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

[Volund]

But that "something else" has a much less likely chance of delivering lethal force. Read the excellent book "On Killing" by Dave Grossman.

This is a great book and a spectacular read.

I see your point. Infantry were more efficient on the battlefield in Vietnam due to their training (psychologically and physically like using different targets) than they were in World War One.

However, you overlook one of Grossman's statements on people's Fight or Flight mentality. This "it's them or me" response.

It's the will to live in a soldier that gives them the strength to take another man's life. (then afterword, they can regress into depression if not psychologically conditioned)

therefore if placed in a self defense situation, and fighting for your life (or your loved ones), most people would be able to pull the trigger according to Grossman.

And at the same time, by his principles, a law abiding citizen who was not psychotic will have a great deal of difficulty pulling the trigger on someone when they are not in a life or death situation.

In short, a mentally stable law abiding citizen can responsibly and effectively use their firearm to defend themselves or their family, and at the same time hold no criminal threat to their environment.

As for the Knife vs Gun debate, Grossman talks about that too.

The main distinction in taking a life and the psychological toll / difficulty to commit is the distance to the target.

In Example.
If you're shooting a man from 1000 yards, it's easier than shooting them with a handgun executioner style. It's a lot like a video game, the author even says.
Likewise, shooting someone under 10 feet from a handgun is in the same ballpark as stabbing someone with a knife.

Therefore if a criminal (psychotic / unstable / felon) was going to commit a violent crime with a handgun, he'd do it with another weapon if given the chance due to the similar proximity to his victim.

According to On Killing: By Col. Dave Grossman.

 

[luckyshot]

Therefore if a criminal (psychotic / unstable / felon) was going to commit a violent crime with a handgun, he'd do it with another weapon if given the chance due to the similar proximity to his victim.

According to On Killing: By Col. Dave Grossman.

It's been about five years since I last read this book cover to covr, but I seem to recall there being more factors to the knife/gun scenario that just proximity, although that is clearly part of it.

Doesn't Grossman also talk about how a knife/bayonet is a more "intimate" weapon while a gun is a "machine"? ie., If you kill someone with a knife YOU kill them (your muscles movements, an extension of your body physically contacting theirs) whereas if you shoot someone, the gun kills them, you are more psychologically removed as the machine operator.

Is this Grossman or someone else I'm thinking of? I have the book but it's downstairs in a box - I still haven't unpacked from my move.

 

[pwrforward8]

I think the people who say "the only weapons i need to defend myself are my hands and feet" are idiots...

explain to me how this is true??

I think guys that only write down half of their thought and have no statements to back up what they are thinking are idiots

 

[Valentine Wolff]

Theres one born every minute

 

[quatin]

It's been about five years since I last read this book cover to covr, but I seem to recall there being more factors to the knife/gun scenario that just proximity, although that is clearly part of it.

Doesn't Grossman also talk about how a knife/bayonet is a more "intimate" weapon while a gun is a "machine"? ie., If you kill someone with a knife YOU kill them (your muscles movements, an extension of your body physically contacting theirs) whereas if you shoot someone, the gun kills them, you are more psychologically removed as the machine operator.

Is this Grossman or someone else I'm thinking of? I have the book but it's downstairs in a box - I still haven't unpacked from my move.

I remember reading an article about methods of suicides and their success rates. There was some conjecture about the mental disassociation of firearms and what not. Users of firearms are more "disassociated" with their task. However, they made no allusion that firearms is the cause of suicides.

 

[Love4theArts]

If you kill someone with a knife YOU kill them (your muscles movements, an extension of your body physically contacting theirs) whereas if you shoot someone, the gun kills them, you are more psychologically removed as the machine operator.

It might be more difficult to kill someone with a knife (ie more effort and dedication) than killing someone with a firearm. But people that fly the unmanned drones and drop bombs on people suffer from PTSD and they never even see the faces of the people they kill.

Pilots of remote-controlled Predators suffering PTSD

Regardless of how you kill someone or how easy humans can make it, the effects on the psyche is there regardless.

 

[luckyshot]

It might be more difficult to kill someone with a knife (ie more effort and dedication) than killing someone with a firearm. But people that fly the unmanned drones and drop bombs on people suffer from PTSD and they never even see the faces of the people they kill.

