So when do you shoot someone?

[Captain Morgan]

That's a lot of 'implying' and 'seeming like' and 'preferring', all of which are vague. If anyone had asked rather than assuming they knew what I thought, I would have told them that I am undecided about whether handgun training should be "required" or just more strongly promoted and encouraged. I was able to buy two guns and secure my LTCH without any mention whatsoever of the necessity of training or practicing. I took it upon myself to A) join this forum to become better educated B) take an NRA class and C) go to the range weekly to practice firing my guns. But not everyone knows what is available or feels the same level of responsibility, and yes, I think that's scary.

I'll try to make this easier for you. If the above scenario is scary, then what would be less scary?

 

[SaintsNSinners]

Thats your choice. What about when someone you love, or a whole bunch of other people or in imminent danger?

They will shoot as well? I hope

 

[bwframe]

Training will work towards the mechanics of proper use. It will not clarify every situation.
Muscle memory and active use can be taught. When to use can be discussed. Until you are actually put in this situation no one.......again, no one can say what they will do.

Haven't done any force on force training have you? It will let you definitively say what you will do.

 

[2A_Tom]

You get it, CM. My original question was almost a rhetorical one-- a thinking-out-loud realization that **** just got real. I know training is necessary. I have had training and plan to continue it. (Not that anyone even asked.) But as you say, nothing can truly prepare you for every situation where you may have to pull that trigger.

Oh! Now I get it. You just wanted to see if anyone else was as smart as you.

BTW you were asked at least once if you had any training.

 

[Birds Away]

I think the answer to your question is different for everyone. As an example, you are in a gas station/mini mart. A person comes in, displays a firearm, and commences to rob the place. You are inside shopping. Do you engage? There are an awful lot of folks on here that would, or at least they say they would, shoot without question. I am not one of those. If your gut tells you this person just wants the money and to get the heck out of Dodge then I would not engage. I couldn't care less about the gas stations money. Engaging is not a sure thing and can lead to unintended consequences. In this situation you would almost certainly be "justified" under Indiana law. Doesn't mean it is the right call every time. Just an example of how you can study the laws and get a bunch of training and still be left with unanswerable questions.

 

[Snapdragon]

But all you could do was [strike]wine[/strike] whine about your feelings being hurt.

FIFY. I don't see where I wined or whined about hurt feelings. If my feelings were that hurt, I would have bailed on this thread a long time ago, or moved on from INGO as was suggested in a PM I received.

You were asked if you had any training and didn't answer.

I answered that at least twice--maybe three times.

Why if it is scary that training is not required, do you have no training and we would suppose (since you are here) own and possibly carry a fire arm.

Covered that already; you must not have been paying attention. A) I have training and B) no 'possibly' about it; I own two guns.

Yeah, seems you can dish it out, too bad you have such a thin skin.

 

[Birds Away]

Haven't done any force on force training have you? It will let you definitively say what you will do.

I respectfully disagree with this. Training is training and taking a life is a whole different thing. You may be fully prepared and well-trained and still fail to fire.

 

[Manatee]

That's hardly appropriate.

With you calling people traitors, I hardly look to you as the expert on manners.

The "good dog" referred to his avatar, which was a pic of a dog. You don't like dogs or democrats?

Mind your business swabby, and I'll mind mine.

 

[churchmouse]

Haven't done any force on force training have you? It will let you definitively say what you will do.

I have had a butt load (a lot..) of force on force and would as soon use it as to shoot someone.
I was referring to the OP and the obvious lack of confrontational experience.
I grew up in a somewhat rough area and hung out with friends in a seriously rough area. I could not put a tally on the numbers of straight up fist fights I have been in.
Uncles trained me very young to fight, shoot, run and hide. Have studied a few different styles of self defense and my BIL owned and taught his own Do-Jo until a few years ago.
I prefer hands on but will defend by whatever means available. I train with my adult children (oxy moron??) regularly.

