One in the chamber or no?

[Hit Factor]

Basic firearm safety is to NEVER have a live round chambered unless one is active in shooting something.

This is completely made up B.S.

 

[Radman64]

Okay John Wayne.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Common sense!

Don’t rely on “common sense” for firearms safety or training. Seek out a reputable professional.

There are four widely taught basic firearms safety rules strongly associated with Jeff Cooper/Gunsite academy:

1. Treat all guns as if they are loaded
2. Never point the muzzle at anything you don’t intend to destroy
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have decided to fire
4. Be sure of your target and why is beyond it

You have to break all 4 of these rules to to negligently harm someone.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

The NRA has 3 rules, including keeping the gun unloaded until ready to use. Carrying concealed is the gun being in use.

 

[Radman64]

That was drilled into me taking my hunters safety course back in 78 along with what the Army also taught me about weapons handling.
Who taught you?

 

[john_marsten_1873]

The next most likely is something similar to situation that occured recently in Cerritos.

That is what I think.

How often do you train for incidents like Cerritos?

 

[Radman64]

People that have never been shot at or returned fire under duress have zero clue about anything.
Nuff said!

 

[peahi2]

My father is a retired police detective and when he started carrying semiautomatic pistols he stated he never carried with one in the chamber due to accidental discharge. The training he did allowed him to rack one in seconds. I stated I personally carry one in the chamber due to being in a self defense situation I may not have time or a malfunction happening when I try to put a round in the chamber. Why chance that? Secondly if I invest in a good holster the odds of an accidental discharge due to my negligence is slim to none. What do you think? One in the chamber or no?

why do we rehash these old debates? haven't we moved past tea cupping and weaver?

 

[magoshands]

People that have never been shot at or returned fire under duress have zero clue about anything.
Nuff said!

Ok Grandpa lets get you back to bed, its late.

 

[Radman64]

Ok Grandpa lets get you back to bed, its late.

Grandpa?
lmao, what have you done in your life?
Mine still makes a lot of money.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

That was drilled into me taking my hunters safety course back in 78 along with what the Army also taught me about weapons handling.
Who taught you?

You said “common sense”.

I’m am not “taught”. I’m constantly training and learning.

Since February of last year I completed 250 hours of formal firearms training.

A group I regularly train with consists former FBI SWAT, PD and firearms trainers for their units/departments. From home defense, concealed carry, VCAT, CQB.

I also regularly take classes from world class competitors and instructors, who currently train law enforcement and military units. Signed up for Ben Steoger classes this fall and JJ Raccaza (former US air marshal) this winter!

“Common sense” is highly relative and is not a replacement for formal training and instruction. Many of the modern firearms training and methodologies are based on failures/inefficiencies of the past.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

People that have never been shot at or returned fire under duress have zero clue about anything.
Nuff said!

How many concealed carry incidents have you been involved in? That’s what we’re discussing here.

 

[Radman64]

Ok Grandpa lets get you back to bed, its late.

Gramb's can wipe your ass out in many way's.
My personal choice is cold steel.

How many concealed carry incidents have you been involved in? That’s what we’re discussing here.

83-84, Korean DMZ running 25 missions, got my Imjin badge, who shot at you?

 

[john_marsten_1873]

83-84, Korean DMZ running 25 missions, got my Imjin badge

Thank you for your service!

 

[Radman64]

Thank you for your service!

It sucked.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

who shot at you?

While I appreciate and I’m grateful for your service, that’s a different context and training from self/home defense.

I pray to the universe that no one ever shoots at me and vice versa!

But instead relying solely on prayers I train first and foremost to avoid being shot at and keeping myself out of situations that might escalate to that level.

With that said I do use firearms as part of my defensive preparedness - including concealed carry.

I fully recognize that presents a risk to myself, my family and potential innocent bystanders so I take that responsibility very seriously by training with folks who are professionals and have experience in these areas rather than relying on common sense.

 

[Gawernator]

These statistics are often sighted but from my understanding they are highly flawed. They either contain the supposed 80% never fire the gun, which brings the whole average way down. If the 80% percent never fired is correct, and included in the numbers, and the rest, 20% percent shot 10 rounds, that would average only 2 rounds average.

The other issue is the statistics are based on a small sample size. Possibly no more then a few hundred examples

The next issue is reports to the police, the number of rounds fired are often times less then actuality. When the number of shell casings or bullets found in the walls or perp are higher then the victim though they fired. This is true ever for people we would normally expect to be trained for this. Police have made statements they fired 3 or 4 rounds when they actually unloaded their whole magazine.

And lastly, most of these numbers come from organizations or people pushing for magazine capacity limits. Trying to prove that we don't need more then 10 rounds because the "majority" don't fire more then x number, always being really low

Basically be careful with these statistics. Watching a good number of active self protection videos, I see there are quite a few where mag dumping or firing off a good number is not that uncommon when one does happen to find oneself needing to pull the trigger

Agreed. I see a large percentage of the self defense shootings by private people or police or off duty “police” in Brazil lol

And many times they’re shooting 4,5,6,7 or more rounds or dumping the whole mag

 

[Gawernator]

Here's your Chat GPT"

"ChatGPT said:
If you're referring to the claimed number of rounds fired in self-defense, the number can indeed be a flawed statistic if it's presented as though it proves something by itself.

