Guns

Every storekeeper should buy a .45 and learn how to shoot straight. If you don’t agree, just have a look at this:

(I know it’s totally off-topic as regards languages - sorry! But the CCTV footage in this video is one of the most shockingly brutal things I’ve seen in a long while :-0)

Some Krav Maga wouldn’t go amiss, either.

There was some guy in like Georgia or North Carolina or somewhere saying that all kids should be allowed to carry guns on school grounds, so that if there is a shooting they all can defend themselves.
My response: … I don’t want to live on this planet anymore…

There was a guy in my Fiction class (college) saying that he doesn’t understand why they don’t allow people licensed to carry weapons on campuses.
My Response: Thank goodness, I was just saying we should go back to the good old days when us simple folk were protected by the cowboys from the outlaws.

There was already a heated gun rights “battle” on the LingQ forums over a year ago or so. Its a very sensitive issue in my state as concealed carry just became legal very recently. And of course, our state has failed to degrade into the wild west. Shootings have not increased, and the only shooting from a licensed concealed carrier happened recently in an Aldi which resulted in the perpetrator being shot and everyone else being perfectly safe.

This attitude that “more guns = more shootings” is completely unfounded. People do the shooting, not the firearms. Simply having a firearm doesn’t make you any more likely to haul up and shoot somebody than your nature. Giving a bunch of boy scouts hunting knives certainly hasn’t increased the incidences of youth stabbing any. If you are a person who is going to shoot someone in public, chances are you are NOT eligible for a concealed carry license, you already have a gun, and you are going to carry it whether the law allows you to or not. Concealed Carry licenses just allow those who actually abide by the law another avenue to protect themselves with. Interesting statistic, in the United States, rural areas are the areas with the most guns per capita, and yet have the lowest crime rates. Its obviously not the guns that cause the crime, and nobody robs the house of the owner who advertises that they own guns.

As for hand to hand systems like Krav Maga: its a good system, I like it. Bas Rutten endorses it, so it must be pretty good. I’ve always been partial to WW2 combatives myself, the W.E. Fairbairn (who was a Brit btw) type; yet I feel its important to back these and any other “street survival” / primarily striking arts with a solid sport grappling art such as Judo or wrestling. Not only will they round out your skills and give you a great cardiovascular workout, but the rough and tumble nature of grappling training prepares you very well mentally and physically for the rough and tumble nature of a hand to hand self defense scenario.

Three great books on the subject of hand to hand self defense, all written by Geoff Thompson (another Brit, you Brits sure like your fighting) are “Dead or Alive”, “The Three Second Fighter”, and “Animal Day”. What I like about these books is that they do not push a particular martial art as the “most effective self defense system” (although Geoff himself prefers a boxing/Judo combination) but rather how to take the arts you are already skilled in, fill in any gaps, and apply them most effectively to personal defense. Much of the books are about your mental state and how you control your body’s reaction to adrenaline, as well as what is going through an attackers’ mind at the time of the attack and what to expect from them / control or defuse the attack. Excellent reading whether you are packing heat or just the “guns” in your t-shirt sleeves.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Maybe it’s just because I’m live here in high gun crime St. Louis, But I am skeptical of all these “give guns to everyone” mentalities. Actually I live in lovely suburbs, but very close by some apartments, a man was mugged, but this man had a concealed weapon and shot the robber dead. I consider it a victory. But I still think the way I do.
That said, I am going to a shooting range in the near future, planned with friends.

I just think: http://tinyurl.com/6tgga83

Well I just think: TinyURL.com - shorten that long URL into a tiny URL

I’m 100% with Odiernod on this. Sure, in an ideal world there wouldn’t be any weapons. But then, in an ideal world there wouldn’t be any criminals and dangerous nutcases out there either.

The bad guys are always going to carry guns and knives regardless of the law. Therefore anti-gun laws actually favour the criminal, because they ensure that he will always have the upper hand when attacking or robbing an honest and law-abiding citizen.

Unarmed combat is all very well. But if some nutcase walks into a store, savagely cuts a guy’s throat, and then starts stabbing and slashing (as in the video I linked to above) you absolutely need to have someone ready to hand with a firearm who can aim straight - otherwise lots of innocent folks are going to die a truly horrible death.

I salute the store owner in this video for shooting the attacker. I was glad to hear that the poor guy who had his throat cut survived. I hope that the knife-maniac was fatally hit.

