The best advice we can give to new gun owners

[Gaxicus]

No hurt feelings here.

Pax,

Thank you so much for actually contributing something to the thread instead of just sarcastic remarks. I put this up here because no matter how effective I might think it is, it is certainly controversial and I wanted to improve it. My feelings weren't hurt, I just get ticked off when trollers or drive-by insult artists mud up a thread.

I love the cornered cat. JasonG posted a link and I spent a lot of time reading it. I referred a lot of people to it.

An observation. I disagree with you on several points in your post Not that I am going to try and tell a woman what she is thinking, but probably because you are in a very different place mentally than I see some of the women and quite a few men at the range. I'll explain and maybe you can address them. I dont want to be right, I want to get better at this.

First , let me start by saying I don't condone beating an unconscious rapist.... but I understand. I would rather have fight like that in her than have her give up and become a statistic. Same applies to men. The story is shocking and I believe it sidetracked things as people seemed to get hung up on it.

1) You believe most new gun owners reek of fear.

Most new defensive gun owners, Yes I do. Fidgeting, very little eye contact if any, jumpiness, extremely fast and start stop speech pattern. The big test for me is watching them load the gun in the range stall. Shaking hands, dropping rounds, bad muzzle discipline. I usually comment on what a nice gun they have, ask them the story behind it, then ask to try it first when I see that. It helps them focus and calm down but that's not necessarily what this approach is designed to address.

You particularly believe most female gun owners reek of fear.

I will cop right now to using generalizations. Lots of them. I know I am skipping through a field of bear traps on this one but I will give you a direct answer anyway. New female defensive gun owners, yes I do. Almost the same thing as above but with additional observations. I'll explain.

Actually, the women usually exhibit less of the above symptoms of fear during the first parts of the session and the actual operation of the firearm. Many times they outshoot the men once they have reloaded, not sure why, better fine motor control, whatever. They also ask more questions. Not kissing any ass here, its just true.

Where I see the above symptoms really become evident is when the discussion of using the weapon starts. Some will flat out say that they dont think they can use it if they needed to. I don't think its responsible to ignore that. The gun is worse than useless if this isn't addressed

After several different approaches and exercises, i reached the conclusion that, generally, women are less likely to have wrapped their head around and have far less experience with the concept of physically attacking someone. In a fight, you have to willfully, aggressively, and repeatedly attack someone, even when hurt. When an an advantage is gained, you must not surrender it until the opponent is incapable of attacking you effectively on your egress. Especially if you are outsized.

Anyone who has raised boys knows that they seem instinctively driven to constantly challenge themselves and others in this physical way. My girls are instinctively very capable of using words against other girls and completely outmatch the boys but have had to learn the physical aspects of conflict. Often from their brothers.

Without the subject coming up, after a few minutes of conversation, you could probably guess right 75% of the time if a woman grew up with older brothers.

The act of punching, kicking, biting, scratching, shooting etc should be a focused attack. The very word attack seems to make a lot of women and some men cringe when they think of associating it with themselves. Attack they must if they are in a fight. How do you get them to commit to an effective attack? They need to be more than OK with it. They need to be passionately resolved to it. They must fight harder, faster, and be more relentlessly than their bigger attackers.

That is what this whole approach is geared toward.

3) You believe that the way to get them over their fear is to call them "killers."

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. This is a hard approach.

The soft approach we would all prefer doesn't work sometimes. It can come off fake and condescending when coming from a man to both women and men. Sexist? Maybe, but it is something that happens and it cant be ignored. Some fair criticism here, I love the cornered cat. I like the approach but it is just isnt going to work sometimes. Its not too hard to imagine women balking at being compared to kitties, especially by a man is it? Maybe it is sexist, but its something I've noticed and have to deal with.

My first rule of teaching is be yourself, be honest, and deal to your strengths. I am not a woman. I am not someone that has much, if any, sympathy for predators, and I detest the idea of having a gun being taken from a law abiding citizen by one.

The hard approach is not the first option, it is not just for women, and it is definitely not for everyone. It can be very effective though.

I use those strong words because it forces the issue. Those words are monolithic and leave very little wiggle room for fear (ir)rationalization.

