PDA

View Full Version : The best advice we can give to new gun owners


Gaxicus
February 2, 2009, 05:33 PM
We probably all get questions or even help train people new to firearms or those new to defensive firearms. I've heard people offer some bad, some useless, but mixed in there is usually some really good stuff.

In what could be a very useful thread to all of us and the lucky new gun owner that comes this way, lets put some of it down in print.

Gaxicus
February 2, 2009, 06:18 PM
One of the first and biggest obstacles I run into when working with a new defensive gun owner is helping them make their decisions about themselves and their attacker before they get in a situation where they need the gun.

Most people never want to use the weapon on a human being or even animal but have chosen to get one because they have been victimized or are worried that they might.

We all know that the best gun in the world is useless without a proper mindset in approaching the situation where they might need it. We have heard the stories of the people, even cops, dying of minor wounds because they gave up or the people that are killed with their own gun.

I have a little axiom and a speech that I use a lot when advising people who just cant see themselves pulling the trigger. (edited)

Most of them are buying a firearm because of fear. You can just see it written all over them. This ditty is what I tell them to get out of the fear mindset.

It sounds a bit cheesy but it really pushes the right buttons. Ill spare you the intro and get right to the heart of it.


Say it to yourself.

"I am a predator killer"

This attitude will have you picked last as a victim (it aint a lottery), more observant, and have you mentally ready to be the one bashing in the skull of an unconscious rapist with an emptied weapon after taking 3 knife wounds.

"I am a predator killer"


You are not a jackass killer (We are all jackasses sometimes)
You are not a predator fighter. (Fighting is something a predator is probably at better than you and they have less to lose)
You are not a predator disarmer or counselor. (This just gets you killed and gives a predator a chance to do it again to someone else)
This fight is for your life. Make it about theirs.
You don't run from predators. Just watch a nature show, what happens to the prey?
Mercy can only be applied when your attacker is defenseless, not hurt, but defenseless. You have to get to that point before even entertaining the idea. If mercy is important to you, fight to be the one in the position of making the decision about mercy.


You are a predator killer, they will be the victim.

When someone gets predatory on you, you kill them. . . . . ..............

Commit to it. You cannot afford to think otherwise, nor do you deserve to.



I believe that this attitude is the best chance most ordinary people will get to reclaim their freedom, quality of life, and happiness from the predators around them.

I work on this little ditty all the time. Please feel free to help make it better.

kraigwy
February 2, 2009, 06:44 PM
Best advise to one with a new fire for defense, is SHOOT IT. Practice, Practice, dry fire, become so familiar with it you hands feel neckid without it.

Then shoot some more. Shoot short range, shoot long range, shoot everything in between.

Study and practice pistol marksmanshiip fundimentals. Get some bullseye pistol targets and practice slow fire at 50 yards, and timed and rapid fire at 25 yards. Get the fundementals down and then play with combat style shooting.

Practice Practice and Practice.

#18indycolts
February 2, 2009, 06:51 PM
Rule #1 to any person new to guns.
"Don't be an idiot"

Japle
February 2, 2009, 07:48 PM
Get some instruction in the basics of shooting from someone who's qualified.

If you don't understand trigger control, follow-through and calling the shot, you'd better restrict your gunfights to very close range. Like inside a phone booth.

Deet
February 2, 2009, 08:19 PM
If you don't have the right to shoot to kill you don't have the right to shoot at all.

bigghoss
February 2, 2009, 08:20 PM
don't be like that DEA agent. you know the one.

JasonG
February 2, 2009, 08:41 PM
Wow Gaxicus, that was awesome.
"I am the weapon, my gun is a tool" is one of my favorites.
I always beat the 4 rules into them.
Guns are like bowling, use as big a caliber/ball as you can control.
I like someones sig line on here "you can't miss fast enough to win a gun fight".
At the end of it all, I make them promise to read through Pax's www.corneredcat.com site.

Slopemeno
February 2, 2009, 09:01 PM
My advice? "Get some real training"

Gaxicus
February 2, 2009, 09:05 PM
Wow Gaxicus, that was awesome.

I make them promise to read through Pax's www.corneredcat.com site.

Hey thanks. Its often very difficult to get people to face their own ability to fight, keep fighting, and survive. Many are afraid of their own power.

I have been working on this little story for a while. I never tell it the same way twice. You really have to read your audience before associating the word "killer" with what a person thinks of themself.

It works. I am so glad you posted that link to cornered cat. I enjoyed reading it and so will some of my friends. Any thoughts on improving the story?

Keltyke
February 3, 2009, 07:41 AM
Four simple things:

1. Learn everything you can about your gun and ammo.
2. Learn everything you can about the handgun and carry laws in your state.
3. Be willing.
4. Practice!

Glenn E. Meyer
February 3, 2009, 09:52 AM
I think being a 'predator killer' in your postings will look good in court if you are charged in some ambiguous self-defense case. :D

Esp. the part of pounding an unconscious rapist who you seemed to have emptied a mag into.

Now where is the popcorn? Pax and I are going to watch.

noyes
February 3, 2009, 10:24 AM
1. If you have to ask someone else what gun or caliber you should buy ... You are not ready to buy one . Because you did not do the homework for yourself.

2. Gun safety " READ THE OWNERS MANUAL " ..Do not touch the gun until you have read the manual.


3. CLEAN all guns you buy new or used before you shoot it. But only after you have read the Owners Manual.

NGIB
February 3, 2009, 10:33 AM
Be willing to learn everything you can about the responsibility of being a gun owner. Learn your local laws. Join the best RKBA organization in your state and be active in keeping our rights a reality.

In Georgia, it's Georgiacarry.org

David Armstrong
February 3, 2009, 10:50 AM
The best advice to give a new gunowner? Don't believe everything old gunowners tell you!

pax
February 3, 2009, 11:01 AM
David Armstrong: amen and amen!

Glenn's right.

pax

Gaxicus
February 3, 2009, 12:06 PM
I think being a 'predator killer' in your postings will look good in court if you are charged in some ambiguous self-defense case.

Esp. the part of pounding an unconscious rapist who you seemed to have emptied a mag into.

Now where is the popcorn? Pax and I are going to watch.

If you ever attended a woman's self defense class you would be shocked at the things retired police officers tell them in order to get them out of prey mode.

The story of the woman emptying her gun into a rapist and them bashing his face in with the empty weapon came from one of these classes.

The rapist had already victimized other women before he attacked her, he had practice. She took three knife wounds in the struggle but she survived because she kept fighting. He is rotting in jail with a colostomy bag or something like that.

The advice is meant to get them from looking like a limping gazelle around lions, fight relentlessly with an attack mindset, and to shoot to kill.

If you and PAX have a problem with that, take your popcorn to a victim recovery group and shut up and listen.

I will take my chances with a judge over counting on the mercy of predator any day. If you have daughters you should tell them the same.

Judges have prosecuted dozens and dozens of cases involving predators where the victims life and the lives of their families are destroyed or forever damaged. Catching them is hard enough, keeping them off the street is even harder. When one comes along where the intended victim viciously and relentlessly attacks their attacker and even kills them, I like their chance with the judge. At least they have one.

Most new defensive gun owners just ooze fear. Thats why they bought the gun but they are scared of the gun and absolutely terrified to need it.

Gazelle.

Scared panicky people with guns, even at a range are very dangerous and prone to mistakes. Training with a firearm should start with dealing with all of that fear.

Go ahead with your snide sarcasm and your popcorn. I can live with it if I am wrong. The consequences of putting yet another gun in the hands of panicky gazelles who will just end up losing the gun to a predator is not something I can. It would be better to hand them sugar pills and tell them it makes them predator proof. At least the predator only ends up with sugar pills to use in their next attack.

pax
February 3, 2009, 12:36 PM
Gaxicus ~

I'm sorry your feelings got hurt. Now get over it, and let's talk.

Frankly, any time I hear a man bragging that he knows just what to say to the ladies -- whether he's talking about firearms or pick up lines -- I always have my doubts!

All the same, when someone comes on here & tells me he knows just what to say to the ladies about firearms, I'm prone to listen a bit before making judgements. Hell, maybe he knows something about women I don't know. After all, I'm not exactly omniscient myself. Maybe I'll learn something.

So I listened. Here's what I heard:

1) You believe most new gun owners reek of fear.

2) You particularly believe most female gun owners reek of fear.

3) You believe that the way to get them over their fear is to call them "killers."

I reject all three premises. The first is projection, the second incorrect, and the third ridiculous.

Actually, the third point is not just ridiculous, but could be damaging, as Antipitas pointed out. Telling students that they need to keep fighting until the fight is over is utterly necessary and an important lesson, but telling them they need to keep fighting after the fight is over is dangerous and perhaps disastrously bad advice.

Of course only you know how your lecture comes across to your students in context, so feel free to tell me how off base I am. But right now, all we've got to go by is the context on this thread, where it appeared you were telling students to bash an unconscious and helpless attacker over the head after the fight had stopped and the attacker could no longer attack. You cited this as an example of how to do the right thing. But most courts would call unnecessarily killing an unconscious person "murder," and personally I'm not in favor of telling my students to commit murder -- no matter how "empowered" killing such a slimedog might make them feel.

Want to know what I believe about new gun owners?

1) They're individuals.

2) Most need information far more than they need motivation.

3) They are not "killers" and shouldn't become "killers."

Calling people "killers" instills a dangerous mindset. My students aren't "killers." They are good people who want to defend themselves, and who are willing to do whatever it takes to defend themselves. If whatever it takes means walking away from a fight and apologizing to a punk for offending him, so be it. If whatever it takes means fighting with bare hands against a guy six times your size rather than throwing yourself on the mercy of the merciless, so be it. If whatever it takes means handing an assailant your wallet, keys, and favorite jewelry so you can walk away unharmed -- or so you know whether the fight is really necessary to save your life -- so be it. If whatever it takes means shooting for the center of mass and continuing to fire until the attacker ceases his attack and dies screaming for his momma, so be it.

We aren't "killers." We are people who will do whatever it takes to survive the encounter with our lives and our good guy status intact.

That's why I chose "Cornered Cat" for my website. A domestic cat is sweet and cuddly and non-threatening. Sure, it's capable of killing, if killing is called for. But it's not primarily a killer. That's not its identity. Its central identity is non-threatening; the claws only come out when threatened and the purpose is to get away from the attacker.

I know that's not macho enough for a lot of folks. I can live with that. I'm just a girl, after all, and probably don't have the right mindset. So be it.

pax

OldMarksman
February 3, 2009, 02:35 PM
From Glenn Meyer: I think being a 'predator killer' in your postings will look good in court if you are charged in some ambiguous self-defense case.

Yep, nothing like manufacturing evidence that might be used against you and might be difficult to successfully rebutt.

Beyond that, how might words like that be taken and used by legislators, the media, etc., and how might they impinge upon the continuation of gun rights?

No, I would say "you or not a killer. You can and will use force, including deadly force when justified, to protect yourself and family, when it is immediately necessary to do so--and at no other time."

Yeah, I know about defending property in Texas after sunset and before sunrise...

I'll go with Keltyke's recommendation:

1. Learn everything you can about your gun and ammo.
2. Learn everything you can about the handgun and carry laws in your state.
3. Be willing.
4. Practice!

isanchez2008
February 3, 2009, 03:04 PM
1. Don't point any gun at anything/one you are not willing to destroy/kill! This is forgoten to many times.
2. Get professional training from a reputable firearms instructor or school. Not just training on how to use your weapon but when its legal to use deadly force.
3. Have fun. Marksmanship activities aren't all focused on life and death. Look for USPSA matches, IDPA or whatever floats your boat!!

My humble advice. :D

Gaxicus
February 3, 2009, 05:11 PM
Pax,

Thank you so much for actually contributing something to the thread instead of just sarcastic remarks. I put this up here because no matter how effective I might think it is, it is certainly controversial and I wanted to improve it. My feelings weren't hurt, I just get ticked off when trollers or drive-by insult artists mud up a thread.

I love the cornered cat. JasonG posted a link and I spent a lot of time reading it. I referred a lot of people to it.

An observation. I disagree with you on several points in your post Not that I am going to try and tell a woman what she is thinking, but probably because you are in a very different place mentally than I see some of the women and quite a few men at the range. I'll explain and maybe you can address them. I dont want to be right, I want to get better at this.

First , let me start by saying I don't condone beating an unconscious rapist.... but I understand. I would rather have fight like that in her than have her give up and become a statistic. Same applies to men. The story is shocking and I believe it sidetracked things as people seemed to get hung up on it.

1) You believe most new gun owners reek of fear.

Most new defensive gun owners, Yes I do. Fidgeting, very little eye contact if any, jumpiness, extremely fast and start stop speech pattern. The big test for me is watching them load the gun in the range stall. Shaking hands, dropping rounds, bad muzzle discipline. I usually comment on what a nice gun they have, ask them the story behind it, then ask to try it first when I see that. It helps them focus and calm down but that's not necessarily what this approach is designed to address.

You particularly believe most female gun owners reek of fear.


I will cop right now to using generalizations. Lots of them. I know I am skipping through a field of bear traps on this one but I will give you a direct answer anyway. New female defensive gun owners, yes I do. Almost the same thing as above but with additional observations. I'll explain.

Actually, the women usually exhibit less of the above symptoms of fear during the first parts of the session and the actual operation of the firearm. Many times they outshoot the men once they have reloaded, not sure why, better fine motor control, whatever. They also ask more questions. Not kissing any ass here, its just true.

Where I see the above symptoms really become evident is when the discussion of using the weapon starts. Some will flat out say that they dont think they can use it if they needed to. I don't think its responsible to ignore that. The gun is worse than useless if this isn't addressed

After several different approaches and exercises, i reached the conclusion that, generally, women are less likely to have wrapped their head around and have far less experience with the concept of physically attacking someone. In a fight, you have to willfully, aggressively, and repeatedly attack someone, even when hurt. When an an advantage is gained, you must not surrender it until the opponent is incapable of attacking you effectively on your egress. Especially if you are outsized.

Anyone who has raised boys knows that they seem instinctively driven to constantly challenge themselves and others in this physical way. My girls are instinctively very capable of using words against other girls and completely outmatch the boys but have had to learn the physical aspects of conflict. Often from their brothers.

Without the subject coming up, after a few minutes of conversation, you could probably guess right 75% of the time if a woman grew up with older brothers.