So what happens when two people get into an altercation, perhaps a fist-fight, and they are both carrying guns to “protect” themselves?

Perhaps we could find some footage of a shop owner pulling out a machine gun to defend himself in some third world country. Should we do the same?

Peter, the law would only allow you to use a firearm if someone attacks you (or another person) with a lethal weapon. If someone just takes a swing at you, you wouldn’t be justified in pulling a gun - obviously.

It should also be fairly obvious that a machine gun would not be an appropriate weapon to use in a store. (Yeah, you’d get the attacker - but you’d be almost certain to take out innocent bystanders too.)

“Should we do the same?”

No - we should have a hand gun and know how to aim it well.

Do you think two guys who get into a fight, and are both carrying weapons, are worried about waiting for the appropriate moment to pull out the gun? After all, they might be worried about the other guy disarming them as well.

In a lot of the street fights that you see these days either in real life or on video (especially with younger guys), they behave as if they are trying to kill each other, and there appears to be a real hatred there. I wouldn’t want to see guns thrown into the mix…

The dynamics of gun ownership are different in different places. The US is flooded with small arms. The cat’s out of the bag, so to speak. And there is a lot of violent crime there. So, given those realities, it might very well be a good idea to have a handgun and to know how to use it.

In other countries, handguns are relatively uncommon and difficult even for criminals to get, and there isn’t much violent crime. I live in Japan, where this is more or less the case. I think this is also the case in Canada - although less so than Japan of course.

I can’t speak to the situation in Turkey. It’s good that this fellow had a gun and was able to defend himself from an attacker. Things worked out well in this situation. However, that doesn’t mean that, on balance, the easy availability of handguns makes a society better off.

If I lived in a place where there was lots of violent crime and the criminals were generally armed, I might want to have a gun. But I would also wonder why my society was like that. It’s a bit Mad Max, isn’t it?

The scenario where two people get into a fight where both are armed happens all the time here in America where it is legal to carry in 49 states, and people aren’t just whipping our guns out and shooting each other. Why? Because humans have enough situational awareness to know when it is appropriate to use lethal force and when it isn’t. This idea that a possession of a lethal weapon is going to somehow magically turn everyone into a bloodthirsty loon is preposterous. Going back to my boy scouts example, fist fights happen between boy scouts on long camping trips but no one is pulling out their hatchets or buck knives to stab the other.

@Bortrun There are also places with plenty of hand guns and low violent crime, rural America being one of them. As we’ve discussed in this thread, the number of small arms has nothing to do with the cause of the crime. Societal factors, culture, play a much bigger part in crime rate than do “who has access to weapons”. Even handgun accessibility in Japan were to suddenly equal that of America, I would highly doubt there would be any increase in violent crime.

Hi Mark,Nice to meet you :slight_smile:

You have your point of view,I have mine :))

I don’t want to attach so much importance to every kind of comment that talks about Turkey.But,come on guys,let me explain; I live in Istanbul which is a remarkable city for so many reason. I also had a chance to see many countries.(including U.S/Far east)But I have never been in Canada before,so I have no idea about Canada.

Have you ever been in Turkey before or do you have any Turkish friend? What kind of place Turkey is?I think,a lot of people may be familiar with Istanbul (even in our LingQ community)

I don’t know where you get the idea of Turkey being a country of attackers (maybe from many American tv shows like CSI which shows Turks as terrorists) and remember you shouldn’t judge a book from the cover.

Yes I accept,there can be some incident somewhere in the city like as…cities,but I do not remember any kind of unpleasant incident that I have experienced by myself,so I don’t need to have a gun.As for me(I’m a psychologist)the idea of gun ownership can be dangerous when two people get into an altercation.Anyway,maybe we can stay away from places where events could be .
If I could be a native English speaker,I would explain more clearly.Sorry about that.

I feel that your guns-for-all will not do anything to address the issues causing the crime in the first place. Without stopping the problem at it’s source, nothing really has gotten any better.
How does conceal and carry do away with the ghettos and gang violence that plagues American cities?
I’m afraid people who get to carry a gun will feel no obligation to pay attention to the plight of their society.

It also takes the assumption that the “good guy” with the gun will win in any altercation. When it’s likely this criminal mugging you kills you and just robs your dead corpse, and now gets a free gun. I don’t see how one feels safe having a gun, when presented with a threat, you still have the chance to die or get injured. But somehow it’s better now because you can get them back?!
Do people think they are all James Bond?

