I will finish here by noting that there is no demonstrable difference in accidental shootings in states that require training from those that don't.
I think we will agree to disagree.
Ken
Not too sure I'd rely on that sort of "statistic" (or lack thereof, from a valid scientific source) for trying to make the case for handling/using firearms as dedicated defensive weapons.
While I used the guitar example because it's a popular one, I actually think my car example was more telling, and more relevant.
Just because states require some sort of training & education for a driver's license, that hasn't eliminated drivers becoming involved in collisions.
Operating equipment (guns, cars, etc) under non-stressful and ideal conditions is one thing.
Operating them under stress and in unexpected emergency situations is another thing.
People do weird and unpredictable things when faced with exigent circumstances. Things which puzzle even them afterward, as they may have no idea why they did what they did.
Training, done at different levels, can reportedly help ingrain proper responses under conditions anticipated during training. Training for a purpose. (
Ingrained &
practiced responses that don't require you to stop and run through the mental Rolodex of possible actions to a stimulus, looking for the "right" response during precious seconds). Making the conscious decision to
act (or not), but relying on training to provide the proper response under anticipated circumstances.
Operating a motor vehicle is something most drivers do a lot of, and for a long time. Going from one point to another.
Using a car as an emergency vehicle (patrol car), though, can subject drivers to conditions and circumstances not typically presented to the average driver. Instead of just handing car keys to new-hires and telling them to drive as needed for Code runs & conditions, some further training is usually provided to better prepare them for "driving" under duress and stress, in emergency conditions, for both their safety and the safety of everyone else around them.
Now, people being people, even "trained" people are going to make mistakes, miss their "timing", miss seeing something, experience an injury, stumble and have it throw them off, etc, etc.
Think of it this way ...
How well do you want to be able to potentially react under the worst-case set of conditions and circumstances you can envision, and which actually might happen?
Do you want to leave it to "instinct", or hope your everyday type of normal range "target practice" can somehow allow you to rise to the level needed to handle an unexpected emergency situation?
Training ... backed up with sufficiently frequent proper practice, and perhaps even recurrent training ... may be the better bet than hoping to just somehow "rise" to the level needed when someone is caught up in that "FREEZE, FLIGHT or FLIGHT" reaction, and sensory deficit may occur in some previously unexperienced manner (auditory exclusion, tunnel vision, tachypsychia).
Training has been thought to help "inoculate" a trained person against some of the debilitating effects of the normal stress responses when it comes to being able to act in a
volitional, proper, and effective manner.
So, it may pretty much come down to
how well prepared to act
safely, lawfully, properly and effectively does someone want to be when it comes to using a firearm as a dedicated defensive weapon?
Taking the ego out of the equation isn't something that humans are typically good at, is it?
Go watch, or participate in, some local IDPA event. Ask about the training of some of the folks. How well do the "casual range target shooters" generally do under the normal stress induced during the competition of IDPA?
I remember during some in-service training I attended last year (LEOKA, or Law Enforcement Officers Killed & Assaulted), which included some reports of interviews with suspects who had used firearms. A surprising ... (and probably disturbing to some folks who don't deal with violent criminal suspects everyday) ... aspect was how
many of those criminals claimed to have "practiced" a lot with their guns.
Official training? No. But they said they practiced their shooting against opportunistic targets quite a lot, some claiming every day. It was also said that they watched a lot of shooting training video clips (isn't the computer age wonderful?), especially those involving police training (their expected opponents). They felt that "training" and practice was going to be needed to survive armed encounters with other criminals and the police.
They also had the expectation that they might need those skills
each and every day, as part of
their normal day. They had a different
mindset than the law-abiding, casual range shooter. They expected to have to
use their guns at any moment, and they also understood that they may be shot (some had been) and still have to act to survive their encounters.
How many law-abiding folks arm themselves with a gun because they
like that particular handgun, or it gives them some inarticulable sense of "protection" (the much discussed
Talisman Effect)? A sort of Rabbit's Foot that will somehow protect them from HARM by them just having it?
Dunno. Don't presume to have those answers.
Shooting has been held to be a Perishable Skill for LE. There are any number of court decisions at the federal & state level which describe aspects, types & levels of police training for carrying & using firearms among the greater Public. Maybe that's a hint?
Rather than relying upon
Luck & Instinct (which don't seem to have consistent track records),
Training is probably the better way to prepare for adverse situations. Just maybe.
It may all come down to how
well prepared someone desires to be when bad things happen.
Wish I had that answer.
