One and a half seconds

A second and a half from rest to first shot is considered a reasonably quick draw from concealment. Two is a bit slow. How slow is waiting for cops to show up after either bystander call them or you — if you survive an attack in any shape to call them and still have your cell phone…or wait, the muggers took it…so after you find somebody to call for you?

Pistol deployment isn’t rocket science. It can be learned quicker than any other kind of  martial art. Carrying a handgun is no harder than carrying a cell phone — pistols are usually slightly heavier but also less fragile.

People who had been attacked, beaten, raped or robbed when defenseless by choice or by law often have PTSD. I have yet to see emotional regret or flashbacks in a person who successfully rebuffed a criminal attack with gunfire or other means. Every one of them viewed past experience with attempted victimization as resolved in a satisfactory manner. By contrast, people who had been and remain disarmed by law, usually relive the past as part of the worry about similar threats in the future.

This entry was posted in pistol, self-defense, weapon and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to One and a half seconds

  1. Lyle says:

    Good post!

  2. Lyle says:

    Yes, and often the retort from the Marxist agitators is, “Carrying a gun can’t guarantee your safety!” but neither does having a printing press guarantee that your printed messages won’t be rejected. Nor does wearing a seatbelt guarantee your survival in a crash, nor a fire extinguisher guarantee your house can’t burn down. It’s still your right and your choice to have it, and that’s all there is to that.

    Also, as freedom of the press isn’t freedom to commit fraud, likewise the right to bear arms is not the right to commit assault or murder. The existence of those crimes committed by others does not alter or abridge your rights in any way. Quite the opposite; liars and violent criminals make your unfettered freedom of the press and your unadulterated right to bear arms all the more urgent.

  3. George says:

    I encourage even those who can’t deploy and accurately shoot a pistol in 1.5 seconds to exercise their right to carry.

    The 1.5 second standard came from the “you are being suddenly attacked!” scenario set off by the Tueller drill. This doesn’t cover the many, many other scenarios where a pistol in the hand is a very good thing to have. And being 3 seconds away from having a weapon, or 5 seconds away, is still very much better than 20 minutes from a Cop.

    It saddens me every time some young, fit, aggressive man says something like, “If you don’t carry one in the chamber, and are able to immediately draw and lay down fire, you might as well not carry at all, you need to go take shivworks ECQC!” which is a sentiment I see all too often (though thankfully not from Oleg). The gun community needs to welcome the elderly, infirm, and people who need a firearm as an equalizer against people who are physically able to go through training like ECQC.

    • Braden Lynch says:

      I worry that someone with that mindset would be trigger happy and shoot someone innocent. I’m also enthusiastic about self defense, but that much exuberance in laying down fire sounds feckless.

      The elderly and the infirm are certainly among those who would most benefit from firearms. I will enter this group one day and want that option then.

  4. Sid says:


Comments are closed.