More evidence that training is not a MUST.

[MrJT]

It amazes me the things people will say when trying to defend a point.

In the name of the constitutional right to carry, people are saying training shouldn't be mandatory... And they're right! 100% correct.

But to take that point and try to argue a person shouldn't train -- at least to the point of getting familiar with the gun -- if they don't want to is ridiculous. I'm not saying it's not their right, I'm saying it's irresponsible.

How can supposedly responsible gun owners stand behind the notion of buying a gun with no intentions to get familiar with it? That's basic safety and common sense.

Mind boggling.

Now I'm off to pour ketchup down the barrels of my guns, because it's my right!

 

[Protected One]

It amazes me the things people will say when trying to defend a point.

In the name of the constitutional right to carry, people are saying training shouldn't be mandatory... And they're right! 100% correct.

But to take that point and try to argue a person shouldn't train -- at least to the point of getting familiar with the gun -- if they don't want to is ridiculous. I'm not saying it's not their right, I'm saying it's irresponsible.

How can supposedly responsible gun owners stand behind the notion of buying a gun with no intentions to get familiar with it? That's basic safety and common sense.

Mind boggling.

Now I'm off to pour ketchup down the barrels of my guns, because it's my right!

In browsing back over the thread I didn't see a post where anyone said a person shouldn't train. Perhaps I missed it, and if so please point out the post number. My belief is that such a comment would be wrong.

Having said that, I do think that some here are not distinguishing the difference between the benefits of training vs the need for training. If training were necessary in order to use a handgun, we wouldn't have the hundreds of thousands (millions even) recorded instances of untrained people using them to succesfully defend themselves. Here locally, a woman recently used a carbine (given to her by her husband two weeks prior) to fend off THREE felons - one of them armed, who were breaking into their home. Lucky or not, she got the job done - with no training.
The benefits of good training are many and I make it a point to take a class or more each year. I'm saving $$ and ammo right now for a two day class I will be taking in the spring (we'll go thru 1000 rounds over the two days). But unlike the practice needed to make music on a guitar the record shows that, for HOME defense at least....training, though a good thing, is not always necessary.

P.S.... use honey instead of ketchup. It'll make your gun sweeter

 

[filipows]

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

I have often quoted the line better lucky than good, Or anyone you walk away from was a good one.

Yes I do think the woman was lucky.

As far as training, basic proficiency seems prudent. One thing not mentioned here is legal training. For example if she resided in a state with the "Castle Doctrine" she lost a lot of legal standing did she actually fire that pistol when she left the house. I do think knowing the law and how to use the weapon go together. True she might walk away only to be put behind bars. I would hate to see that happen but it could.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Rastoff,

I think your using "responsible" is the right word, just define what you think that is. I will. If a person does not at least possess the knowledge contained in a S&W Owners Manual of rudimentary operation and safety, then they don't possess the knowledge to be responsible with a gun, period. That's my view.

As far as self defense training... that's a lot tougher. Unlike the rudimentary knowledge in the Owners Manual which is easily understood and practiced, self defense leaves a lot that is not so cut & dry, learned and practiced. Even the most basic stuff. How many people practice shooting a gun in darkness? That's one of the most likely self defense shooting conditions, yet near nobody actually trains for it. I suppose you could sit in the dark in your home with a laser. And who agrees on the right way of doing things? Folks will argue about the most basic things such as carrying a light on the gun or in hand.

My self defense training starts with the most rudimentary understanding of what is required to use a gun in self defense-- I must have the gun with me in order to use it. My guess is that a lot of folks here leave that up to "chance" and "luck". Just like The Big D posted recently about his LEO friends who don't carry when off duty. Trained professionals... relying on chance and luck. Kinda tough to be criticizing the lady who actually had a gun when she needed it.

What is your definition of responsible?

 

[hangnoose]

MORE NUTS/FRUITS/FLAKES THAN A BOWL OF GRANOLA.

YES some "bad" guys may pee down there leg, run away, stay & wait for the police to arrive because YOU shined a flash light on them and SAID TO. Others that may be: drunk, on drugs, Roid rage, angry, determined, experienced with violence & intimidation, crazy, looking to commit suicide by police/civilian & actually want you to shoot them, determined, or otherwise just don't give a flying "hoot" at a rolling donut, WILL KEEP COMING. IS THAT THE TIME you feel NO EXPERIENCE is needed, or might actually be a good idea, mandatory or not. Sure the mere sight of a gun has prevented some crimes, other cases you failed to mentioned, those guns were used against the owners.

 

[Muss Muggins]

It should not be required because it would then cease to be a right, however personal responsibility is to go get training in self defense, basic first aid and defensive driving.

Owning a car doesn't make you a competent driver any more than owning a gun makes you a competent shooter. We all see that pretty much everyday.

But you'd agree that you have to pass both a knowledge and a proficiency test to drive a car, and there are no tests required for you to fire a gun at someone . . . ?