A few reasons:

• Self-defense incidents vary enormously—one shot, several shots, or no shots at all can occur depending on circumstances.
• Reported round counts may be unreliable, especially when based on recollection during a stressful event.
• Survivorship and reporting bias can distort datasets: incidents that become police cases or news stories aren't necessarily representative of all defensive encounters.
• “Rounds fired” doesn't measure effectiveness or necessity. A high number doesn't automatically mean the defender acted improperly, and a low number doesn't automatically mean the response was justified.
• Different studies define incidents differently. Some count shots fired, some count defensive uses, and some rely on surveys or police reports, making direct comparisons problematic.

So if someone is arguing, for example, “the average defensive gun use involves X rounds, therefore…”, the conclusion may be much weaker than the number makes it sound. The important question is where the number came from, how the sample was collected, and exactly what the statistic measures.

If you give me the specific claimed number or source, I can examine whether the statistic is actually flawed.

1. You said:​

   "the average number of rounds fired in a self-defense incident is roughly 2.5 to 3.8"

2. ChatGPT said:​

   Yes—but I would not present “2.5 to 3.8 rounds” as a single established average for self-defense incidents.
   
   The numbers appear to come from different datasets, not from one authoritative study:
   • The 3.8-shot figure I can trace to a 2025 account of Tom Givens/Rangemaster alumni data: 71 reported defensive shootings, averaging 3.8 shots per incident, with a range of 1–12. That's a particular instructor's alumni sample, not a representative national sample.
   • The 2.5-shot figure is frequently repeated online, sometimes attributed to the DOJ, but I haven't found evidence in the material I searched that establishes 2.5 as a DOJ national average for civilian defensive gun uses. One forum post makes exactly that attribution, but that's not evidence of the underlying DOJ statistic. USA Carry - Concealed Carry Forum
   • There are also police-use-of-force datasets with averages around 2.5 rounds in particular years, but those are obviously not civilian self-defense incidents. For example, one 2016 use-of-force report records 2.5 rounds for a specific category of officer-involved shooting incidents. Courthouse News
   
   So the statement:
   
   
   is potentially misleading because it combines figures from different sources/populations and makes them sound like a well-established range.
   
   A more defensible formulation would be:
   
   
   And there's an even bigger statistical issue: “average rounds fired” can be very different from “rounds fired in incidents where shots were fired.” If defensive gun uses where no shots are fired are included in the denominator, the average drops dramatically. That distinction needs to be specified before comparing numbers.
   
   And from Googles AI overview:
   "The Law of Averages: A mathematical average obscures extreme scenarios. If a majority of encounters involve a defender firing 0 to 1 shots to scare away an intruder, it mathematically suppresses the significant minority of life-threatening encounters where a defender must fire 10, 15, or more rounds to stop an aggressive threat or manage multiple attackers. [1, 2]
   • Severe Selection Bias: Data from sources like the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) or mainstream media rely primarily on published news reports. Media coverage heavily favors simplistic, quick resolutions (e.g., a single shot fired at a fleeing robber) or fatal interactions, while leaving out a massive volume of unreported or poorly detailed incidents where high volumes of ammunition were exchanged but nobody was hit. [1, 2]
   • The Mythical "3-3-3" Origin: A massive chunk of training philosophy has long relied on the "3 yards, 3 shots, 3 seconds" mantra, frequently attributed to the FBI. However, firearms researchers confirm the FBI has never officially published this metric. Real-world data reveals that up to 55% of civilian gunfights require more than three rounds, and a substantial percentage easily exceed 5 to 7 rounds. [1]
   • Inaccurate Under-Reporting by Survivors: Human beings experience extreme biological stress under a sudden, life-threatening threat. The activation of the sympathetic nervous system triggers cognitive decline, tunnel vision, and auditory exclusion. Decades of law enforcement data from platforms like Police1 prove that shooters routinely under-report how many rounds they fired because they literally cannot accurately track their shots in the heat of a fight.
   • Unclear Metrics in Court Decisions: Legal challenges over magazine bans, such as the major case reviewed by the Spokesman-Review and The Columbian, highlighted that state-cited studies suffer from extremely small sample sizes, a total lack of peer-reviewed data, and highly speculative estimations when exact numbers are missing. [1, 2]
     
     Real-World Factors that Distort the Numbers Low Hit Rates: Under high-stress conditions, civilians and trained police officers miss a significant portion of their shots. An average hit rate might hover below 20-30% in a dynamic gunfight, meaning a defender must fire significantly more total rounds just to achieve the 2 to 4 vital hits required to physically stop a charging threat.Adrenaline and Substance Use: Attackers under the influence of severe narcotics or high adrenaline often do not stop immediately from a single pistol wound. Defenders are trained to "shoot until the threat is stopped," which naturally escalates the total volume of rounds fired in real-life survival encounters.Multiple Attackers: Aggressors and home invaders frequently operate in pairs or small groups. Even if a strict "2 rounds per target" average were physically true, a defensive scenario involving two or three perpetrators instantly demands a capacity that eclipses standard statistical averages."

Good to know and makes total sense

 

[john_marsten_1873]

It sucked.

Glad you’re still here, thriving and putting up with us smug young a**holes!

 

[Radman64]

Anyone that understands firearms understands usage, never have a chambered round unless one is ready to fire.
Simple rule.