Conquer Club

A deputy sheriff went berserk and killed half a dozen people in Wisconsin, because he was mad at his girl friend. He may also have been a member of the local SWAT team. Because of federal largesse, every local government entity worth mentioning has one. Remember, one of the most horrible things you and I could do, worse than child abuse, worse than anything you can think of, is “take the law into our own hands.” Instead, say the liberaloid gun confiscation Nazis, we should rely on the expertise of men like the one who killed those six people.

At the same time, in New York City, another man went berserk—apparently he went off his medication—slashed the throat of a chef and then repeatedly stabbed a woman who was walking her dog. Nobody could stop him because nobody was armed. Nobody was armed because New Yorkers are much more intelligent and civilized than you and I are. Finally, an off duty cop did stop him, and you will be relieved to know that, after he stopped him, the cop, according to procedure, was given and passed a sobriety test.

Arm yourselves!

http://www.alanstang.com

Better then the last few threads at least.

xtratabasco wrote:A deputy sheriff went berserk and killed half a dozen people in Wisconsin, because he was mad at his girl friend. He may also have been a member of the local SWAT team. Because of federal largesse, every local government entity worth mentioning has one. Remember, one of the most horrible things you and I could do, worse than child abuse, worse than anything you can think of, is “take the law into our own hands.” Instead, say the liberaloid gun confiscation Nazis, we should rely on the expertise of men like the one who killed those six people.

At the same time, in New York City, another man went berserk—apparently he went off his medication—slashed the throat of a chef and then repeatedly stabbed a woman who was walking her dog. Nobody could stop him because nobody was armed. Nobody was armed because New Yorkers are much more intelligent and civilized than you and I are. Finally, an off duty cop did stop him, and you will be relieved to know that, after he stopped him, the cop, according to procedure, was given and passed a sobriety test.

Arm yourselves!

http://www.alanstang.com

Firstly, using "mad" people as a reason for gun legalisation does not stand up well. Secondly, a single off duty cop could stop the attack in New York, but all other passer-bys couldnt? I call that cowardice and not looking out for others on the part of those people.

You examples also prove a point. People with guns can kill multiple times with ease. Without guns it is harder to commit mass murder, and the victim also has a chance of survival or to fight back, ie, a martial artists or in good shape person could fight back or at least run away. If they have a gun, you stand no chance.

muy_thaiguy wrote:Better then the last few threads at least.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Titanic wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:A deputy sheriff went berserk and killed half a dozen people in Wisconsin, because he was mad at his girl friend. He may also have been a member of the local SWAT team. Because of federal largesse, every local government entity worth mentioning has one. Remember, one of the most horrible things you and I could do, worse than child abuse, worse than anything you can think of, is “take the law into our own hands.” Instead, say the liberaloid gun confiscation Nazis, we should rely on the expertise of men like the one who killed those six people.

At the same time, in New York City, another man went berserk—apparently he went off his medication—slashed the throat of a chef and then repeatedly stabbed a woman who was walking her dog. Nobody could stop him because nobody was armed. Nobody was armed because New Yorkers are much more intelligent and civilized than you and I are. Finally, an off duty cop did stop him, and you will be relieved to know that, after he stopped him, the cop, according to procedure, was given and passed a sobriety test.

Arm yourselves!

http://www.alanstang.com

Firstly, using "mad" people as a reason for gun legalisation does not stand up well. Secondly, a single off duty cop could stop the attack in New York, but all other passer-bys couldnt? I call that cowardice and not looking out for others on the part of those people.

You examples also prove a point. People with guns can kill multiple times with ease. Without guns it is harder to commit mass murder, and the victim also has a chance of survival or to fight back, ie, a martial artists or in good shape person could fight back or at least run away. If they have a gun, you stand no chance.

