|
| Thread: Right to Self Defense, Gun Ownership, and Deterence of Crime |  This thread is pages long: 1 10 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 30 40 50 55 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 02, 2012 10:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No amounts of belts of any martial art will save you from a baseball bat, knife, baton, or, in fact, any weapon at all.
You have NO idea.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted August 02, 2012 10:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No amounts of belts of any martial art will save you from a baseball bat, knife, baton, or, in fact, any weapon at all.
You have NO idea.
My ex-teacher/coach said, but the maximum of 3 meters.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2012 12:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You have NO idea.
Actually, I do.
I have two friends who are Krav-Maga instructors.
I trained various martial arts for years and spent half my life learning about different kinds.
I talked about martial arts of all kinds on forums, with professional athletes, amateurs and theoretics for years.
If there's a thing I'm most certain about, it's in the sentence you quoted.
The general consensus is that if your opponent, holding, for instance, a knife, knows even the very basics of how to hold it & how to use it, chances you'll die even after years of knife-defense courses are above 50%, and it's unacceptable risk.
If you don't believe me, ask someone who trains knife-defense to wear a white shirt, take a black marker and attack him with it. every mark he'll have after a couple attacks can mean death in real life. This "test" is how good krav maga teachers teach their students that there's no certainty in defense against weapons.
Before you undermine someone's competence, be absolutely sure he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Cheers.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 06, 2012 12:46 AM |
|
|
Baseball bats suck, but I guess some people favor them because of their (likely) non-lethal nature. Then again if it's really a concern for you, I don't see why you wouldn't rather fork over a few extra bucks for a taser or pepper spray. If you buy a baseball bat for non-baseball purposes, I'm assuming you'd be keeping it under your desk or around the house rather than carrying it around with you 
Remember that the most probable victims of muggings/sexual assault/assault are the weak (excluding drug cartel violence / gang vs gang). I.E. females and elderly. A bat is a weapon based on physical force. Some noodle-armed chick with a baseball bat is still in a lot of danger against a large, aggressive, decently-built male. In the hands of somebody with decent arm strength? Completely different story. Bats also kind of suck because they require open space to properly use them. In a cluttered hallway or something you can't really get a properly devastating swing into the ribcage or into a blocking arm. But a taser can be just as effective in the hands of a 20-year-old male boxer as it can be in the hands of a 60-year-old female secretary.
Tasers/pepper spray are wonderful because they're effective at putting down the perpetrator without taking the situation to the next level. When you start using lethal force against somebody, they're more likely to use lethal or devastating force in turn, even if they never really planned on it. When your life is suddenly in eminent danger, it has a way of boiling the blood and making your inner-predator switch on. Whether you're the victim or the criminal, you suddenly find yourself able to do things you didn't think you could do. Meaning if you pull out a gun on a mugger, you better be prepared to use it if you have to, because that mugger is about three times as excited as he was a second ago.
I'll concede that if you're a cop, ex-military, or just an exceptionally alpha human being, then handguns truly are the ultimate weapon. I really don't think you can argue against that. The Achilles Heel of their use is that 1) they require a highly elevated level of responsibility and are volatile in the hands of a layman, and 2) walking around with a gun on you is retarded. I refuse to strap a pistol to my nutsack every time I feel like going to the shopping mall. That's just dumb and annoying and a sign that you need to get a hobby.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted August 06, 2012 12:54 AM |
|
|
I knew the shirt and ink.
My book: all ju-jutsu techniques were tested in the real battle, and if any of the techniques was poor ie, unrealistic and not borne out, it was deleted. Thus, the current ju-jutsu techniques are all effective and realistic.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2012 09:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You have NO idea.
Actually, I do.
I have two friends who are Krav-Maga instructors.
I trained various martial arts for years and spent half my life learning about different kinds.
I talked about martial arts of all kinds on forums, with professional athletes, amateurs and theoretics for years.
If there's a thing I'm most certain about, it's in the sentence you quoted.
The general consensus is that if your opponent, holding, for instance, a knife, knows even the very basics of how to hold it & how to use it, chances you'll die even after years of knife-defense courses are above 50%, and it's unacceptable risk.
If you don't believe me, ask someone who trains knife-defense to wear a white shirt, take a black marker and attack him with it. every mark he'll have after a couple attacks can mean death in real life. This "test" is how good krav maga teachers teach their students that there's no certainty in defense against weapons.
Before you undermine someone's competence, be absolutely sure he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Cheers.
Not all martial arts are equally effective against a knife attacker - for example Judo needs contact: you have to be NEAR the attacker.
However, an arm with a knife has a lower range than a foot. A halfway experienced taekwondo "artist" will have not that much of a problem with a knife attacker. With some others, hands and feet and deadly weapons as well. The difference is the attacker doesn't see or view them as such.
The main "difference" with attackers and defenders is, that most of the time the attacker means business and is prepared to use his knife. Not necessarily with deadly consequences, but to hurt. The defender may be trained to defend, but real life is different than training - defenders are not used to that and will have shaky knees most of the time.
