Kung Fu vs Muscle
-
big skilled human > small skilled human > big unskilled human > small unskilled human. Size helps, but skill does take precedence. I trained ninjutsu at one time in my life, and I must say that even after 3 years of training it was obvious to me that the much lighter and physically weaker instructors assistant (a girl no less) could kick my ass in under 3 seconds... Even if someone is weaker, if they are well trained, they will be faster, avoid and block blows, hit harder, and actually have an idea of what to do to win... Moral of the story: If you see someone adopt a fighting posture, step back :) disclaimer: this post is meant as a comparison in a perfect "all things being equal" setting, and does not take into account any special conditions such as one combatant holding a gun and beer and the other one running toward him for 50 yards :-D
Also does not take into account the guy that has been in karate for 2 weeks and learned a stance... Humble Programmer
-
"which could be considered a martial art." is a martial art, just because something didn't come from the east doesn't mean it's not a martial art - boxing, wrestling (proper not the TV rubbish), La Savate, Krav Marda (sp?) all spring to mind as a quick start, there are many others....
Does anyone know why the best boxers are usually Mexican because they usually grow up in a rough area and can fight mean. Humble Programmer
-
Also does not take into account the guy that has been in karate for 2 weeks and learned a stance... Humble Programmer
The guy that was on karate for 2 weeks probably won't adapt a stance in real danger, it takes much longer that that to make any fighting techique/style a natural thing in real situations. Even if he does, he'll be doing it on purpose, to show that "I have skills", and that has only one effect - make everyone present laugh their asses off. I'm talking about subtle stances for a fight, positioning the body for movement, not Chinese Kung-Fu movies claw style thingies that the 2 week karate guy would display :)
-
Does anyone know why the best boxers are usually Mexican because they usually grow up in a rough area and can fight mean. Humble Programmer
-
Yes guns are for killing that is why you do not shoot them at friends just take the hit or fight back... I have 25 years of training in shooting guns I guess you could say and I was always taught unless you intend to kill something never point a gun at it. Also I do carry a gun with me at all times because I have a right to carry permit the only place it does not go is into obvious places like airports and schools. If a person says I would just shoot you and you slap them with no warning and they aren't able to stop it that would be about the same as them shooting you with no warning after you telling them you could beat them up you would probably not be expecting that I hope... Humble Programmer
Slap maybe too harsh a word. I don't hit them to hurt, just a light touch to bring home the point that they are saying something imcredibly stupid. In thirty-five years of training I have never had to hurt anyone with my training. The confidence that I have gained has always allowed me to talk my way out of a fight or just walk away. And don't get me wrong, if I were put in a situation where I was fighting for a loved one's life or my own, I would willing use the advantage of a gun to win, if I had one (and I do own one). Even if caring a concealed weapon, there are many situations I could think of where you would not have time to pull it out in time to defend yourself. My point was that no one always has their gun in hand in every situation. Where as martial arts training is with you at ALL times. No one was ever arrested for presenting a calm, confident demeanor in a bad situation. And often times, that display is all that it takes to AVOID a fight.
-
5 for the laugh, but in all fairness physical training (including reflex training) does indeed help the odds. Say for instance, since most people don't start a gun fight 100 yards away at high noon anymore, a properly trained person in close proximity can in fact get that gun away from you - breaking your trigger finger in the process - before you even have time to pull the trigger.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
5 for the laugh, but in all fairness physical training (including reflex training) does indeed help the odds. Say for instance, since most people don't start a gun fight 100 yards away at high noon anymore, a properly trained person in close proximity can in fact get that gun away from you - breaking your trigger finger in the process - before you even have time to pull the trigger.
Also - especially in countries like this one where, sensibly, people are prevented by law from carrying guns while shopping, driving, drinking in bars etc - most altercations don't involve guns (or even the worry that someone might have a gun). So obviously physical training will be of merit here. Not to mention that it has many many benefits outside of drunken barfights! An extended lifespan, and, surprisingly, increased intelligence. Strangely, mental exercise apparently leads to an extended lifespan as well :)
-
Knew a guy that was a 2nd degree black belt 130lbs we were best friends and got into a few fights I was a person who never fought but had a few state records in power lifting he never had a chance all I had to do was rush him and basically after he was wrapped up and getting beat on that was the end. I agree that training in any kind of fight "can" help but many times the person just has their black belt because they have been doing marshal arts for 20 years and could do nothing in a street fight. Another thing no one has mentioned is what if the other person has a gun ?? Would you rather be a trained MA person or have a gun? Humble Programmer
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Another thing no one has mentioned is what if the other person has a gun ?? Would you rather be a trained MA person or have a gun?
