September 26, 2014, 04:27 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 6,575
|
No tactics no training
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...reak-home.html
What not to do !!!---' Hadn't touched the gun in years ' No instruction for son . Hadn't shot because the son got between her and perp. Son should have gotten on the phone immediately and stayed behind his mother and gun. Long fingernails is not what I consider smart for safe handling the gun .Too many chances to get in the way. Safety should come first , style second !!
__________________
And Watson , bring your revolver ! |
September 27, 2014, 10:40 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,786
|
Lots of things to wonder about in this story, starting with a UK newspaper reporting on an incident in Florida. She hasn't touched the gun since she bought it several years ago, and it was covered with dust, but it was "the first thing she thought of." And then she poses for pictures with the pistol.
Maybe it happened, maybe she is a publicity hound. If it really happened, I am glad she successfully defended herself in spite of doing nearly everything wrong, from not practicing, to going outside to face a threat, to putting her son in the position she did, to talking to the media and posing for pictures. |
September 27, 2014, 06:33 PM | #3 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Funny thing though, fingernails such as hers are very good as weapons by themselves, especially for a person not carrying a gun on a regular basis. That you picked the nails to complain about is pretty funny when the nail issue is exceptionally low on the list of tactical errors made in the incident. The woman should never have gone outside and confronted the burglar in the first place. How could you miss that? LOL. No doubt there would be plenty to complain about here, but this is a classic example of how having a gun can be a game changer, even for those who aren't tactisavvy as the rest of us. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/ora...point/28253074
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
||||||||
September 27, 2014, 06:44 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,786
|
I stand corrected.
|
September 27, 2014, 07:05 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: East Bernard, TX
Posts: 514
|
If they are dry chemical fire extinguishers...
turn them upside down and shake, annually, to uncake the dry chemical powder. If you don't fluff them there is a chance that when you use them, the nitrogen will come out but most of the powder will stay caked inside.
I've had to use fire extinguishers more often (four or five times in the last 20 years) than I've had to shoot anyone (zero times), but I keep both types of equipment in the best shape I can. |
September 27, 2014, 07:24 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 8, 2001
Location: North Central Florida & Miami
Posts: 3,208
|
I am a believer in training and practice, but darn if does not seem that most folks defending themselves have little or no training, often 'inadequate' firearms, and still manage to stop their attackers. Just read the accounts in the National Rifleman magazine each month.
I can't recall a graduate of Thunder Ranch, with a Wilson Combat .45 doing the deed.
__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.".........Ronald Reagan |
September 27, 2014, 08:10 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2013
Location: Douglasville, Ga
Posts: 4,615
|
I too found it odd that she posed for re-creation pictures. She also seems somewhat disappointed she didn't get to shoot someone. She's lucky too, if she shot him while hiding behind a shed, she might been in a bit of trouble.
__________________
My head is bloody, but unbowed |
September 27, 2014, 08:30 PM | #8 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Posts: 5,854
|
^ I was thinking the same thing.
Perhaps SHE doesn't know how lucky she was that she didn't have to shoot the guy. |
September 27, 2014, 09:46 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 3,133
|
Heh, that's 99% of the non-gun enthusiast public. Sure, a large part of the US are gun owners but they don't shoot more than once or twice a year, if even THAT. Luck plays into so many of these "Armed Citizen" moments. Glad the lady & her son came out of it alright.
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying |
September 27, 2014, 10:55 PM | #10 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
||
September 28, 2014, 01:29 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Quote:
I'm a big fan of training -- it was my hobby and my volunteer life for years before it became my business. Even so, any honest look at guns in America yields up the following set of awesome facts:
Either one of those last two numbers would be enough to absolutely flood the firearms training industry with far too many students, if only one out of every ten people sought out training just once every few years. Nevertheless, most estimates put the number of defensive gun uses to around 2 million events per year. (See http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/myth-...nt-be-accurate.) The entire firearms training industry, including every firearms instructor in America, the 97,000 NRA certified instructors and RSOs, the retired military guys and everyone in between, including all parts of the spectrum from the rawest incompetent up through "tier one" trainers and everything in between, does not train that many people per year. Nor anything like it. Never has. So ... what? So we see incidents like this, where the mere presence of a gun is a game-changer. Even though the owner had to blow the dust off it, and we could probably make a yard-long list of all the things she did untactically. But I still believe in training. Not because incidents like this don't exist. But because in the long run you’re always going to make smarter decisions when you know what to do than when you don’t. You’re going to behave more safely around dangerous weapons when someone outside yourself has spotted what you’re doing unsafely and given you ways to correct it, than you will when you’re simply guessing at those things for yourself. You’re going to make better choices about equipment and practice when going to class has driven you to choose safer gear, to practice more in dry fire, to pay closer attention to the types of details that most people miss when they teach themselves. You will behave more safely when you have good, solid, honest feedback than you will when you haven’t had that feedback. And you will certainly behave more safely when you have been taught to perform a skill than you will if you just take your best stab at it without any instruction. You’ll be safer for having studied self-defense skills under supervision on a calm day at the range than you will if you try them for the very first time on some dark night when someone is trying to kill you. And for me the bottom line is this: After studying this discipline for 15 years, I've come to the (hardly new) conclusion that the main value of serious training lies in helping people discover what they can or cannot actually do, and especially in helping them figure out what not to do. People who've had serious training very rarely get into serious confrontations -- because they know what they can do and what they can't do with a gun in hand. They learn where the limitations of the gun are, and where their own limitations are, so they're able to make good decisions based on that. (Exceptions? Of course there are! Rarely doesn't mean "never." But the basic rule of thumb seems to be that good training functions more as an innoculant or prophylactic, and less as as curative or even a palliative.) pax |
