“Anyone who thinks they can shoot into tussle needs to at least show us their Marksmanship badge or some serious amount of hours training at a range under an instructor.”
Not really. Answering a few questions about situational awareness and explaining the choice of bullet configuration should suffice. As someone who “wouldn’t use a gun for home defense,” you’re not competent to set or evaluate standards by which to evaluate the proficiency of people who do employ guns for home defense.
I wouldn’t ever shoot at something so close to another person. I mean, a trained marksman in a hostage situation would really be the one acceptable time and even then there is a lot of risk involved.
I’d have used a knife or a blunt object. If I had two good legs I’d try kicking as well.
Guns should be banned. Period.
whooooosh
It actually sounds like they’re using some wicked projectile penetration rules. Based on the police statement the shooter hit one of his intended targets, but didn’t account for the over-penetration his weapon had at that range.
Answering a few questions about situational awareness and explaining the choice of bullet configuration should suffice.
Out of curiosity, do you think answering a few questions about situational awareness and explaining the choice of engine should suffice for getting a Driver’s License?
For that matter, in your mind, what does make someone competent “to set or evaluate standards by which to evaluate the proficiency of people who do employ guns for home defense”?
“…what does make someone competent…”
Certainly not a total incapacity to form valid analogies.
That doesn’t actually answer either of my questions, and if you think my analogy is faulty, I’d invite you to explain why so that I can better understand your argument.
That said, if you’d prefer to take pot-shots than engage in discussion, just say the word and I will happily leave you to it.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
