Queue the anti-gun nuts...

[Razor]

Originally Posted by wildchild

little bit different there. the revolver if double action can be carried unchambered. when you pull the trigger it goes bang as the cylinder then rotates to a live round.

with a semi auto, if you don't have a round chambered you would have to rack the slide in order to use the gun. if you had time, you would still need the forsight to do that.
I don't know anyone who carries an auto unchambered. if it's a 1911 they have the safety engaged if it's a glock style or springfield, well they have internal safetys. it would be hard to get a gun to go off like that without messing with it. back strap, trigger and other safetys make it very difficult to fire unless you're holding it and pulling the trigger.

This...

You wouldn't have an accidental discharge unless something strikes the round. In the closed cylinder of a revolver that could only be the hammer and in order for that to happen the hammer would have to be cocked back thus advancing the cylinder to a live round so I really dont see what good having an empty chamber under the hammer is, just means one less shot...

An unchambered pistol is about as useless as tits on a Boar hog, unless you just need a club... IMO

[fujimoh]

Originally Posted by Corey

On a revolver, that empty cylinder puts you at a disadvantage. You put yourself at a disadvantage both in terms of how many rounds are available and how many steps you then have to take to get your gun into a ready to fire situation. An accidental discharge on a revolver is difficult to do. The double action pull is somewhere around 11 pounds. Unless you're carrying it in a shit holster or no holster at all, it would be monumentally difficult to get the gun to discharge without you having a finger on the trigger.

I'm not knocking pocket carry, but if this idiot did indeed have the gun in his pocket and it discharged, it sounds like he was fucking with it, or it wasn't in a holster and something in his pocket snagged the trigger. He's a fucking dolt. Even in a pocket, your gun should be holstered, if for no other reason than to protect the trigger.

I am seeing a disturbing pattern here. First, carrying a weapon with a round chambered, unless you are heading into imminent danger violates all the rules of firearm training for concealed carry. We are not talking military or LEO here. We are talking firearm safety classes and the "carry" classes necessary to obtain the permit. (in Florida) That rule is right there with never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire.

The second point is a revolver is one step quicker from concealment to fire than the pistol. It is pull, point and pull the trigger. There is no safety to check or release.

The third point is that if I need more than 5 shots to get myself clear of the situation, I am in combat, and not self defense.

The whole purpose of self defense is not to be involved in some Steven Segal movie where you are standing in the middle of a restaurant firing 17 shots, reload, fire 17 more and keep going until everyone is dead. The purpose is to defend yourself from attack while getting yourself and your family out of the situation.

If someone can find a news account where someone fired more than 5 or 6 shots in self defense to defuse the situation, post it up. I follow these stories closely and most self defense situations I study show that an attacker is fought off or scared off with 1, 2 or maybe 3 shots

[jtemple]

Originally Posted by fujimoh

...carrying a weapon with a round chambered, unless you are heading into imminent danger violates all the rules of firearm training for concealed carry....

I don't know who taught you firearms safety, but they suck at it. I have never heard that, and have had plenty of training.

I see you've looked at cases of self defense and how many rounds were fired. That's great.

Did you also investigate how long the incidents lasted? Do you honestly believe, in a true life or death situation, where you are not supposed to pull your gun unless you've made the decision to use it, that you're going to have time to pull the gun and rack the slide (providing it's a semi auto)?

You don't lose any time with your revolver, but you are losing a round with your empty chamber.

Have you also looked at the rates of shots on target vs missed shots in such a stressful situation?

Look into those. That's why I carry more rounds than what a wheel gun holds with one chamber empty.

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by fujimoh

I am seeing a disturbing pattern here. First, carrying a weapon with a round chambered, unless you are heading into imminent danger violates all the rules of firearm training for concealed carry. We are not talking military or LEO here. We are talking firearm safety classes and the "carry" classes necessary to obtain the permit. (in Florida) That rule is right there with never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire.

The second point is a revolver is one step quicker from concealment to fire than the pistol. It is pull, point and pull the trigger. There is no safety to check or release.

The third point is that if I need more than 5 shots to get myself clear of the situation, I am in combat, and not self defense.

The whole purpose of self defense is not to be involved in some Steven Segal movie where you are standing in the middle of a restaurant firing 17 shots, reload, fire 17 more and keep going until everyone is dead. The purpose is to defend yourself from attack while getting yourself and your family out of the situation.

If someone can find a news account where someone fired more than 5 or 6 shots in self defense to defuse the situation, post it up. I follow these stories closely and most self defense situations I study show that an attacker is fought off or scared off with 1, 2 or maybe 3 shots

I agree with a lot of this, but the chambered round is not mentioned anywhere here: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html

[Corey]

Originally Posted by fujimoh

I am seeing a disturbing pattern here. First, carrying a weapon with a round chambered, unless you are heading into imminent danger violates all the rules of firearm training for concealed carry. We are not talking military or LEO here. We are talking firearm safety classes and the "carry" classes necessary to obtain the permit. (in Florida) That rule is right there with never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire.

