Guns....n/g | Page 2 | Vital Football

Guns....n/g

  • Thread starter Deleted member 13556
  • Start date
Absolutely, drummed into me for over 15 years now. Funnily enough, although more difficult and less accurate, I've always enjoyed pistol shooting much more than the rifle. Much more challenging but so rewarding when you get it right.
I think you're right about film and TV, makes it look easy and from anecdotal evidence, gang types use pistols in the same way as seen on tv and the results are very poor. Our instructors would have a fit if we shot like that 😁
Is there no "How to shoot looking cool" segment? Disappointing 😂
 
Quite right Nobby , I think many people have an impression that using a fireman is easy.
Maybe Hollywood is to blame ?
Pistols are pretty inaccurate, and really are for self defence. Firing a rifle and hitting a target at 300 metres is not something most people could manage without extensive practise and training.
It's also a case of recognising when the weapon has a stoppage, and knowing how to fix it.
I'm pretty sure you could strip and reassemble a weapon in the dark. I'm also confident that you will know the four principals of marksmanship.

"Unlike weapons from previous eras it doesn't take too much skill to effectively use one. "

You'd think so wouldn't you but I've seen many a person fail a classification shoot when applying for firearms jobs, to use them accurately actually takes some skill and practice (VG will hopefully agree with me here) and you'd be amazed how many criminal shootings in London end with no injuries whatsoever.
The difference in the states is that there are plenty of ranges where the public can get plenty of instruction and practice.
What does make me laugh is that people still quote the second amendment (written when the musket and flintlock pistol were the weapons of choice) as an excuse to own automatic assault rifles that that fire large calibre, high velocity rounds at a rate of 10 per second. The most obvious criticism should be that these amendments haven't been updated and modernised as frequently as weapons have.

I completely understand what you're both saying and don't disagree with either of you.

I suppose I was thinking more about weapons before guns were invented. They were all things that involved either close contact or, as with spears or arrows, thrown/shot from a distance. To be able to kill with those type of weapons you need to be very close or very skilled.

I'm not suggesting that a member of the police firearms unit or a soldier aren't skilled at using guns. Of course they are.

Neither an I suggesting that those who are not trained would be skilled at firing a gun.

I suppose though, I was thinking that with a gun it does ultimately come down to point and shoot. An unskilled person with a gun seems to me a little bit more dangerous than weapons of previous eras.

However, I definitely accept that both of you know more than me about this.
 
"Unlike weapons from previous eras it doesn't take too much skill to effectively use one. "

What does make me laugh is that people still quote the second amendment (written when the musket and flintlock pistol were the weapons of choice) as an excuse to own automatic assault rifles that that fire large calibre, high velocity rounds at a rate of 10 per second. The most obvious criticism should be that these amendments haven't been updated and modernised as frequently as weapons have.
Beat me to it.
I've been waiting to hear an American commentator make the obvious "compromise" with:
"We defend the right to bear a musket".

Some historians have gone further by saying that in 1776 (-ish) few individuals could afford a rifle - so they were stored in the Town Hall or Sheriff's Office, not in homes.
Hence the reference in their Constitution to a "well regulated militia".

This is exactly the sort of issue which troubles Libertarians.
Intellectually, shooting victims are the result of poor decisions made by people - not the mere existence of a gun.
Sadly the result of a mistake is death.
So at the very least, automatic weapons should be outside their 2nd Amendment.
 
I’ve been to the States a few times, particularly the southern states, and while not trying to be too judgmental, many of those people are a bit ‘special’
There hasn’t been a single President who has seriously attempted to change the gun laws.
Maybe it’s just impossible.
Maybe the majority just prefer it as it is.
It’s beyond my comprehension but to be fair, who are we to say what should go on in another country.

I read an article about Minneapolis with it saying that there has been 211 shootings this year so far, since the police withdrew from certain areas. It said that sometimes it takes over 30 minutes to get a police response. Defund the police has not been necessary. It appears that they have made that decision themselves.
Impuning Southerners seems unfair.
From my experience the biggest difference is between City and Rural.

We went for a meal with two colleagues from the New York Branch of my former employer.
One from Kansas (IIRC), the other from NY.
The New Yorker was opposed to guns.
His Kansas colleague said:
"With the nearest Police 50 miles away, people expect to be able to defend themselves. You have Police around the block".

Maybe they are both "right".
 
"I suppose I was thinking more about weapons before guns were invented."

I make you right there Bud, I tried archery once, bloody awful at it 😧
 
"I suppose I was thinking more about weapons before guns were invented."

I make you right there Bud, I tried archery once, bloody awful at it 😧

Ha.

Yes, that was completely my point really, about the invention of the gun and just how dehumanising a thing it is.

Prior to the gun in order to kill someone you had to be up real close or be exceedingly skilled with the bow arrow or another projectile weapon.

A gun seems quite different. To me anyway.

I'd say that the skill involved with your job is having the ability to shoot not to kill as well as shooting to kill. Sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Any idiot with a gun can kill someone. Though granted, they might easily miss and kill someone else by mistake!
 
I'd say that the skill involved with your job is having the ability to shoot not to kill as well as shooting to kill. Sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong about that.

I can't speak for armed police , but the target as a soldier is the chest , the intention that you will hit the torso area.
We were not trained to target the skull , arms or legs
There was an exception made when firing a baton round. We were taught to fire them so they bounced (ricocheted) just in front of the target.
These rounds fired would invariably cause a broken leg , as opposed to firing at the head or chest (that may prove fatal)
 
I can't speak for armed police , but the target as a soldier is the chest , the intention that you will hit the torso area.
We were not trained to target the skull , arms or legs
There was an exception made when firing a baton round. We were taught to fire them so they bounced (ricocheted) just in front of the target.
These rounds fired would invariably cause a broken leg , as opposed to firing at the head or chest (that may prove fatal)

Thanks. Actually I'd assumed that soldiers were trained to kill and that's why I only mentioned the armed police when talking about having the skill of shooting not to kill.

Mind you, I reckon a trained soldier such as yourself is probably more likely to have this same ability it skill than your average Joe who has little or no experience of firing a gun.

I just think it was a dark moment in human history when the first gun was invented. The kind of guns that exist now are properly horrific. But there's no going back now.