Martial_Artist

Somone wildly swinging an object that requires that it cover a good distance before it can do any real damage is not a threat, but an annoyance. The margin for error with a bat is high. Swing too short and it doesn't take much to evade it. Swing too far and it loses its ability to inflict crippling damage. Get hit high on the choke and you probably won't notice getting hit. Besides, if they really windup to hit really hard they're telepathing very obviously. A baseball bat requires a lot of telepathy to be effective. It's a sporting tool. If they miss and hit the ground/wall/car/pole/another person/etc., a wooden bat could break. It's, IMHO, not a very effective offensive weapon. Even in skilled hands it takes a lot of unnecessary movement to put the heavy end in a position to be effective. There's a lot of relative unbalance involved. Usually, you get one good strike. You have to pull back to get the weighted end behind the strike. This is adequate time for the defendant to adjust. If you miss you have to fight against the momentum of the weighted end in order to place the bat in a new position to strike from--again, relying on having to place that bat somewhere away from the target in order to swing it at the target. As for you brother swinging at someone's mid-section, I assume he thinks Oyama would stand there still? Unless he could chamber his bat and swing and hit before Oyama noticed he would have no success in hitting Oyama. Either evade or invade. Don't get hit. MA.

For me, it depends. I do what I choose to do with the strength I have been given. I decide where the fight will go. An attempt on your life is an attempt on your life and should be addressed as such. But, even against a man, would you take his life if you could choose not to and still end the conflict? If you could end a fight without striking your opponent, would you? Sometimes we see things from only one perspective. We are martial artists. Not machines of war. Our art is the war within. Do you feel the thunder of your punch? Of your opponent's? Man or woman, a punch is a punch. What is the difference? Can you direct the flow of the fight and end it without striking? Then why would you do so for a woman and not a man? If you cannot, then why would it matter whether a man or woman struck you if you cannot end the conflict without striking? A good ideal it is to hold deserving women in high regard. Chivalry is an honorable ambition. Too often in this world are they used as objects, or tossed aside as dross. Yet, there is a limit. Gender alone is not enough to declare with absolution a course of action. Do not let chivalry cloud your vision as a martial artist. If you can find peace without war, then does it matter if your opponent is a man or a woman? How you deal with the punch depends entirely on how you see the punch.

velkum to ze forumz.

Corn field? There aren't any deer in any cornfields here. We have to go out to the desert, or the woods. I prefer a good week long forest hunt. I've had whitetail come up and sniff me, because they couldn't tell if I was a bush or something else.

I love having elk meat for a few months. Saves me money at the store, plus I get elk jerky, elk burgers, elk steak, elk...well you get the picture. Not only does it save money I get to hunt it.

I bow hunt. I hunt bull elk. I love it. I hunt w/o sights. Sometimes I hunt mule deer or whitetail. But I love bul elk. There is nothing like waking in the early morning to the quiet of the woods and the bugle of an elk as the sun breaks the mountain horizon. Oooo, elk season is coming up soon. Too bad I didn't get drawn this year. Maybe next year. MA.

podunk...I haven't heard that word in a long while. lol.

John, Again, I agree that laws don't stop criminals from being criminals or obtaining illegal firearms. Sadly, that is the nature of their being criminals. Here in the US the possibility of a criminal having an illegal firearm is a high enough probablity to justify carrying a weapon. This is personal, but I don't want to take any chances with my life. Unfortunately, I have had to use my gun, never fired, but brandish in self-defense situations. Believe me, if I could stop carrying this hunk of metal, then I would, but I can't leave my wife and children's well-being in the hands of a criminal. I.e. letting them choose whether I live or not--who will pay their bills, raise them, provide emotional and physical necessities? I do know of some good books on defensive pistol use. Perhaps the best for novices is a book by Masaad Ayoob, titled, "In the Gravest Extreme." It is a grim book, but completely details what occurs in a pistol fight. Masaad is a 25 year police veteran and the most recognized expert on defensive pistol shooting in the US--he is often called as an Expert witness in court to testify as to what happens in a gunfight. He details, for the civilian, what to expect and what usually happens when guns are introduced to the situation. It's a good read, albeit a grim one. As I said before, it is a good thing for us martial artists to learn all we can about firearms, because--for self-defense--encountering an armed criminal is always a possibility, and being unprepared/uninformed is something we all can avoid. There are some good pistol defense schools in the US, I don't know of any in Australia. But there are some websites for the schools here. https://www.gunsite.com https://www.thunderranchinc.com https://www.ayoob.com (His school is called the Lethal Force Institute.) These are perhaps the best nationally/internationally known gun schools. There are plenty of smaller good schools in the US, with many of the instructors being graduates of the other schools, but I decided to list the more prominent. Keep And Bear Arms (https://www.keepandbeararms.com) has a section called "Operation Self-Defense" that recounts self-defense articles gathered from news sources. This is a good place to learn how defensive firearm use is reported by the news. Unfortunately, most uses of a pistol used in self-defense are not newsworthy/never reported unless a shot is fired. But since only 0.1% of self-defense use actually results in discharge...well the news just doesn't care about uninteresting stories. None of my experiences have ever been reported on the news. Now we have really strayed from the original topic. Oh, well, some good discussion was achieved and that's all I wanted. MA.