Pilots of remote-controlled Predators suffering PTSD

Regardless of how you kill someone or how easy humans can make it, the effects on the psyche is there regardless.

That's very interesting.

 

[Payak]

I have been unfortunate enough to be involved with knives, been on the giving and reciving end one time but i was not seriously hurt to much.
my wifes brother however was stabbed in the buttocks, back, neck, arm and heart and actually survived.
my other friend did not survive.
this occured in samut prakan.
weopons are best avoided, so is fighting.
i regret the whole incident, my friend, my wifes brothers ugly scars, my missing finger wich was bitten off, even the ones we had to hurt also.
nothing good cames fr0m that day.

 

[SpartainXT**]

well it comes down to the people "anti-weapons" people saying weapons guns, blades etc. are for cowards.. and "real men" use there fists.....

hahahah that always made me laugh.....


-i bet if i was to ask these people if they were getting attacked by a group of thugs... if they would like a gun or not... most of them would say a gun.....

 

[luckyshot]

well it comes down to the people "anti-weapons" people saying weapons guns, blades etc. are for cowards.. and "real men" use there fists.....

hahahah that always made me laugh.....


-i bet if i was to ask these people if they were getting attacked by a group of thugs... if they would like a gun or not... most of them would say a gun.....

That's just the thing. I am anti-violence in general, but if my family or I are confronted with a criminal fuck, I will use anything I could get my hands on from a handgun to a hacksaw to take that P.O.S. out.

The thing about guns are that they ARE just a tool. To base your whole self defense or violence survival strategy around that one tool being available is extremely short sighted. There are a thousand reasons why you wouldn't be able to use a gun in a self defense situation, even if you own one. And there are a thousand things that could go wrong even if you have your gun one your person. The only thing you can truly rely on to get you through a real violent encounter is your mindset. If that means getting the gun from your nightstand and firing three rounds into the intruder as he walks through your bedroom door, so be it. But that could just as easily mean running away like your ass is on fire.

My biggest problem with guns is that was too many people think they are THE answer.

 

[Human Bass]

1. Thanks for the unrealistic fear mongering, but I'll pass.

2. The statistical argument hinges around whether guns actually make homes safer.

As you undoubtedly know, it is several hundred times more likely for someone to be hurt in a household accident involving a firearm that it is for someone to actually defend their home succssfully from an intruder.

My own thinking is that the only way to "safely" have a gun in the house is to have it in a location that is secure enough that it would make it an impractical plan of defense during a break in -

I live in a fairly small place - if someone wakes me up in the front room in the middle of the night, I'm not fucking around with a lock and key in the bedroom. I'm going bezerker with the dog and the baseball bat.

Actually in the book Freakonomics, the author has statiscs showing that having a swimming pool is much more dangerous to your kids than having a gun.

 

[luckyshot]

Actually in the book Freakonomics, the author has statiscs showing that having a swimming pool is much more dangerous to your kids than having a gun.

I'm sure it is. And I'm sure that driving your kids to soccer practice on the highway is probably more dangerous for them than leaving them alone in the woods for an hour, but there is still a risk reward ratio that needs to be considered. Some risks are unavoidable and inherent to our life while others are added risks that can easily be avoided or minimized. If I want my child to grow up without ever having contact with a swimming pool, that is a pretty disruptive task in my modern suburban world. If I want my child to grow up having very limited contact with guns, that is much more feasibly accomplshd.

 

[quatin]

I'm sure it is. And I'm sure that driving your kids to soccer practice on the highway is probably more dangerous for them than leaving them alone in the woods for an hour, but there is still a risk reward ratio that needs to be considered. Some risks are unavoidable and inherent to our life while others are added risks that can easily be avoided or minimized. If I want my child to grow up without ever having contact with a swimming pool, that is a pretty disruptive task in my modern suburban world. If I want my child to grow up having very limited contact with guns, that is much more feasibly accomplshd.

You missed the point of that statement.

The fact that "swimming pools cause more deaths to children than guns", demonstrates that there are numerous objects that we don't even associate as being dangerous that are in FACT more dangerous than firearms to children. It therefore annuls the common argument of "children kill themselves with guns", because that statistic is so low it falls into the noise. In reality, it is simply not an issue, but is widely thrown out there for emotional responses.

