Home Defense Gun for Inexperienced Folks

Status
Not open for further replies.
peacefulgary said:
I totally disagree.



Firearms are not complicated.

They are very simple devices.

And "untrained" persons have been using them successfully for decades.



No sane person, with at least Junior High School intelligence, is actually better off without a firearm.



This is just stupid crap the anti-gun establishment pushes.
Click to expand...


I'm not in the camp that thinks training should be mandatory for ownership. It is true that untrained people have been successfully using them for a long time. This is in large part due to the fact that so many DGUs are resolved with no shots fired , and also owes a bit to the percentage of DGUs that happen at very short distances.

It is also true that training is very beneficial. Defense of myself and/or my loved ones is not an area where I'm looking for "probably good enough". My goal is to have as many advantages as are reasonably possible. When I care about someone, even enough to simply call them "friend", I want the same for them. Because of this, part of my help in any friend's journey is to strongly encourage that they set themselves up for success by seeking training.

Here is a true story. I've referenced this here before, but it is worth repeating:

One night, an acquaintance we'll call 'K' and one of his coworkers 'C' were leaving work. As they walked out a ways into the dim parking lot, a group of 5 guys walking through the lot started yelling comments relating to C being Hispanic. K and C slowed, since their path was taking them toward the guys. The guys slowed, and made more aggressive remarks. K tried to deescalate the situation. The men moved toward C and K, and quickly got close as K was trying to verbally deescalate things.

This quickly turned into a beating, as the men knocked K and C to the ground and began hitting and kicking them brutally. K eventually worked his ccw out of his pocket while being beaten and got a shot off, apparently hitting an attacker's shoulder. The attackers ran away.

Success? Well, K and C are both alive. That's a good thing, of course. But... K is permanently disabled, and will be suffering from that beating for the rest of his life. His wife and kids nearly lost him.

Had he been trained and better set up for success that situation could likely have ended without violence. The gun should have come out sooner, K or C should have gotten on the line with 9-1-1 immediately (physical force disparity constitutes lethal force in most places, so 5 vs 2 and threatening behavior is deserving of serious response), etc.

I don't want anybody I care about to experience what K did. I want them to be prepared to walk away from situations unharmed. Therefore, I encourage training.
 
Do criminals know what they are doing as compared to you?

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/training-vs-experience

There is a difference between mandating training and suggesting that if you decide that you will employ an instrument of lethal force, is it a good idea to know what you are doing.

Unfortunately, the news emphasizes concealed carriers who are idiots in recent times.

Also, when arguing for carry - one point is that folks fear that the carrier will shoot an innocent. It is know from the moral heuristic literature that actively killing an innocent even to save other innocents is not looked upon positively.

That argument is weakened if the carrier can show due diligence in obtaining some training.

Most simple DGUs are resolved because of the bad guy fleeing. A complex one is - well - complex. I recall the following. We did a defend the house from two armed burglars. You had a shotgun (training weapons), yes - the mighty shotgun. You heard the burglars. The naïve folks left the safe room to engage the burglars who were taunting them. They were ambushed, knocked on their tush or 'shot'. The trained folks used skills to avoid such.

It's risk analysis. The naïve may carry the day in the mundane single bad guy be gone. If it is more complex - then ...

If you slice your finger - then you can put on a band aid. If your hand is sliced open to the bone - you might want a doctor.
 
A 38 revolver with a 4" barrel such as a S&W Model 10 or Model 64 is just about ideal. Handles well and is very easy to shoot accurately. With little training, most folks can become proficient quickly. No slides or safeties to fumble with when awakened in the middle of the night. "Point and click" in a manner of speaking...
 
Remember that indoor shootings are just that: indoors and possibly in the dark. Recoil is already a consideration but this opens up muzzle flash and report, especially for new or inexperienced shooters. Whether the immediate shock or the real risk of permanent hearing loss for the whole family, I join some of the other advisers here in recommending against hand cannons. The recommendations in 9mm and .38 special are probably right on target as far as handguns.

I know a hundred people will step in and call it inadequate for self-defense, but I actually use a larger steel pistol in .32acp in the home for these reasons. If I have time to grab hearing protection, I've got plenty of larger options available. In the meantime, the .32 is always on hand and I'm well-practiced with it.

In general, I'd recommend revolvers over semis and I wouldn't totally rule out a light carbine.
 
Firearms are not complicated.
They are very simple devices.
And "untrained" persons have been using them successfully for decades.