John G, I would have to agree. Criminals have and will always have access to guns. It is sad. I wish that criminals did not carry guns. Perhaps if such a thing happened then the need to carry a gun wouldn't exist. But, that's not the world we live in. Unfortunately, there isn't a solution. As long as there are criminals there will be crime, violent crime included. However, as a peace-loving individual I want the ability to defend my life and the lives of my loved ones' with the best tool available: a gun. Sansoouser, You see, to me, the gun isn't a tool that helps us kill fast and effortlessly. It is a tool that allows me to protect. Unless I seek to kill effortlessly or quickly, then the gun does not affect me. I carry it only as an option. I would rather have this tool, which BTW is a pain to carry, and never use it, than to not have it and have something happen to make me wish I had. We have strayed from what I had originally intended with this thread, but that's ok. I appreciate the good comments and information shared. This can only lead to good as we learn from each other. I don't claim to have all the answers pertaining to guns. But, I have learned something about them in my lifetime; something I think valuable for the martial artist and average citizen. MA.

Hi Zack. Welcome to the forums.

Ve vuld like to velkom you, he he. Enjoy your stay.

yo baby, yo baby, mA is on da net! Mad slang skillz, yo. I can't type anymore. My ability to take myself seriously has ceased. Anywho, welcome Guyvergirl.

Red J, That was a good post. People do need to be held accountable for their actions. Too often people do not want to take responsibility for their actions. We look to someone else to take care of things for us. We want things done for us, but don't want to be the one to do it. Anywho, I don't want to stray too far off topic. Thanks for the input. MA.

howdy

G95Champ, I can understand the concern behind wanting to restrict access to the bullets. But who is to define what is a reasonable amount? For example, to maintain good pistoling skills so that one is able to consistenly hit their target, be able to maintain safe handling skills, and safe defensive skills a person should shoot at the very least 100 rounds a week. Ideally that person should be shooting 200-400 a week. It takes less than an hour to shoot 100 rounds in a training session. A responsible gun owner should be shooting for at least 2 hours. With firearms it is especially important to shoot often, because of the quickness of loss of skill inactivity brings. Now, we are looking for the average person a minimum of 400 bullets a month. Best case, meaning the case in which the shooter will become the most proficient and safe, is 3200 rounds a month. The more a person shoots the better that person becomes in handling their firearm. The better that person is at handling his firearm, the safer that responsible gun owner will be. So, ideally each person should be allow 3200 rounds a month for their handguns. Each hand must be shot differently. So if you own two guns you should ideally be shooting 6400 bullets a month, or if money is tight 800. Now, hunters and sport shooters need to shoot too to keep their accuracy up. Practice for a target shooter will need to be as equal as a defensive shooter, with an allowance for more bullets because accuracy on a stricter is requisite with their sport. Hunters, in order to be successful, must be accurate and safe. Though not as much, their needs are still high. So, when do we define what amount a person should be allowed? The more you shoot the better a shooter you become. The more training you receive, which is always coupled with shooting, the safer you become. You see, you have missed the problem, and instead have chosen to blame an inanimate object. Bullets are not the problem. Guns are not, either, because neither can act of their own free will. People with bad intentions holding firearms are the problem. Not the 80+million law-abiding gun owners in America. Restricting gun ownership or bullet limits is not the solution. Better education is. There have been guns in my family, our houses, since before the Civil War. Gun deaths : 0. Accidents : 1 (Because my uncle was foolish enough not to be safe. He shot himself in the thigh). This is a hundred or so years of gun ownership in our family. 1 accident and the accident was because of the user, not the firearm. Gun accidents usually the result of unsafe behavior on the part of the user. With children who have not been taught properly, or are too young, the fault lies with the parent. With children who are older and have been taught to be safe, the fault is theirs. I was taught properly. I have not had one single accident with guns in the 20 some odd years I have been shooting them and in the years before that when I was just allowed to look. My kids are being taught properly. Gun in this house are a non-problem. In fact, they are respected and recognized for their benefit. This is because we understand firearms. Our understanding leads to mroe responsible possession and usage. You see, by stating that guns should only stay at ranges, who are you targeting? The criminals who actually commit crimes? No, just the law-abiding joe trying to live a peaceful life. When do criminals go to the range and leave their guns and ammo there? How could this possibly affect crime? When you place restriction such as you have suggested you are not affecting criminals. You are not targeting criminals. Although, I feel that is your intent, it is not the result. Making a law that states, all guns must be locked at a range and you only get 1dz bullets means only the law-abiding will be gunless and ammo-starved. I mean, last time I checked there weren't any criminals who think, "Man, there's this gun law out there that I must follow. Guess that means I'll have to leave my gun at the range and only carry a handful of bullets." But, anyways, I'm straying. Thanks for your opinion. I wanted to open this thread to help educate. We all carry misconceptions about some thing. I am merely hoping to help clear some of those misconceptions out. Knowing more about firearms helps us all. It better equips us in our decision making, our safety, and in our roles as martial artists-the upstanding in a community. Thanks G95. Your participation in this thread is appreciated. To be honest, I was afraid that it might be totally avoided as people usually fear even talking about guns. I'm glad you weren't. MA.

