Someone please explain to me how you think you only need your martial arts training f

[ComteGuillotine]

Do you really carry a holstered gun around your house with you? Really? When you are brushing your teeth? Eating breakfast? Making sexy time? That's... well... there you have it (Are you like the last :20 seconds?)



On a side note, the number of reported accidental shootings or "gun accidents" is a hard number. I don't see how you can call that an invented statistic. However, I do agree with you that the statistical appilactions are disputable. Where most statistics get into trouble is when they attempt to compare (or are used to compare) unanalogous situations.

I've never seen anybody carry on in a fashion consistent with that which was displayed in that propaganda video.

You might be surprised who in the shopping mall or super-market is carrying a concealed firearm. They may appear to be normal people, because they are normal people!



Most of those issues of "a gun in the home is more likely to be used against a family member" involve issues where the husband and wife are having a dispute, one of them then "accidentally" shoots the other one, and then the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control Inc, formerly the National Coalition to Ban Handguns) shoves it into the statistics.



I'm wearing a holstered pistol as I type this post right now. Likewise, I'll be wearing a holstered pistol as I go into the kitchen to prepare a steak-burger and a chicken sandwich, and I'll be wearing the same holstered pistol when I go downstairs to wash my gi.

I'd be wearing the same holstered pistol if I were going to have lunch with my grandmother on Saturday or Sunday.

I'd be wearing the same holstered pistol if my friend were coming over, but I'd be taking it off and setting it aside if I were about to have him put side control on me so I could simultaneously show him something and work something.


The only time I don't physically have a sidearm with me is when I am taking a shower or when I am rolling around on the mats. In the former it is nearby in a drawer/cabinet in the latter it is nearby locked in my vehicle.


The last time I was engaged in "sexy time" I had a pistol within arm's reach, because it would really stink if the door came crashing in and all I could do was wave my pecker at the intruder and hope he's easily upset by the sight of male genitalia. It also would have really impressed the woman I was with if I had been unable to adequately defend her from a home invasion, wouldn't it?

I'm a bit cold and callous in some regards, mainly in that if the door had come crashing down from an intruder, I'd have been tempted to simply drop the person in the doorway with a trio of shots, finish with the woman, shower, and then call the police when I was dressed and ready to deal with them.

Likewise, when I'm having lunch at grandma's house, the lunch is good and if some punk kicks the door in and tries to rush inside, why shouldn't I be able to simply drop them in their place with two to the chest and then finish my meal before getting the police involved? Who are they to bust into her house AND disrupt my lunch?

Note- I'm about half serious on the last two... I probably would stop eating, call a lawyer, call the police, and then go back to eating until the police were there.


I've never encountered a criminal that would step back and say, "Oh I'm sorry, I kicked your door down while you were having sex, here, let me step outside and I'll come back later when you're more adequately prepared to deal with me..." or "Woopsies! you were eating lunch? My bad! How rude of me, I'll catch up with you in an hour or so... You go ahead, finish your food, and get ready, I'll see you later!"

If criminals were nice enough to phone ahead and schedule an appointment for when they would kick down my door and rush into my house, I wouldn't have to be on guard... The same for situational awareness in public places such as parking lots. How many women who have been raped in parking lots tell the police, "oh I saw him coming from a mile away" the standard is typically, "he came out of nowhere" well nowhere is not a place, there's no cloaking device they use, they don't have a magical spell that makes them invisible, "coming out of nowhere" translates to, "my situational awareness was poor, I was caught off-guard."

I don't intend to be caught off-guard, least of all places in my own home. I want to be able to relax, and thanks to carrying a gun around with my everywhere I go in my home, I am able to relax. I can think about the food on the table in front of me, without having to worry about the possibility of having to rush to a gun safe or grapple with an intruder in a doorway. If the door comes flying in or a window is suddenly knocked out and somebody is leaping through it, I know that as quickly as I can put my hand to my hip and bring my gun up into action, whoever comes through the door is going to wind up double-tapped in the chest.

