Go to an NRA meeting and you'll hear this famous quote from Heinlein (or is it Clarke) whispered around. Its not official policy, but its the belief of many of its members. If everyone has a gun, then everyone will be polite to each other--or risk the consequences.
Iraq is one of the most heavilly armed societies at the moment. Police, insurgeants, private mercenaries, and militias belonging to different cults, mosques, mullahs, chieftains, and political parties fill the streets and the desert with automatic weapons fire.
Still, would you call this a polite society? How polite is it to blow away strangers, children and grandparents? How can brutality in any of its guises be polite? Like the old west, Iraq is not a romantic picture of good cowboys protecting the good people with their gun skills. Its an chaotic place where violence and the will to kill prevails over the rule of law.
Those who have the guns don't stop at the rest being polite. They demand subservience. Those who don't have the guns start building bombs just as soon as thier polite words are out of their mouths.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If everyone has a gun, then everyone will be polite to each other--or risk the consequences.
I think the most obvious flaw here is the latent assumption that people with guns are willing to kill people who are rude to them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Or maybe just maim them.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
The thing I worry about, in an armed society, are the idiots who have, excuse the phrase, hair-trigger tempers, who don't bother to think before they act. I know people like that, and I would not be comfortable knowing they were armed. There are also the people, and I know some of them, too, who are completely convinced that "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out later" is a good motto to live by.
But even without them, I don't think an armed society is a more polite society, just a more frightened and nervous one.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I don't really think the Iraq situation is a good analogy. In fact, I think that guns aren't allowed to be held by citizens. If you have a gun, you will be treated like an insurgent.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
How about Somalia?
Same situation, different dry arid country with a civil war either in progress or on the verge of beginning.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That does not seem to make sense; what, you're going to blow the head off people you cut you off on the highway?
Now, there is something to be said for the code duello as enforcing manners; but not the sort of politeness we lament the loss of today, namely a politeness to strangers. You really can't go challenging complete strangers to duels, because there is no repercussion for them turning you down - no social disgrace. And really, most people are quite polite to their own circle of friends and acquaintances. Besides, the code duello fell out of favour because it was always going to be fought with reasonably modern weapons; not the absolute latest, necessarily, but not something you would need to go to an antique shop to find. And as firearms became better, well, that's just too dangerous. With swords you could reasonably fight to first blood, have honour satisfied, and the loser apologised; not going to happen with guns.
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
So are these countries uncivil because everyone has guns? Is America more civilized because we don't? Or does the culture have an impact?
I think if Americans had as many guns as it seems these strife-ridden countries had, we'd still not fall into the chaos that rules those lands. I think our cultural standards are just higher than those countries' so it's not an issue here...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In principle, every adult male in Norway has a gun, though in practice not everybody serves in the militia. But Switzerland does enforece their similar rule. I don't know about the Swiss, but Norway at any rate is not particularly more polite than the US. Different standards of politeness, though. Nobody would dream of calling anyone 'sir'.
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
That'd be real nice. I have no qualms with being polite but sometimes it just feels trite using that term.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Do all citizens have to own guns to be polite to each other? Aren't we, as a modern civilization capable of being polite to each other simply because we should, because it's the right thing to do?
On the one hand, martial training (military, militia, martial arts, self-defense, etc.) do help one learn to control one's temper and gain a better grasp of what's worth fighting for, and what's not.
On the other hand, all gun-owners are, presumably, grown-ups. Shouldn't they already be capable of being polite even if they don't have access to a firearm or other weapon?
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
In Chicago, when we had the highest murder rate in the country (2-3 years ago?), over 80% of our murders were caused by guns. Here's the thing: concealed carry and most gun ownership is totally illegal. So, for our city, banning guns has little to no effect on the crime and violent crimes
I'm not saying if everyone had guns it would be different because I can't assert that for sure, but I can say that banning gun ownership had no positive effect on the crime rate, considering Chicago is considered far more dangerous than Minneapolis, a large city which allows concealed carry.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
Washington D.C. has the most stringent anti-gun legislation in the nation. They also have the highest crime and murder rate in the U.S. since 1992 through today. 1992 being when they first enacted the new gun laws.
Switzerland. Every member of the civilian population is required, by law, to keep one assault rifle, one sub-machine gun, and one handgun per person over the age of eighteen in the house. Switzerland is the most heavily armed society in the world. It also has the lowest crime rate in the world.
