Advantage Martial Arts Has Over Guns

Well I don't have much of a medical background but this discussion wasn't about medical stuff it was about firearms and firearm ballistics, specifically the ballistics of handguns vs the ballistics of rifles and shotguns. If you go back to post #66 and the posts before that you will see that is what the discussion is about.

When it comes to firearms I do have an extensive background on that topic and I could go into detail if you want.
Please do elucidate on your extensive firearms and ballistics background. Earlier you made some assertions that would lead me to believe that you have lots of opinions about several fields in which you have no experience. Experience is not required to have an opinion, but it certainly helps people take you seriously. It seems to me, being taken seriously is at the top of your priorities here rather than exchange of information or ideas.
 
Well I don't have much of a medical background
Then you should maybe refrain from offering opinions about medical issues. And, from what's posted here, legal issues as well.
but this discussion wasn't about medical stuff it was about firearms and firearm ballistics, specifically the ballistics of handguns vs the ballistics of rifles and shotguns. If you go back to post #66 and the posts before that you will see that is what the discussion is about.
My comments were, clearly, aimed at your attempt to describe what rounds would do to the human body. You know... the medical nonsense you posted.
When it comes to firearms I do have an extensive background on that topic and I could go into detail if you want.
I don't think watching "Gunsmoke" re-runs really counts...
If we're discussing medical stuff but we're not discussing medical stuff we're discussing the ballistics of firearms, handguns vs rifles and shotguns.
No, this portion of the thread came about when you made wildly inaccurate claims about the effect of a round on the human body. If you can't keep the various silly things you post straight in your head, maybe you should keep notes?
 
Well from what I heard about in Sweden is that you can get guns if you have a legitimate reason for getting them. Legitimate reasons would be reasons such as hunting and target shooting.
Yes correct, and when not hunting or at shooting range it should be locked up in weapons safe. Even at home, you cant just keep a gun in your closet, even if you have license.
Self defense, however, is not legitimate reason and carrying not just guns but any kind of weapon for the purpose of self defense can get you in trouble. Carrying so much as a stick for self defense in Sweden can get you in trouble, from what I've heard.
Yes, you can not bring along batons or sticks explicitly designed as a weapon, such as nun-chucks and even baseball bats. Unless you are at the basefall field that is. If you goto a bar and have a baseball bat under your jacket just in case, that is illegal.

Exceptions to wearing a normal knife is also if you say go fishing, but you can't get away with a Katana etc. But there would be no excuse for bringing a knife to a public place such as a bar, or to a supermarket.

A lady was recently caught with a baseball bat in her car, which was found during a routine road control by the police. They asked what she had it for as she was clearly not a baseball player(!) and she got to fine a few hundred dollar for that for violation of weapon law because it was obviously for self defense.
 
Yes correct, and when not hunting or at shooting range it should be locked up in weapons safe. Even at home, you cant just keep a gun in your closet, even if you have license.
What if I keep the gun out, but lock the firing pin in the safe? Does that count?
 
What if I keep the gun out, but lock the firing pin in the safe? Does that count?
Not sure, I'm not a weapon law expert, but I can guess that as long as the weapon is not in a usable conditions (such as critical parts missing) it would be better. But if you walk around with it to threaten people in public, it proably doesnt matter if it's not loaded or missing a firing pin. Even if you don't flash it, it could presumably be for "self defense" in case you need to show it, and then it is likely illegal.
 
Well his house is a crime scene although he was not the criminal, it was the guy who broke in and attacked him and his family who was the criminal. Just how long his house has to be considered a crime scene in which case he has to stay somewhere else is a different matter but the point is, it is a crime scene. When a bad guy breaks into your house in doing so he makes your house a crime scene.

It is less interruption on your day if the guy is alive when the police come.

It doesnt matter who is at fault. You still have to pay in time effort and money if you kill someone.
 