No sane person, with at least Junior High School intelligence, is actually better off without a firearm.

This is just stupid crap the anti-gun establishment pushes.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they are better off with a firearm and no training, but how about the guy the untrained negligently puts in danger because they haven't learned basic safety rules. For example, somebody on the trap range frequently

1. Paints others,
2. Loads more than one shotshell when shooting single targets
3. Fails to keep their action opened when not ready to shoot
4. Uses ammunition that can carry beyond the safe drop zone

Most of these guys all are happy to comply with the rules after they are explained to them, that is given minimal training, and I fail to see anything stupid in requiring a demonstration of minimal firearms knowledge on behalf of anyone wishing to bear arms. On the other hand I can see where any but the most minimal basic requirements would result in overly burdensome regulations that in effect could prohibit of the right to bear arms.

I guess what I am saying is that the right doesn't include the right to irresponsibly bear arms.
 
Maryland implemented a gun law last October, the Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (a.k.a. SB281) that tries to address the issue of unsafe firearm handling and use by requiring everyone to get a license who wants to purchase or receive (e.g., gift) a handgun. The cost, without the mandatory training or exemption, is $105, and includes fingerprinting and an extensive background check. (Ironically, Maryland has had an average of almost one death by shooting per day this year. New laws won't work if old laws are ignored.)



While everyone (antigun) may argue that that is a small price to pay to prevent deaths, the legislature piled on a bunch of other nonsensical stuff to basically eliminate the free market for legitimate gun sales in Maryland. Any previously regulated long rifle (e.g., AK, AR, etc.) is now banned totally from new acquisitions. Any magazines over 10 rounds are banned--no more purchasing good deals of standard handguns; gotta get a special version or give up the mags that come with it to repurchase 10-round mags.



These all become barriers to entry for gun ownership. Be careful before buying into seemingly sound arguments without checking the other side of the coin.
 
Last edited:
For the record, I was not suggesting that the government should force people to get training before they can own a gun. We've got too many laws already. The OP's question had to do with counseling a friend who's an inexperienced shooter thinking about buying a handgun for HD. My advice to that friend would be get some training and make an informed decision on the purchase based on that training. Then, having purchased a gun practice with it and make sure he knows how to handle it before he just stuffs it in a drawer. That would be my advice. I am not the government.
 
I don't believe any sort of formal training is paramount to reliably defending oneself in-home, but I do believe a few factors need to be in place. Those factors as I see them are (in order of importance): 1. Willingness to use deadly force if need be, 2. Ability to safely handle and operate your firearm, and 3. an effective plan for quickly accessing your weapon in it's ready state if need be. If any of these are missing, your firearm probably won't do you a ton of good. But this isn't about that. It's about handgun selection.

While I agree with the sentiments about the .38 spl revolver, I strongly agree with the proposal of a good DA .22 revolver as well. Low intensity, easy to learn and remember, and cheap to shoot. I do feel that the more confident and familiar your friend is with his chosen firearm, the better. And it's a lot easier and cheaper to get to that point with a .22 than any centerfire. There are obvious concerns about the power and reliability of a rimfire round, but as we've heard 1000 times, a hit with a .22 beats a miss with a .45. And if you do end up having a dud round, just pull the trigger again.

Just my thoughts.
 
Perhaps they are better off with a firearm and no training, but how about the guy the untrained negligently puts in danger because they haven't learned basic safety rules.
Click to expand...
A free world is often a dangerous world.

But only a fool would trade freedom for safety.
And more government regulation is not the answer.

For example, somebody on the trap range frequently

1. Paints others,
2. Loads more than one shotshell when shooting single targets
3. Fails to keep their action opened when not ready to shoot
4. Uses ammunition that can carry beyond the safe drop zone
Click to expand...
No one is advocating "painting" or "sweeping" others.
But some of the rules you list are certainly not necessary for safety...

How does me loading more than one shell for a single target make the situation unsafe if I only shoot one shell in to that target?
It doesn't.
But someone somewhere felt that a second shell MIGHT somehow become a negligent discharge...even though that notion has no logic to support it.

Why is it necessary to keep the shotgun's action open when not ready to shoot?
It's not.
If your shotgun is not in your hands there is no way that it is just going to go off whether the action is locked open or not.
This is a good example of a rule that someone felt would make things more safe even though it has no real logic behind it at all.