The act of punching, kicking, biting, scratching, shooting etc should be a focused attack. The very word attack seems to make a lot of women and some men cringe when they think of associating it with themselves. Attack they must if they are in a fight. How do you get them to commit to an effective attack? They need to be more than OK with it. They need to be passionately resolved to it. They must fight harder, faster, and be more relentlessly than their bigger attackers.

That is what this whole approach is geared toward.

3) You believe that the way to get them over their fear is to call them "killers."

The words and concepts are very strong, the example story of the woman is very strong. Attack, Kill, all that. I know. Its on purpose. This is a hard approach.

The soft approach we would all prefer doesn't work sometimes. It can come off fake and condescending when coming from a man to both women and men. Sexist? Maybe, but it is something that happens and it cant be ignored. Some fair criticism here, I love the cornered cat. I like the approach but it is just isnt going to work sometimes. Its not too hard to imagine women balking at being compared to kitties, especially by a man is it? Maybe it is sexist, but its something I've noticed and have to deal with.

My first rule of teaching is be yourself, be honest, and deal to your strengths. I am not a woman. I am not someone that has much, if any, sympathy for predators, and I detest the idea of having a gun being taken from a law abiding citizen by one.

The hard approach is not the first option, it is not just for women, and it is definitely not for everyone. It can be very effective though.

I use those strong words because it forces the issue. Those words are monolithic and leave very little wiggle room for fear (ir)rationalization.

It is a very direct thought process.

Predator.
What is a predator? A person that wishes to inflict themself on me and take something from me by force. What am I willing to surrender and what am I not? Hey, who the *#@*&% does this jerk think he is anyway?!

Attack.
Me? Attack? Oh my god you cant be serious, I have a hard time killing a spider. Wait! I have kids, a wife or husband. I have made sacrifices for my future and my family. I have every right to protect that. How do I survive? He wont let me talk him out of it.. he is just hitting me and pulling me into a car! I must attack to save my, and my familys future. I must attack to survive.

Kill.
Oh sheesh I dont think I could live with myself if I killed someone. Thats what bad guys do isnt it? Cant I sorta threaten him in a nice way? Maybe shoot him in the... Oh its too late, Im in the car and he has my gun. Is that Duct tape? What are the garbage bags for? Is that dried blood? Im not the first one hes done this to. OMG I wish I had that gun back! I want to live! This &*%^$% deserves to die!

Predator Killer.
I have already thought out my moral obligations, my fears, and my choices. I know the law, it is on my side, and it is less of a threat to me than my attacker. I am perfectly ready and willing to kill a predator. I will fight until I am unconscious if necessary to make sure he can not attack me until I can be safe. If he takes my wallet the look in my eyes alone will be enough to let him know he wont get anything else. If I have to pull my gun, I will shoot and shoot to kill. I cant afford, and he doesn't deserve, for me to take any chances if he attacks me. I am a predator killer and I am more than ok with it I am resolved to it.

Thats the hard approach. It has worked. The people that it works with dont go around looking for an excuse to kill people. They carry themselves more confidently, not more aggressively or threatening. Calmer and noticeably less jumpy. Not a limping gazelle around lions. Im not going to make anyone I would use this approach with into a serial killer. They will have faced the issues, thought it out, and resolved themselves to their choices.

Calling people "killers" instills a dangerous mindset. My students aren't "killers."
We aren't "killers." We are people who will do whatever it takes to survive the encounter with our lives and our good guy status intact.

I respectfully disagree with this approach. If they carry a gun, and are willing to pull and shoot it, they had better be killers. Why do we seem to forget that you shoot to kill. Thats the only reason to shoot. Good guy status belongs before and after, never during a fight for your life. Hero stuff just gets you killed. Lots of people will probably back me up on this even if they hate everything else I posted.

I like your "whatever it takes" stuff. Good. Mind if I use it? I don't just use the hard approach.

A domestic cat is sweet and cuddly and non-threatening. Sure, it's capable of killing, if killing is called for. But it's not primarily a killer. That's not its identity. Its central identity is non-threatening; the claws only come out when threatened and the purpose is to get away from the attacker.

I am sure this works really well for you but I just cant see myself pulling it off the way you can. I can see everyones eyes rolling and going glazed to anything else I tell them. Like it or not, Im just a man (wink).

I know that's not macho enough for a lot of folks. I can live with that. I'm just a girl, after all, and probably don't have the right mindset. So be it.

Now that IS sexist condescension if I have ever heard it but considering how many times I probably offended you, I can give it away.

Keep up the good work. I like the website and will continue referring folks to it. Thanks again for taking the time to contribute something useful to the thread.

Gaxicus
February 3, 2009, 06:27 PM
Yep, nothing like manufacturing evidence that might be used against you and might be difficult to successfully rebutt.

Beyond that, how might words like that be taken and used by legislators, the media, etc., and how might they impinge upon the continuation of gun rights?

No, I would say "you or not a killer. You can and will use force, including deadly force when justified, to protect yourself and family, when it is immediately necessary to do so--and at no other time."

Legislatively or in the press it does make for interesting discussion. Fodder for the gun grabbers, the media, etc.

With all of the pictures of little kids, women, and such on the news and on milk cartons, Im not sure advising people to kill a predator if they attack you is something the public would see as a bad thing. As long as the word predator isnt dropped.

"Man advises gun owners to think of themselves as predator killers" is one thing but "Man advises gun owners to be killers" is another.

I want to use strong monolithic words that force the issue so that people really face and pre-make their decisions about the moral and legal aspects of owning or carrying a gun for protection. The word everyone has a problem with is "killer" but we don't shoot to counsel, deter, maim, or wound. We shoot to kill right?

Tough. I am more than open to ideas on improving the approach.

oldkim
February 3, 2009, 06:32 PM
Glaxious,

It's all about perspective. The cart before the horse, sort of speak....


The post was about what advice you give to new gun owner.

The "mindset" is for someone that is more into the self defense and/or concealed carry use of a firearm which is something to consider..... But, this is way before that.

Some post diverged a bit so back onto topic.

So, back to advice for NEW gun owners.
1) Be safe - Safety First
2) Get some training from an experienced shooter or by an instructor
3) Read all the info you can - about gun safety and about your particular gun
4) Practice
5) If you are considering concealed carry or for home defense - read and be familiar with your state laws. Lethal force - no you can't shoot someone if they stole your car - now if they are trying to run you over that's another story. Of course, if your in the car when they are stealing it then that's a whole different situation.

New gun owners: - there's a lot of new gun owners (my weekend trip to the gun range proves that.... hands down.

Have fun and do learn how to shoot well. If you think about it. If you can shoot well - you'll have a lot more fun.

pax
February 3, 2009, 06:52 PM
Gaxicus ~

Now we're talking! ("A man never tells you anything until you contradict him." -- George Bernard Shaw ;) ) Thanks.

By the way, just to clear the air a little: when I said Glenn was right, I wasn't referring to popcorn, but to the danger of being convicted as a murderer if you continue the attack against an unconscious, helpless person who is no longer a threat to you. Of course I can be & frequently am sarcastic, but not in that first, short post ... (see the last para of my second post for a true sample -- I'll take my lumps for that one).

First , let me start by saying I don't condone beating an unconscious rapist.... but I understand. I would rather have fight like that in her than have her give up and become a statistic. Same applies to men. The story is shocking and I believe it sidetracked things as people seemed to get hung up on it.

Well, yes. I am somewhat hung up on it, and here's why: I think it illustrates our primary area of disagreement very clearly. So let's talk specifics. We can revisit the rest later, if you like -- but I suspect that focusing on this will bring everything else into sharp focus too.

1) I agree with you (absolutely!) that the "never give up or quit" mindset is essential and important. Never, ever, ever quit until you've reached your goal.

2) The story -- as told -- only partially illustrates that "never give up" mindset. It primarily illustrates a different mindset entirely. The mindset it illustrates is not "Do whatever it takes to get away safely." Instead, it illustrates, "Do whatever it takes to kill the attacker." Some people talk as if these two goals are one and the same, but in fact they are worlds apart.

Someone who is focused on survival and escape may very well kill an attacker, when the attacker and his actions are in the way of that goal. But someone who is focused on killing the attacker might instead utterly miss her one and only good chance to escape in safety, because she has tunneled in on "winning the fight." With the wrong goal thus in mind, her chances of survival go down dramatically. This is particularly true for women, among whom even the most skillful and trained are generally at a disadvantage when the assailant is male: males generally have larger bodies, greater reach, more endurance, and so on. The longer the physical assault lasts, the better it generally will be for him and the worse for her. So if she can escape safely, she should escape rather than prolong the fight. And she should steel herself to do whatever it takes to manage that escape in safety.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I think we need to very, very carefully define what a win looks like for our students. A win isn't killing the attacker. A win isn't not killing the attacker. The attacker simply doesn't matter. If he gets in the way of the goal (survival!), he's disposable. That's the mindset.

This isn't necessarily a matter of "hard" versus "soft" approaches, though at first glance it might seem so. It goes a lot deeper than that, and in fact can be illustrated through something else you said:

... shoot to kill.

That particular phrase has been hashed over, and over, and over again on this forum. And it probably will be again. For now, let's begin by agreeing that the primary point of aim is the center of the largest visible mass of the assailant's body: most commonly the area including the heart, the lungs, the aorta. Or it is the brain stem, typically reached through the sinus cavities from the front. Or it may be (in the case of a knife-armed attacker for whom a center mass shot hasn't worked, and if the head is too difficult a shot for whatever reason) a pelvic shot: bladder, bowels, and the structural support for the entire abdomen, often including the base of the spinal cord. Any of these shots will very likely kill a man, or cripple him for life. No sugarcoating here! (Forgive the digression: just wanted to be clear that when I criticize "shoot to kill" I am NOT proposing some silly idea like aiming at the assailant's left pinkie toenail ...)

Despite the fact that shooting at the center mass may very likely kill the assailant, the purpose of using these aimpoints isn't to kill. You don't choose one aimpoint over another because of the likelihood of killing versus not killing. That's not the criteria. You choose those aimpoints because they are possible. (In real life, unlike in Hollywood, many shots are impossible, for most average or even incredible shooters -- but you & I both know that!) And you choose these aimpoints because they have the highest likelihood of stopping the attack immediately and thus ensuring the victim's survival. If the attacker dies as a result, too bad so sad. But the attacker's death is not the point.

If there were a way to reliably stop the attacker -- and thus ensure the victim's survival -- by simply waving a magic wand and putting him to sleep, we'd do it. But Magic Fairy Dust isn't available, here in the real world. So here in the real world, we use firearms to stop the attacker and allow the victim to survive and escape in safety.

So I object to the very notion of "shoot to kill" not because it is bloodthirsty (or "a hard approach"), but because it is inaccurate. It does not express what I am doing or why I am doing it, when I pull the trigger in self-defense. Thinking of it as "shooting to kill", as if killing were the point of the exercise, actually prevents me from focusing on my primary goal: defending myself, surviving and escaping.

And all that brings us to the female students in particular. Are they better served by kill-kill-kill, or by a realistic, balanced, honest discussion of the dynamics of self-defense? Obviously, you've chosen the former (at least for your attention grabbers) and I've shunned that approach for -- I hope! -- the latter. As you point out, it may be that because I am female I can get away with a softer approach, one that's not particularly open for a male instructor. I don't think so, but that may be true. If so, after the kill-kill-kill spiel, I'd urge you to look for ways to underline the legal realities of self defense, in part because (in my experience at least) women are no more immune than men are to unrealistic, chest-thumping fantasies that can get them into serious legal trouble.

Oh, shall I open a can of worms here? Can't resist! Women often have an easier time in criminal court than their male counterparts, but that is changing. While a woman who kills a stranger in self-defense may have an easier journey through the "justice" system than a man who does likewise, it's not necessarily true. Personally, I would not wish to bet my life or my future on the refusal of a jury to convict me based on my sex; I'd rather bet on my own ability to avoid illegal behavior in the first place.

Of course, all of the above might mean that you and I have too deep a philosophical divide to come to a meeting of the minds about the rest, and that's okay. What a boring world it would be if everyone thought alike! :D

Thanks for the kind words about the site.

pax,

Kathy

Gaxicus
February 3, 2009, 07:02 PM
The "mindset" is for someone that is more into the self defense and/or concealed carry use of a firearm which is something to consider..... But, this is way before that.

The very first sentence in the thread is "We probably all get questions or even help train people new to firearms or those new to defensive firearms."

Admittedly the thread did take a big turn toward new defensive firearm owners but I dont think it got off topic.

So, back to advice for NEW gun owners.
1) Be safe - Safety First
2) Get some training from an experienced shooter or by an instructor
3) Read all the info you can - about gun safety and about your particular gun
4) Practice
5) If you are considering concealed carry or for home defense - read and be familiar with your state laws. Lethal force - no you can't shoot someone if they stole your car - now if they are trying to run you over that's another story. Of course, if your in the car when they are stealing it then that's a whole different situation.

All very good. Thank you

Gaxicus
February 3, 2009, 08:36 PM
I love the Shaw quote. Smart.

It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer. - Albert Einstein

I use that one when someone accuses me of beating a dead horse. (I figured I'd give it a shot on the whole rapist beating thing :o)

Ill make it quick and simple on what the lady did to the rapist in the story.

He took his life and hers in his hands when he attacked her. If she goes into a blind rage and kills him, its on him. She is no professional rape victim either. I dont think it is her that needs to be held to a higher standard here.

I don't condone it, but I understand.

On the other stuff:

Usually the part where a person says "I just cant see my self shooting another human being no matter what." is after the legal stuff has been discussed or when everyone is leaving from the range.

This is the point at which I get the pucker about that gun of theirs being used on them and/or the predators next victim. This is the most difficult part of advising people about defensive firearms for me.

I have advised martial arts classes to build confidence or as a replacement for the firearm, pepper spray, even offered to find a buyer for their gun. You could say that I am a bit hung up on it. I think with good reason.

I also believe very strongly in law abiding citizen gun ownership. I find myself conflicted because while it may be true that some people shouldn't own guns, I don't think it is those that really, really don't think like a criminal.

Most of the people who get the "Predator Killer" routine are people that just simply haven't contemplated violence on either end of it at all. God bless them but they make great victims for predators.

What they want is to be safe. They bought the gun to feel safe. The thought of actually using violence to protect themselves is just something they haven't got their head around at all. I am certainly not saying they are stupid. They are usually quite the opposite, they often pride themselves on their abhorrence of violence, but they just arent realistic about it at all. All of the rules that they live their life by, their ethics, philosophy, etc are useless when being attacked. This is also why so many people vote for gun control.