In general, I would rather be a trained MA person. In the specific instance that my opponent has a gun and intends to use it on me, I would rather have a gun, but I would even rather simply not be in that situation. In any case, the situation where I need a gun is extremely unlikely to occur, especially if people just don't carry the stupid things with them - for the same reason, I think the world would be much better off if nobody had nuclear weapons, rather than everyone having them - it just takes one lunatic, and no amount of skill (or guns, other than zero guns anywhere) can stop someone being shot in the back of the head by a lunatic factory worker. I think this attraction to guns and attitude that you should always carry a gun "just in case" is very short-sighted and dangerous. I would not want my children near a gun (and to pre-empt the question: no, I'm not scared of random armed burglars breaking into my house and shooting my children, because it's extremely unlikely. In fact it seems far more likely for my children to accidentally get shot with my gun, if I had one). Why do people constantly escalate debates about martial arts etc into "yeah but what if he has a gun? You should have a gun too"? What if there's a nuclear bomb? Do you have iodine pills and an NBC suit? Why not carry one in your car? There are plenty of unlikely eventualities that we could prepare for which don't involve raising the level of risk for ourselves and everyone else (i.e. if everyone carries a gun, everyone is in a lot more danger than if nobody carried a gun). Yet we don't prepare for them, because they're so unlikely. Yet we still carry guns to the local convenience store and have one near the bed "just in case". It boggles the mind. :wtf:
-
Yes guns are for killing that is why you do not shoot them at friends just take the hit or fight back... I have 25 years of training in shooting guns I guess you could say and I was always taught unless you intend to kill something never point a gun at it. Also I do carry a gun with me at all times because I have a right to carry permit the only place it does not go is into obvious places like airports and schools. If a person says I would just shoot you and you slap them with no warning and they aren't able to stop it that would be about the same as them shooting you with no warning after you telling them you could beat them up you would probably not be expecting that I hope... Humble Programmer
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Yes guns are for killing that is why you do not shoot them at friends just take the hit or fight back...
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
If a person says I would just shoot you and you slap them with no warning and they aren't able to stop it that would be about the same as them shooting you with no warning after you telling them you could beat them up you would probably not be expecting that I hope...
Slaps are obviously not for killing. In the vast majority of fistfights no participant intends to kill the other. You concede that guns are for killing. How are those things the about the same? Slapping someone is obviously not the same as shooting someone. Both the intent and outcome are vastly different. And the points I think you're missing in the slapping exercise are that: a) the slappee isn't holding a gun in their hand all the time, so they can't immediately react by firing it, b) they do have arms and other body parts which can be immediately used to protect themselves adequately, and c) the slappee may not want to shoot someone dead for slapping them - in fact I've never met anyone in my life who I would have been willing to shoot dead (beat violently, perhaps, but not shoot). Therefore physical and martial arts training is important and worth discussing! :-D
-
You could kill someone with your car easier than a gun maybe you should ban those??? "If you outlaw guns the only people who will have guns are outlaws". <-Someone very smart... Humble Programmer
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
You could kill someone with your car easier than a gun maybe you should ban those???"If you outlaw guns the only people who will have guns are outlaws". <-Someone very smart...
Cars are not designed for killing. Guns are designed solely for killing. And I actually disagree that you could kill someone easier with your car. Otherwise soldiers would be driving around Iraq and Afghanistan 24/7, beeping at each other and mowing down their enemies, rather than carrying guns :laugh:
-
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Another thing no one has mentioned is what if the other person has a gun ?? Would you rather be a trained MA person or have a gun?