|
September 28, 2014, 07:44 AM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 21, 2011
Location: Southern Louisiana
Posts: 1,399
|
Quote:
Very few people have, yet it would be far more likely to save your life than any amount of firearms training (assuming that you're not a drug dealer or professional burglar). According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US. According to the NHTSA, in 2012, there were 33,561 motor vehicle deaths in the US. Last edited by 45_auto; September 28, 2014 at 07:52 AM. |
|
September 28, 2014, 08:55 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Quote:
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health...ht-f6C10930019 Now if you were taking true combat-type defensive driving because people were out to get you on the road, that might be another matter and it would be secondary, but complimentary to defensive gun courses. But we aren't really talking about people trying to kill you on the road. Missing from the NHSTA data are the number of people killed who were intentionally and knowingly breaking the law such as by speeding, but the data do show that 52% of the deaths occurred when people broke the law by not wearing seatbelts. While the NHSTA numbers are bad, no doubt, 1/3 of the fatalities are caused by drunk drivers. 14% were of pedestrians for whom defensive driving would not have helped them, and another 2% were pedal cyclists. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811856.pdf When you break down the numbers and compare then to gun fatalities, how much the types of incidents differ becomes apparent. They aren't really comparable and there is no indication that defensive driving would protect you from the same sort of problem that defensive gun classes are supposed to protect you from or that defensive driving would appreciably change the #s of deaths given the numbers of folks who intentionally break the law by driving drunk, speeding, or by not wearing seatbelts. I do agree that defensive driving courses would be beneficial to a lot of people, but keep in mind that drivers have already had to pass a competency test for driving. No such testing exits for gun firing.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
September 28, 2014, 09:15 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Quote:
"Firearms-related homicides" is not the relevant statistic here. Personally, I'd rather be shot than beaten to death -- and would rather be beaten to death than to be kidnapped, raped, and slowly tortured to death over a period of four days as Meredith Emerson once was. So instead of artificially lowering the number to make your point, be more realistic. Include everything inside the larger and much more relevant column titled plain old "homicides," period. And then add in aggravated assault, which is when someone tried to kill someone else and almost succeeded, often resulting in serious lifelong medical problems for the victim. Add forcible rapes, kidnapping, and violent sexual assaults. The numbers are still low, aren't they? The crime rate has been falling, dramatically, for several decades now. Murder hardly ever happens. That's probably no real consolation to the family of this woman or any of the other ~40 people murdered the day she died. So it's not really about the odds. It's about the stakes. So set all the numbers aside, and think this through. Every single victim of violent crime did not expect violence to happen to them that day, at that time, in that place. If they had, they would not have been there. Just as no one involved in a car accident ever expected to get into a car accident that day, nobody involved in a violent crime expected to face a violent criminal that day. If we all had magic crystal balls, we could all just pay for one-day car insurance and wear our seat belts only on days when we felt traffic was going to be particularly dangerous. We could get training to deal with the exact situation we knew we were going to face (three seconds, three yards, three shots...?) and never worry our pretty little heads about any of the other possibilities (a 15 yard shot, in the dark, with a small handgun, on a moving target violently attacking, at close quarters, the person we love best in the world...). But we can't and don't know what's out there. So we buy car insurance and wear our seat belts. And some of us carry guns and learn how to use them effectively. Not only this, but ... If today you walked into work, and you suddenly saw a violently enraged, armed man kill your co-workers and then he began coming after you, would you want to be able to do something about it? Or would you prefer to hope that he would decide to stop on his own, perhaps with just the help of a visual aid? Personally, I'd rather know what to do and how to do it if needed. That's why I'm a fan of training. Of course I know that lots of people out there prefer to remain ignorant in this area. That's another possible choice, just not my preferred style. If I'm going to go to all the hassle of carrying a gun around with me as often as I do, with all that entails, I think that would be an absolute waste of effort if I didn't also at least learn how to carry it safely and use it effectively. To me, carrying a gun without a decent level of training makes about as much sense as keeping a first aid kit without knowing how to use that strappy-gadget with the twirly thing on it. pax |
|
September 28, 2014, 10:17 AM | #15 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 21, 2011
Location: Southern Louisiana
Posts: 1,399
|
Quote:
Quote:
Possibly there's a difference in philosophy between someone who carries a gun as often as possible and someone who doesn't touch one for five years. Lots of possible psychoses out there. Some people are unduly afraid of flying, and won't go on an airplane. Some are unduly afraid of drowning, and won't go in the water. Some are unduly afraid of violent crime, and arm themselves to the fullest extent possible. Everyone analyzes their situation differently. More training is generally better, just don't be surprised when people analyze what's actually relevant or important to them differently than you do. Last edited by 45_auto; September 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM. |
||
September 28, 2014, 11:41 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,047
|
Quote:
Training comes in lots of forms, and not all of it involves paying someone who thinks they know more to tell you their way of doing it.
