"Bad things don't happen on the trail..." a/k/a "If she only had a pistol..."

[akthor]

My son trained at Marcus "the irish hand grenade" Davis' MMA school. He is a UFC fighter. Marcus reminded me of the Patrick Swayze character from Roadhouse. Someone you just did not want to F*CK with. He worked as a bouncer, was a professional boxer who fought on ESPN before he became an MMA fighter and had pretty much been fighting in and out of the ring/cage his whole life. One night they did a "self defense" type class ie: life or death out in a street stuff not in a ring things to know.

I was shocked when he was talking and showing them where to BITE someone to get out of certain situations. Such a thing never crossed my mind but it sure makes sense in a life or death struggle.

I hear you Mist. Most martial arts students do not train to kill. They can't for many reasons, e.g. insurance and potential bodily harm to your fellow students (not the enemy and you KNOW it).

Many arts are defensive in nature, MMA nonwithstanding. Remember...they are in a ring with a referee.

Often it is a mindset over a skillset that saves your life. I have many years of martial arts training and do not for one second think that my abilities mean didly-squat in a life or death struggle unless I am going to go all the way. Most schools I've trained at talk about taking a life to save theirs, yet what they say and how they say it is cavalier. False senses of security abound, even at the upper rank level.

 

[InfidelShootist]

Unfortunately, Lott's done a good job of discrediting his own work. Google "Mary Rosh" if you're interested in the details.

The relationship of guns and crime in he US seems more and more a very weak one, if at all. This isn't an argument against guns and gun ownership. It just isn't a very strong argument in favor. Violent crime began falling back in the early 90s. It fell during the Clinton AR ban, fell after the ban, and still seems to be low. Rates fell most dramatically in some areas with particularly stringent gun laws (NYC, CA). The quick reading opponents and proponents give is always in their favor. But the real analysis is not conclusive, and much more complicated once the many factors involved in crime are considered.

What we do know is that crimes are in fact lower than in the recent past, despite all the coverage and nasty stories you hear on the news. Strange but true, most crime rates here in the big bad city of Los Angeles are comparable or lower than they were when I was born here 43 years ago!

Crime in America started it's fall in Florida when we passed the "shall Issue" Concealed Weapon Permit CWP.
When the states saw the crime immediately drop in Florida and how well behaved the CWP holders were 30 states followed and their crime rates immediately dropped.The states that did not issue CWP did not have a drop in crime like the ones that did.The FBI has an extensive website with dates and stats.Do your homework.

The fear of armed citizens by criminals was so bad in Florida after the CWP law passed the criminals started targeting tourists in rental cars in order to avoid an armed response.The state needed to change the license plates on rental vehicles so the bad guys couldn't tell who was a tourist and easy pickings.
That's a fact. To deny it is only to fool yourself.
Guns save lives.Millions of times a year Americans let it be known they are armed and the bad guy goes on unscathed to find another victim.No cops are called,no reports are made and no statistics are changed but that is the way it is.Why not reported? Why can't these stats be proven? Because citizens fear the police and the anti-self defense mind-set of many in our government including rouge extremist state attorneys who believe citizens should die like good sheep and allow the police to do their job.To catch the bad guys AFTER the fact the sheep is dead.
That's not what this country is about.America was supposed to be run by the people not have two classes of people, protected "Government employees"and unprotected "citizens".

Everyone should not be armed.This is true.Everyone should look at their own capabilities and temperament and make that decision themselves.Who else to judge you? A government bureaucrat? If you break the law THEN you are held responsible.That's how the law should work.Passing laws that prevent responsible,sober,well trained and even tempered citizens from carrying the arm of his choice encourages crime and anyone who passes such laws or supports them has blood on their hands.
I see no difference between releasing dangerous felons who go on to maim,rape and kill and outlawing the option of an armed response from the victim.
Both crimes are done by our lawmakers and in both circumstances they are NOT held responsible for their actions.
Check it out,the same people soft on the sickest crimes are the hardest on citizens rights of self defense.I don't know if it's a born mind-set or indoctrinated into people but it is the mind-set of the victim,the sheep or herd mentality.
Citizens have the right to the herd mentality.Our Constitution does not allow our law-makers to force the rest of us to choose it.Law-makers need to be held responsible for their actions.