In general, I would rather be a trained MA person. In the specific instance that my opponent has a gun and intends to use it on me, I would rather have a gun, but I would even rather simply not be in that situation. In any case, the situation where I need a gun is extremely unlikely to occur, especially if people just don't carry the stupid things with them - for the same reason, I think the world would be much better off if nobody had nuclear weapons, rather than everyone having them - it just takes one lunatic, and no amount of skill (or guns, other than zero guns anywhere) can stop someone being shot in the back of the head by a lunatic factory worker. I think this attraction to guns and attitude that you should always carry a gun "just in case" is very short-sighted and dangerous. I would not want my children near a gun (and to pre-empt the question: no, I'm not scared of random armed burglars breaking into my house and shooting my children, because it's extremely unlikely. In fact it seems far more likely for my children to accidentally get shot with my gun, if I had one). Why do people constantly escalate debates about martial arts etc into "yeah but what if he has a gun? You should have a gun too"? What if there's a nuclear bomb? Do you have iodine pills and an NBC suit? Why not carry one in your car? There are plenty of unlikely eventualities that we could prepare for which don't involve raising the level of risk for ourselves and everyone else (i.e. if everyone carries a gun, everyone is in a lot more danger than if nobody carried a gun). Yet we don't prepare for them, because they're so unlikely. Yet we still carry guns to the local convenience store and have one near the bed "just in case". It boggles the mind. :wtf:
I boggles my mind that someone would run around thinking that this will never happen to me... Personally IF that situation ever happens I want to be able to protect my family. It happens to people therefore you and your family are not exempt. As far as no one having guns as I have said before if guns are outlawed who do you think is going to have them? The responsible trained gun owner or the gangster that wants to kill some random person to get into some gang. People think that outlawing guns makes sense it is insane criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS!!!!!!! Why would a law that disarms honest people help anything. Also no I am not prepared for nuclear war but I do have car insurance while not likely I might have a wreck. All people do dumb things and there are many dumb gun owners and many dumb martial artist... If you are the kind of person that walk around with a chip on your shoulder looking for a fight you don't need a gun or MA. The thing about your children I partially agree with...Guns in the home CAN be unsafe however I teach my children how to shoot with help as young as 5 years old because I want them to know how to handle a gun how dangerous it is and so they don't think of it as such a novelty...you know something they have just got to look at when I am not around. Also when/if the governments of the world fall and there is a food shortest my children will be able to provide for their self and their family by hunting. I also teach them how to garden and to can foods. There is no way that NO ONE will have guns it will not happen.... Humble Programmer
-
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Yes guns are for killing that is why you do not shoot them at friends just take the hit or fight back...
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
If a person says I would just shoot you and you slap them with no warning and they aren't able to stop it that would be about the same as them shooting you with no warning after you telling them you could beat them up you would probably not be expecting that I hope...
Slaps are obviously not for killing. In the vast majority of fistfights no participant intends to kill the other. You concede that guns are for killing. How are those things the about the same? Slapping someone is obviously not the same as shooting someone. Both the intent and outcome are vastly different. And the points I think you're missing in the slapping exercise are that: a) the slappee isn't holding a gun in their hand all the time, so they can't immediately react by firing it, b) they do have arms and other body parts which can be immediately used to protect themselves adequately, and c) the slappee may not want to shoot someone dead for slapping them - in fact I've never met anyone in my life who I would have been willing to shoot dead (beat violently, perhaps, but not shoot). Therefore physical and martial arts training is important and worth discussing! :-D
It is worth discussing and I see your points however I still believe that mine made sense... I am not sure why you are quoting where I said guns are for killing.... Yes guns are for killing....You do not point a gun of any kind at something you do not intend to die when you pull the trigger. If I pull a gun on someone in the first place it is because I am going to shoot them I would not pull it out for no reason. The reason I carry the gun I carry is because if I get into a situation to actually use it I want the person to be dead because I am not going to be using it unless that person is trying to kill me or my family. Slapping is obviously much different than shooting what I am saying is that slapping someone for that would be about as stupid as shooting someone for the saying something... Humble Programmer
-
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
You could kill someone with your car easier than a gun maybe you should ban those???"If you outlaw guns the only people who will have guns are outlaws". <-Someone very smart...
