Why do Modern WPs not use PP bonuses but Ancient WP do?

[Nemo235]

As far as I can tell this rule first appeared in Splicers or maybe After the Bomb. I think.

Anyway, theres a spot in After the Bomb and Chaos Earth that says "The mechanical design and capability of the weapon makes its use and abilities quite standard. Only practice in a W.P. provides bonuses to strike as noted..."
Chaos Earth goes on to say that only characters with the W.P. Sharpshooting skill add the PP attribute bonus to modern weapons.

As for why, I can't say. Sorry.

[Natasha]

Can someone please rationalize to me why Ancient WP (bows, crossbows) allow a character to use their PP bonuses to strike but someone firing a handgun benefits from no PP bonus? It makes no sense to me since one would think that someone with high PP would be able to control the recoil/aim steadier and so on then someone who has a low PP.

Controlling recoil has nothing to do with striking the target.

Steadier aim arguement has some merit but it's more of a Physical Strength and training issue. I wouldn't give PP bonus to bows or guns, speaking personally.

[Lenwen]

I would agree the PP bonas thing for Bow's ... but not guns .. I have not used PP bonases with the bows ever but I could see more of an arguement FOR it then against it being a Bow hunter myself ..

[jade von delioch]

The way a person swings a weapon at an opponent is different from a person just pointing a weapon and pulling a trigger. The hand eye coordination works completely differently at that point.

plus theres game balance.. Though this is rifts which has very little of that in general.

[Lenwen]

The hand eye coordination works completely differently at that point.

Thats why I could easily see it applying to the Bow ..

[Killer Cyborg]

Can someone please rationalize to me why Ancient WP (bows, crossbows) allow a character to use their PP bonuses to strike but someone firing a handgun benefits from no PP bonus? It makes no sense to me since one would think that someone with high PP would be able to control the recoil/aim steadier and so on then someone who has a low PP.

You're right; it doesn't make any sense.
It never did, either, and the rules have been that way for a LONG time.

But if it makes you feel any better, I'm not sure that crossbows get the PP bonus to strike.

[Cinos]

I've always allowed P.P strike bonus to be applied to strike unless the weapon relies only on a targeting system (i.e Missiles), never made sense to me that a person with great hand eye coordination would not be better at firing a weapon with accuracy. The issue of Recoil is moot at times, at least for rifts, as Lasers have no recoil to begin with (and can be adjusted for with ease by just adding a "Weapon requires X P.S or the user gains -X to Strike." type effect). Anything that runs though a targeting computer of any kind (i.e most weapon systems on Borgs and most Robots and Power Armors), I do not allow to get the users P.P bonus as the computer compensates for the user, giving only it's normal bonus and the shooters W.P bonus.

[Natasha]

A straight P.P. bonus to handguns doesn't make sense either.

You should watch me fire a .44 magnum to learn why.

[Natasha]

Being good at aiming a gun comes with practice.

Are your friends practicing aiming or they just one day pick up a gun and drill the bullseye ever since?

[drewkitty ~..~]

Crossbows are the first of the modern weapons that lead to the modern firearm. For the Reason that they store up energy to fire the projectile and that is only let loose with a triggering lever. So KC has a point in suggesting that they be counted as modern weapons and not get the PP bonus.
As far as the modern weapons rule, it is correct except in close quarters combat, where you are just pointing the firearm instead of aiming it. (see any John Wu movies)

As for the skills that use PP for bonuses, there is the afore mentioned 'SharpShooting' (in Rifts, HU2, & other modern settings) and 'WP Modern Weapons' in PF2 (for those modern weapons that leak through to the PF2 world.)

My favorite shooting target is a empty scuba tank set about 200 yards. away, plinking at it with a Mini-14 (.223 cal) you can hear a nice 'ping' each time there's a hit.

[Dustin Fireblade]

I'd need evidence of this. Most gymnasts and athletes I know are far better aims than I.