The second point is a revolver is one step quicker from concealment to fire than the pistol. It is pull, point and pull the trigger. There is no safety to check or release.

The third point is that if I need more than 5 shots to get myself clear of the situation, I am in combat, and not self defense.

The whole purpose of self defense is not to be involved in some Steven Segal movie where you are standing in the middle of a restaurant firing 17 shots, reload, fire 17 more and keep going until everyone is dead. The purpose is to defend yourself from attack while getting yourself and your family out of the situation.

If someone can find a news account where someone fired more than 5 or 6 shots in self defense to defuse the situation, post it up. I follow these stories closely and most self defense situations I study show that an attacker is fought off or scared off with 1, 2 or maybe 3 shots

1. I can respect your opinions, but i disagree with all of this. I took my CCW in Florida as well. Our class was taught by three police officers. Not one of them mentioned anything about having a round chambered being a violation of concealed carry. Rather, they left the option in our hands. There is no such rule on carrying with a chambered round. If you wish to carry at that condition, that's your prerogative, but I will always disagree with that.

2. I don't see how you have a revolver being one step quicker. If you're carrying on an empty cylinder:
step one: present firearm
step two: pull trigger. since the cylinder is empty, it'll be a dry fire and the cylinder will rotate to a chambered round
step three: pull trigger
--- or ---
step one: present firearm
step two: pull trigger on a chambered round and boom.

--- vs ---

step one: present firearm
step two: rack slide
step three: pull trigger
--- or---
step one: present firearm
step two: pull trigger

A semi-auto may have one additional step if there's an external safety, and in that regard I'll give you one additional step, but on many striker fired pistols and double action hammer fired, there may not be a safety, so that step does not exist. I carry a Glock which has no traditional external safety. Much like my revolver, it's present weapon, pull trigger, bang.

3. The purpose of carrying is self defense. You don't get to choose the situation in which you draw a weapon, you can only be prepared for the worst. I agree that there's a point in which it doesn't make sense to carry x amount of bullets. I have friends who carry a full magazine in the gun plus a spare. I draw the line at a full magazine. Nobody wants to be in any bad situation, and there's a good chance that many people will not be. But you don't carry for the good situations.

[Adeptus_Minor]

Originally Posted by Corey

2. I don't see how you have a revolver being one step quicker. If you're carrying on an empty cylinder:
step one: present firearm
step two: pull trigger. since the cylinder is empty, it'll be a dry fire and the cylinder will rotate to a chambered round
step three: pull trigger
--- or ---
step one: present firearm
step two: pull trigger on a chambered round and boom.

Minor correction...
Pulling the trigger of a double action revolver advances the cylinder and cocks the hammer. Therefore, if you are carrying it with one empty chamber, would it be the one in place or the one that it would advance to when cocked?
If it were the one in place, that would make sense. Any impacts to the hammer would have no chance of touching a primer. Then, when you draw it and pull the trigger, it advances to a loaded chamber and everything works as intended.
However, I agree that this isn't a great safety measure since you would be going into a potential multi-shot situation down one round in an already low capacity firearm.
If you're worried about something snagging or impacting the hammer and causing an accidental discharge, there are several DAO revolvers which have no exposed hammer.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by KSGregman

Point of clarification....

Individuals with guns in their own home applying the "king of their castle" defense? Game on.

Individuals with guns in public places? Not a fan.

Not to mention that, unfortunately, there is no "emotional stability" test when issuing a concealed permit.

It's no different than the general population: A substantial percentage of people who carry are going to have certain "issues".

[Captain Morgan]

I also carry a revolver. It's a 5 shot, so I'm already down one round. I'm not going to make it a 4 shot by keeping an empty spot. Also, my holster has a strap over the hammer. So, not only would something have to catch on the trigger hard enough to activate the double action, it's also going to have to be hard enough to overcome the strap. Good luck with that. I hope I never have to use the gun. I also hope I never have to "use" my motorcycle helmet, but I wear one anyway, even on the "short" trips. And to those saying that nobody should carry in a "safe" location, I ask how you determine a "safe" location. Can you see the future to know that with 100% certainty nobody is going to come in and rob the place?

I absolutely hate that both of my jobs have rules against carrying. Not only that, but both jobs also have rules against having ANY weapon in my vehicle while on duty, including pepper spray. That's right, I can't have ANYTHING that can be conceived as a weapon on my person, or in my vehicle. Yet, in both jobs, I run the risk of being attacked, whether it's someone wanting to rob me, or someone pissed off at me. It's absolutely assanine that I can't carry in either position.

[101lifts2]

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

Check the stats homie... gun control legislation increases violent crime rates... State by state here in the US, overseas in England, Australia, etc......

Correlation does not facilitate causation. Because these claims are not in a non-controlled media, you cannot infer that more OR less gun legislation increased crime rates.