It is a very direct thought process.

Predator.
What is a predator? A person that wishes to inflict themself on me and take something from me by force. What am I willing to surrender and what am I not? Hey, who the *#@*&% does this jerk think he is anyway?!

Attack.
Me? Attack? Oh my god you cant be serious, I have a hard time killing a spider. Wait! I have kids, a wife or husband. I have made sacrifices for my future and my family. I have every right to protect that. How do I survive? He wont let me talk him out of it.. he is just hitting me and pulling me into a car! I must attack to save my, and my familys future. I must attack to survive.

Kill.
Oh sheesh I dont think I could live with myself if I killed someone. Thats what bad guys do isnt it? Cant I sorta threaten him in a nice way? Maybe shoot him in the... Oh its too late, Im in the car and he has my gun. Is that Duct tape? What are the garbage bags for? Is that dried blood? Im not the first one hes done this to. OMG I wish I had that gun back! I want to live! This &*%^$% deserves to die!

Predator Killer.
I have already thought out my moral obligations, my fears, and my choices. I know the law, it is on my side, and it is less of a threat to me than my attacker. I am perfectly ready and willing to kill a predator. I will fight until I am unconscious if necessary to make sure he can not attack me until I can be safe. If he takes my wallet the look in my eyes alone will be enough to let him know he wont get anything else. If I have to pull my gun, I will shoot and shoot to kill. I cant afford, and he doesn't deserve, for me to take any chances if he attacks me. I am a predator killer and I am more than ok with it I am resolved to it.

Thats the hard approach. It has worked. The people that it works with dont go around looking for an excuse to kill people. They carry themselves more confidently, not more aggressively or threatening. Calmer and noticeably less jumpy. Not a limping gazelle around lions. Im not going to make anyone I would use this approach with into a serial killer. They will have faced the issues, thought it out, and resolved themselves to their choices.

Calling people "killers" instills a dangerous mindset. My students aren't "killers."

We aren't "killers." We are people who will do whatever it takes to survive the encounter with our lives and our good guy status intact.

I respectfully disagree with this approach. 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. Good guy status belongs before and after, never during a fight for your life. Hero stuff just gets you killed. Lots of people will probably back me up on this even if they hate everything else I posted.

I like your "whatever it takes" stuff. Good. Mind if I use it? I don't just use the hard approach.

A domestic cat is sweet and cuddly and non-threatening. Sure, it's capable of killing, if killing is called for. But it's not primarily a killer. That's not its identity. Its central identity is non-threatening; the claws only come out when threatened and the purpose is to get away from the attacker.

I am sure this works really well for you but I just cant see myself pulling it off the way you can. I can see everyones eyes rolling and going glazed to anything else I tell them. Like it or not, Im just a man (wink).

I know that's not macho enough for a lot of folks. I can live with that. I'm just a girl, after all, and probably don't have the right mindset. So be it.

Now that IS sexist condescension if I have ever heard it but considering how many times I probably offended you, I can give it away.

Keep up the good work. I like the website and will continue referring folks to it. Thanks again for taking the time to contribute something useful to the thread.

 

[Gaxicus]

Yep, nothing like manufacturing evidence that might be used against you and might be difficult to successfully rebutt.

Beyond that, how might words like that be taken and used by legislators, the media, etc., and how might they impinge upon the continuation of gun rights?

No, I would say "you or not a killer. You can and will use force, including deadly force when justified, to protect yourself and family, when it is immediately necessary to do so--and at no other time."

Legislatively or in the press it does make for interesting discussion. Fodder for the gun grabbers, the media, etc.

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.

"Man advises gun owners to think of themselves as predator killers" is one thing but "Man advises gun owners to be killers" is another.

I want to use strong monolithic words that force the issue so that people really face and pre-make their decisions about the moral and legal aspects of owning or carrying a gun for protection. 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?

Tough. I am more than open to ideas on improving the approach.

 

[oldkim]

Glaxious,

It's all about perspective. The cart before the horse, sort of speak....


The post was about what advice you give to new gun owner.

The "mindset" is for someone that is more into the self defense and/or concealed carry use of a firearm which is something to consider..... But, this is way before that.

