Posted on 11/27/2001 8:59:52 AM PST by Gritty
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for your RVN duty.
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?
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.
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]
[* or at least they did, until Benelli won the new contract with a gun that's not available to the general public]
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.