Originally Posted by Extremo
Does anyone realize how ineffective a gun is for personal protection? Just for the record, I'm anti-gun. I always hear the argument that guns save lives, that somehow gun owners are ready to go James Bond on every 'bad guy' as soon as they detect a threat. But it turns out that trained gunmen with thousands of hours of tactical shooting actually only hit their targets 20-30% of the time?
I find it hard for me to be convinced that the everyday gun owner with only occasional shooting practice is supposed to be equally (or even close to) effective as someone who's trained to do it for a living?
I also found this video interesting. Even after hours of training, which most ordinary gun owners don't obtain, when confronted by a gun wielding assailant, these people still aren't able to protect themselves.
You also have this. All 9 people involved at the Empire State Building shooting were hit by officer gunfire. They weren't intended targets. Again, this inaccuracy is by trained professionals. I could only suspect a non-trained gunman would have been even more remiss with his aim.
NYPD Gunfire In Empire State Building Shooting Wounded All Nine Bystanders, Says Ray Kelly
I'm not trying to be a dick. I actually agree with many of in this thread on most policy issues. But is being a gun owning society (and all that comes as a result) really worth a sub 20% hit ratio?
what are those small targets at long range? i hit 7 of 10 clay pigeons from about 30 yards out. when you have a gun and someone is ten feet away, you wont miss.