So You're Thinking of Buying a Gun

Sierra Times ^ | 11.27.01 | Sunni Maravillosa

[newgeezer]

My two S&W hanguns were bought years ago. It is with these weapons that I protect my home and family. Recent politics count for nothing in this regard. That said, there are equally efficient and reliable alternatives to S&W. Should I ever find myself in the market again I would go Colt.

My two S&W hanguns were bought manufactured years ago. It is with these weapons that I protect my home and family. Recent politics count for nothing in this regard. That said, there are equally efficient and reliable alternatives to S&W. Should I ever find myself in the [revolver] market again I would go Colt buy another timeless classic S&W [perhaps a Model 29].

We're not so far apart.

[wtc911]

Thanks for the response. I am left wondering though, what do you disagree with? Where and by whom have you been trained? If it was the military then the rules are different because the playing field is different. If you live in a rural area then a trench gun becomes an option, not a prefered option, just a matter of choice. But only outside the house. Bear in mind also that in most states you may legally defend your home with deadly force but if you shoot and kill a potential intruder, someone who is in your backyard, you are liable to face a grand jury, unless that person represented an immediate threat to you or others. The point is that you can shoot the intruder while he climbs through the window but not while he is outside looking in and not after he has fled the premises.

Do you really believe that an untrained person should have anything other than the most simple, most reliable weapon in his hand at three in the morning, while he's scared, his heart is pounding, his hands are sweating and he's tip-toing down the basement stairs to investigate? I've seen young officers forget to breathe under these conditions. Would your average un-trained home-owner remember to chamber a round and slip the safety? And don't think that a few hours at the local range with some guy who knows more than you do constitutes training. What would you suggest? Before you think shotgun try this...take a broom handle in two hands like a shotgun, turn a sharp corner without poking the barrel end around first, then try for target acquisition in the dark. You lose time. And you lose accuracy. If you turn the corner ready to fire and the bad guy is just inside the room you stand a real chance of wrestling for and maybe losing the gun.

This isn't about posturing. This is response to a question from someone who is looking to bring a gun into his home. Opinion doesn't count. Training and experience do. I don't mean to sound hard but this is an important topic.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

That being said, since the ONLY time you can use a firearm in self defense is if you truly believe your live is threatened

Why do people commit suicide?

Nor would I recommend any alternative for someone, particularly a woman, where the disparity of force

Imagine an elderly woman sustaining the kick of most weapons let alone hitting a target. I'd never deprive many from the opportunity to do as they choose to with guns in protecting themselves (police, veterans, security...), they are trained to react, but simply putting a lethal weapon in the hands of the average person is not a cure-all.

We cannot allow government to ban weapons for obvious reasons, but people must understand real limitations as well.

[wtc911]

Exactly, use the weapon that has the most firepower that you can handle. As for your friend, a gut shot with a .22 is still better than a head shot. I don't know if .22 can be bought pre-frag but if it can, and I had to carry a .22, that is what I would use. Hit under the protection of the ribs and the frags will tear into vital organs. The potential saving grace of a .22 is that you can find a revolver with high capacity that is still light-weight.

Thanks for your RVN duty.

[RebelDawg]

Do you really believe that an untrained person should have anything other than the most simple, most reliable weapon in his hand at three in the morning, while he's scared, his heart is pounding, his hands are sweating and he's tip-toing down the basement stairs to investigate? I've seen young officers forget to breathe under these conditions. Would your average un-trained home-owner remember to chamber a round and slip the safety?

Sorry to butt in but what you are pointing out here has nothing at all to do with training. Training does not cure a persons fear of having an intruder in their home. How is range time going to help that?

Would the gun owner remember to chamber a round? Or take off the safety? You cannot be serious, you really think that hundreds of hours of range time are needed for a person to have simple common sense? I mean how much driving time did you have to log before you remembered to put your parking brake on?

I've seen alot of this training BS lately, mostly coming from liberal anti-gun groups who want to use lack of "official training" as a reason to bar people from owning guns. BTW: how much "official training" do you think your forefathers had when they fought off the very well trained British troops. How much trainign do you really think most hunters have that allow them to drop small game at much greater ranges than one will ever be faced with defending their home?

Here is a simple fact:

Most self defense shootings take place within a range of 7 to 10 feet!