“How does conceal and carry do away with the ghettos and gang violence that plagues American cities?” It doesn’t, and neither will “guns-for-none”. The point is to be able to better protect yourself against assault, which is a real possibility. I will address this further down in the message.

“I’m afraid people who get to carry a gun will feel no obligation to pay attention to the plight of their society…” On what do you base this fear? How will forcing them to be defenseless improve anything?

“It also takes the assumption that the “good guy” with the gun will win in any altercation. When it’s likely this criminal mugging you kills you and just robs your dead corpse, and now gets a free gun.” This is frankly untrue. History shows time and again that those with a victim mentality are the ones who get victimized, and that those who defend themselves fare better than those that comply. An estimated 800,000-2,500,000 crimes are stopped by guns each year in the US, often only needing to use them as a deterrent.

“I don’t see how one feels safe having a gun, when presented with a threat, you still have the chance to die or get injured.” True, but you have “less” of a chance to die or get injured, because you deter the criminal by making them become aware that THEY now have a chance to die or get injured.

“Do people think they are all James Bond?” Statements like this make it appear as though your arguments against firearms have much less to do with logic and much more to do with emotion. Have you ever fired a firearm before?

@Farrago: “…It also takes the assumption that the “good guy” with the gun will win in any altercation.”

I think we can be pretty sure about one thing: if honest and law abiding people are never armed, then the bad guys are always (or nearly always) going to win, aren’t they?

If people such as the store-owner in the video that I linked to are armed, they do at least have some kind of chance to defend themselves against lethal attacks, don’t they?

I have to agree with Odiernod that the James-Bond comment was a little silly. The guy in this video wasn’t trying to be “James Bond”: he was just an ordinary working man who was subjected to a savage and totally unprovoked knife-assault!

@odiernod,

I agree that the number of small arms is not connected to the causes of crime. In recent years in Japan, we’ve had some high-profile knife attacks, as well as cases of disturbed people simply driving vehicles into crowds of people. There was an incident like that in Akihabara a couple of years ago. However, I disagree with you when you say that an increase in gun availability in Japan would not entail an increase in violent crime. This is simply because if you want to rob a store, you’re more likely (I think) to actually do it if you’ve got handguns. Pointing a gun at someone and actually getting close enough to them to threaten them with a knife are two different things.

Maybe I’m wrong - I’m certainly not an expert on criminal psychology - but it seems like people without access to guns are a lot less likely to commit robberies and so on. And the conflicts between young people, for example, are less likely to escalate into the gangland shooting sprees that one sees in the States.

Look at the ongoing drug war in Mexico. It’s being fought with assault rifles smuggled across the border from the US. If those guns were not available in the US (as they don’t appear to be available in Mexico), then that would change the dynamic of the Mexican drug war, would it not?

I’m sure it’s true that there are lots of handguns and little violent crime in rural America. I assume there’s relatively little violent crime in rural everywhere, regardless of the availability of guns. That’s simply a consequence of living in a place where there are relatively few people, and even fewer strangers.

Nevertheless, I take your point that the root causes of crime are things other than the availability of guns. When I hear comments like the ones you are Rank are making, it strikes me as the sort of talk one hears from people living in a war zone or something. I understand that people have to deal with the situation in which they find themselves, but faced with the choice between the situation in the States, and the situation in the rest of the developed world, I would choose the gunless society.

Hi ozne,

I think there may have been a misunderstanding. What I meant to say was that I don’t know very much about Turkey, so I can’t comment on Turkey. I don’t know how much crime there is in Turkey, and I don’t know how many people have guns. I didn’t mean to say anything negative about Turkey.

What I wanted to say was that a video of one guy successfully defending himself with a gun doesn’t mean that having lots of guns in society is a good idea. After all, the attacker didn’t have a gun.

Yes it was silly, it wasn’t supposed to be literal. That situation is not the one I was picturing. I was picturing walking down the street and someone mugs you at gun point. You now have to pull out your weapon, turn the safety off and point it at him. How? You are just going to get shot.
Referring people carrying their guns around, some I know, feeling like their on top of the world and nothing can get them now. I think what attracts some of these people to guns is the feeling of power, not this logic they try to push.
I don’t think their chances are as great at success as they think they are. Nor do I think they will have any effect on bringing crime down by carrying. Nor does it solve any problem but peace of mind.

