Knuth

Gouge the eyes, slap the ears, pound their balls, bend their fingers, etc. In a fight do what ever you can to win.(period)

Go see a chiropracter

FABLE V: Foreign countries such as England and Japan have much less crime than the U.S. because of their more severe gun laws. Actually, crime rates are the same in Switzerland, Israel and Norway, where gun laws are relatively mild, as they are in England, Italy and Japan, where guns are almost entirely prohibited. In Switzerland, most citizens are members of the national defense force and are issued fully-automatic rifles and ammunition, to be kept at home, ready to be put into use in a national emergency. Outside their formal military duties, the Swiss expend about 60 million rounds of ammunition with the guns each year, mostly for target practice. Crimes with the guns are virtually unheard of. By comparison, "Italy's gun law, 'the most restrictive in Europe,' had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders a year, thirty times Switzerland's total."1 England annually has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before imposing its tough laws. Furthermore, "crime rates for robbery, assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft are higher in England (including Wales) than in the United States." And while U.S. crime rates have been declining significantly, the reverse is true in England and Wales. According to a late 1998 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, "For most U.S. crimes . . . the latest crime rates (1996) are the lowest recorded in the 16-year period from 1981 to 1996. By comparison, English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981." The murder rate is higher in the U.S. than in England and Wales, but the U.S. rate has been declining, while the rate in England and Wales has remained unchanged.2 Ironically, it is because Japan's crime rates are rising despite its severe gun control laws, that that country is trying to lead a call for worldwide gun control through the United Nations. But, as law professor David Kopel noted in a work voted 1992 Book of the Year award by the American Society of Criminology's Division of International Criminology. Japanese-style gun control requires measures that could not be imposed in the U.S. In Japan, citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in the United States. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens' residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is more than 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Association has said that the Japanese police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions. Amnesty International, Kopel noted, calls Japan's police custody system "a flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles." But, Kopel wrote, "Without abrogating the Bill of Rights, America could not give its police and prosecutors extensive Japanese-style powers to enforce severe gun laws effectively. Unlike the Japanese, Americans are not already secure from crime, and are therefore less likely to surrender their personal means of defense. More importantly, America has no tradition like Japan's of civil disarmament, of submission to authority, or of trust in the government." Thus, "Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America. Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America. . . . It postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government and society fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos."3 Perhaps Don. B. Kates, a noted civil rights lawyer, best put the international comparison myth in perspective, writing, "In any society, truly violent people are only a small minority. We know that law-abiding citizens do not commit violent crimes. We know that criminals will neither obey gun bans nor refrain from turning other deadly instruments to their nefarious purposes. . . . In sum, peaceful societies do not need general gun bans and violent societies do not benefit from them."4

