Seen a Guy "Double Fisting" at the Range Today

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some people can get away with dual wielding pistols and actually hit what they're aiming at with both guns. Is it practical? No, not really. Is it fun? It can be. Is it safe? It is unless you're stupid about it.

I actually can do it, and have on a couple occasions. But I am ambidextrous with pistols and can also shift my active eye at will, or use both simultaneously.
 
The range I usually go to has a "No Dual Wielding" policy.

While I understand the concerns some may have about a person dual wielding, how much more of a safety concern do you really feel that presents to you? What about those who come in off the street just for kicks and giggles and with no real firearm experience decide to rent the biggest baddest looking handgun they can find and just start blasting away? What about those who come in with crates of ammo for their AK-47 and attempt to get rid of 3000 rounds as fast as they are able to (rapid fire)?

If I take a pistol in each hand (I have never done this though), and point both muzzles downrange and empty the magazines, do you really feel you are in danger? MUZZLES DOWNRANGE.

I could understand the concern if the individual who was the subject of the original post had spray rounds aimlessly, punching holes in other people's targets and such.
 
I happened upon a murder scene: crime tape, lots of little orange cones and a dead man slumped over a steering wheel. A bystander said the shooter fired two pistols at once and was trying to kill the passenger. He emptied both pistols from a few feet away and missed his target every time.
 
I happened upon a murder scene: crime tape, lots of little orange cones and a dead man slumped over a steering wheel. A bystander said the shooter fired two pistols at once and was trying to kill the passenger. He emptied both pistols from a few feet away and missed his target every time.
Click to expand...
1. Guy probably would've missed with one pistol if he was dumb enough to try something like that. Sounds like a gangbanger who plays too much video games. He/She probably wasn't a very good shot to start with, adding a second pistol, obviously wouldn't help their marksmanship.
2. Hitting occupants in vehicles can be difficult because bullets can and will deflect significantly, while going through glass and body panels.
 
catfishman said:
I happened upon a murder scene: crime tape, lots of little orange cones and a dead man slumped over a steering wheel. A bystander said the shooter fired two pistols at once and was trying to kill the passenger. He emptied both pistols from a few feet away and missed his target every time.
Click to expand...

How did the bystander know whether he was trying to kill the passenger or driver?
 
how much more of a safety concern do you really feel that presents to you?
Click to expand...

I've illustrated and indexed that a couple times in this thread now. read it or don't, because I'm bored with typing :D
 
I think that both sides have presented arguments that are valid under certain situations.
But the thing that strikes me most is how the arguments made by the people who are against this style of shooting parallel the reasoning used by people who want to take away our guns.

They aren't safe, probably an idiot and shouldn't have one, someone could get hurt, they aren't an expert and therefore not to be trusted with a gun...

Does anyone else see that or am I misreading this?
 
You're not misreading this,,,

But the thing that strikes me most is how the arguments made by the people who are against this style of shooting parallel the reasoning used by people who want to take away our guns.

They aren't safe, probably an idiot and shouldn't have one, someone could get hurt, they aren't an expert and therefore not to be trusted with a gun...

Does anyone else see that or am I misreading this?
Click to expand...

You're reading this correctly.

Our ranks are full of hypocritical/holier than thou types,,,
And most of their arguments exactly parallel the rhetoric used by the anti-gunners.

Aarond

.
 
But the thing that strikes me most is how the arguments made by the people who are against this style of shooting parallel the reasoning used by people who want to take away our guns.

They aren't safe, probably an idiot and shouldn't have one, someone could get hurt, they aren't an expert and therefore not to be trusted with a gun...

Does anyone else see that or am I misreading this?
You're reading this correctly.

Our ranks are full of hypocritical/holier than thou types,,,
And most of their arguments exactly parallel the rhetoric used by the anti-gunners.
Click to expand...

sadly I agree
 
You're reading this correctly.

Our ranks are full of hypocritical/holier than thou types,,,
And most of their arguments exactly parallel the rhetoric used by the anti-gunners.

Aarond
Click to expand...

Melodramatic and hyperbolic, not to mention a touch self-indulgently arrogant, with you of course as the considered man possessing wisdom while others who hold a different view playing the fools. If there's a specific thing you disagree with in for example what I have posted, just address it. Otherwise please hold the blanket judgements, I have an allergy.

Firstly, declaring hypocrisy is a slippery slope. Just because you don't agree, that does not mean the people you disagree with are hypocrites, Aarond. Have a care. Do you know what else the anti-gunners do, Aarond? They also make generalizations that paint everyone they don't agree with as foolish and ill-considered. Shall I call you a hypocrite because of it? Should your local range let people fire their rifles one-handed? Why not? Who is to say they aren't able to do it safely? Not me or you, right?