Cars are not designed for killing. Guns are designed solely for killing. And I actually disagree that you could kill someone easier with your car. Otherwise soldiers would be driving around Iraq and Afghanistan 24/7, beeping at each other and mowing down their enemies, rather than carrying guns :laugh:
Maybe not easier but it is more likely... http://dying.about.com/od/causes/tp/oddsdying.htm Also most likely those stats like most others when calculating firearm deaths they are including the people that died by getting shot in self defense by home owners or police. While this is a little off topic. Soldiers don't always get to use the most effective ways of killing bad guys... When you have a chance go read up on tri edged blades in war along with full metal jacket bullets also the fact that US soldiers have to wait to be engaged before engaging enemies. Humble Programmer
-
I boggles my mind that someone would run around thinking that this will never happen to me... Personally IF that situation ever happens I want to be able to protect my family. It happens to people therefore you and your family are not exempt. As far as no one having guns as I have said before if guns are outlawed who do you think is going to have them? The responsible trained gun owner or the gangster that wants to kill some random person to get into some gang. People think that outlawing guns makes sense it is insane criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS!!!!!!! Why would a law that disarms honest people help anything. Also no I am not prepared for nuclear war but I do have car insurance while not likely I might have a wreck. All people do dumb things and there are many dumb gun owners and many dumb martial artist... If you are the kind of person that walk around with a chip on your shoulder looking for a fight you don't need a gun or MA. The thing about your children I partially agree with...Guns in the home CAN be unsafe however I teach my children how to shoot with help as young as 5 years old because I want them to know how to handle a gun how dangerous it is and so they don't think of it as such a novelty...you know something they have just got to look at when I am not around. Also when/if the governments of the world fall and there is a food shortest my children will be able to provide for their self and their family by hunting. I also teach them how to garden and to can foods. There is no way that NO ONE will have guns it will not happen.... Humble Programmer
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
I boggles my mind that someone would run around thinking that this will never happen to me...Personally IF that situation ever happens I want to be able to protect my family. It happens to people therefore you and your family are not exempt.
I never said it won't happen to me, just that the odds are so small that simply having guns around me increases the danger to me and everyone near me. The "average danger", the statistical probability of someone being injured or killed, obviously increases as soon as a gun enters my possession, and massively increases if I carry it on the street or in my car. Personally, I consider the total risk of needless injury/killing to myself and others by having a gun outweighs the risk that "it" will ever happen to me. We obviously disagree there, and that's fair enough - you probably have done more research into the actual statistics of gun accidents/etc and are making an informed trade-off. :)
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
People think that outlawing guns makes sense it is insane criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS!!!!!!! Why would a law that disarms honest people help anything.
Because honest people do stupid things. They get drunk, go to the pub, find someone's comment offensive and walk out to their car to take the gun from their glovebox before returning to shoot the insulter in the back of the head (as my friend's uncle did, many years ago). And yes, I've heard the "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them" argument before. Apart from the fact that "honest" people not having guns would save a huge number of lives (look at how many gun accidents and "just flipped out" killings and suicides there are every year - sure some people will find another way to do it, but at least some will be deterred if guns were out of the picture), my other answer to that is, yes only outlaws (and cops) will have them, but much less outlaws will have them than now! Acquiring and holding guns would be much more difficult, and (in a country like this one) an arrestable offence in most cases.
-
It is worth discussing and I see your points however I still believe that mine made sense... I am not sure why you are quoting where I said guns are for killing.... Yes guns are for killing....You do not point a gun of any kind at something you do not intend to die when you pull the trigger. If I pull a gun on someone in the first place it is because I am going to shoot them I would not pull it out for no reason. The reason I carry the gun I carry is because if I get into a situation to actually use it I want the person to be dead because I am not going to be using it unless that person is trying to kill me or my family. Slapping is obviously much different than shooting what I am saying is that slapping someone for that would be about as stupid as shooting someone for the saying something... Humble Programmer
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Yes guns are for killing....You do not point a gun of any kind at something you do not intend to die when you pull the trigger.If I pull a gun on someone in the first place it is because I am going to shoot them I would not pull it out for no reason.The reason I carry the gun I carry is because if I get into a situation to actually use it I want the person to be dead because I am not going to be using it unless that person is trying to kill me or my family.
I'm very glad to see that you have a responsible attitude around guns then! What gets to me is seeing comments where people say things like "who cares about martial arts? They can't kick me if I already blew their brains out with my Magnum" or "if someone slapped me, he'd have been double-tapped in the head before he could land the second blow", etc. In fact there were one or two comments like that much earlier in the thread (not from yourself, iirc) which really pissed me off. It sounds kind of psychopathic - shooting someone is not an appropriate response in a fistfight.
