Ban Knives!

[billvon 3,111]

>If they had a knife we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

I don't know that he didn't; all I know is that he didn't get my wallet and I didn't get hurt.

>If they're on you, its pretty much too late to draw and fire, you have
>to engage the opposition then gain distance.

I'm curious what you would have done. You are jam packed in a crowd of partyers. How do you maintain your distance? How do you keep your eye out for someone sneaking up on you?

So you identify someone. How do you "engage the opposition and then gain distance?" Let's say you do that. Do you really fire into a crowd?

[AggieDave 6]

If you want to continue in the PMs, if you're honestly curious about personal defesne, then please feel free to PM me.

Like I said, this arguement is quite old, its been debated many times over on DZ.com and I'm not even really sure why I started into the thread in the first place. People either will identify a potential threat in the lives and take steps to alieviate the threat or they will ignore it all. Nothing that is said here will ever change their mind. Only a personal experience will.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Kennedy 0]

What is it with you?

Why do you insist on thinking that every instance of self defense ends in someone being shot?

You really need to accept the idea that most bad guys run away when a person points a gun at them. And it ends there.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,111]

>then please feel free to PM me.

Done.

>People either will identify a potential threat in the lives and take steps
>to alieviate the threat or they will ignore it all. Nothing that is said here will
>ever change their mind. Only a personal experience will.

No problem there. But keep in mind that you become annoyed when people ask you questions about how you defend yourself; you have claimed that people who don't carry a gun or a knife are "ignoring the threat." Just as you get annoyed when people question you, other people may become annoyed by your inference that the way they choose to defend themselves makes them sheep.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

What is it with you?

What is it with you that you think you need a knife or gun for self defense?

You really need to accept the idea that there are more ways to deal with a situation then pointing guns at them.

By the way, I am still waiting for your explanation of the Terry Stop to the two police officers in the other theard.......

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

you have claimed that people who don't carry a gun or a knife are "ignoring the threat."

Not quite, my point was that people who try to tell me that creating laws that prevent me and others from being armed, are ignoring the threat.

Quote

other people may become annoyed by your inference that the way they choose to defend themselves makes them sheep.

Good. Maybe they'll actually think about it and decide to learn a little about self defense. Be it a martial arts class, or simply being a little more aware of their surroundings. Annoying people isn't a concern, helping people understand is important. Sort of like pissing off the lowbie with a high wingloading by telling him that he needs help, this is how to do it, then the lowbie getting pissed. Fine, let him get pissed, but maybe he'll actually think about it later. I'm sure you've experienced that as a S&TA.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

What is it with you that you think you need a knife or gun for self defense?

The fact that they are the most effective means of self defense when forced to protect yourself.

Quote

You really need to accept the idea that there are more ways to deal with a situation then pointing guns at them.

Why must you assume that people who carry effective means of self defense are unaware "that there are more ways to deal with a situation then pointing guns at them?"

How many times must AggieDave, JohnRich, PeacefulJeffrey, and I describe to you, in better detail than you yourself provide, how we all would attempt deescalation and/or leaving the area?

Quote

By the way, I am still waiting for your explanation of the Terry Stop to the two police officers in the other theard.......

Yeah? Go ahead and hold your breath. I made my exit from that thread very clear.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[wmw999 2,587]

My argument is perfectly solid. We differ on how much preparation is necessary, and, well, I have evidence to show that my approach works for me.

We see things differently; nothing wrong with that. But there is more than one approach.

Note: my evidence that my approach to personal safety is anecdotal; my own and that of family members. We've lived in cities, overseas, and traveled, without problems that required weapons. That doesn't mean it works the same for everyone, but it has been successful for a decent number of years for me.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>If you're thinking I've got a group of friends wiping their weapons
>down and sharpening knives drinking beer and talking with excitement
> about waiting for the opportunity to defend themselves . . . .

?? I didn't think that.

To me, a police officer who uses his gun has already failed in his primary job, which is keeping the peace. I am glad that he _has_ that gun to fall back on in the same way that I'm glad TM's have cypreses. Doesn't mean it's OK to depend on it, but it does save lives, as long as you don't rely on it to do so.

Ohhh, I think that is off the mark.
Yes, we do not want police officers arriving to every call with guns drawn and pointed at civilians. But to say that just because a cop has to fire at someone means he has failed in his job is ludicrous. A cop can't be arriving at a call where a guy is, say, wielding a shotgun and taking pot-shots around an apartment building? A cop can't arrive at a call where the actor is simply NOT going to do anything but physically attack anyone who comes near? It is the perpetrators who dictate whether the cop needs to use a gun, or whether he can take someone into custody peaceably.