FABLE IV: Allowing people to carry guns for protection will lead to more violence and injuries. Anti-gun rhetoric is its most outlandish when the subject turns to right-to-carry laws, under which people obtain permits to carry firearms concealed for protection against criminals. For years, gun control supporters have tried to convince the public that the average person is neither smart enough, nor safe and responsible enough, to be trusted with firearms, especially where using firearms for protection is concerned. In his book More Guns, Less Crime, Prof. John R. Lott, Jr., (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), provides the most comprehensive study of firearms and crime ever conducted, and completely debunks such claims. Lott examined, with an economist's eye, a Mount Everest of data, ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3,045 counties over an 18-year period. He included in his analysis many variables that might explain the level of crime--factors such as income, poverty, unemployment, population density, arrest rates, conviction rates and length of prison sentences. With 54,000 observations and hundreds of variables available over the 1977 to 1994 period, Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. And, unlike many gun control advocates who masquerade as researchers, Lott willingly made his complete data set available to any academic who requested it. "Many factors influence crime," Lott writes, "with arrest and conviction rates being the most important. However, nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime." Nondiscretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed and can defend themselves. Secondly, national crime victimization surveys show that victims who use firearms to defend themselves are statistically less likely to be injured. In short, concealed carry laws deter crime, because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business. Lott's research shows that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high-crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns. Lott found "a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates." Further, he found that the value of carry laws increases over time. "For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by over 2%," Lott writes. "Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women," Lott notes. "An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men." While right-to-carry laws lead to fewer people being murdered (Lott finds an equal deterrent effect for murders committed with and without guns), the increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns." The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others "get a 'free ride' from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens," Lott finds. And the benefits are "not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns." The most obvious example of what Lott calls this "halo" effect, is "the drop in murders of children following the adoption of nondiscretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area." How compelling is John Lott's message? How threatening is his research to those who would disarm the American people? He devotes an entire chapter of More Guns, Less Crime rebutting attacks leveled at his research and at him personally. He recalls how Susan Glick, of the anti-gun Violence Policy Center, publicly denounced his research as "flawed" without reading the first word of it. This type of unfounded and unethical attack unfortunately is not uncommon. Criminologist Gary Kleck explains why: "Battered by a decade of research contradicting the central factual premises underlying gun control, advocates have apparently decided to fight more exclusively on an emotional battlefield, where one terrorizes one's targets into submission rather than honestly persuading them with credible evidence."1 Law professor and firearms issue researcher David Kopel notes, "Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed-carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences. Permit-holders will slaughter each other in traffic disputes, while would-be Rambos shoot bystanders in incompetent attempts to thwart crime. But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media's radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn't so bad after all."2 Thirty-one states now have right-to-carry laws. Half the U.S. population, including 60% of handgun owners, live in right-to-carry states. Twenty-two states have adopted right-to-carry in the last decade, 11 in the last two years. In each case, anti-gun activists and politicians predicted that allowing law-abiding people to carry firearms would result in more violence. Typical of this sort of propaganda, Florida State Rep. Michael Friedman said, "We'll have calamity and carnage, the body count will go up and we'll see more and more people trying to act like supercops."3 Similarly, Broward County Sheriff Nick Navarro said, "This could set us back 100 years to the time of the wild west."4 But since Florida adopted right-to-carry in 1987, its homicide rate has decreased 40%, while nationwide the homicide rate has decreased 21%.5 Less than two one-hundredths of 1% of Florida carry licenses have been revoked because of firearm crimes committed by licensees, according to the Florida Dept. of State. Contrary to the picture painted by anti-gun groups, evidence supporting the value of right-to-carry laws and the high standard of conduct among persons who carry firearms lawfully is over-whelming and continues to mount.