Interesting as I've seen the exact opposite, I'd say 80% of the time. Taking 10 ten people I know who shoot/hunt on a regular basis, only two are really athletic. All ten are excellent shots.

[Natasha]

Perhaps I'm just a bad aim.
I do feel there needs to be a natural aptitude for shooting, but I don't have issue with the idea that skill and practice usually trump that aptitude. In other words, skill and practice are the more powerful force except in very large values of aptitude. Whether or not that (sometimes negligible) measure of natural aptitude should be the same as used for melee weapons, I do not know.

If there is natural aptitude, the training enables it. Without the training you just got potential.

[Jesterzzn]

Being good at aiming a gun comes with practice.

Are your friends practicing aiming or they just one day pick up a gun and drill the bullseye ever since?

Being good with a sword comes with practice.

Does a master swordsman practice to become a master or does he just one day pick up a claymore and become a killing machine?


PP bonus are supposed to reflect better physical aptitude, not take away the value of practiced skill. You will never convince me that hand eye coordination plays no role in firearms accuracy or that someone with better physical prowess will not exceed the skill, assuming equal practice, of someone with lesser physical prowess.

Sure it might be a different type of prowess than with a sword or club, but there are only so many attributes in the game. It has to fall under one of em, or at least it should.

[livewire]

well as far as this thread goes in my games i have a house rule that adds half your pp bonus to strike to modern wp's. the reason i do this is having been trained to carry a gun and passing the same test required for police officers i know that natural aptitude can play a role in modern firearms. esp. as i watched guys who had been shooting for years struggle with the test while i myself having only fired a gun a half a dozen times in my life passed comfortably well my first time through and that with an unfamiliar gun and caliber that i had never fired before. now mind
you i am not saying training is not important as one guy had the combination of natural aptitude
and training and he scored a total perfect on the test not missing one shot in any of the three different firearms he qualified with. so imo i feel the half pp bonus represents the natural ability and the wp's represent training with the higher level meaning more and better training. but then that just my opinion lol

[Natasha]

Sure it might be a different type of prowess than with a sword or club, but there are only so many attributes in the game. It has to fall under one of em, or at least it should.

If you say so.

[Dog_O_War]

A gun is a hunk of technology that can be predicted better with memory than with repetition. For instance, a gun mounted in a vice is turned and tweeked and adjusted to the point that by simply pulling the trigger you will hit the same spot (relatively) 10 times out of ten (barring wind). Now take that same weapon and perform that with human muscles, with all their twitching and constant motion; this is the human problem. You are more likely to negatively affect your weapon with unneccessary adjustments and sway than you are with a rested weapon that has minimal interference. This is why training is better suited to firing modern firearms than a superior physique.

Meanwhile with swords and such you affect the weapon all the way to the point of impact, allowing for adjustments and such along the way. These are often neccessary as your target is making adjustments as well. In this case physique adds to the training. The skill sharp-shooting is like muscle-training; only high numbers yield benefit, and that benefit is not very much (in comparison to what is gained via melee combat).

That's my take on it anyways. Besides all this, I find that brains and eyesight make for a better shooter in the end, not the guy that can do a back-flip.

[Dog_O_War]

The question of which stat aside, you don't feel natural aptitude plays a role?

How do we quantify what "natural aptitude" is? Good PS; steadier muscle support? Good PE; holds completely still for that brief second just before the trigger is squeezed? Good IQ; offers better situational awareness and foresight into leading a target, as well as how to compensate for both wind and distance? Or good PP; ensuring the gun is placed correctly and the sites stay in-line while moving the barrel?

Really, no single stat can claim dominance over "what affects a gun the most?" You have both mental and physical stats that can claim ownership.

Basically there is no "natural aptitude" with a gun (as far as the game is concerned). Natural aptitude has always been in the realm of bonuses, and as we can tell from the game, the stats themselves are counter-intuitive to this. An example of such is that My 30 IQ makes me the better gymnast than your 30 PP does. In this game nature has no place.