Some post diverged a bit so back onto topic.

So, back to advice for NEW gun owners.
1) Be safe - Safety First
2) Get some training from an experienced shooter or by an instructor
3) Read all the info you can - about gun safety and about your particular gun
4) Practice
5) If you are considering concealed carry or for home defense - read and be familiar with your state laws. Lethal force - no you can't shoot someone if they stole your car - now if they are trying to run you over that's another story. Of course, if your in the car when they are stealing it then that's a whole different situation.

New gun owners: - there's a lot of new gun owners (my weekend trip to the gun range proves that.... hands down.

Have fun and do learn how to shoot well. If you think about it. If you can shoot well - you'll have a lot more fun.

 

[pax]

Gaxicus ~

Now we're talking! ("A man never tells you anything until you contradict him." -- George Bernard Shaw ) Thanks.

By the way, just to clear the air a little: when I said Glenn was right, I wasn't referring to popcorn, but to the danger of being convicted as a murderer if you continue the attack against an unconscious, helpless person who is no longer a threat to you. Of course I can be & frequently am sarcastic, but not in that first, short post ... (see the last para of my second post for a true sample -- I'll take my lumps for that one).

First , let me start by saying I don't condone beating an unconscious rapist.... but I understand. I would rather have fight like that in her than have her give up and become a statistic. Same applies to men. The story is shocking and I believe it sidetracked things as people seemed to get hung up on it.

Well, yes. I am somewhat hung up on it, and here's why: I think it illustrates our primary area of disagreement very clearly. So let's talk specifics. We can revisit the rest later, if you like -- but I suspect that focusing on this will bring everything else into sharp focus too.

1) I agree with you (absolutely!) that the "never give up or quit" mindset is essential and important. Never, ever, ever quit until you've reached your goal.

2) The story -- as told -- only partially illustrates that "never give up" mindset. It primarily illustrates a different mindset entirely. The mindset it illustrates is not "Do whatever it takes to get away safely." Instead, it illustrates, "Do whatever it takes to kill the attacker." Some people talk as if these two goals are one and the same, but in fact they are worlds apart.

Someone who is focused on survival and escape may very well kill an attacker, when the attacker and his actions are in the way of that goal. But someone who is focused on killing the attacker might instead utterly miss her one and only good chance to escape in safety, because she has tunneled in on "winning the fight." With the wrong goal thus in mind, her chances of survival go down dramatically. This is particularly true for women, among whom even the most skillful and trained are generally at a disadvantage when the assailant is male: males generally have larger bodies, greater reach, more endurance, and so on. The longer the physical assault lasts, the better it generally will be for him and the worse for her. So if she can escape safely, she should escape rather than prolong the fight. And she should steel herself to do whatever it takes to manage that escape in safety.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I think we need to very, very carefully define what a win looks like for our students. A win isn't killing the attacker. A win isn't not killing the attacker. The attacker simply doesn't matter. If he gets in the way of the goal (survival!), he's disposable. That's the mindset.

This isn't necessarily a matter of "hard" versus "soft" approaches, though at first glance it might seem so. It goes a lot deeper than that, and in fact can be illustrated through something else you said:

... shoot to kill.

That particular phrase has been hashed over, and over, and over again on this forum. And it probably will be again. For now, let's begin by agreeing that the primary point of aim is the center of the largest visible mass of the assailant's body: most commonly the area including the heart, the lungs, the aorta. Or it is the brain stem, typically reached through the sinus cavities from the front. Or it may be (in the case of a knife-armed attacker for whom a center mass shot hasn't worked, and if the head is too difficult a shot for whatever reason) a pelvic shot: bladder, bowels, and the structural support for the entire abdomen, often including the base of the spinal cord. Any of these shots will very likely kill a man, or cripple him for life. No sugarcoating here! (Forgive the digression: just wanted to be clear that when I criticize "shoot to kill" I am NOT proposing some silly idea like aiming at the assailant's left pinkie toenail ...)

