I sort of agree. However, I also have problems with that logic. I do a lot of teaching and assessing of practical skills. We find that silly mistakes start to happen when people slavishly follow rote learned patterns without engaging their brains to actually think about what they’re doing.
If it does, that round CANNOT PHYSICALLY BE IN THE CHAMBER.!
But I am in a minority on this. People are very devoted to their learned behaviours, especially if it makes them look a little bit hard core and military.
I’ve picked a few things out, as I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, if not all of it.
Yes, rote actions come with risk of no brain involvement. Brain actions are fallible too. Why not do both? I teach skills that require both (almost) autonomous physical inputs linked to high cognitive demands. If one slips the other has to work hard to make up the gap
Agreed, the round you’re holding can not be in the cmber, but that doesn’t mean the chamber is empty...
The ‘look hardcore and military’ bit is an odd comment. I would argue checking the chamber is clear thoroughly isn’t overly military.
Additionally, looking ‘military’ implies you look like someone who uses weapons professionally under high stress circumstances, to a high standard that is rigidly enforced. No bad thing, and considerably better than an ND/sucking chest wound.
No one is going to think you’re Andy McNab by making sure your chamber is empty.
No one is going to think you’re living the secret life of Walter Mitty.
No is forcing you to do it either.

