Question for "Gun Nuts"

[Magiver]

@Doctor_Who

@Magiver

5 minutes on a gun range and anyone could accurately group 3 rounds in a human torso at 25 feet.

I’m going to have to call bullshit here. I’ve taken plenty of people (more than 10) for their first time shooting a handgun. This definitely has not been my experience.

Did you correctly read what I said. 3 rounds in a torso at 25 feet. Not the center target, the torso. I don’t know how anyone could miss after 1 day at a range. I could hit it closing my eyes after the first sighting. Seriously. How hard is it to point your finger at someone. If you are talking about 75 feet and grouping 3 shots in the center ring, then yes, it takes some skill.

[Magiver]

@kushiel

Whoa whoa whoa. We’ve gone from home robberies to Charles Manson. Even if I had guns in my home and some training on the range, nothing short of Marine training would make me think I could take down multiple people. That’s something out of a Hollywood movie!

We had a home invasion in my area where a group of teenagers tried to enter a home and were unsuccessful. They were kicking in the door and the owner warned them on the other side. They proceeded to throw a concrete block through the door and the owner sent a few small pieces of lead back out the hole. He was successful.

[Doctor_Who]

@Magiver

@Doctor_Who

I’m going to have to call bullshit here. I’ve taken plenty of people (more than 10) for their first time shooting a handgun. This definitely has not been my experience.

Did you correctly read what I said. 3 rounds in a torso at 25 feet. Not the center target, the torso. I don’t know how anyone could miss after 1 day at a range. I could hit it closing my eyes after the first sighting. Seriously. How hard is it to point your finger at someone. If you are talking about 75 feet and grouping 3 shots in the center ring, then yes, it takes some skill.

Backpedal much? So… Now we need a day and not 5 minutes? And didn’t you use the word “accurately”? I read what you wrote: 3 rounds in the torso at 25 feet after five freaking minutes. In my experience, that is laughably hyperbolic. Pure Hollywood.

Look… You exaggerated. I called you on it. It’s okay.

[Magiver]

@Doctor_Who

@Magiver

Did you correctly read what I said. 3 rounds in a torso at 25 feet. Not the center target, the torso. I don’t know how anyone could miss after 1 day at a range. I could hit it closing my eyes after the first sighting. Seriously. How hard is it to point your finger at someone. If you are talking about 75 feet and grouping 3 shots in the center ring, then yes, it takes some skill.

Backpedal much? So… Now we need a day and not 5 minutes? And didn’t you use the word “accurately”? I read what you wrote: 3 rounds in the torso at 25 feet after five freaking minutes. In my experience, that is laughably hyperbolic. Pure Hollywood.

Look… You exaggerated. I called you on it. It’s okay.

I exaggerated nothing. If you think a day at the range means anything other than a handful of clips then you’re trying to parse words for the sake of argument. I stand by what I said. It’s nothing to group 3 shots in a torso at 25 feet NOTHING, period, end of story.

[Doctor_Who]

@Magiver

I exaggerated nothing. If you think a day at the range means anything other than a handful of clips then you’re trying to parse words for the sake of argument. I stand by what I said. It’s nothing to group 3 shots in a torso at 25 feet NOTHING, period, end of story.

Sigh. It’s probably my fault you’re so defensive… Instead of calling bullshit on you, I should have just requested clarification. Respectfully, I completely disagree. I hope you will take someone to the range, teach em for 5 minutes, give them 3 shots from 25 feet, and report back. But I doubt it.

I know what a day at the range is from spending days at the range. Shooting is not easy. It’s certainly not something that most people can pick up and immediately be successful. And I’m just talking about static target shooting here.

Tell you what, let’s poll our fellow gun nuts: who thinks it’s likely that a random person, after 5 minutes at the range, could accurately hit the torso 3 times from 25 feet? Apologies if that’s not the direct quote from your first post, I’m having to use my phone here.