Despite the fact that shooting at the center mass may very likely kill the assailant, the purpose of using these aimpoints isn't to kill. You don't choose one aimpoint over another because of the likelihood of killing versus not killing. That's not the criteria. You choose those aimpoints because they are possible. (In real life, unlike in Hollywood, many shots are impossible, for most average or even incredible shooters -- but you & I both know that!) And you choose these aimpoints because they have the highest likelihood of stopping the attack immediately and thus ensuring the victim's survival. If the attacker dies as a result, too bad so sad. But the attacker's death is not the point.

If there were a way to reliably stop the attacker -- and thus ensure the victim's survival -- by simply waving a magic wand and putting him to sleep, we'd do it. But Magic Fairy Dust isn't available, here in the real world. So here in the real world, we use firearms to stop the attacker and allow the victim to survive and escape in safety.

So I object to the very notion of "shoot to kill" not because it is bloodthirsty (or "a hard approach"), but because it is inaccurate. It does not express what I am doing or why I am doing it, when I pull the trigger in self-defense. Thinking of it as "shooting to kill", as if killing were the point of the exercise, actually prevents me from focusing on my primary goal: defending myself, surviving and escaping.

And all that brings us to the female students in particular. Are they better served by kill-kill-kill, or by a realistic, balanced, honest discussion of the dynamics of self-defense? Obviously, you've chosen the former (at least for your attention grabbers) and I've shunned that approach for -- I hope! -- the latter. As you point out, it may be that because I am female I can get away with a softer approach, one that's not particularly open for a male instructor. I don't think so, but that may be true. If so, after the kill-kill-kill spiel, I'd urge you to look for ways to underline the legal realities of self defense, in part because (in my experience at least) women are no more immune than men are to unrealistic, chest-thumping fantasies that can get them into serious legal trouble.

Oh, shall I open a can of worms here? Can't resist! Women often have an easier time in criminal court than their male counterparts, but that is changing. While a woman who kills a stranger in self-defense may have an easier journey through the "justice" system than a man who does likewise, it's not necessarily true. Personally, I would not wish to bet my life or my future on the refusal of a jury to convict me based on my sex; I'd rather bet on my own ability to avoid illegal behavior in the first place.

Of course, all of the above might mean that you and I have too deep a philosophical divide to come to a meeting of the minds about the rest, and that's okay. What a boring world it would be if everyone thought alike!

Thanks for the kind words about the site.

pax,

Kathy

 

[Gaxicus]

The "mindset" is for someone that is more into the self defense and/or concealed carry use of a firearm which is something to consider..... But, this is way before that.

The very first sentence in the thread is "We probably all get questions or even help train people new to firearms or those new to defensive firearms."

Admittedly the thread did take a big turn toward new defensive firearm owners but I dont think it got off topic.

So, back to advice for NEW gun owners.
1) Be safe - Safety First
2) Get some training from an experienced shooter or by an instructor
3) Read all the info you can - about gun safety and about your particular gun
4) Practice
5) If you are considering concealed carry or for home defense - read and be familiar with your state laws. Lethal force - no you can't shoot someone if they stole your car - now if they are trying to run you over that's another story. Of course, if your in the car when they are stealing it then that's a whole different situation.

All very good. Thank you

 

[Gaxicus]

Shoot, fight, kill etc.

I love the Shaw quote. Smart.

It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer. - Albert Einstein

I use that one when someone accuses me of beating a dead horse. (I figured I'd give it a shot on the whole rapist beating thing )

Ill make it quick and simple on what the lady did to the rapist in the story.

He took his life and hers in his hands when he attacked her. If she goes into a blind rage and kills him, its on him. She is no professional rape victim either. I dont think it is her that needs to be held to a higher standard here.

I don't condone it, but I understand.

On the other stuff:

Usually the part where a person says "I just cant see my self shooting another human being no matter what." is after the legal stuff has been discussed or when everyone is leaving from the range.

This is the point at which I get the pucker about that gun of theirs being used on them and/or the predators next victim. This is the most difficult part of advising people about defensive firearms for me.

I have advised martial arts classes to build confidence or as a replacement for the firearm, pepper spray, even offered to find a buyer for their gun. You could say that I am a bit hung up on it. I think with good reason.

I also believe very strongly in law abiding citizen gun ownership. I find myself conflicted because while it may be true that some people shouldn't own guns, I don't think it is those that really, really don't think like a criminal.