 

[the1kidd03]

FIFY. I don't see where I wined or whined about hurt feelings. If my feelings were that hurt, I would have bailed on this thread a long time ago, or moved on from INGO as was suggested in a PM I received.



I answered that at least twice--maybe three times.


Covered that already; you must not have been paying attention. A) I have training and B) no 'possibly' about it; I own two guns.

I've bounced around through this thread. I read the first couple pages when I saw how many more there were, then just started bouncing when I figured your answers had likely been covered.

I get what you're saying. I'm glad you've taken it upon yourself to be responsible for your safety and both equip and educate yourself in how to do that. I agree, there are more people who only do ONE of those things than there should be, however I too do not feel like training should be required (not that that's what you intended to convey, just saying.)


Unfortunately, you will come across this on this board. People read what they want to out of things, knit-pick, and start bickering. Of course, I'm likely guilty of it on occasion myself. We're people, not perfect. We make mistakes. Unfortunately only 7% of communication is through the words we use, the rest comes from that which cannot be transferred through text (tone of voice, body language, etc.) and most people aren't as incredibly accurate with written text as is sometimes needed (I've been guilty of the same as well.) It's just important to bear in mind that everything here requires a healthy amount of salt to be taken with it, and to not spend too much defending yourself rather than looking for the good and helpful information.

I work with mostly people who "aren't on our side of the fence" when it comes to firearms ownership; people with fears/phobias, anti-gun perspectives, brand new to guns, violent crime victims, etc. You are not alone in your views or questions, but as I mentioned, it can be hard to get solid answers through boards like this sometimes. Which leads me to my questions:

After what you've reviewed so far, how do you feel about carrying your weapon and/or the times which may call for using it?
Have your questions been answered sufficiently so far?
What other questions, concerns, etc. might you have in these regards?
Has your perspective on required training changed?/ How DO you feel about it? (not trying to put you on the "chopping block" here either, serious questions for my research)

Coming from what seems to be a SOMEWHAT anti-gun home (no guns in the home, left leaning political views, etc) it is experience like yours as a new gun owner who I'm particularly interested in communicating with/learning from.

 

[ATM]

I have had a butt load (a lot..) of force on force and would as soon use it as to shoot someone.
I was referring to the OP and the obvious lack of confrontational experience.
I grew up in a somewhat rough area and hung out with friends in a seriously rough area. I could not put a tally on the numbers of straight up fist fights I have been in.
Uncles trained me very young to fight, shoot, run and hide. Have studied a few different styles of self defense and my BIL owned and taught his own Do-Jo until a few years ago.
I prefer hands on but will defend by whatever means available. I train with my adult children (oxy moron??) regularly.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to force on force scenarios with firearms, not fist fighting.

 

[Captain Morgan]

Haven't done any force on force training have you? It will let you definitively say what you will do.

I have had a butt load (a lot..) of force on force and would as soon use it as to shoot someone.
I was referring to the OP and the obvious lack of confrontational experience.
I grew up in a somewhat rough area and hung out with friends in a seriously rough area. I could not put a tally on the numbers of straight up fist fights I have been in.
Uncles trained me very young to fight, shoot, run and hide. Have studied a few different styles of self defense and my BIL owned and taught his own Do-Jo until a few years ago.
I prefer hands on but will defend by whatever means available. I train with my adult children (oxy moron??) regularly
.

the "force on force" training being referred to is not hand to hand type fighting. It's firearm training using simunition rounds, putting you into specific scenarios, where you actually use a firearm to shoot someone. See the website for midset labs, which is here in Indiana.

 

[the1kidd03]

I respectfully disagree with this. Training is training and taking a life is a whole different thing. You may be fully prepared and well-trained and still fail to fire.

Agreed. No FOF training I've experienced has accurately replicated the true BAR I've felt. The level of expectation diminishes it enough to not be the same.

That's not to say it's not one of the best learning tools around, but it's by no means the same.