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Slapping is obviously much different than shooting what I am saying is that slapping someone for that would be about as stupid as shooting someone for the saying something.
Sure, it would be stupid, but hardly "as stupid" as shooting someone! If you slap someone, they'll be ok (or pissed off and will hit back)... if you shoot someone, they're dead, gone forever and you go to jail for life! In terms of stupidity, slapping someone (or punching a cat, or urinating through your neighbour's letterbox) is almost nothing compared to shooting someone (unless it was absolutely necessary) :-D
-
Maybe not easier but it is more likely... http://dying.about.com/od/causes/tp/oddsdying.htm Also most likely those stats like most others when calculating firearm deaths they are including the people that died by getting shot in self defense by home owners or police. While this is a little off topic. Soldiers don't always get to use the most effective ways of killing bad guys... When you have a chance go read up on tri edged blades in war along with full metal jacket bullets also the fact that US soldiers have to wait to be engaged before engaging enemies. Humble Programmer
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Maybe not easier but it is more likely...http://dying.about.com/od/causes/tp/oddsdying.htm Also most likely those stats like most others when calculating firearm deaths they are including the people that died by getting shot in self defense by home owners or police.
Good link. Yeah, I'd have expected that deaths by car were higher than firearm deaths, although I'm surprised by how high the number of firearm deaths are: "7. Firearm Assault Lifetime Odds: 1 in 314" - that's pretty shocking. Would like to see more detailed stats on the firearm deaths (i.e. how many are "shot in self defense by home owners" vs how many kids accidentally killed each other, how many drunk, abusive husbands picked up a gun in a sudden fit of rage and killed their family, or vice-versa).
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
When you have a chance go read up on tri edged blades in war along with full metal jacket bullets also the fact that US soldiers have to wait to be engaged before engaging enemies.
Haven't heard of those tri-edged blades, sounds interesting. However I'm not convinced about the "rules of engagement" thing (not sure why you brought it up, but let's go there!) - just a year or so ago I was reading about the sniper "baiting" story, where soldiers placed "bomb-making equipment" which could be something as innocuous as a piece of wire or some electronic component on the street (which I would almost certainly pick up out of curiosity), and instantly blow away anyone who happened to pass by and pick something up. Then there was an airstrike on a wedding, killing scores of children and innocents. Then a helicopter "engaged" a couple of Reuters journalists (one or two of the drivers in the video were carrying AK-47s, but they weren't firing at anyone), and then fired at civilians who came to give medical aid to them, badly wounding a young boy. Some of these murders were deemed unlawful and resulted in some sort of criminal charges, but many were ignored and continue to be. There may be rules of engagement which prohibit things, but it seems that they don't have as much effect as they should. Of course, the real (or at least, worse) bad guys are even worse, having no problems bombing a busy market on purpose where the military mess up airstrikes through incompetence (or simply not caring very much about "collateral damage" in foreign lands), but that doesn't make it ok.
-
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
I boggles my mind that someone would run around thinking that this will never happen to me...Personally IF that situation ever happens I want to be able to protect my family. It happens to people therefore you and your family are not exempt.
I never said it won't happen to me, just that the odds are so small that simply having guns around me increases the danger to me and everyone near me. The "average danger", the statistical probability of someone being injured or killed, obviously increases as soon as a gun enters my possession, and massively increases if I carry it on the street or in my car. Personally, I consider the total risk of needless injury/killing to myself and others by having a gun outweighs the risk that "it" will ever happen to me. We obviously disagree there, and that's fair enough - you probably have done more research into the actual statistics of gun accidents/etc and are making an informed trade-off. :)
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
People think that outlawing guns makes sense it is insane criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS!!!!!!! Why would a law that disarms honest people help anything.
Because honest people do stupid things. They get drunk, go to the pub, find someone's comment offensive and walk out to their car to take the gun from their glovebox before returning to shoot the insulter in the back of the head (as my friend's uncle did, many years ago). And yes, I've heard the "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them" argument before. Apart from the fact that "honest" people not having guns would save a huge number of lives (look at how many gun accidents and "just flipped out" killings and suicides there are every year - sure some people will find another way to do it, but at least some will be deterred if guns were out of the picture), my other answer to that is, yes only outlaws (and cops) will have them, but much less outlaws will have them than now! Acquiring and holding guns would be much more difficult, and (in a country like this one) an arrestable offence in most cases.
