More evidence that training is not a MUST.

I think she did very good. I try to shoot as much as I can to get better at it. I am the only one in my circle of friends and family that does that. I know many of them have guns, they just don't care to shoot that much, if at all. I also know that all of them will use their guns if needed to defend their kingdom. If you ask them they would say they are prepared and hope they are as lucky as the lady that didn't have to pull the trigger.
 
PURE HORSE HOCKEY! A few examples of fight or flight instinct & luck working out well, DO NOT begin to outweigh the bad outcomes from poor-lack of training. Believing that someone is going to OBEY your COMMANDS because you are holding a gun is beyond naïve, "FREEZE SUCKA" yeah like that works in the real world. Leaving the house to play Angie Dickinson/Pepper Anderson was foolish & the son is lucky mom didn't shoot him. I'm glad she had the gun, but for crying out loud If your gonna buy one, learn to use it. It's like buying a car & not knowing how to drive.
Sorry to get off topic here, but thanks for the laugh this morning...you know most folks on the internet forums weren't even a twinkle in their Daddys eye when Police Woman aired. My gosh, has it really been 40 years since Pepper Anderson graced the tv screen? :D
 
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.

With all due respect, the individual citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, which includes obtaining a firearm "and tucking it away, never to be touched or trained with". The manner in which one citizen chooses to exercise his rights is not subject to any influence by another citizen. This troublesome point appears to be the real crux of the whole gun control debate; some folks seem to think that other folks need to be subjected to the legislative and/or regulatory control of the majority, as expressed by the legislature and the executive.

'Rights' are certainly not absolute in nature. One's right to free speech does not entitle him to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater, or to make libelous publications about another person. One's right to free exercise of his religion does not entitle him to demand the participation of others. One's right to keep and bear arms requires no permission from his neighbors, or the government.

The citizen who buys a gun then "tucks it away, never to be touched or trained with" is certainly not engaging in the most thoughtful and responsible approach. However, that citizen has not engaged in an inherently irresponsible approach, as the gun that is never touched cannot do any harm to anyone. Further, that citizen is better prepared to act in self-defense than the citizen who never acquired the means in the first place.

Every element of the debate over "gun control" is an exercise of logic versus emotional response. Promoting "common sense" legislation and regulation is easy to do by playing on peoples' emotions. The problem lies in the slippery slope principle; once a small restriction is accepted there will always be a greater restriction coming, and over time the whole concept of a citizen's rights is lost. And once one right has been effectively erased all other rights become vulnerable to the same treatment.

Training requirements, safe storage requirements, background checks, restrictions on firearms types, magazine capacity restrictions, caliber restrictions, permit requirements, licensing requirements, transportation restrictions, open carry laws, concealed carry laws, and many other means have been used for decades to incrementally strip away the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
 
I have taken the time to read this thread and, obvious issues aside, I think the following is a fact:
The mere display of a firearm is often all that's need to stop an attack or confrontation.
Jim
 
My point in starting the thread was to present another of the many examples of untrained people who have successfully defended themselves with help of a firearm. While I won't argue the many benefits of training - whether elementary or advanced, the lack of such training OBVIOUSLY does not render people incapable of successfully using them. The millions of recorded stories attest to this fact.

Granted, the lady in this case made several tactical errors (IMHO) that perhaps training would have helped her avoid. Still, I know of TRAINED individuals who, when their moment of truth arrived ALSO made tactical errors. Some of which cost them their lives.

Training provides better preparedness, but does not guarantee a successfull outcome in all situations. Thus, If someone "chooses" to legally purchase a handgun and put it away until the undesired incident occurs...they as within their rights as the person who chooses to spend every weekend in gunfight classes, and history has shown that they may be just as protected.
 
As long as you remember that resorting to "best 2 out of 3" isn't an option when all you get is one opportunity to do things right. ;)

Remember that the reason the concept of "training & practice" were even created was to try and improve chances for success, or even survival, when luck and happenstance was often thinning the herd.

