On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:19:43 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/24/17 3:13 PM, wrote:


"Defense coaches..." I like firearms and have no objections to
reasonable people owning firearms, but I do get a laugh out of all the
youtube vids and magazine articles about which weapons are "the best"
for going to war or "protecting" oneself in a fire fight. If you are
going to war and you are not a soldier of fortune, one assumes "the
military" assigns you a firearm and teaches you how to use it. I'd bet
that 99.99% of non-sworn civilians in this country who "carry" never
have and never will face an armed assailant or gunfire or a grizzly bear
or mountain lion.



Are you seriously saying a gun owner should not have any kind of
training?
As for the likelihood of needing a gun in a defense situation, I
assume you have/had a fire extinguisher on your boat. Did you ever
have to use it? Were you actually trained in how to use it?

In my 70 years, I have never discharged a fire extinguisher except in
training and I have plenty.


No, I did not say gun owners "should not have any kind of training." In
fact, I think you should have to take a serious training course BEFORE
you are able to buy a firearm, at least for the first one.

I am just pointing out that if you actually think you might use your
gun to defend yourself, safety and marksmanship is not the only
training you should have. Otherwise, just leave it in the safe and
hope they don't make you open it.
There are plenty of things you can learn from videos and books about
weapon retention, moving around your house without exposing your self
to unnecessary danger and the legal aspects of self defense.
You still should get some actual hands on training but it is
expensive. If I ever come into $10,000 or so I don't need I would go
to Gunsite.

Your boat fire extinguisher analogy really doesn't work.

It is just an example of something that might save your life but goes
unused 99.99% of the time and yet still requires some training to
actually be useful.