People who don't think like criminals are the folks who really should have the guns in the first place. My conflict lies in that their ignorance of violence makes them dangerous. That gun is going to end up in the hands of their attacker.

I use words like Kill, Attack, Predator because they are ugly and not easily talked around or dodged. My goal is to make them face both sides of the concept of violence and its consequences. To them, From them.

I dont think you can dismiss KILL as an incidental side effect to using a gun to stop an attack. Carry guns are very unlikely to be manstoppers in the classical sense. Kill is what can happen to them, it is what is very likely to happen to their attacker but more it is a concept they need to explore morally, legally, and intellectually.

Killing happens. Our judicial system kills, There are laws that allow our government and its employees to kill. Why? Is it a necessary part of a civilized society? Is killing murder? However you answer these questions you must answer before carrying a gun.

Killing is the ultimate extent and undeniable risk of violence. Defensive gun owners of all people should not dodge this fact but face it head on.

Ignorance begets fear

Look at the reaction to that word in my post. Are we dodging? I think maybe.

Thanks again. Its been a pleasure.

jesus5150
February 3, 2009, 08:57 PM
It's Always loaded. Even when it's not.

Gaxicus
February 3, 2009, 09:17 PM
It's Always loaded. Even when it's not.

Almost lost some toes to that once a long time ago. Im embarrassed about it because I have been around firearms my whole life. I bring it up because if it can happen to me, it can happen to you.

Consistent gun handling is critical. Every time a firearm leaves your hand, open it, check it first. When a gun goes in to your hand, open it, check it first thing.

EVERY TIME! Insist on it from the people around you EVERY TIME!

Still got 10 but barely.

BuckHammer
February 4, 2009, 12:09 AM
A domestic cat is sweet and cuddly and non-threatening. Sure, it's capable of killing, if killing is called for. But it's not primarily a killer. That's not its identity. Its central identity is non-threatening; the claws only come out when threatened and the purpose is to get away from the attacker.
I get the point, but I have to point out that in my personal experience with domesticated cats, they will kill everything that they have the capability of killing. I think of cats as killers. They are one of the most violent creatures that God made. If you have a fish tank, they'll go after the fish. If you have a bird feeder, or just birds in your environment, then they will go after the birds. It comes in great handy when you have a mouse or rat or mole problem. The only thing that a cat will not kill (maybe with a few exceptions that I am not aware of) is kittens, and anything that it is incapable of killing.

I have no idea how cats have escaped being labeled as violent creatures. They have somehow gained the "cuddly" image.

Not trying to take anything away from your post, I'm just saying.

noyes
February 4, 2009, 01:03 AM
Most of them are buying a firearm because of fear. You can just see it written all over them. This ditty is what I tell them to get out of the fear mindset.

It sounds a bit cheesy but it really pushes the right buttons. Ill spare you the intro and get right to the heart of it.


Say it to yourself.

............................................................


Hey thanks. Its often very difficult to get people to face their own ability to fight, keep fighting, and survive. Many are afraid of their own power.

I have been working on this little story for a while. I never tell it the same way twice. You really have to read your audience before associating the word "killer" with what a person thinks of themself.


.........................................................

If you ever attended a woman's self defense class you would be shocked at the things retired police officers tell them in order to get them out of prey mode.
The rapist had already victimized other women before he attacked her, he had practice. She took three knife wounds in the struggle but she survived because she kept fighting. He is rotting in jail with a colostomy bag or something like that.

..............................................................................





If you and PAX have a problem with that, take your popcorn to a victim recovery group and shut up and listen.



.......................................................................


Scared panicky people with guns, even at a range are very dangerous and prone to mistakes. Training with a firearm should start with dealing with all of that fear.

............................................


Most new defensive gun owners, Yes I do. Fidgeting, very little eye contact if any, jumpiness, extremely fast and start stop speech pattern. The big test for me is watching them load the gun in the range stall. Shaking hands, dropping rounds, bad muzzle discipline.


I have to ask , Why are they nervous ?

Did you do your talking before they hit the range.

I do not carry but after reading this I may start . Why you may ask ....you will not like my answer . Hindsight is almost always better. Maybe re-read what you posted after a while.

G-man 26
February 4, 2009, 01:12 AM
Cats are most assuredly killers. I like it when someone says that people are the only animal that kills for pleasure. I say; "Ever watch a cat?" They are cute to us at 10 to 20 times their size and weight. Ask a mouse how cute a cat is. It's perception all right, just like squirles and rats.

Glax has it right, and wrong. Your thinking it, and even teaching it, is one thing. Talking about it on the internet is another. It sounds as if you are a professional instructor. If this is true, expressing your approach on the "killer" mentality has damaged you and every one of your students, past and present. Not saying you are wrong, but it could look bad in court, even to have been trained by one espousing this view. You can take this risk for yourself, but for others?

On the other hand, I applaud your bravado. Mealy mouthed capitulation to the outright corruption of language by the liberals has had me ****** for well over a decade. We walk on egg shells for these two bit loosers, who can't win an argument without re-definition of every word in the book. You have done a rare thing, said what you mean. This kind of taking back of our language is much needed, and quite necessary if we are going to ever win the culture war we are engaged in. I am just glad I have never studied under you, that this entire thread may be used against me one day.

The "cornered cat" site is by far one of the best I have ever seen. I just sent it to everyone on my list and will expect it to go much further than that. Thank you Pax.

ohioguardsman88
February 4, 2009, 01:21 AM
1. When you are in a indoor range, don't be afraid of the loud "bang"!
2. Treat your gun as if they are LOADED at all time.
3. Experience=Knowledge=Confidence
4. Don't point that darn thing at ANYONE!
5. Attend an intro course!!!

Milspec
February 4, 2009, 08:34 AM
Don't worry so much about concealing your .44 mag that you can't extract it from your underware in time for it to be useful. If you really need deep concealment fine...but keep a BUG (LCP or similar gun) that you can get to in a hurry.

Milspec

Southern Rebel
February 4, 2009, 11:56 AM
To follow the "kitty" lne, it is obvious that we are *****-footing around with politically correct wording. The "correct" way to state our intentions is to say that we only shoot to stop the predator, not to kill him/her. To state our intent to kill brings us very close to an admission of a potential crime in the eyes of our justice system.

I believe that any reasonable person with a minimum of firearms training fully understands that shooting someone in the body regions required to stop an attack has a high probability of also killing the attacker. That reasonable person would have to step very carefully when dealing with an experienced prosecutor in court. Otherwise, he will be led to agreeing the two words, stop and kill, are interchangeable in terms of a defensive shooting.

In our modern world, there are certain buzz words that evoke immediate negative reactions. While the word sex is no longer a negative word - the word rape instantaneously evokes negative reaction. The same relationship is true for stopping versus killing when dealing with intent.

My advice for the new gunowner:

Once you learn the mechaniical, physical, and legal areas of how and when to use your gun in self-defense, learn the proper language required to defend your actions if you have to use that gun. "I am not a predator killer - I strive to be a predator stopper!"

Recon7
February 4, 2009, 12:28 PM
You have to shoot to stop an attacker. That being said, you should expect him to die if you do your job. You should be comfortable with the concept of killing somebody before you carry.

Gaxicus' theory of making new gun owners comfortable thinking and talking of the consequences of their actions has merit. We are splitting hairs if we talk of the difference of "being a killer" or "mentally prepared to become a killer". I think the concept goes far beyond hesitation to pull the trigger. sometimes self defense requires a level of offense. A person truly interested in self defense should be able to find the appropriate level of aggression to take the offense in the situation dictates.

A quick example, if you are unarmed and somebody were to try to shoot you, only to have a malfunction, you need to be capable to launch an offense, close distance, and defeat your opponent before they clear their weapon.

The name of the gamer is mental preparedness. Whatever words catchphrases of slogans gets a person there is fine. as long as they get there.

David Armstrong
February 4, 2009, 01:04 PM
I use words like Kill, Attack, Predator because they are ugly and not easily talked around or dodged.
The problem is that they are also not at all accurate for self defense purposes. We don't attack, we defend ourselves. We don't try to kill anyone, we try to get them to stop creating a problem for us. We are not predators preying on others, we are simply avoiding being prey ourselves. My $.02.

Recon7
February 4, 2009, 01:23 PM
Whats the root word in counterattack?

Fighting back is still fighting, you have to be a fighter.

Running is always a valid option, but sometimes it is not what the situation calls for.

Can anybody here really tell me that they think drawing a gun and shooting somebody is not attacking them? The justification for the attack may be the preservation of self or others, but it is still an attack.

Heck, even a predator is just trying to save himself . . . from hunger.

Gaxicus
February 4, 2009, 03:35 PM
I have to ask , Why are they nervous ?

Did you do your talking before they hit the range.

I do not carry but after reading this I may start . Why you may ask ....you will not like my answer . Hindsight is almost always better. Maybe re-read what you posted after a while.

The speech is for the people who say, after everything has been gone over, "I just can see me shooting another human being no matter what".

There they are with a new shiny gun that will likely end up in the hands of a predator if they are chosen as a victim.

What do you do? Try and make the act of shooting someone to save their life into some warm fuzzy game that really wont kill anyone? I don't think so.

The fact that they don't think like a criminal and the concept of engaging in violence, even to protect themselves, is so alien, makes them a perfect person to own a gun but totally unprepared to use it for defensive purposes.

If they are there to learn how to use the gun for defensive purposes, you need to put the guns away and talk about violence with naked truth. It starts them on the process of coming to terms with their own ability to endure and engage in violence. This process takes longer than any shooting session or class but it must be started or their gun could easily end up in the hands of a predator.

The reason they are scared? They are holding a gun. That can be a big deal to law abiding, non-violent, play by the rules, citizens. I believe that the answer to that question is ignorance as always. Ignorance not of the gun, but of themselves and their role in the world when the rules that they live by are ignored by others.

I am not molding minds of mush here. They dont turn into jumpy trigger happy thugs. Quite the opposite. As they actually face this, they become calmer, less jumpy, more settled and confident, or they realize that they should not carry a gun. Either way, it was a good outcome.

As for re-reading? Sure. They are things I would write differently. I would use different words or describe something from a different angle but the message would be the same.

David Armstrong
February 4, 2009, 03:45 PM
Can anybody here really tell me that they think drawing a gun and shooting somebody is not attacking them? The justification for the attack may be the preservation of self or others, but it is still an attack.
So the U.S. troops attacked the Japanese troops at Pearl Harbor? :confused:

Gaxicus
February 4, 2009, 04:36 PM
This thread may be a perfect example of why the first amendment came before the second.

Just about everyone likely to read this is a vehement 2nd amendment defender. I guess that is why it came as a shock to me how many times I was told to (in so many words) tone it down, use different words, you cant say that, stop giving the gungrabbers or lawyers fodder etc.

I heard it but I dont agree. I dont agree with limiting the second amendment to sporting rifles, shotguns, or other more politically correct erosions. Why would so many here call to do the same to our first amendment?

This is a public discussion where people exchange ideas. Yes, I could be sued. Yes, it could give fodder to gungrabbers. Yes, I might offend someone. No, I will not sacrifice the first amendment to please any of these people.

This thread evolved, as many others do, into a very informative discussion where important concepts were laid bare for all to see. Sometimes that isn't pretty but it is for betterment of all of us that it occur.

The bastards are are after talk radio, fox news, the internet, anywhere where they cannot control the flow and slant of information and discussion.

What good are any of these things if they dumb down and acquiesce to what the bastards want. They have readers, viewers, listeners, members, because they say things that people are interested and believe in. Stifle or dumb down their voice and the audience goes away, leaving an even more silent majority, destined to be a silent minority, without a means to spread its message.

Let them sue, let them demagogue, let them call me names, I wont voluntarily do anything to help the bastards win. Will you?

Im not saying be reckless. If you can say what you mean without being sued, offering fodder for the gungrabbers, etc. do so. If you cant say what you mean without doing so, say it anyway, and say it loud.

Glenn E. Meyer
February 4, 2009, 04:52 PM
For the person who considers the legal ramifications of self-defense, one can have appropriate mindset but be aware that if your 'good' shoot is seen as not so good (or ambiguous - which is why you are in court) - your utterances can sway a jury. It can also impact the penalty given to your attacker.

BTW, where do you teach Gaxicus? Just curious.

MothersLilHelper
February 4, 2009, 05:14 PM
Advice to new gun owners: Keep your finger out of the trigger guard, and don't buy a weapon that requires a trigger pull to field strip.

And now, because I can't resist this juicy debate:
I think, should you need to draw your weapon, that you're trying to stop the situation. If the appearance of your weapon ends the conflict, then you're done.

In a situation where there are three attackers: if shooting one makes the other two turn tail and run, you're good. The attack has been stopped. If you miss your shot, and all three turn tail and run, you're good. The attack has been stopped. I won't tell Gaxicus or anybody else what they should want, but that's what I want. I only want to stop the attack and preserve my safety.

Practicing shooting to stop means that you interrupt a bad guy's CNS or circulatory system (if you shoot.) But the goal isn't to kill; at least not for me. If the bad guy grabs the bullet out of the air with tongs and says "You know, I do believe that I don't wish to continue" then that's good--no need to be a predator killer.

Gaxicus
February 4, 2009, 05:16 PM
The problem is that they are also not at all accurate for self defense purposes. We don't attack, we defend ourselves. We don't try to kill anyone, we try to get them to stop creating a problem for us. We are not predators preying on others, we are simply avoiding being prey ourselves. My $.02.

I think you are missing the point, its probably my fault, but ( thanks to all of the discussion) I am getting a little better at explaining what i mean by all this.

When you punch, kick, scratch, etc., you are attacking, in self defense or not, all of the above will be more effective and forcefull if the person doing it is mentally prepared to attack. They need to be more than OK with it, they need to be resolved to it. They are already likely to be surprised and physically outmatched, why stack the odds even farther in the predators favor by adding hesitation and lack of force to the defender.

Killing is very likely to be the result if a defender rolls 4 rounds into an attackers chest. I believe that should be discussed in naked terms to allow the defender to be OK, and then resolved to it. Its that, or the gun ends up in the criminals hands in my view. They are much more likely to hesitate and miss without this mental resolution. Not something I can sleep well with.

A predator is what they are. They are not hungry homeless people who, through no fault of their own, are poor. They are predators. Chances are better you are the 5th or 6th person he has done this to and he is part of the drug problem or is a pervert. They are attacking you, you don't have time to sort out why, they are attacking you, therefore they are a predator.

