A bias about newbies and sd guns

[woof]

I've been thinking about this and I remain concerned when I see and hear about so many people with zero gun experience wanting to buy a gun and get a CCW for defense. My opinion has nothing to do with the law, I don't want to add any laws for sure. But IMO, how it should be - is such a person spends about a year shooting and learning about guns in general. Start shooting a single shot .22 LR and work your way up before even thinking about a handgun. I feel that someone who doesn't go this route isn't going to be able to get it done if it comes down to it anyway.

 

[John828]

I think everyone has some "how it should be" ideas about guns and a whole range of other life topics.

Start shooting a single shot .22 LR and work your way up before even thinking about a handgun. I feel that someone who doesn't go this route isn't going to be able to get it done if it comes down to it anyway.

Are you serious?

 

[jgo296]

well the first gun i ever shot was a glock 21 (45acp)
and im thankful i was young so accepted thats what a gun feels like
i was so excited to be shooting
now i dont think anything really kicks bad unless it causes pain

 

[Glockman17366]

In a free society, we have to work under the assumption that people will act responsibly. And those who do not act responsibly will be held accountable.

Otherwise, we play right into the hads of the anti-rights people.

 

[thunder173]

I had about four paragraphs prepared in response here, but in the interest of keeping this on the High Road,...I deleted them. Simply put,....What about the person who doesn't have a year to "prepare" for the instant that they may need that firearm to save their life?? It is often said that opinions are much like particular parts of the human anatomy,...many of which are best kept private. I think this fits here.

 

[Claude Clay]

in a ideal world--yes

closer to earth: a auto driving instructor KNOWS that 90+% of his students will be in a accident within the first three years of driving. some will injure or kill others; some will render unto themselves. an NRA instructor knows that their students will be going into the real world and there will be 'events'.
a graduated permit is a viable idea but would be costly and unless mandated few would opt for it. i offer a 'after you get your permit' class on equipment specific to the individuals needs and the value of situational awareness/mindset. about 2/3rds of the new permities do this.

 

[ZMP_CTR]

Don't try and train yourself, get training from a competent professional.

 

[John828]

For some reason, this has really got me thinking. woof, did you mean that in your opinion, you think someone should start out shooting a single shot .22 for a year before thinking about a handgun? Or spend a year learning about guns, begin with shooting a single shot .22 and slowly work your way up to whatever you want to work up to along a time frame that you feel comfortable with even if it is only a month or as long as two years?

I went through four-and-a-half bulk packs last Friday and Saturday. If I was shooting a single shot twenty-two, I would have needed four or five days instead of two.

A one size fits all approach is too "liberal" a concept for me to wrap my mind around.

I agree there are some "questionable" characters getting permits, but in my class, the instruction was fabulous and the instructors really, truly and passionately cared about any new shooters in the class. At the end of a loooong day, they ended up staying for almost two hours with a few new shooters to make sure they were more comfortable with their firearm. I and a couple of other shooters stayed as well to make use of the "hillbilly" range, and I was incredibly impressed by their patience and thoroughness.

Some people (unfortunately) do not care to be proficient. This admittedly causes some concern, but they feel safer just having a gun. When you say, "I feel that someone who doesn't go this route isn't going to be able to get it done if it comes down to it anyway," you may be correct in that assumption because their mindset is not probably correct. Having a gun does not make the person safer, for some, it has the opposite effect.

 

[Claude Clay]

don't train yourself

who trained the professional who is training you?

who trained him??

there has to be he who worked it out for him/herself to the point where others began to emulate him. because he had in fact 'trained himself'

 

[sqlbullet]

I agree with Glockman...

The foundation of our free democratic republic is the concept of citizenship in which the citizen is guaranteed rights and accepts responsibility. Among those rights and responsibilities is the right to self-defense and the responsibility to execute said defense without encroaching on the rights of other citizens to life and health.

How one enacts that defense is an extension of that right and responsibiilty. I would agree that training for a significant time would be a good practice. However, I would not deprive a citizen of their right to self-defense until they had demonstrated through negligence they would not accept the corresponding responsibility.

 

[Jim K]

I am not sure I agree with Woof, but he has a point. I met a man at the range who was complaining that his .44 Magnum S&W was inaccurate. It turned out that it was the first gun he had ever owned and he was flinching all over the place. I suggested he put away the .44, buy a .22 revolver and practice with it. He did so and later became an excellent shot with the .44.

It is, to me, like someone (probably young, but age is not really a factor) buying a powerful car and deciding to race it at Daytona. Of course, he could never enter because the rules keep out amateurs who want to show off, but the idea is the same.

