Tyndmyr wrote:someone foolish enough to ignore such basic safety procedures and laws when giving a gun to a four year old
You mean that there are conditions under which it's all right to allow access to guns to a 4 year old?
That was mostly for emphasis. Following basic safety procedures get MORE important when dealing with younger kids. They're important for everyone, of course, but the fact that you're also throwing a kid into the mix that obviously doesn't have the maturity to seek out appropriate safe behavior for himself is a factor that makes the parents look worse.
That said, it is technically possible to have a four year old shoot safely. However, it does involve an adult being *right there* to basically hold the gun for the kid and make sure nothing happens. In fact, basically all kids start out shooting under close adult supervision. However, obviously, "here, have a gun, keep it in the corner" is nothing like that, and is horribly negligent.
I am however a member of the Shorinji Kempo movement here in the uk; a Japanese nationalist zen Buddist movement that teaches a potentially lethal martial art. I'd much rather see more people learning to fight this way than wandering around armed with guns.
that is rather bizarre, because what you are saying is that lethal self defence is fine so long as you are bigger, faster and spend months (years) training.
I don't have a problem with people practicing martial arts, but it makes the training issue much larger indeed. In any practical sense, the frequency with which you need to defend your life is fairly low in any modern, developed country. Spending gobs of time solely to defend yourself eventually becomes a poor time investment. Now, if you're also after other benefits, like being physically fit...go nuts. Martial arts can be a great workout. However, you're just not likely to see martial arts suddenly become a universal thing in a modern day society.
LaserGuy wrote:[*]30% of Americans believe that an armed revolution in order to protect liberties might be necessary in the next few years, with another five percent unsure. That breaks down by 18% Democrats, 44% Republicans.
Huh. Larger than I would have expected. I do not think any such event will arise in the next few years. Obviously, as time-lines get longer, my ability to confidently predict the future will decrease, but given the stability of our society, I don't think it's plausible that we'll get to a revolution in only a few years.
Of course, this is a good thing, and we should value that stability and work to preserve it.
LaserGuy wrote:[*]25% of Americans who believe that there is some sort of cover-up going on related to the Sandy Hook shooting (the authors imply that some people believe it was faked) in order to advance a political agenda.[/list]
Cover-up isn't exactly the right word, IMO...there was some bad reporting, and definitely some different reporting between different agencies. IMO, this is unlikely to be some sort of planned, coordinated thing than a simple result of news agencies jumping on the latest info without vetting. We saw similar, even more obvious mishaps of this nature with the boston events. Of course, some politicians have intentionally mis-represented what happened when it happens to suit their agenda, but again, that's hardly unique to this case, nor is likely coordinated.
Do I believe that people lied about things where it would advance a political agenda? Sure. Happens all the time.
Was it faked? Unfortunately, no. I *wish* it were a fake, but that seems wildly implausible.
I suspect that the large number of people answering "neither" means that the poll did a bad job of categorizing folks' views.
Frimble wrote:1) If you pick up a weapon (be it gun or knife) suddenly you are able to kill everyone and anyone. No-one without a lot of training is going to be able to stop you and even if they have training the odds are not in their favour. The only thing that can stop someone with a gun for sure is someone with another gun. Preferably a longer ranged gun. (I know about disarming techniques but you have to be very very close to do that). It takes a certain kind of discipline to learn the martial art in the first place and if you are angry your technique deteriorates. Most people get board of the constant repetition. There is no easy way to learn it.
First, review the Tuller drill. Yes, having a gun is generally an advantage. Having a longer ranged one...not so much. Almost ALL conflicts happen at fairly close range. We don't actually have arguments escalate into urban sniper battles.
Additionally, being able to tolerate boredom is not a great metric for determining someone's mental state in other ways. Someone might well be perfectly capable of getting angry and also of repeating given tasks quite a lot.
Frimble wrote:2) You have to be extremely close to someone to hurt them with your bare hands or feet or elbows or whatever. You will be able to appreciate evey bit how much you are hurting them. Very few people I think would be desensitised enough to actually kill someone that way.
Again, shootings tend not to happen at extreme ranges. Yeah, an AR might be able to be effective 600 yards away...but actual violence normally happens at remarkably close ranges. Conversational distances. Killings overwelmingly do happen at very close, personal ranges. The connection of range with desensitization is one I see a lot, but it always comes from theory, not from data.
Frimble wrote:3) It lowers the stakes, killing someone unarmed is hard. It gets easier the more you train but it's still not an easy thing to do you are more likely to cause unconsciousness than actual death unless you continue to do damage after the person has fallen.
No, it's not. In fact, a lot of the training you do with martial arts is how to avoid accidental injury. Additionally, causing unconciousness is a Bad Thing in real life. It ain't like the movies where you punch someone in the head, and they get knocked out, and suffer no ill effects later. Beatings can and do cause deaths, both instantly, and years later from the damage sustained in the process.
