More evidence that training is not a MUST.

[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.

 

[Buford57]

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.

All very true, but somewhere between onerous government intervention and "buy it, have someone load it and never touch it again until you need it" is the responsible, commonsense position of making sure your safety device is still working and you remember how to use it. This should be encouraged.

350 years ago my ancestor was fined a shilling for turning out for a militia drill with a dirty musket. That's why we had to throw the British out.

I bought a smoke detector 5 years ago, loaded it with a battery and hung it on the wall, right over my fire extinguisher. Now I'm protected forever, right?

I'm glad this worked out for this lady and her son, but there are so many points in this story where it could have gone tragically wrong.

 

[Rastoff]

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.

This is exactly how I feel as an instructor. My biggest fear is that I'll send someone to the street thinking they can effectively defend themselves when they cannot.

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.

This makes no sense to me at all. Could you please explain it further? Why are you afraid of those with training more than those with no training that think they know what they're doing?

 

[Smoke]

States that have a training requirement before issuing a Concealed Handgun Permit don't have any lower rate of firearms related accidents than those who don't. So I don't see the benefit of mandated training.

Having said that, if I ever have to use my gun in self defense I want every advantage I can have on my side. If training can give me an advantage I want it.

When I was in the Army we practiced crew drills for artillery over and over and over and over until we could literally do it in our sleep.

A couple of times while I was in the field things went wrong while we were firing live ammunition some of them created serious dangers and because we had practiced the crew drill again and again we simply reverted to training, fixed the problem and continued the mission.

If I ever have to defend myself I don't want to have to stop and consider my next move, that's why I advocate training

 

[feralmerril]

My mother was a very feisty woman. Back around 1952 she ran off Ed Gein! She ran a road side fruit and vegetable stand set up on the highway in front of our house. At the time my dad worked swing shift. I was about 12 so well recall the incident. She had mentioned some weirdo had been hanging around her stand that day acting foolish. Later that night she was making her bed as dad was due home about 12:30 am and it was almost that time. She looked up and Gein had his face pressed to the window. She had recognized him well as he had hung around the stand that day. I was upstairs either awake or was woke up by her screaming something like "You damn devil!" She should have grabbed a revolver they kept in the bedroom but she didnt. Instead she ran outside after him and turned our dog "pete" after him! Maybe 10 minutes later dad got home. He had seen a man running towards a truck parked off the road something like a half mile from the house. He went back but the truck was gone. A couple years went by and Gein was arrested for murdering another woman and it was big news and she recognized his picture in the paper. Moms female cousin or her husband was the county sheriff at the time. (They had switched off several times due to election rules but between them held the office quite awhile.) Once my dad and the sheriff (Leon "Specks" Murdy) tracked some missing deer hunters right on Geins farm and they were NEVER found. Gein was killer goul grave robber. They got him on killing two women but the real figure was something like 7 or 8 Specks told my dad and me. There is a lot more to it and its a long story that you can Google. Most of the version Specks told me and dad isn't in print.
Anyway, I know my mom knew how to shoot and never bothered to take the revolver with her but tried to run after him!! She could have saved 5 later murders that I know of had she killed him not to mention 48 graves he robbed! (Specks told me Gein gave him a list of 48 graves he could remember robbing. They dug up two at random that were empty and stopped there.) Spec`s wife was sort of raised with my mother and they and my folks were close. I wish I had a tape recorder as back in about 1978 I went home and we discussed the case one long afternoon. Specks died a year or two later.

 

[PastureOfMuppets]

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.

I dunno... I see your point, but at least the least trained "professional" is shown how to unload a firearm.

Man Shoots Gun Into Neighbors House To Unload.

 

[redlevel]

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.

Let me elaborate. Hardly a week goes by that we do not see video of a LEO or instructor mishandling firearms, sometimes with tragic results. I understand one of those tragedies took place in Pennsylvania this week. We have all seen the video of the ATF agent shooting himself in the foot, the instructor being killed with that mini-Uzi, the officer who told the guy to get his registration, then began spraying bullets at him. A year or two back, either an instructor or another Parole officer killed a female trainee during a training session here in Georgia. I believe he later killed himself.

As I alluded to in an earlier post, training can be good, but it ain't always all it is cracked up to be.

 

[Jiman]

I see what you're saying.

I have no metrics to back up my statement, but my guess is there are far more 'untrained' errors that either go unreported or don't hit the media than all of the publicized reports of poorly trained 'professionals'.

Training is always better than no training, but training doesn't make anyone immune or infallible to making a mistake. In some ways, those that handle/carry firearms everyday are more likely to have an 'accident' because they become complacent and forget basic training or weapons handling fundamentals.

By its very nature, the more you do something the greater the odds of making a mistake vs. not doing it often or not at all. If you're a knife maker or chef: you're more likely to cut yourself, a professional driver: to get into an accident, a firefighter: to get burned, etc… Does it make that professional poorly trained or just human? I would say that in many cases it's the later.

I don't know anyone who hasn't made a mistake in their profession at some point in their career. Unfortunately as you've pointed out, when it comes to firearms, mistakes can be very unforgiving…which is all the more reason to train.

For those that fit your definition…yes I'd be afraid of too. There seem to be a lot more 'experts' these days claiming they know what they're doing since Youtube and the internet….maybe even me, haha... which enables them to reach a wide audience not previously available.