[Magiver]

@Doctor_Who

Sigh. It’s probably my fault you’re so defensive… Instead of calling bullshit on you, I should have just requested clarification. Respectfully, I completely disagree. I hope you will take someone to the range, teach em for 5 minutes, give them 3 shots from 25 feet, and report back. But I doubt it.

I know what a day at the range is from spending days at the range. Shooting is not easy. It’s certainly not something that most people can pick up and immediately be successful. And I’m just talking about static target shooting here.

Tell you what, let’s poll our fellow gun nuts: who thinks it’s likely that a random person, after 5 minutes at the range, could accurately hit the torso 3 times from 25 feet? Apologies if that’s not the direct quote from your first post, I’m having to use my phone here.

Oh for the love of… Do yo honestly believe I meant exactly 300 seconds? Really? REALLY? You don’t see a reference of 5 minutes to infer a short period of time just as “wait a second” doesn’t mean wait one second?

It take more than 5 minutes to watch the stupid safety video required by the ranges in my area. It takes more than 5 minutes to show someone how to safely load a gun, chamber a round and generally explain how it works and how to hold it and aim.

[Oakminster]

@Doctor_Who

Tell you what, let’s poll our fellow gun nuts: who thinks it’s likely that a random person, after 5 minutes at the range, could accurately hit the torso 3 times from 25 feet? Apologies if that’s not the direct quote from your first post, I’m having to use my phone here.

I don’t know about 5 minutes, but 25 feet is about 8 steps for an average guy. You don’t think you could hit a man sized target from 8 steps away? Pace it off, then set a pillow (approximate size of a human torso) in a chair. Point your finger at the middle of the pillow. How hard is that?

[ducati]

I just got back from the range, but I’ll whine about stereotypes later…
Firearms intructor hat on:
I call back-pedalling as well, but l understand your words were probably rhetoric in nature.
Trouble is, I think it’s the nature of most posters here to try to be very specific in virtually every thread.

This board gathers some of the most intelligent and impressive posters I’ve ever found, and part of that is holding each other to a higher standard of discourse, requiring citations and of course, honestly and truthfulness.

While I’ve had students pop 2 or 3 rounds center mass on their first magazine, it’s pretty rare. First-timers tend to flinch and pull off-center.

But we’re getting a bit off track, aren’t we?

The OP asked if we feel certain things about our guns. If you didn’t grow up with guns, whether it’s hunting, skeet shooting, or whatever, I think it’s hard to understand what they can mean to those of us who did. Many of us do feel something for our guns. I can show you which gun I took hunting with my Dad, my Grandfather, my BIL. All of my guns have some meaning for me, but in the end, they’re just a tool for a job. They’re pretty good at self-defense, and it boggles my mind that so many otherwise intelligent people don’t agree, or think I shouldn’t use them as such.
Sadly, I think too many people learn everything they know about guns from TV and movies, which is the greatest accumulation of firearms crap in the universe. No lady, I couldn’t just shoot the gun out of your son’s hand. It doesn’t work that way. Yes sir, we can shoot people who only have a knife. Knives are deadly.
Bottom line is, millions of American use guns, cars, bleach, sharp knifes, and a hundred other potentially dangerous things every day with remarkably little trouble or injury. And a few selfish, psychotic, criminal, or mentally-deficient individuals tip the balance a bit every now and then. I’ve been to over a hundred countries in my 47 years, and this one is absolutely my first choice, knowing what I know about them and us.

[Susanann]

@kushiel

@Susanann

Putting oneself totally at the mercy of somebody like Charlie Manson and his girls just sounds like a dumb idea to me. Bottom line: Begging for mercy from a home invader did not work for Sharon Tate.

Whoa whoa whoa. We’ve gone from home robberies to Charles Manson. Even if I had guns in my home and some training on the range, nothing short of Marine training would make me think I could take down multiple people. That’s something out of a Hollywood movie!

A lot of this thread can also be influenced by where one lives. Here, it’s drugs and gang activity that get you killed. Random killings don’t happen.

