the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Those are mostly facts and certainly not personal attacks. I'll bold them for you for ease of reading:

Be sure to bold the part about Antifa. That's extremely relevant to this discussion.

Michael wrote:Do you have any personal experience with guns? It doesn't sound like you do if you think it's easy to learn how to wield a machine gun effectively in combat without extensive training and experience.

Oh my. You don't even know that a long rifle isn't a machine gun. Like I said, GTFO.

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:

Michael wrote:

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Finally, I thought you served? The M-4, M-16, or any American style long rifle is not hard to use, does not require much or any training, or any particular knowledge. Given that, the fact that he couldn't even hit his target makes all of your comments ridiculous.

How do you know he didn't hit his target? I'm going by his interview and various news sources. They could be wrong.

Yes, I was in the Marines, so I know something about shooting and it's really your comments about weapons training that are beyond ridiculous. You very obviously know nothing about combat, marksmanship or the training needed to bring them together. With such ignorance and the inability to listen, you're really unqualified to speak here in a technical or emotional sense.

I've been shooting all my life and the first time I ever shot a .308 long rifle I hit the shield every time at 100m with a red dot. That's unmagnified, ICYDK. I have also taken tactical training courses more than once. Most of my buddies from the Marines can outshoot me, but your comments are just fos. Long rifles don't take lots of training or knowledge. Period.

Thanks for letting me know your experience.

If extensive weapons training is not required for effectiveness in combat, why do all the world's militaries do it? Please note there is a big difference between target shooting and weapons proficiency when you're not being fired at one-on-one, and it gets even more complex and difficult in groups. Is this not self-evident?

Michael wrote:

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Those are mostly facts and certainly not personal attacks. I'll bold them for you for ease of reading:

Be sure to bold the part about Antifa. That's extremely relevant to this discussion.

It is relevant because it directly highlights your hypocrisy in lambasting this guy for making a political statement. You not only make all sorts of political statements, you make them about things that don't matter in the face of things that really do matter (like, you start threads about Antifa, but never about people getting killed by the Alt-right (for example, Charlottesville).

I didn't bold it because you said most of what I said was a personal attack. Clearly, it wasn't. I thought bolding it would help your comprehension, but alas...

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:

Michael wrote:Do you have any personal experience with guns? It doesn't sound like you do if you think it's easy to learn how to wield a machine gun effectively in combat without extensive training and experience.

Oh my. You don't even know that a long rifle isn't a machine gun. Like I said, GTFO.

What you're picking at is becoming more than just irrelevant and ridiculous. You already know I served in the Marines, but you think it's possible that basic categories of small arms are unknown to me? I think you're projecting.

So try and and stay focused on the main point. Is weapons training necessary to be effective in combat?

Michael wrote:

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:

Michael wrote:How do you know he didn't hit his target? I'm going by his interview and various news sources. They could be wrong.

Yes, I was in the Marines, so I know something about shooting and it's really your comments about weapons training that are beyond ridiculous. You very obviously know nothing about combat, marksmanship or the training needed to bring them together. With such ignorance and the inability to listen, you're really unqualified to speak here in a technical or emotional sense.

I've been shooting all my life and the first time I ever shot a .308 long rifle I hit the shield every time at 100m with a red dot. That's unmagnified, ICYDK. I have also taken tactical training courses more than once. Most of my buddies from the Marines can outshoot me, but your comments are just fos. Long rifles don't take lots of training or knowledge. Period.

Thanks for letting me know your experience.

If extensive weapons training is not required for effectiveness in combat, why do all the world's militaries do it? Please note there is a big difference between target shooting and weapons proficiency when you're not being fired at one-on-one, and it gets even more complex and difficult in groups. Is this not self-evident?

Oh, was the guy who confronted the church shooter dealing with groups? No. Did he hit his target? No. Is there any evidence that he was well trained? No. Lots of nonsequiturs emerging now...

Did I say that training was not required for effectiveness in combat? No. How much training did the killer have, by the way? He killed 26 people not including himself.

Michael wrote:So try and and stay focused on the main point. Is weapons training necessary to be effective in combat?

This is not the main point. Nice try.

The main point is that the fantasy of the armed citizen coming to the rescue is bullshit. That's it. Look at the last school shooting. There were four cops there and they didn't do shit.

You presented untruths here (that the church shooting was stopped by a vigilante) and I call you on them. That's it. You can stop and admit you were wrong or you can keep deflecting and revealing how little you know about guns at the same time.

Ian wrote:Finally, I thought you served? The M-4, M-16, or any American style long rifle is not hard to use, does not require much or any training, or any particular knowledge. Given that, the fact that he couldn't even hit his target makes all of your comments ridiculous.

Did I say that training was not required for effectiveness in combat? No.

Do you think these two statements jibe? I don't.

"Any American style long rifle is not hard to use, does not require much or any training, or any particular knowledge."
This is absurd. Every military in the world gives extensive training for such weapons.

