Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, January 18, 2013

Georgia home invasion mom proves need for firearms training for gun owners


First of all, Donnie Herman’s wife, Melinda, deserves praise for the courage she displayed in protecting her two children from an intruder with her husband’s .38 revolver.  Herman talked his wife through the incident while also talking to a 911 operator.  The intruder had a crowbar and was breaking through doors in the house obviously planning to do harm to anyone he encountered.  Until two weeks prior, Melinda had never fired a gun when Donnie took her shooting because he thought she should be familiar with the family’s gun.  “If he opens up the door, you shoot him!  You understand?  Donnie said.
The only way to safely own a gun
Well she emptied the six-shot revolver hitting the guy with five rounds in the torso and face, missing with one.  Well, the guy was not only able to get up, he actually got in his SUV and drove off, crashing just a short distance away.  The gun rights bunch says she needed a weapon capable of firing more rounds.  I say Melinda, and Donnie should have been required to go through strenuous firearms training just to have the .38 in the house.  If she couldn’t bring him down with five shots hitting him in the face and torso, allowing him to escape, she may never have brought him down.

I can’t drive my car without a license that I can get only if I have had sufficient training to properly operate the vehicle.  It is beyond me how they can allow an individual to own a gun without the necessary training to use it.  I did a post back in May, “Gun deaths versus car crash fatalities…who wins?” revealing from a report that gun deaths outpaced motor vehicle deaths in 10 states.  A car is designed to provide transportation from one place to another.  A gun is designed to kill.  The Hermans have two guns in their home but it isn’t clear whether that is a benefit or an obstacle to their safety.
The CNN article on this issue states, "It's more common for an armed homeowner in the United States to be a victim of suicide, homicide, assault or an accidental shooting than it is for that person to shoot an intruder," according to Dr. Arthur Kellermann, a senior health policy analyst at Rand Corporation, a non-partisan think tank.  And many experts agree, contrary to being a protection to their safety, crowds of people rush out to purchase a gun but never properly learn how to use it.  The FBI conducted about 2.8 million checks for gun purchases this past December, a record high for a month.     

Wacky Wayne LaPierre’s National Rifle Assn. (NRA) strongly opposes requiring any firearms training connected to obtaining a concealed carry permit.  As an example, the NRA objected to a requirement of only four hours training for a concealed carry permit in Wisconsin.  There is no doubt why gun control advocates just shake their heads at this kind of ignorance and complete disregard for the rights of those who don’t want to die in gun violence.  Unfortunately, some of this group reacts with apathy and the attitude that it only happens to others, not them.
As far as I can determine, only 3 states require any firearms training in connection with owning a gun.  They are the District of Columbia, Maryland and Ohio.

ThinkProgress spoke with a number of NRA members at their St. Louis convention last April and found that many supported gun safety training to acquire a concealed carry permit.  I agree with this, although I think the CC permit itself should come with restrictions based on need.  But let’s be honest, wouldn’t it be a safer America if everyone who owns a gun was forced to learn how to use it?  Remember, there are 300 million firearms on the streets of the United States.  How many owners are trained on how to use them?  My guess is a very sparse number.

4 comments:

  1. More lies, distortions and things left unsaid.

    Well she emptied the six-shot revolver hitting the guy with five rounds in the torso and face, missing with one. Well, the guy was not only able to get up, he actually got in his SUV and drove off, crashing just a short distance away.

    5 out of 6 shots is better than most law enforcement officers can manage at the same distance.

    Yet you claim she needs additional training. Just what level of training does a person need in order to exercise their rights?
    By the way, could you provide evidence that you have sufficient (I get to decide following your example) training in the exercise of your first amendment rights?

    If she couldn’t bring him down with five shots hitting him in the face and torso, allowing him to escape, she may never have brought him down.

    The purpose of firearms for self defense is to stop the threat. She - and her .38 - did that admirably. Can you deny he stopped the crime in progress and possibly a worse crime was stopped?

    I can’t drive my car without a license that I can get only if I have had sufficient training to properly operate the vehicle.

    Now comes the lying part. What you say is simply not true. You can drive your car on private property without any training, any license, insurance or anything else and there is nothing in the law saying otherwise.

    It is beyond me how they can allow an individual to own a gun without the necessary training to use it.

    Maybe because you want to put obstacles and road blocks in the path of people exercising their rights. Can you show any evidence that ordinary people perform unacceptably without training in the use of firearms?

    Can you provide any citation in the Constitution that authorizes the government to mandate that training?

    The Hermans have two guns in their home but it isn’t clear whether that is a benefit or an obstacle to their safety.

    I'm sorry but you to be a little slow to make that statement or deliberately lying.
    A firearm kept in their home stopped a crime and the only person hurt was the criminal. How is that not a benefit to their safety?

    But let’s be honest, wouldn’t it be a safer America if everyone who owns a gun was forced to learn how to use it? Remember, there are 300 million firearms on the streets of the United States. How many owners are trained on how to use them? My guess is a very sparse number.

    Your very words are proof that training is not needed. Firearm related deaths and injuries have been decreasing year after year while the number of firearms owned has been increasing.

    So if people were as unsafe as you claim; how do you explain that?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is so absurd and stupid it doesn't deserve an answer. But precisely what you would expect from a gun nut.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
  2. Wow, what denial.

    The homeowner shot better then the police in most situations; despite having their training and still you say it isn't good enough.

    Instead of debating the issue rationally; you dismiss it out of hand. Do you treat all comments you can not rationally discuss the same way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I stand by my comment, above.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete

Nasty Jack is no longer accepting comments.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.