 

[PastureOfMuppets]

The bottom line is that training increases your odds of survival. It far from eliminates them. It also drops your odds of making a mistake... but doesn't eliminate them.

Stacking odds in your favor is a rule to live by.

 

[Protected One]

Redlevels point is a good one. The lady in the story bought her gun and put it away until needed. Turns out it was five years before the need arose, meaning the gun was never touched in that time and therefore, was a threat to no one. Probably won't be touched for another five years - if ever again. I have a brother who bought a shotgun, put some rounds in it...and stuck it in the closet! Never fired it once and he's had it for many years Despite my best efforts to get him to the range with me, he has no interest. There are no kids in his house, so that gun is likely to never be touched again, unless he moves. Point is...those guns present LESS danger (with untrained owners) than the ones handled by "professionals" on a daily basis.

 

[Rastoff]

Let me elaborate. Hardly a week goes by that we do not see video of a LEO or instructor mishandling firearms, sometimes with tragic results. I understand one of those tragedies took place in Pennsylvania this week. We have all seen the video of the ATF agent shooting himself in the foot, the instructor being killed with that mini-Uzi, the officer who told the guy to get his registration, then began spraying bullets at him. A year or two back, either an instructor or another Parole officer killed a female trainee during a training session here in Georgia. I believe he later killed himself.

As I alluded to in an earlier post, training can be good, but it ain't always all it is cracked up to be.

This is certainly more clear. Thank you for that.

Now, is it your belief that these professionals would have done better in those situations if they had not had any training?

 

[feralmerril]

I believe it was Mark Spitz`s trainer that couldnt swim a stroke when braced by some reporter on it said "Those that can, do. Those that cant, teach".

 

[redlevel]

Now, is it your belief that these professionals would have done better in those situations if they had not had any training?

Certainly not.
But they could have hardly done worse.

 

[Rastoff]

Certainly not.
But they could have hardly done worse.

Well, that's my point. You said that you were more afraid of those who are professional and have training than those without. But we both agree that they are not better off without training.

It's not so much that the pros are more frightening, it's that they don't seem to have received very good training. Or that they just aren't using what they've been taught.

So, what they need is better training rather than no training. Yes?

 

[southcoast]

Well, that's my point. You said that you were more afraid of those who are professional and have training than those without. But we both agree that they are not better off without training.

It's not so much that the pros are more frightening, it's that they don't seem to have received very good training. Or that they just aren't using what they've been taught.

So, what they need is better training rather than no training. Yes?

I think his point is that extensive training is no more guarantee of success than a lack of training is a guarantee of failure as the lady demonstrated.

 

[STCM(SW)]

Has anyone else received the NRA PDN(personal defense network) dvd?
What do you think of it?

 

[Rastoff]

Has anyone else received the NRA PDN(personal defense network) dvd?
What do you think of it?

I think Rob Pincus is an OK trainer. I don't agree with some of his methods, but I haven't seen anything unsafe or that would cause an unsafe situation. Therefore, if you want to give it a try, go for it.

The NRA sent several of them to those of us who are certified instructors. If we wanted to keep them we had to pay for them. I didn't like it enough to pay for it so, I sent it back.

 

[STCM(SW)]

Yea, I found some things just not right for me.
But I will have my wife watch it for some tips I didn't think of.

 

[Ilike9mm]

Reminds me of something I saw on the news.

Man shoots a burglary with a pistol that was not touched in 32 years. Figure that?

 

[vito]

For those who do not train or practice, a quality revolver is a good choice. I have heard stories similar to what was just related, and in one case heard of a revolver kept in a dresser drawer untouched for almost 50 years and then fired without a problem. I don't need no stinkin training!

 

[brucev]

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.

Sounds about par for the course. Most folks who buy a gun for home defense are about like those who buy a homeowner grade chainsaw to cut limbs, etc. They are not interested in developing combat skills. They don't need to. If a need arises, they will take the firearm and use it. The vast majority of firearms just are not that complicated.

In 1985 a state patrol officer flashed his lights at me as I drove down the highway. I rolled my window down and he told me to go home. No other explanation, just go home. So home I headed. When I got there the laundry was in the basket in the backyard, some of it already hung on the line. I found the door locked, which was odd. When I went inside I started calling out the name of my wife. I found her lying down in the back bedroom reading a book. Our one year old daughter was asleep by her. On her other side was a 12 ga. pump shotgun. She explained that a local pastor had been murdered not far from our house and that the police were after a suspect in the woods immediately behind the house. They had told her to go in the house, lock the doors and stay inside. I asked her what she'd have done if the man had come in the house and she said she'd have shot through the bedroom door. I asked her how she knew how to load the shotgun since I knew she'd never in her life handled a firearm. She simply told me it wasn't hard to figure out. Cool. Later that day after things calmed down, I asked her to try my 1911 pistol. We stepped out in the backyard where I showed her the basics of how to hold and fire the pistol. At about seven yards she had no problems at all hitting a aluminum pie plate nailed to a board.

Obviously she would do better if she were to practice, etc. But, she has absolutely no interest in shooting. When needed, she has simply taken a little K-frame .38 Special and put it in her knitting bag when I was late getting home. At anything approaching normal across the room and down the hallway distances, she would not have any problems using a revolver or pistol. I think with a shotgun she'd be better served, but she says it's just to big and heavy.