Read John Lotts book, More Guns, Less Crime. He did a county by county study of every county in the united states. He found, in every county that restricted the carrying of guns, murder and crime rates went up. An armed society is a safe society.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't think either side of the argument is correct. Those who have guns and low crime would probably be that way with or without them. Those with high crime rate and less guns would probably be that way with or without them.
I have noticed that those places that take away the right to have guns already had major violence issues, and nothing gets solved. What should be learned is that such laws don't make a difference. At the same time, those places that have many guns have not been given any substantial reason to ban them. Weapon issues are emotional and not practical.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Does anyone here really think a society where only the police (and I guess military) are allowed to legally bear arms is better than one where everyone is? You have to go through a clearance process to get them there anyway, don't you?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Since no one else has taken issue with it, I would just like to point out that, while I have heard and used that phrase many times, no one I know treats it as an argument... just as a pithy and wryly humorous observation along the lines of "God made man, but Colonel Colt made him equal."
I genuinely think, Dan, that you are mischaracterizing gun rights adovcates by treating this as something they seriously propose.
Aside from that, what you say is very true and I do think it is important to note that humans with violent attitudes or intentions are not going to be satisfied till they start a fight... which is why I think it important to be able to defend yourself against them (and not just with firearms or a little pepper spray on your keychain).
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
quote: But Switzerland does enforece their similar rule. I don't know about the Swiss, but Norway at any rate is not particularly more polite than the US.
Swiss people are extremely polite. In the 18 months I lived there, there was one murder on the French side. It was a shock for the whole countryl
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Swiss people are extremely polite . . . in some ways. They (not all, but by and large, IME) are also among the most bigoted, in ways both open and subtle. Towards blacks, towards Jews -- pretty much anyone non-Aryan.
And it has gotten worse in the past 20 years or so, as these attitudes have become more acceptable in Europe as a whole.
If this is the kind of "politeness" that comes from being armed, I'm against it. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kristen: . . .considering Chicago is considered far more dangerous than Minneapolis, a large city which allows concealed carry.
This is not a fair comparison to make, because Minneapolis has only allowed concealed carry for about two years. Chicago has been considered more dangerous than Minneapolis for far longer than that, and I believe most of the difference is because it is a much larger city.
(There has not, incidentally, been a noticible difference in the crime rate one way or the other since the concealled carry bill passed.)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
My worst nightmare is home invasion.
If a man broke into my house while my husband was away, I know I would not be able to stop him from doing whatever he wanted. Robbery (Take what you like, just don't hurt me.) Rape... Murder.... some combination of the three...
If I had a gun, preferably a shotgun (scatter makes it easier to hit if you don't do a lot of shooting or if it's dark. Plus it's less likely to go through the wall and kill a neighbor) I could defend myself.
And that is the biggest reason I'm pro-gun. It makes it so women can defend ourselves against men who aim to do us harm.
The usual counter argument to this is some statistic on how you're more likely to shoot yourself etc etc... But no one collects statistics on how many crimes are prevented with the threat of a gun, when never a shot is fired.
All this being said, I'm scared of guns, despite being Raised By Rednecks, and don't own one. *sigh* (I've got a sword though! And I know how to use it!)
Pix
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: But no one collects statistics on how many crimes are prevented with the threat of a gun, when never a shot is fired.
Indeed. I used to go to church with this little old lady whose husband was an invalid. One night after church she was driving home, and some thugs in two cars boxed her in at an intersection and started to get out of their cars. She didn't have to brandish her revolver very long for them to get back in and drive off.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Whoa. If it's true that Iraqi citizens are forbidden to own guns, it certainly isn't reasonable to call Iraq a well armed society!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If everyone has a gun, then everyone will be polite to each other--or risk the consequences.
I think the most obvious flaw here is the latent assumption that people with guns are willing to kill people who are rude to them.
I think that the most obvious flaw here is that killing someone who's been rude to you might be considered polite.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
While I don't agree with the saying, I don't think that idea is part of the thinking behind the statement.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Pix, in close quarters (like indoors) a blade in the hands of someone who knows how to use it is probably much more effective than a firearm.
Also a couple of technical points-- pistol rounds (even big .44 magnum-types) aren't at all likely to penetrate exterior walls so they're just as safe for your neighbors. Even with an 18" barrel, shotgun spread is a couple of inches at 25 yards... not really going to help poor aim very much -- though a 2" diameter area of effect is obviously much larger than a third of an inch (typical bullet).
