Just to prevent misunderstandings, I love handguns and they certainly do their job - pack a punch in a concealable/"carry-able" fashion.
I am not trying to prove that handguns are useless, just that you should not try and force people to use what they don't like.
2. If drugs are a problem, maybe we should take into account they do exist and might be used by criminals.
9mm Luger - Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.45
.40 S&W - Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.36
.45 ACP - Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.08
Shotgun (All, but 90% of results were 12 gauge) - Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.22
There are people not being incapacitated by handgun rounds all the time. And we know for starters that common handgun rounds require more than two shots to be effective.
Maybe it's your language and school system. But no, if you're killing people with AIDS you don't buy them condoms if you want to defend yourself. That defeats the purpose of using AIDS for self-defense.
I'll promise to explain my analogies better.
2. He won't try to survive. If an intruder decides to attack a guy with a shotgun, he is merely assisting his suicide attempt.
2. There are men able of pulling cars with their beards. Does that mean I can too because I was born with a dick?
3. If a woman can gain strength, then whoever votes that women should be forced to use handguns should pay her gym fees from their own pockets.
Driving a car involves actually knowing how to drive a car and respecting the code. And loads of people still die every year. So I think car analogies are irrelevant.
Pepper spray: sucks. Only pisses off the attacker and drives him into a raging fury. Plus, in many countries the content of the spray is restricted - I think I have the right to use BEAR SPRAY on humans because being repeatedly exposed to pepper spray actually gives you some degree of immunity.
Also, any of these methods won't work if there are more than one attacker.
Other methods of self-defense are sad. They work for rapists and for shoplifters at the mall. Not for people charging at you.
Anyway, handguns are harder to control than weapons with a stock. They recoil harder because of their smaller mass, and they have a huge mass recoiling back right above the hand.
Handguns are the 800hp car.
2. If you shoot for the chest you're looking for : incapacitation and higher surface area to prevent hitting innocents. If the attacker dies it was a justified shooting. If you aim for the legs and kill a person, you prove that you shot him just to hurt him. Which is mean and will land you in court.
Have you ever missed a blow during a fight that you wouldn't miss against a punching bag? Same situation. One thing is shooting at paper, another is having to assess the situation in less than a single second.
Most importantly, have you ever killed? Because if you're the one pretending that killing is easy we kinda need to know the truth.
The military is not usually trained for self-defense pistol shooting.
2. Person either survives or dies, but will keep being in pain and attacking. More unnecessary suffering than quickly put a person down cold.
If you're shooting for pain, there is a high chance the person will die anyway. But do I really want an attacker to die 3 days later in the hospital? No. I want to survive and incapacitate him quickly.
People fuck up, but that's not an excuse to use .22LR for hunting.
Higher hit probability =/= forgiving. It means a higher chance of hitting a vital.
If you're using lead buckshot and compare it to a heavy pistol round, after both have gone trough human bodies the Jacketed Hollow Point has a higher chance of causing collateral damage, while the deformed lead loses quite a bit of energy.
If you use plated buckshot the lower deformation will mean that it will penetrate walls almost like pistol JHP.
Fun fact: FMJ bullets will actually damage tissue in a lower surface area than it's own diameter. Only the tip of the bullet crushes tissue, the rounded surfaces will just push tissue aside. Same applies to JHP, they leave large cavities but still not as big as their expanded diameter.
Fun fact 2: in terms of "force" (I think you mean energy) pistol calibers are usually piss-poor compared to rifles.
Then why not shotguns?
I was just saying that it's much easier to train with a pistol. Besides, automatics have higher ammo capacities.
>implying that shooting is not a sport
The Olympics athletes called...
Anyway, I know what is a threat and what isn't. I don't need to wait for someone to die or be raped. I just need the psychological "line" to be crossed.
2. Some times people are close enough and don't even need to be standing. Just a blade or a gun on their hand.
We have killed since we got on this planet. There are inhumane and humane ways of killing/dying.
You mentioned the death penalty. There are methods like lethal injection and electrocution. We don't shove people legs first into a wood chipper.
So fundamentally there is no right or wrong. Just what's legal and what is dodgy in court.
I am not trying to prove that handguns are useless, just that you should not try and force people to use what they don't like.