Frimble wrote:4) This one is hard to explain to someone who hasn't trained in the martial arts but basically as soon as you take a step forwards that allows you to hit someone you have already put yourself at a significant disadvantage in the coming fight by allowing them to react. The only way to negate this is to attack them from behind.
...sort of. Some martial arts are reactionary. When I did Akido, being on the defensive was kind of what you did, since it was based around training reactionary fighting. When I did TKD*, it was much less focused on such things, and sometimes, being on the offensive was very helpful, since if your opponent was too busy reacting via blocks, etc, he couldn't actually get to a position of striking back.
In fact, LOTS of approaches center on getting inside your opponents OODA loop, essentially attacking more rapidly than they can cope with.
Additionally, in many situations, the attacker has the advantage because of expectations. Outside of the class, you are not generally mentally prepared to be attacked at absolutely any time. The attackers initial attack can be completely unexpected, even if not from behind. You might not recognize that guy X just decided to mug you, for instance. Sure, situational awareness is a good thing to train, but in actual practice, we are not aware of all things going on all the time. It's nigh on impossible.
It's not about the defence it's about the offence. Think about it this way: Would you rather be attacked by someone with a gun when do not have a gun or by someone without a gun when you also did not have a gun. Because unless you actually carry your gun with you everywhere you go that's the issue.
This sounds like a convincing argument for concealed carry. Personally, I'd rather not be attacked at all. If I am attacked, I am less concerned with what they have than with what I have. It is significantly easier to train to use one thing than to train yourself to defend against anything.
Or lets say that you DO carry around a small hand gun. Would you rather be attacked by someone with a hand gun or by someone with a semi automatic assault rifle?
I'd take the rifle attacker any day in a civilian setting. People carrying around rifles are kind of obvious as hell. He's going to immediately attract undesirable attention. Being shot by either one is pretty much a terrible day for me...there really isn't much difference there, so the primary difference is how fast I and others will notice him, to reduce my risk of being shot first.
Fire Brns wrote:The only thing I agree with martial arts wise is the dicipline part. Tons of people are reckles with things they don't train to be careful with.
You know, that could be solved with gun licencing...
Nah. We license drivers and mandate training, and we have no shortage of people who are reckless with cars. People seem to assume that mandates will be effective, but in practice...results vary at best. Plenty of mandates are ignored routinely, even when enforcement is attempted(consider speeding laws).
Now, training IS good...but the idea that adding a mandate to training will automatically make it better is very questionable.
Ralith The Third wrote:With guns, my 5'11", 190lb. male self has no significant advantage of the 5'1", 105lb. female or the 5'10", 180lb. arthritic old man in a self defense scenario. You know that saying, "God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal?" It's pretty much true. Societies have only become more equal and just as military technology has advanced. Trying to revert to physical strength and brawn as the primary mode of self defence is... backwards, to me, and that's as someone who's spent a decent amount of time practicing Judo.
This argument works both ways though: It greatly increases the number of people who have the capacity to victimize you, and greatly increases the risk of serious harm of any encounter.
In the particular case presented again, I would argue that this is unlikely true. If you're a 180lb arthritic old man, just about anyone can have the capacity to victimize you, and the risk of serious harm is pretty great regardless of means. Seriously, falling down is a major risk to the elderly, let alone a fistfight.
There IS additional risk to the attacker by adding the firearm. I do not consider that a downside.
As for de-escalation training...yes, I've seen caution advised in every firearm training class I've ever seen. De-escalation training is good, and I would argue that it's something EVERYONE can use, not just firearm owners. Incidentally, in the only real self-defence like scenario I've had(door kicked in), I managed to solve the issue with words and what not. There was a gun in reach, definitely, but it never had to be drawn. I think that's likely the case a lot of the time. Given that she had a razor, I suspect that someone who reacted by fighting instead of de-escalating would have likely experienced a worse overall encounter, regardless of if they had a gun or not.
Alexis wrote:I think a lot of places do have hunter safety classes as part of high school.
In MN, I took a standard hunter safety class at age 12, as you do there. Range was in the basement of the high school. Took the .22 rifle there for the final day to shoot, as did everyone. That was...1995, I think? 94 or 95. Nowadays, they've been so demonized that such programs have been mostly discontinued. Safety training as part of the educational process has mostly vanished thanks to implementations of the gun free zone concept.
That level of safety training was good and acceptable. However, as Sardia pointed out, I worry about plans that are meant as obstacles. The gun control advocates in my state's legislature had no qualms about openly stating that their goals were to reduce the number of people with guns, safety be damned. That attitude can quickly poison an otherwise reasonable idea.
*I'm not an expert in either art, but I did dabble with taking classes for a coupla years.