More evidence that training is not a MUST.

[Jaymo]

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.

 

[10ring]

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.

 

[feralmerril]

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.

 

[pawncop]

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.

 

[Rastoff]

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:

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

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.

 

[Pef]

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...

So it would have been smarter to not buy the gun?

 

[Rastoff]

So it would have been smarter to not buy the gun?

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?

 

[Pef]

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.

 

[SMSgt]

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.

 

[Protected One]

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.

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.

 

[Protected One]

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 prefer not to speculate. Suffice to say that there are ample instances of equally untrained people who DID have to shoot- and hit their target...again, successfully defending themselves.

Now it's your turn to come back and say "Well, what if there had been more than one threat?" And when evidence is produced that even then, untrained people have successfully defended themselves, you ratchet up the scenario until (without even realizing it) you create a scenario that only a Navy SEAL could handle ....and round and round we go.

The fact of the matter is what I said to begin with: This situation represents the most common defensive use of handguns.

 

[Arney]

lack or training or use represents pure luck in the outcome.

 

[hangnoose]

TRAININGIS NOT A MUST?

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.

 

[Justified]

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.

Or it could become like CC class "training", less and less demanding each year.

I bet on the theory of minimum effort.

 

[badge]

One can never have enough training and always remember,... those blue, black or green targets are not shooting at you. Things can go south real quick,....

 

[Bluerock Brimley]

Lizette is obviously not a candidate for mensa----very stupid on many levels----the most egregious act of imbecility is allowing herself to be filmed and re-enacting the scenario on TV, stating that the perp picked the wrong house (that's an ersatz challenge for a repeat performance).

Very little made sense in that report----i.e. what was her son doing taking the trash out at 4:30 in the morning? If the mom had the guy at gunpoint, why did the kid tackle him?

The idea of an untrained gun owner prevailing in a confrontation says more about the perp than the gun owner.
JMO-YMMV

 

[PastureOfMuppets]

I think people like that should have revolvers, rather than pistols, due to the extreme simplicity of the former.

I think they should have pistols.

Basically, because once it is loaded and in the nightstand they don't have to do anything until they have shot way more than the six in a revolver...

Pulling the trigger is the same on any gun. Having to reload after six rounds fired is way more complicated than not having to reload after six.

And without training, to stop a threat... chances are higher you will need more than six rounds.


Yep, people can point a gun without training. This is not news...


If anyone doubts this, take a couple of people who has never fired a gun before to the range... load it for them and put a target seven yards out.

Then remember that's before an adrenaline rush and it's in good light and they have had time to get a grip on the gun.

And the single target isn't moving.

And the backstop is not going to let their projectiles through.

Etc etc etc etc etc.

 

[PastureOfMuppets]

The fact of the matter is what I said to begin with: This situation represents the most common defensive use of handguns.

What... holding an intruder at gun point is the most common defensive use of handguns?

I would like to see some data.

 

[Protected One]

What... holding an intruder at gun point is the most common defensive use of handguns?

I would like to see some data.

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.

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!

OK. Perhaps my statement could have read; "Getting lucky with using a firearm in defense of the home is the most common use of them". Better?

 

[M29since14]

The lady appears to have prevailed by the force of her will - her intruder decided his chances were better with the "justice system" than they were with her. That's great!

As to the secondary topic, I believe Lobo is correct. Train if you want to, for your own benefit, even encourage others to do so if you feel strongly about it, but never advocate that it should be required by law.