A top of the line .45 shell has 616 ft·lb of energy. A top of the line 9mm shell has 472 ft·lb of energy. 144 ft-lb of energy is what a .22LR shell has. So being hit with a .45 is like being hit with a 9mm+a .22. The difference is actually a lot. Not to mention the bullet size, which significantly effects exit wound size and internal damage.
Vs a knife which PENETRATES- rather than expand on impact. Think- when combat zones' target is wearing body armor- what is the preferred method? Knife goes through kevlar LIKE BUTTER. But your point is well taken- my point about the knife was just that "I agree 100% with what you're saying about knives within 21ft. However, a single shot anywhere in center-mass (that isn't a graze) from a .45 will put someone the fuck down no matter what."[/U] Entirely true- BUT a wing shot and you have lost the advantage- And a knife doesnt need to aim- or reload- and never jams or runs out.
Like I said, I agree a knife is more effective within 21ft. However, in a self defense situation, if you NEED to fire 8+ rounds you might as well be fucked anyway. And if your gun jams, then that's shitty luck. I've been shooting for about 6 years now and have never experience a jam yet *knock on wood*. As for aiming a pistol in self-defense, it's basically like a knife. You practice at the range such that you shoot at what you're looking at, you never have time to line up all 3 points as you stated earlier in the thread. Pistols are actually pretty inaccurate in terms of hitting where all 3 points line up. I am a better shot pointing than aiming, with a pistol.
No no- that was just a small side-point. I agree with you- I was just responding to the 'one center mass shot will drop him'- I agree- BUT If you wing him- the advantage switches back. Especially since the ONLY goal for a knife-wielder is to close distance- so he won't stand there execution style. EDIT: "As for aiming a pistol in self-defense, it's basically like a knife." Well i just mean in the sense of that south-america vid clip i posted. Its MUCH harder for the police with their guns- to target the knife wielder> than it is for the knife-wielder to target THEM. Just the concept of a stationary ranged-target weapon VS a melee weapon- IF they both stood still the firearm has an advantage- but thats not what will happen. And its VERY easy to effectively aim a knife at a moving target during a grappling fight.
And alternately- I understand and agree with YOUR point. [if you can get your sights on target- it doesn't really matter HOW close the knife-wielder is- you can still pump off 5+rounds for the win.] Its just- I am VERY much against people drawing illogical conclusions about safety. (think; karate knife blocks- lift one hand in the air to block knife- return stike to stomach . . .. . because IN REAL LIFE- that ='s putting your arm out for someone to fatally slash- then kill you as you recoil in fetal position bleeding out.)
I'm a blue belt in BJJ, but it's more self-defense oriented than sport. I know a couple disarmament techniques, but if they ever fail then you are literally screwed exactly as you said. Knives are a very powerful weapon with the right person behind one.
in texas shooting someone in the back even with the Castle Law, youll have a hard time walking free. Even in a situation where someone has entered your home and you have every right to shoot to defend yourself (dont ever say you shot to kill. you shot to defend, stop, save yourself/family/friends) you still have to have self control and the ability to fully comprehend the situation and make the correct choice in what to do. Shooting someone in the back is looked down on by the court especially if they are un armed. take classes on how to handle a fire arm and learn your laws. two in the chest, one in the head. Dead men tell no tales.
I value the life of my parents, that's why I would kill any fucker that breaks into my house. I know damn well the piece of shit robber won't value my family's life. They would only value the objects that they would hurt us to get. You're basically saying that it would be better for a robber to kill me and my family than for me to kill a robber to save me and my family. Try your hippie logic when you go through a b&e. I bet you won't show a burglar love when he's about to kill you and/or your loved ones.
How about the US enforces a nationwide ban on guns like the UK and most other European countries, then you wouldn't need a gun? Seems pretty simple to me.
A total ban on guns in the US & only the military, the police & the criminals would have guns and you'd be defenseless against any one of those. Chicago banned handguns for decades & they're one of the most dangerous cities in the world, with one of the highest murder rates. Just my two bits
We all know bans don't mean shit for criminals. And I want to be able to protect myself versus these criminals.
Look at the statistics for gun crimes in the UK vs. US. Look how easy it is for psychopaths to get their hands on fully automatic weapons in the US. You guys are really stupid if you think you deserve the right to bear arms. You guys are VERY paranoid.
"Look at the statistics for gun crimes in the UK vs. US" Why? are you willing to ALSO take into account the DRAMATICALLY higher rates of knife & other violent crime? "Look how easy it is for psychopaths to get their hands on fully automatic weapons in the US." Look where? . . . its NOT easy to get a fully automatic weapon. (also- if you don't want to sound silly . . . the term is 'SELECT FIRE'.) Or does the "look how easy' refer to stats? If so please share- otherwise- admit that you are pulling BS out of your ass and stop posting. That is all
I deserve the right to bear arms because the constitution says I do. Your a little obtuse aren't you?