[Dog_O_War]

The IQ vs. PP issue is a fine example of where the game goes wrong, but it seems we are agreed that, regardless of the stat involved, there is a natural aptitude component to using a gun.
Would you say skill with a gun uses any more or fewer stats, if you will, than skill with a bow? Not a crossbow, either.

I'd say it uses more stats, but to a lesser degree. I've fired a gun (heh, alot of guns actually), and I've fired a few bows as well. The bow is definately more physically demanding, and from my utter lack of skill with them (stupid compound bows ) would indicate that they pull heavily from both strength and dexterity (aim was good, but I was horribly out of shape at the time).

[Natasha]

Natural aptitude not as much as training.

You can have rocky steady hands but be a miserable surgeon. Unless you have training that tells you how to use those rock steady hands, where to cut, and whatnot.

A shooter needs training, too, so that he knows how to hold the gun with his rock steady hands so that it actually hits what he's aiming at.

[Natasha]

Sure it might be a different type of prowess than with a sword or club, but there are only so many attributes in the game. It has to fall under one of em, or at least it should.

If you say so.

He does and in this isolated instance is right.

Indeed.

It's a totally different prowess.

So no bonus.

[Natasha]

Sure it might be a different type of prowess than with a sword or club, but there are only so many attributes in the game. It has to fall under one of em, or at least it should.

If you say so.

He does and in this isolated instance is right.

Indeed.

It's a totally different prowess.

So no bonus.

Where is that prowess measured then?

If it's anywhere it's in the Weapon Proficiency.

[Natasha]

If it's anywhere it's in the Weapon Proficiency.

Then it's nowhere.

If you say so.

Not to sound like a broken record or anything, so I'll try to make my point clearer. Training creates the prowess you need; that's why you get bonuses from training.

[Natasha]

We've answered that.

Nowhere.

That's why I said no bonus, except from training.

[Natasha]

Then you admit there's a hole in the system in this regard? A lack?

Sure.

I don't mind that, in this case. It happens to work out alright.

[Natasha]

Ah-HA! Now we're getting somewhere.

Well, good. I'm glad.

But what I think is lacking and what you think is lacking are apparently different things.

[livewire]

well i know for a fact that there is some element of natural aptitude to shooting as i stated in my previous post. but i do agree as far as the game system goes it is hard to nail down an attribute from which to derive the bonus. the one i use is mostly just for simplicity. not sure what the best fix for this is mine seems to work ok so far in the game i have been testing it in

[Jerell]

Not to sound like a broken record or anything, so I'll try to make my point clearer. Training creates the prowess you need; that's why you get bonuses from training.

She's right. Training and practice is all you need. I've taught rifle marksmanship to many soldiers, many who have had no firearms experience, and no outstanding physical prowess. Taught properly, and given teh chance most people can be an expert marksman... Stable firing position, good sight picture, controled breathing and trigger squeeze. The key fundamentals of marksmanship. Grasping those concepts, and then practicing them, make a person a better shot. At least at normal combat ranges. The only way I could see adding PP bonuses to any sort of ranged weapon, might be to close in pistol fights or at less than 20m something, if that. Still, the basic fundamentals of marksmanship do not change.

[livewire]

Not to sound like a broken record or anything, so I'll try to make my point clearer. Training creates the prowess you need; that's why you get bonuses from training.

She's right. Training and practice is all you need. I've taught rifle marksmanship to many soldiers, many who have had no firearms experience, and no outstanding physical prowess. Taught properly, and given teh chance most people can be an expert marksman... Stable firing position, good sight picture, controled breathing and trigger squeeze. The key fundamentals of marksmanship. Grasping those concepts, and then practicing them, make a person a better shot. At least at normal combat ranges. The only way I could see adding PP bonuses to any sort of ranged weapon, might be to close in pistol fights or at less than 20m something, if that. Still, the basic fundamentals of marksmanship do not change.

