The problem of there not being a viable cartridge in the chamber is just that.
The problem of a viable cartridge being in the chamber is also just that.
I strongly advocate carrying WITH a viable cartridge in the chamber, but that's a decision everyone has to make on their own, simply because there is definitely no way that the bullet will exit the muzzle without that cartridge being loaded, and there is an undeniable level of safety, there.
Can I say that my holstered weapon will -CERTAINLY NEVER- discharge due to either gear or mechanical issues? I really cannot. I've read about instances of the former, and I've personally witnessed the latter (not in a holster, but that shooter did *not* intend for the weapon to discharge:
https://primaryandsecondary.com/forum/index.php?threads/aar-costa-ludus-he2.2066/ - I use the same screen-name there, too). It's a possibility that, however remote and unlikely, I simply cannot fully discount.
Similarly, I find that regardless of how much I try to push the case for "Condition 0/1" carry based on combatives and injury/unorthodox/unlikely conditions, those who wish that extra level of safety simply will not be swayed - and for what it's worth, I can respect that decision.
Just don't be deluded into thinking that the gun is "just as accessible," that the initial shot can be delivered "just as fast." A shot timer mated to a known metric does not lie and easily disproves the latter, while the pressure-cooker that is Force-on-Force and integrated combatives will readily quash the former. Actually, for the vast majority of those who "Israeli Carry," simple weapons-manipulations drills that involve bilateral single-handed manipulations will cause failures, even with only just the pressures that a live-fire flat-range imposes.
The concession towards one "safety" is necessarily a demand that stems from the need/want for the other side of that equation.
As long as the end-user fully recognizes the logic behind his/her choice, I fully respect the choice that they make.