FABLE III: It is because of the Brady Act's five-day waiting period and the "assault weapons" law that crime has decreased. Anti-gun groups and the Clinton-Gore Administration have tried to credit those two laws and, thus, themselves, with the decrease. However, violent crime began declining nationally during 1992,1 and the Brady Act didn't take effect until Feb. 28, 1994, the "assault weapons" law until Sept. 13, 1994. Crime in America declined for several other reasons. New York City, which accounted for 9% of all violent crimes in the U.S. during 1991, has cut violent crimes by 42%,2 with most of the decrease attributed to the New York City Police Department's widely-acclaimed crackdown on a broad range of crimes and its implementation of new police strategies.3 The incarceration rate has increased 62% nationally since 1991.4 And criminologists note that during the 1990s the U.S. population, and most notably the membership of drug gangs, has aged and become less prone to violence.5 The "assault weapon" law has been irrelevant to the drop in crime. Not only did that law take effect well after the decrease began, "assault weapons" were and are used in only a very small percentage of violent crime.6 "Assault weapons" are still widely available on the commercial market, because of increased production before the federal law ceased their manufacture. Further, the law permits the manufacture of firearms that are identical to "assault weapons" but for one or more essentially cosmetic features.7 The Brady Act's waiting period was never imposed on many high-crime states and cities, but instead was imposed on mostly low-crime states. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia were always exempt from the waiting period,8 because they already had more restrictive gun laws when the Brady Act took effect.9 Those areas account for 60% of all the murders and other violent crimes in the U.S.10 Furthermore, during the five years the waiting period was in effect, more than a dozen other states became "Brady-exempt" as well, by adopting NRA-backed instant check laws or modifying pre-existing purchase regulations. Even in states where the Brady Act's waiting period was in effect, criminals were not prevented from obtaining handguns. Only 7% of armed career criminals and 7% of "handgun predators" obtain firearms from licensed gun shops.11 Eighty-five percent of police chiefs say that the Brady Act's waiting period did not stop criminals from obtaining handguns.12 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), handgun purchase denial statistics often cited by President Clinton and Handgun Control, Inc., "do not indicate whether rejected purchasers later obtained a firearm through other means."13 Summarizing the waiting period's failure, New York University Professors James M. Jacobs and Kimberley A. Potter wrote: "It is hard to see the Brady law, heralded by many politicians, the media, and Handgun Control, Inc. as an important step toward keeping handguns out of the hands of dangerous and irresponsible persons, as anything more than a sop to the widespread fear of crime."14 Waiting periods and other laws delaying handgun purchases have never reduced crime. Historically, most states with such laws have had higher violent crime rates than other states, and have been more likely to have violent crime and murder rates higher than national rates. Despite a 15-day waiting period (reduced to 10 days in 1996) and a ban on "assault weapons," California's violent crime and murder rates have averaged 51% and 38% higher than the rest of the country during the 1990s.15 When Congress approved the Brady bill, eight of the 12 states that had violent crime rates higher than the national rate, and nine of the 16 states that had murder rates higher than the national rate, were states that delayed handgun purchases.16 In Brady's first two years, the overall murder rate in states subject to its waiting period compared unfavorably to other states, declining 9% versus 17% in the other states.17 Even anti-gun researcher David McDowell has written that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."18 And Handgun Control's Sarah Brady has admitted that a waiting period "is not a panacea. It's not going to stop crimes of passion or drug-related crimes."19 The Brady Act waiting period also led to fewer arrests of prohibited purchasers, compared to NRA-backed instant check systems. For example, between November 1989 and August 1998, Virginia's instant check system led to the arrests of 3,380 individuals, including 475 wanted persons.20 The General Accounting Office (GAO) found that during the Brady Act's first 17 months, only seven individuals were convicted of illegal attempts to buy handguns.21 The Dept. of Justice, citing statistics from the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, stated that during Fiscal Years 1994-1997 only 599 individuals were convicted of providing false information on either federal forms 4473 (used to document retail firearms purchases) or Brady handgun purchase application forms.22 The vast majority of persons who applied to buy handguns under the Brady Act's waiting period were law-abiding citizens. The GAO reported that during the Act's first year, 95.2% of handgun purchase applicants were approved without a hitch. Of the denials, nearly half were due to traffic tickets or administrative problems with application forms (including sending forms to the wrong law enforcement agency). Law-abiding citizens were often incorrectly denied as "criminals," because their names or other identifying information were similar to those of criminals, and triggered "false hits" during records checks. GAO noted that denials reported by BATF in its one-year study of the Brady Act, "do not reflect the fact that some of the initially denied applications were subsequently approved, following administrative or other appeal procedures."23 Due to NRA-backed amendments that were made to the Brady bill before its passage in 1993, the Brady Act's waiting period was replaced in November 1998 by the nationwide instant check system.24 However, in June 1998, President Clinton and the anti-gun lobby announced their desire for the waiting period to continue permanently along with the instant check. White House senior advisor Rahm Emanuel falsely claimed on June 14, 1998, that "The five-day waiting period was established for a cooling off period for crimes of passion."25 As the inclusion of its instant check amendment made clear, however, the Brady Act was imposed not for a "cooling off period," but for a records check obstacle to firearm purchases by felons, fugitives and other prohibited persons. Furthermore, during congressional hearings on the Brady bill on Sept. 30, 1993, Assistant Attorney General Eleanor Acheson testified for the Department of Justice that there were no statistics to support claims that handguns were often used in crimes soon after being purchased.26 Emanuel also claimed that, "Based on police research, 20% of the guns purchased that are used in murder are purchased within the week of the murder." But this was an exaggeration typical of anti-gun advocates: BATF reports the average time between the purchase of a gun and its trace in a murder investigation is more than six years.27 The Clinton-Gore Administration and anti-gun groups want the waiting period, because it complicates the process of buying a gun and therefore may dissuade some potential gun buyers. A waiting period also can prevent a person who needs a gun for protection from acquiring one quickly, but Handgun Control opposes the use of firearms for protection, claiming "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes"28 and self-defense is "not a federally guaranteed constitutional right."29