As far as Lott and his research.
Everyone knows you go against the anti-freedom bunch they'll find dirt on you or make it up yet their own sick twisted personal lives are off limits.
Lets see evidence disproving his work not personal attacks or character assassinations.If you're going to use his faults or personal quirks as evidence against his research be sure to included your own sorted history in every post you make discrediting his work.


"There are five boxes to use in the defense of Liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in that order."

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Well, Infidel just gave the example I was going to of a direct cause and effect relationship between when citizens are (allowed to be) armed, or not. Another good example more recently was the "extended Castle Doctrine" passed by Jeb Bush. Where, so long as you are someplace you are allowed to be (i.e. not trespassing), you can respond to an assault with any and all force you deem necessary (including lethal force -- and yes, the law specifically mentions lethal force). It is not limited to your home, you do not have to prove force disparity (i.e. if a guy pulls a knife on me int he Wal*Mart parking lot, I can shoot him dead without further ado). Furthermore, if the conditions of the law are met, the D.A. cannot press charges, and you cannot be sued in civil court. Violent crime took another "overnight nose dive".

Now, let me say, let's stop fixating on guns.

I'm going to go a different way than either of the sides here, and place a good portion of the blame on the American (probably the same in Canada) martial arts community. The problem is, most schools teach tournament gamer stuff. Which is fine if you want to get into the sport of martial arts. But don't think that they'll serve you well in combat. You know all those tournament rules of where you can and can't hit, what you can and can't hit with? Those rules rule out the exact places you want to strike, and ways to attack that you want to use in a fight. You're being trained to fight in the flashiest, least effective way.

There is a serious dearth of combatives training. Something as simple as the combatives system developed for WWII troops give you a significant advantage over your average meathead thug. Look up "Kill or Get Killed" for an overview -- you can get the PDF for free online. They are ver simple, gross motor moves that are easy to learn, hard to forget, and use natural reactions in a fight and turn them to your advantage. However, they are all designed to cause massive injury or death to the attacker, so don't use them when playing in the ring.

The other problem I have with the martial arts community (I should specify that I'm talking about schools that DO NOT advertise themselves as teaching an exercise regimen, sporting arts, etc, but those that purport to be self-defense schools), is the lack of weapons training.

When I went to learn martial arts, I got lucky and found a school that taught combatives. When I walked int he door, the first thing the guy said to me is "If you are looking for a school to teach you how to go to contests and kick ass, you're int he wrong place. If you want to learn to hurt, main, and kill the guy that's trying to do the same to you, you're in the right place." It was an MMA school before MMA was cool. He taught what worked in the street (BTW none of it was flashy), and you started weapons training, including how to deploy guns in CQB, almost from the start. One person objected to the gun training, an he told us that "If you have a gun and you're trying to duke it out with the assailant, you're too stupid to live." Of course there's exceptions, so I don't want people to start zeroing in and fixating.

The important point, and what MAY have been able to save this woman's ass is the other weapons training. Before we moved into knives, swords, guns, etc, he started with improvised weapons. One of the most useful? The small flashlight. At the time the Mini MagLite was king, but now your SureFire, Fenix, etc are stronger and can be used the same way. You might be amazed at how well you can work someone over with a flashlight. Rolled magazine? Weapon. Done right, you can shatter a cement block with one. Your U-Dig-It poop trowel? Weapon. I'm going to reiterate my opinion from all other threads that if you're int he wilderness without a knife, you're stupid. A fixed blade is best, for obvious reasons. Even something light and cheap like a Mora would have given her a big leg up.

With proper mindset, you could kill someone with most of the stuff you hike with. And there's the problem: the lack of mindset, and the fact that those with the proper mindset are demonized and cut down at every opportunity.

So she had some skills. Did they teach her the proper mindset for when she was attacked? Probably not. From what I've seen, very few schools do. Like it or not, without a weapon, and the skills to improvise one, she was in trouble from the get-go. The simple truth is, size, strength and weight of an attack can reach a point that your skills won't help you, and women are already at a disadvantage in all of those departments.

 

[hollowdweller]

Actually from what I have read the best correlation between any one thing and the crime rate is that since birth control and abortion have been widely available there has been a steady decrease in crime.

A lot of the people who would be poor parents either avoid pregnancy or terminate it and therefore there are less unwanted and unsupervised kids out there to get in trouble.