i agree with most of this as with training anybody can be a good shot (well most anybody as i have seen some who just could not shoot the broad side of a barn no matter how much time you spend training them, they are just that bad)but as i am sure you have seen when training people that some pick it up faster and easier then others. and some have such a hard time that it takes intense practice and training to make them shoot as well .
now wouldn't this show that there is some sort of natural aptitude to shooting? now if this is due to pp or some other issue, perhaps a state of mind or some other quality that is not represented currently in the game who knows perhaps it is that killer instinct or something else on an instinctual level that make some people better than others so then the the issue becomes how to represent this in the game well pulling it off an attribute would be the easiest
way i guess it just a matter of picking one that seems reasonable.which one and what that bonus is will be up to debate lol

[Nemo235]

Some OCCs get bonuses to strike while others don't. That could be considered "natural" since the character starts the game with it.

[Natasha]

Some OCCs get bonuses to strike while others don't. That could be considered "natural" since the character starts the game with it.

That's quite a stretch for natural there.

But less of a stretch than using P.P. for bonuses to shoot.

[Dog_O_War]

As far as the Palladium system is concerned there is no single stat that best represents a "natural" shooting ability. So instead of battling it out here, send Palladium a message. Or start up a community Game Mechanics Update/Fix thread.


Also, OCC's do not offer a very good example of a "natural" aptitude because people can multiclass, and by their very definitions of OCC (Occupational Character Class) there is nothing natural about it (because you had to train to become it). RCC is as close in this respect as you will get.


Finally, as close as a single stat gets, it's physical prowess; and we have a skill to represent the ability to utilize it in combat already (sharp-shooting). Though I will add this; PP does not matter when resting a gun to get a steady aim (always the better choice), it does not matter if you can't see your target (which gives props to the new bonus of perception), and means nothing if you are having trouble hefting the gun.
But this is a game, and as such we do have to pull away from reality (especially as far as palladium mechanics are concerned), so pick a stat and go with it.

Personally, I'd just average up the bonuses of IQ and PP and divide that by 5 (rounded down). But that's if I were to offer a "natural bonus", which I'm not - atleast until the system has been overhauled. I mean as it stands being smarter(IQ) makes you a better gymnast, swimmer, dancer, singer, etc.....

[Dog_O_War]

Part of the issue is this game doesn't have different stats to represent precision on the small scale (manual dexterity, for example) and alacrity on the large scale (back flips and juggling. Which, come to think of it, aren't effected by PP anyway, but PP does appear to be related by other means.)
Some of my favorite systems have these two separated, and likewise have distinct stats for the ability to conceive something and the ability to realize it.
However, my favorite system uses the same stat for firing a gun as it does for driving a car or piloting a helicopter... or, s'far as I can guess, playing a video game... and the system in question is undeniably more dramatic than realistic regardless. Which suits its subject matter.

Deadlands? Shadowrun?

That's deadlands for "...my favorite systems have these two separated, and likewise have distinct stats for the ability to conceive something and the ability to realize it..."
And Shadowrun for "...my favorite system uses the same stat for firing a gun as it does for driving a car or piloting a helicopter..."

[Natasha]

Some OCCs get bonuses to strike while others don't. That could be considered "natural" since the character starts the game with it.

That's quite a stretch for natural there.

But less of a stretch than using P.P. for bonuses to shoot.

Not really. The OCC represents a set of training. PP represents things like flexibility and muscle control, which often are a large part of natural aptitude for shooting.

It's still better than using P.P. bonus in addition to Weapon Proficiency bonus.

While the rules seem to indicate that P.P. should be added, they are written in a way that natural aptitude plays little or no part in shooting guns. That's the way it should be because training is so much more important than natural ability when it comes to shooting.

A trained shooter shooting wild rolls an unmodified strike and not using P.P. bonus is implied. He doesn't get his bonus from his Weapon Proficiency. Untrained shooters are -6 and not using P.P. bonus is explicitly stated. IF natural ability played a significant part in shooting, then these bonuses should always apply.

A more reflexive shooter should get initiative bonuses not strike bonuses. Training with the weapon gives you the strike bonuses.