Thank you John G, for the informative post. Without debating politics governing ownership there are a few things I would like to comment on. I'm not entirely familiar with the Australian government or its reporting agencies. In fact, I am not a statician; I merely gather the results of studies that have already been conducted. But, I am always subtly reminded of the differing approaches of reporting agencies. I gathered some statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Sydney Morning Herald taken from a work titled, "Gun Facts v3.2" which can be found on the https://www.keepandbeararms.com webpage. The results are as follows: Here are the reported percentage increases since the 1995 ban. Armed robbery 170.1% Kidnapping/Abduction 144% Assault 130.9% Attempted Murder 117.6% Sexual Assault 112.6% From inception of the ban to March 27, 2000 there has been a rise of 19% in gun murders rise of 69% in armed robberies rise of 21% in home invasions However in the 15 years before national gun confiscation, firearm related homicide dropped 66% firearm related death dropped almost 50%. Even the statistics you present demonstrate a very high increase in assault, rape, and robbery. The homicide statistics only demonstrate a fluctation, there were 386 in 1999--four years after the ban, there isn't a demonstratable correlation. Anyways, I'm sure you can agree that suicide is a statistic that is unaffected by the presence of a gun. Japan, a country with very strict gun control, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Suicidal tendencies are psychological, not dependent on whether an inanimate object is located within a house. Pieces of metal do not tell people to kill themselves, as much as the building tells the person to jump from it, the razor to slit their wrists, or any other method. A relation between suicide and gun ownership is irrelevant. A person with suicidal tendencies will find a way. Agreed a gun is quick way of killing yourself. Then again, so is jumping from a building, stepping in front of a semi-truck, drowning yourself, poison, etc. Having a shaving razor does not increase the chances of suicide. Living in a tall apartment complex does not increase the chances of suicide. Having a gun in the house does not increase the possibility of suicide. Suicide, the attempt thereof, is an illness that requires attention and interception before the victim reaches the point of taking their life. But suicide and firearm possession are irrelevant. I'm not sure what you mean by unnecessary firearms. For every person who has had to use a firearm to save the life of their loved one, or had to watch their daughter being raped and killed before their eyes in their own living room, I can assure you each one has felt a firearm necessary. I think perhaps you mean illegal, i.e. those in the possession of ones who should not have firearms, i.e. criminals. I can see the reasoning behind not wanting such an effective tool in the hands of those with wrong intentions. But, defining unnecessary is vague at best. What is unnecessary? Defining that would require entering into a discussion on the politics behind gun ownership; something I did not intend with this particular thread. Perhaps another thread... Thank you for the additional statistics. We were able to learn that most of Australian crime is commited by a loved one. I can assume they are domestic violence cases between spouses. I wonder how many deaths or injuries could have been prevented by the mere possession of a firearm by the victim. In the US 2.5million possible deaths and injuries are prevented by law-abiding citizens who carry a firearm. 97% of those victims report that the firearm saved their lives. 0.1% of that 2.5million actually fired a shot. The other 99,9% didn't, they merely brandished it. It is not alarming, however, that rape, assault, and robbery are on the rise. Criminals have less to fear now. They did not participate in the gun turn-ins recently. They do not follow law (they are criminals). They know that the average joe in Australia won't have a gun. They know that the average house in Australia won't have a gun. What do they have to fear? A phone call to the police? As for accidental firearm death the number is insignifcant, in the US, compared to other ways of dying. For example, taken from the 1997 National Safety Council's Accident Fact Book. You are twice as likely to suffocate on something swallowed. Seven times more likely to be poisoned. 10 times more likely to die from falling and 31 more times to die in an automobile accident. Automobile accidents rank the highest with 43,000 per 100,000 Other (including medical malpractice) 14,000 per 100,000 Falls 14,000 per 100,000 Poisoning (solids and liquids) 10,000 per 100,000 Drowing 4,000 per 100,000 Fire, burns 3,000 per 100,000 Suffocation 3,000 per 100,000 Firearms-related less than 2,000 Poisoning(gas & vapors) less than 1,000 In 1996 there were only 21 accidental deaths from firearms for children under 15. About twice as many children under 10 drowned in a bathtub. (Center fo Disease Control, US.) I could go on and on and demonstrate that firearms represent a near non-problem in the accidental world, but I refer the interested student to https://www.keepandbeararms.com GunFactv3.2 under TopClicks on the right side of the webpage. An additional fact. Every year there are 750,000 deaths and injuries from medical malpractice. There are an average of 11,000 firearms related incidents. I think anyone who has lost a loved one to malpractice would understand that there is no need for unnecessary doctors. Just keep the doctors that are necessary. I appreciate the input and reponses. This is exactly what I sought to accomplish with this thread: a place to discuss, outside politics, facts concerning firearms. Personal opinions are welcome, but should not extend reasonable support offered by available information. Thank you. Sincerely, MA. p.s. More comments are welcome. I would rather this thread not die out from inactivity.

Howdy

I apologize for its length. There are countless other articles pertaining to guns in America with similar results. I refer the interested to https://www.keepandbeararms.com to the links located on the right side of the webpage, under Top Clicks. Information revealing the truth behind firearms is located there, all fully supported by statistics and documentation. Anyone not interested should ask themselves, why. Is there a prejudice against firearms present? Does a martial artist choose not to learn more concerning firearms simply out of a lack of interest or bias? We can all do some good to learn more about firearms. We are martial artists. We study the arts of war and personal development. If we study for self-defense(as opposed to sport) it is imperative that we understand firearms. It is requisite that we know fact versus fiction. The criminals carry guns. The very reason we train for self-defense is against criminal assailants; to not understand firearms is a grave injustice to the martial artist. I am not opening a discussion of politics or opinion with this thread. I am reporting fact and statistic. Whether or not someone likes guns is irrelevant in the face of statistical fact. Please, take some time and learn more about firearms. Fear is dispelled with knowledge. It has been the adage for ages. Shed some light on the subject and you'll see better, and be better informed to make judgements and decisions. Martial_Artist

