Many of the people who seek out firearms training for personal defense have some prior experience with threat or violence. Almost half of my students were women who had experienced some kind of domestic abuse or threat (I had a reputation for being a good instructor with women, and for my part I found that women students were almost universally quicker to learn and were naturally superior marksmen), so naturally many had stories about home entry or threat, which were useful fodder for the discussion of how best to deal with different situations. All described being very alert at hearing a threat, or even something they didn’t realize was actually a threat at the time but was out of the norm. We naturally discussed the dangers of handling a firearm while impaired and the inadvisability of shooting at a presumed threat not positively identified, and that actual use of the firearm for defensive purposes was the last and least desireable outcome in the entire chain of defensive strategy which starts with awareness and perimeter security.
I’m not sure what the point of your rapid fire posts are but they seem to be intended to be argumentative for the sake of arguing and not from a place of much knowledge or direct experience with firearms or defensive shooting. It is, of course, your privilege to continue posting whether you have a genuine contribution or not, but I have no interest in engaging in bickering exchanges of progressively less information and greater hostility, so if your expectation is to keep sniping away until you prompt an angry or hysterical response you’ll need to aim your attentions elsewhere.
Don’t overlook the benefit of having both a gun and a dog. I’ve never been a big fan of the idea of having a large dog that is supposed to engage an intruder. Too many things can go wrong. The dog, itself, can be injured or killed. I much prefer having a small, cowardly, but hyper-alert dog whose job is to notice something is awry and alert me about it. Then I handle the threat, if any, and use a gun, if necessary. Accordingly, I have a brace of Chihuahuas. They are alert little guys and let me know, loudly and clearly, when something is wrong. Thanks to them, a random shitbag made the good choice to flee my porch and property after trying the door and an adjacent window. Their yapping, and my loud announcement that I was awake and armed, sufficiently discomfited him that he retreated in some disarray. I did call in a report, but our local cops can be somewhat insouciant in their policing, and did not locate a suspect.
But that’s different from home Invasion, which was the original question. For domestic abuse, I would rather recommend removing from the Situation instead of a firearm course, because the (few) reports with numbers I have seen say that introducing firearms into domestic violence only increases the risk.
I know that the Situation with women shelters is not good in many Areas (that is, there are not enough for lack of funding) and the laws might not have been rewritten to favour the women/ abused Partner (traditionally, the Person who owns the house or lease, usually the man, can not be evicted by Police. In some states and countries, realizing the economic inequality and the difficulty in leaving an abusive relationship if there is no shelter available, have re-written the laws that in case of domestic abuse, the Police will take the man with them regardless of who owns the house.)
Although I wonder if buying a firearm and taking a course isn’t also expensive.
I’m arguing from a Position where yes, I don’t have personal experience with guns, but I do follow the many many studies and reports about gun violence in the US.
I also ask from a Position of genuine bafflement at how bad the Situation actually is, and how much is fear-mongering / Paranoia, because I read about stories like “Exchange Student shot in the back by elder couple on Halloween” (he was looking for a Party, and dressed up, but unarmed, and went to the wrong adress. He rang the bell, while the couple was hiding in the dark living room. When nobody reacted, he turned around and was Walking down the driveway, away from the house, when the man shot him. He defended himself at the Trial that he was afraid for himself and his wife, and went off free."
Or the Story “Exchange Student breaks into a Garage and is shot by homeowner who was waiting in ambush, who also got off, despite Setting an ambush, because there had been several (non-violent, property only) break-in and thefts in the last months into garages”
I read the statistics about how many homeowners wake up in the middle of the night from a noise, rush downstairs and shoot a Teenager sneaking in late at night.
I can’t however recall reading about News of roving gangs breaking down doors while People are inside at night. True, not all criminals are the brightest, but still, the usual Modus operandi is during the day, when almost all People are away.
I only read about this Scenario during this type of discussion, where it’s the Standard Scenario “Somebody is breaking in, not just to steal our stuff, but to rape and kill us, we have to protect ourselves by Shooting them first”.
I guess now there will be a dozen anecdotes of People who have had that happen to them?
That is not my aim. I’m trying to find out how much Facts there are beneath the discussion.