Quote

Along those lines, how did your friends change their behavior to avoid having to use their gun/knife again? Or do they not think that way?

He has already said that they do not go about looking for trouble, do not associate with trouble-people, and were in places where trouble is not ordinarily or commonly found. Why on earth would they need to modify their behavior? I mean, short of deciding to always lock their car doors (in case any of the situations were carjackings), I don't know why you think that victims of criminal attacks who had to then defend themselves are in need of modifying their own lifestyles.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>Basically it wasn't because these folks were driving a porsche through the
>really bad part of town or putting themselves in bad situations, it was a
>situation that found them independant of their surroundings and actions.

I'm not sure I buy it. Now, relying on pulling a gun to save your life is far more dangerous than relying on a cypres to save your life. Cypreses have a pretty good track record when it comes to saving people's lives; the number of times that producing a gun prevents (rather than precipitates) violence is nowhere near that number.

Now it's my turn to not buy it. In fact, I return it as defective merchandise.

On what basis do you make the claim that the number of times a gun prevents violence is nowhere near [the number of CYPRES saves]?! The very thing you doubt happens many thousands of times each year. Also, it is unreasonable of you to draw the line of a gun's usefulness at the idea that "it has to be not-fired to have been useful." That's baloney. If the degree of the threat rises to the justification of a defender drawing a gun, from that point, whether or not it is fired becomes dependent almost fully on whether the attacker flees at the sight of it. And as far as I am concerned, no great ill has been done if a defender does actually have to shoot an attacker who was so dumb as to press an illegal attack on a person to the point of getting shot. I say good riddance, not "Aww, what a pity someone had to get shot." The "someone" was a criminal who attacked someone without justification! Where is the loss? Where is the tragedy?

Quote

So it behooves people to avoid such situations to begin with.

I was about to ask you if you had written this reply prior to reading Dave's explanation about his acquaintances, but I see you already had, by virtue of your having quoted him! Why are you still blaming these people for having had to use a gun for defense when it's been outlined that they were not putting themselves at inordinate risk??

Quote

What worries me is that there may be people who say "Hey, I don't need to change my behavior - I have a gun!" They don't move to a safer part of the city, or avoid walking at night, or get a security system. Why should they? They have a gun.

Are you going to present to us any evidence that anyone represented here on this forum possesses that kind of ignorant attitude? I don't. I'm sure Dave doesn't. It's impossible for me to imagine John Rich or Winsor do. Where are all these people you claim are living recklessly at the edge of danger just because they have a gun?? I think you are manufacturing this boogeyman.

Quote

I see such attitudes as very similar to the "hey, I don't need to avoid jumping with Zoe the Zoo Load Chick - I have a cypres!" I have met people in the real world who had such an attitude towards guns, and they are examples of people who are less safe, rather than more safe, because of their reliance upon their weapons. I remember one guy from where I grew up who got in a knife fight in a bar. When he got out of the hospital, his comment was "good thing I had a knife! This thing's never leaving my side again when I go out drinking."

You claim you "see such attitudes," and you "have met such people"... And then the only example you give is about a drunk who was glad to have had a knife on him when he got himself into trouble.

Do you see why I think your heuristic is flawed here?

Quote

Now, I don't know any of your friends that you describe above, and I don't know their attitudes as well as you do. I hope, though, that their weapons do not make them feel that they are protected enough to not take whatever precautions they have to take to avoid needing them.

You don't seem keen on letting your not knowing them hold you back from impugning them as no different from your knife-wielding friend.

Once again, I hope you will re-read Dave's post and see that he already clarified that his friends were not asking for trouble, nor flirting with it for the simple sake that they had guns to bail them out.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Those who recognise the threat in society, understanding the threat level and situational awareness, and then there are the sheep. The sheep are blind to the threats around them in every day life. The sheep are the ones that become victims

Are they? Or are the ones who recognize the threat, and spend a lot of time and heartache on it, the ones who are victimized, a little at a time.

I don't choose to spend my life in fear, looking for the next person who's going to offend me. I choose to think the best of people, while taking small steps for safety (I do lock my house, but not even my car most of the time). To me, spending time and money on constant contingency planning is being victimized just as much as the person who is mugged and doesn't have their gun handy.

Wendy W.