FABLE II: "Gun control" laws prevent crime. So overwhelming is the evidence against this myth, that it borders on the absurd for anti-gun groups to try to perpetuate it. There are tens of thousands of federal, state and local gun laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-618, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44) alone prohibits persons convicted of, or under indictment for, crimes punishable by more than a year in prison, fugitives, illegal drug users, illegal aliens, mental incompetents and certain other classes of people from purchasing or possessing firearms. It prohibits mail order sales of firearms, prohibits sales of firearms between residents of other states who are not dealers, prohibits retail sales of handguns to persons under age 21 and rifles and shotguns to persons under age 18 and prohibits the importation of firearms "not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." It also established the current firearms dealer licensing system. Consider the following gun control failures. Unless otherwise noted, crime data are from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun sales took effect in 1977 and by the 1990s the city's homicide rate had tripled. During the years following the ban, most murders, and all firearm murders, in the city were committed with handguns.1 Chicago imposed handgun registration in 1968, and homicides with handguns continued to rise. Chicago imposed a D.C.-style handgun ban in 1982 and over the next decade the annual number of handgun-related homicides doubled.2 California increased its waiting period on retail and private sales of handguns from five to 15 days in 1975 (reduced to 10 days in 1996), outlawed "assault weapons" in 1989, and subjected rifles and shotguns to the waiting period in 1990. Yet since 1975, the state's annual homicide rate has averaged 34% higher than the rate for the rest of the country. Maryland has imposed a waiting period and a gun purchase limit, banned several small handguns, restricted "assault weapons," and regulated private transfers of firearms even between family members and friends, yet its homicide rate is 46% higher than the rate for the rest of the country. The overall homicide rate in the jurisdictions that have the most severe restrictions on firearms purchase and ownership -- California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C. is 23% higher than the rate for the rest of the country. New York has had a handgun licensing law since 1911, yet until the New York City Police Department began a massive crackdown on crime in the mid-1990s, New York City's violent crime rate was among the highest of U.S. cities. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed unprecedented restrictions relating to firearms, nationwide. Yet, compared to the five years before the law, the national homicide rate averaged 50% higher during the five years after the law, 75% higher during the next five years, and 81% higher during the five years after that. States upon whom the Brady Act's waiting period was imposed had worse violent crime trends than other states. Other failures of the federal waiting period law are noted in Fable V: "It is because of the Brady Act's five-day waiting period and the "assault weapons" law that crime has decreased," which follows. The record is clear: gun control primarily impacts upon upstanding citizens, not criminals. Crime is reduced by holding criminals accountable for their actions. Increasing incarceration rates -- Between 1980-1994, the 10 states with the greatest increases in prison population experienced an average decrease of 13% in violent crime, while the 10 states with the smallest increases in prison population experienced an average 55% increase in violent crime.3 Put violent criminals behind bars and keep them there -- In 1991, 162,000 criminals placed on probation instead of being imprisoned committed 44,000 violent crimes during their probation. In 1991, criminals released on parole committed 46,000 violent crimes while under supervision in the community an average of 13 months.4 Twenty-one percent of persons involved in the felonious killings of law enforcement officers during the last decade were on probation or parole at the time of the officers' killings.5 Enforce the law against criminals with guns -- The success of Richmond, Virginia's Project Exile, strongly supported by NRA, has grabbed the attention of the Administration, Members of Congress, big city mayors, and criminologists. Project Exile is a federal, state and local effort led by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Richmond, that sentences felons convicted of possessing guns to a minimum of five years in prison. Following the implementation of Project Exile, the city's firearm homicide rate has been cut by nearly 40%.6 Recognizing the program's success, Congress in 1998 approved $2.3 million to implement Project Exile in Philadelphia, Pa., and Camden County, N.J.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment II U.S. Constitution FABLE I: A gun in the home makes the home less safe. Firearms are used far more often to stop crimes than to commit them. In spite of this, anti-firearm activists insist that the very act of keeping a firearm in the home puts family members at risk, often claiming that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder. The 43:1 claim is derived from a study of firearm-related deaths in homes in King County (Seattle), Washington.1 Although Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay originally warned that their study was of a single non-representative county, and noted that they failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed, anti-firearm groups and activists use the "43 times" claim without explaining the limitations of the study, or how the ratio was derived. To produce the misleading ratio from the study, the only defensive or protective uses of firearms that were counted were those in which criminals were killed by would-be crime victims. This is the most serious of the study's flaws, since fatal shootings of criminals occur in only a fraction of 1% of protective firearm uses nationwide. Survey research by award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck, of Florida State University, has shown that firearms are used for protection against criminals as many as 2.5 million times annually.2 This is three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with firearms annually.3 It should come as no surprise that Kleck's findings are reflexively dismissed by anti-firearm activist groups, but a leading anti-gun criminologist was honest enough to acknowledge their validity. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country," wrote the late Marvin E. Wolfgang. "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. . . . What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology."4 While the 43:1 claim is commonly used to suggest that murders and accidents are likely to occur with guns kept at home, suicides accounted for 37 of every 43 firearm-related deaths in the King County study. Nationwide, 54% of firearm-related deaths are suicides.5 Gun control advocates would have the public believe that armed citizens often accidentally kill family members, mistaking them for criminals. But such incidents constitute less than 2% of fatal firearms accidents, or about one for every 90,000 defensive gun uses.6 In spite of the demonstrated flaws in his research, Kellermann has continued to promote the idea that a gun is inherently dangerous to own. In 1993, he and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.7 This study, too, was seriously flawed. Kellermann studied only homes where homicides had taken placeÐignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is doneÐand used a control group unrepresentative of American households. By looking only at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. After reviewing their work, Prof. Kleck noted that Kellermann's methodology could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted that: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Northwestern University Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, writing "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."8 _________________ Semper Fi [ This Message was edited by: Knuth on 2002-06-18 20:18 ]