 

[quatin]

I agree 100%. But by the same token, the homicide rate in the US does support the conclusion that a better armed population is not necessarily a safer one. So there is are 2 pieces of data:
1) The US has very liberal gun laws (compared to the majority of the industrialized
world).
2) The US has a very high homocide rate (compared the the rest of the industrialized
world).

You can look at these pieces or data and make 1 of 2 conclusions: 1) access to guns promotes higher rates of murder 2) American society is intrinsically more criminalisitc and violent than any other industrialized society.

If your answer is #1, then your public policy becomes clear (and you become pro-gun regulation). If your answer is #2 - you need to answer the next question, "Why?"

Either way, what you can NOT conclude is that greater access to guns = greater public safety.

I know that this is not supposed to be a political forum, so I'm not going to say anything else... these are just the valid options for interpretting the statistics.

Actually, I have to state again that "correlation does not equate causation". There are many contradicting statistical statements to your argument. For example. Israel has a much more liberal restrictions on firearms than the United Kingdom, but Israel has a lower homicide rate than the UK.

The reason is, because when you look at global homicide rates, most developed countries are clustered together with a few percentage points separating each other. The US is actually below average on the international homicide scale, but varying circumstances and spurs can affect it's ranking greatly, because the US is part of the lower cluster.

Some examples that alone could change rankings on the homicide scale are how liberal/conservative is the justice system (are violent felons constantly released back into society?) and how competent is law enforcement (Is it a murder, accidental death or suicide)? Also, what are the causes of homicides, is it gang related, drug related, independent or terrorist involved? You will find the US has a large portion of it's homicides related to gang disputes over drug trafficking from South America. You won't find this problem in other countries such as the UK.

You can correlate data from several different sources, but the subject of guns equating to more violence has never been proven. It does not even pass a logical test of why would guns equate to more violence? If you were to give a man a gun, does it also have a percentage chance of changing his mentality to being criminal? If you remove firearms from criminals, would a percentage of them automatically convert to law abiding citizens?

 

[ComteGuillotine]

Actually, I have to state again that "correlation does not equate causation". There are many contradicting statistical statements to your argument. For example. Israel has a much more liberal restrictions on firearms than the United Kingdom, but Israel has a lower homicide rate than the UK.

The reason is, because when you look at global homicide rates, most developed countries are clustered together with a few percentage points separating each other. The US is actually below average on the international homicide scale, but varying circumstances and spurs can affect it's ranking greatly, because the US is part of the lower cluster.

Some examples that alone could change rankings on the homicide scale are how liberal/conservative is the justice system (are violent felons constantly released back into society?) and how competent is law enforcement (Is it a murder, accidental death or suicide)? Also, what are the causes of homicides, is it gang related, drug related, independent or terrorist involved? You will find the US has a large portion of it's homicides related to gang disputes over drug trafficking from South America. You won't find this problem in other countries such as the UK.

You can correlate data from several different sources, but the subject of guns equating to more violence has never been proven. It does not even pass a logical test of why would guns equate to more violence? If you were to give a man a gun, does it also have a percentage chance of changing his mentality to being criminal? If you remove firearms from criminals, would a percentage of them automatically convert to law abiding citizens?

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online



The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

By James Slack

Last updated at 12:14 AM on 03rd July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.



...

 

[Tempo]

You forgot elbows and knees my friend, at least for Muay Thai guys

A muay thai kick will hurt like hell. Ive taken a few, and they hurt. ALOT. Imagine a baseball bat, its sort of like that, the amount of damage you can do with a Thai kick is phenominal.

As for knees and elbows. they are lethal. The Muay Thai clinch is the strongest clinch i have personally ever been in, and have ever used myself too. Its also cool kneeing the shit out of somebody

 

[jlagman]

Do you really carry a holstered gun around your house with you? Really? When you are brushing your teeth? Eating breakfast? Making sexy time? That's... well... there you have it (Are you like the last :20 seconds?)



On a side note, the number of reported accidental shootings or "gun accidents" is a hard number. I don't see how you can call that an invented statistic. However, I do agree with you that the statistical appilactions are disputable. Where most statistics get into trouble is when they attempt to compare (or are used to compare) unanalogous situations.