 

[corporateslave]

Just found this thread for the first time and read/skimmed what was said here. I would like to add my 2 cents. This is a copy/paste of a post I made on some forum almost a year ago:

I searched Google for "gun control violent crime" and these were the first 5 hits, some excerpts from them follow.

1. Gun Control's Twisted Outcome: Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S. - Reason Magazine
Gun Control's Twisted Outcome
"In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent."

2. Gun Control
Gun Control Facts.

 

[corporateslave]

But to get back on topic of what the TS posted, I think a lot of people who say those things simply do not believe they will be in a truly life threatening situation.

I don't care how skilled of a martial artist you are, if you feel safe from all threats with nothing but your limbs to defend yourself then you are probably unaware of the nature of violent criminals. There are people out there who will shoot or stab you in the face for the $20 you have in your wallet. There are sick fucks who will kill you for no reason at all.

I think the reason some people feel safe without weapons is because they think those things will never happen to them. They feel they can handle almost anyone in a street fight, or a bar fight. They may even feel they can handle a single attacker with a knife or gun. They probably ignore the possibility that someone who is insanely fucked up will kill them for their shoes. They are not prepared to be backed into a corner by multiple attackers wielding weapons. These people are living in a fantasy world. Everyone should be trained in hand to hand combat, but to think that is the only layer of defense you need is simply ignorant.

I would like to add that a lot of people who carry weapons are well educated about the law, conflict de-escalation, and the consequences of their actions. Just because someone carries a gun or a knife doesn't mean they are going to use it on the first drunk idiot who tries to pick a fight with them. I would venture to guess that most law abiding citizens who carry weapons for self defense know that they are only to be used in a truly life threatening scenario. These people also know that avoiding life threatening conflict at all costs is always the best solution.

 

[corporateslave]

I'm sure it is. And I'm sure that driving your kids to soccer practice on the highway is probably more dangerous for them than leaving them alone in the woods for an hour, but there is still a risk reward ratio that needs to be considered. Some risks are unavoidable and inherent to our life while others are added risks that can easily be avoided or minimized. If I want my child to grow up without ever having contact with a swimming pool, that is a pretty disruptive task in my modern suburban world. If I want my child to grow up having very limited contact with guns, that is much more feasibly accomplshd.

The only reason young children should have contact with their parents' guns is if the parents are teaching them safe handling procedures, and what to do if they ever do find a gun. If some irresponsible parent leaves their gun laying around for their child to play with then they are an imbecile. Does that same parent leave butcher knives laying around the house?

If someone is a responsible gun owner, their child will not be killed by their gun, period. It is only the rare jackasses who allow their children to shoot themselves. These are the same type of people who leave matches laying around, leave electrical appliances plugged in next to the bathtub, leave household cleaners laying around, allow their children to play unsupervised in the street, etc.

 

[luckyshot]

And you guys are missing my point; guns are fine, just don't put all your eggs in that basket. Too many people walk around thinking, "If anything happens, I've got a gun." In other words, the real reason many people have guns is to help provide them with a feeling of security -- which is on of the most dangerous things there is.

A gun doesn't take away the need to mentally prepare for violence, because in a real violent encounter, it is not a gun that is going to tilt the odds in your favor; it is making good decisions quickly.

For example, let's say you are lying in bed with the wife or girlfriend (let's say you have no kids in this scenario). You hear a loud crash in the front of the house, so you grab your gun off the night stand to go investigate ---

Wrong fucking move - you are expecting so much trouble that you are bringing a gun, but you are still going out there? The right move is to grab the missus by the hair, go out the fucking back window, and run like the wind.

Here's another scenario: you are out for a late night stroll when you are mugged at gun point - fortunately, you've got your gun in your concealed holster. So what are you going to do? Turn this into a quick draw shoot out when the other guy already has his weapon drawn and pointed at you? Correct move is to give him your wallet, car keys, whatever you have -- and don't even wait for him to ask you, either -- and once again, take off running like the wind. If he shoots at you while you're running away, keep fucking running; according to some police studies, bad guys only hit a moving target about 5% of the time. If you stop, turn around and become a stationary to target return fire, you are worsening the chances of your survival. And the worst thing you could have done for your survival chances was to try to quick draw the guy at the beginning.

