I’ve been shooting competitively for 20 years. You are asking the wrong guy. I can tell you that a shooter at 21 feet will typically stay there and it is harder than hell for that shooter to hit a moving target with a handgun. I would be the moving one, looking for cover and getting ready to return fire.
On the other hand, if that asshole has a knife, he has to get close to use it. Assuming I have to draw from concealed carry, he will be in my grille before I can do anything.
I threw my offer out there, I provided the links. Take it or leave it.
I appreciate the invite. I don’t generally shoot with people I’m not friends with. As for shooting accurately at 21 feet, you don’t have to do that. The guy with the gun is coming at you.
If you’re arguing that most people flinch when someone charges at them with a knife, I suspect you’re right. That doesn’t make a gun a worse weapon. The knife wielder wouldn’t even have to run if he had a gun.
The 21 foot thing assumes your gun is in its holster and unaimed. So it’s artificially hampering the gun wielder.
In any case, you can think a knife is as dangerous, but aside from standing with your gun holstered while a fit attacker charges you, I’m not seeing the case for that.
If there’s a guy holding a knife, and you’ve got your pistol in your holster with the safety on, at some distance X the guy with the knife can close the distance before you can draw your gun, remove the safety, point, and pull the trigger.
If he’s pointing his knife at you, and you’re pointing your gun at him, that distance is considerably smaller.
And so what? Thing is, killing someone with a knife is like the Cruciatus Curse. You have to *mean *it. Most people in the United States don’t have it in them to kill someone with a knife, or a machete. It’s a lot easier to wave around a gun. And of course, the most common way to die by a gun is suicide.
Not only the military, but the citizen militia. Imagine the US Army coming face to face with fat, out of shape, mouth breathing, angry old white guys armed with knives. The army would turn around and head for the hills (in fear of dying from laughter).
Lack of tyranny turned out to be Yugoslavia’s problem. When tyranny fell, then came the genocide. Rather a special case. OK, not quite so special; likewise with post-Hussein Iraq.
That’s one way to look at it. If I were to start this thread over I would make it about gun control and genocide as “tyranny” seems considerably more subjective a term. In Yugoslavia I think a good lesson is that if your “protective security state” leaves as happens from time to time then it’s really good if your side of the population has guns. I’m specifically thinking of the Siege of Sarajevo where just enough weapons seems to have help save off a likely genocide:
“Compared with the siege force, the Bosnian government forces were very poorly armed. Bosnian black market criminals who joined the army at the outset of the war illegally smuggled arms into the city through Serb lines, and raids on Serb-held positions within the city yielded more. The Sarajevo Tunnel, completed in mid-1993, was a major asset in bypassing the international arms embargo (applied to all parties to the Bosnian conflict, including the defenders of Sarajevo). It helped supplies and weaponry reach the city’s defenders, and enabled some inhabitants to leave. The tunnel was said to have saved Sarajevo.”
That’s rather contrived; the knife guy starts out with his weapon drawn, running at you and already nearly in range, while the gunman starts caught by surprise with his weapon concealed and up close to the enemy.
That’s not an example of knives being deadly; that’s an example of surprise being deadly.
Except that I have a chance of outrunning a guy with a knife; I can’t outrun bullets.
I’m generally a supporter of gun rights, but it’s always been a ridiculous argument to claim that knives (or whatever) are just as deadly as guns… if they were, then why does our army need sophisticated weapons? Why do our police? Why does anyone need a gun for defense if a knife is so effective?
The most recent examples of genocides thwarted by small arms I can think of are in the 1990s, and armies were slapped together quickly
I imagine genocides thwarted don’t really make the news like actual genocides do, and genocides unattempted because the victims are armed don’t show up at all. I think history shows us that a protective state can stop being protective, leaving you in danger, become genocidal itself, or be taken over by outside forces that are not so benevolent. In which case the people having small arms at times seems very helpful. In the latter case I’m thinking of the Bielski partisans: Bielski partisans - Wikipedia
I think the above is false. Yugoslavia seemed relatively first world, and that sort of thing happened, recently. And what do you mean it can’t prevent an incursion? How can you know how many incursions have been prevented, not even attempted, because the would be attackers figured it wasn’t worth the risks? I think, like the author in the paper I posted, that a well armed citizenry increases the cost of attack. Perhaps that’s why Switzerland isn’t often invaded.
A lot of civilians are poorly trained and bad shots, a lot are not, so I’m not sure how that effects the argument. Also I’m not sure what you mean by “military grade weapons designed for combat” but I like my ar15 and high cap magazines and I think if I were in a dire situation I would rather have it than my Winchester 94. My guess is that you would too.
I agree the situation is contrived, plus almost everyone I know who carries, cops included, has a round chambered. Not sure what any of this has to do with the topic.
Please tell me you aren’t seriously arguing the the oppressing forces in the Balkans were armed and trained as well as the American armed forces.
Your guess would be wrong. I would want the firearm I am most accurate and comfortable with; in my case that would be my Ruger revolver, or any shotgun. At distance I prefer my bolt action hunting rifle. I don’t take shots I’m likely to miss, and I take care not place myself in situations where I’m likely to have to fight my out by blowing through magazine after magazine of ammunition. During my term of service I carried an M-16 or an M-9 when required and hated it, though I did prefer the M-9 when necessary.
