TLG posts about yet another SERPA ban.

And reading all the comments defending the SERPA make my brain hurt. Because all the problems are due to poor training and lack of practice, and all we need is more training and more practice and we’ll never have any problems. Or at least, I’ve never had any problems and my data set of 1 (or maybe a few more people, like my friends) never had any problems. And so my point is proven.

*sigh*

I don’t know. Maybe it’s the engineer in me that says things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.

The SERPA is not as simple as possible.

It’s design intentionally plays into what your trigger finger is otherwise trained to do — thus now your trigger finger must learn to do two things, not one, thus things are more complicated. But really, your finger is doing the same thing in both instances, and that’s why people shoot themselves with this holster. So if you want to keep from injuring yourself, you now must learn two things instead of one. By definition that’s not simpler.

More dohickies and parts means more things that can break and more things that can go wrong. I know you have ninja-like skills and will never end up on the ground, and you take meticulous care of your gear such that a pebble or grit will never ever enter the release mechanism and cause it to jam. I know it will never happen to you. But it’s happened…. just not to you. Simpler holsters don’t have this problem.

The design of such holsters fails from an engineering perspective. It is unnecessarily complex. Let’s ignore the fact more people have shot themselves in use of this holster. Let’s ignore why non-LEO’s even need retention holsters in the first place. Let’s ignore these don’t conceal very well. Let’s skip the fact that even after tons of training and practice we can still revert to lizard brain when the pressure is on, especially if things don’t go as smoothly as we always fantasized it would. Let’s ignore that someone might have a critical need to use their tools before they had the 10,000 repetitions to ingrain the new skill. Let’s just look at it from a pure engineering perspective and ask why? What problem is this solving, and is this really the best way to solve that problem? is there really nothing better? can we be willing to admit failure, if it means we can improve? and if the solution isn’t here today, then why aren’t we working on something better?

But in the end, my brain just hurts reading endless comment from the defenders. Their reasons don’t hold up. It comes off as nothing more than emotional appeals to defend their personal choices. Which to an extent makes sense… it’s how we humans work. But what are you interested in? Defending your ego, or defending your life?