 

[Gluemanz28]

my first sentence was pure sarcasm since this happened on page 1

I must have missed the purple

 

[Snapdragon]

Coming from what seems to be a SOMEWHAT anti-gun home (no guns in the home, left leaning political views, etc) it is experience like yours as a new gun owner who I'm particularly interested in communicating with/learning from.

It has been an interesting ride so far. What I'm finding right now is that someone like me who has not chosen one "side" or the other is literally a man without a country. I'm too liberal for gun people and too conservative for my liberal friends. I have a few friends who have not spoken to me since I bought my first gun. Not really friends, I know, but the intolerance on both sides is disheartening. (Oh no, there I go wining about hurt feelings again...)

 

[actaeon277]

It has been an interesting ride so far. What I'm finding right now is that someone like me who has not chosen one "side" or the other is literally a man without a country. I'm too liberal for gun people and too conservative for my liberal friends. I have a few friends who have not spoken to me since I bought my first gun. Not really friends, I know, but the intolerance on both sides is disheartening. (Oh no, there I go wining about hurt feelings again...)

I'm sorry to hear about people not talking to you because you now have a gun.
I don't think I've ever experienced that.
I've had people disagree. And I have people I don't discuss gun stuff with.
But I don't think I have people avoiding me because of my gun views.

 

[the1kidd03]

It has been an interesting ride so far. What I'm finding right now is that someone like me who has not chosen one "side" or the other is literally a man without a country. I'm too liberal for gun people and too conservative for my liberal friends. I have a few friends who have not spoken to me since I bought my first gun. Not really friends, I know, but the intolerance on both sides is disheartening. (Oh no, there I go wining about hurt feelings again...)

Yeah, it's unfortunate. The stereotypes around politics NEVER end and people can't seem to think rationally and look passed them. I love how so many consider Libertarian "extreme right wing/ right of right wing." I'm not a political expert but based on the perspectives I've been around I think classifying it as right in the middle would be a far more accurate description, but that could be a great divide in that party as well.

Anyway, I would agree that if someone disagrees with your opinion so much that they are willing to sacrifice your friendship, then you're likely better off. Easier said than done at times, but it is what it is.

I've been noticing that particularly younger generations are fitting within the lines of the "center" category of libertarianism. They tend to believe in Constitutional and natural rights, freedom, etc. but also with a consideration to the social impact of economic decisions.

I've found that a large majority of anti-gun people are so merely because they buy into the lying media rhetoric/information and what Hollywood presents rather than researching and learning the real facts for themselves. Rather few of them are opposed to guns for entirely other reasons. There is almost always some level of this ignorance which leads them to their perspective.

 

[88GT]

Rookie, your texting comment was kind of funny. Bwframe, what's the point of having a forum for people to post in if they are just supposed to Google for answers?

An INGO member sent me a very supportive and informative PM, answering my questions in detail and explaining why they (and a lot of other people) disagree with some of my comments. I am going to go ahead and post my response here.

"That's the kind of stuff I was looking for. I can deal with people disagreeing with me or explaining why they think what they think. I welcome it. This is all new to me, and I honestly don't know how I feel about some of these topics. I'm glad for you and some of the others who took the time to educate me rather than mock me."

But you don't welcome it. You bristled and got bent out of shape.

Below is the list of the guns I want. I can't afford them, and that means my gun rights are being infringed. The government's job is to protect my constitutional rights, so the government needs to get me the guns. I am ready to take them by FedEx:

Wilson Combat 1911 (Tactical Supergrade Professional) x 3
STI 2011, the most expensive one
Browning HP (I'll take two)
Larue Tactical AR-15 (again, two -- I need a backup)
Saiga 12 shotgun (already "converted" -- I don't want to have to bother with constitutionally-violating import restrictions)
1,000 rounds of ammo for each of these guns

Shall not be infringed.

A perfect example of a logical fallacy.

