happyhunter wrote:Knives are easy to conceal, but I wouldn't call them a weapon of defenses. More of an equalizer and they don't make any noise
happyhunter wrote:Interestingly, you might find people are just as reluctant to use a gun against another human although this freeze state can be trained out of people.
Title_II wrote:If you carry a fun in Australia you will go to jail.
Title_II wrote:Screw that. I'll cut them wide, deep, and ugly. When you realize you have to go you commit to win and get the bastard(s).
Title_II wrote:If you carry a fun in Australia you will go to jail.
Gregg wrote:I would say most people (on the victim side) would be reluctant really have a go with a knife, whereas if the attacker got the knife off them due to their hesitation would more likely have no qualms about using it to full effect.
adam wrote:Gregg wrote:I would say most people (on the victim side) would be reluctant really have a go with a knife, whereas if the attacker got the knife off them due to their hesitation would more likely have no qualms about using it to full effect.
Knives aren't isolated with that. Any weapon that a victim has is likely to be used against them if the attacker can get that weapon off them. Gun, knife, taser, scissors, etc.
It's my opinion that no weapon should be presented unless that person is prepared to use it. True that many attackers may be deterred by the presence of such a weapon, however it's a gamble. With so many minds ruined by drugs - an attacker is just as likely to attack as to run these days, and if you're not prepared to use that weapon, you've just given an added opportunity to the assailant.
Title_II wrote:If you carry a fun in Australia you will go to jail.
Heckler303 wrote:You should really try to keep the element of surprise and use whatever you have on them before they have time to react. That's how you do it.
adam wrote:Heckler303 wrote:You should really try to keep the element of surprise and use whatever you have on them before they have time to react. That's how you do it.
I think it depends on the situation. I'd much prefer to pull a weapon that gives them an opportunity to back off and stop, but use it if I had absolutely no choice, rather than to just take a life straight up for the sake of surprise. But with the very limit options we have here in Australia (because we aren't allowed to use weapons for self defense) - I agree with you - sadly... surprise is one of very few options available to us.
Title_II wrote:If you carry a fun in Australia you will go to jail.
adam wrote:Heckler303 wrote:You should really try to keep the element of surprise and use whatever you have on them before they have time to react. That's how you do it.
I think it depends on the situation. I'd much prefer to pull a weapon that gives them an opportunity to back off and stop, but use it if I had absolutely no choice, rather than to just take a life straight up for the sake of surprise. But with the very limit options we have here in Australia (because we aren't allowed to use weapons for self defense) - I agree with you - sadly... surprise is one of very few options available to us.
adam wrote:Gregg wrote:I would say most people (on the victim side) would be reluctant really have a go with a knife, whereas if the attacker got the knife off them due to their hesitation would more likely have no qualms about using it to full effect.
Knives aren't isolated with that. Any weapon that a victim has is likely to be used against them if the attacker can get that weapon off them. Gun, knife, taser, scissors, etc.
It's my opinion that no weapon should be presented unless that person is prepared to use it. True that many attackers may be deterred by the presence of such a weapon, however it's a gamble. With so many minds ruined by drugs - an attacker is just as likely to attack as to run these days, and if you're not prepared to use that weapon, you've just given an added opportunity to the assailant.
Title_II wrote:All that "give him what he wants" and "don't fight back, he'll use that knife against you" is fairy tail bulls$%^& propaganda that's been tossed around for the last 50 years or so. Zero truth to it.
Title_II wrote:If you carry a fun in Australia you will go to jail.
<<Genesis93>> wrote:Common trap.
We are not allowed to own, possess or carry weapons for self defence.
Title_II wrote:Statistics in the US show that people who resist violent crime have a higher chance of escaping without injury, people that use ANY weapon have a very high chance of escaping without injury, and people that present firearms almost always avoid injury.
All that "give him what he wants" and "don't fight back, he'll use that knife against you" is fairy tail bulls$%^& propaganda that's been tossed around for the last 50 years or so. Zero truth to it.
adam wrote:<<Genesis93>> wrote:Common trap.
We are not allowed to own, possess or carry weapons for self defence.
Symantec's really...
It's like correcting someone for saying "You aren't allowed to use life jackets / life boats" when ships aren't allowed to have life jackets and life boats, but should an emergency arise, they're allowed to use them.
And as you've suggested - you can use weapons once the situation arises (although you're not allowed to prepare for it), and then you are immediately guilty until (if) proven innocent.
In short - Australia does everything it can to stop people from being prepared to defend themselves.
<<Genesis93>> wrote:If I wanted to correct something- then I'd say it was neither semantics nor an anti-virus program
No, not at all like correcting...the lifejacket point, whatever it is... Its an important point, its the difference between people actually resisting a personal attack - because they believe they're NOT ALLOWED to......
adam wrote:And if you look at it - it's not just guns. Australia's law restricts us from even having pure defensive options as well. (aka - it's illegal for us to own or use body armour as well).
Title_II wrote:If you carry a fun in Australia you will go to jail.
adam wrote:And if you look at it - it's not just guns. Australia's law restricts us from even having pure defensive options as well. (aka - it's illegal for us to own or use body armour as well).
Heckler303 wrote:makes sense of course, there aren't any vital organs in the chest of course
<<Genesis93>> wrote:and which movie has a plane being shot down with a 50bmg??
Our most esteemed law enforcement community do indeed obtain their firearm schooling from hollywood....
Title_II wrote:<<Genesis93>> wrote:and which movie has a plane being shot down with a 50bmg??
Our most esteemed law enforcement community do indeed obtain their firearm schooling from hollywood....
Sorry about that. We keep trying to burn them down but they really do have amazing fire departments and firefighting air support. We are now trying to get Trump to agree to turn his border wall sharp north at the western edge of Arizona
Seriously, though, California is a wonderful place. If it wasn't for the people, laws, idiots, traffic, debt, and taxes it would be great. They also have a very strong (but unfortunately minority) gun community. You can check out Calguns.net.
Bottom line - there is nothing wrong with California that couldn't be fixed with about 8 or 9 neutron bombs.
Gwion wrote:Imagine how concerned you guys would be about boarder security of the Mexican boarder stretched most of the way up the Western Seaboard!??!