Recently I have been engaged in certain discussions involving firearms. The bulk of these discussion has been debating fact vs fiction. I realize a lot of "fear" or concern about firearms is a result of a lack of education concerning firearms, and the effect a biased-media has on an unsuspecting public. So, I have decided to post some articles relating to firearm fact in order to eliminate the "superstitious" fears. Man has always feared what it does not understand. Let us try to understand. This article is long, but a good one. It is a medical response in Canada. Canadian DSGL Member, Dr. Mike Ackermann, responds to misinformation on a medical website. January 26, 2002 To the Alberta Center for Injury Control and Research Dear Sir/Ms, As a rural physician I am constantly seeking reliable sources of quality information on a wide variety of topics. My initial perusal of your site looked promising, until I happened upon your "Firearms FACTS" page at https://www.med.ualberta.ca/acicr/. Unfortunately, you are apparently approaching a criminological topic from a medical perspective and as a result you are working outside your area of expertise. First I will deal with your bullet points in turn and then I will give you the basis for a more rational approach to the firearms issue. 1) "Firearm related deaths account for nearly 10% of all injury deaths in Alberta over the past 5 years." The actual statistics gleaned from The Alberta Vital Statistics Review and from the Statistics Canada Mortality Summary List of Causes reveal quite a different picture. I will use 1997 to illustrate my points, because it is a representative year and one which you have chosen to focus on. In 1997 in Alberta there were: 8 accidental deaths involving firearms 22 accidental deaths arising from medical misadventure 2236 total accidental deaths 79 suicides involving firearms 401 total suicides 17 homicides involving firearms 56 total homicides 1 unspecified firearms injury leading to death 105 total firearms deaths 3534 total injuries leading to death (including 3 birth trauma) Do you get the picture? You are nearly three times as likely to die accidentally because of a medical error as by a firearms accident. Only 2.9% of injurious death is attributable to firearms - NOT the 10% alluded to on your web site. Firearms are NOT used in 81% of suicides nor in 70% of murders. If you cared to peruse the criminological and sociological literature, you will find that the murderers and suicides all have long histories of escalating behaviour that has been inadequately addressed by the legal system. In addition, most victims of murder are involved in gang or other criminal activity. 2) "In 1997, 401 suicides were completed in Alberta. Nearly 20% of these involved the use of a firearm." And more than 80% did not. So what? A quick read through some comparative statistics from around the world will reveal that the RATE of suicide is entirely independent of the means. Japan, for example has one of the lowest rates of legal and illegal firearms ownership and yet one of the highest suicide rates in the world. For further information, see teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Research/Observations/index.html 3) "Nationally, Alberta ranks first among the provinces in the percentage of homes with guns (39%)." Again, so what? Statistics Canada reports that in 1997 the national average for suicides was 24.4 per 100,000 and homicides was 3.0 per 100,000. The provincial rates do NOT correlate with firearms ownership, but DO correlate well with the percentage of Aboriginal peoples in the population. For example, the national highs were in the Northwest Territories (NWT), with 87.4 suicides and 8.2 homicides per 100,000. Compare this with Alberta's modest 26.9 and 3.4, respectively. Obviously it is the presence of social ills, that unfortunately are disproportionately represented in our Aboriginal population, that leads to suicide and homicide and not the presence or absence of firearms. 4) "Alberta has one of the highest death rates in the country (6.2/100,000 population). That national rate is 4.6/100,000 population." No, it doesn't. In 1997, the national average death rate per 100,000 population was 718.8. Alberta had 579.8. Only NWT and the Yukon (YK) had less, at 380.5, and 381.5, respectively. 1997 is a representative year. I can only assume that you have made an honest oversight here, and should be more careful of what you claim to be true. At any rate, there is absolutely nothing to indicate any association or causative relationship between the mere presence of firearms and death rates. 5) "A home with a gun is 5 times more likely to be the scene of a suicide and 3 times more likely to be the scene of a murder than a home without a gun." Ah, yes, the much vaunted but repeatedly debunked Kellerman Study. For a full treatise on the fatal flaws and outright unethical research practices represented by the Kellerman Study, may I refer you to Suter's excellent critique at: teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html Need I say more? Kellerman's study is, unfortunately, typical of the junk 'science' used by hoplophobic fanatics to push their agenda. 6) "In 1997 in Alberta more young people died as a result of an encounter with a firearm than died due to leukaemia." This is not exactly true either. Again from Statistics Canada we find that in 1997 the only age groups for which the firearms deaths exceeded leukaemia deaths were: Ages 10-20 12 firearm homicides 59 firearm suicides 67 deaths from leukaemia Ages 20-30 32 firearm homicides 102 firearm suicides 76 deaths from leukaemia For all other age groups, the deaths from leukaemia greatly exceeded that from firearms. In addition, as already stated above, suicide rates are NOT means dependant and should really be discounted because in the absence of firearms suicidal people just switch methods. So in reality leukaemia causes more potentially preventable deaths than firearms misadventure at all age groups. For interest sake, here are the remaining numbers: Age <1 2 firearms homicides 0 firearms suicides 5 deaths from leukaemia Ages 1-10 9 firearms homicides 0 firearms suicides 32 deaths from leukaemia Age >30 85 firearms homicides 526 firearms suicides 5235 deaths from leukaemia All ages 140 firearms homicides 687 firearms suicides 5415 deaths from leukaemia 7) 95% of all deaths in Alberta in 1997 involving firearms were intentional." Again, so what? If you intend to kill your self or another person you will do your best to carry this out. You should really look at this the other way around. What you have actually said is that of all firearms deaths, only 5% were accidental. That's a pretty good safety record, if you ask me. Compare this to accidental versus intentional automobile deaths, and you'll get the idea. Cars are far and away more dangerous to use than firearms. So are numerous other everyday objects that we take for granted. For further analysis may I suggest Sellick's detailed article: teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Selick/off-mark.html "Among 26 industrialized countries, Canada ranked 5th in rate of firearm related deaths among children aged less than 15 years." For once we agree on something. Canada has, indeed, quite a high firearms related death rate compared to the other civilized nations of the world. But as Guy Smith aptly shows in his book 'Gun Facts' https://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/gunfacts.pdf this has absolutely nothing to do with gun ownership rates. In fact the firearms death rates can be shown to correlate quite nicely with the severity of a country's gun control laws. In 1994, the US Department of Justice released a study entitled 'Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse - Research Summary' https://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/urdel.pdf. On page 18 (25 in Adobe format) there is a table that clearly shows that when inner city youth are given access to legal firearms training and ownership, their involvement in violent crime is ZERO. Apparently, a proper firearms education by a trusted adult mentor is highly protective against involvement in violence and gang activity. 9) "The rate of children killed with guns in Alberta is almost twice the national average and it is in fact comparable to the combined rates of Israel and Northern Ireland." No, it's not. The number of firearms deaths in Alberta in 1997 was, as mentioned above, 8 accidents, 79 suicides, 17 homicides, and 1 unspecified for a total of 105. This is from a population of 2,695,474, giving a rate of 3.8 per 100,000. The national average was 5.8 per 100,000. There is nothing to suggest that Alberta youth stray from this trend as compared to the overall population of all age groups. It is plainly false to suggest that Alberta has a higher firearms death rate than the national average. As for international comparisons, what constitutes our death rates compared to other countries' has little to do with firearms ownership. 