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If everyone has a gun, then everyone will be polite to each other--or risk the consequences. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TomD: I think the most obvious flaw here is the latent assumption that people with guns are willing to kill people who are rude to them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Rabbit: I think that the most obvious flaw here is that killing someone who's been rude to you might be considered polite.
I think that the most obvious flaw here is in setting fear as an appropriate motivator for good manners.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think that the most obvious flaw here is in setting fear as an appropriate motivator for good manner
That's quite close to what I was trying to say. If your neighbors are only polite to you because they are afraid you'll shoot them, then you are not being polite. A society where everyone is afraid that they will be shot for bad manners, is by definition a very impolite society.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think that the most obvious flaw here is in setting fear as an appropriate motivator for good manners.
I'm not convinced that this is a flaw at all.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I hear tell that fear is a great way to train spaniels to behave, but I have a higher standard for the growing of thoughtful, well-mannered people.
Let me put it this way, that line of thinking is a kissing cousin to all of those Christians who are Christians because they want all of the goodies alluded to in the afterlife, or are scared of hell.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Pix, in close quarters (like indoors) a blade in the hands of someone who knows how to use it is probably much more effective than a firearm.
I think you need to define "effective" here and close quarters. Unless the blade is thrown, no one can kill you with a blade if they are further than arms length from you. A thrown blade is a less effective weapon than a firearm. Once the blade is thrown, the attacker is unarmed, which is not true with a firearm. What's more, the level of skill and strength needed to kill with a blade are much greater than the level required to kill with a firearm at close quarters. There is a reason the colt revolver was dubbed, the great equalizer.
And if you think knife wounds are more deadly than gunshot wounds, you need to talk to anyone who's worked in an emergency room. A knife usually leaves clean wounds that can be easily sewn up. A bullet rips through flesh destroying large sections of tissue.
The fatality rate in gun robberies is 3 - 4 times greater than the fatality rate in knife robberies.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I dislike all the arguments in this thread. Too bad I can't shoot you all over the internet.
I suppose there would be less flaming if people had a button that could make your keyboard zap you. But then there'd be idiots who would zap you just for fun.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Let me put it this way, that line of thinking is a kissing cousin to all of those Christians who are Christians because they want all of the goodies alluded to in the afterlife, or are scared of hell.
I completely agree.
I just don't agree that this is always a bad thing. Well, maybe it is, but it's far preferable to a lot of other things.
I am very glad that in my past I have done some good things for less than perfect reasons.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I just don't agree that this is always a bad thing. Well, maybe it is, but it's far preferable to a lot of other things.
I disagree. Living in fear is always a bad thing. I can only think of two circumstances in which one might live in fear. First, one is surrounded by real and constant threats, such as death squads, drive by shooting, bombs, or IEDs. I guess in that kind of existence, fear might improve your chances of survival but that doesn't mean its good. The whole situation is horrid. No one would ever call this a good type of life.
The second situation in which one might live in fear, is one in which a person has an irrational, overblown or paranoid perception of the risks and threats that surround him. That type of fear is totally destructive.
Neither type of fear is something I would associate with a polite society.
The OED offers the following as a definition of polite
quote:marked by an appearance of consideration, tact, deference, or courtesy
If the norm in society is for people to demonstrate consideration for others, why would people live in either kind of fear?
Posted by dawnmaria (Member # 4142) on :
Pix, That's my worst fear as well. I am very paranoid when my husband has to be out at night, but I am also paranoid about people coming around during the day thinking there'll be fewer people around to contend with. I own a gun, my hubby owns a whole bunch because he also collects them. He taught me to shoot and I am not the best shot but I would not hesitate to but daylight through anyone trying to do harm to me or my baby. I don't think I'd like carrying a gun around everywhere I go, but I do feel better knowing it's here at home. The hubby has a concealed permit but he doesn't carry on a regular basis, only when we travel. When we leave for vacation Thursday, we'll be packing!
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote: think you need to define "effective" here and close quarters. Unless the blade is thrown, no one can kill you with a blade if they are further than arms length from you. A thrown blade is a less effective weapon than a firearm. Once the blade is thrown, the attacker is unarmed, which is not true with a firearm.