Simple, pre-thought-out concepts that will increase effectiveness, reduce hesitation, and decrease the odds that the predator will end up with the defenders weapon.

Gaxicus
February 4, 2009, 06:16 PM
For the person who considers the legal ramifications of self-defense, one can have appropriate mindset but be aware that if your 'good' shoot is seen as not so good (or ambiguous - which is why you are in court) - your utterances can sway a jury. It can also impact the penalty given to your attacker.

BTW, where do you teach Gaxicus? Just curious.

The discussion is what I am here for, not to solicit any business, favors, or otherwise. For the very reasons you stated above, I am not going to disclose personal information. I'm not wussing out, or meaning to snub anyone, I think everything you said above has merit and I take it seriously. I would rather speak my mind and remain anonymous than water everything down and make the discussion PC or bland.

The following is not really a reason but an observation:

When people talk about their personal credentials it often turns into a (please pardon the term) "penis waving contest" and everything goes down hill quick from there. Any statements I make here should stand on their own. Good or bad.

If someone wants me to contact them in the real world, they should leave private message or a link to their real world address as you and many of you have in your signature. I may have, or choose to sign in with, a "real world" account but I am not sure what the point would be in going "real world" with this account.

Again, not a snub or wussing out, just practical and real reasons.

A big thank you to everyone that took/takes the time to contribute to the thread and the forum in general.

David Armstrong
February 4, 2009, 08:04 PM
I heard it but I dont agree. I dont agree with limiting the second amendment to sporting rifles, shotguns, or other more politically correct erosions. Why would so many here call to do the same to our first amendment?
Wait a minute...A couple of important points. The 1st Amendment has absolutely no bearing on personal exchanges, particularly on the internet. Second, nobody has said you couldn't say what you want, they have siad that they disagree with what you are saying and they have said why. Don't they get the same free speech consideration you are asking for? Lots of folks suggesting the way you are phrasing things is counterproductive and in some cases incorrect is not a 1st Amendment issue at all.

David Armstrong
February 4, 2009, 08:10 PM
When you punch, kick, scratch, etc., you are attacking, in self defense or not, all of the above will be more effective and forcefull if the person doing it is mentally prepared to attack.
AFAIK, there is nothing to support that idea. In fact, given that self-preservation is one of the strongest drives out there, it seems doubtful that they will defend better or stronger by trying to fool themselves that they are attacking rather than defending.
Killing is very likely to be the result if a defender rolls 4 rounds into an attackers chest.
So? Thta is not why you are shooting him. You are shooting him to make him stop bothering you. If he dies, he dies, but that is of no concern to why you act.
They are much more likely to hesitate and miss without this mental resolution.
Again, I don't think there is anything that would bear that out, and a lot suggests otherwise.

BuckHammer
February 4, 2009, 08:54 PM
Every owner of a gun needs to be aware of the safety rules associated with handling a firearm.

Also, I agree with others who have advised that new gun owners learn everything they can about the firearms that they own. I would specifically indicate ballistics. At least a rough idea of where the bullet is going and how it will travel is an important part of owning and using firearms. Also important is the knowledge of strengths and weaknesses, applications and capabilities of the firearms that they own.

On a different note, every new gun owner needs a good knowledge of the second amendment and what it means to own a firearm and the measures put into place to protect their right to own firearms. We're all in this together.

Gaxicus
February 4, 2009, 10:00 PM
AFAIK, there is nothing to support that idea. In fact, given that self-preservation is one of the strongest drives out there, it seems doubtful that they will defend better or stronger by trying to fool themselves that they are attacking rather than defending.


There is lots of evidence to support what I am saying about pre-decision and resolve.

The US Military, Law Enforcement, Martial Artist, and even Golfers train in very specific ways to clear and reinforce the mental path to execution.

They take the entire chain of execution from thought to result and pre-make every decision along every step in the chain until the full and complete result is achieved.

An example many of us can probably relate to:

Mentally, golfers dont swing the club, they hit the ball to where they want it to stop. The final result is part of the mental decision to start the chain of events and involved in every step along the way.

Martial Artists dont just kick, punch, or throw, They defeat their opponent. The decision and resolve to defeat their opponent is present during every link in every chain of execution. Boxers and UFC fighters rely on this to maintain strategy while they are being pummeled. Intent starts with result.

The concept of result guides the building chains of execution until it reached.

Thats what I am talking about here but I am not sure you are.

I don't believe the chain of execution will be the same up to the point of opening fire for the reasons I described above but, for the sake of this discussion, lets assume everything up to the point where you open fire is the same.

You seem to focus on guilt. You refuse to say that you will kill a predator, only that you will shoot him, when you are very likely to kill him by shooting him. You only want to own the trigger, not the entire event. If you were a martial artist, you are stuck on the kick or the punch but not the fight. See what I mean yet?

This is a potential disconnect in the mental path of execution because the result is not complete enough to be able to guide the building chain of execution. Fights dont stop just because someone shoots a gun. Ask any cop who has seen it.

You only want to accept and intend up to where you point the gun, pull the trigger, and feel the recoil.

The chain of events doesn't stop there however. Blood and gore, screaming, unnatural facial and body positions, and even nothing. All of which are huge things that can stay with you for a long time. These huge things can very easily break the chain of execution.

I mentioned that some of those things can stay with you for a long time. After its over, you probably killed him. If you haven't come to terms with that before the act and made it part of the result from the beginning of your actions, guilt will likely eat you alive regardless of what you say now. "What he hell was I thinking?!?!"

As I said before, chain of execution starts with the result. If you can start with an honest and complete result, it will likely guide the chain as it builds its way unbroken to the result. A result you know you can live with.

If you want to say the result you want to start the chain with is to shoot him,its not honest or complete because the fight may continue from there, involve other people, and he will likely die.

If it makes no sense to you, I am sorry.

It might take a competitive boxing or martial arts class for a few years to understand what I mean because Im running out of ideas in explaining it. Honestly, I did my best.

Any competitive martial artists or boxers out there?

scorpion_tyr
February 4, 2009, 11:22 PM
My advise to people new to firearms is simple.

When it comes to the legal stuff, don't listen to me or people like me. Look it up for yourself. We might be able to point you in the right direction, but don't believe it until you see it in black and white.

When it comes to the gun stuff, shoot the gun until you are 100% comfortable and confident, both in the weapon and your abilities to use the weapon.

Deet
February 5, 2009, 05:24 PM
I believe in stopping the threat with any and all means at my disposal. I may end up killing them thru my self defense measures, but I am only trying to stop them, not killing them. I firmly believe in gun control, when things get out of control, I want to be the one with the gun.

Marty Hayes
February 5, 2009, 10:22 PM
Best advice?

Read "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob.

Kline605
February 7, 2009, 05:06 PM
I would suggest to them to work through possible encounters in thier mind while going about their daily activities.

If I go to "A store", what would I do if "This" happens.

This process will allow them to have something of a general game plan in place if something should happen (Hopefully speeding up their reaction time), and it will open up new avenues in their thought process and decision making.

mflf2
February 7, 2009, 05:49 PM
First and foremost is read the owners manual and be very familiar with your firearm. Practice loading and unloading using snap caps, then go to the range and practice loading and unloading and firing with live rounds. Go with a friend and someone with some experience with firearms on your first trip to the range. I went with a US Navy veteran friend of mine.

grymster2007
February 7, 2009, 06:54 PM
Be safe, practice, shoot well and protect yourself, but don't become a tactics and training know-it-all on some forum.

R_CRUZ
February 7, 2009, 10:04 PM
However every new gun owner should buy a .22 gun or, better yet, a conversion kit. Then they should practice sight picture and trigger control. Repeat ad nauseum.

gollbladder13
February 7, 2009, 10:51 PM
However every new gun owner should buy a .22 gun

So if I buy a .22, and practice, practice, practice, and then the BG comes in and I'm ready to go with my .40, I should expect the same feel, same kick (or lackthereof), same accuracy?

Not to mention a lot of people say .22 is not stopping power enough...

Rifleman 173
February 8, 2009, 01:21 AM
# 1. Learn the safety rules about handling firearms.

#2. Get some really good training from qualified firearms instructors.

# 3. Practice. Practice. And practice some more with your firearms of choice until you're really, really good with them.

# 4. Plan ahead of trouble. Make "what if plans" to know what to do and when to do it. Review your plans frequently and often then re-vamp the plans.

# 5. Go practice some more.

Gaxicus
February 8, 2009, 10:42 AM
So if I buy a .22, and practice, practice, practice, and then the BG comes in and I'm ready to go with my .40, I should expect the same feel, same kick (or lackthereof), same accuracy?

Not to mention a lot of people say .22 is not stopping power enough...

Good point. However:

The biggest benefit that NEW people get from the range is firearm familiarity, firearm operation, muzzle discipline, problem diagnosis, trigger control, front sight operation, and marksmanship. In that order. All of which can be gained with a .22 much more cheaply than full power loads.

Recoil comfort and control is important though. I usually recommend a 357 revolver as a first handgun, especially if they spend a lot of time outdoors. They can shoot 38 all they want but the rule I make is that they shoot at least 1 full cyl of full power loads at the end of each range session.

I dont think the .22 thing would be too different from that as long as the .22 is similar in design to the full power gun.

To spend an hour shooting a full power gun would easily cost $100. A .22 of very similar design would cost $25 to shoot (with at least 1 clip of full power rounds at the end). That means the shooter can hit the range 4 times as often for the same money and the .22 would pay for itself in just a few trips to the range.

The shooter with 4 times as much range time, even if it is mostly with the .22, is going to be a better and more confident shooter as long as they finish their session with at least 1 clip of full power rounds. There is just no substitute for trigger time.

I, like many/most of you can go through a rediculous amount of expensive ammunition in one single session at the range.

Be honest, how many times have you not hit the range because you didnt want to spend a fortune. Im not poor by any stretch but $200 is $200 any way you look at it. When training up, Ill go through enough ammo to buy a gun a week. How many of us would rather have a few more guns if all we had to do was spend more time behind the plinker?

Accuracy can be incredible.

Excellent marksmanship training tool. Lots of fun too.

Hard to go wrong with a good .22 for practice

gollbladder13
February 8, 2009, 01:56 PM
Haha I stand corrected, and humbled :o

ActivShootr
February 8, 2009, 02:27 PM
BTW, where do you teach Gaxicus? Just curious.

I'm betting on the Internet.

We want credentials Mr. Guru...

Baba Louie
February 8, 2009, 02:57 PM
In no particular order (this is how it came out of my scattered head. Upon review I might re-prioritize these)

1. Safety safety safety

2. Practice regularly, seek excellent training (the best that one can afford)

3. It is a firearm, not the end all be all and is only one part of the self defense solution.

4. Learn and know local laws.

5. Retreat when one can as soon as one can.

6. Refuse to be a victim.

7. Be very aware of your environment and those around you.

8. Do everything possible to avoid trouble, but if and/or when it pays a visit, unleash the righteous monster within until trouble is "stopped".

9. Seek More excellent training.

10. Should balloon go up, it won't be stationary paper targets, it won't be like TV or the movies and it will probably be dark or low light conditions.

11. Run "what if" scenarios constantly (at home, work, in car, alone, with family or friends, parking lot, bank/ATM, etc)

12. Movement is your friend.

13. In a fight for your life, second place is not a viable option.

Gaxicus
February 8, 2009, 03:22 PM
I'm betting on the Internet.

We want credentials Mr. Guru...

Sorry.

If what I post here makes no sense to you, telling you I am some kind of expert with certs and perks to prove it isnt going to make it any clearer or more true.

Ive been shooting a long time. You can probably tell that from posts in this thread or others. The longer I shoot and the more I talk to people, the more I realize how much there is that I dont know. The discussion in this thread has great participants with excellent credentials but I really didnt see anybody throwning them around.

Call it a curse of age that you become more keenly aware of your own ignorance. I think it starts with not having anything to prove. You will probably catch me eating crow in several threads on this forum where I was wrong or somebody just had a better idea.

Hey, if youre not afraid to be wrong, you arent afraid to learn......

Im not sure what you meant by "betting on the internet" though.

U.S.SFC_RET
February 8, 2009, 03:27 PM
Know what a gun will do and what a gun will not do. Know what false confidence is vs confidence with firearms. That means training and good training means getting off with the right start in the first place. Get involved with a really good firearms instructor who is not full of himself and is concerned with you and security minded. A professional.
Know a pistol is a pistol and a rifle is a rifle. There is no comparison.

Know that the criminal mindset is not your own mindset. You cannot change people. You will not change criminal behavior. Secure your home and make it safer. If you live in a bad neighborhood then move out of it. If you cannot then make it harder to break into it. Get a dog like a German shepherd Dog (GSD) Not the kind from the AKC people. Those breeds are by and large bred for looks and not for function for the most part. Go to a specialized breeder.
If you want a particular breed of dog other than GSDs than research the breed. Golden retrievers are good for pets and a soft handling bite not for predators.

Shotguns rule IMHO. Pistols are not on top of the list for home protection.
Rifles keep criminals off of your property.

Gaxicus
February 8, 2009, 04:09 PM
Get a dog like a German shepherd Dog (GSD) Not the kind from the AKC people. Those breeds are by and large bred for looks and not for function for the most part. Go to a specialized breeder.
If you want a particular breed of dog other than GSDs than research the breed. Golden retrievers are good for pets and a soft handling bite not for predators.



All good advice. I especially like that you brought up dogs. I, like many, cant realistically keep a dog anyone would really be scared of but they dont have to be HSLD to have a big impact.

Even a small dog is great help for keeping your house alert or reading people at the door and the environment when going for a stroll. I have a scotty and my lady has a little shi tzu. While not exactly the manliest dogs to brag about on the gun board, they dont bark needlessly and you can really tell the difference in the bark when they really dont like something or feel threatened.

I cant imagine either of my dogs being very effective in actually combating a predator but they make it damn hard for them to get the element of surprise and they are going to have to deal with the barking and some biting. If time is everything in a bad situation, even little dogs can buy you some.

Besides, dogs just KFA in every way. Velocipuppies ATTACK!

