I like memes!
For a wide variety of reasons, when I am traveling, I carry a 1911 in condition 3, which means I have to rack the slide to shoot. I’m an ordinary civilian with a normal threat level. I’m mostly concerned to minimize opportunities for negligent discharges and being able to easily separate my magazine/ammo from my gun and put both in secure storage. This way, I’m good legal standing wherever I travel. The bottom line is that ordinary civilians will be stopped by law enforcement more times than they’ll be in a violent crime. Also, they will experience more negligent discharges than violent crimes. It makes sense to make law enforcement stops safer (your magazine in one lock box and your unloaded gun in another) as well as reduce the likelihood of a negligent discharge by a drastic amount.
An obvious downside is that drawing and racking the slide increases your time to shoot by a half a second. Is it critical? It could be. But guess what else is critical: the draw from the concealed carry holster. If you are worried about half a second, you should be open carrying with a holster designed for a quick and smooth draw. The time difference between a concealed carry draw and an open carry draw is far more significant than drawing concealed and drawing concealed plus racking a slide. By choosing to concealed carry rather than open carry, you are, implicitly most of the time, saying the increase in draw time doesn’t matter in order to have the advantages of concealed carry.
Another downside: It requires two hands to rack the slide. This objection is better. Carrying in condition 3, for all practical purposes, does require both hands. I’m okay with this requirement. Others may not be. I’m making an explicit risk management decision. I’m saying I want the advantages of concealed carry and the advantages of safety. I’m deliberately choosing to have the disadvantage of draw time and requiring two hands to gain those advantages.
In my book, I try to make self-defense a risk management decision. Only by being honest about the benefits and harms of self-defense methods can someone properly evaluate them. Also, I try to make self-defense holistic. There are many ways to dramatically decrease your risk of violent crime. These methods are not mutually exclusive to say, carrying a firearm, but can complement them. For example, many states have increased penalties for crimes committed with a firearm. In Arizona, a negligent discharage in a municipality is a felony and you can see prison time if convicted. The law doesn’t care if you are a criminal using a firearm to rob someone or a concealed carrier who has a negligent discharge in a grocery store parking lot. If you don’t feel you can provide for your family in prison, you may want to evalute the benefits and harms of carrying a handgun with a loaded chamber in Arizona.
What works for me may not work for you. I certainly don’t try to convince people that what I do is what they should do. I do try to convince them that they should evaluate their self-defense method holistically and regarding benefits and harms. A person who properly evaluates their self-defense method in such a way is in far better shape than someone who doesn’t.
Memes like this one are funny and have a grain of truth. Let that grain of truth make you think deeply about the choices you make for self-defense.