[Natasha]

A more reflexive shooter should get initiative bonuses not strike bonuses. Training with the weapon gives you the strike bonuses.

And yet, while I agree that PP seems not wholly appropriate for the purpose (and certainly full PP bonuses), you said yourself when prompted that natural aptitude needs a measure.

I never said it needed a measure.

It's built into the training.

If there is natural aptitude, the training enables it. Without the training you just got potential.

In response to if natural aptitude has a role in shooting:

Natural aptitude not as much as training.

You can have rocky steady hands but be a miserable surgeon. Unless you have training that tells you how to use those rock steady hands, where to cut, and whatnot.

A shooter needs training, too, so that he knows how to hold the gun with his rock steady hands so that it actually hits what he's aiming at.

[Dog_O_War]

The much-reviled Fuzion is my favorite system, but I suspect it's my favorite because it was built for something I love (Bubblegum Crisis), rather converting something I'd spent a decade on as has happened to others. It seems ill-suited to some of R. Talsorian's settings. It certainly has some keen ideas for how to arbitrate a ruleset, though!
GearHead is a roguelike-turned-isometric (each is published anew for each version) with a system reputedly drawing much from Earthdawn and Mekton (another Talsorian, curiously), so the Earthdawn connection would bring Shadowrun to mind, I guess. I hear they're rather related. However, I'm not sure how closely GearHead's system resembles either Mekton or Earthdawn.

A more reflexive shooter should get initiative bonuses not strike bonuses. Training with the weapon gives you the strike bonuses.

And yet, while I agree that PP seems not wholly appropriate for the purpose (and certainly full PP bonuses), you said yourself when prompted that natural aptitude needs a measure.

What modifies Perception, anyway? Class does, class-based aptitude with certain kinds of things (magic, technology), but do any stats?

Currently nothing modifies perception beyond RCC and OCC (and only if they're updated AND the creator remembered the very vague "skill")

[Killer Cyborg]

I've lost track.

What exactly is the point in all the going back and forth about how much of firing a gun is natural skill and how much is training?

Are bows somehow supposed to require less training than guns?
Or to rely more on natural skill?

Or are you just arguing that NO weapons should use PP bonuses?
Or what?

[Natasha]

What exactly is the point in all the going back and forth about how much of firing a gun is natural skill and how much is training?

My point is that firing a gun is 99% training, maybe more. Furthermore, that natural skill in firing guns is enabled by training reflected in the bonuses to strike provided by training. Training is the Weapon Proficiency.

Are bows somehow supposed to require less training than guns?
Or to rely more on natural skill?

I would have it that all ranged weapons are treated like the "modern" Weapon Proficiencies.
You only get bonuses of he training/W.P.

Or are you just arguing that NO weapons should use PP bonuses?
Or what?

I'm not opposed to it. I'm not arguing it though.

I hope I'm clear about me.

[Dog_O_War]

What exactly is the point in all the going back and forth about how much of firing a gun is natural skill and how much is training?

My point is that firing a gun is 99% training, maybe more. Furthermore, that natural skill in firing guns is enabled by training reflected in the bonuses to strike provided by training. Training is the Weapon Proficiency.

99%? You really can't put a percentage on a "skill" in real life.

However, you can put a percentage on a skill in this game - which stands at 100% training.

Are bows somehow supposed to require less training than guns?
Or to rely more on natural skill?

Yes. give a caveman a bow and arrow and he'll atleast attempt to stab his prey with the pointy arrow. Yet you give him a loaded gun (with the safety on) and all's he's got is a club. The basics of learning the bow are far easier than that of the gun - but once you know the technology behind the gun you'll find it is the easier weapon.

But that's the difference; learning both the technology and the proficiency of the gun versus simply the proficiency of the bow.

[Natasha]

What exactly is the point in all the going back and forth about how much of firing a gun is natural skill and how much is training?

My point is that firing a gun is 99% training, maybe more. Furthermore, that natural skill in firing guns is enabled by training reflected in the bonuses to strike provided by training. Training is the Weapon Proficiency.