Titanic, speaking as a Martial Artist for 4 years, and with advice of those who have been doing it longer then I have, most would rather face a gun then a knife or other sharp object. Granted from a good distance away, it is going to be trouble. But to render a gun practically useless, is much easier then a knife. A gun, if it is in close, all you have to do is point the barrel away from you, for knives, unless you know EXACTLY what to do and the right time to do it and that you can do it under that much pressure, you are screwed.

Errr, so why do we have guns?

the major flaw in your thinking mtg (imo at least) is the average person will be no more able to turn the barrel of a gun away than to avert the danger from a knife, the fear is still the same. However, the utility in killing with a knife is less than it is with a gun. I can maybe out run someone with a knife, i probably cant out run bullets. I bet if you asked the average person (anyone not trained in self defense) they take their chances with a knife.

it depends on surroundings. . . if there are potential projectiles (i.e. rocks of a decent size) then a knife would be much preferable in my opinion.

got tonkaed wrote:the major flaw in your thinking mtg (imo at least) is the average person will be no more able to turn the barrel of a gun away than to avert the danger from a knife, the fear is still the same. However, the utility in killing with a knife is less than it is with a gun. I can maybe out run someone with a knife, i probably cant out run bullets. I bet if you asked the average person (anyone not trained in self defense) they take their chances with a knife.

But a knife (depending of course) has more danger points then a gun does. Most people only think the gun is more dangerous because of the bullet. The knife can be thrown (not hard to do after a little practice) and of course used to say, cut the face off of someone. The knife, has the point, the edge, and the butt, the gun, the bullet, and the butt. Most people don't use the butt of the gun (be it hand gun or rifle). Also, the bullet is limited in number, as is the knife when thrown. But guns were never really meant for up close fights. Knives are. Knives can also be hidden in your pocket, shoe, shirt, pants, whatever. Not so easy with a gun. Thus, the knife is rendered much more lethal while the gun is lethal only to a certain extent.

I am trained in self-defense and i would take a guy with a knife over a guy with a gun. The guy with the knife would have to get into a range where I could defend myself against him by keeping out of range, gaging his attack by how he moves in and acting accordingly. While a guy with a gun does not necessarily have to get close to kill you, you'd have to find a way to get him in there. And as has been said, guns are more fatal too. As for throwing knives most people you meet will not be able to do that and the ones who can have to make sure that they get a good shot in because if they miss they've just disarmed themselves.

ah, but a gun usually has extra ammunition (normally in the form of a clip) whereas a knife is singular. once you throw it, you're on your own. yes, you could bring multiple knives to throw, but that's not the given scenario.

spurgistan wrote:Errr, so why do we have guns?

They are quite useful when you want to kill something, imho.

The Weird One wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Better then the last few threads at least.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Fircoal wrote:

The Weird One wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Better then the last few threads at least.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

I wholeheartedly couldn't care any less.

Coleman wrote:

spurgistan wrote:Errr, so why do we have guns?

They are quite useful when you want to kill something, imho.

That was a response to MTG's thing stating that guns are easier to defend against than knives. Which, disregarding certain instances when jamming a gun against somebody trained in martial arts, is rather nuts.

spurgistan wrote:

Coleman wrote:

spurgistan wrote:Errr, so why do we have guns?

They are quite useful when you want to kill something, imho.

That was a response to MTG's thing stating that guns are easier to defend against than knives. Which, disregarding certain instances when jamming a gun against somebody trained in martial arts, is rather nuts.

Unless you have horrible accuracy why even risk getting up close enough for the person to reach out and touch the gun? That's just asking for trouble.

I'd get up close with a shotgun.

strike wolf wrote:I am trained in self-defense and i would take a guy with a knife over a guy with a gun. The guy with the knife would have to get into a range where I could defend myself against him by keeping out of range, gaging his attack by how he moves in and acting accordingly. While a guy with a gun does not necessarily have to get close to kill you, you'd have to find a way to get him in there. And as has been said, guns are more fatal too. As for throwing knives most people you meet will not be able to do that and the ones who can have to make sure that they get a good shot in because if they miss they've just disarmed themselves.

