find this offensive, and insist on making every such personal pronoun gender-neutral. In many cases, this requires the use of nonsensical grammar, such as the case in question, so they sacrifice sensible grammar on the alter of political correctness, and try to bully everyone else to do the same, starting with kids in school.
It was not a criticism of you, my friend. I was being a bit curmudgeonly, which is perhaps a flaw of mine, but I wasn't commenting on your grammar, but on the distorted grammar being forced on the English language by the influence of the left in general, and feminism in particular.
Pete, I understand you completely. My wife and her mother talk the same way. Each of them. They are from Nebraska so I'm used to foriegn languages. I gave to each their own Hipower. Niether of them is a feminist tho..
TRH- thanks, got it now. Easy to remember: conservative = b*stards, libs =b*tches! Got it. I understood your aim in this because had you been merely anal in your curmudgeonry you would have no doubt pointed out the more obvious flaw of the use of ...to each THERE own rather than the proper ...to each THEIR own. Gender aside of course- eh what!. Must dust off the elbow patches of my tweed coat now and pack some more Borkum Riff into the meerschaum. PS -can we all agree our fine language needs a suitable alternative to the word 'anal'?
When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are something to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honors are something to be ashamed of . Confucius
TRH- thanks, got it now. Easy to remember: conservative = b*stards, libs =b*tches! Got it. I understood your aim in this because had you been merely anal in your curmudgeonry you would have no doubt pointed out the more obvious flaw of the use of ...to each THERE own rather than the proper ...to each THEIR own. Gender aside of course- eh what!. Must dust off the elbow patches of my tweed coat now and pack some more Borkum Riff into the meerschaum. PS -can we all agree our fine language needs a suitable alternative to the word 'anal'?
Yep.
PS Believe me, it took all the self control I could muster not to comment on there for their. I try to hold back when I'm able.
The Israeli' would disagree with you. They often carry with an empty chamber and it doesn't slow them down too much
Carrying for use against assault here is much different than an Israeli soldier's needs. For them I would figure that a hand gun is a back up to a full auto long gun. Different world, different application, different everything.
The Israeli' would disagree with you. They often carry with an empty chamber and it doesn't slow them down too much
Carrying for use against assault here is much different than an Israeli soldier's needs. For them I would figure that a hand gun is a back up to a full auto long gun. Different world, different application, different everything.
Plus who in their right mind is going to mess with a guy with a badass moustache like that.