1. First, no shot hit any innocent bystanders. That's good combat aim.TheSniperFan said:You can't tell from the video, but I think we both agree that it was a mix of bad aim and drugs.
2. If drugs are a problem, maybe we should take into account they do exist and might be used by criminals.
What exception?TheSniperFan said:However, you can't create "universal rules" based on exceptions. By that logic planes should be forbidden because of 9/11 and all politicians should be forbidden because everyone could become the next Stalin/Hitler/...
Here in Germany we say "Ausnahmen bestätigen die Regel.", which means "Exceptions prove the rule", as there are ALWAYS exceptions. I already heard of a guy that was shot in the head with a crossbow and survived.
9mm Luger - Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.45
.40 S&W - Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.36
.45 ACP - Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.08
Shotgun (All, but 90% of results were 12 gauge) - Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.22
There are people not being incapacitated by handgun rounds all the time. And we know for starters that common handgun rounds require more than two shots to be effective.
Because some people insist on shooting people with cheap target birdshot. Heck, even the name says it's for birds.TheSniperFan said:And so won't shotguns...sometimes.
Okay, is that a cultural thing? Because I have never met a German person that understands how analogies work.TheSniperFan said:No, it's not. In which way is cancer comparable to dying because of self-defense? AIDS kills too, so should we sell condoms for self-defense or what?
Maybe it's your language and school system. But no, if you're killing people with AIDS you don't buy them condoms if you want to defend yourself. That defeats the purpose of using AIDS for self-defense.
I'll promise to explain my analogies better.
1. 65% is closer to 100% than 60%. What the hell are you on about?TheSniperFan said:I was pointing out that "as closest to 100%" is not even remotely realistic. We're talking about 60, maybe 65% at best here. Your attacker will try to survive as hard as you.
2. He won't try to survive. If an intruder decides to attack a guy with a shotgun, he is merely assisting his suicide attempt.
1. Uh, no it's not invalid. Men have their center of gravity higher and higher upper body strength. If you compare a man and a woman of the same mass (let's imagine both weight 50kg) the man is in advantage right of the bat.TheSniperFan said:She can gain that strength. Nobody (including you) is strong from the beginning. You either become strong or stay weak. EVERYONE that does SOME kind of sport knows that. Nothing is granted. And because of the fact that there are women strong enough to handle high caliber weapons your point is invalid.
2. There are men able of pulling cars with their beards. Does that mean I can too because I was born with a dick?
3. If a woman can gain strength, then whoever votes that women should be forced to use handguns should pay her gym fees from their own pockets.
Controlling a car is unrelated to strength, specially with power steering.TheSniperFan said:you work to learn how to control a car, so why shouldn't you to handle a weapon?
Driving a car involves actually knowing how to drive a car and respecting the code. And loads of people still die every year. So I think car analogies are irrelevant.
Tasers: won't work on people on drugs. The shooty kind doesn't penetrate clothes, and the ones that require contact... require contact.TheSniperFan said:Besides that: Since when are guns the only means of self-defense? If you can't have a gun, there are alternatives.
Pepper spray: sucks. Only pisses off the attacker and drives him into a raging fury. Plus, in many countries the content of the spray is restricted - I think I have the right to use BEAR SPRAY on humans because being repeatedly exposed to pepper spray actually gives you some degree of immunity.
Also, any of these methods won't work if there are more than one attacker.
Because an handicap or an old person will be able to beat down people with baseball bats.TheSniperFan said:Again, very sad that you think that guns are the only mean of self-defense.
Handicaps and old people *should* have the same right to use guns
Other methods of self-defense are sad. They work for rapists and for shoplifters at the mall. Not for people charging at you.
Holy shit, 800hp.TheSniperFan said:No. If a person cannot stay in control of a "small" car on the highway, they shouldn't get a 800hp muscle car.
Anyway, handguns are harder to control than weapons with a stock. They recoil harder because of their smaller mass, and they have a huge mass recoiling back right above the hand.
Handguns are the 800hp car.
1. Not every criminal is a prison hardened 300lb guy. Many "gangsters" actually have thin legs and wear baggy pants. Good luck trying to guess a hit.TheSniperFan said:Okay, I'll give you that one partially. However, as the legs contain the most muscles (which you also use every day), they're rarely "thin".