Sorry I'm late to the discussion but I had to respond to this...
destynova wrote:
And yes, I've heard the "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them" argument before. Apart from the fact that "honest" people not having guns would save a huge number of lives (look at how many gun accidents and "just flipped out" killings and suicides there are every year
This is not borne out by facts. Interpol crime statistics (rate per 100,000): (1995, Before the handgun ban) * 5278 – US * 8179 – Germany * 6316 – France * 7206 – England & Wales (2001, After the handgun ban) * 4161 – US * 7736 – Germany * 6941 – France * 9927 – England and Wales Note that the crime rate in the US fell, while the rate for London rose. Washington, D.C. has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and also the highest violent crime rates. Yet right over the border in VA, there are very few restrictions on law-abiding citizens carrying guns, there are very low crime rates. Why is this? Because criminals know that the only way any law-abiding victim can possess a firearm is ... disassembled. Look for John Lott's book, More Guns Less Crime. He started out trying to prove the efficacy of gun control laws with scholarly work. But everything he found in his research pointed him in the opposite direction. The fact is, gun laws make things worse. I truly hope that you will educate yourself about how bad these gun laws are - it's people who hold your views that have cause them to happen, and it's the rest of us paying the price - in property, injury, and life. If that's not enough, please ponder this: If laws can restrict the lawless, why not just make murder illegal?
Before .NET 4.0, object Universe = NULL;
-
Sorry I'm late to the discussion but I had to respond to this...
destynova wrote:
And yes, I've heard the "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them" argument before. Apart from the fact that "honest" people not having guns would save a huge number of lives (look at how many gun accidents and "just flipped out" killings and suicides there are every year
This is not borne out by facts. Interpol crime statistics (rate per 100,000): (1995, Before the handgun ban) * 5278 – US * 8179 – Germany * 6316 – France * 7206 – England & Wales (2001, After the handgun ban) * 4161 – US * 7736 – Germany * 6941 – France * 9927 – England and Wales Note that the crime rate in the US fell, while the rate for London rose. Washington, D.C. has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and also the highest violent crime rates. Yet right over the border in VA, there are very few restrictions on law-abiding citizens carrying guns, there are very low crime rates. Why is this? Because criminals know that the only way any law-abiding victim can possess a firearm is ... disassembled. Look for John Lott's book, More Guns Less Crime. He started out trying to prove the efficacy of gun control laws with scholarly work. But everything he found in his research pointed him in the opposite direction. The fact is, gun laws make things worse. I truly hope that you will educate yourself about how bad these gun laws are - it's people who hold your views that have cause them to happen, and it's the rest of us paying the price - in property, injury, and life. If that's not enough, please ponder this: If laws can restrict the lawless, why not just make murder illegal?
Before .NET 4.0, object Universe = NULL;
Hired Mind wrote:
This is not borne out by facts. Interpol crime statistics (rate per 100,000):
What is not borne out by facts? I mentioned deaths caused by guns in particular, but you are quoting general crime figures. I never suggested that crime in general would be more or less prevalent due to guns. The crime rate in the US is lower than in the UK, but it still looks like the rate of gun killings is higher in the US. However, the Wikipedia article on gun politics in the UK suggests that gun crime in the UK has doubled (at least) in the last 10 years, even after the handgun ban. This is certainly disturbing, and perhaps linked with the growing violent gang culture in the UK. That said, I don't think it's right to point at a single country's inability to reduce gun crime by introducing tougher legislation and then say that gun legislation does not work. More comparisons with other countries are necessary - I should probably pay attention to my own country (Ireland) where there's much less of a gang problem than in the UK, but there have been a number of violent gun killings between criminal gangs and druglords here recently.
Hired Mind wrote:
Washington, D.C. has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and also the highest violent crime rates.
