Is it responsible

[Coach]

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

Your examples sound like they are practiced and have been for years. So we are not talking about them. I have not said anything yet so whatever you are hearing is not me. In the grand scheme what does my opinion or anyone else's really mean?

 

[Coach]

I do not advocate for any requirement for training with a firearm.
I do not advocate for any requirement for practicing with a firearm.

I think both are a real good idea.

If a person is going to strap on a gun and walk around in public. It would seem that they should be able to hit what they aim at and can do so on demand. If that is not the case it would seem likely that they could do more harm than good. It would seem to be in their own self-interest to be able to hit what they aim at. There are plenty of other people out and about that hope that they can hit what they aim at if the circumstances present themselves.

Why is to much to hope that people that carry a gun shoot it a little bit. Exercise your rights and shoot the thing a little bit.

Hope that attitude is not too elitist.

 

[CraigAPS]

I do not advocate for any requirement for training with a firearm.
I do not advocate for any requirement for practicing with a firearm.

I think both are a real good idea.

If a person is going to strap on a gun and walk around in public. It would seem that they should be able to hit what they aim at and can do so on demand. If that is not the case it would seem likely that they could do more harm than good. It would seem to be in their own self-interest to be able to hit what they aim at. There are plenty of other people out and about that hope that they can hit what they aim at if the circumstances present themselves.

Why is to much to hope that people that carry a gun shoot it a little bit. Exercise your rights and shoot the thing a little bit.

Hope that attitude is not too elitist.

I don't think your POV is "elitist." I agree with most of the things that you have said in this thread. I'm not sure whether or not I'd call it irresponsible, per se, but it's definitely not the best of ideas not to know with little doubt that you'll hit what you're aiming at, particularly in a self-defense scenario. If you don't hit it, you won't stop it. The only way to be certain is to practice. That doesn't even bring in the fact that human beings don't operate under stress the same way they do without that rush of adrenaline. I later decided, rather shortly after, that I needed to have the same protection at my home or outside of it, but my intention to practice had already been decided upon.

I have nowhere near the experience with firearms that most of the people on INGO in general (or so it seems) but definitely not as much as those that have posted in this thread. When I purchased my first firearm about two years ago, the thought was just to have it for home defense. I figured I'd go to the one range I knew of just to make sure it worked, then it would stay in my home. I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn! In my defense, it was a 2" snubby at 25 yds. I took it upon myself to improve my shooting in case I needed it because of the idea above about not being able to stop what I needed to stop. So, I wholeheartedly agree that one should practice to become proficient, but I wouldn't necessarily call it "irresponsible." I do realize the damage that could ensue if someone who doesn't practice could do should s/he miss the intended target.

But, then again, rereading what I have typed, perhaps it is irresponsible. I mean, if one thinks about the outcome of missing one's intended target, that alone calls for practice to keep that from happening. These are just my thoughts, literally typed out as I pondered it, about practicing. Take them for what they're worth.