Good post. Thanks

David Armstrong
February 10, 2009, 01:13 PM
There is lots of evidence to support what I am saying about pre-decision and resolve.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with "be a killer" or such. One can and does have plenty of resolve for self-preservation.
The concept of result guides the building chains of execution until it reached.
AFAIK, the preferred result is to win the event. That concept does not require any of the hyper-aggressive stuff you seem to suggest. In fact, sometiems just the opposite might be indicated.
You seem to focus on guilt. You refuse to say that you will kill a predator, only that you will shoot him, when you are very likely to kill him by shooting him. You only want to own the trigger, not the entire event. If you were a martial artist, you are stuck on the kick or the punch but not the fight. See what I mean yet?
I see what you mean, I just disagree with the presentation. I do not focus on guilt, I focus on surviving and winning. I don't refuse to say I will kill a predator, I refuse to say that I need to kill the predator. If he dies as a side-effect to my efforts, so be it, but if he lives that is fine also. It doesn't matter so long as the incident is resolved in my favor.
Fights dont stop just because someone shoots a gun. Ask any cop who has seen it.
True, but the other side of that is one does not need to kill to stop the fight. One's goal is to stop the fight, period.
After its over, you probably killed him. If you haven't come to terms with that before the act and made it part of the result from the beginning of your actions, guilt will likely eat you alive regardless of what you say now.
Sorry, but I've been doing this a long time and I've never seen anything to support those claims. In fact, there is quite a bit to counter them. You probably won't kill him, and while guilt is certainly present in some it is also not there in others.
If you want to say the result you want to start the chain with is to shoot him,its not honest or complete because the fight may continue from there, involve other people, and he will likely die.
But you make an assumption that is not valid, IMO. You don't want the result to be to shoot him, you want the result to be that he goes away and quits bothering you. If that require shooting, fine, if it doesn't, that is fine also.

Gaxicus
February 10, 2009, 03:41 PM
I see what you mean, I just disagree with the presentation. I do not focus on guilt, I focus on surviving and winning. I don't refuse to say I will kill a predator, I refuse to say that I need to kill the predator. If he dies as a side-effect to my efforts, so be it, but if he lives that is fine also. It doesn't matter so long as the incident is resolved in my favor.


I dont think we will agree on this, although I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

I am looking for a very direct concept that really pushes a specific kind of person to actually face, head on, the issues they need to in order to be able to effective in a nasty violent situation.

If I am to characterize your objection, it would be "you dont have to turn them into a predator in order to do this" Is that a fair assessment?

I dont think I am turning them in to a predator.

You start with a person that just cant see themselves being violent, even to save their life. After all the conventional training, they just still cant see it.

Breaking through their irrationalizations about violence will not make an anti-violent, rule of law oriented, gazelle type hyper-agressive as you say, it will help them face the things in themselves that will likely cause hesitation, weak execution, and possible disarmament.

I am helping them face and make decisions about their role in the world when all the rules they live their life by are ignored by a predator. They dont end up liking violence. They have looked it square in the eye and have decided what they must do if faced with it.


They must be able to fight before flight, the predator is counting on flight or panic.
They need to be able to be hurt and still fight.
They need to be able to attack their attacker with force, intent, and relentless determination.
They need to be able to press an advantage to force a hasty retreat by the predator or do enough damage that the predator is incapable of further attack.
They need to draw and fire the weapon several times without hesitation once the decision is made that is justified. Even reload and repeat.
They need to be capable of killing because if they are using a firearm to defend themselves and they use it effectively, the predator will likely be dead.


Your turn sir.

Im not talking the average person, Im talking about the one described above. The training is over they have heard all of the legal and moral justifications but they still just cant see themselves being violent or pulling the trigger even once to defend themselves.

Their abhorrance of violence makes them ideal responsible citizens, but it also makes them ideal victims for a predator, and very likely to lose their gun to the predator. They are looking to you to change that.

You have been doing this a long time, tell us how you accomplish the above list of things in this kind of person.

My method was certainly scrutinized as not PC enough, not nice enough, even that it would turn normal people into predators.

While my method has been criticized by the PC crowd and the nice people, yours will likely be criticized by those who want to guarentee the highest chance of success for this kind of person.

Its easy enough to criticize, I challenge you to subject your method to criticism as I have done.

Im not afraid to be wrong here, if it has a higher chance of success, I will use it.

Atticum
February 10, 2009, 04:41 PM
Glax,

It doesnt take a trainer to see the flaws in your approach.

Awareness, honesty, and education are key components to firearm ownership. Prerequisites even.

Your approach may be effective in creating a psychological state in which your trainees possess the mad-dog-mean mentality that life and death situations require.

Therein lies the error... creating a psychological state that you've manufactued in them through the manipulation of their emotion to convince them that they are someone they are not.

This is not what should be fostered in a new defensive gun owner. It is promoting a mindset of bloodlust as opposed to thinking clearly. Confidence should come from their own self-honestly, oppenness, clarity of thought, and knowledge/education about their weapon, situation and capabilities.

sserdlihc
February 10, 2009, 05:08 PM
The best advice that I would give to any new gun owner would be to get out the range as much as possible!!

Gaxicus
February 10, 2009, 05:21 PM
Your approach may be effective in creating a psychological state in which your trainees possess the mad-dog-mean mentality that life and death situations require.

You are missing it entirely. The mad dog stuff you are talking about is getting them to face to concept of violence way prior to any actual event.

It could be that I have been ineffective at explaining myself but it could also be that some people get hung up on the strong words and wont see anything else.

I am not the cobra kai instructor in the karate kid. Telling people to KILL EM ALL! or such nonsense.

Therein lies the error... creating a psychological state that you've manufactued in them through the manipulation of their emotion to convince them that they are someone they are not.

Again, I dont think it possible to remanufacture their personality even with these strong words. The exercise is meant to get the people who have not faced the concept of violence and their role it, to do so with realism, honesty, acceptance, and resolve.

It is promoting a mindset of bloodlust as opposed to thinking clearly.

I dont think you have read enough of this thread to be able to justify the statement that I am promoting bloodlust or that I train people to be mad dogs.

Remember the people that get this routine are the ones who, after all of the range time and discussion, say they still dont think they could use the gun to defend themselves.

The term is "predator killer", not just "killer" as you and others want to characterize it. Please ponder the difference for a few minutes before replying with another post like this.

The exercise is meant to get the person to try on the identity of someone who can kill a predator that attacks them and have a discussion of the differences in themselves. It identifies barriers in their chain of execution and allows them to be discussed.

What are the differences in the state of mind that this predator killer has than me?
Is it even ok to kill an attacking predator?
What is a predator?
What is the predator counting on me to do?
What must I do instead?
What state of mind must I have to do these things?
If I needed to, could I be a predator killer?

Ask yourself all of these questions and then tell me it made you into a bloodlusted mad dog.

I didnt think so.

oldkim
February 10, 2009, 05:35 PM
Glaxicus,

I have to say sir, you have missed some points here.

If you re-read the threads here it's all about perspective. Again, this is advice for new shooters. Not someone going to Iraq.

Yes, there is a "mindset" that is good to develop for more experienced concealed carry holders but that's a whole different thread. But I would say this line of thought as you have proposed may be a bit "over the top" for even such a topic thread.

Atticum, I feel is right on the nose with their comments about your posting.

Again, your wordage and intent and intense perspective is a bit off. Using the killer and killing and to kill and on and on... I would say this: I have read over and over from novice to experienced shooters commenting on your postings. I can't recall seeing one that see's what you are trying to say.

I don't think it's because of what your not saying or even how you think you are saying it.... it's the intensity, the overkill, the over the top message you are sending that has me questioning your post.

Can a moderator lock this thread. It's not an appropriate thread for new gun owners. I mean it's meant to give advice to new gun owners? It's getting lost in all this .... BS

Gaxicus
February 10, 2009, 05:54 PM
Yes, there is a "mindset" that is good to develop for more experienced concealed carry holders but that's a whole different thread.

Here is a quote of the first sentence of the thread, notice the term "defensive firearms".

"We probably all get questions or even help train people new to firearms or those new to defensive firearms. "

Can a moderator lock this thread. It's not an appropriate thread for new gun owners. I mean it's meant to give advice to new gun owners? It's getting lost in all this .... BS

Wow. I was wondering when someone that thinks they know what is best for everyone would call for the censorship of something they dont agree with, understand, or have probably not read in its entirety.

The post is not for new gun or defensive gun owners, its for the people that get called upon for training or advice.

The discussion in this thread is excellent. Anyone exposed to any of the training approaches discussed here will get to see counterpoints to it. Great stuff. I have picked up some new things to think about and I think others have too.

There have been, and continue to be, highly qualified people posting to this discussion. If they are commenting on it, its probably worth reading.

You are the newest person to post to this thread, the one whe seems to undestand it the least, and the first to call for its censorship. That doesnt bother a person like you in the slightest does it?

Brian Pfleuger
February 10, 2009, 06:08 PM
I suspect that the main disagreement in this thread is with the presentation of method rather than, or at least more than, the method itself.

There is a distinct psychological change is a person between 2 seconds before they are required to use deadly force and the moment they actually DO use that force.

I have no doubt that there are people who carry a gun for SD and who would stand there pointing it at a BG until said BG walks right up and takes the gun, just like we see in the movies.

I also have no doubt that a good instructor will try to make their students aware of that weakness if they see it.

Gaxicus
February 10, 2009, 06:11 PM
I suspect that the main disagreement in this thread is with the presentation of method rather than, or at least more than, the method itself.

There is a distinct psychological change is a person between 2 seconds before they are required to use deadly force and the moment they actually DO use that force.

I have no doubt that there are people who carry a gun for SD and who would stand there pointing it at a BG until said BG walks right up and takes the gun, just like we see in the movies.

I also have no doubt that a good instructor will try to make their students aware of that weakness if they see it.

Nailed it. Thank you.

oldkim
February 10, 2009, 06:12 PM
Glaxicus,

Censorship? Hmm, I gave my reason for locking IMO a useless thread. Ironically, you started this thread and your first post was very good. I had high hopes to "teach" new gun owners something...

But you sir.

Your immediate second post is a totally different story.

Re-read your own first post


"The best advice we can give to new gun owners

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

We probably all get questions or even help train people new to firearms or those new to defensive firearms. I've heard people offer some bad, some useless, but mixed in there is usually some really good stuff.

In what could be a very useful thread to all of us and the lucky new gun owner that comes this way, lets put some of it down in print."


Now, look at all the useless post you have responded to and have responded to you. To what end?? This is not teaching.

There has been several direct question to your credentials. I see you have none. That's not bad? I guess... Experience does count for something but it's plainly painfully obvious you have none.

The internet is a great tool but one that can be used badly. I say sir... you are on that end of the spectrum. You have highjacked your own thread and from a possibly good one to a very warped one indeed.

Gaxicus
February 10, 2009, 06:26 PM
I gave my reason for locking IMO a useless thread.

And that opinion of yours is enough in your mind to lock it to those who are, or might in the future, participate in it.

Hey! Just move on to something else, not useful to you, why are you still here?

The internet is a great tool but one that can be used badly. I say sir... you are on that end of the spectrum. You have highjacked your own thread and from a possibly good one to a very warped one indeed.

I hijacked my own thread...... Astounding logic there. You say this, of course, because you found it useless to what you expected to find here. The internet is not yours to judge. Dont like it, move along.


Now, look at all the useless post you have responded to and have responded to you. To what end?? This is not teaching.

To what end? Its what we were discussing before you got here.

Our exchange might be the most useless hijacking of the thread and I dont intend to continue making that mistake. You didnt like it, just move along.

Kurt2k
February 10, 2009, 06:47 PM
Good thread. Thank you for posting, Gax.

oldkim
February 10, 2009, 06:49 PM
Glaxicus,

Hmm, you just pushed the wrong button in me today.

I was going to totally drop this thread and let it go. Where - ever you nut will take it.

I was going to go away. But I think I'll take you up on your logic here. And attack. Not letting this go. No no no.

I will review in pain staking detail over and over on this thread. As you probably know I do quite a bit. So, we will begin.

Oh, after this short break... I have to go back to my patient :-)

But, before I go. Let's do talk about credentials here. Oh, how did you put it? Hmm, oh measuring my penis to yours. I guess you don't have one since there is nothing to put up on the table.

Will Be back.

David Armstrong
February 10, 2009, 06:52 PM
If I am to characterize your objection, it would be "you dont have to turn them into a predator in order to do this" Is that a fair assessment?
Not really. My objection is that you are making claims for a method of training that seems to have nothing to support it other than your own belief system, as well as teaching attitudes that are quite probably counterproductive for SD issues.
You start with a person that just cant see themselves being violent, even to save their life. After all the conventional training, they just still cant see it.
As mentioned, I doubt there is much to support this idea, and so far you have given us no reason to believe there is any validity to this assumption of yours. Obviously the person CAN see themselves as being violent, otherwise they would not be getting this type of training.
Their abhorrance of violence makes them ideal responsible citizens, but it also makes them ideal victims for a predator, and very likely to lose their gun to the predator.
And yet we see on a regular basis the typical, normal responsible citizen, who dislikes the idea of violence, stepping up and engaging in an appropriate level of violence needed to win the encounter. If you have some numbers on folks who lose their guns because they are "ideal victims" and how likely it is, I'd sure like to see it.
You have been doing this a long time, tell us how you accomplish the above list of things in this kind of person.
I don't accomplish some of the things on your list. There is no need to accomplish some of the things on your list. Some of the things on your list you claim are contradicted by all the available information. What I do is simple...train my clients to minimize their loss of resources through a measured, controlled, and appropriate response when placed in danger. I don't need to convince them to be hyper-aggressive killers for that.
Its easy enough to criticize, I challenge you to subject your method to criticism as I have done.
Ummm, given that I've been training folks how to fight and survive for about 3 decades, I'll assume my methods have been thoroughly scrutinized and criticized. Anybody who wants to do so is quite welcome to do so.

Gaxicus
February 10, 2009, 06:55 PM
Best advice?

Read "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob.

It is quoted often. I think you're right. Time to sit down and finally read it cover to cover.

pax
February 10, 2009, 07:22 PM
Hey everyone,

Take a deep breath.

Think twice, post once.

Thanks.

pax

Gaxicus
February 10, 2009, 07:24 PM
Not really. My objection is that you are making claims for a method of training that seems to have nothing to support it other than your own belief system, as well as teaching attitudes that are quite probably counterproductive for SD issues.


Im going to try and distill things as best I can to the points of contention.

Has this ever happened to you?

All of the safety, technical, legal, and shooting is done. A person got through all of that fine comes up to you and expresses that even after everything they learned, they just cant see themselves shooting another human being.

What is your approach to this circumstance?

Thats what I am talking about here. Not most people, not average people, but these people.

I've been chastized for not giving personal information or qualifications. I gave my reasons and said anything I say should stand on its own.

You claim 30 years of experience and a PHD in your profile. With all of that, why so hesitant to offer up your approach here to the same scrutiny you are so willing to dish?