If I was the guy with the knife, I would hide it and strike when you less expect it. I wouldn't get the knife out at a mile distance and laught at you asking for you to defend yourself.

..Same with the gun, really.

Basicly, anyone who is armed, whatever weapon, is going to have an advantage if they want to kill. They would do it unexpectly.

Summerize:

Guns are more dangerous when you're not close.

Knife is more dangerous close-combat.


But whoever is insane enough is the real danger, whatever weapon they own.

Coleman wrote:I'd get up close with a shotgun.

A shotgun is even more dangerous mid-range. Close is even less dangerous.

freezie wrote:

strike wolf wrote:I am trained in self-defense and i would take a guy with a knife over a guy with a gun. The guy with the knife would have to get into a range where I could defend myself against him by keeping out of range, gaging his attack by how he moves in and acting accordingly. While a guy with a gun does not necessarily have to get close to kill you, you'd have to find a way to get him in there. And as has been said, guns are more fatal too. As for throwing knives most people you meet will not be able to do that and the ones who can have to make sure that they get a good shot in because if they miss they've just disarmed themselves.

If I was the guy with the knife, I would hide it and strike when you less expect it. I wouldn't get the knife out at a mile distance and laught at you asking for you to defend yourself.

..Same with the gun, really.

Basicly, anyone who is armed, whatever weapon, is going to have an advantage if they want to kill. They would do it unexpectly.

Summerize:

Guns are more dangerous when you're not close.

Knife is more dangerous close-combat.


But whoever is insane enough is the real danger, whatever weapon they own.

This scenario is supposed to be a guy trying to intervene after the weapon has been revealed there's won't be any surprise attacks like that.

But no there is no guarrantee that you can defend yourself from any weapon.

Coleman wrote:

Fircoal wrote:

The Weird One wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Better then the last few threads at least.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

I wholeheartedly couldn't care any less.

I'm half and half on this whole thing.

True I think we should arm ourselves, but some more then others, and some less then others.

For me, my whole family is very well armed but not because of humans but because of the moose and bears that come though my yard every now and then, they are even worse then a human even with out a gun.

war_bloodline wrote:

Coleman wrote:

Fircoal wrote:

The Weird One wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Better then the last few threads at least.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

I wholeheartedly couldn't care any less.

I'm half and half on this whole thing.

True I think we should arm ourselves, but some more then others, and some less then others.

For me, my whole family is very well armed but not because of humans but because of the moose and bears that come though my yard every now and then, they are even worse then a human even with out a gun.

we have a similar problem here but it's more coyotes than anything. Bears are extremely rare.

war_bloodline wrote:

Coleman wrote:

Fircoal wrote:

The Weird One wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Better then the last few threads at least.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

I wholeheartedly couldn't care any less.

I'm half and half on this whole thing.

True I think we should arm ourselves, but some more then others, and some less then others.

For me, my whole family is very well armed but not because of humans but because of the moose and bears that come though my yard every now and then, they are even worse then a human even with out a gun.

I live in an urban place, and the worse we can see outside is a cat.

So why would anyone living near me would be armed?

freezie wrote:

war_bloodline wrote:

Coleman wrote:

Fircoal wrote:

The Weird One wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Better then the last few threads at least.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

I wholeheartedly couldn't care any less.

I'm half and half on this whole thing.

True I think we should arm ourselves, but some more then others, and some less then others.

For me, my whole family is very well armed but not because of humans but because of the moose and bears that come though my yard every now and then, they are even worse then a human even with out a gun.

I live in an urban place, and the worse we can see outside is a cat.

So why would anyone living near me would be armed?

Well if everyone had a gun and someone went on a rampage, it would be very likely that someone (maybe more then one person) would be sane enough to shoot him down.

But then again I live in the mountains. Not in the city.
So I can't say that much about that.