So if you've been in the army or something like that - or been raised in a very dangerous neighborhood - and you pick up taekwondo, it will be a different thing than going to a knife defense course for half a year.
The trouble with things like Krav Maga and martial arts is that you have to do it SERIOUSLY, if it is supposed to have an effect, and seriously means FULL CONTACT. It must HURT when you make mistakes - it doesn't do when someone says, hey, if this was serious you'd be dead now.
What I want to say is, that the risk a defender faces doesn't come from the knife, but from the preparedness and ease of the attacker to use it. That's basically the same thing WITHOUT a knife. Such an attacker doesn't need a knife. If a guy comes up, and says, purse or..., you'll be stunned a moment or two and paralyzed. So you won't react. If the mugger now slams you where it hurts - apparently for no reason, but just as an explosion of violence to underline his point - he doesn't need a knife at all. He's bullying you into submission, because you don't want to be hurt.
In that situation, a couple of learned self-defense techniques won't help, because the person will have second thoughts to use them. It might HURT doing so.
So basically, the decisive thing isn't whether martial arts are better than a knife or not, the decisive thing is the question of WHO is prepared to do and use what and how seriously.
That's the thing when you say: Quote:
If you don't believe me, ask someone who trains knife-defense to wear a white shirt, take a black marker and attack him with it. every mark he'll have after a couple attacks can mean death in real life.
OF COURSE it can. But of course, IF you face a knife in real life it can mean death no matter what. YOU MAY GET HURT, especially if you oppose the mugger.
THAT is actually, what you have to learn. It may hurt.
There is always a risk involved.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 06, 2012 10:43 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 10:44, 06 Aug 2012.
|
A 65 year old granny pulls her gun and sends 5 robbers (2 were holding guns) fleeing for their lives. I guess you don't have to be a Navy Seal for a handgun to be effective in self defense after all!!! Watch them run in the store video. 
Clicky
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2012 11:11 AM |
|
|
|
Reminds me of the 95 year old guy in the neighbouring village who has been smoking since he became 14 and is still in good health.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2012 12:13 PM |
|
|
@JJ, I agree with your points - I thought you meant something like "you can learn how to defend against a knife, I saw it on TV", or something 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2012 12:55 PM |
|
|
Not at all. If your point was, that it doesn't gain much to attain a course, "How to disarm a knife attacker", I fully agree.
Every self-defense is based on the ability of the defender to HURT the attacker (which is why good pepper spray is rather effective since it hurts like a basterd), and surprisingly so.
That's only possible, if the defender is prepared to hurt the attacker - and accept the risk of being hurt in the process as well.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 06, 2012 01:49 PM |
|
|
The thing about being attacked is you have to be willing to do what it takes to survive or you will die or be at the mercy of whatever the attacker wants to do to you.
It is absolutely best to be armed with a gun regardless of how you think the attacker is armed. Arming yourself to match how you think the attacker is armed is folly.
But a person is never totally helpless and you are not without hope if you are unarmed and the attacker has a knife particularly if you have had some training in fighting techniques. Something as simple as blocking with the back of your hand/arm and counter-punching/rushing the attacker to try to knock him over/off balance so you can run or so you can grab him can save your life. Something as simple as a pencil or pen can be used as a shank to stab the fleshy parts of your attacker.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2012 02:37 PM |
|
|
It's absolutely best to be "armed" with what you KNOW. You have to be able to USE your weapon effectively, which means, a gun is best only, if you regularly shoot - and on living targets as well.
With weapons, the thing is, if you pull one, you must be prepared to use it, and use it FAST, because a weapon is always upping the ante in any confrontation.
If you pull a gun, this means, you must be prepared and able to kill the basterd before you, and without hesitation, because otherwise he may kill you, just as an act of self-preservation.
Most people are better off with non-lethal stuff.
If you MUST use a gun because you want to be able to repel an attacker from a distance, non-lethal ammo would be a better pick for most, since the idea to incapacitate an attacker is more appealing for most than to kill him or her. It's also less messy.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2012 02:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Something as simple as blocking with the back of your hand/arm and counter-punching/rushing the attacker to try to knock him over/off balance so you can run or so you can grab him can save your life.
1. A slashing wound on your forearm has surprisingly high mortal rate due to high probability of getting your artery damaged.
2. yes, such things can work, and I'm sure that many people succeded in such attempts, even without any training. My point is that the CHANCE of succeeding is EXTREMELY small in such scenario. Figuratively, let's say you have 1% chance of defeating a knive holder when you're unarmed. Training may increase this chance to, say, 5%. That's still ~95% chance that you will die.
Of course one may argue that a trained person has 5x bigger chance than untrained (figuratively), but the chance is still pretty much nil.
Also, as JJ said, the weapon that's best for self-defense is the one you can use effectively. That includes readying it fast (somehow difficult for civilians when we talk about guns) and being able to carry it with you everywhere (shotguns obviously don't fit, and as BB said, carrying a pistol next to your cojones 24/7 is sort of weird )
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 06, 2012 05:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's absolutely best to be "armed" with what you KNOW. You have to be able to USE your weapon effectively, which means, a gun is best only, if you regularly shoot - and on living targets as well.