It is less interruption on your day if the guy is alive when the police come.
Probably. Not necessarily. There are plenty of cases where the bad guy was alive, and then sued the homeowner.




etc. etc. etc.
It doesnt matter who is at fault. You still have to pay in time effort and money if you kill someone.
And you still may, even if you don't. Personally, I am going to make a judgement based on the specific circumstances at that instant. If those circumstances make me think it's better that the bad guy is dead, then I'm going to do my best to admit them to the Eternal Care Unit.
If they make me think it's best if I run, then I'll use my best Run-Fu and Shoebaru my way out of there. Or whatever.
But in no case is my goal achieving the optimal outcome for the bad guy.
 
Probably. Not necessarily. There are plenty of cases where the bad guy was alive, and then sued the homeowner.




etc. etc. etc.

And you still may, even if you don't. Personally, I am going to make a judgement based on the specific circumstances at that instant. If those circumstances make me think it's better that the bad guy is dead, then I'm going to do my best to admit them to the Eternal Care Unit.
If they make me think it's best if I run, then I'll use my best Run-Fu and Shoebaru my way out of there. Or whatever.
But in no case is my goal achieving the optimal outcome for the bad guy.

Yeah. A lot of people don't want to achieve an optimal outcome for the bad guy. But I do a bit. Just because I am less bothered with bringing bad guys to justice than I am keeping them off me.

And that is because in my experience justice is quite often hard work and not very successful.

So if I can give the bad guy an escape. Then I will generally go for it. If I can avoid the police I will generally go for that as well.

Otherwise dead peoples families can still sue. So you are not really saving yourself a court case if you have earned yourself one.

And I have found criminals tend not to sue if that involves them dobbing themselves in for a crime.
 
Probably. Not necessarily. There are plenty of cases where the bad guy was alive, and then sued the homeowner.




etc. etc. etc.

And you still may, even if you don't. Personally, I am going to make a judgement based on the specific circumstances at that instant. If those circumstances make me think it's better that the bad guy is dead, then I'm going to do my best to admit them to the Eternal Care Unit.
If they make me think it's best if I run, then I'll use my best Run-Fu and Shoebaru my way out of there. Or whatever.
But in no case is my goal achieving the optimal outcome for the bad guy.
This brings a question to my mind, if you shoot and disable but dont kill the intruder, will you render life saving aid ?
 
Just curious, Im not judging. I wonder how that plays into the whole scenario and what happens after. Obviously, it would be a case by case, and maybe even state by state difference. Im not a lawyer so I wouldnt know.
I have no idea what the legal implications might be. But ethically and morally, if they're no longer a threat and are still alive, I feel an obligation to do what I can.
 
I have no idea what the legal implications might be. But ethically and morally, if they're no longer a threat and are still alive, I feel an obligation to do what I can.
Again, no dog in this fight(see what I did there). I wonder how various types of training might affect this for someone who spent time in combat. No judgement, just curious.
 
Again, no dog in this fight(see what I did there). I wonder how various types of training might affect this for someone who spent time in combat. No judgement, just curious.
It would normally be the same. Contrary to popular belief, we do render aid to wounded enemy combatants.
 
Certainly, I didnt mean to suggest otherwise.
No worries. If anything, they should be better prepared as all service members receive first aid training, and most combat specialties receive combat lifesaver training.
 
Again, no dog in this fight(see what I did there). I wonder how various types of training might affect this for someone who spent time in combat. No judgement, just curious.
Depends. Whether youre hitting a Russian trench, or a terrorist compound, youre worried about combatants triggering explosives. If theres any doubt, youre aiming for the head, making sure it cannot generate any signals. US forces refer to this as canoeing, European counter-terror police units refer to it as critical shot. There are enough cases of Russian soldiers going out with a grenade, Ukrainian forces arent quick to take prisoners.
 
Please do elucidate on your extensive firearms and ballistics background. Earlier you made some assertions that would lead me to believe that you have lots of opinions about several fields in which you have no experience. Experience is not required to have an opinion, but it certainly helps people take you seriously. It seems to me, being taken seriously is at the top of your priorities here rather than exchange of information or ideas.
Alright, I've had hundreds of hours of firearms instruction both in the classroom and on the range, I've fired thousands and thousands of rounds and I've fired all sorts of different guns in different calibers from .22 pistols to the .600 Overkill rifle that is designed to take down the largest game in the world. I've fired single shot muzzle loaders, single action only revolvers, double action revolvers, break open shotguns, lever action rifles, pump shotguns, semi automatic pistols and rifles, and full automatics and some of my instruction has been in the use of full automatics.