Once you've faced some folks of criminal inclination and action who were entirely unimpressed and didn't act fearful when facing a firearm, you start to wonder just how many times that might happen during a given shift, a 24 hour period, a week, a month, your career or a lifetime.

Luck, and relying upon a potential attacker's reaction of fear that results in either submission and/or fleeing in any particular instance, can become a little less "comforting".

No, training is not a guarantee of success. Neither is hoping for a lucky turn of events.

With decisions come the possibility of either favorable or unfavorable consequences.

Folks ought to be cognizant of the responsibility of perhaps having to bear the potential consequences of their decisions, informed, "instinctive" or otherwise.

Maybe that's one of the reasons Nature made sure humans had a high birth rate and weren't restricted to a "season" regarding fertility and bearing children.
 
BS flag post # 44

Because YOU BELIEVE something is a fact, does not make it so. Think brandishing a gun gives you some kind of mind control over someone who just doesn't care, is crazy, hopped up on drugs, may not believe you will use it/ or know how to use it, is a good way to get yourself and others killed. Angie/Pepper, looked experienced & likely was ridden hard & put up wet more than once, was a hottie & would make you throw rocks at Cagney & Lacey in comparison. The TV lady cops today look like they just stepped out of a Victoria's secret catalog, TOTALY REALISTIC.
 
Last edited:
The line that stood out most to me is "She ran outside."

I'm no Tactician, but had it been 2 perps or a gang, she could have been in a world of hurt being exposed out in the open!
 
Last edited:
Lots of what ifs, second guessing, and Monday Morning quarterbacking going on here.

She had a gun. She used it to defend her home.
'Nuff said.

Training is good. Practice is good. However, I have shot with some people who had some expensive training. A few of them I will not ever shoot with again because they scared me to death.

I want to add: my man LoboGunLeather not only makes a heck of a holster, he is currently leading this league in insight and common sense.
 
IMHO, This lady was lucky in a big way. As the old gunfighting adage goes; "Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good." She falls into the 'lucky' category big time. ................ Big Cholla
 
My Take

I coined a phrase regarding firearms proficiency which was used by the publisher of my entitled "Merchants At War." The phrase is: "Winning is a matter of skill and luck. The more skill you have, the less luck you'll need."

Mandating minimum firearms proficiency may indeed be used as a vehicle to curtail Second Amendment Rights. Yet, gun battles are won and lost through mindset, judgment and tactics, topics requiring some training. At the moment, I'm thinking of the several cases I'm familiar with where an armed and totally untrained homeowner mistook a loved one for an intruder and killed a family member.
 
Lobo has it right but, in summary, let's remember that John Lott's thesis, oft quoted in the NRA's magazines, is that the mere appearance of a firearm often deters crime or stops it. Whether the armed citizen is trained or not is not a question that perpetrators ask when faced with a gun. If they're not fighting back they have no other choice but to surrender or retreat.

The question of luck and the fact that there was no gang outside is all part of the overall picture. I do think she should have stayed inside; even if she was well trained, the perp had not yet posed a threat of imminent bodily harm or death while he was outside, even if he's trespassing. Stepping outside changes the equation - NOW she has entered the threat zone voluntarily. It's simply not necessary.

That said, we must remember that the current case law expressly says that the Second Amendment allows Americans to have handguns in their homes - training is not part of the equation in that respect.

***GRJ***
 
Nice try. Using a firearm to defend oneself at home, without firing a shot (including instances of threats being held at gunpoint) is the MOST COMMON defensive use of handguns.

Want to see some data? Read your newspaper, watch the news, or use the internet. The OVERWHELMING majority of stories you read will fall into this category. We may not like it, or even want to believe it, but that doesn't change the fact.

Nice try?


I'm fully aware of the fact that not only do most defensive handgun uses end with no shots fired, but also that they go unreported... period. Not to police and not to journalists.