 

[Protected One]

YES some "bad" guys may pee down there leg, run away, stay & wait for the police to arrive because YOU shined a flash light on them and SAID TO. Others that may be: drunk, on drugs, Roid rage, angry, determined, experienced with violence & intimidation, crazy, looking to commit suicide by police/civilian & actually want you to shoot them, determined, or otherwise just don't give a flying "hoot" at a rolling donut, WILL KEEP COMING. IS THAT THE TIME you feel NO EXPERIENCE is needed, or might actually be a good idea, mandatory or not. Sure the mere sight of a gun has prevented some crimes, other cases you failed to mentioned, those guns were used against the owners.

*Sigh* Just as you can present the extreme scenario that an untrained person would not prevain, a scenario can be produced that the trained would not prevail in either.

Oh, and the sight of a gun has prevented a LOT MORE than SOME crimes. I believe the statement is - MOST.

 

[redlevel]

But you'd agree that you have to pass both a knowledge and a proficiency test to drive a car, and there are no tests required for you to fire a gun at someone . . . ?

YES!! I Agree wholeheartedly with that statement!

 

[ladder13]

I guess there should be a profiency test before allowing people to speak as well.

 

[Lost Lake]

But you'd agree that you have to pass both a knowledge and a proficiency test to drive a car, and there are no tests required for you to fire a gun at someone . . . ?

Yes I agree with this statement also!

Owning a gun is a right.. I'm afraid when stipulations and qualifications are placed on an individual before they can exercise that right, the possibility to remove that right exists.

Such a qualification may be that a gun user must be able to hit a 12" target at 100 yards 9 out of 10 times. Would that requirement be realistic? Not at all.

In fact, there are blind people who carry sidearms and I don't have any problem with that!

.

 

[Rastoff]

I'm going to cut your post up a little to address it part by part.

If a person does not at least possess the knowledge contained in a S&W Owners Manual of rudimentary operation and safety, then they don't possess the knowledge to be responsible with a gun, period. That's my view.

I agree with this. A responsible person would do this. We see examples of failure in this area a lot on forums just like this. I can't tell you how many times I've referred simple questions back to the manual. I think it's a travesty that the majority of gun owners have never read their manual.

As far as self defense training... that's a lot tougher. Unlike the rudimentary knowledge in the Owners Manual which is easily understood and practiced, self defense leaves a lot that is not so cut & dry, learned and practiced.

(cut this one shorter for brevity)
Yes, it's a lot tougher. What is the minimum someone should know before using a gun for self-defense? I don't have a clear cut definition of that. I wish I did.

I think a better question would be not what makes a person responsible, but what clearly makes them irresponsible. You and I will agree that it's clearly irresponsible to not know the rudiments of the gun and basic gun safety. Do you think this woman fits that description?

My self defense training starts with the most rudimentary understanding of what is required to use a gun in self defense-- I must have the gun with me in order to use it.

I agree that you must have the tool in order to be able to use it. However, this is only the first part and I believe it's irresponsible to stop there. I believe there must be some training on how to shoot. This can be had in book form for free off the internet. Then there must be at least some level of practice. To have never fired the gun you intend to use for self-defense is irresponsible to me.

Kinda tough to be criticizing the lady who actually had a gun when she needed it.

This is the crux of this aspect of this thread, isn't it? Based on what I've already said, yes, I think she was irresponsible in that she had never shot her gun. While not clear in the article, I'll bet she hadn't read the manual either. Do we even know if she had a round chambered?

Actually, there's a good chance she didn't even need the gun. So, I disagree that she had one when she needed it because we haven't determined that it was even needed. If she had had competent training prior to this incident, she never would have ran outside. Just turning on the porch light could have been enough to send this guy packing. Did he even know she was home? We'll never know.


Let's look at this from the other side. Now that this is over, what do you think she will do? Will she seek training now that she has had an actual encounter? Will she at least practice some? I'll bet lunch at your favorite restaurant that she drops the gun, unused, back in the bed stand drawer and forgets it until the next incident. Is that a responsible action for someone in her situation?

 

[PastureOfMuppets]

But you'd agree that you have to pass both a knowledge and a proficiency test to drive a car, and there are no tests required for you to fire a gun at someone . . . ?

That's why the first line of my post was:

It should not be required because it would then cease to be a right

If you restrict a right by putting a level of competence to be attained before allowing people to exercise that right... it is no longer a right. Driving a car is not a right. It's just being used to make a point about personal responsibility.

My point was actually simple and clear.

It's a personal responsibility. Same as getting some training in defensive driving and first aid.
Driving because let's face it, the driving test required for a license means nothing. It's useless, and all you have to do is look around while you a driving to see it.

Just for some clarity as the car analogy is a line anti-gun rights people use...


You don't have to pass a knowledge and proficiency test to drive a car. Only to drive a motorized vehicle on government run highways.

You can purchase a car without a license, you can drive a car without knowledge, training or a license.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Let's look at this from the other side. Now that this is over, what do you think she will do? Will she seek training now that she has had an actual encounter? Will she at least practice some?

Don't know. But my observations are that few gun owners seek formal training who are not gun enthusiasts. And gun owners who don't enjoy recreational shooting don't visit the range much if at all. I mean, if you don't go to the range just because you enjoy shooting, you're not likely to go for a practice chore.

