|
I disagree, first off, that knives take more training to use properly, but then i suppose it's all in your definition of properly. If by properly you mean you can put a bullet somewhere near the X ring on a somewhat reliable basis, then yeah, I suppose you're right. I consider proper use of a gun to be the ability to put steel on target damn near every time, and to also have the discipline and training to avoid shooting someone you shouldn't - which not only includes not aiming at the wrong guy, but also includes knowledge of what the bullet will do once it's hit the proper target. Hell, even veteran cops aren't very good at that - there have been several incidents where a cop's bullet has bounced off and hit someone who was not the target.
Any combat with any weapon or with no weapon requires a lot of training if you're going to do it properly. There are far too many people out there running around with guns who think that because they took a range safety course with their dad when they were 10 they're expert gunslingers, and that's simply not the case. Anyone who tells you guns require minimal training is an idiot.
As to the legal problem, which sounds better to you:
"I was walking down the street when he tackled me, said he had a gun, and demanded my wallet. I had my pocket knife in my pocket and somehow I managed to slash him across the chest and then I called the police" (by the way, don't stab your attacker, slash him - more immediate pain that way, which will break off the attack faster)
or
"I was walking down the street when looked like he was going to tackle me so I blew his head off" This is in keeping with your statistic that most shootings are done from such a great distance - after all, unless the other guy has a gun, why the hell aren't you running away instead of shooting him? And if the other guy has a gun, presumably it's out already while yours is still in your shoulder holster, so he's already got the drop on you. You're screwed either way.
|