__________________
One shot, one kill |
|
September 28, 2014, 12:53 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
"Ignorant" is not a dirty word.
The things I don’t know fill vast acres of bookshelves in warehouses on Amazon and my local library. They’re crammed into millions of Wikipedia pages and discussion groups and informational websites. They’re all over my house. The things I don’t know fill my world, and that’s okay. Will Rogers spoke truth when he said, “We are all ignorant, only on different subjects.” There’s no shame in it, because it’s a normal human condition. The things people choose not to learn about far outnumber the things they do. Some people choose not to learn much about self defense -- again, and that's okay. Ignorance in this particular area is just not for me, that's all. Also, one more observation: the less people know about a given subject, the less they think there is to know about that subject. And the higher they estimate their own skills within that area. pax |
September 28, 2014, 01:21 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Have to add a quote from David Dunning, from an article titled, "The Anosognosiac's Dilemma" published in the NYT awhile back.
Quote:
pax |
|
September 28, 2014, 04:31 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,047
|
Quote:
Training comes in lots of forms other than a few hours of class time on a weekend
__________________
One shot, one kill |
|
September 28, 2014, 06:18 PM | #20 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2009
Location: Anchorage Alaska
Posts: 3,341
|
Quote:
This is not to say that self-training is by definition inadequate. Study of the literature on the subject (any subject) and diligent practice can duplicate a lot of what the paying student learns at a formal school, and Pax did not discount that. The point I would like to emphasize is that entirely self-directed training often leaves out areas of study that would be useful. As we grow up, everyone develops blind spots. Removing those blinders is difficult to do by oneself and formal training is often the best (but certainly not the only) way to expand one's horizons. Respectfully submitted Lost Sheep p.s. "the less people know about a given subject,...the higher they estimate their own skills within that area." There have been studies that support that conclusion (sorry, I don't have citations, but I have heard such reported, and it makes sense from what I know about human nature, as well). Put another way, and more pointedly, "Ignorance is bliss." |
||
September 28, 2014, 09:37 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 6,575
|
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/a...ed-mother.html
Yes training can help ! Here minimal training helped , What always confuses me is why a woman would get involved with a violent man.
__________________
And Watson , bring your revolver ! |
September 29, 2014, 05:26 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,934
|
When I first moved from Canada, to Florida (2003) Citizen in 2011.
I was amazed at how nice the average American was, everybody you speak to, smiles and speaks in reply (In my case any way) and fist fights are just for drunks and bad people? What's with that, having worked in the Clubs in Liverpool UK, part time Thur/Fri/Sat nights (young Family to support. 1960 till 1964 at The Cavern Club, of Beatles fame) if asked when were you last in a fight, some would look at their watch! I now carry a Glock 19, every day, it is in my ratty old plaid gown pocket now, and an IPhone. Have not shot anyone yet, but my last physical altercation was in 2004. I was 69 years of age. Did not use fists or feet, just some redirection! Knowing how to use a gun, yes, that's good, being involved in some straight out and out violent encounters, that's good as well. Being savvy to street encounters, that's really very good! Excellent! Heads up, be observant. On your feet, and behind a steering wheel too! |
September 29, 2014, 01:42 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2014
Location: It changes.....a lot.
Posts: 356
|
More firearm owners than not, don't shoot their firearms on a routine schedule.
That's nothing surprising to me. I have quite a few armed neighbors, and ALL of them can't recall the last time they went out shooting. I know that, because I used to offer to take them out shooting. They had had an excuse of some kind or another, as to why it wasn't a good time to do it. |
September 29, 2014, 11:57 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2004
Location: Out back Ky
Posts: 4,044
|
Well lets see .The Police have received more training than most gun owners Plus they have to qualify 1 or 2 times a year . Yet in almost every shooting they throw a lot more lead and many more misses . Than the untrained man or women defending their home or their self on street or in a store.
Watch Police shootings on u tube . Its lets see how fast can empty the mag . I think most cops should be packing a 6 shot revolver. Not a 15 shot semi auto. Maybe they would learn to hit what they shoot at. They also need to be trained to be a little less trigger happy. To many people now days getting shot That really haven't done anything to get shot . In other words untrained or little training citizen. Hit better when shooting in self defense than the so called professional LEO . Why is that? Maybe these citizens that have no or little training should be instructing the police.
__________________
Certified Armed Infidel Colt Defender ,Colt Mustang ,Dan Wesson CBOB, PPK/S, American Classic 1911,Bersa Thunder 380 http://bersachat.comHome of Bersa http://www.metroarms1911forum.com Last edited by michael t; September 30, 2014 at 12:06 AM. |
September 30, 2014, 12:11 AM | #25 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; September 30, 2014 at 12:06 PM. Reason: correct typo |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|