NRA and Domestic Violence Gun Laws

[GardoneVT]

Not to mention our "Shootings in the news" thread.

So why bother with training at all if its unnecessary for self defense ? It would seem this website and our collective dedication to improving our skill sets is a colossial and egotistical waste of effort!

Goodness knows LE can save some substantial budget issues if they don't have to buy ammo anymore. Since untrained folks frequently defend themselves and all, let's just dispense with all this tripe about training and haul around .380 pocket pistols.Oh, and since most shootings in the Armed Citizen column happen inside of 10 yards, let's quit shooting beyond 15 yards too. What's the point?

Go figure, the last place I'd thought I'd encounter an argument for LESS training is here.

[Jac]

So why bother with training at all if its unnecessary for self defense ? It would seem this website and our collective dedication to improving our skill sets is a colossial and egotistical waste of effort!

Goodness knows LE can save some substantial budget issues if they don't have to buy ammo anymore. Since untrained folks frequently defend themselves and all, let's just dispense with all this tripe about training and haul around .380 pocket pistols.Oh, and since most shootings in the Armed Citizen column happen inside of 10 yards, let's quit shooting beyond 15 yards too. What's the point?

Go figure, the last place I'd thought I'd encounter an argument for LESS training is here.

[TCinVA]

Go figure, the last place I'd thought I'd encounter an argument for LESS training is here.

Nobody argued for less training.

They stated a fact: Untrained people manage to successfully defend themselves with a firearm quite frequently. A big reason for this is that the decision tree for the majority of them is pretty simple. The threat is pretty unambiguous by the time they're going for the gun and the appropriate response is pretty simple.

We've had a number of discussions on the topic with valuable insights provided by our SME's and contributors with considerable experience and training prior to your arrival on the forum. A good deal of the consensus on issues here on the forum is the product of some of those productive discussions where people bounced ideas and concepts off of one another freely without anyone getting butthurt or self-righteous about it. Perhaps you should try that approach and ask good questions instead of resorting to hair-trigger incredulity...because the kind of antics demonstrated in your post above do not drive useful discussion. They do precisely the opposite. People click the X button on their browser or put you on the ignore list rather than waste time arguing with nonsense.

While your enthusiasm is laudable, your tendency to prove obstreperous in conversation is not and lots of people have noticed it. If the best contribution you can make to a discussion is something like the post above, don't. Wait until you have useful input or a good question to pose and put that in the little text box and leave the rest out.

Is it ideal that someone who needs to use a firearm in self defense be untrained? Of course not. We don't operate in the world as it should be, we operate in the world as it exists.

The untrained person with a gun is going to be a hell of a lot better off than without the gun from a self defense perspective. Period. It would be great if they go and get training to go along with the gun, and we encourage it. Nevertheless, most people who use basic common sense manage to understand that the gun is a last resort and they use it as such, largely in the home (Because relatively few people carry) where practically every state gives the widest leeway in the use of force. As a result untrained people manage to successfully defend themselves pretty regularly without ending up in jail.

[LHS]

Nobody argued for less training.

They stated a fact: Untrained people manage to successfully defend themselves with a firearm quite frequently. A big reason for this is that the decision tree for the majority of them is pretty simple. The threat is pretty unambiguous by the time they're going for the gun and the appropriate response is pretty simple.

We've had a number of discussions on the topic with valuable insights provided by our SME's and contributors with considerable experience and training prior to your arrival on the forum. A good deal of the consensus on issues here on the forum is the product of some of those productive discussions where people bounced ideas and concepts off of one another freely without anyone getting butthurt or self-righteous about it. Perhaps you should try that approach and ask good questions instead of resorting to hair-trigger incredulity...because the kind of antics demonstrated in your post above do not drive useful discussion. They do precisely the opposite. People click the X button on their browser or put you on the ignore list rather than waste time arguing with nonsense.

While your enthusiasm is laudable, your tendency to prove obstreperous in conversation is not and lots of people have noticed it. If the best contribution you can make to a discussion is something like the post above, don't. Wait until you have useful input or a good question to pose and put that in the little text box and leave the rest out.

Is it ideal that someone who needs to use a firearm in self defense be untrained? Of course not. We don't operate in the world as it should be, we operate in the world as it exists.

The untrained person with a gun is going to be a hell of a lot better off than without the gun from a self defense perspective. Period. It would be great if they go and get training to go along with the gun, and we encourage it. Nevertheless, most people who use basic common sense manage to understand that the gun is a last resort and they use it as such, largely in the home (Because relatively few people carry) where practically every state gives the widest leeway in the use of force. As a result untrained people manage to successfully defend themselves pretty regularly without ending up in jail.

[cclaxton]

The more I think about this, the more I realize how hard it is to solve this complex problem.

First, let's try and keep this on a professional level here and not get personal or heated about it. No one here is trying to put anyone at risk...we are all just trying to discuss an incredibly difficult problem, and free exchange of ideas is what helps us better understand it and perhaps find the best solutions. (I say "perhaps" because not all problems have solutions.)

Second, let me clarify my remarks. What I said is that "she will need a lot more than a few sessions at the range." What I meant is she will need to understand when she has the justification to use it on her spouse, the legal liabilities involved, how to handle the gun safely at all times, where to carry the gun and make it accessible, developing the mental and emotional fortitude to actually use deadly force on a spouse, making security enhancements to here residence such as changing locks, improved lighting, and an alarm system. Also, getting a friend to stay with her, finding another safe place to stay, etc. Personal security involves a LOT MORE than "here's the handgun, here's how to pull the trigger and there's a range."

It was never my intention to suggest that you have to be highly trained before you should use a handgun to defend yourself. As people here have pointed out there are plenty of victims who have defended themselves with a handgun successfully without a lot of training. However, we also know of too many situations where untrained handgun owners killed innocent people by mistake, or were put on trial (and even went to prison) because prosecutors thought they didn't have the justification to shoot. The general liabilities and the risks to loved ones are not trivial. During a legal lecture it was said, "It's easy for prosecutors to see justifiable homicide when it's an escaped convict who broke into your home, but it's much more difficult to justify when the person you shot is a 16 year old neighborhood kid...or your spouse." I would hope that everyone here would agree that handgun owners should all understand their liabilities with regards to use of a handgun, even for self defense. And, I would hope that everyone here would agree that handgun owners should all be trained to handle the gun safely when carrying, storing and transporting. Shooting accidents are bad PR for gun owners.

But there is a much bigger issue that is presented here: Suggesting to a spouse involved in a volatile relationship/breakup that she/he should get a handgun and learn how to shoot it is not a good idea until you understand if there is a real threat of violence. I went through a very contentious divorce, and I have seen others go through it, and many LEO's have been called to homes where there is an angry fight related to divorce or separation or cheating, etc. People's emotions and physiology are not normal, and putting any firearm into that situation is incredibly dangerous with one exception. Also, the legal liabilities of a LEO or a friend suggesting that the spouse buy a handgun should probably prevent anyone from suggesting that. The one exception is when there is a verified threat of violence against one of the spouses. Verifying and validating that threat of violence, and then empowering the victimized spouse to be able to defend himself/herself would be appropriate.

It sounds like many here think our courts and police do a poor job of making that assessment, and then err on the side of caution and grant a restraining order if requested. That sounds to me like a problem with the police and the courts not doing their jobs. So, the real problem to me then is this: How do we fix the problems with the courts and the police to ensure that there is a real threat of violence between parties before issuing a restraining order that removes firearms from a situation?

Please don't attack me...this is not about me. This is about a system that seems to be broken and WHEN it's appropriate to suggest a person buy and be prepared to use a handgun.
Cody