In the sense of preventing (further) bodily harm to yourself? It is a form of defence. Lesson 1 in any martial arts "self defence" class will tell you this.
As someone who studied various forms of martial arts, I wouldn't exactly call running away a teachable martial arts tactic. Anybody can run away. But self defense classes and martial arts focus on the techniques you leverage when running away is not an option.
Maybe I am nitpicking, but I don't recall having to demonstrate my ability to 'run away' when I was testing for my black belt in Tae Kwon Do.
My guess is he is referring to the lack of adequate background checks? Which in the case of Newtown would not have helped since the firearms were purchased legally by Adam Lanza's mother.
That is absolutely true and you are also correct about what my point was. But I also think you are being a bit too literal. Background checks that keep people with mental problems from getting guns would would be successful in many cases. But no, they don't keep you from taking your mom's guns.
But mom knew her son had problems and did nothing to keep guns out of her own sons hands. And she paid the ultimate price for her error. My guess is that most parents in that situation would do a bit better.
Now, with 20-20 hindsight, we can see that it was not the son that the background check should have stopped, but the mother. She was the one who had the mental problems that somehow slipped under the radar.
It is true that she was terrified of the father and thought she needed major protection from him, but her solution was, in the end, wrong.
What would the best way have been? Assuming the father was under a restraining order and the police could not be there 24/7 to keep him away, what kind of defense might there be? Have the whole house compartmentalized so every room can all go under lockdown at once and the 911 call be automatically made - a major expense available only to the 1%?
We see that today the alternatives are woefully inadequate. We need to focus on non-lethal weapons. Spock, set your phasor on stun.
Insulting your efforts? Even as a joke (you included a smiley) I have no idea what you're referring to.
Stuff like this:
quote:As someone earlier noted, you *are* taking the Faith approach. Denying the obvious with a straight face is a rhetorical device, not evidence in your favor.
...
He and Catholic Scientist are like a two-man "The Onion", but focused on gun issues. For many of their messages, nothing more need be said.
Geez, the first one was a couple hundred messages ago, you didn't respond at the time, and I stand by what I said about your denial of the correlation between gun prevalence and gun deaths. Ironic that you yourself just now gathered the data showing yourself wrong.
The second one is a reference to the disdain for human life so apparent in messages from you and Marc9000, and I stand by that, too.
I assumed you were talking about the current discussion and were saying that I was insulting your efforts at analyzing data, which of course I think is a great thing.
How about reducing gun prevalence?
How?
I would rephrase your question: "Given that people like me exist who will resist all efforts to take our guns away, how?"
A constant and continuing part of the training and practice I have had over the last 50 years or so relating to shooting has be on the emphasis of Not doing more than necessary. That includes the understanding that stuff like "shooting to disarm someone" is just silly Hollywood stuff.
Situational awareness and the understanding that you have the capability to protect yourself helps in avoiding confrontation. I have nothing to prove and so many potential threats can be ignored and through awareness of my surroundings I can hopefully avoid getting into situations where force would be needed.
However if someone has broken into my house once there is no reason to believe they might not do it in the future. If they have show total disregard for law and social norms I have no reason to think they would behave differently.
They are a threat to me.
How I behave would depend on the actual situation and my assessment of the threat at that moment. But my goal would be to stop the threat. If my attempts do not immediately reduce the threat then I continue defense. The end is totally in the control of the other party though, I would never have killing someone as a goal.
If they choose though that could well be the result of their behavior.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
So you are not even disagreeing with Percy's statement about gun laws and gun deaths in the state of Illinois. You are instead upset because one part of the state (namely Chicago) doesn't fit the overall correlation that the state as a whole was used to exemplify.
Furthermore it was you earlier in this thread who highlighted why the specific laws in question were unenforceable in Chicago (the whole inside/outside distinction).
So what on earth is your point here? That some specific badly designed laws didn't work in a specific place so therefore no gun control laws will work anywhere......?
What point exactly are you making here with your continual fixation with Chicago?
Now, with 20-20 hindsight, we can see that it was not the son that the background check should have stopped, but the mother. She was the one who had the mental problems that somehow slipped under the radar.
That kind of hindsight is not a line of reasoning we can constitutionally indulge. We might note that in hindsight, that we'd be better of if Lanza's mom and dad never had Adam at all. In fact, that's the conclusion Lanza's Dad has come to. But it is not the kind of past fix up we can indulge.
Whatever Lanza's mom's problems were, they did not raise to a level that would allow us to take away her guns prior to Adam's rampage and still pretend to respect the constitution. I personally am not willing to pursue things beyond that point.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
quote:I wouldn't exactly call running away a teachable martial arts tactic.
He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day! At least in the case of bears.
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
So in the realm of standing ones ground verses buggering off. If one is armed with a gun, then that person may feel a bit invincible and be inclined to pop a cap in someones ass. I seem to recall a incident in Tampa Fl where a retired law enforcement gentleman did just that to someone who he confronted for texting in the theater. The one texting threw popcorn on the old coot and the old coot put some lead in his diet, which did not work out so good for anyone.