Well, I've certainly advocated practice with a gun many times. But no, you don't have to practice on living targets.
Quote:
If you pull a gun, this means, you must be prepared and able to kill the basterd before you, and without hesitation, because otherwise he may kill you, just as an act of self-preservation.
One has to assume that a home invader means you ill. Most people won't have trouble shooting someone who has invaded their home, and thus who threatens their own well-being and that of their children.
Quote:
Most people are better off with non-lethal stuff.
I could not disagree with you more. A baseball bat is going to do you no good against a gun.
Quote:
If you MUST use a gun because you want to be able to repel an attacker from a distance, non-lethal ammo would be a better pick for most, since the idea to incapacitate an attacker is more appealing for most than to kill him or her. It's also less messy.
If you are going to bother shooting a home invader you'd best use something with kick. Don't worry about the home invader's well-being, worry about your well-being, and that of your family. A shotgun with 00 buckshot means you'll knock the invader down without having to worry about being an expert shot and the scum will in all likelihood stay down. That is what you want. Knockdown power. If you are going to protect yourself then protect yourself if not, just grovel in front of the home invader and hope for the best. 
@Doomforge
Yes, blocking with the bony side of your arm is not the best solution but it may save your life. If a home invader has a knife and you have no other weapon and confrontation is unavoidable you have to set your mind to the fact that you are going to get cut but you want to minimize the damage and strike back hard. If you are trained and the other person is a common thug your odds are better than the 5% you stated. The longer you can survive the more chance you have to grab something else in your home to defend yourself better.
Anyways, if you are appropriately armed (have a gun) against a home invader your odds are great for survival.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 06, 2012 05:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, I've certainly advocated practice with a gun many times. But no, you don't have to practice on living targets.
Although I would highly recommend it.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted August 06, 2012 06:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Most people are better off with non-lethal stuff.
I could not disagree with you more. A baseball bat is going to do you no good against a gun.
Morally, Elodin. Killing someone, no mater what the situation is, is incredibly traumatizing form most grown individuals (notable exceptions are psychopaths and people who have been trained to be desensitized to the ramifications of killing someone in self-defense, such as a soldier or policeman.) He didn't mean that a baseball-bat was the end-all of self defense.
Also, most people are not proficient with handguns in the slightest. You can tell someone to train, but that does not mean that they will do it. AKA: Something blunt and heavy that you can swing is more effective than something that you cannot use. And generally, blunt and heavy objects are less lethal than a knife or gun.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2012 09:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Anyways, if you are appropriately armed (have a gun) against a home invader your odds are great for survival.
have you ever heard that it's better to prevent illness rather than cure it?
Same with all kinds of crime.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 07, 2012 12:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
have you ever heard that it's better to prevent illness rather than cure it?
Same with all kinds of crime.
In Texas, even cancer is afraid to go into someone's home uninvited.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 07, 2012 05:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Morally, Elodin. Killing someone, no mater what the situation is, is incredibly traumatizing form most grown individuals (notable exceptions are psychopaths and people who have been trained to be desensitized to the ramifications of killing someone in self-defense, such as a soldier or policeman.) He didn't mean that a baseball-bat was the end-all of self defense.
More traumatizing to me would be failing to provide adequate defense for myself and my loved ones. And more morally questionable than killing someone who was trying to harm me or my loved ones.
By the way, you don't have to kill someone just because you have the gun. If you need to shoot them, you shoot center of mass. If they die, they die. But you took the actions needed to defend yourself and your family.
Quote:
Also, most people are not proficient with handguns in the slightest. You can tell someone to train, but that does not mean that they will do it. AKA: Something blunt and heavy that you can swing is more effective than something that you cannot use. And generally, blunt and heavy objects are less lethal than a knife or gun.
No, a bat is pretty much 0% effective against a gun. Even someone who has never practiced with a gun can point a shotgun in the general direction of the invader and pull the trigger. That is effective. Even if they are holding the shotgun at the hip and drop it after firing the shotgun the invader will drop as well, and will probably not be getting back up.
Anyways, I think I've said everything there is to say about defending oneself. Either defend yourself and your family or don't. Use a twig for self defense if you want to, but don't deny others more effective weapons for self defense.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2012 05:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, a bat is pretty much 0% effective against a gun. Even someone who has never practiced with a gun can point a shotgun in the general direction of the invader and pull the trigger. That is effective. Even if they are holding the shotgun at the hip and drop it after firing the shotgun the invader will drop as well, and will probably not be getting back up.
Anyways, I think I've said everything there is to say about defending oneself. Either defend yourself and your family or don't. Use a twig for self defense if you want to, but don't deny others more effective weapons for self defense.
Police studies show that the knife-wielder defeats an armed police officer in general if the distance is lesser than 7 meters. (iirc), assuming both try to act asap at given distance (and the gun is holstered).
The closer the range, the less effective gun is.
A baseball bat isn't as good as knife here, of course, but still, the gun is NOT the king of every situation.
Don't spread myths please.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
| |
|
|