1. Sharon Tate lived in a nice neighborhood. It does not matter where you live, a robber/rapist/murderer can break into any house.

2. “Marine training” needed against Leslie Van Houten and Susan Atkins? Are you kidding? Actually, If Sharon Tate had grabbed a revolver, and had used it against the intruders, you never would have heard of Charlie Manson. The 3 girls and a boy who broke into a home in 1968 and who “would” have been shot and killed by Sharon Tate would have been long forgotten by now, the names of the intruders never known, and Sharon and Roman Polanski would be living out their old age together in Palm Springs.

You over estimate Leslie Van Houten, Patricia Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins. I would not need Marine training to eliminate them. A single 38 bullet into Lesli Van Houten would have put her down. Ditto for Pat and Sue. These girls were not street fighters, these girls were not superwomen. These girls were just kids who would have been scared out of their wits if a homeowner started shooting at them.

[Susanann]

@Magiver

It’s nothing to group 3 shots in a torso at 25 feet NOTHING, period, end of story.

Yes…and no.

Yes, every one I have taken out and began teaching them how to shoot, all of them could easily hit a torso at 25 feet every time, after a couple of hours. I never had a student not be able to do it. I do it slow and easy starting out with 22 handguns. You are right, it is VERY easy to teach someone, even a kid, even an old person, to shoot that good in just a few hours. I never had a pupil who could not do it.

On the other hand, you would be surprised how many people can NOT do that!!! I dont know why they cannot shoot, but they cant. Even lots of cops can not shoot that good. It is amazing how many people out there who cant hit anything.

so…if somebody tells you that they cannot hit a person at 25 feet, then yes, you can believe him. There really are people out there with guns who cannot hit the side of a barn.

[handsomeharry]

@Agent_Foxtrot

@dmatsch

You say that now. Will you still repeat these words when your house is broken into/you’re held hostage, etc? Will you still NOT at least think about owning a firearm?

I think the chances of that are so low that I don’t need to own a firearm. That’s what we have the police for.

I have thought about buying a gun in the past, but it hasn’t chalked up to more than a thought. I don’t disagree that people have a right to protect themselves. If you want to own a gun because it makes you feel safer, who am I to argue? What I don’t understand is:
[ol]
[li]People who own multiple guns for so-called “protection”. Do you really need four pistols, two shotguns, and a semi-automatic rifle to protect your home?[/li][li]People who are against policies that offer the mere suggestion that their 2nd Amendment rights are being restricted. This goes for opponents of gun locks, waiting periods, etc.[/li][li]Gun advocates who ignore or dismiss tragedies involving guns (e.g., Columbine, Virginia Tech, that guy who held people hostage at the Discovery Channel, etc.) If guns were more difficult to acquire and required psychological screening, then those hostilities either wouldn’t have happened, or would have been a lot easier to handle.[/li][/ol]
The way it appears to me, many gun advocates feel that buying a gun should be as easy as buying a gallon of milk. Guns are weapons. They kill people. They are not toys. If you feel like target shooting, buy a BB gun. What’s the difference?

Now, shouldn’t this be in a new thread? Like, in GD?

Best wishes,
hh

[handsomeharry]

@kushiel

Even if I had guns in my home and some training on the range, nothing short of Marine training would make me think I could take down multiple people. That’s something out of a Hollywood movie!

I also have to gag at your Marine training concept. Do you have a disability? Do this: shoot one person. Look around…are there any standing around? Shoot them. Look around…there are no more there. Even the highest druggie would blaze outta there, Helter Skelter or no, when the first one got blasted.
The only thing out of a Hollywood movie in that scenario would be a culprit wanting to stick around against the home defender. Now, if you want to defend your home by leaping through the air, with both hands firing Uzis or Mac10s…

Best wishes,
hh

[handsomeharry]

@kushiel

You know what my insurance against home invaders is? Home insurance.