10) "In Alberta in 1996, more than 3 people are hospitalized each month with unintentional firearm related injuries." For the last time, so what?! There are, on the average 500 times as many American children aged 0 to 4, and 100 times as many people of all ages killed by drowning in backyard pools as by firearms injury, and this is in the supposedly 'violent, gun infested' USA. Your statement is meaningless. There is a huge wealth of reliable, peer reviewed, and supported primary research and review literature by well reputed members of the medical, criminological, legal, and sociological professions that clearly shows the complete failure of Draconian gun control laws such as Canada's, both historically and geographically as instruments of public safety or as means of reducing violent crime. The recent Australian and British experiences with gun control shows that prohibiting or excessively controlling the lawful and harmless recreational and defensive uses of firearms by the ordinary citizen not only does nothing to reduce violent crime or suicide, but it in fact significantly increases the death toll due to criminal violence. These laws actually kill people. For example, in London, England, following the Dunblane gun ban firearms murders have risen by 90%. In Australia following the confiscation and destruction of some 665,000 legally owned firearms the murder rate went up over the entire country, with the worst increase seen in Victoria - a rise of 300 percent! In every one of the USA's concealed carry states, the rates of all violence, and most especially firearms violence, dropped significantly following the institution of 'shall issue' laws that permit ordinary law-abiding citizens to become trained and then engage in defensive concealed carry of firearms. It may sound radical, but those are the facts, readily verified by anyone who chooses to do a bit of literature review. The reasons for these phenomena are complex, but part of it is that only the law-abiding will obey firearms laws, now matter how strict. In fact the more severe the law, the more law-abiding those who obey it. The Responsible Firearms Community are not the ones committing violent crimes in the first place, and so wasting vast sums of money interfering with their harmless pastimes simply squanders scarce resources that could be better used to fight real criminals. As mentioned above, in 1994 the US Department of Justice released a report on urban delinquency that looked into the issue of gun ownership by inner city youth. It turns out that when these youth are given proper firearms safety and handling training and are encouraged to practice with lawfully acquired firearms under the guidance of adult coaches, their involvement with violent crime is zero. Not just a lower percentage, but ZERO. It would appear that exposure to appropriate firearms training, as opposed to the media's and the gangs' violent versions of 'gun culture' when coupled with the attention of adult mentors is highly protective against involvement in violence. There you have it: Draconian gun laws increase both violence and firearm death tolls while appropriate laws that respect the right of ordinary citizens to learn about and use firearms safely reduces both violence and firearm death. Despite this, the Canadian Safety Council (CFC), via its mouthpiece Mr. Emile Therien, clings obsessively to the idea that if we can just punish the law abiding enough we can reduce the criminal's use of firearms. In addition most medical organizations across the country have jumped on the 'Costs-Only Analysis' band wagon without even the pretence of taking an evidence based approach. They use misleading and partial statistics and inflammatory emotional rhetoric to make their case, all the while ignoring the facts. For example as mentioned 100 times as many American people of all ages and 500 times as many children below 4 years of age die of drowning in backyard pools as die by gunfire. The Canadian figures are similar. Should we then launch a campaign to register and then ban backyard pools and water itself? Or would a better approach not be to teach homeowners how to safely install pools and children how to safely swim? The various anti-gun organizations ignore the fact that firearms accidents began falling with the voluntary introduction of safety training put on by the shooting organizations in the '60s, long before any heavy handed government interventions. They ignore the fact that in countries where firearms are banned, guns are cheap and easy to obtain by the criminal element and suicides occur just as frequently, albeit with other means. They ignore the fact that firearms violence is simply violence, and has at its root the same causes as any violence. Guns don't cause the violence, but they can be its instrument. A 'Cost-Only' approach ignores the 65,000 defensive uses of firearms by ordinary Canadians every year that result in saved lives and property. 3500 of these defensive uses are against human threats. In only 1% of the time is the gun actually fired. The rest of the time its mere presence is what buys the intended victim her second lease on life. When the gun IS fired by an ordinary citizen, only in 2% of cases is an innocent bystander hurt, compared to 11% when the defensive shooter is a police officer. To the police's credit, this difference is explained by the difficulty they have entering a strange situation where the players are equally unknown to the cop. When an ordinary citizen uses a firearm defensively, there is little doubt who the bad guy is. My point is that when benefits AND costs are compared, it is plainly obvious that there is a net benefit to proper firearms training and ownership by ordinary citizens. The Swiss model is a prime example. I find it ironic that Mr. Therien should support individual freedom, education, and responsibility as it pertains to driving and cell phone use, and drinking and driving, but he insists on State Nannyism in regards to the harmless, lawful use of firearms by ordinary, decent folk. It is interesting that 20 times as many people die while driving compared to murdered using firearms that anyone can purchase $5 million of public liability insurance as a shooter for $4.75 annually, no questions asked. It is also interesting that some 300 times as many women die of breast cancer as there are people murdered with guns and yet breast cancer research gets 1/38th the funding as Bill C-68. To me THAT is a true public health issue. I must whole heartedly agree with Mr. Therien when he states, "...It is counterproductive to have too many laws on the books if they cannot be enforced. Before calling for new laws, it is important to consider...can the problem be addressed through existing laws?...can the proposed legislation be realistically enforced?...can non regulatory approaches such as public education be used to address the issue?" But I must ask Mr. Therien why the CFC applies this sensible public policy philosophy only selectively? To address his three questions in order as they pertain to the lawful use of firearms in Canada, following extensive research one can only answer, "yes, no, and yes!". I must also ask why the Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research continues to perpetuate the anti gun agenda and myths. I look forward to your re-writing your 'Firearms Facts' page along scientific, evidence based lines. -- M. J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) President, St. Mary's Shooters Association Box 3, RR 1, 4132 Sonora Rd. Sherbrooke, NS Canada B0J 3C0 My email: mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca You will find extensive links to literature supporting my claims on the SMSA research site at: www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mikeack/Research_Sites.html In addition, I have appended below a bibliography of reliable information. An earnest review of this material should be done by your staff, and then we can all look forward to a rewrite of your "Firearms FACTS" site along unbiased evidence based lines. Bibliography: Statistical References: 1) Statistics Canada Cat. no. 84F0209XIB N o 84F0209XIB au cat. Mortality - Mortalité -Summary List Liste sommaire of Causes, des causes, 1997 1997 Shelf Tables 2) 1997 Alberta Vital Statistics Review. Printed Texts: 3) More Guns, Less Crime John R. Lott, Jr. 2000, The University of Chicago Press ISBN: 0-226-49364-4 E-articles and e-books: 4) Gun Facts, Version 3.1 Guy Smith 2001 https://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/gunfacts.pdf 5) Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse US Dept. of Justice 1994 https://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/urdel.pdf 6) Children and Guns: Sensible Solutions by David B. Kopel April 25, 1993 rkba.org/research/kopel/kids-gun.html 7) Guns in the Medical Literature -- A Failure of Peer Review Edgar A. Suter MD rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html?suter Crime Comparisons Between Canada and the United States https://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm 9) Archive of Canadian Research Related to "Gun Control" teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/HTML/research.html 10) A Mackenzie Institute Occasional Paper Canadian Attitudes Toward Gun Control: The Real Story Gary A. Mauser, Ph.D., Simon Fraser University, & H. Taylor Buckner, Ph.D., Concordia University (ret'd) January, 1997 teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Buckner/GUNCOVER.htm 11) Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality Sarah Thompson, M.D. https://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm 12) Physicians on Guns and Violence Edgar A. Suter MD, at al home.pacbell.net/rsdotson/guns/physiciansRkba.htm 13) Gun Control And Justice In Canada Canadian Review Article https://www.nucleus.com/guncontrol/index.htm 14) THE TRUTH ABOUT GUNS, CRIME AND VIOLENCE RKBA Webring 9/19/2001 https://www.gunsandcrime.org/index.html 15) BBC News Online: UK Friday, 4 January, 2002, 12:28 GMT A country in the crosshairs news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1741000/1741336.stm Doctors Organizations: 15) Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership https://www.claremont.org/1_drgo.cfm 16) Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Selick/off-mark.html

