18
First-Time Gun Owner Shopping List
(iusearchlinux.fyi)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2024
18 points (70.5% liked)
guns
1208 readers
1 users here now
Keep it civil.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Okay so I am going to tell you something unpopular but true. A gun will not make you safer. If you truly just want home defence options there are other better things than a gun. Home defense is a close quarters encounter a gun is a range weapon. Unless you are very well trained, a gun will not be your best option and seriously well trained not just Gravy SEAL trained.
If you still decide to get a home defense gun. You don't need a lot of shit hanging off it or something fancy. Truly the best defense hand gun is a 4in DAO 38 special. But they are just not cool enough so people always have to get something fancy. A revolver is more reliable, needs less cleaning and can cycle a misfire. Getting in DAO will mean every trigger pull has the same feel every time.
Things you don't need is really anything hanging off your gun. Red dots, lights, lasers, ect are pretty useless. You're better off spending time and money learning how to point shoot. I get it is fun to accessorize. Everyone wants Barbie's Dream House. If that is what you want for it, have fun. But if you truly want a home defense gun. Do it the right way not the Gravy SEAL way.
Also please know that in home defense you are much more likely to shoot a loved one or be killed with your own gun then to successfully defend your home. Learning unarmed combat is safer and likely to serve you better.
If I'm being real, I just want a reason to shoot and go to the range ๐ Although you're right on some points, having a gun doesn't necessarily make you feel safer, its a liability if anything.
That is great man, no reason not to. The more people need to spend more time at the range, myself included. Just remember it is very important to have realistic expectations. I find a lot of people have unrealistic expectations of gun ownership. Which is a problem created by the industry, there is much better money to be made selling unnecessary farkles then there is providing realistic expectations.
They are planning on using a pistol for home defense, not a scoped rifle. Most defensive encounters with a pistol are likely not going to be at great distances to begin with, and even if someone was expertly trained in unarmed combat if the option exists to not have to get close that would still be preferable. It's also harder to retreat while grappling with an intruder than being able to engage from across a room.
For a self/home defense gun you shouldn't slack on cleaning regardless of its type. But also the vast majority of modern striker fired pistols are exceptionally reliable and generally don't need any/excessive cleaning.
If you train to use them under pressure and they demonstrably help with getting on target they aren't useless. A light in particular can be very helpful if you might have trouble identifying your target (see also: don't shoot your loved ones). It's certainly easy to overdo it, and ideally you don't want to rely on additional accessories, but still far from "useless".
While it's possible that's true (a lot of gun use stats can be tricky to accurately measure), do you even know if this poster lives with or even around other people?
No reason not to learn unarmed combat if you're able and willing - it can only help. I don't think it's always going to be safer in every life or death situation though. Suppose a person lives alone in an area with a cartel known for doing home invasions with a group - in that scenario they're probably going to be killed if using a pistol (or rifle, or shotgun etc.) but they will definitely be killed with just their fists.
Ranged self defense weapons are decidedly better as they don't require you to be in range of a threat to utilize them. Be that a firearm or even just pepper spray.
Are you familiar with the Tueller Drill? It is also called the 21 foot rule. Basically it is the distance that a melee weapon is effective. Look there are a lot of variables when it becomes real world, but it has been shown empirically that to draw a fire a gun successfully requires the attacker to be greater than 20 feet away. Btw 20" has the attacker almost touching the gun as you fire. When talking purely about home defense it seems very likely that any encounter will lead to a grapel. Personally I won't want a gun in the mix at that point.
And for the what if you are already drawn and ready to fire argument. That seems like an edge case to me. The home is a "safe place" for our brain. It is where we relax and let our guard down not where we expected to be attacked.
Yes I am. I don't think the circumstances behind that are directly applicable as it is focused on drawing from a holster (rather than a low/high ready) which isn't applicable in most home defense scenarios.
In a hypothetical where someone has attempted a break in on my residence while I'm inside I've probably realized before they know where I am.
The Tueller principle states that they can get you within 21ft...if you don't move. It is taught to military and police officers not to say "so you may as well not even have these guns we're giving you," rather to say "move laterally as you draw if possible." Often accompanied by phrases like "move off 'the X'" ("the X" referring to the spot you're standing while the encounter/your draw starts.)
Furthermore even then I'd rather be able to shoot from a thumb pectoral index and use my left as a leveraging arm if need be than be in an entangled fight over whatever contact weapon he brought, and that's assuming I'm lucky enough that the violent intruder doesn't have a gun of his own, which is frankly a bold assumption. Also assumes he's alone and didn't bring the typical 2-4 friends.
Feel free to make your own choices regarding self defense, by all means, but you fundamentally misunderstand the Tueller principle.
Citation need.
Did you have something meaningful you felt like adding?
Spelling
I require a citation before blindly believing this claim?
I see, that is a no then, you don't have anything meaningful to add.
Sure I could spend the next hour double checking my sources, but I am sure that no amount of evidence would satisfy you.
If you would like to make a counter point you are more than welcome to. Though I do expect it with citations (in-text) APA or MLA, APA preferred.
Well I usually just send a link to a supporting article when asked rather than pretending that people aren't willing to lie on the internet. But you do you.