bladeracer wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:On the subject of being "better off" if we were allowed to own and/or carry a handgun for protection, that is the argument tens of millions of Americans use and it's not working for them.
Granted, they have a different societal view, but they have a much higher per capita murder and overall crime rate than we do. The crims know there is a high probability their victim will be armed and go in tooled up.
Weapon retention that BBSS mentioned is very relevant. Panicked untrained people who attempt self defence with a weapon will in many cases have it taken from them and used against them.
One of the martial arts I studied in my younger days involved knife techniques, paramount among which were getting a knife from an attacker while unarmed and defences against that disarming.
Far better in my view would be to add self defence training to high school curricula as a mandatory subject like math and English.
Mind you, not too keen on taking on a croc with martial arts, Daddy has that right, some attackers need a bullet.
I think you are mistaken there Gaz, thousands of American citizens are alive today because they, or somebody else, had a firearm when it was needed. There is more than enough evidence to support the fact that an armed public is safer.
Even totally untrained gun owners have saved their own, and other people's lives.
Martial arts are fine in a small number of unarmed assaults, but the skill certainly does not come close to making it a fight in the defender's favour, especially when an attacker is armed. My 88-year-old auntie in Adelaide was assaulted and raped in her home by a young thug back in the eighties, no martial arts training could have helped her.
Sorry to hear about your Aunty Blade, and you are absolutely correct, no martial arts could have helped her, but with respect, could an 88yo lady have accessed a gun and successfully used it for defence, or would it have been taken from her and used in the next attack?
You can only develop a realistic ability to defend yourself while unarmed by dedicated application of the training. I was training 7 days a week in two disciplines for nearly 10years and 3 days a week for another 14 and I have no illusions of invulnerability.
I promise I'm not wearing a lacey g-string when I say that, in the US, many many needless, preventable deaths have been caused when a gun that is only for the defence of hearth and home has been grabbed in the heat of the moment, or been accessed by a child.
Picture, if you will, an alternate Cronulla riot.
Many of those present, fearing some dangerous actions by "others", bring their Glock, Sig, Colt, S&W etc to protect themselves.
With the emotion flowing there, it is virtually certain that if some of those stirring things up had been armed, some nong would have kicked off an OK Corral.
You also have the escalation mentality that the situation creates.
If I'm going to rob a house full of people I know are virtually certain to be unarmed, I'll go alone and take a bat.
If I'm going to rob a house full of people virtually certain to be armed, then I'm going in armed to the teeth and mob handed.
It's an interesting debate.
Unfortunately, not all of us can debate it as rationally as you and I are doing.
I've been accused of all manner of personality and behavioral defects for saying that some form of gun control (beyond hitting where you aim) is essential, simply because so many people display so frequently that they shouldn't be allowed sharp pencils let alone firearms.