I think the point that was trying to be made is that firearms, while effective are not the only viable means to defend oneself. Furthermore, you as the defender, can stop short of killing your opponent, right down to the last moment. Other than warning shots, the same cannot be said of a firearm, you have to be damn sure you want to pull that trigger, because after that you can't stop it.
quote: What's more, the level of skill and strength needed to kill with a blade are much greater than the level required to kill with a firearm at close quarters. There is a reason the colt revolver was dubbed, the great equalizer
What's wrong with actually taking the time to gain skill of this nature? Am I to assume that killing should be an unskilled, everyday affair? I know that's not what your trying to say, but it's a definite implication of what you've written here.
Personally, I'm very happy that I have the right to bear arms, since it allows me to collect my swords and nunchakus or what have you, and if I want one, I can certainly get a gun. I like that.
But I resent the ideas that 1)guns are the only viable means for self-defence, 2)that all gun control advocates are pacifist and uninformed, and that 3) living in fear of someone else is the only reason you should be polite to them.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think you need to define "effective" here and close quarters.
Effective - capable of incapacitating the attacker before the attacker does the same to you.
Close quarters - inside a house, here walls and furniture can conceal your location and limit the range from which an assailant might engage you to within 15 feet or so (for the most part).
The reason I say a blade can be more effective is that it comes into play faster, is generally more accurate and harder for the attacker to take away from you (these last two in the hands of a trained user). Even people trained in firearms usage tend to be about 30% accurate in real firefight conditions (taken from an NYPD study in the late 80s.. don't have any links, you'll just have to trust me that I read it). Also, with a firearm, there is preparation time in even bringing a "locked and loaded" one to bear on a target. Also, Pixiest did not specify that the intruder was armed with a firearm. There's a good chance they aren't. She specifically seemed to be worried about being physically overpowered.
quote: Unless the blade is thrown, no one can kill you with a blade if they are further than arms length from you.
But indoors where there are walls, you can contrive to meet your opponent at arm's length or where you can get there quickly. One dive and roll can cross about 12-15 feet, while making yourself a difficult target and only allowing time for one aimed shot... all this assuming that your opponent is armed with a gun and already trying to aim at you. NOTE: I am *not* recommending this as a general response to someone threatening you because they *will* shoot if you make an aggressive move like this... But if the other person's already shooting at you, that particular negative doesn't really come into play.
quote: A thrown blade is a less effective weapon than a firearm. Once the blade is thrown, the attacker is unarmed, which is not true with a firearm.
absolutely... if you have a firearm, engage at range and do not close with someone armed with a blade if at all possible. The whole advantage of a gun is the ability to deal lethal damage at range relatively easily.
quote: What's more, the level of skill and strength needed to kill with a blade are much greater than the level required to kill with a firearm at close quarters. There is a reason the colt revolver was dubbed, the great equalizer.
True about the skill, but it's not that hard and Pixiest claimed to have some skill. I made possession of this skill a caveat to my assertion. If you have a sharp blade less than 18" in length, it really doesn't take much strength at all. A machete is easy to wield, a katana, on the other hand, takes a surprising amount of strength to bring into play.
quote: And if you think knife wounds are more deadly than gunshot wounds, you need to talk to anyone who's worked in an emergency room. A knife usually leaves clean wounds that can be easily sewn up. A bullet rips through flesh destroying large sections of tissue.
I don't disagree, but knife wounds *are* definitely incapacitating and deadly, which is good enough for self defense. You don;t have to make it so the guy can't be saved, just stop him from whatever he's doing.
If his aim is rape, a blade, concealed until he is close enough, will do wonders.
Did you ever do the trick where you hold a dollar bill and the other person puts their hand below yours and tries to catch it when you drop it? It's impossible because the nerves don't physically fire fast enough to react before the dollar falls the first couple of inches. There's a similar effect when a person tries to threaten you with a gun by touching the barrel to you-- you can act before they react. You have to be decisive, committed and it certainly helps to be well trained, but it *is* possible. Again, this is not a recommended tactic because it will, absolutely, drive the other person to shoot at you.
Guns are very effective weapons... after all, every military in the world uses them for a reason, and, as The Rabbit said, the Colt peacemaker *was* a great equalizer. They do not make you invulnerable, nor do they make your opponent so. Like any other tool, there are times and places where they are at their best and times and places where they aren't.
I hope my advocacy of a knife or even sword makes more sense now.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The reason I say a blade can be more effective is that it comes into play faster, is generally more accurate and harder for the attacker to take away from you (these last two in the hands of a trained user)
Is a knife really more accurate? I know that the majority of bullets miss their target, but you are comparing apples and oranges if you look at it that way. In order to strike with a knife you must be within arms length. I suspect that guns fired at that range are extremely accurate as well.
