Is It Wise To Have a Gun You Never Practice With? Your Views?

[walleye]

A story best illustrates my question:

My barber is a nice Italian man my age, good barber, cheap prices, have gone to him for years - and a few months ago I mentioned something about going to the range. He said "Oh, you own guns?" And I said yes, handguns. He said he did too, just one, a snub revolver that he keeps for protection in a drawer and he pointed the drawer out. I asked what range he goes to and he said "O no, I don't shoot it, it's just there in case, you know.". So I ask how long he had it. "20 years" Soooo, I said how did it shoot when he first had it. He reacted like I was asking how nuclear reactors worked. "Oh no", he said "I never shot it. I got my permit, bought the gun, loaded it and put it away. Only time I touched it"

So, I offered to take him to my range, no fee for him, he'd be my guest, and I even had some .38 ammo he could shoot. But he wasn't interested. All this time flashes are coming to me of all the efforts of mine from Day 1 (and didn't know zip about shooting) when I applied for my permit, takes a long time to get it in my area. I read forums while waiting for the permit, talked to police, talked to lawyers, read articles, and even after I got the permit and bought a gun (Colt Python - great deal, couldn't pass it up) shot at the range daily a good two months before I began Carrying it. I wanted to KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING - I WAS BRINGING A LETHAL WEAPON among the public. I felt this was a grave responsibility - and I still read forums, talk to police, lawyers, and am at the range twice a week. I've spent god knows how much time and money - but again, I AM RESPONSIBLE.

So, with someone like the barber who never has and never will even shoot his gun, do you think it wise for people like that to even have a gun? I don't mean the State should take it away - but on a personal realm - why bother having a weapon you will never know and never shoot except in a crisis - when you HAVE to know the law and how to shoot. Maybe pepper spray would be better for these people. And I've seen some of this new wave of gun owners - some of them all giggly like they are getting a new cell-data phone just out. "O look honey at that cute little gun, let's get that one". I can see them shooting it the first couple of weeks and then the gun sits for good, like their earlier model cellphone.


So perhaps guns aren't for everybody - the people who won't ever do even basic practice.

Any thoughts on this. Thanks.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Crowman]

Doris Day song it best........

Doris Day - Que Sera Sera - YouTube

[ccw9mm]

Having a piano sitting in the family room doesn't make one a pianist, any more than the existence of a firearm sitting unused/unknown in a drawer makes a person well-defended. (In my case, that toolbox in the garage hardly makes me a carpenter, but that's a personal problem I'm workin' on.)

Twenty years of never having fired the gun, never knowing whether one can even strike a target at 3-10yds, likely never cycling the ammunition. I suppose if one's going to rely on divine intervention, then one could say that a revolver's the one to try it with.

It's said that you never know what you don't know, you know? I'm sure the guy's a fine, upstanding citizen with interest in keeping himself and his family safe from predation. But he's got to appreciate that defense involves far more than a mere tool. It involves being able to put that tool to effective use, else it's not worth much more than any other unfamiliar tool that one is incapable of using.

[Nutrodoc]

Sounds like it is loaded with 20 year-old ammo too.

[tubadude]

My thought on the matter (and on most things in life) is worry about yourself. Besides, it's not the right to keep and bear arms just as long as you practice with it for an amount of time deemed proper.

[walleye]

Sounds like it is loaded with 20 year-old ammo too.

Yes it is. And the original ammo box sits in the drawer next to the gun. If he waits long enough, he can sell both as an "as new" classic with "original ammo in original box").

[RightyLefty]

Hope he never has to use it to defend himself. Any good trial lawyer who has it out for him will use his lack of training against him.

[walleye]

My thought on the matter (and on most things in life) is worry about yourself. Besides, it's not the right to keep and bear arms just as long as you practice with it for an amount of time deemed proper.

No law where I live after you get the permit that you have to shoot, though my permit people would not hesitate to tell you it was stupid - no I'm not questioning his right to have a gun. Just wondering how much good someone like this would have having to suddenly use his gun in an SD live or die crisis. Also, if you don't know the law for SD in your area you could make a real bad mistake. Thought maybe pepper spray, one of those Kimber jobs that are shaped like a small gun and I guess pretty effective - shoots a glob of the stuff I think. Only problem with those, only two squirts and you'd like to use one to see what it was like, least I would.