WarpSpider, According to what happens every year in the US, you are wrong. You are speaking from conjecture, or how you believe a situation will occur without basing it upon factual accounts. I mentioned police training because compared to the average thug they receive better firearms training. If it is diffifult for a police officer to hit a moving target, how much more so for a thug? Again, fiction has dictated how easy it is to shoot someone running away. However, every law enforcement agency teaches that a zig-zag pattern is the best way to avoid getting shot, regardless of how many semi-auto rounds are sent your direction. If the bad-guy is close enough that zig-zag is not an option, and close enough to grab your wallet, then he is close enough to engage. A laser sight does not replace iron-sight technique. It does not improve accuracy. Any tactical pistol instructor will tell you this. Nothing replaces good pistol technique. A laser sight will not magically help you hit your target. Again, fiction. If you get shot, odds are you are not a dead man. Statistically speaking getting shot doesn't mean dying. If you do get shot, and you have the right mindset, odds are you won't even notice until the fight is over. I can cite countless modern civilian/law enforcement gunfights in which the participants, unless hit in a "computer chip"/disabling target, continued to fight and only succumbed to the injury after the fight. Again, the assumption that being shot will instantly incapacitate you. While this will be the case for those filled with fear, it is not the case for all. Every firearms course dealing with urban combat will teach that. Again, you are speaking from conjecture and fiction. Yes, the best option is to prevent the other guy's gun from coming into play. Being aware you should see him go for a gun, stop him, and draw yours. This is the most common technique taught in defensive pistol schools. Surrendering and "taking your chances" is not safe at all. You are placing your life, your well-being, the feelings of your loved ones in the hands of a CRIMINAL, a sociopath who cares nothing for society or you. You can choose to die willfully submitting to a criminal and then your loved ones will have to live with it. But, you would be wrong to do so. I have stated previously that there are 2.5 million individual cases of civilians using firearms to save their lives in the US against armed or otherwise aggressive criminals. These civilians were not killed. In over 87% of the 2.5 million reported cases the victim stated that if they did not have a gun, they would be dead. Every statistic and study conducted in clarity of research has clearly proven that forcible resistance, preferably with a firearm, is the SUREST, repeat THE SUREST way to survive with the least likeliness for injury. Again, you are assuming things based on conjecture and fiction. If you cannot carry a gun, I am sorry. Carry another weapon. If the laws in your place don't allow it, contact your legislators and push to allow for the right to self-defense. The only excuse for such laws being is passed is not enough concerned people doing anything about it, but gripe. MA. p.s. One more thing to add. ZR440 is correct. A firearms academy in conjunction with a law enforcement agency conducted a study of how, based on experience, "gang-bangers" shoot their pistols. They analyzed reported methods of handling and positioning used by thugs who use their guns on the street in gang related shootouts. Their discovery: If a gang-banger is shooting at you at between 7-10 yards, odds are he won't hit you even if he unloads a magazine. That is with you standing perfectly still. At closer ranges their accuracy improves only slightly. The only time it is guaranteed that they will hit you is if the gun is pressed within a few inches of the target. The reasons they deducted were: thugs have never been taught how to properly hold a pistol. The accuracy of a gun lies in proper placement of the hands, thumbs, how you squeeze the grip, etc. If anyone of these factors is not met the gun will not shoot straight. Thugs do not get training or regularly practice at a target range. Thugs carry guns that usually have a double action. If it is a revolver then each one of their shots will be skewed, unless single action is applied. If it is an auto-loader(read semi-automatic pistol) then the first shot is usually DA and the following shots SA. If they carry a striker-enabled pistol, i.e. glockB. Then they deal with a "half-cock" action. In any case without proper training it is very difficult to shoot a pistol accurately. Even in the very manageable 9mm. Conclusions: thugs don't hit much. When they do it is a group conflict and more often than not it is not their intended target that is hit, but anyone of the opposing gang. Merely having a gun pointed at does not mean you'll be killed instantly. I will cite an example. A storeowner is held at gun point, i.e. the barrel of the gun is only maybe a foot away, and money is demanded. The victim ducked to the side and grabbed a pistol. He fired on the criminal killing the criminal. The criminal did discharge his pistol, nicking the victim in the neck. The victim fully recoverd; the criminal died on the storefloor. Something called "line of force" comes into play for defensive pistoling. The assailant still has to pull the trigger, i.e. decide to do so, send the signal to do so, and then do so, before you act. While you may not be able to dodge a bullet coming at you, you can certainly curb the reaction of the shooter. Police officers have been held at point-blank gun point and then drawn their pistols shooting the assailant before the thug could even register what happened. Having something unexpected happen can jam the thought process of many. A lot of criminals do not expect resistance. This doesn't mean every criminal, but you never know. Better safe than dead. MA.

