Tweet
The 'other' site currently has a bit of 'debate' going. While I think there's more than a bit of bias, your friendly, neighborhood raccoon makes an interesting observation...
In the past, many got their 'basic level of proficiency' via hunting and the military. There's also the old saying... Beware the man with one firearm, for he likely knows how to use it. Ultimately, guns are NOT and should not be considered 'toys.' They are TOOLS and, as with most any tool, there are little tricks and techniques one learns from experience which allows them to utilize the tool more efficiently and effectively. Likewise, watching YouTube videos is one thing, but actually using them is something totally different.
I don't necessarily think actual training is 'necessary.' In fact, the wrong kind of 'training' can be more harmful than helpful. With that said, PRACTICE, which is not necessarily synonymous with training, is critical; not only in terms of hitting a desired target, but simply in handling the firearm. Unfortunately, in California in particular, it has become increasingly difficult (not to mention potentially expensive) to even acquire a modicum of practice.
But, that leads us to not 'needing' 10 guns. Okay. But, the standard Calguns reply is... buy both. The critical aspect, so far as I'm concerned, is where you draw the line between a true 'user' firearm and one which you've 'collected.' Simply having put a couple of magazines or cylinders of ammo through a firearm isn't 'practice,' yet it does not mean one cannot utilize the firearm in a critical situation if that's all you have available to hand. In that sense, it comes back to what JB Books told young Mr. Rogers: "It's not being fast or even accurate that counts. It's being willing." Yet, even if one is willing, if you don't know how to use the firearm, all the willingness in the World isn't going to send rounds, not just downrange, but into the target in such a manner so as to stop the threat.
Thus, the question becomes: "How many guns are too many to effectively practice with?"
The membership here has 'collections' ranging from a single firearm to actual arsenals, yet I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority have a 'favored' arm they've actually practiced and are competent with. The real question is whether they are 'willing' and practice or training or simple ownership does not impart that aspect. To me, if you're 'willing,' then you will likely be willing to practice. The more you practice, hopefully, the more competent you will become.
I've shot competitions where I wouldn't care to be anywhere near some of the competitors when they have firearms in their hands. I've also known individuals with CCW's who, frankly, shouldn't be carrying firearms if the truth be told; i.e., they are 'dangerous,' just not necessarily to any 'bad actors.'
Short version, I don't feel it's necessarily the number of firearms you own that spells the difference. Likewise, I don't particularly agree that obtaining some 'training' is always the definitive answer. I think it is the mindset of the individual in question.
What do you think?
I’d much rather people spend their money on ammo and training but it’s surprisingly hard to get people there.
It’s the same price as an off roster Glock, but people would rather show and tell then have skills and do drills. Hopefully that paradigm will change.
You don’t need 10 different firearms. 2 with good training and a lot of ammo is the shizzle.
It’s the same price as an off roster Glock, but people would rather show and tell then have skills and do drills. Hopefully that paradigm will change.
You don’t need 10 different firearms. 2 with good training and a lot of ammo is the shizzle.
Emphasis on need. If your hobby is collecting guns that’s cool. If you learn how to use them the guns themselves become another level of fun. All good as you can spend on what you want but I’m just saying for the same money you can get a comparable gun AND training and use it for literally the same price. You’ll get waaaay more use out of your existing equipment, but again I’m just bringing classes to people because it’s really fun and making it available at a honest price.
Plus most people don’t realize how bad they are, when it comes shooting fundamentals but they think they’re bad boys because they own multiple firearms. You can totally own more btw, just get some training
Plus most people don’t realize how bad they are, when it comes shooting fundamentals but they think they’re bad boys because they own multiple firearms. You can totally own more btw, just get some training
Because they are dangerous tools? If you don’t have a ccw or compete, you should still know how to safely operate a firearm.
Majority of accidents happen from people who treat them like toys. I’m not saying you need a degree or advanced level but you should take a class to see if you really know how to use it.
You make it sound like I’m saying you need to get an advanced level. I’m talking about basic proficiency so you can actually hit what you want. That’s the most basic level of proficiency I’m talking about. Most people can’t do this.
Majority of accidents happen from people who treat them like toys. I’m not saying you need a degree or advanced level but you should take a class to see if you really know how to use it.
You make it sound like I’m saying you need to get an advanced level. I’m talking about basic proficiency so you can actually hit what you want. That’s the most basic level of proficiency I’m talking about. Most people can’t do this.
I don't necessarily think actual training is 'necessary.' In fact, the wrong kind of 'training' can be more harmful than helpful. With that said, PRACTICE, which is not necessarily synonymous with training, is critical; not only in terms of hitting a desired target, but simply in handling the firearm. Unfortunately, in California in particular, it has become increasingly difficult (not to mention potentially expensive) to even acquire a modicum of practice.
But, that leads us to not 'needing' 10 guns. Okay. But, the standard Calguns reply is... buy both. The critical aspect, so far as I'm concerned, is where you draw the line between a true 'user' firearm and one which you've 'collected.' Simply having put a couple of magazines or cylinders of ammo through a firearm isn't 'practice,' yet it does not mean one cannot utilize the firearm in a critical situation if that's all you have available to hand. In that sense, it comes back to what JB Books told young Mr. Rogers: "It's not being fast or even accurate that counts. It's being willing." Yet, even if one is willing, if you don't know how to use the firearm, all the willingness in the World isn't going to send rounds, not just downrange, but into the target in such a manner so as to stop the threat.
Thus, the question becomes: "How many guns are too many to effectively practice with?"
The membership here has 'collections' ranging from a single firearm to actual arsenals, yet I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority have a 'favored' arm they've actually practiced and are competent with. The real question is whether they are 'willing' and practice or training or simple ownership does not impart that aspect. To me, if you're 'willing,' then you will likely be willing to practice. The more you practice, hopefully, the more competent you will become.
I've shot competitions where I wouldn't care to be anywhere near some of the competitors when they have firearms in their hands. I've also known individuals with CCW's who, frankly, shouldn't be carrying firearms if the truth be told; i.e., they are 'dangerous,' just not necessarily to any 'bad actors.'
Short version, I don't feel it's necessarily the number of firearms you own that spells the difference. Likewise, I don't particularly agree that obtaining some 'training' is always the definitive answer. I think it is the mindset of the individual in question.
What do you think?
Comment