5 stabbed at rabbi's Hanukkah celebration by intruder with machete-type knife

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't realize the level of ability he's asking for. He's not asking for typical driver ability, he's asking for indy car driver ability.

No he isn't.

Koy spelled it out very succinctly:

If by "sky marshal level performance" you mean "competently aiming for center mass" and/or "knowing how to fire your weapon accurately," then sure, that's what I am "asking" for.

Handling your weapon competently and firing it accurately is a pretty basic skill set. If you don't have it and aren't actively trying to acquire it through training and practice, you shouldn't attempt to use a gun. That would like trying to drive a car without being able to accelerate in a smooth, controlled fashion, stay in your lane, or safely slow down to make a turn. It's reckless and foolish.

And when making your choice of which gun or car to learn with, look for one that's easy and inexpensive to operate, like a .22 or a Honda.

You're making a case for practicing with a .22.

The point is competently hitting center mass in combat is far beyond what even normal for the police, let alone the average gun owner. Getting those hits on the range isn't the same thing at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I reviewed the competency level required for Sky Marshals that someone posted earlier... They are surprisingly (to me) high level. Not sure I could pass cold.. would need to warm up and practice a bit prolly.. and I have 30+ years experience and carry professionally. lots of "quick draw without shooting yourself in the leg" stuff.

I'm not surprised at how high level they are--if a sky marshal has to pull the trigger they are going to be doing so in an environment where a miss is probably going to hit an innocent.

I agree with the sentiment that both gun and automobile owners should have far more training requirements and competency checks. With cars, there is something.. with guns there is nothing... something is definitely better than nothing... but both need more. Generally speaking, it is far better to provide knowledge and regulate how to use something than to just say "it's too hard" and prohibit anyone from using it, in my opinion.

If we are going to have competency tests for guns I think we need two levels of license: Gun ownership and ammo ownership. You only have to pass a proficiency test to possess ammo. (Thus not depriving a collector of their guns as they age and can no longer pass the proficiency part.)

 

[Arctish]

No he isn't.

Koy spelled it out very succinctly:



Handling your weapon competently and firing it accurately is a pretty basic skill set. If you don't have it and aren't actively trying to acquire it through training and practice, you shouldn't attempt to use a gun. That would like trying to drive a car without being able to accelerate in a smooth, controlled fashion, stay in your lane, or safely slow down to make a turn. It's reckless and foolish.

And when making your choice of which gun or car to learn with, look for one that's easy and inexpensive to operate, like a .22 or a Honda.

You're making a case for practicing with a .22.

The point is competently hitting center mass in combat is far beyond what even normal for the police, let alone the average gun owner. Getting those hits on the range isn't the same thing at all.

It's true that getting on-target hits at a gun range is easier than doing it under stressful conditions like during a home invasion. That's why a .22 is preferable.

It's not true that competently hitting center of mass is far beyond the skills of ordinary gun owners, much less trained LEOs, neither of which engage in combat.

You can probably hit a target with a .357 if you take your time and your eyesight's good. But the recoil is significant. If you're trying to get 2-3 rounds off in quick succession, your second shot won't be as precise as your first and your third might go really wild unless you've practiced and learned how to control it.

Hitting center mass 2-3 times in a row with a .22 is a helluva lot easier. There's much less recoil so it's easier to keep it pointed in the right direction. And in a stressful situation, 'easier to control and repeatedly hit what you're aiming at' is much better than 'will drop anything in a single shot but only if you get lucky and hit it'. Plus, the ammunition is cheaper so an owner will find training much more affordable.

Anyway, you don't need a hand cannon to deal with normal human intruders. Cyborgs, otoh are a different matter. Same with zombies. For that kind of home invader I'd recommend a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.

 

[laughing dog]

It's irrational to allow incompetent people to use cars. Quit driving now. (By his standards you're incompetent.)

Your analogy fails because I have passed an established standard to obtain and maintain my driving privileges but there is no analogous standard for gun use.

PS - you do realize that you are imagining a particular standard that no one advocated (i.e. you created a straw man).

He's saying that since a .22 is adequate in the hands of an expert, it's adequate for anyone adequately trained and those for whom it isn't adequate shouldn't be permitted guns.

As Arctish showed you are arguing against a straw man.
It is beyond belief that there are higher standards to operate a vehicle than a firearm.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

He's saying that since a .22 is adequate in the hands of an expert

Fucking hell. What is the goddamned point of stuffing these fucking strawmen all the time?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He's saying that since a .22 is adequate in the hands of an expert, it's adequate for anyone adequately trained and those for whom it isn't adequate shouldn't be permitted guns.

As Arctish showed you are arguing against a straw man.
It is beyond belief that there are higher standards to operate a vehicle than a firearm.

1) I'm showing that he's asking for an unreasonable standard.

2) How many people are harmed by improper operation of cars? How many people are harmed by improper operation of guns? (And note that a good portion of those cases are improper target identification, not a failure to understand how to use them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He's saying that since a .22 is adequate in the hands of an expert

Fucking hell. What is the goddamned point of stuffing these fucking strawmen all the time?

You've never rebutted my point.

 

[laughing dog]

He's saying that since a .22 is adequate in the hands of an expert, it's adequate for anyone adequately trained and those for whom it isn't adequate shouldn't be permitted guns.