Most of the people who get the "Predator Killer" routine are people that just simply haven't contemplated violence on either end of it at all. God bless them but they make great victims for predators.

What they want is to be safe. They bought the gun to feel safe. The thought of actually using violence to protect themselves is just something they haven't got their head around at all. I am certainly not saying they are stupid. They are usually quite the opposite, they often pride themselves on their abhorrence of violence, but they just arent realistic about it at all. All of the rules that they live their life by, their ethics, philosophy, etc are useless when being attacked. This is also why so many people vote for gun control.

People who don't think like criminals are the folks who really should have the guns in the first place. My conflict lies in that their ignorance of violence makes them dangerous. That gun is going to end up in the hands of their attacker.

I use words like Kill, Attack, Predator because they are ugly and not easily talked around or dodged. My goal is to make them face both sides of the concept of violence and its consequences. To them, From them.

I dont think you can dismiss KILL as an incidental side effect to using a gun to stop an attack. Carry guns are very unlikely to be manstoppers in the classical sense. Kill is what can happen to them, it is what is very likely to happen to their attacker but more it is a concept they need to explore morally, legally, and intellectually.

Killing happens. Our judicial system kills, There are laws that allow our government and its employees to kill. Why? Is it a necessary part of a civilized society? Is killing murder? However you answer these questions you must answer before carrying a gun.

Killing is the ultimate extent and undeniable risk of violence. Defensive gun owners of all people should not dodge this fact but face it head on.

Ignorance begets fear

Look at the reaction to that word in my post. Are we dodging? I think maybe.

Thanks again. Its been a pleasure.

 

[jesus5150]

Best Advice

It's Always loaded. Even when it's not.

 

[Gaxicus]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

It's Always loaded. Even when it's not.

Almost lost some toes to that once a long time ago. Im embarrassed about it because I have been around firearms my whole life. I bring it up because if it can happen to me, it can happen to you.

Consistent gun handling is critical. Every time a firearm leaves your hand, open it, check it first. When a gun goes in to your hand, open it, check it first thing.

EVERY TIME! Insist on it from the people around you EVERY TIME!

Still got 10 but barely.

 

[BuckHammer]

A domestic cat is sweet and cuddly and non-threatening. Sure, it's capable of killing, if killing is called for. But it's not primarily a killer. That's not its identity. Its central identity is non-threatening; the claws only come out when threatened and the purpose is to get away from the attacker.

I get the point, but I have to point out that in my personal experience with domesticated cats, they will kill everything that they have the capability of killing. I think of cats as killers. They are one of the most violent creatures that God made. If you have a fish tank, they'll go after the fish. If you have a bird feeder, or just birds in your environment, then they will go after the birds. It comes in great handy when you have a mouse or rat or mole problem. The only thing that a cat will not kill (maybe with a few exceptions that I am not aware of) is kittens, and anything that it is incapable of killing.

I have no idea how cats have escaped being labeled as violent creatures. They have somehow gained the "cuddly" image.

Not trying to take anything away from your post, I'm just saying.

 

[noyes]

Most of them are buying a firearm because of fear. You can just see it written all over them. This ditty is what I tell them to get out of the fear mindset.

It sounds a bit cheesy but it really pushes the right buttons. Ill spare you the intro and get right to the heart of it.


Say it to yourself.

............................................................


Hey thanks. Its often very difficult to get people to face their own ability to fight, keep fighting, and survive. Many are afraid of their own power.

I have been working on this little story for a while. I never tell it the same way twice. You really have to read your audience before associating the word "killer" with what a person thinks of themself.


.........................................................

If you ever attended a woman's self defense class you would be shocked at the things retired police officers tell them in order to get them out of prey mode.
The rapist had already victimized other women before he attacked her, he had practice. She took three knife wounds in the struggle but she survived because she kept fighting. He is rotting in jail with a colostomy bag or something like that.

..............................................................................





If you and PAX have a problem with that, take your popcorn to a victim recovery group and shut up and listen.



.......................................................................


Scared panicky people with guns, even at a range are very dangerous and prone to mistakes. Training with a firearm should start with dealing with all of that fear.

............................................


