View Single Post
Old November 12, 2018, 07:20 AM   #69
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 6,171
I'm not a moderator,but if I may...
The OP's question was about whether a foe can be too close to shoot.

IMO, Askins character perhaps merited some discussion,but that has been done.
Views have been expressed.I learned something,myself.

The argument has become a non productive game of competitive urination.

Positions are entrenched,and no one is changing anyone's mind.

Rules of war have been clarified. War is hell. We all have opinions,we all have armpits. Not everyone wants to experience my opinion or my armpit.

I have my opinions about collateral damage,Dresden,Nagasaki,Hiroshima,the Sand Creek Massacre,the Rape of Nanking...Mi Lai.. Death March to Bataan,Rwanda...And Rules of Engagement vs our troops in harms way...Its good,for myself ,to know my position..

I don't expect anyone to agree with me. And,you may disagree with me.

At my age,competitive urination is no longer my forte.

I'm far more concerned about a corrupted election and the consequences right now.

Which is as off topic as Askins character and the moral and legal implications of shooting POW's.

If I had a mountain lion drop on my neck or an MMA fighter pounding me on the ground,either a knife or a gun might be very useful. Either would require me to have some control of my knife or gun hand/arm. I fail to see how pulling from a holster,and pulling a trigger while pointed in a general direction is more difficult under stress than pulling a knife,perhaps opening a folder,and stabbing or slashing. Make your choice,I'll make mine.

Muzzle blast of a contact shot produces more trauma. A snubbie can hit just fine at 10 or 15 yds.

To argue more would be just boring
HiBC is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03023 seconds with 8 queries