Are you telling us that if people are not properly trained (perhaps by a federal agency) that they will not be able to hit a man sized target at a range of 7 feet? That's pure BS and I think you know it, I have taken numerous people to the range with me, whom have NEVER fired a gun before in their lives and they always hit the BIG man sized target that I put out at 15 feet which I might add is twice the range stated above. If you cannot hit a human sized target at a range of 7 feet then absolutely no amount of training, instruction or range time is going to help you. Range time is meant to help your aim, it is used to help your accuracy and help you to bring your shots into tighter groups. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for an individual to be required to shoot a 1.25" group at 50yards in order for them to be able to defend themselves in their homes. And yes that is what range time is for. It does not give you common sense, it does not prevent people from being inept and it does NOT give you courage.

These seem to be the things you are referring to and training and range time simply do NOT provide them.

I didn't mean to offend if I did but I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing this new liberal mantra of "Only appropriately trained and responsible citizens should be allowed to own firearms" I think they have realized that their goal of banning guns is hopeless so now they are trying to restrict them anyway that they can. This training mantra of theirs is pure and simple BS.

[SlickWillard]

Before you think shotgun try this...take a broom handle in two hands like a shotgun, turn a sharp corner without poking the barrel end around first, then try for target acquisition in the dark. You lose time. And you lose accuracy. If you turn the corner ready to fire and the bad guy is just inside the room you stand a real chance of wrestling for and maybe losing the gun.

I agree that the longer and heavier a gun is, the more difficult it is to maneuver. On the other hand, if something like the Mossberg 590 series is such a poor choice of weaponry, why does every police department and military special forces unit* in this country outfit their personnel with the 590? They do so because they know that when TSHTF, it is the cheapest, most effective tool to maximize the probability that their boys aren't the ones who go home in body bags.

[* or at least they did, until Benelli won the new contract with a gun that's not available to the general public]

[SlickWillard]

Make that

[* or at least they did, until Benelli won the new contract with a gun that's not available to the general public]

[RebelDawg]

Clemenza,

If you want a smaller caliber I would suggest trying a .32 H&R magnum revolver.It is a nice round despite what soem people may tell you. Taurus makes an ultra-lite model revolver chambered in .32 H&R magnum which is the perfect conceal and carry weapon.

Of course they make an ultra lite .357 mag but it has considerable more recoil especially in such a light weapon. The .32 H&R mag is quite capable of stopping an intruder.

The ultra lites are pricey though. Check

Taurus for details.

[yarddog]

Well I really fouled up. I intended to send the precedng post by freepmail and instead posted it for all the world to see. As a matter of fact I would prefer to not discuss my personal career so will only respond to posts regarding guns.

[yarddog]

Thank you moderator.

[MAWG]

That, is terrific advice. Thank You.

[yarddog]

Without rehashing my accidental post, I have a fair amount of training and experience. The real problem with armed combat is there are only a handful of people in the world who have participated in enough hand to hand or close in personal combat to really become knowledgeable.

I simply do not believe training although good, is as important as having the right stuff. One is either a killer or not. Being a killer does not mean one is evil. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were both killers but very good men. Of course one can be a killer and also evil.

I simply do not agree that .32's .380's or even .25's are useless. As a matter of fact, the .32 and .380 are about as effective as the .38 special which IMO is itself much better than most experts say.

There are plenty of people who are cool headed enough to shoot not just for the head but between the eyes. Some go to pieces and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn when it comes down to it.

[wtc911]

All my posts on this thread differentiate between trained law enforcement//military and the average homeowner. Without the proper level of training and maintenance these weapons are simply not the best choice in home defense situations. The pros recognize this, that is why SWAT training is selective and extensive.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Well if it training your interested in folks, Frontsites got a deal going that seems very good.

November 20, 2001
From: Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director
Front Sight Firearms Training Institute

Front Sight's Thanksgiving Gift For You

Dear Students and Friends of Front Sight,
snip
THANKSGIVING SPECIAL COURSE CERTIFICATE
ATTEND A $500 TWO DAY COURSE OF YOUR CHOICE Defensive Handgun, Tactical Shotgun, or Practical Rifle

OR APPLY THE SPECIAL COURSE CERTIFICATE FOR $500 OFF THE COST OF ANY OTHER COURSE

Certificates are good for new students as well as returning students. One certificate per person, per course. Certificates have no expiration date. Certificates are transferable.

Cost of certificate is $100.

