Replies

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.

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.

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]

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.