 

[luckyshot]

You've excluded a 3rd conclusion. That the public safety concerns in America led to the development of liberal gun laws. This would probably be closer to reality. The originators of the Constitution were attempting to create a society that addressed their public safety concerns in Western Europe. It can reasonably be assumed that their concerns for access to firearms stems from direct experience with how restricted gun access can cause harms best addressed by increasing access.

A 4th conclusion: That other public safety concerns as a result of conservative gun laws outweigh the increased homocide rate that results from liberal gun laws?

Either way, you can reasonably conclude that greater access to guns DOES = greater public safety.

You're "3rd" conclusion is just a rewording of my second conclusion. If public safety concerns in America have lead to the development of more liberal gun laws, you still need to answer WHY America has such different public safety concerns than the rest of the industrialized world. If you answer is that we have a greater number of armed criminals, you can see how this argument becoms circular.

As to your "4th" conclusion, what public safety concerns could outweigh increased homicide rate? Grizzly bear attacks? If you're thinking along the militia lines of needing to be able to resist government tyranny, it's a stretch to call that a public safety issue - it is much more an ideological issue than a practical one.

 

[ComteGuillotine]

You're "3rd" conclusion is just a rewording of my second conclusion. If public safety concerns in America have lead to the development of more liberal gun laws, you still need to answer WHY America has such different public safety concerns than the rest of the industrialized world. If you answer is that we have a greater number of armed criminals, you can see how this argument becoms circular.

As to your "4th" conclusion, what public safety concerns could outweigh increased homicide rate? Grizzly bear attacks? If you're thinking along the militia lines of needing to be able to resist government tyranny, it's a stretch to call that a public safety issue - it is much more an ideological issue than a practical one.

America has a problem in that a small portion of the population, about 3-4% of the nation, commits approximately 60-70% of all violent crimes. This 3-4% hails from a demographic category that, as a whole, comprises no more than 12-13% of the nation. Why should all citizens suffer because a percentage of a minority population commits an insanely massive amount of crime?

If suddenly five percent of the population began causing 80% of all motor vehicle fatalities, and America had five times as many motor vehicle deaths as Great Britain, should we all lose our right to have and operate motor vehicles?

I don't base my rights on the conduct of the worst members of society. My rights are not held captive to the conduct of the worst in society. Because somebody may yell "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded theater, do I lose all of my rights regarding free speech?

 

[luckyshot]

I do not mean to downplay or insult any tragedy, but here's a thought experiment:
Situation A - Present reality. Take the number of victims of all public shooting sprees in the US over the past decade.

Situation B - Take the guy in this video's hypothetical solution: A population where a much greater % carry firearms - lets say 50% of the population in any given area was carrying a weapon at all given times.

Over the course of a given time period, do you think the body count would be higher for situation A or situation B?

Hell, I'm willing to bet the accidental death toll in situation B alone would be sevral times greater than the muder toll from situation A -

Add into that the fact that every traffic altercation, ever bar argument, every fight over an athletic event, every domestic violence situation now has several firearms added into the middle of it- Do you really want a blecher full of drunk, strapped idiots at a football game on the (extremely) off chance that some psycho has breeched the stadium's security?? The cure would be several hundred times worse than the disease.

And I'm not even going to start on the ominous music in the background, the rhetoric calling gun free zones "killing fields," etc. It's a shoddy argument all-around, and it appeals to people's least rational aspects.

 

[ComteGuillotine]

Add into that the fact that every traffic altercation, ever bar argument, every fight over an athletic event, every domestic violence situation now has several firearms added into the middle of it--- The cure would be several hundred times worse than the disease.

Several million people have been licensed to carry concealed firearms in Florida and despite what the gun-banners assured would happen, Florida has NOT turned into a wild west shoot-out with blood flowing through the streets.

The truth of the matter is that people who are licensed to carry firearms tend to go out of their way to avoid any sort of trouble, even taking insults as they shrug and grin, because they know that the situation could spiral out of control and they would be forced to possibly take somebody's life or risk having their gun taken from them. Nobody really wants to take the life of another, do they? People in America who legally carry firearms more than adequately measure up to the responsibility that comes with it.