Assault weaponry, like the AR-15, M-16, M-4, M-9, or even the M-249 are designed for one situation only, warfare with other humans. They are weapons designed to deliver the maximum number of rounds in the minimum amount of time at median distance. Perfect for firefights. Great for exchanges in open or semi covered areas. Good for urban assaults and holding territory and perimeters. Moderate for for close quarters, and poor (imho) for quick self defense.
Now having said that, I cannot think of a time in my civilian life in the US where I have been placed into a situation where such weaponry would have been optimal or even helpful. We don’t live in Baghdad. There aren’t firefights in the streets, or roaming gangs of young men armed with such weapons. There never have been here.Not for any length of time where they are a facet of daily life anyway. Could it happen here? Possibly; nothing is ever 100% certain, but the probability of such a breakdown is vanishingly low. Those type of firearms are not toys. They are not tools for sportsmanship, or subsistence. That is why I favor restriction, licensing, and testing. The non-military/police personnel possessing them should be people of high trust, ability, and responsibility; not just any yahoo who wants one and can afford the price tag at a local gun show.
Reducing gun violence as a whole is not simply a problem of weaponry, and any reasonable person will tell you that. However, what we can do is limit access to those weapons with the greatest capacity to inflict maximum damage quickly. We already do that with automatic weaponry, antique machine guns, RPGS and other explosives, etc… True, a motivated person can always find ways around that, but that is no reason for us to make it easy for them. People researching IEDs will take time and effort to get to a place where they can be effective. We catch a lot of them during that period. If people only have access to low capacity weaponry, then they have to either collect a lot, or reload; both provide more opportunity to catch, stop, or simply dodge and run, sad as that is, from a deranged gunman.
I never said that. Quote me if you would like. What is truly laughable is the crocodile tears out there crying for a ban of “assault weapons” which Senator Diane Feinstein herself states are responsible for less than 50 deaths annually.
Not as good as the Americans, but a lot better than who they attacked. You seem to be arguing some form of American exceptionalism that only works on American soil, and I’m sure we have a great military, but our civilians are full of ex-military, hunters, educated and generally smart folks, and those kind of folks often figure out ways to overcome. Insurgents are did so in Iraq and I imagine they were less educated, but you poo poo that away because we don’t speak the language as I recall.
Are you aware that the AR15 is VERY popular as a target rifle due to it’s accuracy and properly set up rivals many custom bolt actions. They are also VERY popular among varmint hunters for their accuracy. That it used by professionals for close quarter room clearing with shorter barrels? I have to think both qualities make it one of the best all around rifles doing very well in a number of situations. FWIW Ruger revolvers are considered cheap crap by competitive IPSC, USPSA, IDPA and ICORE shooters who virtually all use Smith and Wessons, and revolver shooters almost always finish lower in the combined resultes than equally skilled shooters using semi autos. Just pointing out that your views on good and optimal weapons is perhaps dated I think are skewed by by what seems to be a dislike for “assault” style weapons.
Perhaps in part because we are a nation of riflemen, but I think you are intentionally focusing on too small a sample. The article did mention african americans arming themselves in the south in KKK years, but my guess is you live in a better neighborhood.
I’m well aware that Ar-15 is an extremely popular target and hunting rifle, and why that is so. I’m also aware that they are repurposed into that use, not designed nor manufactured for it.
As to your comments on make for revolvers: Frankly, I don’t care. I don’t shoot competitively and don’t really give two pieces of monkey crap about that sort of wankery. I shoot what I am comfortable with, and my accuracy was good enough for the military. I’ve shot S&W before, and they are nice firearms. They also are expensive, and I don’t see any reason to upgrade when I have a perfectly serviceable firearm that I am proficient with already. My gun is a tool with one purpose only, to kill things. It does that reliably and accurately, so I don’t need a nicer tool, just to say I can do it even better! Dead is dead.
Now onto American exceptionalism. In one respect, America is demonstrably more advanced, capable, and efficient than any other nation: Military prowess. Generally speaking, we command the largest, most advanced, best supplied and best trained military force on earth. An operation on home soil is intrinsically different than one in a foreign nation, and any arguing about that is simply ludicrous. What remains equal though, regardless of theatre, is the advanced weaponry and tactics our military can and will bring into play to squash an insurrection. Warfare has advanced significantly since WWII, or the deep south in the fifties. Communications are instant, and response times are quick. We don’t bother with small arms fire where losses are projected to be significant. We have better options, like RPGs, Drone strikes, air support, demolitions, etc, and we are not afraid to utilize them.
Lastly, I’m glad we can agree that nothing is ever certain. If you feel that strongly about it, then you should have no issue with taking a training course, testing, and obtaining a license to hold possess your weaponry. Likewise you should support such measures everywhere to help ensure that any other you might be encountering in such a dire scenario are also sober, responsible citizens. When the shit hits the fan, it will be much better than having to stave off the black helicopters AND the roving gangs of looters.