What's more, size and strength are an issue in a knife fight. In order to stab someone with a knife, I have to be very close to them. If they are much larger and stronger than I am, they stand a very good chance of being able to take the weapon and use it against me.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Size and strength are much less of an issue than you might think... the cutting edge is also a great equalizer... and once you get at close range, it is far easier to keep someone from shooting you while taking their gun than it is to take their knife without getting badly cut.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There's a reason why guns replaced knives and swords as the best way to kill other humans -- it's easier to do it with a gun than with a knife or a sword.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
because you can do itat range and they require less training to be effectively used.
Recap-ing here: 1)Being indoors takes away the advantage of range. If you have a weapon trained on me, you have a fair chance of shooting me before I can get to you across a room. If you are not already aiming at me, your chances go way down. Since you are on my turf, there are many things I can do to take the initiative and control the range at which the engagement takes place.
2)A knife or sword, once you are close enough, can be brought to bear much faster than even a readied gun, which, at minimum has to be properly aimed.
3)A blade *is* more accurate in the sense of hitting something (sorry for not addressing this earlier, Rabbit) because you are drawing a blade through a zone rather than trying to point at a spot with an aligned barrel. This is also one of the reasons the blade is faster than a gun
4)there is no guarantee that someone breaking into your house is even armed, much less armed with a gun, and, again, The Pixiest's specific concern was being overpowered. She said she was trained to use her sword. If she is, some big guy might physically overpower her by rushing her, but she should be able to eviscerate him in the process.
My son and I swordfight with practice 18" blade swords on a regular basis and my strength and size (about 3 times his) are an advantage to be sure. But he still gets me from time to time, and I wouldn't dream of going at him unarmed... it's just asking for punishment, even with a padded "blade".
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:1)Being indoors takes away the advantage of range.
It takes away some advantage. I'd still rather incapacitate somebody before they get within arm's reach. That's possible with a firearm, but not with a knife.
quote:3)A blade *is* more accurate in the sense of hitting something (sorry for not addressing this earlier, Rabbit) because you are drawing a blade through a zone rather than trying to point at a spot with an aligned barrel.
Slashes from a knight are far less likely to stop/kill somebodoy than a stab. Once you are start stabbing, the knife is traveling through a straight (or curved) line, just like a bullet is.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
There is a dill developed by a man named Tueller that proves a knife is just as, if not more deadly than a gun at seven yards or closer.
The average human, even old, sick, overweight, etc can traverse seven yards and his you with a knife before you can draw your pistol from a holster.
I'v done this drill with a group of thirty people or so ranging from age 16-57 all of them beat the gun draw.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Shep -- that's assuming that the knife is already drawn, right?
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
In terms of weapons, if there is a will there's a way.
Re: "Lamb to the Slaughter".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If everyone has a gun, then everyone will be polite to each other--or risk the consequences.
I think the most obvious flaw here is the latent assumption that people with guns are willing to kill people who are rude to them.
I'll shoot you for saying that!*
*I will not shoot you. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: There's a reason why guns replaced knives and swords as the best way to kill other humans -- it's easier to do it with a gun than with a knife or a sword.
But is it as FUN?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: There's a reason why guns replaced knives and swords as the best way to kill other humans -- it's easier to do it with a gun than with a knife or a sword.
This is not obvious. Especially early firearms sucked pretty badly. But you could use them with two weeks' training, versus the lifetime required of a knight, or even a good cavalryman. For personal, close-range combat, I do not think it completely obvious that a rifle or handgun is superior to a sword - they are notoriously inaccurate.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Thats just arguing for sport. Obviously guns are more effective as weapons today because they can be used to kill people from really really far away, and there are guns that can kill many people all at once, operated by only a few or even one person. In a personal struggle between one person with any gun, and one person with any other weapon, the result will depend on alot of factors. But in a large scale battle, its clear that the side with guns is at an advantage in almost every possible set of circumstances.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
I'm still a huge fan of taking up a martial art instead of buying a gun for basic self-protection. Especially when the cause is paranoia. It's much easier to stop from seriously injuring someone or killing them if there is any error, plus one can still protect themself if it is a threat. And I've seen small, weak people take down people who were twice or even thrice their size doing something rather basic. Further, there are the health benefits and generally one is taught self-control and other things which help to prevent feeling paranoid without compromising one's abilities to defend oneself if necessary.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Although I have nothing against the things martial arts enthusiasts always talk about, I have rarely known anyone who I didn't think was really into it because of the macho image involved. This isn't to say they aren't out there. I have one friend who I've known several years, who NEVER talks about his black belt, and I would consider him one who was truly into it for personal reasons.
