Iron Arahat

I think what you went through is sufficient.

Don Gwinn stated "There's no safe shootout anywhere; there's nothing about being at 20,000 feet that makes it any more dangerous. " I beg to differ here, by virtue of being at 20,000 feet in a delicate machine, with stray bullets flying could have some grave consequences for passengers, or possibly everyone. It's not a shootout between two individuals on dry land. Don Gwinn "Air rage" is generally a guy who got a little tipsy and gets loud." I never suspected you to be so complacent Don. Air rage has resulted in assaults on airlines of support staff, cabin crew, and other passangers. If someone looses control, what makes you think he just doesn't want to shoot someone. Heck some people make special trips to McDonalds to shoot up the place. At 20,000 feet is just as good if not better place to die. As for tougher controls, activating all electronic devices, more thorough security checks, implementation of better equipment. Restriction of carry-on size and items permitted. Now there are always going to be ways, unless you strip everyone naked, and make them fly that way (but people could still hoop stuff). But from experience and I do fly a fair bit, security has increased, this will naturally detect more. Just remember everything isn't foolproof, even bringing a gun to a knife fight won't guarantee anything.

Don Gwinn stated "How likely are those two scenarios? Quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What has happened though is that there have been tighter controls put in place. Will it stop these things from happening? Probably not, ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You take the quote a little out of context cutting out the qualifying statement, that indicates that tighter controls will make it hader for a repeat of Septemeber 11th,2002. Let passangers carry guns on a plane to make it safer in your eyes is very short sighted. Don Gwinn stated "With enough numbers, how on Earth could it make it "easier" to hijack an airplane?" I'm sure the hostage, which could be your wife, child, baby, would be deterent enough for the average person to take a shot. I could talk for hours on criminal motivation, and psychology. Also alowing guns on planes would one up a whole can of problems, what about those who have "air rage", and just happen to bring their handgun for the trip? Nothing like a safe (sarcasim) shootout at 20,000 feet.

Back to the 22 feet thing, I will post a video later that everyone may find intresting (I just need to find the space). The criminals don't wear name tags (sarcasim). They want the element of surprise, they will pick an unsuspecting target. If they want to kill you, even if you have a gun, you will never be able to use it. Withers stated "To answer the question about why robbers are more likely to use a gun in a robbery. Well the answer is simple. Most robbers fear that a store owner or worker will be carrying a firearm." Exactly my point, so a criminal will use a gun, and be more likely to shoot a clerk under that presumtion. Also I'm sure criminals who just shoot people are mearly eliminating the risk of taking a chance of getting shot, and will get the first shot if not more by the element of surprise. Airplanes in the US seem to be popular these days to kill people as well. Do we ban them. Well of course not. That would be silly right? It would ruin the American economy, and cause problems within America. But what do we do to make the planes safer? Using the argument that guns make places safer for the public, should allow the public to carry guns on a plane? Probably not, as it would make it easier for people to hijack a plane. What has happened though is that there have been tighter controls put in place. Will it stop these things from happening? Probably not, there is always a way, but it will make things harder for a repeat of the events of September 11th to happen again. Do controls mean I can't fly, no. But I must do things in order to do so domestically now, carry ID, answer questions, security checks, body searches etc.

1) Don Gwinn stated "Why do you suppose armed robbers choose to get away in cars and not on horseback? Shall we ban cars?" 2) Don Gwinn also stated "Why do you suppose armed robbers choose to get away in cars and not on horseback? Shall we ban cars?" Points here: 1) A cars primary use and design is transportation, not a weapon. So the answer to your question is no. 2) Robber use cars over horses because of ease of access. There are more cars than horses especially in cities. It's a poor comparison, and a bad example. Don Gwinn stated "4. Once you give it to him, how does that guarantee he won't stick you for fun, or to get rid of his witness, or because there's not enough money in your wallet (happened in Springfield last year. Guy said it was disrespectful.) 5. "The chance of fatal violence" and "escalation" are misleading terms. The chance of fatal violence is indeed 100% if I shoot the slug who is threatening to kill me. However, that is not a bad thing. The chance of fatal violence inflicted upon the innocent party is actually much less if you resist with a firearm than it is for any other form of resistance OR for cooperation." 4. Chances a guy is within range to stab you before you draw your weapon. One could argue, that you could see it coming and draw your weapon. One could also argue that you could also run at this point as well. 5. These terms are not misleading. A criminal in many cases will feel justified shooting you in a robbery, because you have a gun. Refer to any 7-eleven clerk that got shot for pulling a gun during a robbery. 6. Action beats reaction....precisley. You think that criminals wear name tags? Do they not want the element of surprise? Don Gwinn stated "The knifers in Tueller's experiment were intent and focused on attacking first." It leads to the term you call misleading "escalation". Why don't robbers kill people then take their money? I would guess they don't want a murder charge, and would rather just take your money, otherwise they would have just killed you. Don Gwinn stated "Why do you suppose counter-terrorism teams use pistols instead of knives for CQB and entries? They spend most of their time inside Tueller's distance, so if a gun requires more than that to be the most effective weapon in the fight, why wouldn't these professionals switch? " Thats a huge generalization, and there is alot more at play here. Tueller's is valid for one to one encounters, being robbed is probably not far off unless you walk around gun in hand. It's a poor example, trust me I'm trained for these things.