While I don't believe in luck I think that shot was pretty close to it since the second fathest one was about 15 yards away. I shoot instinctly which means no sights and you don't even line up the arrow, alot like what you are doing but I use my cheek bone as an anchor point.

Something I learned last wrestling season is that no matter how good or fast you are some is better and faster and can take you down. Granted that the odds of meeting an all state wreslter on the street is slim but staying on your feet against a really good grappler is hard, if not impossible. P.S. A good hammer strike may stop a shot but that is something I have yet to try since the refs tend to frown upon that sort of stuff.

KSN Doug: I'm from CT and a man who lived about two miles aways (real small town) from me shot an armed intruder in the leg. The man ran away but the LEO caught up to him. The intruder is in jail. He never had a chance to steal my neighbors TV or rape his teenage daughter (only he knows what he was there for) or hurt anyone else for that matter. I am an avid 2nd amendment supporter because I believe it is our greatest freedom because it keeps the rest safe. P.S. To those who think only the weak carry weapons than I believe you are naive to the true world around you. Do you really think that running or h2h will solve every situation? Do you believe LEO are weak and lazy for carrying sidearms? _________________ Semper Fi [ This Message was edited by: Knuth on 2002-06-17 21:00 ]

Bitseach: Sorry about that, I meant no disrespect by the post that was apparently deleted, infact it was more of a joke and I'm sorry it wasn't taken that way. I didn't mean to imply my country was better than yours. I was just trying to say that I would rather be safe, possibly in jail, then dead. By the comment ckdstudent made it sounded to me that he was affraid to protect himself because of the stringent laws on self defense. I'm trying not to say that he wouldn't if he had to but that is how I interpreted it.

I have done some hunting with a a traditional, wood, recurve bow. Killed a dozen squirrels or so but that is about it. Farthest one was about 30 yards, nailed it to a tree

ckdstudent have you ever visited the U.S.A? From the way you talk it sounds that you brits are more affraid of your govt than an attacker.

The greatest thing I learned in the MA is how to avoid a fight but occasionly some people really want to fight. I have had a few knives in my face and I ended them with either a quick, powerfull jab or a disarmament with a joint lock/break.

If someone puches you then you break their bones, if they break your bones then you take their life. Unless someone threatens peace, justice, or humanity yours or otherwise a fight shouldn't be an option, even if mortally offended (would that be a fat momma joke?). To only use just as much force as your attacker will draw the fight out and since you are reacting to an attack and letting them escalate the fight you will eventually loose. END IT FAST! _________________ Semper Fi [ This Message was edited by: Knuth on 2002-06-15 12:49 ]