Err, yeah.

I hear you ZR440. It is funny that way.

This isn't a thread for the discussion of the applicability of katas. Stick to the topic being discussed. MA.

Ok, obviously you are now speaking from what you have seen on TV or in the movies. Police firearms training is static. Police policy in most departments is never to fire on a fleeing suspect. Here are a couple reasons why: 1. It is difficult to hit a moving target with a pistol. 2. Missing could result in an innocent being hit with the stray bullet. (Bullets have to go somewhere if they don't hit their intended target) Police aren't even allowed to fire warning shots. (Again that's a movie thing). Because stray bullets have to go somewhere and innocent people do not need to be shot. Police officer training is about cornering the suspect and subduing, not about shooting whilst in pursuit. That, is reckless and not the sign of proper training. A police officer can lose his job over a reckless discharge. A reckless discharge is shooting at a target they have no sure way of hitting. i.e. running. Police do not shoot at criminals during a car chase. It is dangerous. It is reckless. It is against department policy and local laws in almost every state. It is not very easy to hit their target, thus putting civilian lives in danger. Criminals occasionally shoot at police during a pursuit, but there is rarely an instance where they hit their intended target. Again, such a feat is diffifult and very unpractical. This is, again, another common misconception acquired from fiction. As for soldiers: soldiers train primarily with stationary targets and full-auto rifles/carbines. Some are not even issued a sidearm. They also carry selective fire weaponry. They do not, in most cases, have to worry about what lies beyond their target. Firing 3-shot bursts, or full-auto on a fleeing target does make it so much easier to hit a fleeing target. The point is shooting a running target with a pistol is very difficult. Last year on national television the FBI advised the general public on how to avoid being shot. They fully demonstrated how a sporadic zig-zag pattern makes it nearly impossible for the shooter to hit you. The FBI understands this concept. I have come to the conclusion that your knowledge concerning firearms comes from what you perceive the reality of a firearm is, and that this knowledge comes almost exclusively from fiction. I cannot expect a coherent discussion with someone who does not know that police are not allowed to fire at anything they have a chance of missing. (There are liability and legal issues involved). I have been teaching people about the tactical and judicial use of firearms for a few years. I am an Urban Firearms Certified shooter, specializing in concealed carry. I think I know a bit more about the reality of firearms than you do. So, unless you stick to fact, instead of conjecture based on what you see in the movies, then I suggest you refrain from making statements about firearms. It is plain and simple fact. A fleeing human target running in a sporadic zig-zag pattern is extrememly difficult to hit. The odds of a fatal wound being inflicted are as good as being struck by lightning while running in said pattern. You can run and increase survival as distance increases. Turning your back at point blank range will most likely get you shot. Having several feet distance increases the likeliness of escape without injury. You can scream and get shot. You can submit and hope that this criminal will from the bottom of his heart find the goodness not to shoot you. I do not trust my life with a sociopath. Or you can do as 2.5 million Americans do each year. Fight back with a firearm and not suffer injury or loss. I'm sorry, MuayThaiFighter, but you have no clear understanding of firearm use. Fiction has been your instructor on this topic. Armed resistance is the surest way of surviving a violent encounter. Every year 2.5 million armed civilians testify to this. MA.