It make as much sense as saying at a race track "all cars not currently racing must have their tires removed to ensure safety".

...I fail to see anything stupid in requiring a demonstration of minimal firearms knowledge on behalf of anyone wishing to bear arms.
Click to expand...
But who gets to decide what is "minimal firearms knowledge"?
You?
Me?
The government?


I guess what I am saying is that the right doesn't include the right to irresponsibly bear arms.
Click to expand...
But who gets to decide what is "irresponsible"?
You?
Me?
The government?
 
Hey, once again I want to thank everyone for the great feedback.

While I do agree that training is very important I do not believe it should be mandatory for a person to buy a firearm. I will provide a level of basic training for him before we even go to the LGS. I’ll also offer additional training at the range and encourage him to pursue formal training from a professional, but I’m not going to make training a prerequisite for offering advice to a friend.

If anyone has any specific recommendations on hardware that would be great, but it seems like the debate on training has sort of played out as we’re just kind of stating and restating the same arguments.

Again, thanks…
 
For home defense handgun that maybe kept untouched in a closet for a while, I would opt for a revolver because of simple operation and ease of maintenance.
Maybe as Ruger SP101 or GP100. Maybe a no lock S&W 10,15,67,66,686 (used).
===
Adjustable sights are always nice for POA=POI.
 
A DA revolver is very simple, so simple a child could fire it. Something to consider. My 87 yo mother opted for single shot- break barrel Ithaca 12ga with low recoil loads
 
Last edited:
I will provide a level of basic training for him before we even go to the LGS. I’ll also offer additional training at the range and encourage him to pursue formal training from a professional, but I’m not going to make training a prerequisite for offering advice to a friend.
Click to expand...

We're not suggesting training as a prerequisite for advice. We're offering training as a component of sound advice. You'd be doing your friend a favor by getting it into his head that having a gun and being able to hit paper doesn't necessarily equal being ready to defend himself or his family.


As for the original question:

My weapon of choice for home defense is my carry handgun, a Glock 19 Gen 4. The specific reasons for this are as follows:

1) I am committed to keeping my weapons from being used to harm innocents. I make sure that they are secured 100% of the time, without fail, no exceptions. "Secured" means either carried on-body, or locked up. I carry one all day, every day, in order to make sure that I attend to security and accessibility at all times. No matter where I am in the house or anywhere else, I have immediate access to my weapon, and nobody else has access to my weapons.

2) Using a handgun for HD means that I can use my other hand for my phone, door knobs, light switches, flashlights, etc. I retain effective use of the weapon while attending to these other things.

3) 15+1 before a reload gives me a lot to work with.

4) Handguns are very convenient to train or practice with. I'm a member at an indoor range where I can shoot any day of the year, regardless of the weather. Dry fire doesn't require much space or time, and I do that 2-3 days/week. All of this adds up to an easy time maintaining or increasing proficiency.

5) This particular pistol has very good handling characteristics. Low muzzle rise, trigger suited for rapid fire, etc.
 
all debates aside....

For actual hadware... well, I think a Ruger SP101 .357mag with a 3" barrel, loaded with .38 specials would be a good choice.

They are not to small, but are still compact enough to fit in a small nightstand safe easily. The weight on the SP101 will absorb the recoil very well with .38 specials. The stainless steel finish on the gun will be easier to maintain and will be much less prone to rust if it sits for extended periods. The sights are fixed, so no worries about someone banging it around and throwing them off. Simple as point and shoot.

I have a 12 gauge shotgun.. but in all honesty, I would hate like hell to fire that thing inside, with no hearing protection and in the dark. I would be deaf and blind. I would if I had to.. but I keep my SP101 in my nightstand (when not on my belt) and that would be my go-to gun in a panic. The 12 gauge is for fun at the range. If the SHTF, I like knowing I have it.. but it is a large weapon that I must keep locked away due to children. Deploying it is not something that would be fast or fluid in a "seconds count" situation.
 
I am with Waspinator.
A 38 special revolver maybe best. SP101 is a very good choice. A no-lock K-Frame S&W like the model 10 or 64 is good, too. No mags, safety, decocker, etc. to worry about -- point and shoot.
==
It would be very unwise for anyone who has a firearm as a Defensive weapon to not train. At the least, one has to learn/practice safe handling and practice enough to keep familiar with the weapon.
==
 
I think we are done. We are starting to spout another cycle of cliches.

The advice to get training and a reliable handgun is the best.

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top