“It’s going to be so fun when we take away all of your rights”“All of them” pic.twitter.com/I7TvK3t5SF— Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club (@EFJBGC) June 5, 2022
Honestly, I disagree with this to some extent. Guns are, by design, some of the easiest weapons to use, especially relative to their efficacy. Training and all that obviously help, but literally anyone with a gun can still kill people, or at least make it harder to take them alive. And on top of that, what these fuckers are more than anything is cowardly, and just having something that can fire back will make a lot of them think twice about playing pogrom.
EDIT: for any present or future users who come across this post and take issue with something I'm not saying and miss what I thought was a clear point, please ask yourself if you really believe that no untrained person has ever successfully (and intentionally) shot another person dead. Would they still have been better off (safer / more effective) with training? Yeah, no shit, but this idea that a fucking gun is just completely worthless in the hands of a person who hasn't undergone extensive, bi-weekly training is farcical, gun-nerd bullshit. Can you tell I'm a little butt-hurt from the condescension?
I have already acknowledged that training confers an important advantage, in both the comment you are replying to, and in another clarifying comment below. The claim that my initial comment is disagreeing with is the notion that having a gun without thorough training is "useless", which I believe to be false.
You're right to assume I'm not used to firing a gun under stress, or at least none comparable to being in a gunfight, but my fundamental point -- that being armed is always better than being unarmed -- is true. Again, I am not attempting to discourage people from training themselves to proficiently use their weapon, nor have I at any point in this thread or elsewhere, I am saying they should not feel like they shouldn't arm themselves if they can't engage in extensive and frequent training.
Okay, please share your gun-fighting experience or special training drills that we should all be getting in on. Literally the only point my comments above were making is that having a weapon at all is still preferable to being unarmed in a situation where people specifically want to kill you with guns. How does anything you have said negate that basic idea?
I feel like you aren't reading what you're replying to (given you mistook another person for me) and just want to be snippy and condescend about how much more knowledgeable about guns you are, when nothing you've said has even contradicted my initial point, just continually re-stated the importance of training and weapon proficiency, which I literally granted in the first fucking comment you took issue with.
EDIT: Think of it this way: in what scenario would you rather fend off an armed attacker bare-handed, than try a gun you knew how to use, but hadn't used frequently?
just having something that can fire back will make a lot of them think twice about playing pogrom.
Truth. I remember reading about a synagogue shooter who changed his target as the first one he went to had an armed guard outside (who he realistically would've probably killed easily if he'd tried given he would have had the element of surprise, and yet despite that was too scared to try and fail before achieving a mass killing), and I remember reading about another mass shooter who also changed targets because of that.
It's not liberal squeamishness, I'm advocating that people arm themselves even if they don't think they will be able to reliably get in training time, because it's better to have a gun that you're kinda shit with than no gun at all, because you still have a weapon that fires lethal projectiles at least. I acknowledge the value of practicing with your firearm of choice, but just having the weapon at all is a significant thing.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Addendum: if you're not experienced and don't have the resources to do that much training, get a shotgun and some 00 buck.
Honestly, I disagree with this to some extent. Guns are, by design, some of the easiest weapons to use, especially relative to their efficacy. Training and all that obviously help, but literally anyone with a gun can still kill people, or at least make it harder to take them alive. And on top of that, what these fuckers are more than anything is cowardly, and just having something that can fire back will make a lot of them think twice about playing pogrom.
EDIT: for any present or future users who come across this post and take issue with something I'm not saying and miss what I thought was a clear point, please ask yourself if you really believe that no untrained person has ever successfully (and intentionally) shot another person dead. Would they still have been better off (safer / more effective) with training? Yeah, no shit, but this idea that a fucking gun is just completely worthless in the hands of a person who hasn't undergone extensive, bi-weekly training is farcical, gun-nerd bullshit. Can you tell I'm a little butt-hurt from the condescension?
deleted by creator
I have already acknowledged that training confers an important advantage, in both the comment you are replying to, and in another clarifying comment below. The claim that my initial comment is disagreeing with is the notion that having a gun without thorough training is "useless", which I believe to be false.
You're right to assume I'm not used to firing a gun under stress, or at least none comparable to being in a gunfight, but my fundamental point -- that being armed is always better than being unarmed -- is true. Again, I am not attempting to discourage people from training themselves to proficiently use their weapon, nor have I at any point in this thread or elsewhere, I am saying they should not feel like they shouldn't arm themselves if they can't engage in extensive and frequent training.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Okay, please share your gun-fighting experience or special training drills that we should all be getting in on. Literally the only point my comments above were making is that having a weapon at all is still preferable to being unarmed in a situation where people specifically want to kill you with guns. How does anything you have said negate that basic idea?
I feel like you aren't reading what you're replying to (given you mistook another person for me) and just want to be snippy and condescend about how much more knowledgeable about guns you are, when nothing you've said has even contradicted my initial point, just continually re-stated the importance of training and weapon proficiency, which I literally granted in the first fucking comment you took issue with.
EDIT: Think of it this way: in what scenario would you rather fend off an armed attacker bare-handed, than try a gun you knew how to use, but hadn't used frequently?
Truth. I remember reading about a synagogue shooter who changed his target as the first one he went to had an armed guard outside (who he realistically would've probably killed easily if he'd tried given he would have had the element of surprise, and yet despite that was too scared to try and fail before achieving a mass killing), and I remember reading about another mass shooter who also changed targets because of that.
deleted by creator
It's not liberal squeamishness, I'm advocating that people arm themselves even if they don't think they will be able to reliably get in training time, because it's better to have a gun that you're kinda shit with than no gun at all, because you still have a weapon that fires lethal projectiles at least. I acknowledge the value of practicing with your firearm of choice, but just having the weapon at all is a significant thing.