The 1972 Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future is one of the better known early versions of this claim, but it was surely not the first.[1] The Commission cited research purporting that the children of women denied an abortion “turned out to have been registered more often with psychiatric services, engaged in more antisocial and criminal behavior, and have been more dependent on public assistance.” A study by Hans Forssman and Inga Thuwe was cited by the Rockefeller Commission and is probably the first serious empirical research on this topic. They studied the children of 188 women who were denied abortions from 1939 to 1941 at the hospital in Gothenburg, Sweden. They compared these “unwanted” children to another group – the next children born after each of the unwanted children at the hospital. The "unwanted" children were more likely to grow up in adverse conditions, such as having divorced parents or being raised in foster homes and were more likely to become delinquents and engaged in crime. [2] Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University revived discussion of this claim with their 2001 paper "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime".

Donohue and Levitt point to the fact that males aged 18 to 24 are most likely to commit crimes. Data indicates that crime in the United States started to decline in 1992. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the absence of unwanted aborted children, following legalization in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children.

Another reason for reduced crime IMO is that we are imprisoning more people for longer than ever before.

I love guns want to see less restrictions on guns and concealed carry. However I don't really feel there is a big correlation between guns and crime one way or the other.

 

[Troop]

My views are simple and arguably naive to some. Firearms treat the symptoms not the disease. I agree that they may be necessary in many areas. I am not against 2nd Amendment rights. The flaw is in our legal system and the processing (or lack of) of criminals. Guns will not make the problems go away... just as bandaging an infected wound won't make it heal.

Rick

Rick, They come in real handy for "quick fixes".
- Mitch

 

[akthor]

When I was a kid I went to Tae Kwon Do, we are talking in the 70's here. It was serious, it took people like a decade of training to become a black belt and only then if they deserved it. There were brown belts at my school who had been trying for years to get their black belts and still hadn't made it.

My instructor actually disarmed a mugger with a gun, it was in the papers. He was a true not someone to be trifled with. When we tested for belts it was full contact except for people under 18 weren't allowed to strike in the face. Adults were full on all out. I was in it for like 5 yrs and got up to 2nd degree blue belt, a long ways from black.

Most schools now a days are in it for money, they are cookie cutter schools awarding children and chubby people black belts. My instructor would never give a black belt to anyone who could raise their leg above their waist or touch their toes.

I ran the athletics and recreation program at a small college. We rented out our gym to groups to make extra money. One of our biggest renters was a Karate school and they would have their black belt testing and awards ceromonies. It was the biggest charade I think I ever saw. 5 and six year olds receiving black belts. Overweight people who could not riase their legs above their waists when kicking. Let alone do roundhouse kicks. Sparring with no actual contact and 3' of space between each other for their testing, like they were dancing or some crap. And the worst part is that these kids and adults were earning black belts in like a year or twos time. Boy they could really break some boards, eventually they stopped using wood and had these plastic ones that fit together like jigsaws puzzles that could be reused.

Funniset thing I ever saw was a fat guy with a black belt do a sword demonstraion with a Japanese Katana. The guy could barely raise his arms above his head. They even played music during his demo, Enya or something. I didn't know if I should laugh or go out and knock the sword out of his hand and slap him for being such a jackass.

And these people truly believed the hype they truly thought they were real bonafide martial artists who could handle any situation.

But hey the guy who ran the school drove away after every ceremony in an Cadillac Escalade so maybe I am the stupid one.

Well, Infidel just gave the example I was going to of a direct cause and effect relationship between when citizens are (allowed to be) armed, or not. Another good example more recently was the "extended Castle Doctrine" passed by Jeb Bush. Where, so long as you are someplace you are allowed to be (i.e. not trespassing), you can respond to an assault with any and all force you deem necessary (including lethal force -- and yes, the law specifically mentions lethal force). It is not limited to your home, you do not have to prove force disparity (i.e. if a guy pulls a knife on me int he Wal*Mart parking lot, I can shoot him dead without further ado). Furthermore, if the conditions of the law are met, the D.A. cannot press charges, and you cannot be sued in civil court. Violent crime took another "overnight nose dive".

Now, let me say, let's stop fixating on guns.

I'm going to go a different way than either of the sides here, and place a good portion of the blame on the American (probably the same in Canada) martial arts community. The problem is, most schools teach tournament gamer stuff. Which is fine if you want to get into the sport of martial arts. But don't think that they'll serve you well in combat. You know all those tournament rules of where you can and can't hit, what you can and can't hit with? Those rules rule out the exact places you want to strike, and ways to attack that you want to use in a fight. You're being trained to fight in the flashiest, least effective way.

