Page 4 of 10 First 12345678 ... Last
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    260
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post
    My point is flying right over your head isn't it?? The argument you are making is the same one I can make, just to a different extent of stupidity.
    Yes it is. That's why I'm asking you to explain. Tell me how a man with a big heavy rock can do the same amount of damage with the same amount of work as a man with an automatic weapon.

  2. #32
    submessenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,611
    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by huge View Post
    Nothing really. I don't claim to be an expert. I don't deny I could be wrong as this is pure speculation.

    Comparing knife to gun, attacking a group of unarmed people in a building:
    • With a knife I have to put myself much closer to a victim, increasing my risk of counter attack.
    • Just switching targets is a longer process if I have to take much more than a step to get to the next one.
    • If a potential victim is a faster runner than me, they have an increased chance of getting away.
    • Having never fires a fully automatic weapon I cannot speak to the amount of fatigue caused by carrying, firing, and reloading of one vs. (possibly) chasing down a target, and stabbing them.



    Obviously, this is just off the top of my head, but I can't see how a knife could be equally compared with an automatic weapon, in terms of killing efficiency.
    Problem number 1: You've accepted the debate about gun control in terms of a mass-assailant in a building. This scenario accounts for a mere fraction of all gun related deaths in America. Furthermore, you seem to have drawn your tactical understanding of the situation from OMGnews and movies, not actual events.

    Problem number 2: You seem to have accepted that just having a rapid-fire weapon, of whatever configuration, is more deadly. While this might be true in the case of a trained individual, again, it's a battle of fractions. Most people do not have the requisite training to improve their accuracy with any weapon, let alone a fully automatic one.

  3. #33
    Diesel_tke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    4,005
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by huge View Post
    Obviously, this is just off the top of my head, but I can't see how a knife could be equally compared with an automatic weapon, in terms of killing efficiency.
    Then lets not. Lets be more realistic and compare say, semi auto vs revolver. I can shoot a revolver and reload with a speed loader almost as fast as you can shoot a semi-auto, eject the mag, reload and fire. Depending on the size of the mag. When I cary a revolver it is usually with two speed loaders as well. So that is 18 shots, pretty quickly.
    Combatives training log.

    Gezere: paraphrase from Bas Rutten, Never escalate the level of violence in fight you are losing. :D

    Drum thread

    Pavel Tsatsouline: kettlebell workouts give you “cardio without the dishonour of aerobics”.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    illinois
    Posts
    2,577
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by huge View Post
    Yes it is. That's why I'm asking you to explain. Tell me how a man with a big heavy rock can do the same amount of damage with the same amount of work as a man with an automatic weapon.
    My point is that it doesn't matter what weapon you use dead is dead. Weather it's a gun, a knife, or just raw strength. And yes under the right set of circumstances someone with extreme strength could be just as unstoppable as someone with a gun. Do you really think a classroom with gradeschool kids would fare any better against someone who could toss them 20 feet in the air?? You see any weapon or advantage can be demonized.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    260
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by submessenger View Post
    Problem number 1: You've accepted the debate about gun control in terms of a mass-assailant in a building. This scenario accounts for a mere fraction of all gun related deaths in America. Furthermore, you seem to have drawn your tactical understanding of the situation from OMGnews and movies, not actual events.
    Only because that is what spurs the debate. If it wasn't for recent events that involve mass shootings, the level of gun debate would be much lower. Again, I stated that it's speculation on my part, I claim no expertise. I am making assumptions, but I'm trying to be upfront about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by submessenger View Post
    Problem number 2: You seem to have accepted that just having a rapid-fire weapon, of whatever configuration, is more deadly. While this might be true in the case of a trained individual, again, it's a battle of fractions. Most people do not have the requisite training to improve their accuracy with any weapon, let alone a fully automatic one.
    Discounting mass shootings, I agree wholeheartedly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diesel_tke View Post
    Then lets not. Lets be more realistic and compare say, semi auto vs revolver. I can shoot a revolver and reload with a speed loader almost as fast as you can shoot a semi-auto, eject the mag, reload and fire. Depending on the size of the mag. When I cary a revolver it is usually with two speed loaders as well. So that is 18 shots, pretty quickly.
    Fair enough.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    260
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post
    My point is that it doesn't matter what weapon you use dead is dead. Weather it's a gun, a knife, or just raw strength. And yes under the right set of circumstances someone with extreme strength could be just as unstoppable as someone with a gun. Do you really think a classroom with gradeschool kids would fare any better against someone who could toss them 20 feet in the air??
    As opposed to shooting at them? Yes, I do.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    illinois
    Posts
    2,577
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by huge View Post
    Nothing really. I don't claim to be an expert. I don't deny I could be wrong as this is pure speculation.

    Comparing knife to gun, attacking a group of unarmed people in a building:
    • With a knife I have to put myself much closer to a victim, increasing my risk of counter attack.
    • Just switching targets is a longer process if I have to take much more than a step to get to the next one.
    • If a potential victim is a faster runner than me, they have an increased chance of getting away.
    • Having never fires a fully automatic weapon I cannot speak to the amount of fatigue caused by carrying, firing, and reloading of one vs. (possibly) chasing down a target, and stabbing them.



    Obviously, this is just off the top of my head, but I can't see how a knife could be equally compared with an automatic weapon, in terms of killing efficiency.
    Ok now this one is better a weapon vs. weapon debate to support your cause, but do me favor replace "knife" with "fire" and make the same argument.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    illinois
    Posts
    2,577
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by huge View Post
    As opposed to shooting at them? Yes, I do.
    Please explain how it would make a difference, either way dead is dead. Without attacking the problem of why they go nuts changing the weapon they use will make little difference.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    260
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post
    Ok now this one is better a weapon vs. weapon debate to support your cause, but do me favor replace "knife" with "fire" and make the same argument.
    What's the delivery method of the fire? Flamethrower? Zippo? Bomb? Torch? Like this?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	4498628517_3c2fdd2ea5_z.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	22.5 KB 
ID:	14448

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    260
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post
    Please explain how it would make a difference, either way dead is dead. Without attacking the problem of why they go nuts changing the weapon they use will make little difference.
    Sorry, I missed this line:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post
    <snip> And yes under the right set of circumstances someone with extreme strength could be just as unstoppable as someone with a gun. </snip>
    In that case, no there is no difference.

    I have to ask, what are the circumstances that have to be met in order for someone with extreme strength could be just as unstoppable as someone with a gun? What, are the circumstances in which someone with a gun is as unstoppable as someone with a gun? ;) Which has a higher chance of happening?

Page 4 of 10 First 12345678 ... Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO