PT447 said:
your thinking in the box my friend. most gun related deaths are by handguns, on the streets, in homes, #### like that... up close and personal with a handgun! no 100 yard ####, nothing. i pull a gun, shove it in your direction and pull the trigger. no skill!
I still maintain my view that this is because it's easier to conceal and transport a weapon that's 9" long than it is to do the same with one 30" long. It's convienience that causes people to choose handguns, not killing efficiency. People that own handguns for self defense tend to have them easily accessible. That person may keep his pistol in his nightstand while keeping rifles in a safe. I know several people that do this. A pistol is not chosen becasue it's easier to kill with. A rifle is much easier to hit what you're aiming at and can have an easier time of delivering a larger round at a higher velocity than a handgun. Hell, from close range it's hard to beat a shotgun for killing. You can cause unbelieveable trauma from close range (the same range handguns are liable to be used). So this should really be the weapon of choice for the situations you seem to be concerned with (up close and personal). Obviously this isn't the case. So, one more time so there's no confusion: Handguns cause more deaths due to convienience of transport, concealability, and accessibility, not due to ease of use and killing ability.
PT447 said:
oh, i also don't think i said "guns are for #######" but if anything, your more than proving my ever-present notion that military people tend to be a little to religious about their weapons and their place in the world!
I never claimed you said guns are for #######. You did state that you felt knives are more honorable than guns. That's what I responded to, because when it comes to survival I don't believe in fighting fair and "honorable". Notions like that will get people killed. Don't take my words and twist them to make me out to be a bad person either. I fully believe in conducting yourself with honor, treating people with respect, even someone who was trying to kill you moments before but has now surrendered. That separates us from the terrorists we're fighting. We feed and clothes prisoners, and we provide help to the people of the nations we occupy. They cut the heads off of noncombatants and set off bombs indiscriminantely killing their own people.
In a street situation where my life is at stake, I would try to get away, but if it comes to my or my family's safety or the assailant, I would do whatever is neccessary to protect myself and them.
I fully belive in fair fights in the case of boxing, mma, and other combat sports. That's because they're sports.
That's my rant. Take it for what it's worth.
As far as military people being "religious" about our weapons. Considering that my weapon may save my life or that of my Marines one day, it definitely elevates their importance and the importance of marksmanship. It makes you appreciate how much time really has to be put in to the use of them in order to be effective. I also realize that taking guns from honest people just makes a bunch of honest people without guns and a bunch of bad guys with guns. Not a good situation, but that's really a different topic.
PT447 said:
dude, marksmanship is one thing, but you will never show any proof that picking up a pistol and shooting it at someone reqires more than 0% skill and effort!
Anymore than swinging a knife at someone takes more than 0% skill? Picking up a knife and swinging or thrusting it doesn't take any more skill than picking up a handgun, clicking it off safe, racking a round if neccessary and then pulling the trigger in the direction of your target. Neither situation takes a much skill, but neither guarantees damage.
I can prove that shooting a pistol requires more than 0% skill and effort. All it takes is to go to a range and shoot from 5 yds away. That's only about 3-4 steps away, and it is very difficult for the untrained person to hit the target much less center mass or in the face. Back up to 15 yds or 25 yds, and it becomes exponentially harder. Try it. I'm sure there is a pistol range somewhere near you where you can rent a pistol and do some shooting to see what it's like. Do that and you may rethink your position.
PT447 said:
how come people can't read threads? i said that other than "marksmenship" and other skilled endevours, the use of a handgun at its most basic (and interestingly, most used) level, is a totally unskilled act!
I read very well. Maybe you should take a closer look at what I read. I strongly urge you to find a pistol range where you can rent a gun and shoot. Try from a close range, 5-7 yds and see just how you do. Maybe it will change your mind, maybe it won't, but it is worth a try, and what do you have to lose except a few bucks. Might even have some fun too.
CowboyPete said:
Reyes touched on a point I wanted to bring up. In the equivalent of sensless gun violence, senselss knife violence takes a relatively small amount of skill. This is because in either case, you're likely to be fighting against an unarmed opponent. I can't remember who but someone on the forum said that they were once confronted by a knife weilding assailant and they took thier knife out to defend themself and the assialant backed down when he realized he could get hurt if he kept at it.
To be truly good with a knife takes a comparable amount of effort and training to becoming good with a gun. And in either case, there's nothing like real live experience to really let you know what you're capable of. Lots of sport shooters, for example, would fall to bits on a battlefield.
Anyways, moral of the story from the Cowboy's point of view:
Don't hurt people unless you have to. Respect the effort necessary to develop any sort of skill.
I completely agree Cowboy. You can't compare skilled use of anything to unskilled use. Apples and oranges. I also agree with your moral. Hurting people unneccessarily is bad.
(I've never seen a "crazy" that has something against them)