Secondly, I don't recall reading anywhere that the man who was shooting two pistols at once shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm. At the very least I did not post that. Kindly exclude me from that crowd. I've been posting some logical things about the behavior, which revolve around the rules needing to be the same for experts and for dummies.

We are overall discussing a behavior and the pros and cons of it. Please add to the discussion instead of detracting from people in it.
 
Our ranks are full of hypocritical/holier than thou types,,,
And most of their arguments exactly parallel the rhetoric used by the anti-gunners
Click to expand...
Sure, I'll just change my name back to Nelson Shields. :rolleyes:

It might be possible to perform the practice responsibly and safely under certain conditions. It might. Is that how it happens the majority of the time? Nosiree.

So, is asking people not to do inadvisable things the same as wanting the government to regulate their guns? I'm really not seeing the connection.
 
It might be possible to perform the practice responsibly and safely under certain conditions. It might. Is that how it happens the majority of the time? Nosiree.
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples to prove it is unsafe or is it something YOU feel is unsafe?
 
I'm not trying to speak for Tom here. I just have a question:

Do you have any examples to prove it is safe or is it something YOU feel is safe?
 
no one was hurt this time

no one was hurt when I did it in the past

no one was hurt when I watched others do it

AFAIK, no one has ever been hurt shooting two guns at the same time
 
I forgot to add that there is nothing in the NRA shooting instructions saying it is unsafe.

You are the one saying its unsafe, I am saying show some evidence to prove your point.

edit - also show how your evidence is any different than the antis rhetoric
 
I forgot to add that there is nothing in the NRA shooting instructions saying it is unsafe.

You are the one saying its unsafe, I am saying show some evidence to prove your point.

edit - also show how your evidence is any different than the antis rhetoric
Click to expand...

First thing is last here my friend. My "evidence" is different from the antis rhetoric because I never said he shouldn't have a firearm. Is that good enough for you?

I have been arguing that it is unsafe to assume there's nothing unsafe about what the man did. You assume it's safe. I do not assume it's safe. I've posted many words about that in this thread.

Lastly, does the NRA shooting instructions even address this at all? Do the NRA shooting instructions cover firing a pistol through a coat pocket at the target? If they do not, does that make it safe at the local range? Also do you feel that by simply adhering to the posted rules, nothing can be unsafe?

I also note that you have ignored the question I asked you, while I have been considerate enough to answer yours.
 
First thing is last here my friend. My "evidence" is different from the antis rhetoric because I never said he shouldn't have a firearm. Is that good enough for you?
Click to expand...

No.

You are walking with them and don't know it.

I have been arguing that it is unsafe to assume there's nothing unsafe about what the man did. You assume it's safe. I do not assume it's safe. I've posted many words about that in this thread.
Click to expand...

I never assumed it was safe, I did it and proved it was safe. I have seen other do it and I will more than likely do it the next time I go to the range. As long as the barrels are pointed in a safe direction, it is safe.

Lastly, does the NRA shooting instructions even address this at all? Do the NRA shooting instructions cover firing a pistol through a coat pocket at the target? If they do not, does that make it safe at the local range? Also do you feel that by simply adhering to the posted rules, nothing can be unsafe?
Click to expand...

No. Its like driving is safe but can be unsafe, that does not mean it should not be done. Racing is safe and can be unsafe, BUT that does not mean it should not be done

It seems to me you're arguing for the sake of arguing because you cannot provide any facts

I also note that you have ignored the question I asked you, while I have been considerate enough to answer yours.
Click to expand...

I didn't ignore it, I forgot about it.

I will voice my opinion at the range I attend if they enact any rules I don't agree with. I have access to a range that is two mile from my house but the rules are so restrictive I chose to join a range that is 45 minutes away.

I shoot because I enjoy shooting (and hunting but thats not part of this discussion), being restricted on firearms, ammo, shooting positions, etc… is NOT fun to me.
 
In what way am I 'walking with them'? Because I do not assume any action that is not in the NRA rulebook is safe? That's not a convincing argument to me, Grizz. This logic is the same as pouring applesauce into my gas tank, because my owner's manual doesn't instruct me to avoid doing that with applesauce.

You did it and you "proved" it was safe. What did you prove...oh, you proved that the times you did it, with you as your subject, nothing went wrong. That's not proof, that's an anecdote.

You keep citing "facts" and "evidence" that I "need" to provide. So my inability to cite a study on this proves you right? It simply proves I cannot produce a study, Grizz. You're making up rules of discussion here, unless you can cite "proof" that is not an anecdote, yourself.

You still didn't answer my question. My question was this:

So your personal experience should dictate range safety?

Don't answer it, you don't need to, I know the answer. It was rhetorical, to underline a point. Let's instead look at this from the most basic standpoint:

Is firing two pistols at once taught in basic pistol safety courses?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top