Why is LIFE the only place you won't spend time or money planning for contingencies? You do it when you skydive (CYPRES, Reserve); you do it when you boat (PFD); you do it when you go online (firewall, antivirus); you do it in all kinds of venues.

You are off the mark if you think that learning to protect ourselves and keeping the equipment for doing so on hand means we are "victimized" by the specter of violence by criminal attackers. I have a kitchen fire extinguisher but I do NOT "FEAR" a kitchen fire, and it does not occupy my thoughts. Nor does having a gun on me when I go out in public weigh on me, nor do thoughts of what I would do if I had to use it for defense. There is no victimization going on here except in some strange abstract sense that you are trying to contrive into us.

I find it odd that you defend the practice of not locking your car, as though you are proving how tough and unperturbed you are by the possibility of personal and property crimes that people out there ARE hoping to commit against you or people like you. Is locking your car a concession to fear?!

I understand "choosing to think the best of people," but that makes sense when you're talking about your friends, family and acquaintances. That is not a rational thing to do of the public as a whole. It is a mindset that pretends that there are no truly threatening, evil, harmful people out there waiting to cross paths with potential victims.

If you truly "choose to think the best of people," does that mean it's a concession to fear if you use a condom during sex with a new boyfriend, because that's not "giving him the benefit of the doubt" (which is part of what I take "thinking the best of people" to mean)?

I think your policy sounds more like, "If you're born to hang, you ain't gonna drown," (one of my dad's favorites), which, boiled down, means, "If it's destined to happen to me, it'll happen," and which presupposes that you cannot affect which direction your life jaunts off in. It sounds terribly wishy-washy to leave to chance things like how easy your car is to break into, or carjack. You leave the doors unlocked to prove that you are not living in fear of the crimes. Then if the crimes happen to you BECAUSE you left the doors unlocked, you'll probably end up with a new sense of fear that will haunt you worse than the idea of maybe having to protect yourself some day every did.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>then please feel free to PM me.

Done.

>People either will identify a potential threat in the lives and take steps
>to alieviate the threat or they will ignore it all. Nothing that is said here will
>ever change their mind. Only a personal experience will.

No problem there. But keep in mind that you become annoyed when people ask you questions about how you defend yourself; you have claimed that people who don't carry a gun or a knife are "ignoring the threat." Just as you get annoyed when people question you, other people may become annoyed by your inference that the way they choose to defend themselves makes them sheep.

Funny, I thought he was talking about how people choose NOT to defend themselves. How they choose to ABROGATE their right and ability to maintain defensive potential.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

My argument is perfectly solid. We differ on how much preparation is necessary, and, well, I have evidence to show that my approach works for me.

That is absolutely false.

Your approach ("Don't Prepare") has not "worked."
What you illustrate is that it simply has never been put to the test.

This is rather like saying, "My approach to water safety -- 'Not Wearing a type III PFD' -- has worked so far," when you have never been knocked unconscious and into open water!

You're saying, "I'll take no steps to learn how to, or equip myself to, deal with a violent criminal attack, and see how it goes from there." And then you cite never having been attacked as proof that your means and preparedness for dealing with an attack are satisfactory.

Specious.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[juanesky 0]

Ah!!! Elmo's world.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Now, relying on pulling a gun to save your life is far more dangerous than relying on a cypres to save your life. Cypreses have a pretty good track record when it comes to saving people's lives; the number of times that producing a gun prevents (rather than precipitates) violence is nowhere near that number. So it behooves people to avoid such situations to begin with.

OK, I have to pipe up here.

First off, the Clinton Dept of Justice came out with a study stating that there are MILLIONS of crimes stopped by citizens presenting a gun for self defense. That's right. Millions. Every year.

I rely on a firearm to be my last line of self defense. I don't pull it out everytime someone cuts in line, and I don't ignore all the steps that can lead to NOT needing to draw.

Quote

What worries me is that there may be people who say "Hey, I don't need to change my behavior - I have a gun!" They don't move to a safer part of the city, or avoid walking at night, or get a security system. Why should they? They have a gun.

I see such attitudes as very similar to the "hey, I don't need to avoid jumping with Zoe the Zoo Load Chick - I have a cypres!" I have met people in the real world who had such an attitude towards guns, and they are examples of people who are less safe, rather than more safe, because of their reliance upon their weapons.

How many people have to tell you that we don't think that way before you accept it? There will always be idiots. Do want everyone restricted to what idiots can do safely?

Before answering, remember that idiots can't skydive safely.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*