The instruction I've received includes stances used for shooting, how to tactically move from a shooting stance, how to tactically reload, how to clear weapons malfunctions, the three fundamentals for proper shooting (sight picture, sight alignment, trigger control), where to shoot your opponent as in where on their body you should shoot them (in many cases you take two shots to the thoracic cavity and if that doesn't stop them you take a shot to the ocular cavity) how to shoot from different positions, (standing, kneeling, sitting, prone) how to shoot from cover, how to shoot from concealment, how to shoot a hostage taker without hitting the hostage, how to go through doors with a gun at the ready when there's possibly bad guys on the other side, how to clear a house that has both bad guys and innocent people in it and making sure to shoot only the bad guys and not the innocent people. I've also had instruction at night that covers nighttime shooting and how to hold and use a flashlight when you shoot and how to do a search with the flashlight after you've taken your shots. The instruction I've received has gone beyond what police officers and military personnel are taught in regards to shooting. I'm a distinguished graduate with handguns and a graduate with shotguns and I've been to multiple shooting schools throughout the country.
 
It would normally be the same. Contrary to popular belief, we do render aid to wounded enemy combatants.

Alright, I've had hundreds of hours of firearms instruction both in the classroom and on the range, I've fired thousands and thousands of rounds and I've fired all sorts of different guns in different calibers from .22 pistols to the .600 Overkill rifle that is designed to take down the largest game in the world. I've fired single shot muzzle loaders, single action only revolvers, double action revolvers, break open shotguns, lever action rifles, pump shotguns, semi automatic pistols and rifles, and full automatics and some of my instruction has been in the use of full automatics.

The instruction I've received includes stances used for shooting, how to tactically move from a shooting stance, how to tactically reload, how to clear weapons malfunctions, the three fundamentals for proper shooting (sight picture, sight alignment, trigger control), where to shoot your opponent as in where on their body you should shoot them (in many cases you take two shots to the thoracic cavity and if that doesn't stop them you take a shot to the ocular cavity) how to shoot from different positions, (standing, kneeling, sitting, prone) how to shoot from cover, how to shoot from concealment, how to shoot a hostage taker without hitting the hostage, how to go through doors with a gun at the ready when there's possibly bad guys on the other side, how to clear a house that has both bad guys and innocent people in it and making sure to shoot only the bad guys and not the innocent people. I've also had instruction at night that covers nighttime shooting and how to hold and use a flashlight when you shoot and how to do a search with the flashlight after you've taken your shots. The instruction I've received has gone beyond what police officers and military personnel are taught in regards to shooting. I'm a distinguished graduate with handguns and a graduate with shotguns and I've been to multiple shooting schools throughout the country.
Most impressive, and somewhat perplexing. Ive had very similar instruction. Im surprised by some of what youve posted considering your experience. Maybe you want to co star in my C grade action movie? Larpsky and Crutch? Its sure to be a sleeper. Im joking, even though I know you dont like it when I joke during serious discussion.
 
Then you should maybe refrain from offering opinions about medical issues. And, from what's posted here, legal issues as well.

My comments were, clearly, aimed at your attempt to describe what rounds would do to the human body. You know... the medical nonsense you posted.
The case that I posted about in post #41 where a woman shot herself in the foot with a handgun in a class and was back the next day and finished the class happened at a shooting school I was going to and it was told to me by the instructors at the school so if you don't believe it you can argue with the instructors.

And besides, the effects of rounds on the human body has more to do with ballistics than it does with medicine.
I don't think watching "Gunsmoke" re-runs really counts...
Haven't seen a single episode. If you want details on my background with firearms see post #218.
No, this portion of the thread came about when you made wildly inaccurate claims about the effect of a round on the human body.
As I said, you can argue with the instructors at the shooting school where it happened if you disagree with it, about the woman shooting herself in the foot and being back the next day.
If you can't keep the various silly things you post straight in your head, maybe you should keep notes?
The notes are all in the thread, seeing what you've posted (or what other people have posted) in the past is a simple matter of looking back in the thread.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top