Why would we not want that? Personally, I don't want to have to shoot anybody. I certainly don't wish for anyone else to have to shoot somebody.


She held him at gunpoint, that's incredibly rare for a civilian to do. Historically and empirically, you either have to shoot someone or they run away.

Luck, luck and more luck for this woman. Painting it any other way is disingenuous at best.



Yes, people can manage to defend themselves without training and certainly have the right.

Trusting in luck though; I think we can unanimously agree is... a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
Because YOU BELIEVE something is a fact, does not make it so. Think brandishing a gun gives you some kind of mind control over someone who just doesn't care, is crazy, hopped up on drugs, may not believe you will use it/ or know how to use it, is a good way to get yourself and others killed. Angie/Pepper, looked experienced & likely was ridden hard & put up wet more than once, was a hottie & would make you throw rocks at Cagney & Lacey in comparison. The TV lady cops today look like they just stepped out of a Victoria's secret catalog, TOTALY REALISTIC.

Police records and TV/Newspaper support post #44. It has nothing to do with "mind control" (but you already knew that), but rather the simple fact that nobody wants to get shot.

As to the mythical 300 pound drugged up psycho? Well, he won't care if you're TRAINED either!
 
I completely forgot to mention this the other day when I replied to this thread. We had a conviction the other day in court of a man who raped a lady. Victim was in her 70's. Guy is prowling around her house, she gets her gun. Bad guy kicks the door in. Because she is unfamiliar with the gun, she fumbles with it trying to shoot him. Bad guy takes the gun away from her, beats her, rapes her, and by some miracle, doesn't kill her.
 
Bad guy takes the gun away from her, beats her, rapes her, and by some miracle, doesn't kill her.

To be fair, age is against her there no matter how well she has aged.

On the flip side, earlier in the year we had national news of an old lady shooting a guy through her door that was coming to attack.


Luck. It goes both ways, and relying on it gives you a 50% chance...
 
brandishing

Speaking only of MY 1 time trying to get someone to wait for the police to show up while holding a gun on him, and yes I had pc to do it, only began a "feets do your stuff" situation. I'd be happy to see some of those newspaper articles, or news reports. Any leos care to chime in on the percentage of perps that obey commands when they can run?
 
She defended her home and caught a perp. Her reward in this forum is to be denigrated and her actions characterized as stupid.

She deserves better.
Maybe some posts were denigrating, but not most of them. The point of many here is to discuss and point out flaws so we all can get smarter. The idea is to learn from others mistakes so we don't make them ourselves. None of what I've said was intended to denigrate or demean the woman.



The mere display of a firearm is often all that's need to stop an attack or confrontation.
Jim
Whether we like it or not, this is true. The vast majority of altercations involving a gun are finished with no shots being fired.

She had a gun. She used it to defend her home.
'Nuff said.
No, it's not enough. She survived this situation in spite of her lack of training, not because of it. This is not "Monday morning QB. It's a simple fact. She made many mistakes that would have got her killed on a different day, but got away with it.

Nothing in this story supports the notion that training is not necessary. People make unwise decisions every day and survive. That doesn't mean their decisions were OK by default. The ends don't justify the means.

I've seen hundreds of guys in training classes. Both in military and civilian schools. In all that time, I've never seen one person walk away from a school wishing they hadn't gone to the training. Not one, not ever and that includes the OP (yes, I had to poke you ProtectedOne).
 
I'm posting this separately just to be perfectly clear.

I am a huge proponent of the 2nd amendment. I am 100% opposed to any king of government mandated training being required to own or use a gun. Is that in any way not clear?

However, even though I don't believe it should be mandatory, I do believe that a responsible gun owner will seek some training. They don't need to become a world champion, but some training is a good thing.
 
"However, even though I don't believe it should be mandatory, I do believe that a responsible gun owner will seek some training. They don't need to become a world champion, but some training is a good thing."

Wonder how much training with guns the BG's get?
Just saying.........
 
Back
Top