Someone breaks into my house, I’m going to lie on the floor with my hands up and tell them to take whatever the hell they want. If I give the home invaders what they want, they’ll take it and leave. I take out a weapon, I piss them off. I personally feel my odds of surviving are higher if I do what a person wants as opposed to trying to kill them. Take my stuff, the insurance will replace it.

Now for situations that don’t involve robberies? I’m also willing to bet on the fact that most murders and murder-suicides out of high-crime areas are by people acquainted with each other. I personally don’t hang out with people who tend to be the type of people who get murdered where I live.

Hey, kushiel, not trying to pick a fight, but you have some mighty big holes in your screen door!

1. If you consider what ‘insurance’ is, you will find that it is only an indemnification for losses. Is your life indemnifiable? The word is used, by gunowners, as an alternative to ‘home protection.’ These people want to be protected, not indemnified.
2. If you give the home invaders what they want, they will do what they want. Can you give them ‘insurance’ that you won’t ID them in a trial? I bet they have a policy to cover that!
3. If you take out a weapon, you aren’t supposed to give them a chance to get pissed off. You are supposed to kill them! Are you so worried about offending a person who has committed multiple felonies against you already?
4. I am not sure that you know what type of people get murdered. I know of a preacher who got murdered in my city, I met a very nice middle aged man who lived next to my brother, who worked in a gas station, who got murdered, I knew a drug dealer who got murdered, etc…BTW, the preacher who got murdered did exactly what you would do in your scenario. IIRC, the newspaper used the term “trussed up like hogs.” Just sayin.

All in all, people who take the non self defense routes leave the choice of how they die up to criminals.

Best wishes,
hh

[Paul_in_Qatar]

Society is stronger and more resistant to shocks when everyone is the society is stronger and more resistant to shocks. Everybody ought to have enough money to lose a few paychecks, a first aid kit, and a gun.

[silenus]

And the ability to use the last two.

[handsomeharry]

@Sailboat

@Oakminster

I’m an excellent shot, strongly inclined to protect myself and my property. Also a light sleeper.

Sorry, that one was your kid.

The next one sure sounded like a housebreaker, but he was your brother-in-law.

An invader knows everyone in the home is an enemy, even other invaders or police. A resident does not know that – statistically, almost every shadow or sound will turn out to be friendly, or even if he lives alone, could be police checking something out. The resident must hesitate to be sure before shooting; or statistically wind up killing many more friendlies over the years than invaders. The invader need never hesitate.

Does this mean the resident can never beat the invader? Nope. But it does mean that the resident – vastly less prepared and less well-trained than an alert, on-duty Secret Service agent – will be less successful at using the gun defensively, and in the case I cited (Reagan’s wounding) that was not at all successful, which is frequently the case.

If the bad guy focuses on someone else (whom he will likely hit) you might get retaliatory or revenge shots off, sure. And they will be deserved. But the invader has the initiative.

I think that the friendly fire shootings in a home setting are far outnumbered by the repulsed burglars, to the point of insignificance.

If somebody shoots his brother in law for breaking into his house, or if the son is going to break into a house, it is well deserved, sad though it may be. If the father is such an idiot that he will just go around blasting in the dark without thinking of his own kids, well, that person is called a stepfather. The kid is going down one way or another, gun or no gun!

I am going to say that the SS isn’t any better trained to prevent a home robbery than the average homeowner is. The Reagan case is irrelevant, since there are more viariables that haven’t been examined. This only confuses the issue. However, if the SS hadn’t been armed, is it possible that Hinckley could have finished the job?

Best wishes,
hh

[ZPG_Zealot]

@Agent_Foxtrot

In this thread, a question is raised as to the constitutionality of suspending gun ownership rights during a state of emergency. This has me asking a question here that’s been on my mind for a while, but I didn’t want to hijack that thread.

Nearly every argument I’ve heard for the protection of gun ownership rights is, “It protects me and my family.” In the thread referenced above, spark240 states, “Being armed makes me more dangerous to those who threaten me.”