I'll bet lunch at your favorite restaurant that she drops the gun, unused, back in the bed stand drawer and forgets it until the next incident. Is that a responsible action for someone in her situation?

I'm a cheap date so you're not risking much . But let's say you're right. Would you necessarily say she should not pick up the gun no matter what the circumstance? Someone breaking down the door in the middle of the night. Would you recommend she not pick up the gun on the nightstand?

 

[redlevel]

What is the minimum someone should know before using a gun for self-defense

How to load it.
Which end the bullets come out.
How to disengage the safety if there is one.
How to pull the trigger and make it go bang.

 

[Protected One]

I'll bet lunch at your favorite restaurant that she drops the gun, unused, back in the bed stand drawer and forgets it until the next incident.

I wouldn't take that bet because odds are you are right. From her perspective she has proven to herself that she can defend herself and her home with her handgun. Why would she need to start training now? Back in the drawer it goes.

 

[Smoke]

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.

I'll be honest your OP reads like your point was to start a fight.

Lots of people do fine with no training at all but I'd rather have it than not.

 

[Smoke]

"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.........

http://www.activeresponsetraining.ne...-vs-experience

You may find this article of interest

 

[Rastoff]

Don't know. But my observations are that few gun owners seek formal training who are not gun enthusiasts.

I have met a few, but not many. I have been to Front Sight Firearms Training Institute a number of times. While there I have interacted with a few people who decided to get training after some bad situation. So, yeah, it does happen, but you're right, not often. Certainly not as often as it should.

Personally I would think that a situation like this would cause the home owner to seek training. Alas, the statistics are not on my side.

Would you necessarily say she should not pick up the gun no matter what the circumstance? Someone breaking down the door in the middle of the night. Would you recommend she not pick up the gun on the nightstand?

I struggle with situations like this. On the one hand, a couple of shots, even if they don't hit the intruder, will likely send him running. On the other hand, where did those errant shots go? Without some kind of familiarity with the gun, she runs an even chance of shooting her own kid.

From her perspective she has proven to herself that she can defend herself and her home with her handgun. Why would she need to start training now? Back in the drawer it goes.

I think you're absolutely right. From her perspective she saved her home and family by using her gun. I'm not convinced that her perspective is the correct perspective.


I watched a lady at the range once. She took out her new gun, inserted a loaded magazine, pointed it down range and pulled the trigger. There was a click and a surprised look on her face. To her credit, she kept the muzzle pointed down range. She couldn't figure out why it hadn't fired. I demonstrated to her how to rack the slide. She fired the whole magazine and did OK. She then inserted another magazine and pulled the trigger. She still couldn't figure out why it didn't fire.

I've seen people shoot one round down range and the next into the ceiling. I've seen people pull the trigger and then look down the muzzle. I've seen people put big rocks in a cardboard box to keep it from moving in the wind and then wonder what that sound was as ricochets flew off the rocks. I've seen people put their support hand thumb right behind the slide, cut their thumb and declare, "That's twice!"

With all the stupidity I've seen at the range, no, I'm not sure I want that woman using a gun for self-defense because she is potentially putting more than the bad guy in harms way.

I still want to know if the lady in the article had a round in the chamber. We'll never know. It wouldn't surprise me if she didn't.

 

[Jiman]

Good, bad or indifferent, the majority of firearms owners buy a gun, shoot it a few times for the novelty of it, and that's it.
For any firearms enthusiast, the debate of training is I'm assuming moot….of course we like to shoot, train, etc…that's why we're 'enthusiasts'.

As for the need/requirement to train, I'm torn. Mostly because from all the things I've seen/experienced in all parts of the world, common sense isn't common and frankly a lot people are just stupid….and stupid people with guns tend to do stupid things with them. I guess there's no way to get around that one though, except through Darwinism.

I get 2A rights. I also believe that the same (currently dysfunctional) government that wrote the Bill couldn't rub two nickels together to make a dime in the real world, now. I also am of the opinion that just like a nut-job shouldn't own a gun, some people shouldn't procreate or be given a license to drive on a public road either. Do a person's rights override questions regarding, domestic violence, being a 'drunkard', or a convicted felon? The last time I filled out my firearms registration, those were all disqualifying factors, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover that. Is that an infringement of a God given right as an American?

I believe the biggest downside to owning a gun w/o training or knowledge is the false sense of security people have when armed with one. Most people don't even know their own state laws, realize how quickly someone can cover 20-30 ft or how easy it is to disarm someone within arm's reach. The first time I demonstrate it, they look at you like wide-eyed. Most people think if they have a gun, they are automatically somehow more powerful or secure. It's like locking your house or car and thinking no one can break in…and that you and your stuff are safe.

You might go your whole life not realizing the truth. I guess that's OK.

I choose not to live my life that way.

 

[redlevel]

From her perspective she saved her home and family by using her gun. I'm not convinced that her perspective is the correct perspective.

I am convinced that her perspective is the correct one.


I have been refraining from saying this, but here goes: I am a whole lot more afraid of poorly trained "professionals" with guns than I am of poorly trained or even untrained citizens using firearms to protect themselves.