Besides that, those arteries continue in the upper body (if I remember correctly even in the "center of mass").
2. If you shoot for the chest you're looking for : incapacitation and higher surface area to prevent hitting innocents. If the attacker dies it was a justified shooting. If you aim for the legs and kill a person, you prove that you shot him just to hurt him. Which is mean and will land you in court.
The situation matters. You can't use a gun in an unjustified manner. Shooting at the legs in unjustified.TheSniperFan said:Let me correct that statement: When you shoot someone, you use lethal force.
A gun provides a lethal force, because you have practically no means of damage-control. So if you defend yourself with a gun, the situation doesn't matter, because you're either using a lethal force or you don't defend yourself with it.
But there is a difference between hitting anywhere in a 12" circle because of combat accuracy, and hitting 1m away from center mass. That only happens if the attacker is already grabbing you which is an excuse for missing.TheSniperFan said:A shot in the legs could also happen because of bad aim under stress, a fight,....just saying.
Here in Germany we have the most strict gun-laws (at least in Europe) btw.
Panic =/= scared. It's the sense of urgency. It's turning to DEFCON 1. Condition red.TheSniperFan said:Okay, with this statement you have disqualified yourself from any "self-defense mentality" discussion.
Learning how to stay calm is THE lesson. It's much more important than every technique. Same goes for soldiers.
Have you ever missed a blow during a fight that you wouldn't miss against a punching bag? Same situation. One thing is shooting at paper, another is having to assess the situation in less than a single second.
I know that stone cold sociopaths do not qualify in the psychological tests to enter the force. So yeah, I know that there is a very small percentage of cops which are neutral killing.TheSniperFan said:So you know every cop on the earth?
Most importantly, have you ever killed? Because if you're the one pretending that killing is easy we kinda need to know the truth.
You completely missed my point. Shooting people from 300m away is not the same thing as having someone run at you to stab you.TheSniperFan said:The latter part is important: They're trained for it. Some better, some worse. Besides that you can't train for every situation, only prepare as good as possible.
The military is not usually trained for self-defense pistol shooting.
My opinion about knives is that it's impossible to fight people with them without getting cut. That's why shooting them as soon as possible is important, so that they don't keep running and stabbing.TheSniperFan said:Of course, I never denied that.
I was just saying that weapons like knifes are "better suited" for very close range fights (given that you can handle it).
1. Person either survives or dies, but loses consciousness fast.TheSniperFan said:Okay this point of the discussion isn't going anywhere, as we have fundamentally different believes here.
Pain is temporary, death permanent.
Besides that I also create "unnecessary suffering" if I kill somebody.
2. Person either survives or dies, but will keep being in pain and attacking. More unnecessary suffering than quickly put a person down cold.
If you're shooting for pain, there is a high chance the person will die anyway. But do I really want an attacker to die 3 days later in the hospital? No. I want to survive and incapacitate him quickly.
1 inch to the side is not a fuck up. Specially with handguns.TheSniperFan said:Yeah, you can miss with every weapon. Like I said in my last post, your weapon doesn't matter if you fuck up.
People fuck up, but that's not an excuse to use .22LR for hunting.
That's not "forgiving". "Forgiving" is the idea that shotguns do not require aiming. When you hit, be your weapon a shotgun, a handgun or a rifle they are always non-forgiving in terms of tissue damage.TheSniperFan said:You say "WRONG" and then prove me right. Thanks.
By "more forgiving" I didn't mean that they have a spread of one meter, but still cover a greater are than a pistol round.
Higher hit probability =/= forgiving. It means a higher chance of hitting a vital.
You misunderstood my point.ElPatron said:Changes nothing. Guns are dangerous to begin with. No matter if a pistol or a shotgun. If you miss your target everything that just happens to stand behind it is in danger.
If you're using lead buckshot and compare it to a heavy pistol round, after both have gone trough human bodies the Jacketed Hollow Point has a higher chance of causing collateral damage, while the deformed lead loses quite a bit of energy.
If you use plated buckshot the lower deformation will mean that it will penetrate walls almost like pistol JHP.
Watermelons will exaggerate the expansion of a JHP.TheSniperFan said:Fun fact: A bullet damages a bigger area than it's radius, because of the incredible force. Which was kind of the point of the video.ElPatron said:Fun fact: watermelons are not human tissue.