Most people i've met however, talk about these things from the sides of their mouths, alot about oneness of body and mind BS while they flex in the gym mirror. I like the story, but I think few are true believers.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
It could just be a difference of experiences. Most people in martial arts that I've seen don't flash it around. It's something that they enjoy and it has benefits that they value. I have very rarely run into people who do it for a macho image. And either way, if one is doing it to learn to protect themselves, then they are not usually doing it for their image.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well your bound to meet more people who are into martial arts, and since you are doing it with them, your bound to meet more people who wouldn't talk about it otherwise. People like me who aren't interested in it only notice it when annoying people try to impress us. I am actually more likely to overhear somebody talking about it to a girl or something, so the only situations I ever recall are the annoying ones .
My reaction to the self-defense thing is puzzlement. That's less a product of logic then simply of my own innate nature. I understand people who are into martial arts claim that knowing how to hurt somebody makes it so that you won't have to hurt somebody, or something similar to that (forgive me if I don't use your favored wording, though I do understand the basic premise).
My immediate reaction is to think of how often I have ever wanted or needed to physically defend myself from an attack that wasn't at least partly my own fault. The answer is: I can't think of a single one, and knowing myself, if I knew I could kick anyone's butt on the street, I might not act the the same way; I might be less civilized, but I don't know.
Seems to me that if your aware of an advantage you hold over others, you'll keep this in your mental dossier throughout ALL your interactions. This isn't a bad thing, but it is something different from what martial arts people have always told me. I mention this and they say its not about that, not about feeling better or more powerful than other people. I always wonder why it WOULDN"T be partly about that. Even as an unintended benefit, the phychological boost that being more powerful than others will give you must be a heady one.
Many people have great advantages in life, and being aware of them need not register as egotism, as long as they are fair self-assesments. For instance if a person knows he is smarter than most people, then he will learn through experience to assume that he will have an easier time at some things than others; just as a runner will learn from experience what clip he can sustain, even as he surpasses others.
The few martial arts enthusiasts I have posed this thought to have reacted badly, as if I intended to say that it was only about their image and their egos (although maybe sometimes it is). On the contrary though, I have always thought that the allure of martial arts really has to do with the self-confidence it gives people, in relation to others. Maybe that's the key, I always think it has to do with superiority, but maybe it doesn'tl maybe its just personal enhancement. The thing is "personal" enhancements "just for me," ALWAYS have visible results, and nearly ALWAYS have to do with looking better or feeling better in public.
Think about that: people don't get cosmetic surgery to enhance their actual health (usually), and weight-lifters certainly have little need of the ability to lift enormous amounts of weight with their calves (usually). The same for invisible improvements: people don't go on Prozac to improve their health, they do it so that they can feel normal and interact with people; that's always the thing that advertisements show you when they talk about mood stabilizers: dealing with others.
I don't know maybe I am completely off, but I don't get the martial arts thing. Probably because it seemed such a gigantic waste of time when I was 8 and my parents made me go to a class with a bunch of strange kids and a teacher who made me feel bad because I couldn't learn a Kata. Oh well, I don't think it hurt me in the long run. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Seems to me that if your aware of an advantage you hold over others, you'll keep this in your mental dossier throughout ALL your interactions. This isn't a bad thing, but it is something different from what martial arts people have always told me. I mention this and they say its not about that, not about feeling better or more powerful than other people. I always wonder why it WOULDN"T be partly about that. Even as an unintended benefit, the phychological boost that being more powerful than others will give you must be a heady one.
Well, it might not be about feeling superior as a person, but it is absolutely about confidence and having a justified confidence in your training is essential to winning a fight. If you haven't won it in your head, you'll be hesitant, and hesitancy will lose a fight. The opposite of hesitancy here is not speed, however, but commitment. It will lose you the fight the same way it will prevent you from doing a flip-- any hint of trying to keep one foot out of the pool prevents the execution.