Ok, but isn't it much easier to get guns into the hands of criminals, even in Washington D.C.? If you can't buy them there (easily), you can just drive to the next state, right? Your point about the low gun crime rate in Canada is well-taken though, I've heard this argument made before and it should be taken more seriously. In fact, I seem to recall a documentary on TV where a guy went from Boston (high gun crime) to Toronto (low gun crime) and tried a front door at random - it was unlocked.
Hired Mind wrote:
Look for John Lott's book, More Guns Less Crime. He started out trying to prove the efficacy of gun control laws with scholarly work. But everything he found in his research pointed him in the opposite direction. The fact is, gun laws make things worse.
I will try to pick up that book, it sounds very interesting, especially given that Lott seems to be an actual research scientist, performing well-designed studies rather than cherrypicking facts and skewing sta
-
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Maybe not easier but it is more likely...http://dying.about.com/od/causes/tp/oddsdying.htm Also most likely those stats like most others when calculating firearm deaths they are including the people that died by getting shot in self defense by home owners or police.
Good link. Yeah, I'd have expected that deaths by car were higher than firearm deaths, although I'm surprised by how high the number of firearm deaths are: "7. Firearm Assault Lifetime Odds: 1 in 314" - that's pretty shocking. Would like to see more detailed stats on the firearm deaths (i.e. how many are "shot in self defense by home owners" vs how many kids accidentally killed each other, how many drunk, abusive husbands picked up a gun in a sudden fit of rage and killed their family, or vice-versa).
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
When you have a chance go read up on tri edged blades in war along with full metal jacket bullets also the fact that US soldiers have to wait to be engaged before engaging enemies.
Haven't heard of those tri-edged blades, sounds interesting. However I'm not convinced about the "rules of engagement" thing (not sure why you brought it up, but let's go there!) - just a year or so ago I was reading about the sniper "baiting" story, where soldiers placed "bomb-making equipment" which could be something as innocuous as a piece of wire or some electronic component on the street (which I would almost certainly pick up out of curiosity), and instantly blow away anyone who happened to pass by and pick something up. Then there was an airstrike on a wedding, killing scores of children and innocents. Then a helicopter "engaged" a couple of Reuters journalists (one or two of the drivers in the video were carrying AK-47s, but they weren't firing at anyone), and then fired at civilians who came to give medical aid to them, badly wounding a young boy. Some of these murders were deemed unlawful and resulted in some sort of criminal charges, but many were ignored and continue to be. There may be rules of engagement which prohibit things, but it seems that they don't have as much effect as they should. Of course, the real (or at least, worse) bad guys are even worse, having no problems bombing a busy market on purpose where the military mess up airstrikes through incompetence (or simply not caring very much about "collateral damage" in foreign lands), but that doesn't make it ok.
I too was surprised at the high number of deaths by firearm was however probably many self defense people often do not hear about self defense shooting because it does not fall into the liberal media agenda. Seems that they are supposed to follow ROE but many times the commander changes the ROE to suite them. Humble Programmer
-
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
I boggles my mind that someone would run around thinking that this will never happen to me...Personally IF that situation ever happens I want to be able to protect my family. It happens to people therefore you and your family are not exempt.
I never said it won't happen to me, just that the odds are so small that simply having guns around me increases the danger to me and everyone near me. The "average danger", the statistical probability of someone being injured or killed, obviously increases as soon as a gun enters my possession, and massively increases if I carry it on the street or in my car. Personally, I consider the total risk of needless injury/killing to myself and others by having a gun outweighs the risk that "it" will ever happen to me. We obviously disagree there, and that's fair enough - you probably have done more research into the actual statistics of gun accidents/etc and are making an informed trade-off. :)
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
People think that outlawing guns makes sense it is insane criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS!!!!!!! Why would a law that disarms honest people help anything.
Because honest people do stupid things. They get drunk, go to the pub, find someone's comment offensive and walk out to their car to take the gun from their glovebox before returning to shoot the insulter in the back of the head (as my friend's uncle did, many years ago). And yes, I've heard the "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them" argument before. Apart from the fact that "honest" people not having guns would save a huge number of lives (look at how many gun accidents and "just flipped out" killings and suicides there are every year - sure some people will find another way to do it, but at least some will be deterred if guns were out of the picture), my other answer to that is, yes only outlaws (and cops) will have them, but much less outlaws will have them than now! Acquiring and holding guns would be much more difficult, and (in a country like this one) an arrestable offence in most cases.