Ohhh...Ninja 3: The Domination. I though ninjas can spin around to make themselves become a human drill Worst movie.... The Last Dragon... any movie with a character known as Bruce Leroy, has the soundtrack by DeBarge, and is about martial artist seeking "the glow", especially when one of them is the leader (who dresses like Bootsy Collins on holiday at a Samurai Dude Ranch) of a bunch of reject road warriors. That is bad cinema!

Don Gwinn stated "Criminals choose guns because guns are the best weapons they can find for their purposes....This is also, by the way, the reason I choose guns. Why do you suppose armed robbers choose to get away in cars and not on horseback? Shall we ban cars?" So the chance of fatal violence is increased here, as it says in the FBI crime report, is triple the rate of knife robberies and ten times that of other weapons. If a criminal a gun is present you are more likely to die, but it is also escallated by what the victim has. If he is armed that also increases this chance. It again is also intrestig that firearms are used in a higher percentage of armed robberies. As for the car / horse example. The car is firstly not an offensive weapon. Secondly it is more accesable than a horse. I imagine at the advent of the car, when the horse was still the major mode of transport, robbers still used horse. Why because they were easier to get. As for the knife wielding mugger. First I would do my best not to put myself in a situation like that. Making good choices in were I go how I get there, and so forth to minimize risk, ie. taking the main streets vs. backalleys. The rest is all situational OC spary, and gun both require a minimum of 22 feet if the armed assailant has his weapon showing, as well as if my weapons are holstered. Most robberies take place within that range, therefore nulifying those defenses in many cases. If possible I'll run, if there is an escape route. I will also try to difuse the situation. Yeah the guy can have my wallet. If not and he's within the range of 22 feet, open hand tactics are your best chance for survival.

Again I am asking to look at some serious issues which do involve firearms and crime. In the case of armed robbery why do you think that a firearm is the weapon of choice in the US? As for an armed robber with a knife, do you feel that a gun is your best defense? Would you pull out your gun and try to shoot him?

Intresting that presenting facts is "forcing an opinon" on someone. I thought Americans believed in freedom of speech.

Source Research Division Correctional Service of Canada "Robbery offenders are also more likely to use weapons than other offenders. In fact, about one-quarter of robberies involve the use of a firearm, another one-quarter involve the use of offensive weapons (such as clubs or knives), and about one-half involve the use or threat of physical force." "The rate of firearms used to commit robberies in the US was 39.7% in 1997 and 38.2% in 1998" (FBI Uniform Crime Report). "Studies of robbery indicate that, compared with other robbers, those who carry a gun are more likely to complete their robberies without experiencing victim resistance and without injuring the victim. However, because gun injuries are so much more likely to be lethal, the fatality rate for gun robberies -- four per 1,000 -- is about triple the rate in knife robberies and ten times the rate in robberies with other weapons. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997)." Now looking at this information armed robbers in Canada are less likely to use a firearm than their American counterparts. Why? One could argue that Canadians are less violent by nature, but we are exposed to the same media, images as the US. One could argue that because of tighter controls on firearms that they are less accessable by criminals. One could also argue that criminals in the US resort to friearms, because they don't want to bring a knife to a gun fight. Food for thought

Don Gwinn stated "A gun is a tool the same as a knife, a tonfa or a car. In the hands of a good man it is good and in the hands of a bad man it is bad because it has no good or bad will of its own. It is an inanimate object." Now with this said the question should be what can be done to keep guns out of the hands of "bad people"? With all the "social problems" that Don has eluded to, are Americans as a country responsible enough to have firearms in the general public? Don Gwinn stated "Canada's population density and diversity are nil compared to the U.S." The first part is true, but you do not take into acount large centers such as Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, etc.. which are densly populated. Then look at places like Windsor, Ontario --- just across the river from Detroit, but nowhere near the violence. Don Gwinn stated "Few other societies have to deal with the racial tensions we do, nor are drugs the kind of giant criminal enterprise in most countries that they are here." I would differ from you here on this point as well, there are racial tensions here as well, we deal with aboriginals, blacks, vietnamese, jamacians, and so on. We have white supremsists, gangs, the Hells Angels, and so on.

Don Gwinn stated "A gun is a tool the same as a knife, a tonfa or a car. In the hands of a good man it is good and in the hands of a bad man it is bad because it has no good or bad will of its own. It is an inanimate object." Now with this said the question should be what can be done to keep guns out of the hands of "bad people"? With all the "social problems" that Don has eluded to, are Americans as a country responsible enough to have firearms in the general public? Don Gwinn stated "Canada's population density and diversity are nil compared to the U.S." The first part is true, but you do not take into acount large centers such as Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, etc.. which are densly populated. Then look at places like Windsor, Ontario --- just across the river from Detroit, but nowhere near the violence. Don Gwinn stated "Few other societies have to deal with the racial tensions we do, nor are drugs the kind of giant criminal enterprise in most countries that they are here." I would differ from you here on this point as well, there are racial tensions here as well, we deal with aboriginals, blacks, vietnamese, jamacians, and so on. We have white supremsists, gangs, the Hells Angels, and so on.