99%? You really can't put a percentage on a "skill" in real life.

However, you can put a percentage on a skill in this game - which stands at 100% training.

99% was to put a finer point on my point that while some people do pick up shooting easier than others it's still pretty much entirely a matter of training. I didn't mean to put a percentage on a real life skill.

[Natasha]

What exactly is the point in all the going back and forth about how much of firing a gun is natural skill and how much is training?

My point is that firing a gun is 99% training, maybe more. Furthermore, that natural skill in firing guns is enabled by training reflected in the bonuses to strike provided by training. Training is the Weapon Proficiency.

And the system does not reflect that with the same amount of training, the natural shooter shoots better than the non-natural.

It boils down to what being a natural shooter means.

I don't think it means very much.

[Natasha]

He's saying that a person with natural aptitude is, at best, 1% better than a person who is naturally poor with guns. While I don't interpret this statement literally (that is to say, I feel he's exaggerating a bit), I think I am interpreting properly when I clarify that whatever difference it makes isn't sufficient to offer a +1 on a d20 to strike.

It seems many here disagree, Natasha. Many here, and I won't even count myself among them seeing as how I've never used a gun, have stated that in their experience some are simply going to be better with a gun, and better enough at that to be reflected statistically even in the 5% increments offered by a d20. That training is the lion's share of the bonus has been asserted and argued, but to summarize there are those who feel the "activated natural aptitude" of mere proficiency doesn't properly reflect the natural aptitude actually conferred.

Please, if I'm wrong in my summaries, say so.

Some people are going to be better than others in everything. I don't think that makes the case for micromanaging natural aptitude in shooting (or in mathematics).

I think they're overvaluing natural aptitude.

[Dog_O_War]

Would I be correct, then, in saying you support the system's bonus scaling for training with a gun, but not so much its bonuses to swords and piloting? That in fact you feel the system doesn't properly represent natural aptitude at learning skills or using weaponry, and the bonuses to anything should be done away with?

Apparently in favor of more OCCs?

Even I had a hard time understanding this; basically you're saying (whether you meant to or not) do you think the game should go stat-less?

Because without bonuses (from stats!) there is no point to them.

[Killer Cyborg]

Are bows somehow supposed to require less training than guns?
Or to rely more on natural skill?

Yes. give a caveman a bow and arrow and he'll atleast attempt to stab his prey with the pointy arrow. Yet you give him a loaded gun (with the safety on) and all's he's got is a club.

I don't see how clubbing somebody with a gun requires more skill than stabbing somebody with an arrow.
In fact, if anything, I'd say it's the reverse, simply because stabbing is not as natural a movement as clubbing.

The basics of learning the bow are far easier than that of the gun - but once you know the technology behind the gun you'll find it is the easier weapon. But that's the difference; learning both the technology and the proficiency of the gun versus simply the proficiency of the bow.

Hell, I'd say guns are a lot easier either way: they're just point and shoot.
Far more intuitive than trying to screw around with pulling an arrow towards you in order to launch it in an arc at the target.

[Natasha]

Would I be correct, then, in saying you support the system's bonus scaling for training with a gun, but not so much its bonuses to swords and piloting? That in fact you feel the system doesn't properly represent natural aptitude at learning skills or using weaponry, and the bonuses to anything should be done away with?

Apparently in favor of more OCCs?

I have no problems with bonuses from weapon proficiencies. I dont have problems with applying P.P. bonuses to the hand-to-hand weapon proficiencies.

I'm not sure what's confusing about the math comment, but I guess it sorta was. My intention was to illustrate that everybody has variable amounts of mathematic aptitude and yet have the same I.Q. in real life. Same thing with shooting and P.P.

I was thinking of the natural/genius from BtS, First Edition. The computer hacker had beau coup natural aptitude when it came to computers, or at least enough to set him apart from everybody else.

[Natasha]

Would I be correct, then, in saying you support the system's bonus scaling for training with a gun, but not so much its bonuses to swords and piloting? That in fact you feel the system doesn't properly represent natural aptitude at learning skills or using weaponry, and the bonuses to anything should be done away with?