On the other hand if the fire arm in question is out of reach or otherwise not a option. Then you are forced to rely on your hands and feet and teeth, or any available device to use in defense. Or bugger off.
I am in the Enter the Dragon Bruce Lee camp. The art of fighting without fighting. Or buggering off!
Now if trapped in my home while someone is burgling my things, I would do what most home defense folks advocate, avoid confrontation, gather family in safe room, lock door and call police. All the while keeping a bead on the door with my fully stoked mossberg.
Edited by 1.61803, : spelling
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
So in the realm of standing ones ground verses buggering off. If one is armed with a gun, then that person may feel a bit invincible and be inclined to pop a cap in someones ass. I seem to recall a incident in Tampa Fl where a retired law enforcement gentleman did just that to someone who he confronted for texting in the theater. The one texting threw popcorn on the old coot and the old coot put some lead in his diet, which did not work out so good for anyone.
I actually live in Florida and I am quite familiar with the stand your ground cases, including the Tampa movie theater incident and a recent one with a crazy guy shooting at a bunch of teenagers in their SUV because they were playing music too loud.
Personally, I am not an advocate of the stand your ground laws. I think they often give people an incitement to want to take aggressive action when it is not warranted. It is almost Wild West thinking. Additionally, it makes things difficult for law enforcement as often times, stand your ground is used to settle scores, especially between rival drug gangs. We have had numerous cases whereby a drug dealer will shoot a rival and then claim the stand your ground defense. Often times, the other drug dealer is armed, or had a firearm at arms reach and thus, it is very difficult to prove whether or not there was actual provocation or if the guy just decided to 'pop a cap in his ass'.
I am in the Enter the Dragon Bruce Lee camp. The art of fighting without fighting. Or buggering off!
I am inclined to agree. I think the best course of action is to de-escalate the situation. Generally speaking, I am not trying to get into a rumble with anyone, especially now that I am over 40. But even in my younger days, I would always try to find a peaceful resolution. I think a lot of that came from the self discipline I was taught when I studied martial arts. You learn a lot of things and it does give you a good idea of how much damage you can do to someone. And additionally, you are fully aware how much damage someone can do to you. So invariably, whenever possible, bow out gracefully is my philosophy.
But as you stated, if someone is in my home, attempting to do me bodily harm and I have no alternative, I will bring my very persuasive friend, Sir Glock to the conversation.
And remember, the goal when you shoot someone is not to kill them but to stop a behavior.
Gun handling 1 oh fucking 1: only aim at something you want to kill. Guns aren't toys. Guns aren't behavior modification tools. Guns are weapons designed to kill.
And you expect us to think you, and marc9000 who wants to kill horny teenage boys, that you are responsible gun owners? You are proving to be quite the opposite. You are a danger to us all.
Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
When you shoot something the result may well be death, but in self defense that is NOT the goal.
You are free of course to think otherwise and being ready and willing to kill someone or something is not the same as having killing as a goal. It is a good reminder for both parties though. The person I aim a gun at needs to be fully aware that his actions, his (or her) behavior could well result in his or her death.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
It doesn't matter that you do not wish for that to be the end result. What matters is that a responsible gun owner only aims at something he/she intends to kill because that is what a gun is for. if you want a less lethal option for self defense because you don't want to kill, use something not designed for killing. Maybe a stun gun or something.
That you are a self professed gun lover and don't know this or weren't taught it is quite shocking.
The person I aim a gun at needs to be fully aware that his actions, his (or her) behavior could well result in his or her death.
No, jar, YOU need to realize that because the fucking gun is in YOUR hands. YOU are the arbiter of death in that case. Go take some gun handling classes for real. Your attitude about weapons is dangerous as hell.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
No. A reasonable gun owner only points a gun at something they are willing to kill. More than once I have had a deer or boar in my sights and not pulled the trigger.
Willing and want are not synonymous.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Recall what you said when I initially responded to you about this:
jar writes:
And remember, the goal when you shoot someone is not to kill them but to stop a behavior.
Don't start being a pedant now because you know what you said and you know where the disagreement lies. You aim at something you intend to kill. If you don't intend to kill it, don't aim a gun at it. Irresponsible gun owners use loaded weapons simply for threatening people. Scared chicken shit pussies use loaded weapons simply for threatening people. Guns are tools to kill. The idea that you have a gun ought to be enough of a threat and the actual use of which should be to kill. Only a mindless idiot would wave a gun around hoping people get scared and not actually intend to kill with it.
I spent 5 years with an M-16 as an extension of my own right arm, so it's not like I am some gun hating liberal douche that has a hard on for stealing your precious toys away (because that's all they are to you, toys).
Keep digging your grave because you aren't making a very good case for you being a responsible gun owner. Seriously though. Go take some weapons handling classes. You need it.
Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