I dont just mean this as part of a silly arguement. I, and probably many reading this thread, are very interested in how someone with your qualifications would approach this.

BuckHammer
February 10, 2009, 07:37 PM
Gaxicus, maybe you can find some of the information you are looking for at these sites.

http://www.faculty.mcneese.edu/armstrng/ (http://pages.prodigy.net/darm441/index.html)
http://pages.prodigy.net/darm441/index.html (http://www.faculty.mcneese.edu/armstrng/)

Gaxicus
February 10, 2009, 07:43 PM
Good thread. Thank you for posting, Gax.

Im glad you like it. I have been introduced to plenty of stuff to think about. I might bark a bit here and there but I really try to keep it productive and interesting. Heck, I have to try and keep it from getting locked up!.

If you look at the part where Pax takes me to task it is really good stuff. I dont think we agree or disagree in huge ways but anyone reading that is going to get a full look at the issue without name calling or a pointless penis waving contest.


Hey everyone,

Take a deep breath.

Think twice, post once.

Thanks.

pax

Great advice as always Pax. Thanks.

Gaxicus
February 10, 2009, 07:46 PM
Gaxicus, maybe you can find some of the information you are looking for at these sites.

http://www.faculty.mcneese.edu/armstrng/
http://pages.prodigy.net/darm441/index.html

Ok, now I really want to know what he has to say in his next post. I hope he has something better to offer than I did. Whether it worked or not, clearly there are plenty of experienced folks here that object to it. I hope he will give us something new to talk about.

Gaxicus
February 10, 2009, 08:06 PM
Hmm, you just pushed the wrong button in me today.

I dont want to push your buttons. In your profile it says you are a certified NRA instructor. We dont have to keep rehashing the stuff I put up there. Its been through the ringer enough already.

Im sure you have stories or an approach that worked well for you. Please share a tidbit or two.

noyes
February 10, 2009, 08:24 PM
Small game hunting . Than clean it & eat it.

For the one's no sure of protecting themself's.

Gaxicus
February 10, 2009, 08:35 PM
Small game hunting . Than clean it & eat it.

For the one's no sure of protecting themself's.

I once had a great discussion with someone that thought it unethical to eat meat unless a person had killed, dressed, prepared, and eaten their own kill at least once.

Is that kind of where you are going with that?

Gaxicus
February 10, 2009, 09:10 PM
An open invitation to anyone who has read the entire thread, or at least the exchange between myself and Dax, to revise or replace the "Predator Killer" in the circumstances it was used.

I know it, or the words used in it, evoked a lot of discussion. I remain convinced I am onto something but must admit that it needs work, some would say trashing altogether.

I asked for help improving it in the very post I outlined it in. So rather than just having people post criticisms of it, lets start building something that works better.

Here is the scenario I want to address:

A person learns safety, operation, troubleshooting, and marksmanship in a self defense class. The legal and ethical stuff has been gone over, they get it and pass all segments no problem.

Then they approach you explaining that even with all that they have learned, they just cant see themselves shooting another human being under any circumstances.

So, there they are with their new gun, they know they are unlikely to be able to use it, they are looking to you to help them, what do you say?

One of my biggest concerns is that they will keep the gun and when they need it most, the predator will end up with it.

Clearly there are a lot of mental and emotional obstacles on the part of the person asking for help. What is your approach?

Sigma 40 Blaster
February 10, 2009, 09:21 PM
Talk to them about the four rules of gun safety, take them to the range a couple of times to re-enforce safety/handling. Show them where deadly force laws in TX are on the Internet.

Encourage them to take a real intro and intermediate shooting class and to at least come watch an IDPA or IPSC match.

Glenn E. Meyer
February 10, 2009, 09:53 PM
I have no doubt that there are people who carry a gun for SD and who would stand there pointing it at a BG until said BG walks right up and takes the gun, just like we see in the movies.


While that is a predictable risk - the data on DGUs from Kleck doesn't indicate that this happens a great deal. It was an argument against the shall issue laws and it hasn't come to pass.

Interestingly, I did see once in FOF with a guy who claimed he was a big deal martial artist.

Many folks teach mindset with terms that probably won't bite you in court. Also, in a DGU - you probably won't kill anybody - so can we talk about what usually happens as compared to fantasy blood/death scenarios?

Here is the point - you have to be ready to use the gun - as Ayoob says (if one reads him - surprising to have missed that book) - deal with the Question - can you use lethal force. But someone who teaches should not say you will probably kill someone - that indicates a lack of knowledge of what actually happens.

It's like the folks who say if someone comes into their house, they will be dead. No - you should be ready to act.

So if one teaches They need to be capable of killing because if they are using a firearm to defend themselves and they use it effectively, the predator will likely be dead.

they really don't know the reality of defensive gun use.

pax
February 10, 2009, 10:29 PM
Gaxicus ~

You need to go back and re-read, maybe. I don't so much object to the words you used. But I do object -- strongly! -- to the entire concept you were expressing with those words.

Earlier, you said something (to another poster) that showed how thoroughly you'd missed my original point. And you are still missing it. So let me try again.

Here's what you said:
Mentally, golfers dont swing the club, they hit the ball to where they want it to stop. The final result is part of the mental decision to start the chain of events and involved in every step along the way.

Martial Artists dont just kick, punch, or throw, They defeat their opponent. The decision and resolve to defeat their opponent is present during every link in every chain of execution. Boxers and UFC fighters rely on this to maintain strategy while they are being pummeled. Intent starts with result.

The concept of result guides the building chains of execution until it reached.

This is exactly right. Action starts with intent. Our students won't do the right thing under stress unless they have the right goal in mind. We're solidly in agreement on that point.

Unfortunately, immediately after that is where we part ways. And I think, if you look around on this thread, you will find a lot of very qualified people telling you the same thing: the goal of self-defense is NOT killing the attacker. The goal of self-defense is ... (drumroll please) ... SELF-DEFENSE.

You do whatever it takes to defend yourself and you keep doing it until you know you are safe.

You stop immediately as soon as you are safe.

That's self-defense.

So despite what you've said above, this isn't about the words you use. It isn't a plea to be gentler or kinder or whatever nonsense you've ascribed to this idea. This is a serious conversation about the goal you're presenting to your students. By telling your students that the goal is to kill the attacker, you're doing a disservice to your students. You're giving them a goal that is likely to lead them into practical and tactical trouble immediately, and into legal trouble later.

Tactical trouble? Sure! Just as the martial artist trains to strike through the attacker (or the innocent pine board standing in for an attacker in the dojo), an intelligent person training for self-defense always, always, always keeps the ultimate goal in mind, striking through the attacker to the ultimate goal of survival and escape. Focusing on the attacker's death is stopping too soon, tactically speaking.

As I said earlier:


Someone who is focused on survival and escape may very well kill an attacker, when the attacker and his actions are in the way of that goal. But someone who is focused on killing the attacker might instead utterly miss her one and only good chance to escape in safety, because she has tunneled in on "winning the fight." With the wrong goal thus in mind, her chances of survival go down dramatically. This is particularly true for women, among whom even the most skillful and trained are generally at a disadvantage when the assailant is male: males generally have larger bodies, greater reach, more endurance, and so on. The longer the physical assault lasts, the better it generally will be for him and the worse for her. So if she can escape safely, she should escape rather than prolong the fight. And she should steel herself to do whatever it takes to manage that escape in safety.

Strike through the attacker to your own safety. Don't stop at the wrong goal.

****

Setting that aside for something even further back, more foundational, in your philosophy. I'm increasingly disturbed by the attitude I see in your posts toward your students. Frankly, as a student myself I would have a difficult time learning from an instructor who had as much contempt for me as your posts appear to express toward your students.

My own philosophy toward beginning defensive shooters is simply this: they purchased guns for self-defense because they have made the decision that their lives are worth defending. They enrolled in a class because they already understand that using a firearm in self-defense is deadly serious stuff. So I believe these folks are adults who are capable of making their own choices when given good information, so they don't need cheerleading or brow-beating. They don't need motivational speeches or emotional tricks. What they need is good, solid instruction in the basics, including physical skills, some understanding of defensive tactics, and the legal underpinnings of lawful self-defense in our society. They need trigger time, realistic targets, and an honest discussion of the social, legal, and physical aftermath of shooting events. With those elements in place, there's no adult on the planet who would somehow fail to grasp that using a gun constitutes lethal force – and these educated people are much more emotionally and psychologically prepared to cope with the realities of self-defense than is someone who merely responded to an emotional pep talk full of powerful buzzwords.

Defensive firearms students do need to come to the place where they are emotionally, psychologically, morally, and ethically okay with the idea of deliberately taking an attacker's life. No question about that.

My contention is that a little more respect for your students' decision making process would go a long way in your credibility here. They're adults!

Of course when you talk to people who have not yet been educated about the realities of self-defense, they are going to express some pretty silly ideas. Sometimes the newly educated haven't yet absorbed the full impact of what they've been taught, and they'll also have some strangely offbeat thoughts. But the way to get those silly ideas out of them isn't by browbeating them with emotional appeals. It's by educating them and presenting what they need to know. When given the full information they need, they'll make the right decision for themselves, and won't need the empty-of-content but full-of-emotion pep talk. If they are motivated only by a pep talk, they might walk out of your class feeling pretty good and energized and enthusiastic ... but it won't last. It'll wear off. Emotions always do.

True education doesn't wear off. It changes the shape of the student's mind forever. A mind that's been stretched by a new idea, even one it later rejects, never returns to exactly its former shape...

pax

pax
February 10, 2009, 11:00 PM
Moving along ...

Here is the scenario I want to address:

A person learns safety, operation, troubleshooting, and marksmanship in a self defense class. The legal and ethical stuff has been gone over, they get it and pass all segments no problem.

Then they approach you explaining that even with all that they have learned, they just cant see themselves shooting another human being under any circumstances.

So, there they are with their new gun, they know they are unlikely to be able to use it, they are looking to you to help them, what do you say?


I look them in the eye and tell them, "Then you should not carry a firearm."

And I stop there.

It is up to the student to make the connection for him- or herself from that point.

And they do ... sometimes awhile later. As an example of this type of process, one friend of mine attended LFI-1, then put her gun away for nearly three months while she emotionally digested the class. She re-armed a few months after the class and has never stepped out of her house unarmed since then. She says that class deeply affected her because she suddenly understood the huge responsibility the firearm represented, and that it caused her to pull out her ethics and really look at them. That's a meaningful change -- though probably not within the comfort zone of enough instructors who want to force their students into the right mindset immediately.

You just gotta have a little faith in what you're presenting, and enough faith in your students to let them find their own paths.

pax

skydiver3346
February 10, 2009, 11:17 PM
You know when I got my first gun, I wasn't sure how or exactly when I would use it (in a tight situation), defending myself or my family. I asked a lot of people what they thought (especially my LEO friends). Most said these three things:

1. Go to the range and practice shooting larger targets (center of mass). As you get more proficient, move target back and practice at that range and maybe go to smaller size targets. Then mix up the distance, close and up to 7-15 yards for example. After this, you will feel a lot more confident in handling your weapon (no matter the caliber). This is very important, because a lot of folks buy guns and end up never practicing loading/unloading and firing their guns. They have no confidence and when and if the time comes to have to use deadly force, they will no doubt have big problems.

2. After you have become proficient and confident with your weapon, you next need to become DELIBERATE........... This is extremely important. You must decide ahead of time what you will do if the time ever comes to defend yourself. It is a mind set that becomes easier as your think more about it. Plan ahead what you would do if you or your family member's life is ever placed in danger. How are you going to react? No time to really give it a lot of thought because you may just have seconds to react. Think about how would you handle different scenarios, at your home, auto or other areas (if you have a carry permit).

3. When and if the time ever comes, (React with a purpose and do not hesitate). When and if you are forced to have to use your weapon,
USE IT.................

I hope the day never comes that I have to put these steps in action. But, if it does, I know (without a doubt) that I will do what I have been training to do to, (protect myself and my family). Good luck to you.

Gaxicus
February 11, 2009, 12:41 AM
So if one teaches
Quote:
They need to be capable of killing because if they are using a firearm to defend themselves and they use it effectively, the predator will likely be dead.

they really don't know the reality of defensive gun use.

In a study of police shootings in Sand Diego (http://www.sdcda.org/files/OIS_Report_100907.pdf), From 1996 through 2006, the SDCDA investigated 200 OIS cases with 201 suspects. Total cases per year ranged from a low of 10 in 1996 to a high of 24 each in 1997 and 2002. The percentage of fatal shootings ranged from 42% (2002) to 79% (2005) of the total shootings. In 61% of the cases, only 1 officer shot a suspect. There were 2 officers in 44 cases and 3 in 20 cases. Of the remaining, 6 cases had 4 officers firing, 3 had 5 and 1 case each had 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 officers.

Ive spent some time shooting with police officers, on average, they arent super marksmen by any stretch but they are probably a bit better than the average joe.

If you can hit your attacker in a shooting 15% of the time and fire 3-4 times per target with formal training, you can match the generally accepted shooting proficiency of the police. Interestingly, the revolver hit percentage was 25% in an older study.

If you want to use stats, studies, etc, fine. But before you go crazy quoting them and quibbling over a few points, deal with this one.

Depending on the statistics you want to use, 91-99% of the time a gun is used defensively, it is never fired. Statistically speaking, maybe we dont need training, to be able to pull the trigger, or even bullets.

I dont think Im going to rely on those statistics to defend my life or family. I dont think anyone should. My point is let the numbers fall where they may, make your own choices and do your part to protect yourself.

Whatever an "expert", statistics, or surveys might say, firearms are considered a lethal weapon in every state of the union. Use of a gun in a defensive situation is considered using a lethal weapon.

Suggesting otherwise is not only incorrect but irresponsible.

noyes
February 11, 2009, 12:48 AM
I once had a great discussion with someone that thought it unethical to eat meat unless a person had killed, dressed, prepared, and eaten their own kill at least once.

Is that kind of where you are going with that?


No not quite.




PAX has it all covered from A-Z & 1 to Infinity......gezzzz. I most definitely would not want to be on your bad side PAX . Excellent information PAX

Gaxicus
February 11, 2009, 01:18 AM
My contention is that a little more respect for your students' decision making process would go a long way in your credibility here. They're adults!

Pax, I read and reread what you posted recently. I like all of it and can find ways to agree with at least 90% of it. I especially like the story of the woman that "disarmed" for a few months to digest what she learned in the class.