Too many people get "into" guns and want to carry, not because they have real cause for fear, but because they think it is "cool" or will impress the GF. When/if they have a real problem, they can't handle it and the gun often becomes more of a liability than an asset. Either they pull the gun and provoke a deadly response by someone much more willing to kill, or they use the gun when they shouldn't and end up in prison.

The down side of a gun is there is nowhere to go from there. A cop has alternatives - the authority of the badge, a baton, a blackjack, Mace, Taser, and finally, the gun as the ultimate response. A civilian with a CCW has nothing but a gun and no alternative. Pull a gun on, say, a holdup man who is leaving with no one hurt, and he laughs and tells you to shove it. Kill him and you go to prison. Worse, you fire and kill an innocent person. Most people on here who carry (or say they do or want to) seem never to have considered any response but deadly force, often to be used (they say) at the slightest provocation. Not a good thing, folks.

Jim

 

[grilledcheese]

Instruction from others more knowledgeable than ourselves is extremely helpful, but as with every skill we learn the most through experience. As stated already in this thread, it is still up to the individual to take responsibility for their actions.
Recklessness due to inexperience or stupidity should be dealt with according to the law, but in no way should the right of an individual to initially arm themselves be infringed (any further than it already has in some states).

My $.25
(blame inflation)



Jeffrey

 

[Justin]

I will cop to having some concern about people who want to get a defensive gun without realizing that learning decent marksmanship takes some concerted effort.

However, that position is somewhat tempered by the following:

1) Most states' CCW class requirements do at least a halfway decent job of covering basic safety and such.

2) Most people are responsible and decent.

3) Most citizens who choose to carry on a daily basis are the ones who are most inclined to practice regularly and/or shoot competitively.

4) The vast majority of defensive shootings are at very close range, which doesn't require a superhuman level of marksmanship.

I think the notion of limiting every new shooter to a single-shot .22 is preposterously unreasonable. That said, I think that it would behoove all new shooters to start out with a .22 of some sort to help refine their skills. But, I live in the real world and realize that no one wants a .22 for their first gun. Heck, my first gun was a .40, I only went back and relearned basic marksmanship skills with a .22 a couple of years later.

To that end, I think it would be neat if some of the manufacturers would offer a kit that has a centerfire gun and a .22 conversion kit. Like, say, a CZZ 75 that also comes with the Kadet kit for some nominal extra fee.

 

[woof]

When I hear about people with a total of a few months experience with guns of any kind carrying a gun for self defense I worry, mostly about them. There is another thread about an abortion doctor asking for help in picking a ccw weapon because he is afraid of protesters. I wondered there what the headlines would be when he guns down a protester because he was "afraid." When that happens will some of the above posters say oh well - it was his right and he was irresponsible and now he'll be held accountable, end of story? But it won't be the end of the story. It will be the impetus for more laws and restraints. We should not want that to happen. We should be advising people who think they need to carry a gun for sd to rethink that and learn a lot about guns before deciding. Frankly, I fail to see how any thoughtful person who cares about RKBA can disagree with me.

 

[fletcher]

I feel that someone who doesn't go this route isn't going to be able to get it done if it comes down to it anyway.

I spent very little time learning guns from anyone else before I jumped in and took the initiative to teach myself. I didn't own a .22 anything until well after I had a .357, .45, and 9x18. Despite all of this, I could very easily "get it done" if I need to. I still need practice, as does everyone, but bypassing a .22 and a year of learning on it certainly didn't hurt me.

Being able to "get it done" is more a function of personality than how someone learns about guns. There are people who will go out, buy whatever they want, and leave it in a drawer and never touch it again except maybe to show off. There are also people who will go out and buy what they want, then take the time and effort to research, learn, and get training.

 

[3KillerBs]

From a woman's point of view, ...

I happen to be blessed with a happy marriage and the ability to live in about as safe a small town as can be found. I am waiting for my Concealed Carry permit to finish processing through the Sheriff's office but, since I have no URGENT reason to carry I chose a Ruger Mark III for my first gun and am more concerned with perfecting my marksmanship than with defensive shooting (at the moment, circumstances subject to change).

Compare me to another woman in my CC class. This young lady just broke up with a psycho-nutcase type boyfriend who told her that if he can't have her no one will. And her dad, who might have protected her, is deployed in Iraq. She does not have the leisure to spend extensive time developing her marksmanship skills and general gun familiarity. She is in active danger NOW.

For a more moderate comparison, another woman in that class (women outnumbered men, BTW), has every qualification she needs to be hired for a new and better job except one. She's never touched a gun before and has 4 weeks to prepare to qualify with the company-issue Glock.

In an Ideal World, all children would be given a child-sized, single-shot rifle as a reward for learning to read at age 5-6 and trained from then on by careful experts.

In the real world things are a bit messier and more informal.