There is a serious dearth of combatives training. Something as simple as the combatives system developed for WWII troops give you a significant advantage over your average meathead thug. Look up "Kill or Get Killed" for an overview -- you can get the PDF for free online. They are ver simple, gross motor moves that are easy to learn, hard to forget, and use natural reactions in a fight and turn them to your advantage. However, they are all designed to cause massive injury or death to the attacker, so don't use them when playing in the ring.

The other problem I have with the martial arts community (I should specify that I'm talking about schools that DO NOT advertise themselves as teaching an exercise regimen, sporting arts, etc, but those that purport to be self-defense schools), is the lack of weapons training.

When I went to learn martial arts, I got lucky and found a school that taught combatives. When I walked int he door, the first thing the guy said to me is "If you are looking for a school to teach you how to go to contests and kick ass, you're int he wrong place. If you want to learn to hurt, main, and kill the guy that's trying to do the same to you, you're in the right place." It was an MMA school before MMA was cool. He taught what worked in the street (BTW none of it was flashy), and you started weapons training, including how to deploy guns in CQB, almost from the start. One person objected to the gun training, an he told us that "If you have a gun and you're trying to duke it out with the assailant, you're too stupid to live." Of course there's exceptions, so I don't want people to start zeroing in and fixating.

The important point, and what MAY have been able to save this woman's ass is the other weapons training. Before we moved into knives, swords, guns, etc, he started with improvised weapons. One of the most useful? The small flashlight. At the time the Mini MagLite was king, but now your SureFire, Fenix, etc are stronger and can be used the same way. You might be amazed at how well you can work someone over with a flashlight. Rolled magazine? Weapon. Done right, you can shatter a cement block with one. Your U-Dig-It poop trowel? Weapon. I'm going to reiterate my opinion from all other threads that if you're int he wilderness without a knife, you're stupid. A fixed blade is best, for obvious reasons. Even something light and cheap like a Mora would have given her a big leg up.

With proper mindset, you could kill someone with most of the stuff you hike with. And there's the problem: the lack of mindset, and the fact that those with the proper mindset are demonized and cut down at every opportunity.

So she had some skills. Did they teach her the proper mindset for when she was attacked? Probably not. From what I've seen, very few schools do. Like it or not, without a weapon, and the skills to improvise one, she was in trouble from the get-go. The simple truth is, size, strength and weight of an attack can reach a point that your skills won't help you, and women are already at a disadvantage in all of those departments.

 

[Bige610]

thats awful. always have something on you. maybe its just the Marine in me but im always keep goo awarness of whats around me. You never know who could be out to get yah.

 

[crossada]

weapons mean pain and i think most understand that except for the Jason Bourne/Jason Voorhees types that sometimes frequent the forums.

If i had to face a badguy down on the trail who was threatening me i would want weapons. If you are looking to fight fair in such a situation i think your tactics suck.

Iowa has a serious problem with meth cookers and running into such scum is a possibility. I carry bigger knives for just that reason anymore. It gives me a sense of confidence back (albeit false) so i can still enjoy the outdoors. It is and always will be a personal choice like everything else when it comes to something you carry.

 

[stabman]

It is a nastier place.

Every generation thinks so.
If they were correct that the world keeps getting worse, we'd all be dead by now, and not having this discussion.

 

[Don Rearic]

I am a 'liberal type', and I also happen to be in a line of work that often sees me sitting down with policymakers and stakeholders engaged in discussions about 'what to do about guns'.

Mike,

Well, I don't have a problem with you and don't wish anything bad because you're a liberal. I'm liberal on some issues as well. That having been said, if we can so generalize and use the descriptor "liberal types," I think the main problem with "liberal types" is the trap you just fell into with the statement I quoted above.

When you sit down with those people you speak of, the question that should be asked is, "what do we do about lunatics and violent people?" Instead of "what do we do about guns?" Because THAT is the problem. People can say it's a ludicrous argument all they want to, the fact is, guns don't do anything, just a tool. If my wife or son were murdered by someone with a hammer, I wouldn't be picketing Home Depot trying to ban them and I sure as hell wouldn't feel better because they were not killed with a firearm.