I have struggled with what to do about that situation for quite some time. The only thing I would really take issue with is that I don’t think it is enough to say "you shouldn’t carry a firearm" and drop it at that.

A list of decisions they need to make, some book references, maybe even a web site that specifically addresses this issue could really help people "digest" what they are truly undertaking. It probably wouldn’t hurt to make it a prerequisite for the class.

There is really only one more major thing. In the above quote you chastise me for not treating people like adults. It could be argued that soft selling or avoiding the psychological issues and the harsh realities of defensive firearm use is treating people like children. I believe people need to face this stuff head on. I think that is treating them like adults.

Again, I liked what you wrote. Im probably going to reread it again to make sure I didn’t miss anything I should respond to.

Thanks again.

flippycat
February 11, 2009, 03:30 AM
After reading and rereading just to be sure I still knew the point of the thread and it being based in tactics and training I would assume "The best advice we can give to new gun owners".... "who are planing to use it for home/personal defense" is the topic.

The obvious has all been stated already, safety, practice, law, safety, practice, law etc etc ..

Though I did just want to comment on one aspect which I think is something not touched on really well at least in my words. We are all individual people, we all have our own way of thinking, all have personal trigger levels on what it is we consider a threat.

Sure there are laws in place as a guide line to determine these levels for us/people to keep them on the good side of a bad outcome. And tactical hd training can be a tool to teach people to stay in the boundaries of those areas as well as personal research, a mandatory part of gun safety which should always be just as important in knowing how to use a firearm safely.

Though, I think any new owner should be honest with themselves first and foremost as to what they believe is their trigger point based on who they are inside and see if that even follows the laws and guide lines in place to begin with. Building confidence through martial arts does not change a personal trigger level it only allows you to deal with it more effectively. Same can be said for firearm practice and training, constant grouping in the center mass in an area the size of a dime and knowing when to stop in a situation does not change your personal trigger level, it only allows you to control it more effectively. Sure, habits,reaction and rules of engagement can be taught but how do you teach instinct based on someones fear level based on an unknown actual scenario?

I know I am wrong in thinking that people just do not show up at the gun store and say I want to buy a gun without considering this (prior victims aside). This is a mentality I have never understood. And I am able to say that I would find it extremely hard to believe that you can reprogram someone or offer advice to someone with that extreme impulse mindset into knowing what is right and wrong if a situation requiring them to discharge a firearm happened.

I feel a new non impulse owner for hd/pd should truly know where their trigger level fits in regards to what is deemed by the majority as being acceptable practice. Knowing this about themselves first should be a determining factor in if they should own a firearm or even if they should bother fighting back at all and rely on the compassion and goals of the attacker to determine their fate.

Sadly those who do not address that trigger level will be bound to make a mistake and will face what is so jokingly addressed and condoned as part of the proper punishment if you go to jail besides the time away from society. The whole "drop the soap" or "a visit from bubba" or just psychically fighting to survive daily which leos/judges and society so freely joke about but expect.

You need to ask yourself, is your trigger level comparative to what you face if you make a mistake? Sadly asking yourself this question will make you wonder if the risk you take engaging someone climbing through your window is worth having to protect your backdoor and life daily for 15 to 20 years based on what you thought was right at the time because it set your personal trigger level off.

With that being said my advice for a new non impulse gun owner for hd/pd, do not just learn about gun safety, proper procedure and laws. Know your trigger level. You do not need to kill to make a mistake and pay the price. Learn about what you will actually face daily if you make a mistake in the eyes of the prosecution in regards to the use of your new purchase. You will not be put away from society with others who made the same mistake you did trying to defend themselves or home, you will be put in with people who have done things above and beyond what it may of taken to set your personal trigger level off. Can you deal with that without a firearm? It should be a determining factor if you just bought your first one and think you may want to use it.

If you can honestly say from your inner core, your personal trigger level stays within the scope of boundary's set for you by law and safety then you should feel confident that if the time comes you will make the right decision based on everything you learned about the law,safe practices and yourself when you chamber your round for hd/pd.

I do apologize if I seemed a little gloom and doom, but it just sort of bothered me the last few days. I have seen a few threads where it is insinuated that reacting on a personal trigger level makes someone a killer without any consideration on the actual deep and personal depths some may have to endure to even get to the point of purchase of a firearm.

I myself was given my first firearm at 10 and was trained to hunt with it. But when I was no longer protected by my father in life I had to address the realization that I may need to call on the tool that provided my family food for 8 years to also protect myself. It takes a lot of soul searching even after you know the laws, safety and know how to shoot to determine if your life means more then others even if you do not intentionally mean to end one while protecting your own. So to those that seem to throw around the word killer, you should really stop and take the time to determine at what value you hold your own life at before you dare judge what others hold theirs at.

Give the benefit of the doubt before you judge the majority of gun owners and know we are well aware of the gift that we all have to breath and live life. That a majority respect such a precious gift and that we have taken the time out of our limited gift to know what we should or should not do to protect the gift we were given when faced against someone trying to take it from us.

Gaxicus
February 11, 2009, 04:29 AM
I enjoyed reading that. Thank you.

Points taken.

David Armstrong
February 11, 2009, 01:20 PM
Has this ever happened to you?
Sure, quite often. At which point I generally discuss things like the idea that your children probably don't want to have to plan your funeral any earlier than necessary, your spouse probably wants to have a few more years of enjoying your company, etc. Seems to work just fine. Personally I would question whether your "killer" conditioning works any better than anything else, if at all.
You claim 30 years of experience and a PHD in your profile. With all of that, why so hesitant to offer up your approach here to the same scrutiny you are so willing to dish?
I claim nothing I haven't earned. And I'm not hesitant to offer up my approach at all. In fact, I think I've posted how I would do what you are trying to do as a counterpoint to your ideas. If you have anything in particular or specific, please feel free to ask. I'm not at all sure what you mean by reference to some "approach to this" outside of what I've already said.

Gaxicus, maybe you can find some of the information you are looking for at these sites.
FYI, the university site is about 10 years old, so much of the info there is rather dated.

Vanya
February 11, 2009, 04:35 PM
Interesting, thought-provoking thread.

Pax, thank you for doing such a fine job of pulling this one back from the realm of anatomical invective -- I was a little surprised to see it still open today. And thanks to all who've responded intelligently to each other's points of view.

I've been following this from the perspective of a fairly new (5 years or so) gun owner, one who has struggled a lot with the issues raised here. I think Pax has it exactly right when she stresses the need to think in terms of self-defense -- survival, not killing someone, is the primary objective.

But the words we use do matter: they influence how we think and how others see us. And a term like "predator killer"... I dunno, it sounds sort of like we're not talking about actual human beings any more, but some sort of animals. "Predators" is a popular term, around here, for "bad guys," violent criminals -- I've used it that way myself. But I'm wondering right now if this is a way of dehumanizing people we see as dangerous, and if so, is that a good idea?

As a potential student rather than an instructor, I don't think I'd want to take any kind of self-defense training that encouraged me to think of a person who threatens me, no matter what he does, as less than human. OK, a rotten one, maybe -- but still a human being. I will do what I have to do to keep myself from being a victim, but it's the hell of a responsibility: I really, sincerely hope I never have to shoot someone in self-defense, no matter how much justification there is, and I don't think I want to try to "prepare myself" by thinking about potential attackers as less than human.

Gaxicus
February 11, 2009, 07:28 PM
My Stone Age positions on self defense and defensive firearm use:

People new to defensive firearms usually have fears and misconceptions they need to get through in order to be safe and/or effective at using a firearm defensively. It is neither safe nor effective for an instructor to not do their part to address this.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. These fears and misconceptions should be dealt with head on with simple and direct language. While much of this can only be done by the “student” themselves, the instructor must do their part.

There is no such thing as a .45 caliber 240 grain hollow point taser. I don’t care what “experts” say, shooting someone is using lethal force.

A trained shooter opening fire on a human being is very likely to result in death. That means killing here folks. The shooter needs to own that and be resolved to that fact before using a firearm for defensive purpose. See paragraph above.

A defender must be mentally and emotionally prepared to attack their attacker forcefully with intent and aggression until they can achieve an acceptable outcome.

A fight for your life, especially when surprised and out sized, is not conducted in a “tit for tat” way with carefully measured responses. It is conducted with absolute aggression and purpose to force an acceptable outcome.

Acceptable outcome of being attacked:


You can flee or retreat to safety without exposing yourself to additional risk.
A law enforcement officer takes control of the situation.
Your attacker is making a serious effort to flee.
Your attacker is no longer a viable threat to you.
You can safely accept their surrender.*


*On accepting surrender the predator must submit to a vulnerable and/or awkward position so you can get to safety without exposing yourself to additional risk. Be prepared to answer for your response to surrender in court.

Make sure the law is on your side but in a fight for your life; fear the person attacking you more than you fear the law. (Judged by 12 etc.)


These are my Stone Age positions.

These positions arent fit to print and must be censored until they have been watered down to uselessness by the PC people, complicated to paralysis by the academics, and torn apart by the experts who would never use their expertise to give us something to work with, only criticism of someone else’s work.

Lets make guns and bullets cuter shall we? Oh, the colors are terrible. Shooting people isn’t really likely to kill them. We are not prepared to use lethal force to defend ourselves; we are just cute little kitties. While we are at it, let’s think of predators like Tiny Tim from dickens even.

A little levity should hurt too bad should it? No harm meant. Back to my cave. Ugh.

gollbladder13
February 11, 2009, 07:47 PM
I'm soon to be a new gun owner, and was very excited about this thread when it first came out. Now I'm confused...

The advise I got earlier in the thread was great and I will heed it.

But now I'm starting to pick up don't post unless you want to get yelled at by people you don't even know. If I want to be yelled at, I'll go to my parent's house :eek:

Am I to start thinking now that this thread is for ranting and bashing because people have different opinions or somebody's gun, credentials, and I think I saw in there penis, is larger than somebody else's?

I came here to learn about guns and how to properly and safely use them as a tool and a life investment.

I know there are plenty of people that are out there (including on this thread) that have grown up with a gun instead of a rattler as a child. I, on the other hand, grew up in a very anti-gun family and firearms was the first thing they objected to when I told them I want to be an LEO.

I stopped reading the thread after a while because I wasn't learning anymore, which was the intent of the OP. I know earlier posts asked to keep the thread open, but I think that it was more for personal egos to top the "opponent posters", and not for the intended purpose which was for people in my shoes to learn.

Please either close the thread or let's get back to the original question.

Gaxicus
February 11, 2009, 08:13 PM
I'm soon to be a new gun owner, and was very excited about this thread when it first came out. Now I'm confused...

I am sorry to have disappointed you. Really. Some of us have really tried to keep it topical but it clearly didnt work for you.... or me.

As the guy that started the thread and the one that has spent the most time in the stocks, I think there is some good stuff in here that is worth reading but I would like to be able to retitle it.

I thought about this earlier but opening it up for suggestions for a new title would be sort of like tossing red meat to wolves. Trashing the thread further.

Most threads that end up being this controversial will be like this I guess.

There is still good stuff in there though.

gollbladder13
February 11, 2009, 08:22 PM
There is still good stuff in there though.

Agreed. I think it all went sour when somebody asked you for your credentials. Personally, I don't care about credentials, and I can think for myself. I've grown up with superiors always telling me to challenge the norm and the system when it's what I feel, so if I disagree with you, you'll know it whether you've spent 30 years studying the meaning of life or you're a high school dropout.

I thought about this earlier but opening it up for suggestions for a new title would be sort of like tossing red meat to wolves. Trashing the thread further.

I would be all for redoing the thread with a "no-rants" clause or something, but I doubt that can happen... I'll just ween through and ignore the last 3 pages up until now...

Now...

As a soon-to-be-new gun owner, any other good advice I should heed?

I'd tell you what gun I want, but that would open another can of worms... :cool:

Gaxicus
February 11, 2009, 09:05 PM
Now...

As a soon-to-be-new gun owner, any other good advice I should heed?

I'd tell you what gun I want, but that would open another can of worms...

Please do tell. Most of us would rather talk guns than legal issues anyway.

On gun choice:

If you only want one firearm to start with, you spend a decent amount of time outside, and you are interested in marksmanship, it is hard to argue against a 357 revolver with an exposed hammer. Great all around gun that you, or your wife/kids, can shoot lighter 38 special loads in. If you plan to carry it, the hammer should be nubby and rounded so it wont snag but I wouldnt get rid of the hammer. The hammer (SA) is nice for harder shots and marksmanship.

There more arguements for a semi-auto if you are going to carry it concealed and you live in an urban area.

Some gun shops will allow you to try different guns out on their range. A great idea. Nothing worse than buyers remorse.

On other advice:

Ask around. If you live in an area where there are a lot of shooters, there will be a few names that come up more than once as good eggs to talk to.

If you are thinking of using the gun for self defense, informal training is not enough.

Read all you want here, it will give you some stuff to think about when choosing an instructor but please get one. You dont have to go to thunder ranch to be a capable shooter or defensive firearm owner, but if you can afford it........

Another thing, if you put 5 highly qualified people in a room and ask them a question you will probably get 15 decent answers. Dont be too discouraged by the "back and forth" you see here.

gollbladder13
February 11, 2009, 09:16 PM
Not discouraged at all.


As a soon-to-be-new gun owner, any other good advice I should heed?
I'd tell you what gun I want, but that would open another can of worms...
Please do tell. Most of us would rather talk guns than legal issues anyway.


Well, now I'm kind of in between. I want a 9mm or a .40

I shot a G22 and a G19 and felt better about the 9mm, but it could have been I shot that one second and it was my first time with a handgun.

I'm leaning Glock (haters need-not banter:rolleyes:) because it felt good when I shot, but at the moment my funds are having me look elsewhere for the time being.

Since I plan on being an LEO, I opted to look for 9mm or .40 rather than a .22 to learn on, and the recoil didn't phase me too much. After 50 rounds my first time out, I started hitting the red on the silhouette, so now it's getting training beyond my friend in the army and practicing.

That being said, I know there's a lot of revolver fans out there... I will definitely look into them as a BUG, but for now (and I know this is just my ignorance talking, but I don't care!) they just seem too "cowboyish" and "Wild Wild West" for my taste. I know they're hellareliable just based on reading on TFL and personal testimonies from friends.

For the time being, I'm thinking Kel-Tec (do they make a .40? I haven't seen one in my research, but I know they've got the .380), or my friend likes his Taurus and recommends them.

Ultimately, I'm sure I'll own a Glock (that's pretty much the standard in my area for LEOs), but would rather start earlier with the funding I have now (or will soon pending my tax refund).