There is alot of ego involved in the martial arts especially at high levels... no one is immune to it and it's impossible to study thoroughly without making private judgements about how to do things, largely influenced by your chosen method of training no doubt. It is, however, absolutely possible to enjoy martial arts without being "about" the ego and even not about beating people up if you take a more artistic, less practical style.
As for getting into fight situations, I'm actually proud of never having been in one. I've been assaulted twice and neither were remotely my fault. I was able to avoid escalating the fight in both situations.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
No matter what, people will agree that martial arts are skills that can be used to defend oneself. Therefore, I figure that if one is afraid of someone breaking into one's home, it is better to have a martial art than it is to have a gun. Even moreso because if the person breaking in has a weapon, they will have an advantage over a lot of people who also own guns, likely. Unless one is well-trained in the use of their weapon, one almost certainly would be at a disadvantage to an armed robber who probably has had more training with a weapon (or so it must be assumed, since they are carrying one and it would be dangerous to assume less). And in that case, drawing a weapon makes them more likely to use it. However, if one knows how to disarm and incapacitate someone, the odds of being shot at are probably less. And in regards to speed, being able to fight with empty hands puts one at an advantage over someone who needs to draw a gun or a knife or whatever other weapon they may have.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
Seeing as thwe majority of police fatalities are when two people are struggling for a gun, namely the officers, I would highly recommend staying away from a situation in which you are jerking a gun around, no matter how good you are at it, unless it is the last possibility.
Now seeing as the majority of your home invaders have the spine of a jellyfish, 90% of the time a gun is used in home defence, it isn't even fired, the gun is simply shown to the assailant, and the majority of them back down (wisely so).
I have seen what a gun can do to human flesh, and I know how horrific it is, which is one of the reasons I always carry a personal defence tool (handgun). I never want that to happen to me or my family, and if I or anyone else around me in in immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of severe bodily harm, then I am going to draw my weapon. I pray that I will never have to use it, but if I have to, I will use it to the utmost of my ability.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shepherd: but if I have to, I will use it to the utmost of my ability.
Along those lines, whatever you choose for self defense (knife, sword, stick, gun, pepper spray, tazer, dog... the list goes on) please receive proper training in their use. As many have pointed out, a gun is easier to learn than many other weapons, but it's still harder than "point and click".
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
First, a quick apology for my Trollish behavior. Here I started a thread that was all argumentive, then I didn't clarify or comment on it.
I did not mean my arguments to be anti-gun. I meant them to be anti-gun fanatic. I blame the NRA for much of what is bad about American politics, since their success in polarization politics and fear voting encouraged other groups to adopt that stategy.
Gun fanatics, or anti-gun fanatics do not help anyone.
There are 3 socially acceptable reasons to carry guns. 1) Self defence. 2) Hunting, 3)Historical collecting. None of these were in the minds of the founders when they put that in the constitution. The "Right to Bear Arms" as I read the Contstitution, is given as part of the rights of citizens to overthrow their government if it becomes tyrannical.
If the government is the only one to have guns, then the government has a overwhelming advantage on the ability to exert lethal force. Using lethal force is the ultimate power.
In other words, "The right to bear arms" and our Constitution in particular is pro-rebellion. Some people confuse rebel with terrorist.
On a different subject:
quote:Although I have nothing against the things martial arts enthusiasts always talk about, I have rarely known anyone who I didn't think was really into it because of the macho image involved. This isn't to say they aren't out there. I have one friend who I've known several years, who NEVER talks about his black belt, and I would consider him one who was truly into it for personal reasons.
Most people i've met however, talk about these things from the sides of their mouths, alot about oneness of body and mind BS while they flex in the gym mirror. I like the story, but I think few are true believers.
Replace the words "Martial Art" with "Gun" and that is exactly what I've seen. Instead of "oneness of body and mind BS" its "constitutional rights BS"
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
quote: Along those lines, whatever you choose for self defense (knife, sword, stick, gun, pepper spray, tazer, dog... the list goes on) please receive proper training in their use. As many have pointed out, a gun is easier to learn than many other weapons, but it's still harder than "point and click".
Believe me I know how hard it is to become truly proficient with a firearm, thats why I have spent over ten thousand dollars attending multiple facilities. Facilities that teach when and where a private citizen is allowed by the law to employ lethal force, places that teach proper home and vehicle defense. PLaces that teach to help their students survive, not how to run aorund and do cool gun tricks. With the power that a gun gives you, it is required at least in my opinion that you have a responsibility to use the power wisely and morally.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)