I know that in my City, when Surveys are Held, esp. the over 50-yr olds have more than 40% afraid to go out after dark, afraid of being robbed or murdered by all those criminals running around. However, the Police statistics say that we’re one of the safest cities in my Country or the world, with some robberies and break-ins, and very very Little violent crime. Violent crime does happen - mostly between Partners, or in a bar. But not to strangers getting invaded.
The case that Comes closest is over 10 years ago, when a couple running a small mountain hut was found murdered. It was later traced to two Young men from the Yugoslavian civil war, who had apparently become traumatized / desensitzed through that. Yes, it was terrible and completly unexpected, but there is never 100% safety.
It doesn’t sound like you read studies or statistics, it sounds as though you read news articles. Does it surprise you that the sensationalistic stories are the ones reported and not the “Elderly couple offers food and shelter to lost exchange student, no one dies”? The latter just doesn’t sell advertising.
Hmm, per this article, titled “Burglary victims attacked in their own home every 30 minutes”, it is an not just in the US with our guns in every hand, killing everything that moves attitude and lack of laws, but in staid, orderly and relatively gun free Britain as well.
ETA: Your “facts” about guns, laws and, in particular, the US are nothing more than scantly substantiated conjecture.
Funny you should mention that, i just ran into the Lord Humungus today on the way to work.
Unfortunately it would seem his gang of the wasteland days are behind him and the idiot was doing 30 in a 60, still has the same haircut though.
I wouldn’t call that roving gangs because that’s silly. But crime, including violent crime does happen. Arming yourself is one way to avoid relying on the good graces of those that would do you harm.
It is aptly clear that you have no idea of the extent to which domestic abusers will pursue, stalk, harass, terrorize, and attack the targets of their “affect” for years, and how little police can or will do even with a TRO or permanent restraining order in place. Even after a victim has removed herself from “the Situation” (as you refer to it) she may be subject to years of aggression and violence, including invasion of her domicile by the abuser.
As for the rest of your curiously capitalized hyperbole I have no interest in further engaging with you on the topic as you seem to regard your lack of knowledge as being an advantage.
Modern technology makes this even easier - you can find people via search services - often, you don’t even need to pay, as the basic ‘teaser’ information is enough to sufficiently narrow down your seach, and then plain old-fashioned public sources will be enough to refine your search to a specific location.
Stalkers and domestic abusers are not always severly OCD and vengeful to the point of violence, but often enough, they are - and that ‘often enough’ is sufficient that considering your ability to employ lethal violence in self defence is a valid step.
Unless LE catches the stalker or abuser in the act of violating protective orders or committing violence, there is very little LE can do about it except remove them… Which lasts precisely as long as it takes to drive the suspect away and release them elsewhere. All they can do, most cases, is delay the next confrontation.
I am afraid there we will have to agree to disagree. I’ve seen too many accidental discharges with semis. Heck, even down the cop-house they keep a barrel of sand for putting the muzzle over loading and unloading – and these are less than casual people. Sorry, call me a dinosaur, but for me its wheelguns all the way.
Footnote first; which one you don’t load, if you don’t load one, is the one under the hammer unless you are using a gate loader. But even with some of the old stuff people still call into service, getting a discharge without actually shooting it (pulling the trigger firmly through the entire cycle) is incredibly rare. So the long and short is in revolvers I keep every chamber loaded as a rule.
The question of whether or not to carry a live round under the hammer of a revolver really boils down to: Is there a transfer bar in the design? Is the hammer rebounding? Modern designs are very safe. Also: Even where there is no rebounding hammer or transfer bar, many revolvers have safety notches between cylinders to allow maximum capacity carry anyway.
A modern revolver in good mechanical condition is very unlikely to ‘malf’ and fire, even when dropped. It almost always requires operator error to get an inadvertent discharge.
The same is true for a modern good quality service autoloader. The reason many police depatments require end of shift discharge has nothing to do with concerns over accidental discharge but is about excess pressure due to bullet setback from repeated chambering (which is largely a myth). There is no reason to frequently unchamber a stored home defense or even carry weapon, and no real concern about unchambering provided you follow the four rules of firearm safety. “Wheelguns all the way” is akin to saying that you’ve never ride in one of those crazy “horseless carriages” 'cause they might spontaneously explode.
Actually, the real issue is “Do I trust this weapon.” It doesn’t matter why you do or don’t trust it - only that you do trust it - and will train with it. It’s the same with calibers - once you get to 9mm Parbellum, any caliber that heavy or heavier will do the job very efficiently.* But you’re going to be trusting your life to it, so you’d better have faith in it. It’s an emotional choice.