There are just as many ways to make bad decisions with guns as there are without, and often times the consequences are made worse. Having a gun might make you feel like a man who can protect himself and his loved ones by fighting back -- and that mindset is often tragically misguided. Real self defense is not about taking out the bad guy, and it's certainly not about protecting property. It's about getting the hell out of Dodge ASAP. It's not fight OR flight; it's the fight FOR flight. Guns too often make people lose sight of this.

By the way, those NRA "More guns equals less crime" arguments are pretty thin. For example, crime went down between 1992 and 2005 while gun ownership went up. But crime went up between 1962 and 1992. Did gun ownership go down drastically during those years? You can make lots of leaps of logic in both directions, so I'd just as soon leave those kind of conjectures out of the discussion.

 

[quatin]

And you guys are missing my point; guns are fine, just don't put all your eggs in that basket. Too many people walk around thinking, "If anything happens, I've got a gun." In other words, the real reason many people have guns is to help provide them with a feeling of security -- which is on of the most dangerous things there is.

A gun doesn't take away the need to mentally prepare for violence, because in a real violent encounter, it is not a gun that is going to tilt the odds in your favor; it is making good decisions quickly.

For example, let's say you are lying in bed with the wife or girlfriend (let's say you have no kids in this scenario). You hear a loud crash in the front of the house, so you grab your gun off the night stand to go investigate ---

Wrong fucking move - you are expecting so much trouble that you are bringing a gun, but you are still going out there? The right move is to grab the missus by the hair, go out the fucking back window, and run like the wind.

Here's another scenario: you are out for a late night stroll when you are mugged at gun point - fortunately, you've got your gun in your concealed holster. So what are you going to do? Turn this into a quick draw shoot out when the other guy already has his weapon drawn and pointed at you? Correct move is to give him your wallet, car keys, whatever you have -- and don't even wait for him to ask you, either -- and once again, take off running like the wind. If he shoots at you while you're running away, keep fucking running; according to some police studies, bad guys only hit a moving target about 5% of the time. If you stop, turn around and become a stationary to target return fire, you are worsening the chances of your survival. And the worst thing you could have done for your survival chances was to try to quick draw the guy at the beginning.

There are just as many ways to make bad decisions with guns as there are without, and often times the consequences are made worse. Having a gun might make you feel like a man who can protect himself and his loved ones by fighting back -- and that mindset is often tragically misguided. Real self defense is not about taking out the bad guy, and it's certainly not about protecting property. It's about getting the hell out of Dodge ASAP. It's not fight OR flight; it's the fight FOR flight. Guns too often make people lose sight of this.

By the way, those NRA "More guns equals less crime" arguments are pretty thin. For example, crime went down between 1992 and 2005 while gun ownership went up. But crime went up between 1962 and 1992. Did gun ownership go down drastically during those years? You can make lots of leaps of logic in both directions, so I'd just as soon leave those kind of conjectures out of the discussion.

People who carry firearms have already decided they want to fight back. They bought the gun to maximize their chances for when they do. I'm sure some people misjudge how successful they will be fending off an attack with a firearm, but they have decided that whatever it is is worth fighting for. The gun is there only to improve their chances.

I've said several times and I'll say it again. Any study that relates firearms to crime in any manner is usually bogus.

 

[GotDaWork]

I'd agree with you,I take BJJ because the whole concept is the shiz. The self defence is just a bonus. Fighting is in our DNA,and as a guy,you should love it.

 

[ComteGuillotine]

For example, let's say you are lying in bed with the wife or girlfriend (let's say you have no kids in this scenario). You hear a loud crash in the front of the house, so you grab your gun off the night stand to go investigate ---

Wrong fucking move - you are expecting so much trouble that you are bringing a gun, but you are still going out there? The right move is to grab the missus by the hair, go out the fucking back window, and run like the wind.

If you have an elderly parent in the house who cannot jump out of a window, what do you do, leave them to their fate?

What if you have multiple small children or an infant? Do you throw the infant out the window?

If somebody enters your house at night like that, they should not be leaving under their own power. They should either be carried out limping or they should be carried out in a bag.

Any man who would abandon his house to a thug because he doesn't want a confrontation, is not worthy to have the house.

A man has a right to defend himself, his family, his property, and his livelihood.

Property is easily worth killing over because it represents years of toil and sweat. Nobody has the right to take away years of my life and years of my sweat by taking away the fruits of that labor. I'm not going to let somebody steal five years of the fruits of my labor, not without a major fight.