You can start training Saturday

I guess if I use Don's philosiphy of guns have never caused a problem arguement. Then I would have to change my discussion to that the United States is one messed up country, a haven for criminals, and is unable to deal social problems. Because of it's inability to deal with social problems it creates a general state of parinoia in which the average citizen feels the need to "bare arms". I then feel sorry for anyone living there.... As for the Walmart thing I guess they have changed their policy with the record check, and they will not sell (even though legally they can)if the check has not been returned after the 3 day sell it to them anyway rule. We just get news like that piecemeal here.

Legal gun owner being the police. An assumption on how the man got his gun, again you throw out assumptions Withers.

You will have to call the radio station in Edmonton, Alberta to get their source I assume it was off the wire about Walmart. Apparently they are going to enforce an application to purchase program, and crime was their rationale. An average person is not usually bent on murder, but in the heat of the moment with a tool such as a firearm the results are more likely to be fatal than attacking with your butterfly or puppy. Sure a person who is bent on murder can complete his task, but why make it easy. As for the accuracy of a short shotgun, the accuracy is drastically reduced by shortening the barrell. Much as a long rifle is more accurate than a handgun. I believe there was a gunner in LAX today who shot up the place. I guess if he didn't have a gun he could have killed as many people with his bare hands. Or the guy who robbed the bank in LA with full autos that took half the force to take them down. These arn't problems at all. Legitimize the use of handguns, increase screening, have them for gun clubs, hunting clubs, I'm sure you'd see a difference.

Intresting that this day that Walmart is concerned that the majority of the guns it sells are used to commit criminal offences. A person killed with a firearm could easily be killed by a butterfly or a daffodil and cute puppies? I'm sure that nobody during an argument is going to grab their butterfly collection, and try to kill someone, or beat someone to death with a flower. Access to lethal means can have lethal results. When somebody is in the mourge, it is diagnosed cause of death...gunshot. So how can that not be caused by a gun. Sawed-off shotguns are usless with maybe the exception of committing crime. They can't be used to hunt, shoot targets, the accuracy is terrible. Its just good for shooting at close range. I'm sure the reason for control in the US is for this reason. Privledges in society are for the benefit of society as a whole. Why do we have to take driving tests, shouldn't driving be an absolute right?

Again your mental agility amazes me Withers, I like how gun advocates throw around the word banned as an absolute. Especially in the prior post I was pointing out the fact when I say control people assumed banned, because of a jump in logic, as well as being closed minded. As for the Black market thing read the previous posts again Withers, it's the Americans that fuel the Black Market. Take guns away and a person will have less lethal means to kill someone, yeah they may use a bat, but I don't think anyone will disagree that your chance of survival against a bat weilding assailant is more than a gun toting one. A fist fight may end in injuries, but it takes alot more than a finger twitch to cause serious injury or death. Maybe the issue is the Constitution of America not guns and people having too many "rights" in comparison to "priviledges". Just a question as well is it legal in the US to have a sawed-off shotgun? If it isn't what is the rationale? [ This Message was edited by: Iron Arahat on 2002-07-04 10:31 ]

I guess people getting killed by a firearm isn't a problem. I love how you Americans seem to think that control=banned.

I guess my question is, why do anti-gunners on this site train in martial arts? Answer: For fun health fitness and sport. Personally as well to protect the general public from criminals. Are you not aware that your skills could be used to hurt, cripple, or even kill some poor unfortunate? Answer: Sure, but it takes alot of training. I a more likely to kill someone if I have knife or a gun. How do you know that most of the "trained" martial artists out there are good people who will use their skills wisely? Answer: This can be done through controls as well, before training in Singapore the person must have a criminal record check. If they have been convicted of a violent crime, time to move to the US to train martial arts or buy a gun. As I said before control make weapons less accessable, and they would still be usable for target shooting etc.. I suggest that anyone who would like to learn the dynamics of violent crime, and how situations are increased by the accessibility of things such as firearms you should read Understanding Victimology" by Ezzat Fatah from Simon Fraser University.

calibrepress.com

I personally think that the "modern" wushu style paterns are flashy, and are more for a standardized judging of a persons form. The more traditional Shaolin has a lot better combat application

Tung Kung Kalan another Filipino art. Its three basic actions are backhand whipping, a heavy-palm slapping and swing kicking. It’s basic philosophy is to keep moving and distract opponents, hitting to impair as a set up to a finishing move.

Some serious training here, a must see for everyone: http://www.entertheninja.com/ninja_school/tomato_attack_01.html

Everything you need to know is here http://www.entertheninja.com/ninja_school/index.html