Is it responsible

[BehindBlueI's]

Operating a firearm (nowadays) isn't rocket science. You point the thing at the thing and pull the thing.

Did you ever prosecute someone for pointing the thing at a thing and pulling a thing, and the result of said pulling was irresponsible in your opinion?

 

[churchmouse]

Did you ever prosecute someone for pointing the thing at a thing and pulling a thing, and the result of said pulling was irresponsible in your opinion?

 

[churchmouse]

Did you ever prosecute someone for pointing the thing at a thing and pulling a thing, and the result of said pulling was irresponsible in your opinion?

 

[jkdbjj]

Is it responsible to carry a gun if you do not practice with that gun?

The answer would depend on the person carrying the gun and the purpose for carrying the gun.

 

[T.Lex]

Did you ever prosecute someone for pointing the thing at a thing and pulling a thing, and the result of said pulling was irresponsible in your opinion?

Yes.

In the referenced case, the shooter literally could not have missed his target: the ground.

How much practice/training is needed to justify "a warning shot" to corral a dog?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yes.

In the referenced case, the shooter literally could not have missed his target: the ground.

How much practice/training is needed to justify "a warning shot" to corral a dog?

That's the sole prosecution? Nobody else, in your opinion, misused a firearm in an irresponsible manner?

 

[T.Lex]

That's the sole prosecution? Nobody else, in your opinion, misused a firearm in an irresponsible manner?

Oy vey. I'll have to think about that.

Off the top of my head, no. I don't think I've ever prosecuted anyone else for being "irresponsible" with a firearm. I might have, but I think I'd remember it.

(I did some appeals - probably a bunch - of CHWOL, SVF in possession, Pointing a Firearm, and Crim Reck. Is that what you're thinking of?)

Regardless, there's no prosecution in Indiana for failing to practice. And, I don't think that should be a legal requirement.

ETA:
Wait!

I did just remember another one. IIRC, a guy was on his back deck that faced Keystone and he was plinking with a .22 at ... frogs? Turtles? He was shooting at something. Nice guy. Had some other issues going on and was just blowing off steam. Shooting within city limits is/was an OV, so the officer wrote him the ticket. I think he either pleaded guilty or there was a diversion or something.

 

[natdscott]

Just to be clear the question was not about being trained, but practicing with the gun you carry.

I dunno Aron. I mean, I'm not trying to be a pedant. I'm really not.

But I do know some people...admittedly in the 1% or less of the population...that really don't need to practice specifically with the pistol (or pistols) they choose to carry. Most of them probably do, but damn...some of these guys can shoot ANYthing well. Hundreds of thousands of rounds downrange will do that to a person.

One particular gentleman, if faced with a Glock on the shooting bench, could probably shoot it more fluently than round about anybody else, regardless of WHOSE Glock it was, or WHICH Glock model.

Does he really need to practice a whole bunch with the Glocks he elects to carry for personal protection? Unlikely.

Same for the 67 year old that has been shooting tens of 1911 pistols for 57 years, in competition and in Service, and has one proven beater that he prefers to carry in the glove box all the time. Does he need to shoot 4 boxes a month with that particular pistol to know that he can make hits with it? Unlikely.

I grant that you are here on an internet asking questions, not making statements (a bright move, so to speak), but I hear you more-or-less saying a broad statement that everyone does. The trouble is there are almost always exceptions to any rule, not that I am one.

-Nate

 

[Expat]

I would think a person would want to practice with any gun he is going to carry. It is part of the fun of owning guns. I have always been amazed how many sales ads I have seen over the years, "carried but never fired". I like to know that I can shoot what I am aiming at.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Oy vey. I'll have to think about that.

Off the top of my head, no. I don't think I've ever prosecuted anyone else for being "irresponsible" with a firearm. I might have, but I think I'd remember it.

(I did some appeals - probably a bunch - of CHWOL, SVF in possession, Pointing a Firearm, and Crim Reck. Is that what you're thinking of?)

Regardless, there's no prosecution in Indiana for failing to practice. And, I don't think that should be a legal requirement.

ETA:
Wait!