The point of contention is that I believe he hit his target while being fired upon, so I gave him credit where you do not. If you could control yourself like the academic you claim to be, then it would be easy to sort that out.

I have also read that he was an NRA certified instructor, so there's some training.

Ian wrote:How much training did the killer have, by the way? He killed 26 people not including himself.

Again, the different is having a resisting opponent. I would expect a self-described martial artists to understand this. Did any of the killer's victims have any means to defend themselves? How close was he when firing, etc. Very obvious stuff. Your question is answered.

Ian wrote:You can stop and admit you were wrong or you can keep deflecting and revealing how little you know about guns at the same time.

Classic projection.

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:The main point is that the fantasy of the armed citizen coming to the rescue is bullshit. That's it.

Let's say that Willeford didn't hit the killer, but at least he did come to the rescue and fire his weapon at him, which it is almost undeniable that this action interrupted the killer and forced him to flee to where the killer died. Then Willeford and Langendorf pursued him while the cops were still several minutes away. So, it was an armed citizen who came to the rescue, even if you dispute where he hit him or not. Have you considered that he did hit him, but didn't penetrate the killer's body armor?

When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object... The audience is enthralled!

Michael wrote:

Michael wrote:This is absurd. Every military in the world gives extensive training for such weapons

Absurd? Considering what you're arguing against, yeah.

A rested heart rate off the bench is pretty easy once you get trigger control and breathing down. Been shooting for more than 40 years for sport (run-and-gun, skeet, trap) and recreation. I don't hunt with a rifle but I carry one when camping, fishing and hiking.

My buddy has a motocross trail on his property that a bunch of us have used for more than 20 years for different run-and-gun formats ( hunting, stalking game and defensive/'tactical'). I've done rifle/pistol combo, rifle only and pistol only so many times it doesn't matter. I hate pistols because I suck when my heart rate is jacked. Combos are pretty mixed for me and for most of the guys I've shot with. I do best with rifle only, but I only run the courses with a bolt action as I don't really dig on the semi-autos - they burn ammo and are inconsistent without some tuning.

I can say with total authority that if you haven't bumped up your heart rate and fired at moving targets (trap) from a standing, unsupported offhand position, you can't comment on the vagaries of discharging ammo accurately and efficiently in a frenetic, fluid and 'energized' environment. It's tough enough to hit every target from seated-supported, kneeling, concealed, and off-hand when you have the luxury of 'catching your breath'. Action shooting is a discipline unto itself. I can't even imagine the skill of a biathlete. Crank all that to eleven when you're in the shit...

Anyone who tries to back up what you're arguing against, Micheal, is wasting your time.

At the core of it, I'm not arguing against that. I am arguing that the notion that having everyone armed will prevent mass shootings.

I was the one who pointed out that the supposed savior didn't even hit his intended target.

Also, as I mentioned, I have shot under the conditions you mentioned: with long gun and pistol. I'm sure it's much harder when someone is shooting back, but that doesn't detract from my main point.

The other point I made about ar-15 or 10 style platforms being much easier to kill with stands. Look how many people died in the church.

Let's try to keep to the main point. I got into this because Michael was incorrectly asserting that a vigilante had stopped the church shooting. That is not true.

You also say you don't really practice with the platform, so I'm not sure what makes you an authority. Expertise through inexperience?

BruceP wrote:

Michael wrote:

Michael wrote:This is absurd. Every military in the world gives extensive training for such weapons

Absurd? Considering what you're arguing against, yeah.

A rested heart rate off the bench is pretty easy once you get trigger control and breathing down. Been shooting for more than 40 years for sport (run-and-gun, skeet, trap) and recreation. I don't hunt with a rifle but I carry one when camping, fishing and hiking.

My buddy has a motocross trail on his property that a bunch of us have used for more than 20 years for different run-and-gun formats ( hunting, stalking game and defensive/'tactical'). I've done rifle/pistol combo, rifle only and pistol only so many times it doesn't matter. I hate pistols because I suck when my heart rate is jacked. Combos are pretty mixed for me and for most of the guys I've shot with. I do best with rifle only, but I only run the courses with a bolt action as I don't really dig on the semi-autos - they burn ammo and are inconsistent without some tuning.

I can say with total authority that if you haven't bumped up your heart rate and fired at moving targets (trap) from a standing, unsupported offhand position, you can't comment on the vagaries of discharging ammo accurately and efficiently in a frenetic, fluid and 'energized' environment. It's tough enough to hit every target from seated-supported, kneeling, concealed, and off-hand when you have the luxury of 'catching your breath'. Action shooting is a discipline unto itself. I can't even imagine the skill of a biathlete. Crank all that to eleven when you're in the shit...

Anyone who tries to back up what you're arguing against, Micheal, is wasting your time.

quoted for posterity.

Also, I am aware there are news reports saying that the shooter was hit twice by the vigilante after he carried out his spree. But, that doesn't match up with what I heard and read from LEOs. So, until I can see some evidence, I will hold off on that.