• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

A Different View

First, a disclaimer; for many years I was a certified instructor in the use of firearms for self defense; that probably colors my view in this case. We'll let Chris Cuomo on CNN make stupid (and incorrect) statements about the legality and morality of the situation. What I am talking about is the photo of the MO couple that confronted the mob that broke through a locked steel gate and stormed down a private road toward these peoples' house, and threatened them, their house and their dog. The photo shows the two of them confronting the mob with firearms to stop them. The first thing that struck me about the photo is that the two armed people do not appear to have much idea about bow to handle/present a firearm in that situation, especially the wife; my thought is that while they are using their firearms in a legal manner, they sure have never had any instruction in proper handling of firearms in a pressure situation. I worry, with the huge increase in firearms sales, especially in the last month (and I love any surge in firearms ownership - more people on "our side") that many people that buy a firearm purely for self defense do not have, and don't get, proper instruction in the safe handling and use of firearms, especially in situations where they may have to use them in self defense; from the photo I've seen, these two seem like two such people. Am I off base here with my photo based observation? Just being too picky?
 
Your eyes are not lying to you! It certainly appears that these two have little or no experience with weapons of any sort. In certain scenarios this could easily work against them, even to the point of them being disarmed by a criminal who does know what he / she is doing. However, in this situation, they had the upper hand. They could have fired a shot or three if they were rushed (as in attacked) by the "peaceful protesters" thereby scaring the dog-sh$t out of them, probably ending their assault whether anyone would have been hit or not..
 
I agree, even though they had the right to arm themselves, it would really be much better for them to be seen handling and controlling their firearms in a manner that shows they knew what they had and were doing and prepared to act.
 
"the two armed people do not appear to have much idea about bow to handle/present a firearm in that situation, especially the wife; my thought is that while they are using their firearms in a legal manner, they sure have never had any instruction in proper handling of firearms in a pressure situation. I worry, with the huge increase in firearms sales, especially in the last month (and I love any surge in firearms ownership - more people on "our side") that many people that buy a firearm purely for self defense do not have, and don't get, proper instruction in the safe handling and use of firearms, especially in situations where they may have to use them in self defense; from the photo I've seen, these two seem like two such people. Am I off base here with my photo based observation? Just being too picky?"

My thoughts to a "T". They were lucky things didn't go south. Glad no one was hurt and , for the time being, there lives and property are intact. Hope they are scared enough to invest in some serious training. The next group of visitors may be more hard core than the first group.

Be hard to keep this thread non political, over and out.
 
I was in a gun store the other day here in California, two people came in to purchase firearm. They had no idea that there was a waiting period and that you needed a firearm safety certificate. They must have been a first time buyer. You just wonder what was there purpose to purchase a firearm and if they knew how to safely operate a weapon.. nilebartram
 
Last edited:
According to a local gun store, 70% of gun sales are to first time buyers and it's been that way for a while. Most likely these new buyers are concerned for their safety based on what they have seen and are not coming from a background of familiarity with firearms. The local shop encourages all of them to get training.

This is an interesting development. We are likely seeing gun owner ranks increase with people that have moderate and liberal mindset. It is contingent on us to bring them into the fold and help teach them gun safety and help them get training.

Also, I always find this interesting. we all know the 5.56mm/.223 round is wimpy. Really only a good choice for varmints. Most of our hunting rifles are much more powerful. However, many people consider the AR scary, and it worked to keep the mob away that day.
 
Regardless of wether or not they were proficient with the firearms they were brandishing they successfully fended off the “peaceful” protesters. They deserve a slap on the back for a job well done.
There are far to many problems with making a training class mandatory before being able to purchase a firearm. First of many would be who is in charge of saying you pass or fail the class? The government? Haha.
 
As a former 30 year career firearm instructor I agree 100% with the OP. Being that there are two sides to every coin, chew on this for a minute.
In our present society I can hear some left wing, tree hugging, bottom feeding attorney make the claim that his "client" was permanently and irreparably mentally harmed by the woman with the pistol pointing it at him/her. (Being the "peaceful" demonstrator and all). This lawyer will sue and the couple being wealthy will need to hire an attorney (even though the man does that for a living) and life as they know it will be forever changed. Just typing these words makes me want to puke, but this is the world we live in. :mad:
Ok, rant off, I'm gonna go chew up a bottle of tums!