Wow the INGO hazing of Snapdragon is ridiculous.

Yep, ridiculously light. Were she not a girl, it probably would have been worse. She got off easy. Four pages so far and not a single response pillorying her for getting a firearm/LTCH without knowing the law. She already has her LTCH and didn't know training wasn't required? How does that work?

That's hardly appropriate.

Consider the source.

 

[Manatee]

It has been an interesting ride so far. What I'm finding right now is that someone like me who has not chosen one "side" or the other is literally a man without a country. I'm too liberal for gun people and too conservative for my liberal friends. I have a few friends who have not spoken to me since I bought my first gun. Not really friends, I know, but the intolerance on both sides is disheartening. (Oh no, there I go wining about hurt feelings again...)

There are something like 80 million gun owners. About 5 million are NRA members. Those are very rough numbers, but I think they serve the point: There are lots of gun owners and they are not unified in beliefs. Even the membership on this website (which isn't of unified opinion on almost any matter) is a small part of the universe of gun owners in Indiana.

I understand the belief that training in whatever form should not be mandatory for an LTCH. I disagree…and I think your initial reaction is to diagree as well. There is almost no profession where training or demonstrated proficiency isn't mandatory for a license.

A number of folks here are arguing about incrementalism. They've resigned themselves to get a license (which they disagree that they need) to exercise a right.

 

[the1kidd03]

There are something like 80 million gun owners. About 5 million are NRA members. Those are very rough numbers, but I think they serve the point: There are lots of gun owners and they are not unified in beliefs. Even the membership on this website (which isn't of unified opinion on almost any matter) is a small part of the universe of gun owners in Indiana.

I understand the belief that training in whatever form should not be mandatory for an LTCH. I disagree…and I think your initial reaction is to diagree as well. There is almost no profession where training or demonstrated proficiency isn't mandatory for a license.

A number of folks here are arguing about incrementalism. They've resigned themselves to get a license (which they disagree that they need) to exercise a right.

Spot on in perception. The issue with practicing most licensed professions is that other people will CERTAINLY be affected by your practicing of that knowledge (or lack there of.) Carrying a gun, while does present a potential for affecting others in the use of that knowledge, does not inherently mean that will always be the case. It would be rather, only in limited circumstances. This is only one of many reasons that I personally disagree with this premise.

Beyond that, what you're speaking of is the premise of social responsibility; where one's decisions could adversely affect others whether involved in the originating party or not. Thereby, (in theory) justifying a "need" for applying a required standardized level of knowledge. However, what is commonly not considered is the reverse aspect of social responsibility in imposing such a requirement in this arena. Requiring training, would cost money. It would add time to/delay the process of being able to have a weapon to defend themselves. Thus, the financial requirement for imposing such would restrict a large segment of people from being able to have a gun to protect themselves. I would also contest that this demographic of people are mostly those who are more likely to actually need the firearm at some point (considering financial demographics.) Thus, putting them at risk because of a requirement which does really little of what it was intended to do. This goes without even mentioning that demographic of people who decide to buy a gun because of a current threat, such as a "stalking boyfriend."

So, basically we're comparing the risks associated on either side. We know that allowing gun carry/ownership without training CAN be an added risk. However, considering the overwhelming majority of gun owners that aren't a problem, I'd say there is VERY little evidence to say that this risk is greater than that of recorded incidents which stem from the other side like I listed. There are more people at greater risk in low income areas, and those affected by things such as domestic abuse by requiring training, than those who MIGHT be at risk presently by NOT requiring it. Which is the greater good here? Without sufficient evidence to validate that requiring it would have a real affect, then it has little reason to exist other than as a "feel good measure" for the less informed, and/or a means for others to set limitations to something they would rather see abolished all together. In which case. where will those limitations end?

Keep in mind this is not the ONLY reasons I have against requiring training. These are just the reasons I have which are directly related to that of the social responsibility arena of carrying/owning a gun which I see often go unmentioned.