That's right! Only $100! Our gift to you is the ability to attend a $500 course at any time, no matter how high our course prices may rise in the future. Only an organization like Front Sight can offer such a valuable gift. We know that you will be back again and again so we can offer your first course at such an unbelievable price and we can give thanks to our returning students as well with this inflation proof, special certificate offer.

Purchase as many certificates as you wish at this price. Think about it. Five people can attend a course for the price of one! Or you can take five courses for the price of one! Again, purchase as many certificates as you wish! They have no expiration date!

The only limitation is you have until midnight on November 30, 2001 to purchase as many of these special course certificates as you wish. This is Front Sight's Thanksgiving gift to you, your family, and friends.

Complete the information below and fax or e-mail it to us ASAP and no later than midnight, November 30, 2001.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Did I mention that they are near Vegas. Makes a nice excuse for a short vacation.

[R. Scott]

"There's no formula for determining what gun will work best for you. Many will try to tell you otherwise, though, with statements like, "Women can't handle .45 or larger ammunition; it'll kick too much."

A surprisingly fine article, and this is of particular import. I had been out of target shooting for several years for various reasons. I purchased a Taurus .44 Magnum and was surprised to discover that I could no longer hold it steady on target. I started working out again concentrating on the hands, forearms, upper arms and shoulders. I now have no problem even when using the scope. I have a consistent and steady sight picture once again.

[wtc911]

No offense taken but I think that you missed the point entirely. The original post requested info for someone who is unschooled. That is all we know about Clemenza. To suggest anything other than the most basic, most simple tool for the job of home defense for someone like this is irresponsible.

Also, you seem to attribute liberal attitudes to me that are not indicated in my posts. At no point did I indicate that I think that training is required for gun ownership. I stand on the second amendment. I do think that any individual who takes on the responsibility of gun ownership should also take the time to learn how to use it properly and to keep sharp via practice. I first learned this from my father who was a SA with the FBI in the fifties. The lesson was re-inforced by my HS rifle team and through my 1964 membership in the NRA. It still makes sense to me.

As for training not being worth too much when the shtf, why do the elite units in our armed forces get so much more of it that the standard infantryman? This is a fact. Two weeks ago I spent time with the Battalion Scouts of the EUSA in the JSA in Korea. They get unlimited range time on a weekly basis. They made the point that back in the States they would be lucky to get monthly range time. It would be more like every six months.

The point of training is to make certain actions second nature, actions like checking to see if a safety is on or if a round is chambered. This is true in any non-instinct endeavor. Tiger Woods trains longer and harder than anyone else on the tour just so he doesn't have to think about the basics. Courage is crucial and that can't be taught. You are right about that. But, every Law Enforcement and Military group I have encountered or studied knows that getting the recruit to that second-nature point counts as much..."the training takes over".

As for your hunting analogy, you don't hunt at night, in your home and the game has potential fatal results for just one player.

Bottom line, I am absolutely certain that your heart is in the right place but I firmly believe that the best advise for someone like Clemenza is to get as much training as you can and keep it simple.

[wtc911]

You're on the right track but a bit off on a couple of points....training is important. An average guy with the right training can easier find the right stuff. Training gives familiarity which breeds confidence. This is why our military elite train so hard.

You are plain wrong about head shots. They are for snipers, not homeowners. The standard LO training discourages headshots because they are so difficult. I'll trust their opinion on this. Also, .22s, .25s, .32s are better than nothing but there are reasons why our military and police don't carry them. The .38 revolver is still part of the USA arsenal.

[yarddog]

I don't think training is unimportant just not as important as other things.

Many years ago Skeeter Skelton wrote a good story about the gun fighters of the old West. He gave a pretty good biography of several including John Wesley Hardin, (Well I have a mental block and can't think of the others right now).

The point Skeeter made was that none of them were trained shooters and none of them could have competed with many modern competitors. Skeeter then hazarded an opinion which I agree with totally. He said if any of todays hotshots were to be transported back to the days of the old West, and were the mortal enemies of say, Hardin, then Skeeter believed that before long the modern experts would be dead.

When you say that the modern special forces are heavily trained, you are obviously correct. One of the reasons for the heavy training is to elimate the weak ones.

Here is my point in a nushell. Take all the ones who cannot make it in say, the Rangers and give them intensive training for two years. Then take the ones who would not have washed out and give them only minimal training.

Then take the two groups and pit them against each other. IMO the minimally trained cream of the crop would wipe the floor with the highly trained chaff.