'Get it and forget it' HD gun people rant . . .

[Misery Loves Shotguns]

So, I was at work today and a guy approached me to talk about buying a gun. I don't work at a gun shop unfortunately, he just knows through others that I know a thing or two about guns. Anyway, this is his first purchase and when I ask him to give me an idea what he's looking for, he mentions a Ruger LCR. I think of that as more of a CC gun for an experienced shooter and explain why; mostly because of the size and DAO trigger making it difficult to control for a new shooter. The rest of the conversation could be summed up by saying that he doesn't intend to do much if any training with it, he just wants something he can dump a magazine at an intruder with. Where to begin with what's wrong with that?

Buying a gun and keeping it for self defense requires some level of proficiency with the weapon. I could list right off the top of my head four people I know who own a gun with the intention of using it to defend themselves but have little or no experience shooting that weapon. That shouldn't suprise me because all of us probably know people who own a guitar but don't know one end from the other or have some other random thing they never use just to have it. I guess having the gun gives them peace of mind. If you never need to use it, fine. Never practicing will never come back and bite you in the ass. What if you do need to use it? I have repeatedly said to people that fine motors skills break down under stress and for that reason, you need to practice until running that gun becomes second nature. If you have no idea where the trigger breaks, where you need to hold with the sights to hit a certain spot, what kind of recoil to expect, you would have to get pretty damn lucky to come out of an encounter alive.

Owning a gun for defense is a tremendous responsibility but most people don't see it that way. They think they're doing some great, noble thing by making a significant financial investment in a gun and they'll be automatically safe forever because of it. My goal is to give people as much information as possible and hope it sticks with them. Whether it goes in one ear and out the other or they actually take what I told them and decide to train and learn more, I have no control over that. I didn't know much the first few years after I bought my first gun but I made an effort to learn and that's more than I can say for a lot of others.

Thoughts?

[Signmaker]

...he just wants something he can dump a magazine at an intruder with. Where to begin with what's wrong with that?

Well I'd start with pointing out the LCR doesn't have a magazine, and the rest would just go downhill from there.

I've taken to calling them Opies, and would just be tickled pink if the name stuck. I've dealt with a few, personally and online. Some can be rehabilitated with a range trip alongside a competent, or ideally very advanced, shooter. Give them an in-person experience of the difference training really does make. If they just cant wrap their heads around it, let them try some force on force drills.

[QuackXP]

I'm sure some will be upset that you did't immediately tell them where the closest firearms store is as anything less in infringing on their rights.

Personally I can't recommend a firearms purchase to someone who has no intention on getting training. If anything to learn safe handling so they can lessen their chances of having a ND and the ability to handle their firearm safely around others if they ever do go to the range, second so they could have the required marksmanship skills to make a positive differences in a defensive situation.

I would not dismiss them though. Because they will simply seek out the approval of someone willing to just help them with the purchase and nothing else.

If all of us in the firearms community don't do what we can to make sure new shooters are safe and educated more negligent discharges will happens destroying properly and lives and that will give those who seek to legislate against us all the PR that they need to do so.

[Emptymag]

Buying a gun and keeping it for self defense requires some level of proficiency with the weapon.

Actually, all that is required is a clean record, and ability to pay for your purchase.


I'd guess that the vast, vast majority of gun owners fall into the above category.
Like a little old lady with a .38 sitting in the nightstand drawer. Sure, it would be desirable that she hit the range until she's "proficient", but she has the same right to own and defend herself as anyone else - even if she never shoots that gun until the day she puts a hole in an intruder.

[Mitch10mm]

They don't bother me. Ideally, people would make regular trips to the range. A gun is a point and click device.

[arjohnson]

Actually, all that is required is a clean record, and ability to pay for your purchase.


I'd guess that the vast, vast majority of gun owners fall into the above category.
Like a little old lady with a .38 sitting in the nightstand drawer. Sure, it would be desirable that she hit the range until she's "proficient", but she has the same right to own and defend herself as anyone else - even if she never shoots that gun until the day she puts a hole in an intruder.

Ding ding ding we have a winner, I know plenty who fall into this catagory.

Not to be a jackass to the OP but was it you who recently posted a video and you sweept the camera man with a loaded shotgun?

[Misery Loves Shotguns]

Actually, all that is required is a clean record, and ability to pay for your purchase.

True. My point is just that those kind of people rely on luck because they never bothered to practice shooting. Having a fancy kitchen doesn't make you a good cook any more than owning a gun with no idea how to use it makes you or the people around you safe.

[Philbert]

Actually, all that is required is a clean record, and ability to pay for your purchase.


I'd guess that the vast, vast majority of gun owners fall into the above category.
Like a little old lady with a .38 sitting in the nightstand drawer. Sure, it would be desirable that she hit the range until she's "proficient", but she has the same right to own and defend herself as anyone else - even if she never shoots that gun until the day she puts a hole in an intruder.

The problem is that last sentence could easily end with "the day she puts a hole in herself" or "the day she puts a hole in the kid who lives across the street".

I get that there is a difference between an individual ethical obligation, and what you can enforce by legislation. Any mandated training brings up a whole host of practical and constitutional issues, and at the end of the day it's hard to force people to learn against their will. So I don't think there should be a government-enforced standard of proficiency (except possibly for militia purposes). But I do think that if you're going to own deadly weapons that can kill at hundreds of yards, there is an ethical responsibility to learn how to handle them.

[Emptymag]

The problem is that last sentence could easily end with "the day she puts a hole in herself" or "the day she puts a hole in the kid who lives across the street".

I get that there is a difference between an individual ethical obligation, and what you can enforce by legislation. Any mandated training brings up a whole host of practical and constitutional issues, and at the end of the day it's hard to force people to learn against their will. So I don't think there should be a government-enforced standard of proficiency (except possibly for militia purposes). But I do think that if you're going to own deadly weapons that can kill at hundreds of yards, there is an ethical responsibility to learn how to handle them.

Absolutely agree with all of it. Everyone's "ethical scale" is different though.

[NRA Recruiter]

I've taken to calling them Opies . . . .

Why? Opie was a crack shot.