Fun fact: FMJ bullets will actually damage tissue in a lower surface area than it's own diameter. Only the tip of the bullet crushes tissue, the rounded surfaces will just push tissue aside. Same applies to JHP, they leave large cavities but still not as big as their expanded diameter.
Fun fact 2: in terms of "force" (I think you mean energy) pistol calibers are usually piss-poor compared to rifles.
I would like to hear his reasons. It is widely accepted that revolvers have more muzzle flip due to their higher bore axis, that the grip is much harder (not even I have learnt it well) and double-action triggers are not everyone's cup of tea (the higher force required for a double-action pull can make a person miss).TheSniperFan said:My older brother would disagree with you on that one. He learned to use weapons for work (security) and said the direct opposite. I believe you on the blinding and deafening yourself part though.ElPatron said:Revolver calibers? Revolvers are harder to use than semi-automatic pistols, and if you want to fire .44 Mag in a dark and silent night, you'll end up blinding and deafening yourself. Not to mention the poor recoil recovery of those calibers, and the higher bore-axis of a revolver (which causes more muzzle flip).
So you're arguing that everyone should learn how to use handguns, you use revolver calibers to prove the power of handguns, and now say that people should use what they want?TheSniperFan said:So the father can't have the steak, because the child can't chew it? Everyone should only use what he can. If my brother is more proficient with a revolver he should use it, no matter what you say and vice-versa.
Then why not shotguns?
I was just saying that it's much easier to train with a pistol. Besides, automatics have higher ammo capacities.
TheSniperFan said:You can't say that as you:ElPatron said:There is no firearms instructor in the world that will tell you "don't get a shotgun" unless you specifically tell him that you have any kind of disability to use them.
1. don't know everyone.
2. believe in what yours told you.
What does purpose have to do with anything? Deaths can and will happen. It has nothing to do with purpose.TheSniperFan said:Yeah, but martial arts for self defense aren't designed to kill...unlike weapons. Accidents happen and I'd like to minimize the chance to kill somebody (which is why I prefer martial-arts over weapons for self-defense - also because I love sports and I love them most).
>implying that shooting is not a sport
The Olympics athletes called...
Yeah, Ad Hominem, "shoot the messenger", etc. Pun definitely intended.TheSniperFan said:Hear that everybody? You disagree with the almighty ElPatron and you're asking for incapacitation.
Have you met them?TheSniperFan said:And? Some meet nice ones, some bad ones.
Personal opinions are not facts.TheSniperFan said:My point was that SOME of them have a mentality that I PERSONALLY find frightening.
I do. That's why I have lived this long, lol.TheSniperFan said:Yeah, but not everyone tries to rape you when breaking into your house. Of course, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I don't always thing of the worst possible thing that can happen
Anyway, I know what is a threat and what isn't. I don't need to wait for someone to die or be raped. I just need the psychological "line" to be crossed.
1. A gunshot might not destroy enough muscle to impair movement.TheSniperFan said:That's true. However shooting at the legs doesn't stop you because of pain, but because of the muscles getting highly damaged. If your brain ignores the pain and still sends the messages to the legs, it won't help if the muscles don't work properly anymore.
2. Some times people are close enough and don't even need to be standing. Just a blade or a gun on their hand.
Human ancestors have killed as soon as they figured out how to do it. Homo Sapiens were born in a world where their ancestors were already able of making weapons and hunting.TheSniperFan said:So killing is not inhumane? As stated earlier, we have fundamentally different views on that one.ElPatron said:So if you're not shooting to incapacitate, it's like hunting and aiming for the butt of the animal - it's inhumane as the only thing it causes is unnecessary pain.
We have killed since we got on this planet. There are inhumane and humane ways of killing/dying.
You mentioned the death penalty. There are methods like lethal injection and electrocution. We don't shove people legs first into a wood chipper.
I have from the American point of view. Before you disregard that view, not every martial art has the same views, and martial arts are not the only methods of self-defense either.TheSniperFan said:Okay, I have clearly much less knowledge on guns than you. However, not on self-defense in general.
So fundamentally there is no right or wrong. Just what's legal and what is dodgy in court.