More evidence that training is not a MUST.

Protected One

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
4,650
Location
Michigan
This situation represents the most common defensive use of a firearm - at home, and by an untrained user. Note in the interview that the woman bought the gun 5 years ago and hasn't touched it sense...before this incident.
I'm not advocating being untrained, but do recognize that it's the case for most people. We, as enthusiast, are exceptions.

Orange City woman holds robber at gunpoint | News - Home
 
Register to hide this ad
This situation represents the most common defensive use of a firearm - at home, and by an untrained user. Note in the interview that the woman bought the gun 5 years ago and hasn't touched it sense...before this incident.
I'm not advocating being untrained, but do recognize that it's the case for most people. We, as enthusiast, are exceptions.

Orange City woman holds robber at gunpoint | News - Home

Well SHE GOT LUCKY, it had a good outcome, but if she actually had to shoot, with her not familiar with firearms I would not want to predict the outcome. She had a good mindset!
 
Better than nothing....

Having an untouched gun around is better than having no gun, but I was surprised that she was able to manipulate it and hope she could have handled it had she actually had to shoot. In this case she could, she's a sturdy girl and no shrinking violet.

The guy is lucky she didn't just start blasting.
 
I missed the part where she demonstrated proficiency with the firearm despite a lack of training.

Yes, she was lucky that she was able to hold the guy at gunpoint without having to use it.

People don't buy SD guns for the purpose of "demonstrating proficiency", they buy them for defense...and apparently she demonstrated enough for the threat to convince him it was in his best interest to sit still untill the police arrived. Mission accomplished. :cool:
 
I seem to have missed that part of the Bill of Rights that requires training or demonstrations of proficiency before one may exercise those rights.

I can understand requiring some basic level of training before a concealed carry permit is issued. Unfortunately we see many legislative and regulatory abuses in this, depending on where we might reside.

On the other hand, once a training/proficiency requirement is enacted we can be sure that the requirements will be increased incrementally until a majority of the people will give up exercising their rights.

Basic firearms safety class sounds reasonable, but will certainly become a 2 week training program only offered once per year, a hundred miles from any population center, all expenses paid by the applicant. Then a 6 week program might become the minimum requirement. Within a few years there might be a Bachelor of Science degree program in firearms safety and laws of self defense.

75% passing scores on the range might be the initial minimum. That could turn into 90%, and then why not 100% just to be extra sure for the sake of public safety?

A right is a right. Once the government starts regulating something there are only privileges to be granted at some bureaucrat's whim.

Give some people an inch and they start thinking they are rulers.
 
People don't buy SD guns for the purpose of "demonstrating proficiency", they buy them for defense...and apparently she demonstrated enough for the threat to convince him it was in his best interest to sit still untill the police arrived. Mission accomplished. :cool:

True, but you said this is evidence training isn't a MUST, or in other words, training with a gun isn't needed... Just buy one and hold into it.

She didn't have to use it. What if her pointing the gun wasn't enough? Would she know how to handle the gun if he charged her?

I would have titles this one "Proof sometimes you get lucky".
 
I seem to have missed that part of the Bill of Rights that requires training or demonstrations of proficiency before one may exercise those rights.

Nobody's saying that... You're just going there.

The OP said training isn't a MUST. I disagree. I'm not saying training must be mandated and courses taken, but as a responsible person, you need to train with a gun and gain some level of proficiency. Buying one and tucking it away, never to be touched or trained with, is a bad idea on the gun owners part.
 
Pure luck. Freakin stupid to buy a gun and not take even a SINGLE trip to the range in 5 years. Even if you dont have the time/money to do any of the high quality formal training with an instructor doing drills and whatnot, at least go to the range on your own every now and then and put 50rds down range on your own. At least do something...
 
The military trained me as a parachutist, and I performed about 60 jumps under all conditions of daylight, darkness, temperature extremes, onto dry land and into the ocean. I was trained in how to land, and how to deal with parachute malfunctions, and manage my combat equipment in the process.

I am glad I was trained.

I am aware that people have been able to bail out of aircraft and survive who have had no training except in how to put on a parachute. Good for them.

This woman was fortunate to live in a country that allows even the untrained to obtain the means of self defense. It's a lucky thing she didn't have to shoot anybody.

Luck is not the thinking person's survival strategy. It is not a reason to avoid training.
 
The gun owner was able to find the gun and not hurt herself, or shoot a family member.
"The only thing I would say saved him is that my son stepped in and took him down before I could take the shot," said Rosario.

Being able to find the gun and have it in hand is one thing.

Being able to retain possession of the gun, in the face of a determined criminal attacker who isn't afraid to risk being shot when facing what he perceives to be a hesitant victim? Skill is arguably a better thing to fall back upon than luck.

Now, if she'd actually had to fire the gun in defense of herself or her son? Unknown result.

Could she? Would she? Would she hit her son, herself or a neighbor? Would she hit her intended target? Would the gun even fire & function? Since it was a semiauto pistol, was the chamber loaded? Did she know if it was loaded or even ready-to-fire?

I'd not be so quick to use isolated incidents as examples of why familiarity & some basic level of training and proficiency isn't a good thing. ;)

Luck favors the prepared. Not just a cute slogan or cheesy Movie line.

It's always good to hear intended victims remain uninjured, and criminal suspects face our criminal justice system for their actions.
 
Last edited:
I agree, lucky. I applaud the mindset of not being a victim. But she needs to know if she can use her gun. I didnt see a manual safety, but manipulating that gun under stress could have caused her problems.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top