I did just remember another one. IIRC, a guy was on his back deck that faced Keystone and he was plinking with a .22 at ... frogs? Turtles? He was shooting at something. Nice guy. Had some other issues going on and was just blowing off steam. Shooting within city limits is/was an OV, so the officer wrote him the ticket. I think he either pleaded guilty or there was a diversion or something.

I guess my point is there's more to "responsible" than mechanical operation.

 

[riverman67]

Is it responsible to only practice enough to hit the X ring at 3 yards 1/10 times? Is dry fire practice sufficient?

My issue with the "practice/training is necessary to be a responsible gun carrier" is that it is elitist. The "carry is only for people with the resources to practice/train" is elitist.

SHOULD gun carriers do both? Sure. It is fun and rewarding.

SHOULD gun rights supporters accept that not everyone will do that? IMHO yes. And practice/training should be encouraged. (KF's long-argued position that such training should be tax deductible is brilliant.) But, saying or implying that the lack of such practice/training makes one irresponsible - while a fair opinion - is insulting to those who don't "have enough" practice/training.

I'm not saying in anyway that I believe training should be required but I don't understand why some are so averse to getting some.
Up thread someone mentioned offering free training at their home range with few takers. Much of the defensive oriented training that I have taken has been local and very affordable.
Most people that can afford a good pistol and jump through the hoops of acquiring a license to carry can afford 200 rounds of ammo and the cost of a local basic defensive pistol class.

 

[T.Lex]

I guess my point is there's more to "responsible" than mechanical operation.

Yes. No question. I didn't realize you thought I disagreed about that.

But, the parameters of the right - or even the moral obligation - to own a firearm are not defined by subjective opinions on what "responsible" is. Or subjective opinions on sufficient proficiency.

 

[T.Lex]

Something else I just thought of - and maybe some of the active/retired LEOs can chime in.

Maybe the goal should be to practice/train as much as the average LEO?

From what I understand, that's annually, for as long as it takes to re-qualify.

(Ok, that's probably hyperbole, but you get the idea.)

 

[Fiddle]

Yes in Michigan. Our CPL program is basically NRA basic pistol and personal protection inside the home. The skill of those who teach it vary widely. Some are literally horrible, some very good, most mediocre.

Is there anywhere around Indy that offers free training? I am definitely a novice and would like to learn how to shoot properly.

 

[cedartop]

Is there anywhere around Indy that offers free training? I am definitely a novice and would like to learn how to shoot properly.

I couldn't tell you. I should add the age old caveat, you usually get what you pay for. Also so Coach doesn't ban me from his thread I should mention that normally I get paid for my instruction. The free stuff is as a benefit to members of my home range where I am on the board. My point was, that even when free, most people don't bother. Of course this thread was about practice, not training, so carry on.

 

[cedartop]

Something else I just thought of - and maybe some of the active/retired LEOs can chime in.

Maybe the goal should be to practice/train as much as the average LEO?

From what I understand, that's annually, for as long as it takes to re-qualify.

(Ok, that's probably hyperbole, but you get the idea.)

What is the hit percentage for the "average" LEO, 20 some percent?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yes. No question. I didn't realize you thought I disagreed about that.

But, the parameters of the right - or even the moral obligation - to own a firearm are not defined by subjective opinions on what "responsible" is. Or subjective opinions on sufficient proficiency.

When did the thread become about the right or moral obligation?

 

[T.Lex]

When did the thread become about the right or moral obligation?

Almost immediately. Or at least, when it became about proficiency.

The assertion becomes, "If you can't carry responsibly, you shouldn't carry."

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Almost immediately. Or at least, when it became about proficiency.

The assertion becomes, "If you can't carry responsibly, you shouldn't carry."

I think we're capable of separating you shouldn't do vs something you can't legally do. We don't need a law thatif you can't swim you shouldn't jump in water deeper than you are tall... but you should learn to swim first.

 

[churchmouse]

Is there anywhere around Indy that offers free training? I am definitely a novice and would like to learn how to shoot properly.

Trainers do it for a living or to supplement income. Free is not always the best route to take. What you get is sometimes worth what you paid for it.......Just saying.