Any other other good defensive weapons around, not firearms? Dunno... Tasers are out where I live. And any time I've heard of someone having them in another state - whether legal or not - they were all the contact-type taser, you know you hold it in your hand. But if you were wrestling with a BG and applied the contact taser, wouldn't you get the same jolt of electricity as he was if you had physical contact with him? Anyway, moot point where I live.

[tacman605]

Hope he never has to use it to defend himself. Any good trial lawyer who has it out for him will use his lack of training against him.

His lack of training could not be held against him in any way. He has fullfilled the requirments for his state and has a permit there is no law, rule or regulation that says he has to have more training, sad but true. If that were the case at least half of all carriers and a heck of a lot of members here would have some big problems.

Walleye in answer to your question in reference to a Taser. Should you "Drive Stun" the taser, use it without the Taser cartridge installed, you would not be affected by the action. You can literally place handcuffs on someone while they are being tazed and not get any affect from the charge.

[walleye]

Having a piano sitting in the family room doesn't make one a pianist, any more than the existence of a firearm sitting unused/unknown in a drawer makes a person well-defended. (In my case, that toolbox in the garage hardly makes me a carpenter, but that's a personal problem I'm workin' on.)

Twenty years of never having fired the gun, never knowing whether one can even strike a target at 3-10yds, likely never cycling the ammunition. I suppose if one's going to rely on divine intervention, then one could say that a revolver's the one to try it with.

It's said that you never know what you don't know, you know? I'm sure the guy's a fine, upstanding citizen with interest in keeping himself and his family safe from predation. But he's got to appreciate that defense involves far more than a mere tool. It involves being able to put that tool to effective use, else it's not worth much more than any other unfamiliar tool that one is incapable of using.

Yes exactly - like someone who doesn't know how to drive and has no license buying a top-end Mercedes and then garaging it for life.

[Brad426]

Hope he never has to use it to defend himself. Any good trial lawyer who has it out for him will use his lack of training against him.

His lack of training could not be held against him in any way. He has fullfilled the requirments for his state and has a permit there is no law, rule or regulation that says he has to have more training, sad but true. If that were the case at least half of all carriers and a heck of a lot of members here would have some big problems.

Walleye in answer to your question in reference to a Taser. Should you "Drive Stun" the taser, use it without the Taser cartridge installed, you would not be affected by the action. You can literally place handcuffs on someone while they are being tazed and not get any affect from the charge.

I would respectfully disagree that his "lack of training could not be held against him in any way". SoleShtr's post said "any good trial lawyer " could use his lack of training against him, and that's true. Whether something is required (or fair or right or common sense) makes no difference to a lawyer trying to make you look bad in front of a jury that is statistically likely to include a couple of dimwit sheep.

[suntzu]

This is not meant to be mean or sniide. Though it is nice to care for someone and you did what I would have done (offer to take him to the range) after that go get your haircuts, talk about sports and MYOB about the gun.

[CDRGlock]

He has to realize the liability of not being trained. If an errant bullet hits an innocent bystander, then he would be liable. If he pulls out a gun but never has to fire, then good for him. It's how many encounters happen from what I've heard from many people's firsthand accounts.

It is best to get him out to shoot, if he doesn't want to hurt an innocent person. He should also be aware of the current laws. It is also best to ensure that the gun is still in working order given its dormancy.

[archer51]

Would I do it? NO Not much you can do about it though. You offered to take him to the range, it's about all you can do. Like the old saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

[JoJoGunn]

Unfortunately there are those people out there, not much can be done about it either. You just have to let things be sometimes, and unless he decides he needs to pop off some rounds, the revolver will stay right were it is and basically be usless. This statement from him sums up the whole scenario....

I got my permit, bought the gun, loaded it and put it away. Only time I touched it"

Some states require the firing of a handgun during the carry permit process, some with the specific handgun that person will carry, others just shooting one is the requirement. West Virginia states that a person must take a certified course either by an NRA instructor or the course offered by the Sheriff in the county of residence.

It is a requirement that a person shoot a handgun during the training or they don't get to apply for a permit. If he would live here, then he would have to shoot or he can't get a concealed carry permit.

Probably with many West Virginians who have permits, this may be the one and only time they fire a handgun. So your Barber is not unique in attitude.