For those reasons I try not to get too wrapped up in people’s choices of wheelgun or semi, or what caliber they feed it. Past a certain point, it becomes entirely beside the point, and the only thing that matters is how well-trained you are, and what’s your mindset.
*Some folks will say “.380/9mm Kurtz” - but there is a VERY distinct, documented, falloff in performance between 9x19 and .380.
That’s the reason for a saftey. That’s one of the reasons why so many people don’t like (stock) Glocks, it’s one of the reasons why my next gun won’t be a Glock. Look, I understand that a Glock has, what, 3 internal safeties and will not fire unless the trigger is pulled, but the reason I, and so many other people, like an external safety is to make sure that trigger doesn’t get pulled by accident. Snag it on your clothes. Get a finger under the trigger guard by accident. Have someone try to grab it from you, etc. It’s not dropping it that I’m worried about, it’s pulling the pulling the trigger when I’m not ready.
Isn’t a double action revolver essentially a semi-automatic gun? It’s always ready to fire, right? Even if you shoot a round, the next one is ready to go. I’m not sure (as I said, I don’t know all the ins and outs of firearms) how a revolver is any safer than a pistol.
Is an amateur going to know this? I kinda forgot what we were talking about, but ISTM that the general gun owning public probably won’t know this, but they will know that putting a magazine in the gun requires it to be racked before being shot, if the safety is on that’s, more or less, two layers of security.
I recall a false alarm of this sort but I was wide-snap-alert in split seconds. Unless someone is extremely sleep deprived, I cannot imagine “groggy” being a condition in which one would respond to a home intruder with.
See, the theory is that the operator is the safety - someone who knows not to put their booger-hooks on the BOOM!-switch until ready to fire, and such. An external safety is zero protection from stupidity. BTW: In the case of the Glock, ‘snag’-type inadvertent discharges are vanishingly rare. The weapons were designed for military use, and the military LOVES idiot-proof weapons.
The difference is the difference between closing a cylinder and racking a round and possibly lowering the hammer. And its more than personal preference; I sometimes carry a semi myself and one notorious for having issues. But I’ve tracked the accidental shootings/discharges around this area for more years than I care to admit to and the majority by a vast margin are casual owners and/or semi-automatics. People shooting themselves or a loved one, shooting out a window, kids shooting other kids. The last figures I’ve seen put the number of revolvers out there much higher than the number of semis (although the gap is closing) so clearly there is something going on. Stranger can make the “horseless carriage” claim and it looks good on its face but to me I’m more talking about the difference between Pintos and other cars; enough go bang and I’m looking for a reason and driving something else.
Second part: in a way its related back to the reason for liking revolvers. In a sense, the basic design is a little more idiot proof. Open cylinder, insert bullets, close cylinder. If every purchase came with basic training and people could be counted on to follow that training maybe the world would be different. But GI (General Issue) People are a different story. So we’re back to that Model 49 where we started.
[quote=“Joey_P, post:95, topic:784296”]
I like this one:
[/QUOTE]
I like that one as well. Throw basic intelligence out the window and try to perform and all the bets are off. It goes back to why I said “if you really want to go handgun”. Like other posters, there are other ideas I would offer to the OP before making that choice.
So then why do we have external safeties on nearly all guns?
Got it. And ya know what, shit happens. People, even people that aren’t stupid, sometimes make mistakes. Look at at the tons of videos on the internet where a person that’s been trained to use a firearm accidentally fires it. If the safety was on, that wouldn’t happen. Can’t do that with a Glock.
Even if you want to call it stupidity, what’s wrong with protecting people, innocent bystanders, maybe you walking past someone’s house, from a stupid guy showing off his gun to his friends?
I wear my seatbelt but I’m a good driver. Doesn’t mean I won’t do something stupid like sneeze and miss something that could result in a collision.
I really can’t think of a convincing argument for not having a safety on a gun.
I hate an external safety on a handgun. IMO there is no logical or rational reason to have one. Same goes for having a round in the chamber: there is no logical or rational reason to not have a round in the chamber.
Having an external safety and/or not having a round in the chamber are liabilities in my book. A self-defense situation is extremely stressful, and the less things I have do (load a round, manipulate external safety, etc.) the better.