Lloyd
 
According to a local gun store, 70% of gun sales are to first time buyers and it's been that way for a while. Most likely these new buyers are concerned for their safety based on what they have seen and are not coming from a background of familiarity with firearms. The local shop encourages all of them to get training.

This is an interesting development. We are likely seeing gun owner ranks increase with people that have moderate and liberal mindset. It is contingent on us to bring them into the fold and help teach them gun safety and help them get training.

Also, I always find this interesting. we all know the 5.56mm/.223 round is wimpy. Really only a good choice for varmints. Most of our hunting rifles are much more powerful. However, many people consider the AR scary, and it worked to keep the mob away that day.

That's a good one...."we all know the 5.56mm/.223 round is wimpy. " :rolleyes: How many folks that died by one do you think would say that ?
 
Regardless of wether or not they were proficient with the firearms they were brandishing they successfully fended off the “peaceful” protesters. They deserve a slap on the back for a job well done.
There are far to many problems with making a training class mandatory before being able to purchase a firearm. First of many would be who is in charge of saying you pass or fail the class? The government? Haha.
Well said, that G word is the scary one.
 
The cynic in me says the whole thing was staged. The man in question is a trial lawyer and images from the video remind me of one of those cheesy lawyer commercials

He’s gotten a lot of free publicity out of it :rolleyes:
 
There’s been some hilarious memes that have come from it. This is my favorite

a68f2528e8dff1bc5b5b85781d778fc9.jpg
 
With all that's gone on and continues people are getting scared and with good reason. I applaud them for having armed themselves. I wish that people would seek training when they purchase a firearm but most don't. For one thing we don't have that many ranges that are convenient and equipped to train people. That's truly a shame but that's what it's come to with all the hysteria and propaganda the media fanatics put out about firearms. It's become difficult to the point of absurdity to actually put in a range and manage it with all the legal hurdles involved.
Over the years we've grown aloof and allowed the politicians to co-opt our education system and the judicial. I do applaud the couple for having the gumption to get out and defend their property even though they could have been more effectively trained. Either way they're going to be attacked and vilified for it by people that demand they give up their right to purchase a firearm for protection. Though they could have done it better at least they did manage to ward off a mob that was threatening to do them harm and destroy their property. It's a big part of what the Second Amendment is about. Now if we can just get the well trained part right...
 
Those folks need a lesson on muzzle awareness! It's not a pointer, like some use on a blackboard, it's a shooter. What would the consequences have been for these folks if, unintentionally, one of those guns was fired and one of the protesters hurt or killed (because of the lack of muzzle awareness)?
 
Last edited:
First, a disclaimer; for many years I was a certified instructor in the use of firearms for self defense; that probably colors my view in this case. We'll let Chris Cuomo on CNN make stupid (and incorrect) statements about the legality and morality of the situation. What I am talking about is the photo of the MO couple that confronted the mob that broke through a locked steel gate and stormed down a private road toward these peoples' house, and threatened them, their house and their dog. The photo shows the two of them confronting the mob with firearms to stop them. The first thing that struck me about the photo is that the two armed people do not appear to have much idea about bow to handle/present a firearm in that situation, especially the wife; my thought is that while they are using their firearms in a legal manner, they sure have never had any instruction in proper handling of firearms in a pressure situation. I worry, with the huge increase in firearms sales, especially in the last month (and I love any surge in firearms ownership - more people on "our side") that many people that buy a firearm purely for self defense do not have, and don't get, proper instruction in the safe handling and use of firearms, especially in situations where they may have to use them in self defense; from the photo I've seen, these two seem like two such people. Am I off base here with my photo based observation? Just being too picky?
I felt exactly the same way when I saw them both on their front yard brandishing a pistol and an AR. I personally think both were very uncomfortable with a firearm in hand. He held the forearm of the rifle while using his strong arm to wave away the Intruders. Just the opposite of what would be considered a normal method to maintain control of a rifle if rushed by an intruder. She held the pistol so unorthadox that if rushed, she'd fold and cower and lose the pistol to an offender. Very poor weapons control and zero training. I'm all for armed citizens BUT we all need proper and thorough training. BTW that couple were IMO well within their right to defend their home and property IF the group did in fact make the statements reported were made.
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,261
Messages
2,215,140
Members
79,506
Latest member
Hunt99elk
Back
Top