More evidence that training is not a MUST.

Protected One

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
Protected One said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
MrJT said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Protected One said:
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:
Click to expand...

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".
 
LoboGunLeather said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Yay, lamestream media. Tell her name. Show her on TV. Tell everyone where she lives.
Great idea. Now, the criminals can break in and steal the gun while she's not home, and she can be a victim.

This country needs an enema, and the media need to be the first to be shat out.
 
When I worked in a gun shop many years ago, it was not uncommon for someone to buy a handgun for home defense and want to buy just enough rounds to fill the cylinder or magazine, and sometimes even less. We also had partial boxes of common handgun calibers for the people that came in wanting to buy a few rounds of ammo. Of course this wasn't the majority of customers, but it wasn't that rare. We would also have people come in with some old gun they got from somewhere and would want to buy a few rounds for it so they could keep it loaded. More than once I refused to sell ammo for some gun that was barely in one piece, although I imagine they just went somewhere else or came back later

When I sold a gun to the folks that wanted just a few rounds of ammo, I would often try to convince them to get an entire box of ammo or at least double the amount they wanted to buy, so they could make sure they could shoot the gun and knew what it felt like, etc. That was largely a wasted effort and I don't know, maybe it was presumptuous of me.
 
When I was a kid most small store owners had a handgun handy behind the counter. I doubt many of them practiced much. I was raised in a country general store. Our living quarters were upstairs. Next door was a small butcher shop owned by my moms uncle. I was in there one day when someone wanted to cash a check. I was a kid of about eight, probley in 1949.
I guess old uncle harvey was putting me on. The customer must have been a pal. He pulled what I later come to know was a S&W nickle .44 break top russian. He looked at the guy with suspicion laid the gun on the counter as he counted out the money.
About in 1918 my grandpa got held up. Someone woke him up by throwing gravel stones at the upstairs window. They wanted gas. Grandpa dressed went out to pump him gas. Two guys threw down on him. They marched him back in the store to open the safe. Grandpa`s partner and wife heard the commotion. Two familys ran the store and lived over it. Heinie Pries came down the steps with a pistol in hand. Gussie his wife a step or two above and behind him. The robbers told him to "Stick em up!" Heinie stuck his hands up with the gun. Gussie yanked the gun out of his hand, came down and started to beat one of the robbers over the head with it! She got shot through her arm or shoulder.
A day or so later the sheriff called and wanted grandpa and heine to come and ID a DB. Our store was in auroaville wisconsin and the DB was at a store in horicon about 40 miles south. Turned out the pair was burglaring another store after my grandparents the same night. One was boosting the other to get over the transom over the door and one accidentally shot and killed the other in the process.
This was found out or claimed much later. That store burned down and both familys moved to Santa Anna California about five years later and built another general store. One day grandpa and Hienie were riding a streetcar in downtown Los Angeles and bumped into the surviving thief! They got him arrested and he claimed he shot his partner by accident that night. He fessed up to many crimes but I dont know how much time he got. Somewhere I hopefully have a newspaper clipping of the robbery. Seen it many years ago in some album my mother saved. She was about four at the time. It kind of sounded like the guys may have been soliders just mustered out of world war I. I believe the folks said both were wearing army greatcoats.
 
There was a statement recently that I have take to heart.

I think it applies here.

"I'd rather be ready than lucky."

This lady, based on the report, was lucky.
 
My stance on training should not be new to anyone that frequents this forum. Personally, I don't believe in luck. That's a discussion for another time. However, I do believe this woman was fortunate to be alive. There are several things wrong with this situation. Let's discuss them...

First there's this: "She grabbed her 9mm and ran outside." Anyone worth their salt will tell you this was a bad idea. Why leave a fortified location and go into an unfortified unknown?

The second, and what bothers me most is this: "The only thing I would say saved him is that my son stepped in and took him down before I could take the shot." Was she really just about to shoot him or is this just after the fact bravado? I suspect the latter.

There's a lot we don't know though. For example, based on the sketchy article, she ordered him out from behind the shed with his hands up. Then she told us she was ready to shoot him, but her son intervened. If she had shot him, she would likely now be in jail awaiting a murder sentence.

That of course assumes she could hit him, which is unlikely given her lack of experience with the gun.

I could go on, but I won't. I agree with Fastbolt:
Fastbolt said:
Luck favors the prepared. Not just a cute slogan or cheesy Movie line.
Click to expand...
This woman was not prepared for what she did. Had she had the proper training, she would have taken higher percentage steps toward protecting her household.

I'm glad it came out OK, but I fail to see how this is an example of how training is not necessary.
 
SW01SS said:
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...
Click to expand...

So it would have been smarter to not buy the gun?
 
Pef said:
So it would have been smarter to not buy the gun?
Click to expand...
I understand why you asked this, but the answer is not as simple as you seem to think.

What if she had shot her son due to her unfamiliarity with the gun? Would it have been smarter to have not bought the gun then?
 
Lucky? Perhaps. But much of the luck she made herself.

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.
 
For those in favor (or insist on it) how much is enough and what kind of training do you expect all gun owners to have? Seal qualified? Simple firearm safety? Single, ragged hole at 15 yards?

I qualified "expert" in the service but those years are long past as the eyes and steady hands have gone downhill. My physical conditions do not allow for FoF or "combat tactics." Yet I'm not about to forfeit my right to carry arms because someone says I don't have enough training.
 
LoboGunLeather said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have a good understanding of "incrimentalism", and the foresight to realize that it is exactly what would be employed against us, just as it has been in other areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Doug M.
A hard lesson from John Farnam
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
Eddie Southgate
Eddie Southgate
RM Vivas
NYPD Model 64-1: 4-inch SB, 4-inch RB, 3-inch RB and 2-inch RB
2 3
Replies
64
Views
6K
MajorD
M
R
prelim injunction California SB2 sensative places
Replies
3
Views
1K
ISCS Yoda
ISCS Yoda
F
Young Brothers Massacre, A tactical expert opinion.
Replies
21
Views
3K
tbob38
T
ddeanjohnson
For Sale WTS: 15 guns -- all offers respectfully considered -- collection liquidation
2
Replies
37
Views
23K
fredcoyote
fredcoyote

Latest posts

Back
Top