The best advice we can give to new gun owners

[Gaxicus]

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:

1. You can flee or retreat to safety without exposing yourself to additional risk.
2. A law enforcement officer takes control of the situation.
3. Your attacker is making a serious effort to flee.
4. Your attacker is no longer a viable threat to you.
5. 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]

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

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]

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]

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...

[Gaxicus]

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]

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...

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) 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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

Join and support the NRA.

[Gaxicus]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

All hat, no cattle.

The expression is 'Big hat, no cattle'.

Carry on.

[David Armstrong]

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]

I need a break from this thread.

Anyone interested in using .22s in training/practice, head on over to here



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

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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.