 

[luckyshot]

America has a problem in that a small portion of the population, about 3-4% of the nation, commits approximately 60-70% of all violent crimes. This 3-4% hails from a demographic category that, as a whole, comprises no more than 12-13% of the nation. Why should all citizens suffer because a percentage of a minority population commits an insanely massive amount of crime?

If suddenly five percent of the population began causing 80% of all motor vehicle fatalities, and America had five times as many motor vehicle deaths as Great Britain, should we all lose our right to have and operate motor vehicles?

I don't base my rights on the conduct of the worst members of society. My rights are not held captive to the conduct of the worst in society. Because somebody may yell "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded theater, do I lose all of my rights regarding free speech?

And there are the race arguments that ultimately underly so much of the pro-gun stance.

 

[luckyshot]

Several million people have been licensed to carry concealed firearms in Florida and despite what the gun-banners assured would happen, Florida has NOT turned into a wild west shoot-out with blood flowing through the streets.

The truth of the matter is that people who are licensed to carry firearms tend to go out of their way to avoid any sort of trouble, even taking insults as they shrug and grin, because they know that the situation could spiral out of control and they would be forced to possibly take somebody's life or risk having their gun taken from them. Nobody really wants to take the life of another, do they? People in America who legally carry firearms more than adequately measure up to the responsibility that comes with it.

I can't even continue this argument. You think that everyone having a gun would lead to less violence. That's like saying everyone having a book a matches on them at all times would ultimately lead to less arson, or everyone having a toothbrush on them at all time would lead to less teeth-brushing. It makes no sense. You've obviously made a decision on this issue and are committed to rationalizing it.

This is all I have left to say:

 

[jlagman]

I can't even continue this argument. You think that everyone having a gun would lead to less violence. That's like saying everyone having a book a matches on them at all times would ultimately lead to less arson, or everyone having a toothbrush on them at all time would lead to less teeth-brushing. It makes no sense. You've obviously made a decision on this issue and are committed to rationalizing it.

This is all I have left to say:

Actually yeah, it does make sense; "An armed society is a polite society" because it forces people to think twice and really consider the consequences of their actions because it can be met with readily available resistance. I bet you don't know many actual, legal gun owners because the majority of them are good, responsible people.

Guns in self defense roles are like seatbelts; you don't wear a seatbelt hoping to get into an crash just as you don't carry a gun hoping to get into a firefight. But when shit hits the fan, it gives you more options than just "taking it and hoping 'the system' works in your favour."

 

[Wolfwood]

you anti america/gun guys can paint all the funny cartoons you want
but the facts are the facts guns save lives that is what ever unbias study has proven

 

[ComteGuillotine]

I can't even continue this argument. You think that everyone having a gun would lead to less violence. That's like saying everyone having a book a matches on them at all times would ultimately lead to less arson, or everyone having a toothbrush on them at all time would lead to less teeth-brushing. It makes no sense. You've obviously made a decision on this issue and are committed to rationalizing it.

This is all I have left to say:

You still have no answer for why Florida isn't drowning in blood due to three million people being licensed to carry firearms in Florida... That's because there are no running gun battles in the streets...

 

[quatin]

I can't even continue this argument. You think that everyone having a gun would lead to less violence. That's like saying everyone having a book a matches on them at all times would ultimately lead to less arson, or everyone having a toothbrush on them at all time would lead to less teeth-brushing. It makes no sense. You've obviously made a decision on this issue and are committed to rationalizing it.

This is all I have left to say:

I actually had this conception of guns before. It's very common with people who are not used to firearms. A gun holds a mystical force that other objects don't. It's created by fictional gun use on TV, books and etc. You don't see this problem with say "swimming pools" (the leading cause of toddler fatality in the US) or "motor vehicles" (the leading cause of any fatality in the US).

You're still tying an inanimate object to a human trait. Giving an inanimate object to a law abiding citizen will not turn him/her into a criminal. Taking an inanimate object away from a criminal will not turn him/her into a law abiding citizen. The underlying mentality of being criminal or not is far beyond means and method. If you take away a method or a means to commit a crime, a criminal will find another method and means to commit ANOTHER crime. This is further proven by the prison system. You can take away all meaningful rights away from people, but they still manage to murder each other.