Apparently in favor of more OCCs?

Even I had a hard time understanding this; basically you're saying (whether you meant to or not) do you think the game should go stat-less?

Because without bonuses (from stats!) there is no point to them.

I'm saying the stats should be better defined and that more stats should be added.

So what you're saying is that you see stats as either > 15 or irrelevant?

[Natasha]

Hell, I'd say guns are a lot easier either way: they're just point and shoot.
Far more intuitive than trying to screw around with pulling an arrow towards you in order to launch it in an arc at the target.

Guns aren't cameras.

I think that there's a lot that can go wrong with a firearm that's a lot more painful and dangerous than what goes wrong with a bow. And I'm not sure a gun is more intuitive than a bow.

For example, you don't want to see someone holding an automatic handgun and unaware that the slide rockets backwards and back forwards faster than they can see it with a finger or thumb joint riding a little too high when they pull the trigger. I fortunately never seen this; only heard about it.

Another example, with some guns shooting yourself is pretty easy to do if you fail finger control and the recoil rocks the gun such that you pull the trigger again (and again). I've seen someone almost blow their foot off and shoot the shooter next to them this way.

[Killer Cyborg]

Hell, I'd say guns are a lot easier either way: they're just point and shoot.
Far more intuitive than trying to screw around with pulling an arrow towards you in order to launch it in an arc at the target.

Guns aren't cameras.

You don't watch enough James Bond.

I think that there's a lot that can go wrong with a firearm that's a lot more painful and dangerous than what goes wrong with a bow.

Well, you could get your hand caught under the hammer, in some models, if you're holding it really, really funky.
But you could also get a bowstring wrapped around your neck, if you're completely clueless.

And I'm not sure a gun is more intuitive than a bow.

For example, you don't want to see someone holding an automatic handgun and unaware that the slide rockets backwards and back forwards faster than they can see it with a finger or thumb joint riding a little too high when they pull the trigger. I fortunately never seen this; only heard about it.

True enough.

Another example, with some guns shooting yourself is pretty easy to do if you fail finger control and the recoil rocks the gun such that you pull the trigger again (and again). I've seen someone almost blow their foot off and shoot the shooter next to them this way.

None of which affects the actual process of aiming the gun.

[Natasha]

Another example, with some guns shooting yourself is pretty easy to do if you fail finger control and the recoil rocks the gun such that you pull the trigger again (and again). I've seen someone almost blow their foot off and shoot the shooter next to them this way.

None of which affects the actual process of aiming the gun.

Perhaps not the first time you pull the trigger.

I would add that it really depends on range to target. Where you put the front post between the rear sights can make a big difference, proportionate to distance from shooter to shootee.

[Killer Cyborg]

Another example, with some guns shooting yourself is pretty easy to do if you fail finger control and the recoil rocks the gun such that you pull the trigger again (and again). I've seen someone almost blow their foot off and shoot the shooter next to them this way.

None of which affects the actual process of aiming the gun.

Perhaps not the first time you pull the trigger.

I would add that it really depends on range to target. Where you put the front post between the rear sights can make a big difference, proportionate to distance from shooter to shootee.

Right; but there are similar problems with aiming and firing a bow.

[Natasha]

Another example, with some guns shooting yourself is pretty easy to do if you fail finger control and the recoil rocks the gun such that you pull the trigger again (and again). I've seen someone almost blow their foot off and shoot the shooter next to them this way.

None of which affects the actual process of aiming the gun.

Perhaps not the first time you pull the trigger.

I would add that it really depends on range to target. Where you put the front post between the rear sights can make a big difference, proportionate to distance from shooter to shootee.

Right; but there are similar problems with aiming and firing a bow.

Yip; agreed. Both require training and practice. A lot of it if you want to be any good with them.

My point was that guns are not simply point and shoot, that guns are not intuitive, and that guns are more potentially more dangerous in untrained hands.