I hope one day, at least in my country because that's where it counts for me, but I hope one day we look back on the madness of blaming inanimate objects for the actions of demented or violent human beings as a childish period in sociology and criminology that we had to go through to get to something better.

I'm am 100% serious, this is my view, blaming inanimate objects for the acts of humans is on the same level with animal trials. We now laugh at animal trials and I hope we look back at this and look at people like Sarah Brady the same way.

Don, a firearm can definitely be a safety tool. Of course. But it's also - and primarily, by design - a deadly weapon.

Yes and no. A Smith & Wesson .22 Long Rifle Kit Gun can hardly be considered by anyone but the most unreasonable anti-gunner as being a deadly weapon by design. Even if you consider the larger cousins it is based on, there are so many target models and all, it's just a very inflammatory yet inaccurate statement.

It would be accurate, I think, to point to John Browning's Model 1911 and the Browning Hi-Power and say, "Those were designed to be deadly weapons." The same would probably hold true for the old Colt Peacemakers, etc.

The point is, there are many firearms that are clearly not designed to be deadly weapons and, ironically, many of them are carried by outdoorsmen. I would not choose a Smith & Wesson Model 629 .44 Magnum handgun for self-defense except against bears, just one example.

A lot of the debate over this comes down to a personal opinion about whether an 'armed society' is necessarily a 'safe(r) society'. I suspect that I will disagree with the pro-carry crowd on this one, but I certainly respect your opinions.

Best,

- Mike

Mike, well, the numbers are in down here about actually carrying concealed handguns. People can choose to believe it or not. Just like global warming, if it is a nasty winter like it is right now, it's global warming. If it is a blazing summer, it's global warming, it's like religion now. So it goes with people believing that the absence of guns will somehow make criminals less violent...

Choosing whether to carry is all about weighing risk vs. reward. More people die from lighting strikes in the wilderness than do by being attacked - yet how many of us take any precautions to protect ourselves from it? How many of us keep hiking in a thunderstorm, rather than seeking low ground and cover? Are we going to rail against people, calling them irresponsible and ignorant, if they hike in a storm?

Are you sure that more people die in the wilderness from lightning strikes than by attackers? I'm not so sure and have not looked it up.

To answer your latter questions, I would not continue on in an area where there was a bad storm going on. I think it's a shame that the word "ignorant" is so bastardized now that it is synonymous with "stupid." Only the willfully and belligerently ignorant are stupid. Ignorance is just a lack of knowledge.

If someone were struck by lightning in that type of situation, yeah, it would be proper to call them ignorant and if they realized the danger and did it anyway, stupid. If they fried their kid doing it, they would be "irresponsible." Perhaps even criminally negligent, child endangerment, a host of other titles.

I am a big supporter of firearm rights, but the ridiculous attitudes of some people - who think you aren't a real man unless you've got a gun - are almost enough to make me want to ban guns just to spite those obnoxious people.

I don't think there is ANY of that going on in this thread at all.

I think everybody is forgetting surprise element "Ambush" if you lake!
A gun,machine gun, a knife, a big body will not help you, especially if someone wants you dead.

She had several opportunities to draw a concealed weapon and defend herself with it. A casual reading of the incident would provide you with that important piece of information.

I think chinpo says exactly what i meant. I for one am in the process of applying for the police force so in no way against guns but i think they should be used by those who need them or for hunting or at ranges. I dont at all think anybody should be allowed to carry one whenever and wherever they want

In other words, you want to be a member of the protected species, police.

The OP originally mentioned a firearm as one possibility of several tools which she might have used to defend herself more effectively.

He also touched on the "Martial Artist mythology" (my term) this I suspect is the more likely scenario, as I've seen it in the real world.

...I think the OP made a very valid point!

Well, look at that, took almost a half dozen pages for someone to notice.

Thank you.

I'm aware of the official Canadian and Japanese attitude toward personal ownership of firearms and the whole concept of self defense.

Been both places, never felt a need to return to either.

There probably isn't one country with oppressive gun control laws that has not given us a solid Citizen for their trouble. I believe Kuzan Oda said in the 70s that not being able to own the firearms he wanted was one of the reasons he immigrated here.

I don't like being judged by the baffoonery of a Bill Clinton while overseas or stupid things our politicians do. I know what you're saying and I want to jump up and give a me too, but countries are not made up of their lawmakers. How sissified and ridiculous would we be if that were true?