 

[SuperNaut]

There is another thread about an abortion doctor asking for help in picking a ccw weapon because he is afraid of protesters. I wondered there what the headlines would be when he guns down a protester because he was "afraid." When that happens will some of the above posters say oh well - it was his right and he was irresponsible and now he'll be held accountable, end of story?

That is exactly what I would say, except for the irresponsible part. If in this hypothetical, he felt his life was threatened, then he has the same right to self-defense as the rest of us. Otherwise we are back to arbitrarily restricting rights based on skin color or perceived need.

 

[Justin]

When I hear about people with a total of a few months experience with guns of any kind carrying a gun for self defense I worry, mostly about them.

Statistically, you're more likely to be misidentified and shot by a cop than you are by a CCW holder.

Heck, even the states that don't require you to take a class (Indiana) to get a CCW, or that don't require a permit at all (Vermont, Alaska) don't seem to have this problem that has you so worried.

There is another thread about an abortion doctor asking for help in picking a ccw weapon because he is afraid of protesters. I wondered there what the headlines would be when he guns down a protester because he was "afraid." When that happens will some of the above posters say oh well - it was his right and he was irresponsible and now he'll be held accountable, end of story?

When? Why the assumption that the guy is going to inadvertently shoot someone who isn't a direct threat?

 

[redneckrepairs]

such a person spends about a year shooting and learning about guns in general.

Battered wives and children across america thank you for your help . Also lets apply it to the other 10 so that in the next year you may be searched at pleasure of the state , and may only write to this board after review of a government proctor ( not the mods here ) . As of now i consider firearms ownership rights to be on the same plane as the right to free speech , or to be secure in your home and person . If you apprive of a limit well its your right , however i strongly feel you should approve of limits across the board then not just on firearms .

 

[SuperNaut]

I've got to add:

Real freedom isn't utopia or rainbows-n-hugs, real freedom is dangerous. You've heard the phrase that; keeping our freedom requires "eternal vigilance." That isn't just referring to protection IMHO, it can also refer to the exercise of those freedoms.

 

[GEM]

Internet speculation is sometimes worth as much as the Vice-Presidency. I'm all in favor of training and get mad at folks who do the techobabble about this gun or that - get a shotgun, that's it. Get a 45 that's it - blah, blah.

I don't like the untrained 'expert'. However, empirically - for the ordinary folk who want a plain vanilla handgun to protect their business and home and who don't think of themselves as commando/avengers - they do quite OK. The criminological literature is very clear on this.

Also, there is no empirical evidence that I know of that says starting with a single shot 22 rifle will produce a better SD shooter than starting with another type of reasonable gun.

Getting quality training is a good thing but the evidence isn't there that they don't get it done in the low intense, typical single mugger, burglar scenario.

 

[Dismantler]

This thread is angering me.

woof, You have misrepresented what the doctor said. Go back and reread his post. He did NOT say that he was "afraid" of protesters. He said that he had been threatened.

Please have the intellectual decency not to make up quotes, and put words that others have not used in quotations. You have COMPLETELY fabricated the possibility of him shooting a protester because he is "Afraid." You are taking the Low Road, here. I am not sure if it is intentional or not, but it makes me angry.

As far as I am concerned, he has taken a responsible first step toward firearms ownership. He has asked somebody that knows something about the subject.

 

[John828]

I can see where you're coming from, woof. And I am going out to buy a .22 rifle today. No direct causation or correlation. I was already planning to buy one today anyway.

Ammunition costs are killing me, but that's another thread.

Anyway, I think I know what you're communicating, and probably most shooters have thought along a similar vein of thought, but it is not practical, nor is it even necessary in some cases.

Is a single shot twenty-two any less lethal than any other single shot in .338 Winchester Mag at point blank ranges? If a deaf person who is impervious to recoil wants to start shooting, can he start with that? I am being a bit facetious, but a .22 is just as lethal.

 

[ronwill]

When it comes to first timers, I believe that they should choose the best weapon for defense they can afford and feels comfortable. Not everyone can afford to work their way through several guns before deciding on a defense weapon. Should they have zero experience then take a course and become familiar with the weapon. Afterwards practice, practice and more practice.

 

[Deanimator]

But IMO, how it should be - is such a person spends about a year shooting and learning about guns in general.

It's nice to develop your skills, but sometimes circumstances don't support the leisurely approach.

Your profile says "Central Ohio". I'm betting that where you live, things are a LOT different than for somebody living in Cleveland, or even Columbus.

Remember, the police don't have any duty to protect individuals. Protect yourself or don't get protected at all. If you're going to protect yourself against SERIOUS trouble, that usually means a gun. You don't need to be Gerry Miculek to defend yourself with a handgun.