The FBI issues a Glock in the .40s&w to graduating agents. Stopping power of bullets is a myth. Check out calipers.com or ammo-lab.com to read up on realistic ballistic data. The 9mm isn't the choice because it has a tendency to ricochet within the body, it is the choice because NATO went to a cheaper, more manageable round and NATO Allies followed. You know of a .50BMG handgun? No such thing. I've shot a .50BMG rifle and the kick alone requires that it not be a handgun. You would have a very unmanageable and very pointless handgun. As far as muzzle velocity the 9mm out performs the .40s&w and the .45ACP, both of which are slower, larger bullets. Cor-Bon, for example, prints that the 9mm typically gets 1200fps or more, while a .45ACP only averages 900fps. A 230gr. .45ACP tops at around 850fps. A 9mm in ballistic gellatin gets, more often than not, better penetration than a .45ACP. In fact, the FMJ bullet is coned shaped to achieve this. A .45ACp is not. Now, a .45ACP is a bigger bullet and does more damage internally in the shock cavity. Also, it generally has more consistent penetration regardless of material blocking the path, i.e. jeans, jackets, etc. The people that are wounded and live in war is not ON PURPOSE, never has anyone been machine-gun with a NAZI 8mm and intended to live. Soldiers fire rapid succession, not in the hopes of dropping one guy so that two others can carry him away. They fire with the hopes of killing all three. There are some old men that live in my community that fought in WWII. They were all shot. Leg wound? The enemy was trying to kill them. Center of mass wounds. Unless you are distant from medical services or receive a control center shot, you most likely will not die from a gun-shot wound. Seeing as how, here in the US, full-automatic/selective fire machine guns are considered a non-problem by law enforcement. Full-automatic weapons are used in less than 0.1% of crime in the US. You are just as likely to be struck by a bolt of lightning. Hollywood, however, makes it look like every crime commited by criminals is done with a TEC-9 or MP5. Case in point. The FBI in Miami tracked two bank-robbers and cornered them in a street. There was a gun fight. The first shot fired hit criminal #1 in the heart--it was a fatal wound, even if there was a modern trauma unit he could not be saved. He lived for 3 minutes and killed two FBI agents. A Highway patrol officer fires 5 .357magnum rounds into a traffic stop gone wrong. The suspect shoots the officer in the head with a .22LR and the officer dies, the suspect is taken to a hospitol and survives with no after-effect. A NARC shoots a thug point blank in the chest with a 12ga. The suspect turns away and walks 40feet before falling over dead. An 11-year old shoots an assailant in the chest, piercing both lungs, the heart, and major artery, the assailant runs 50yards before sitting down and slowly dying. Police engage in a shoot-out with a suspect and shoot him 30times with 9mm. He still fights back. It takes a 12ga slug to finally drop him and take him out of the fight. How you react to a gun shot wound is entirely dependent upon your will to fight. A single gun shot wound will do next to nothing to a determined individual. Eventual death is possible with lack of medical treatment, but unless you want to lie down and die you will still be able to fight after being shot. A jewelry store owner in LA gets in a shootout inside his store. He is shot in the neck, shot above the collar bone, and in the chest. He kills one of the robbers and seriously wounds the other. The store owner is taken to the hospitol and lives. He is the only civilian to be mentioned in the record of gun fighters because of the number of kills he has. Thugs have tried to rob his store and he has put almost all of them down. In any tactical gun class you are taught that in a gun fight you most likely will be shot first. That never means the fight is over. In fact, of the gun fights of the 20th century both parties are usually shot and the one who wins/lives is the one who really wants to. It is a myth to assume that getting shot once will put so much shock into you that you won't be able to think straight. Unless you have never mentally prepared for such an event, such a statement is ludicrous. What they teach in the Police, FBI, tactical gun schools across America testifies otherwise. Guns don't suddenly stop working at any range, barring stove-pipes or other FTF/FTE's. The point-blank range is just as good as long-range. It's the range where the gun is out of reach and you aren't far enough for shooter-error, that's dangerous. Twisting his wrist to shoot you? Real guns aren't pellet or BB guns with no recoil or triggerpull. Depending on the gun, if a solid grip isn't held the gun will not fire. Shooting that way will more than likely result in you being missed. It does not take much to miss with a gun. Most gangbangers cannot shoot straight. They have never been taught to hold a gun for accuracy. They hit their targets because they are either at extreme close range, or it's one of 15 shot at their target. If you are attacked by a thug it is because he believes you weak and that he is at no risk. Training has nothing to do with it. Criminals seek out the best risk vs reward scenario. According to a survey conducted across US prisons, 70% of violent criminals will not attack someone if they KNOW that person is armed. 50% won't attack if they THINK that person might be armed. It's not worth the risk to them. 60% of criminals reported that they are more afraid of being shot by a civilian than by the police. Training has nothing to do with how criminals pick their victims. Finding the weak sheep does. Project you are unarmed, or incapable of defense and criminals will pick on you, generally. visit https://www.keepandbeararms.com then visit TOP CLICKS on the right side of the page. Check out GunFactv3.2 and anything else about "assault weapons", etc. Then check out the web pages about handgun ballistics to educate yourself. Gunsite.com, thunderranch, Ayoob's school in NH check these places out and learn about tactical pistoling and do some reading up on the topic. MA.