 

[5knives]

Why throw in a casual insult to other peoples' countries?
This is a good discussion, it doesn't need that.

My Step Father and his fellow soldiers from my home town didn't 'need' the Bataan Death March, the abominable prison camps and the years working as starving slave labor in the mines, factories and railroads, or the medical experiments performed on un-anesthitized American POW's either. I have no problem with some Japanese as individuals, but I consider their society to be authoritarian, incredibly racist and retaining too much of the Imperialistic attitude that lead to their bestial behavior in asia in the 20's, 30's and 40's.

Canadians, good people in general but too accepting of their subject status and their Socialist nanny state. Their anti-self defense laws offend me, and I'm heartily sick of having a country with population the size of California, 98% of whom live within 100 miles of the U.S border, held up as some sort of ideal model the U.S should emulate.

You asked ... I answered!

Lets just drop this aspect of it and get back to discussing survival means and methods.

As always JMHO

Regards,
...

 

[Mentor]

I think the main problem with "liberal types" is the trap you just fell into with the statement I quoted above.

When you sit down with those people you speak of, the question that should be asked is, "what do we do about lunatics and violent people?" Instead of "what do we do about guns?" Because THAT is the problem.

Well, that's what the meetings are about, Don. They are organized by 'conservative types', too. In the US as well. You don't want to get into a situation where the people who respect your right to carry / own your knife / gun decide to opt out of the policy forums because they disagree with the way others frame the issue.

And, much as I support your observation that addressing the underlying causes of violence should be priority no. 1, the fact remains that we are currently experiencing a problematic cross-border flow of black market firearms, and it is reasonable for policymakers and members of the public to be concerned about that.

Best,

- Mike

 

[Mentor]

Canadians, good people in general but too accepting of their subject status and their Socialist nanny state. Their anti-self defense laws offend me, and I'm heartily sick of having a country with population the size of California, 98% of whom live within 100 miles of the U.S border, held up as some sort of ideal model the U.S should emulate.

You asked ... I answered!

Lets just drop this aspect of it and get back to discussing survival means and methods.

Yeah, it's always best to talk about getting back on-topic after you take a few pot-shots at other nations and peoples. Good stuff.

 

[Rick Marchand]

I feel the end is near......

 

[InfidelShootist]

Im not looking to piss people off this is just my opinion but there are plenty of non lethal yet highly effective not to mention cheaper alternatives to guns for self defense

I would also like to add that the American constitution was written when a gun was needed for survival, when you used it to hunt for food or needed protection from bandits looking to steal from or kill whoever. Also a quick look at my location would let you know I live in Canada. And last but not least, I think those who need them 24/7 would be law enforcement and military personnel, I might also add that I see no problem with owning guns for hunting

CRIPS Cowards run in packs.
A man alone with his family is rarely a match for several armed men.
That's the naked truth.Until the firearm somehow magically disappears from modern civilizations it is THE best tool for self defense and the only one effective against several bad guys illegally armed intent on doing you and yours harm.Firearms make humans equal.There are weight divisions in boxing and MMA for a reason.Unless you believe might makes right guns do more for equal rights then every feminist in history.The same goes for older and sick people.Why should they have to be at the mercy of younger and stronger whenever the cops aren't around? "God made man,Sam Colt made them equal" That's what they said in the old west and it's still true now.When seconds count the police are minutes away.If you're in a bad neighborhood it could be hours or days.Just look at Katrina or Hurricane Andrew which I lived through.We were on are own for days.That's how it is and when you're older you'll find out.

 

[5knives]

Yeah, it's always best to talk about getting back on-topic after you take a few pot-shots at other nations and peoples. Good stuff.

Pot shots?

Nope, just personal opinion based on a few years of experience!

But as long as you seem to be feeling froggy lets get out of this thread and take it to a more appropriate venue.

As always JMHO, YMMV but that's your problem, not mine.

Good rational people CAN agree to disagree.

Regards,
...

 

[Calebklyne]

CRIPS Cowards run in packs.
A man alone with his family is rarely a match for several armed men.
That's the naked truth.Until the firearm somehow magically disappears from modern civilizations it is THE best tool for self defense and the only one effective against several bad guys illegally armed intent on doing you and yours harm.Firearms make humans equal.There are weight devisions in boxing and MMA for a reason.Unless you believe might makes right guns do more for equal rights then every feminist in history.