There are many dumb people that carry guns that have no business many carry them because they like to show them off and act tough. I think a person should have to have a psch eval before getting a carry permit. My oldest son keeps telling me that if he ever carries a gun for protection it will be one of these..... http://www.specialistgunshop.com/Desert%20Eagle%20Titanium.jpg[^] and I try to get him to understand that a flashy gun is dumb just a small effective one that you won't be showing around it is for protection not show. The bad thing about it is alot of people much older than him don't have any better sense about guns but I am against any kind of law that would take a gun out of my hands because I am a responsible owner.
Humble Programmer
-
Hired Mind wrote:
This is not borne out by facts. Interpol crime statistics (rate per 100,000):
What is not borne out by facts? I mentioned deaths caused by guns in particular, but you are quoting general crime figures. I never suggested that crime in general would be more or less prevalent due to guns. The crime rate in the US is lower than in the UK, but it still looks like the rate of gun killings is higher in the US. However, the Wikipedia article on gun politics in the UK suggests that gun crime in the UK has doubled (at least) in the last 10 years, even after the handgun ban. This is certainly disturbing, and perhaps linked with the growing violent gang culture in the UK. That said, I don't think it's right to point at a single country's inability to reduce gun crime by introducing tougher legislation and then say that gun legislation does not work. More comparisons with other countries are necessary - I should probably pay attention to my own country (Ireland) where there's much less of a gang problem than in the UK, but there have been a number of violent gun killings between criminal gangs and druglords here recently.
Hired Mind wrote:
Washington, D.C. has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and also the highest violent crime rates.
Ok, but isn't it much easier to get guns into the hands of criminals, even in Washington D.C.? If you can't buy them there (easily), you can just drive to the next state, right? Your point about the low gun crime rate in Canada is well-taken though, I've heard this argument made before and it should be taken more seriously. In fact, I seem to recall a documentary on TV where a guy went from Boston (high gun crime) to Toronto (low gun crime) and tried a front door at random - it was unlocked.
Hired Mind wrote:
Look for John Lott's book, More Guns Less Crime. He started out trying to prove the efficacy of gun control laws with scholarly work. But everything he found in his research pointed him in the opposite direction. The fact is, gun laws make things worse.
I will try to pick up that book, it sounds very interesting, especially given that Lott seems to be an actual research scientist, performing well-designed studies rather than cherrypicking facts and skewing sta
destynova wrote:
This is not borne out by facts. Interpol crime statistics (rate per 100,000): What is not borne out by facts? I mentioned deaths caused by guns in particular, but you are quoting general crime figures.
True enough - perhaps I inferred more than you said. But is it even fair to count suicides and "just flipped out" killings? Suicidal people are going to have easier access to a rope and a rafter, or sleeping pills, than a gun. And there aren't enough of these heavily-publicized "just flipped out" killings to even measure, when you put it in the context of 300 million people. The fact is, that the US has higher murder rates primarily because we are an entirely different culture than the UK. We are a country of dozens (hundreds?) of different cultures: races, creeds, national origins, all living together. It's amazing that the US is not one continuous never-ending war.
destynova wrote:
Your point about the low gun crime rate in Canada is well-taken though
Actually it was Virginia. In Washington D.C. it is impossible for non-police to legally own a firearm unless it is disassembled at all times, and the murder rate is the highest in the nation. In Virginia you can easily buy a firearm and keep it in your home, fully loaded, legally. Yet in VA, there is very low crime.
destynova wrote:
If that's not enough, please ponder this: If laws can restrict the lawless, why not just make murder illegal? Then let me turn that question around slightly and ask you to ponder it too: What if murder was not illegal? Would there be more or fewer murders? Big Grin
Hard to say, really. Just because murder were legal, does not mean the human imperative to go on living would shut down. In that situation, people would arm themselves even more, and would balance out - to what extent, one cannot know. But the analogy is fundamentally flawed: there is no social utility in murder. There is in firearms. Various sources I've seen on the internet say that between 764K and 2 million people defended themselves with guns in 1995 (the low number was the L.A. Times). The more strict the gun control laws, the larger the chunk of those people will die. Guns in the hands of the law-abiding prevent murders, they don't cause them.
Before .NET 4.0, object Universe = NULL;