As Arctish showed you are arguing against a straw man.
It is beyond belief that there are higher standards to operate a vehicle than a firearm.

1) I'm showing that he's asking for an unreasonable standard.

Your straw man is ridiculous, so you are not showing what you think you sre.

2) How many people are harmed by improper operation of cars? How many people are harmed by improper operation of guns? (And note that a good portion of those cases are improper target identification, not a failure to understand how to use them.

Irrelevant.

 

[Arctish]

2) How many people are harmed by improper operation of cars? How many people are harmed by improper operation of guns? (And note that a good portion of those cases are improper target identification, not a failure to understand how to use them.

Irrelevant.

Also, that's something Loren should research if he wants to use it to make a point.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

He's saying that since a .22 is adequate in the hands of an expert

Fucking hell. What is the goddamned point of stuffing these fucking strawmen all the time?

You've never rebutted my point.

Your strawman, you mean. That’s the purpose of a strawman. Which you well know. So that means, you are now just trolling.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You've never rebutted my point.

Your strawman, you mean. That’s the purpose of a strawman. Which you well know. So that means, you are now just trolling.

You said that a competent person could defend themselves just as well with a .22. I'm showing the only group that used a .22 for combat operations are air marshals. Thus you are saying that competent is air marshal level. You also said that those who aren't competent shouldn't be allowed guns. Thus you're denying guns to all but the most highly trained.

(And note that it appears that nobody still uses a .22 for air marshals.)

 

[laughing dog]

You've never rebutted my point.

Your strawman, you mean. That’s the purpose of a strawman. Which you well know. So that means, you are now just trolling.

You said that a competent person could defend themselves just as well with a .22. I'm showing the only group that used a .22 for combat operations are air marshals. Thus you are saying that competent is air marshal level.

Your conclusion only follows if
1) combat operation necessarily requires competence, or
2) defensive competence is the same as combat operations competence.
Neither is true, so your conclusion is false.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You said that a competent person could defend themselves just as well with a .22. I'm showing the only group that used a .22 for combat operations are air marshals. Thus you are saying that competent is air marshal level.

Your conclusion only follows if
1) combat operation necessarily requires competence, or
2) defensive competence is the same as combat operations competence.
Neither is true, so your conclusion is false.

The important skill is the same--placing ones' rounds accurately under extreme stress. Note, also, that an air marshal is basically a defensive engagement--they're already on scene, the hijacker is the attacker. (Compare this to the police clearing a building--that's an offensive operation.)

 

[laughing dog]

You said that a competent person could defend themselves just as well with a .22. I'm showing the only group that used a .22 for combat operations are air marshals. Thus you are saying that competent is air marshal level.

Your conclusion only follows if
1) combat operation necessarily requires competence, or
2) defensive competence is the same as combat operations competence.
Neither is true, so your conclusion is false.

The important skill is the same--placing ones' rounds accurately under extreme stress.

First, it is your straw man that it is competence only with a 22. Second, hitting your target is a reasonable standard. Rational people do not want incompetent shooters who cannot hit their targets.

Note, also, that an air marshal is basically a defensive engagement--they're already on scene, the hijacker is the attacker. (Compare this to the police clearing a building--that's an offensive operation.)

You are the one who brought up combat operations, so you are now shifting the goalposts.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You've never rebutted my point.

Your strawman, you mean. That’s the purpose of a strawman. Which you well know. So that means, you are now just trolling.

You said that a competent person could defend themselves just as well with a .22.

Fucking hell.

I'm showing the only group that used a .22 for combat operations are air marshals.

You're "showing"? I posted an article that "showed" both the Mossad and Israeli Air Marshalls preferring .22 caliber back in the day. The reasons they preferred that caliber supported most of my points; that it is deadly, accurate and allows for better placement with less risk of collateral damage to your family or neighbors due to low recoil.

ALL of which make it an excellent choice for self and home defense. If a .22 can stop a heavily armed Arab terrorist with two hits then it can stop a malnutritioned junkie trying to steal your shitty TV.

I presented that article because it provided excellent examples in support of my arguments. You then went off on your straw stuffing pointlessness--that you keep desperately clinging to for no legitimate reason--trying to assert that ONLY an air marshall-level competency can use a .22 effectively, which I have abundantly proved to be false with everything else I've posted.

No one argued--including the article--that one must be as expert as an air marshall to use a .22 effectively. That is simply asinine and you know it. The facts are, however, that a .22--for all of the reasons provided--make it easier for an amature to be as effective as an air marshall, without actually being an air marshall. So that's a plus in the .22 caliber category, NOT an argument that it makes you an air marshall or that ONLY air marshalls can be that accurate.

You then went on to further support my arguments by pointing out that in "combat" situations--i.e., in a stressful home invasion scenario--amatures are going to be even more inaccurate due to that stress, which is NOT an argument for using a higher caliber weapon; it's an argument for using a .22, because the gun is MORE ACCURATE DUE TO LESS RECOIL and therefore won't compound the stress-induced scenario.

If you are an amature, then trying to fire a hand canon accurately will be nearly impossible. Which means your argument boils down to fire blindly and HOPE you hit something.

Worse, however, is that, with the intense recoil of a hand canon, your first shot is likely to be your most accurate, so your chances fall off exponentially with each time you pull the trigger, which is precisely the opposite effect with a .22.