Most new defensive gun owners, Yes I do. Fidgeting, very little eye contact if any, jumpiness, extremely fast and start stop speech pattern. The big test for me is watching them load the gun in the range stall. Shaking hands, dropping rounds, bad muzzle discipline.


I have to ask , Why are they nervous ?

Did you do your talking before they hit the range.

I do not carry but after reading this I may start . Why you may ask ....you will not like my answer . Hindsight is almost always better. Maybe re-read what you posted after a while.

 

[G-man 26]

Cats are most assuredly killers. I like it when someone says that people are the only animal that kills for pleasure. I say; "Ever watch a cat?" They are cute to us at 10 to 20 times their size and weight. Ask a mouse how cute a cat is. It's perception all right, just like squirles and rats.

Glax has it right, and wrong. Your thinking it, and even teaching it, is one thing. Talking about it on the internet is another. It sounds as if you are a professional instructor. If this is true, expressing your approach on the "killer" mentality has damaged you and every one of your students, past and present. Not saying you are wrong, but it could look bad in court, even to have been trained by one espousing this view. You can take this risk for yourself, but for others?

On the other hand, I applaud your bravado. Mealy mouthed capitulation to the outright corruption of language by the liberals has had me ****** for well over a decade. We walk on egg shells for these two bit loosers, who can't win an argument without re-definition of every word in the book. You have done a rare thing, said what you mean. This kind of taking back of our language is much needed, and quite necessary if we are going to ever win the culture war we are engaged in. I am just glad I have never studied under you, that this entire thread may be used against me one day.

The "cornered cat" site is by far one of the best I have ever seen. I just sent it to everyone on my list and will expect it to go much further than that. Thank you Pax.

 

[ohioguardsman88]

...

1. When you are in a indoor range, don't be afraid of the loud "bang"!
2. Treat your gun as if they are LOADED at all time.
3. Experience=Knowledge=Confidence
4. Don't point that darn thing at ANYONE!
5. Attend an intro course!!!

 

[Milspec]

Don't worry so much about concealing your .44 mag that you can't extract it from your underware in time for it to be useful. If you really need deep concealment fine...but keep a BUG (LCP or similar gun) that you can get to in a hurry.

Milspec

 

[Southern Rebel]

Killing versus Stopping

To follow the "kitty" lne, it is obvious that we are pussy-footing around with politically correct wording. The "correct" way to state our intentions is to say that we only shoot to stop the predator, not to kill him/her. To state our intent to kill brings us very close to an admission of a potential crime in the eyes of our justice system.

I believe that any reasonable person with a minimum of firearms training fully understands that shooting someone in the body regions required to stop an attack has a high probability of also killing the attacker. That reasonable person would have to step very carefully when dealing with an experienced prosecutor in court. Otherwise, he will be led to agreeing the two words, stop and kill, are interchangeable in terms of a defensive shooting.

In our modern world, there are certain buzz words that evoke immediate negative reactions. While the word sex is no longer a negative word - the word rape instantaneously evokes negative reaction. The same relationship is true for stopping versus killing when dealing with intent.

My advice for the new gunowner:

Once you learn the mechaniical, physical, and legal areas of how and when to use your gun in self-defense, learn the proper language required to defend your actions if you have to use that gun. "I am not a predator killer - I strive to be a predator stopper!"

 

[Recon7]

You have to shoot to stop an attacker. That being said, you should expect him to die if you do your job. You should be comfortable with the concept of killing somebody before you carry.

Gaxicus' theory of making new gun owners comfortable thinking and talking of the consequences of their actions has merit. We are splitting hairs if we talk of the difference of "being a killer" or "mentally prepared to become a killer". I think the concept goes far beyond hesitation to pull the trigger. sometimes self defense requires a level of offense. A person truly interested in self defense should be able to find the appropriate level of aggression to take the offense in the situation dictates.

A quick example, if you are unarmed and somebody were to try to shoot you, only to have a malfunction, you need to be capable to launch an offense, close distance, and defeat your opponent before they clear their weapon.

The name of the gamer is mental preparedness. Whatever words catchphrases of slogans gets a person there is fine. as long as they get there.

 

[David Armstrong]

I use words like Kill, Attack, Predator because they are ugly and not easily talked around or dodged.

The problem is that they are also not at all accurate for self defense purposes. We don't attack, we defend ourselves. We don't try to kill anyone, we try to get them to stop creating a problem for us. We are not predators preying on others, we are simply avoiding being prey ourselves. My $.02.

 

[Recon7]

Whats the root word in counterattack?

Fighting back is still fighting, you have to be a fighter.

Running is always a valid option, but sometimes it is not what the situation calls for.

Can anybody here really tell me that they think drawing a gun and shooting somebody is not attacking them? The justification for the attack may be the preservation of self or others, but it is still an attack.

Heck, even a predator is just trying to save himself . . . from hunger.

 

[Gaxicus]

Scared of anyone I gave this advice to?

I have to ask , Why are they nervous ?

Did you do your talking before they hit the range.

I do not carry but after reading this I may start . Why you may ask ....you will not like my answer . Hindsight is almost always better. Maybe re-read what you posted after a while.

The speech is for the people who say, after everything has been gone over, "I just can see me shooting another human being no matter what".

There they are with a new shiny gun that will likely end up in the hands of a predator if they are chosen as a victim.

What do you do? Try and make the act of shooting someone to save their life into some warm fuzzy game that really wont kill anyone? I don't think so.

The fact that they don't think like a criminal and the concept of engaging in violence, even to protect themselves, is so alien, makes them a perfect person to own a gun but totally unprepared to use it for defensive purposes.

If they are there to learn how to use the gun for defensive purposes, you need to put the guns away and talk about violence with naked truth. It starts them on the process of coming to terms with their own ability to endure and engage in violence. This process takes longer than any shooting session or class but it must be started or their gun could easily end up in the hands of a predator.

The reason they are scared? They are holding a gun. That can be a big deal to law abiding, non-violent, play by the rules, citizens. I believe that the answer to that question is ignorance as always. Ignorance not of the gun, but of themselves and their role in the world when the rules that they live by are ignored by others.

I am not molding minds of mush here. They dont turn into jumpy trigger happy thugs. Quite the opposite. As they actually face this, they become calmer, less jumpy, more settled and confident, or they realize that they should not carry a gun. Either way, it was a good outcome.

As for re-reading? Sure. They are things I would write differently. I would use different words or describe something from a different angle but the message would be the same.

 

[David Armstrong]

Can anybody here really tell me that they think drawing a gun and shooting somebody is not attacking them? The justification for the attack may be the preservation of self or others, but it is still an attack.

So the U.S. troops attacked the Japanese troops at Pearl Harbor?

 

[Gaxicus]

The first amendment in a second amendment forum.

This thread may be a perfect example of why the first amendment came before the second.

Just about everyone likely to read this is a vehement 2nd amendment defender. I guess that is why it came as a shock to me how many times I was told to (in so many words) tone it down, use different words, you cant say that, stop giving the gungrabbers or lawyers fodder etc.

I heard it but I dont agree. I dont agree with limiting the second amendment to sporting rifles, shotguns, or other more politically correct erosions. Why would so many here call to do the same to our first amendment?

This is a public discussion where people exchange ideas. Yes, I could be sued. Yes, it could give fodder to gungrabbers. Yes, I might offend someone. No, I will not sacrifice the first amendment to please any of these people.

This thread evolved, as many others do, into a very informative discussion where important concepts were laid bare for all to see. Sometimes that isn't pretty but it is for betterment of all of us that it occur.

The bastards are are after talk radio, fox news, the internet, anywhere where they cannot control the flow and slant of information and discussion.

What good are any of these things if they dumb down and acquiesce to what the bastards want. They have readers, viewers, listeners, members, because they say things that people are interested and believe in. Stifle or dumb down their voice and the audience goes away, leaving an even more silent majority, destined to be a silent minority, without a means to spread its message.

Let them sue, let them demagogue, let them call me names, I wont voluntarily do anything to help the bastards win. Will you?

Im not saying be reckless. If you can say what you mean without being sued, offering fodder for the gungrabbers, etc. do so. If you cant say what you mean without doing so, say it anyway, and say it loud.