“On what do you base this fear? How will forcing them to be defenseless improve anything?”
It won’t. That’s my point. Nothing is accomplished from your way.
Because they clearly want the power. They want to protect, themselves their loved ones. Once they have that, why is there need to fear? All this american individualism these days, it’s every man for himself.

“It doesn’t, and neither will “guns-for-none”. The point is to be able to better protect yourself against assault, which is a real possibility. I will address this further down in the message.”
<> Which I was just saying is why I think they’ll care less about helping solve the problems in society, the ghettos of violence and street crimes. What’s causing them in the first place that goes ignored. If anything it’s trying to deal with the consequences of larger societal problems by helping us get rid of the symptom of a disease and calling ourselves cured.

“This is frankly untrue. History shows time and again that those with a victim mentality are the ones who get victimized, and that those who defend themselves fare better than those that comply. An estimated 800,000-2,500,000 crimes are stopped by guns each year in the US, often only needing to use them as a deterrent.”
Firstly, that is little information on a powerful statistic.
I was pointing out the subjectivity of the situation, kid kills bullies (Ohio). My friend said those bullies got what they deserved. Technically this kid was protecting himself, from a threat that he experienced daily. Hmm …protecting one’s life from threats…with guns…
Yet, he’s going to be demonized. You’ll do the same because “they were unarmed” “innocent people”. I don’t think i’m arguing this seriously, but rather being the devil’s advocate. But for a fact that I find this good vs evil in all your situations rather simplistic.

"True, but you have “less” of a chance to die or get injured, because you deter the criminal by making them become aware that THEY now have a chance to die or get injured. "
Negligibly you have raised your chances. As I said, Their weapon is in use, yours is concealed still. Unless they are just drugged out of their mind or carrying a water gun… So their advantage is significant. Maybe It’ll be a throw back mugging/assault and you’ll get a knife guy.
Now I’m not sure what crime goes on where you are, but there are parts of this city I know never to go to, the police know never to go to. If you are jumped in these areas (East St. Louis, Illinois)(Kinloch, St. Louis County)(North St. Louis City), for example, the person you are dealing with (unless they are new) will know guns and have little value for their own life. They’ve probably been shot at before, they aren’t going to fear some “rich” boy with a handgun.

That said I probably never will experience any of this myself, my naturally paranoid nature.

Feel free to tear apart those statements.
But I leave on this.

I don’t want to have the assault in the first place, this conflict, this violence. In fact, I shouldn’t have to experience it at all. So for the notion that I should just get a gun, does not satisfy me or help me to accomplish this.
My response is that, This is not a solution to a problem.
If anything it’s trying to deal with the consequences of larger societal problems by helping us get rid of the symptom of a disease and calling ourselves cured.

That was my main theme. Anything beyond his is me being a devils advocate.

Yes, I’ve shot before. Hand guns? Was a really long time ago, I was pretty young, idr when it was at great-grandma’s and she hasn’t been around for a long time.
Like rifles? As recently as high school. But not for many years since have I used a firearm.
My brother has a gun in the house. A gun which recently went off in the house. He recently filed for a conceal and carry and was denied. I know this because I went through his mail, holding it up to the light. Don’t judge me.

@Bortrun: “…Maybe I’m wrong - I’m certainly not an expert on criminal psychology - but it seems like people without access to guns are a lot less likely to commit robberies and so on.”

I would want to see some proof of this. But in any case, I think this is missing the point, Bortrun.

Criminals DO have access to guns - fact.

You only have to look at a society such as the UK where I live. This country has - literally - the toughest gun-control laws in the entire world. Private ownership of handguns is completely banned. Yet any police officer here will tell you that cities like London or Manchester are completely awash with illegally held handguns!

Result: the only people who DON’T have access to handguns here are the good law abiding citizens!


@Farrago

I would agree with you that we should be doing everything possible to reduce violent crime and to address the underlying causes thereof in society (such as drug addiction, etc.) I don’t see that gun ownership by law abiding people is in any way a substitute for doing this, they are too different things.

BTW
I wouldn’t entirely dismiss a compromise, where citizens would not be allowed to carry around handguns unless they are locked in a metal case. That way legal handguns would be kept off the streets, but folks would at least still be able to keep them ready to hand in their homes or businesses for protection against violent criminals.