 

[luckyshot]

You guys make some really good arguments.

I think I see what you mean now; guns=peace.

 

[ComteGuillotine]

You guys make some really good arguments.

I think I see what you mean now; guns=peace.

One day there may be a public movement... I can hear them now...



"The government shouldn't allow people to train in martial arts, they'll be heel-hooking and rear-naked choking people over arguments about parking spaces!!!!!

Think of the carnage that will result if people are allowed to train to have such skills!"



That would be how far things could get, in some countries, such as Great Britain, where they're already banning glass bottles, knives, and various blunt instruments. It won't be long before they ban martial arts training in Great Britain, as that is the last thing remaining in terms of self-defense options.



How many people from wherever you train have wound up rear naked choking somebody either unconscious or to death due to an argument over a spot in a line at a store or over a parking space in the parking lot of the store?


I can think of zero people at the academy where I train who have used their skills/training to harm somebody in a context other than self-defense. I can think of zero people at the shooting range where I shoot at who have used their firearms to harm somebody in a context other than self-defense.

 

[jlagman]

You still have no answer for why Florida isn't drowning in blood due to three million people being licensed to carry firearms in Florida... That's because there are no running gun battles in the streets...

In reality, the "fear mongers" aren't the law abiding, responsible gun owners, they're actually the anti-gun supporters who believe that legislation will somehow apply to criminals who usually obtain their weapons illegally in the first place.

The only thing gun control does is to prevent honest, responsible, law abiding gun owners the ability to defend themselves and enjoy related sports and hobbies. luckyshot assumes all gun owners as trigger-happy cowboys who draw at the drop of a dime when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[quatin]

I've listed a link to another post that documents CCW crime statistics with references. In short, Florida is a prime example, because it is a shall issue state. Meaning if you apply for a concealed weapon license, you must be issued one if you meet the requirements. Crime statistics show that Florida CCW holders are 300 times less likely to commit a crime than the general population. The reasoning is simple. Having a CCW permit segregates you into a group with the following characteristics:

* They've never been convicted of "any felony offense punishable for a term exceeding one (1) year".
* They've never been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
* They've never been convicted of the offense of stalking.
* They were not under indictment at the time they applied for a CCW.
* They were not the subject of an order of protection at the time they applied for a CCW.
* They haven't had a DUI in the past five years or two or more DUIs in the past 10 years
* They haven't been under treatment for or hospitalized for addiction to drugs or alcohol in the past 10 years.
* They've never been adjudicated as mentally defective.
* They've never been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions ("dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge or other than honorable discharge Chapter 1340-2-5-.02 (5)").
* They've never renounced their U.S. citizenship.
* They've never received social security disability benefits "by reason of alcohol dependence, drug dependence or mental disability."

Democratic Underground - CCW Holders have a homicide rate 87% LESS than the general public despite VPC claim. - Democratic Underground

 

[luckyshot]

One day there may be a public movement... I can hear them now...



"The government shouldn't allow people to train in martial arts, they'll be heel-hooking and rear-naked choking people over arguments about parking spaces!!!!!

Think of the carnage that will result if people are allowed to train to have such skills!"



That would be how far things could get, in some countries, such as Great Britain, where they're already banning glass bottles, knives, and various blunt instruments. It won't be long before they ban martial arts training in Great Britain, as that is the last thing remaining in terms of self-defense options.



How many people from wherever you train have wound up rear naked choking somebody either unconscious or to death due to an argument over a spot in a line at a store or over a parking space in the parking lot of the store?


I can think of zero people at the academy where I train who have used their skills/training to harm somebody in a context other than self-defense. I can think of zero people at the shooting range where I shoot at who have used their firearms to harm somebody in a context other than self-defense.

Here ya go, learn something new today:

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fallacy: Slippery Slope

Logical Fallacy: Slippery Slope

Logical Fallacies Slippery Slope Fallacy

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

The Logical Fallacies: Slippery Slope

slippery slope - definition and examples of slippery slope - logical fallacies

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate