Originally Posted by Nnobby45
Hard to make a case for a method of shooting that resulted in no bullet holes in the adversaries.
I submit that depends on whether or not the person doing the shooting was supposed to be "good" at point shooting. By comparison, the fact that the fellow in the story was unable to use his sights to score a hit in no way "hurts" the case for using sights...
I have no idea what that statement means. If he wasn't good at point shooting, it was ok to miss?
If your target is moving and you can't get your sights on his hide, do you thing point shooting is better? I don't think so.
We should all be so lucky that our would be murderers run away because we shoot back and hit nothing. The victim did well to keep fighting after receiving a life threatening GSW, and I offer no criticism under those circumstances.
Oh yes, the point shoot vs. sights debate was settled years ago and---MAYBE except for spittin' distance, sights win (the debate and gunfights).
Yes, I know: It's possible to practice enough to get good at point shooting, and it has it's advocates.