Even if you ran into a pack of bad guys with guns you would have to be pretty good at using your gun to take on multiple people who likely have better weapons and the intent to kill, honestly I think people need to stop watching hollywood movies that make you think that having a gun makes you invisible. A gun is the best tool to kill someone with not ALWAYS the best weapon for defense

Also if there was no need for police to carry firearms i would be perfectly happy with that, in fact china is a great example of a country whose police do not carry firearms at all times.

That being said i can see i have helped get this thread way off track so i will no longer post here about my opinion on fire arms

 

[InfidelShootist]

Even if you ran into a pack of bad guys with guns you would have to be pretty good at using your gun to take on multiple people who likely have better weapons and the intent to kill, honestly I think people need to stop watching hollywood movies that make you think that having a gun makes you invisible. A gun is the best tool to kill someone with not ALWAYS the best weapon for defense

Also if there was no need for police to carry firearms i would be perfectly happy with that, in fact china is a great example of a country whose police do not carry firearms at all times.

That being said i can see i have helped get this thread way off track so i will no longer post here about my opinion on fire arms

Good idea.You shouldn't discuss what you know nothing about.

 

[Don Rearic]

And, much as I support your observation that addressing the underlying causes of violence should be priority no. 1, the fact remains that we are currently experiencing a problematic cross-border flow of black market firearms, and it is reasonable for policymakers and members of the public to be concerned about that.

Best,

- Mike

Mike,

I'm sure Canada is experiencing terrible problems like that. Black Markets and Smuggling is a totally different thing, however.

Mexico was complaining to the Obama Administration, as soon as he was in Office, that there was a big problem with "high-powered semiautomatic weapons" being smuggled into Mexico while newsmen were filming Mexicans running around with belt-fed automatic weapons and RPGs which clearly did not come from the U.S.

That's just stated as an interesting sidebar, as for your problems up there, again, when you catch smugglers/traffickers, you have to make an example of them while you work on the reasons why the market exists. And, it will always exist, the market that is, but you can diminish the size of it greatly, I think.

And, I hope you do! Because the existence of that market and smuggling not only gives the Canadian Government the impetus to control her Subjects more, it also gives the U.S. a black eye in the eyes of Canadians that are critical of us.

As for everyone else, I really appreciate all of the responses. 5K, my Dad survived Peleliu and Okinawa, I know that he held no animosity towards the Japanese people after the war although he killed a lot of them during the war. Had he been a POW, he might have reacted differently. Col. Gregory Boyington used to make appearances with the Japanese Pilot who shot him down (the last time he was shot down and went MIA for a while...) and "Pappy" was a POW and besides being starved and disease-riddled and wounded...they beat his ass on a regular basis. Just something to think about.

 

[Don Rearic]

Even if you ran into a pack of bad guys with guns you would have to be pretty good at using your gun to take on multiple people who likely have better weapons and the intent to kill...

My intent was not to get into protracted arguments with people but you admonish people for watching too many movies and you, too, apparently watch too many movies as well. Packs of bad guys running around with better weapons than your average American Gun Owner in the woods. Good luck with that fantasy!

The media and politicians want to promote this idea that there are bands of brigands armed with automatic weapons - that's Hollywood, what you're talking about.

...honestly I think people need to stop watching hollywood movies that make you think that having a gun makes you invisible.

I think you meant "invincible," obviously my ninja powers make me "invisible."

I'm just kidding, I don't like what you believe, but that doesn't mean we have to hate each other.

A gun is the best tool to kill someone with not ALWAYS the best weapon for defense...

You're right. But probably not for the same reasons you think so.

Also if there was no need for police to carry firearms i would be perfectly happy with that, in fact china is a great example of a country whose police do not carry firearms at all times.

Yeah, it's pretty easy for China to do that, don't you think? If you protest there, they bring the tanks in and machinegun you. They also have a national execution day where they line up the offenders and take their heads off...and if they execute you by firing squad or pistol shot, I hear they send your family the bill for the bullet - oh - and you can check this one out - Iran has done that.

So, yeah, if you want to run a police state where your newborn is the wrong gender and a government official comes around and drowns it in a mud puddle, you have pretty much beat your populace up to the point you don't have to have police with guns.

Britain has went back to having a lot of armed police, funny that.

That being said i can see i have helped get this thread way off track so i will no longer post here about my opinion on fire arms

Your opinion has been enlightening. Frightening, but sometimes the light is scary.