Gaxicus
February 11, 2009, 10:03 PM
I think I would choose the Taurus over a Kel-tec.

I refused to own either until I got to work with a newer taurus or two. You really need to do your homework on the cheaper guns. There are diamonds in the rough but there is a lot of rough too.

Saving a bit for a Springfield XD would probably be a good decision. Come to think of it, probably a real good one. I have nothing against glocks, it just that the XD has very nice features and costs a lot less. I have one in 9mm and it is a very good gun. Even the most hard core gun snob will have a hard time bagging on an XD too much. Accurate, point well, good capacity, good machining, good design.

For conceal carry, the taurus pt-111 is pretty nice and packs a nice bunch of features in a small package. My buddy has had one for years, I shoot it fairly frequently. The triggers in most of the small ones are pretty bad. The pt-111 isnt great but you can get some decent grouping with it once you get used to it. A great BUG.

The more you want to spend, the harder the choice gets. For now, I would look into the XD if I could.

gollbladder13
February 11, 2009, 10:10 PM
Thanks for the input... didn't mean to hijack the thread and turn it into "what gun should i buy?" so I'll leave it alone to go back to the OP as I wanted earlier ;)

Gaxicus, if you want to talk more about it, your further input is appreciated... shoot me a PM. (And yes, I know saving would be good, but I'm one of those "want it now" kinds of people. Probably it's the angry version of people like me that's why they have the waiting period ;) )

David Armstrong
February 12, 2009, 11:10 AM
People new to defensive firearms usually have fears and misconceptions they need to get through in order to be safe and/or effective at using a firearm defensively. It is neither safe nor effective for an instructor to not do their part to address this.
I don't think anybody disagrees with that concept. The disagreement comes with suggesting the new (or old) gunowner needs to become a hyper-aggressive killer in order to achieve the concept. Given the input from so many known trainers here, it seems the consensus is that doing so is counterproductive, rather than helpful.
A trained shooter opening fire on a human being is very likely to result in death. That means killing here folks.
But that is not the goal of a self defense shooting, as well as not actually being the likely outcome.
A defender must be mentally and emotionally prepared to attack their attacker forcefully with intent and aggression until they can achieve an acceptable outcome.
You keep saying that, but have never provided anything to support the idea. Given that so many successful trainers have and do teach otherwise, to consitue to insist on the point seems questionable at best. My students can and have achieved acceptable outcomes without feeling any need "...to attack their attacker forcefully with intent and aggression....".
These positions arent fit to print and must be censored until they have been watered down to uselessness by the PC people, complicated to paralysis by the academics, and torn apart by the experts who would never use their expertise to give us something to work with, only criticism of someone else’s work.
Again, you keep making claims that seem to be contradicted by the facts. Nobody has censored you, nobody has argued the need to change terminology because of PC, and so on. It seems as if you came here wanting validation for an idea, but since others have rejected the idea you are trying to blame the rejection on factors other than informed and reasoned consideration of the issue.
Lets make guns and bullets cuter shall we? Oh, the colors are terrible. Shooting people isn’t really likely to kill them. We are not prepared to use lethal force to defend ourselves; we are just cute little kitties. While we are at it, let’s think of predators like Tiny Tim from dickens even.
Other than the factual issue that most people who are shot will not die, none of those have been suggested, and to pose the arguments against your position in those terms positions the issue in a somewhat dishonest light.

Gaxicus
February 12, 2009, 11:31 AM
"A defender must be mentally and emotionally prepared to attack their attacker forcefully with intent and aggression until they can achieve an acceptable outcome."

You keep saying that, but have never provided anything to support the idea. Given that so many successful trainers have and do teach otherwise, to consitue to insist on the point seems questionable at best. My students can and have achieved acceptable outcomes without feeling any need "...to attack their attacker forcefully with intent and aggression....".

I must really be in the stone age.

This strategy is for when the attack has already started.

You are a jogger, someone bigger than you leaps out of the bushes and knocks you down, they straddle you, and start pummelling you and are trying to put duct tape around your wrists.

I dont know the vulcan nerve pinch (although I must confess I really wish I did). My response is to that is to attack my attacker forcefully with intent and aggression and to not stop until I can reach an acceptable outcome.

Please enlighten me. You have a better way, I am all ears (so to speak).

David Armstrong
February 12, 2009, 12:04 PM
As so many others have already said in various ways, you defend yourself with whatever force is reasonable and necessary to stop the BG. That doesn't require a particularly high level of aggression, it can be achieved through a level of self-preservation, it can be done based on a level of protection, it can even be done through a level of desperation. You don't have to be hyper-aggressive to want to not be a victim, you don't have to be a killer to defend yourself. I'm not sure what the Stone Age has to do with any of this.

Gaxicus
February 12, 2009, 12:45 PM
As so many others have already said in various ways, you defend yourself with whatever force is reasonable and necessary to stop the BG. That doesn't require a particularly high level of aggression, it can be achieved through a level of self-preservation, it can be done based on a level of protection, it can even be done through a level of desperation. You don't have to be hyper-aggressive to want to not be a victim, you don't have to be a killer to defend yourself. I'm not sure what the Stone Age has to do with any of this.

I think you might be taking the word agression to mean anger or rage.

Dictionary.com:

the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.

Cambridge dictionary:

1 spoken or physical behaviour which is threatening or involves harm to someone or something

2 forceful playing in sport that is intended to win points

With these definitions of aggression, fighting back would be aggressive, yes?


You don't have to be hyper-aggressive to want to not be a victim.

This is a mischaracterization on your part. I never used the word or implied hyper-aggression as you seem to mean it.

However: According to Cambridge: “forceful playing in sport that is intended to win points”. I would say it is reasonable to ratchet up the intensity over how hard one would play sports if said persons life is on the line though. Wouldnt you?

you don't have to be a killer to defend yourself.

The only time I used the word kill is where I state that if a person is going to be using a firearm for defense purposes, they should be resolved to the fact that they are using lethal force. Lethal force, by definition has a reasonable expectation that its use will result in killing.

David Armstrong
February 12, 2009, 01:56 PM
I think you might be taking the word agression to mean anger or rage.
No, don't believe anything I've said indicates that.
With these definitions of aggression, fighting back would be aggressive, yes?
Not necessarily. One can fight back without being aggressive. One can fight back without attacking. One can fight back using a defensive action, not an offensive action. In fact, one can make a good case, IMO, that if you are in an offensive action by definition you are not acting defensively.
This is a mischaracterization on your part.
You are the one that keeps talking about the need for aggressive action, for killing the predator, etc. please note it is not just me, as others have mentioned similar ideas, such as "over the top" and so on.
I would say it is reasonable to ratchet up the intensity over how hard one would play sports if said persons life is on the line though. Wouldnt you?

I would say that playing a sport and defending your well-being from a BG have virtually nothing in common.
The only time I used the word kill is where I state that if a person is going to be using a firearm for defense purposes, they should be resolved to the fact that they are using lethal force.
"I am a predator killer"
"You are a predator killer, they will be the victim."
"When someone gets predatory on you, you kill them."
"The advice is meant to get them from looking like a limping gazelle around lions, fight relentlessly with an attack mindset, and to shoot to kill."
"When one comes along where the intended victim viciously and relentlessly attacks their attacker and even kills them, I like their chance with the judge."
"The words and concepts are very strong, the example story of the woman is very strong. Attack, Kill, all that. I know. Its on purpose."
"I am perfectly ready and willing to kill a predator."
"I am a predator killer and I am more than ok with it I am resolved to it."
"If they carry a gun, and are willing to pull and shoot it, they had better be killers."
"Why do we seem to forget that you shoot to kill. Thats the only reason to shoot."
"With all of the pictures of little kids, women, and such on the news and on milk cartons, Im not sure advising people to kill a predator if they attack you is something the public would see as a bad thing. As long as the word predator isnt dropped."
"The word everyone has a problem with is "killer" but we don't shoot to counsel, deter, maim, or wound. We shoot to kill right?"
That is just the 1st age inthe thread, BTW.

FM12
February 12, 2009, 02:01 PM
Join and support the NRA.

Gaxicus
February 12, 2009, 03:20 PM
"I am a predator killer"
"You are a predator killer, they will be the victim."
"When someone gets predatory on you, you kill them."
"The advice is meant to get them from looking like a limping gazelle around lions, fight relentlessly with an attack mindset, and to shoot to kill."
"When one comes along where the intended victim viciously and relentlessly attacks their attacker and even kills them, I like their chance with the judge."
"The words and concepts are very strong, the example story of the woman is very strong. Attack, Kill, all that. I know. Its on purpose."
"I am perfectly ready and willing to kill a predator."
"I am a predator killer and I am more than ok with it I am resolved to it."
"If they carry a gun, and are willing to pull and shoot it, they had better be killers."
"Why do we seem to forget that you shoot to kill. Thats the only reason to shoot."
"With all of the pictures of little kids, women, and such on the news and on milk cartons, Im not sure advising people to kill a predator if they attack you is something the public would see as a bad thing. As long as the word predator isnt dropped."
"The word everyone has a problem with is "killer" but we don't shoot to counsel, deter, maim, or wound. We shoot to kill right?"
That is just the 1st age inthe thread, BTW.

None of these statements are in my restated-revised position on that you are replying to. I fully explained prior to this restatement/revision that I was doing so.

You, however, will not answer repeated requests to explain, with all of your expertise and experience, what method you would recommend in multiple examples throughout the thread. You don’t offer alternatives to the things you say are wrong, only criticism.

Academic Cowardice.

You also say you can teach students to stop an attacker when they are attacking them with out using any punch, kick, or any force that overpowers actions of the attacker (aggression, attack).

I am sure we are all waiting for you to explain this wonderful, supernatural, only exists in a Petri dish, method.

Im calling you on it. Put up or shut up.

Your experience, training, and degree are useless to everyone here because you refuse to take any affirmative position, propose anything of your own, or provide alternatives to what you disagree with.

You only nitpick, drag irrelevant past posts into a position that has been recently revised/restated, and just generally try to make yourself look like an expert without having to stand for anything but your criticisms of other peoples work.

Offer something besides criticism with no alternative proposal or take your supposed expertise, degree, and your nitpicking to another thread.

I aint buying it. You have shown nothing that lends any credibility to your claimed credentials. All hat, no cattle.

BuckHammer
February 12, 2009, 05:41 PM
I wish that some people in this forum would just let some things go. I am referring to Dr. David Armstrong and Gaxicus. Every time this thread starts drifting into usefulness, someone just has to step in and ruin it.

EDIT: Yeah, and when I posted the outdated university information on this site, I was attempting to put an end to this junk, which at the time seemed to be all about credentials. So I posted sites containing information on Dr. Armstrong's credentials that hopefully contained useful information about his approach. Hopefully that didn't offend anyone. The information was posted on the Internet, after all.

David Armstrong
February 12, 2009, 06:08 PM
None of these statements are in my restated-revised position on that you are replying to. I fully explained prior to this restatement/revision that I was doing so.
But they are in your original position and are indicative of the general presentation.
You, however, will not answer repeated requests to explain, with all of your expertise and experience, what method you would recommend in multiple examples throughout the thread. You don’t offer alternatives to the things you say are wrong, only criticism.
Actually I believe that I have given a very specific response. I've asked you for a few clarifications so I could accurately respond to some concepts, but haven't seen them so I choose not to respond to them. Not sure what that has to do with anything, BTW. I don't have to give you my recipe for cooking pancakes to point out that I think your pancakes are burned, as it were.
Academic Cowardice.
Sigh. If yo want to go for personal attacks and name calling I'mmore than happy to play, but the mods don't like it much.
You also say you can teach students to stop an attacker when they are attacking them with out using any punch, kick, or any force that overpowers actions of the attacker (aggression, attack).
I have never said anything even close to that.
Im calling you on it. Put up or shut up.
I might suggest the same. Cut and paste where I said that, tell us the post #. I don't think you can, so your challenge is rather hollow.
I aint buying it. You have shown nothing that lends any credibility to your claimed credentials. All hat, no cattle.
This from a guy who, when asked a very simple question about his background hid behind "I am not going to disclose personal information" and "When people talk about their personal credentials it often turns into a (please pardon the term) "penis waving contest" and everything goes down hill quick from there. Any statements I make here should stand on their own. Good or bad." FWIW, there is nothing "claimed" about my creds. I'm a proven and verified quantity. And if you want to exchange homilies, I'll match your "all hat, no cattle" and raise it with "Sort of like a Texas Longhorn--a couple of good points, but in between is just a whole lot of bull."

David Armstrong
February 12, 2009, 06:14 PM
I wish that some people in this forum would just let some things go. I am referring to Dr. David Armstrong and Gaxicus. Every time this thread starts drifting into usefulness, someone just has to step in and ruin it.

There is a real easy solution to your problem. Any time you don't want to read what a particular party is posting, you can set the Ignore function to save you from further exposure.

Gaxicus
February 12, 2009, 06:35 PM
I think you guys are right.

Dave Armstrong. You were asked several times to contribute rather than just criticize and bait. Your last post was more of the same.

Please leave the thread. I have placed you on my ignore list.

Anyone else that feels the same way should do the same.

nate45
February 12, 2009, 06:47 PM
All hat, no cattle.

The expression is 'Big hat, no cattle'.

Carry on.

David Armstrong
February 12, 2009, 07:39 PM
You were asked several times to contribute rather than just criticize and bait. Your last post was more of the same.
Failure to recognize contribution on your part does not constitute failure to provide contribution on my part.
Please leave the thread.
Thanks, but open threads are open threads. If you don't want to have open discussions (weren't you the one hollering about censorship and such earlier?) you probably should find someplace to post other than an open forum.

Gaxicus
February 12, 2009, 08:47 PM
I need a break from this thread.

Anyone interested in using .22s in training/practice, head on over to here (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=337879)



Dave, I'm not biting. Please stay away from any threads I start. You are not invited or wanted.

Glenn E. Meyer
February 12, 2009, 09:11 PM
Sigh - personal invective is not appropriate. Nor does a poster determine who comments in a thread - even in one that you are the OP.

One can use the Ignore function or choose not to reply to the postings of those you choose not to want to reply to.

If you wish to discuss what statements are appropriate, based on your inductions, deductions, empirical evidence, etc. - go ahead.

Stay on the topic, if you would. Take this as a hint. This thread is quickly descending into being worthless.

In retrospect, a few minutes later - it has run its course - take my words as instructive on how it went wrong - closed.