My question is, what are “gun nuts” (I use that phrase in quotes because I can’t really think of a better term) so afraid of? I live in Baltimore, one of the most crime-ridden cities in the country, and I don’t own a gun. I don’t lie awake at night worrying if someone’s going to break through the door, hold me hostage, rape my cats, and drink my milk straight from the carton (and I’d wager that the majority of people also don’t). Have you made a lot of enemies and live your life constantly looking over your shoulder? Do you expect someday that the government is going to commandeer your home and you’ll have to fight off the Feds? Is there a psychological emotion associated with owning a gun – a sense of peace, thrill, power, or otherwise which makes gun ownership a very personal value?

I ask these questions earnestly. I don’t agree with you but I can certainly respect your opinions.

I have handguns and rifles for a several reasons. Protection is the primary reason. My downtown shop is located in a lower working class neighborhood. Most businesses have bars on the windows and guns under the counter which a few of the owners have had to use. Some of my customers are criminals, some are drug abusers and some have mental health issues, so having a weapon is useful, simply because I’m exposed to a greater pool of potentially dangerous people than your average person. The police do not have the fastest response time in my neighborhood. Sometimes in my fouler moods I wonder if this is on purpose (rather than the result of being overworked and understaffed) because they would rather let some of the criminals be thinned out if you catch my drift. Have I made a lot of enemies and constantly look over my shoulder? I probably have more enemies than the average suburbanite and some of those individuals are probably capable of the stalker level of violence. Do I believe the federal government will ever try to confiscate weapons? Absolutely not, that would be political suicide in the United States. In fact, government confiscation or banning of firearms, is the one thing that I have completely no fear of ever happening.

[handsomeharry]

@Paul_in_Qatar

Everybody ought to have enough money to lose a few paychecks, a first aid kit, and a gun.

Way ahead of you, Paul.

I’ve lost all three just this week!
Best wishes,
hh

[handsomeharry]

@Jonathan_Chance

For that matter, even the B and C level guys can stand down armed compounds. It wasn’t Army Rangers or Marines who took down the Branch Davidians, after all. It was the ATF. Regardless of what you may or may not think of the ATF they are NOT a military unit. If it had been a professional military unit it would have ended quicker.

!. I don’t think that the ATF fared quite as well as you are letting on. As a matter of fact, they *couldn’t *handle the group.

2. It wasn’t the ATF that burned the compound down, it was more FBI, and the little matter of tanks, etc…

3. If it was military, it wouldn’t have happened at all. This was because the ATF (and I don’t have any dislike for them; I am very, very, sorry for their losses) guys thought that they could be a group of cowboys, and do a 'dynamic entry," rather than just go and arrest what’s his name.

Best wishes,
hh

[ZPG_Zealot]

@handsomeharry

@kushiel

Even if I had guns in my home and some training on the range, nothing short of Marine training would make me think I could take down multiple people. That’s something out of a Hollywood movie!

I also have to gag at your Marine training concept. Do you have a disability? Do this: shoot one person. Look around…are there any standing around? Shoot them. Look around…there are no more there. Even the highest druggie would blaze outta there, Helter Skelter or no, when the first one got blasted.
The only thing out of a Hollywood movie in that scenario would be a culprit wanting to stick around against the home defender. Now, if you want to defend your home by leaping through the air, with both hands firing Uzis or Mac10s…

Best wishes,
hh

I’ve got to disagree on that. The highest druggies would not necessarily blaze out. He or she could quite easily believe your weapon is a holiday noisemaker (or a candy dispenser) and that they have superpowers. Drugs tend to do that to people. The insane cannot be stopped by just a single shot either (unless it’s a head shot). Some gang members will wait for a hail of bullets to end and you have to reload if they have a strong reason to come after you and a lot of firepower on their side though this is not likely to happen in a home invasion. And as for the really professional criminals, if they want you, they’ll get you unless you go into witness protection. A hunting rifle is usually no match against what they can hire.