Don Gwinn

That was a terribly unhelpful answer. . . . I haven't gotten to play Tekken 4 yet!

I was told 5 years at my school, but that I could do it faster if I was there more. The average student there only attends twice a week.

Oooh, what a cool Christmas present. I'm an Irishman and a woefully inadequate stick fighter; it's perfect.

See that? Three lines to say what took me more than a page, and I ain't finished yet. I think there's another misunderstanding here: 1. I never called the .30 Carbine round ineffective. A lot of veterans have, but that's a bit subjective. It may not be politically correct to say so, but a lot of veterans tell stories that cannot be so, such as the guys who tell you they loved the .45 in 'Nam because hitting a man in the arm with it would spin him around and knock him down. We KNOW that doesn't happen when someone gets hit with a .45 in the arm unless something else causes it. We also KNOW that the .30 Carbine round is reasonably effective when used within its limitations. It can replace and even improve upon a handgun, especially out of the little carbine. Most of the "failures" of the .30 Carbine seem to have come from using it to do something it was not designed to do, like stop a charging soldier 100 yards away or knock down an enraged adversary with one shot. 2. To my knowledge, the Koreans and Chinese did not wear any kind of body armor during that conflict. I could be wrong about that, but it wouldn't make much sense to suppose that 1950's China, which could barely equip its army and relied largely on human-wave attacks, had the money and the inclination to provide body armor at a time when no one else did. However, your point is valid because it brings up another thing to consider about handgun-caliber rounds. Though the ChiComs did not have body armor, American soldiers did find that in such a bitterly cold climate penetration becomes much more important because the enemy will be wearing thick, insulated coats (if they can.) People forget that this makes a difference. Against some light bullets, a heavy winter coat actually makes pretty good makeshift armor, though you wouldn't want to bet on it. Look, again, I'm not telling anyone that handguns, training, M1 carbines, or puppy dogs are bad. I'm simply pointing out that anyone who is going to bet his life on these things needs to understand their limitations. 1. You have never trained too much. As martial artists if not shooters, I'm sure you don't need to be told that one. 2. Handguns are weak. If you don't believe me, ask Clint Smith, Massad Ayoob, Jeff Cooper. . . . anyone who has studied and taught this subject in depth. Therefore, do not assume that your first shot or your second has ended a fight. Keep shooting until your opponent goes down. 3. Handguns are weak, again. Conversely, do not assume that because your opponent has a gun, the fight is over. Even if you have been shot once, don't assume the fight is over.

It has simply never, ever, EVER been a good idea to try to replace Bruce Lee with David Carradine. I've never seen Circle of Iron; looking at the box was enough for me. The fact that Lee wrote the original script in no way means that the final product bore any relation to a Bruce Lee film. For totally unrealistic mayhem in a genuinely good and interesting movie, I like The Crow. Actually, the second one wasn't bad. I hear people complain that they shouldn't have made another without Brandon Lee, but the way the Crow concept works, the spirit of the Crow is the only constant. They'd have had to abandon the concept behind the film to make another one with Brandon Lee starring as The Crow.

I haven't seen Revolutions yet, but from what I hear, they don't really have to worry about Oscar strategies this year. The Last Samurai looks like it will be interesting as a portrayal of a clash between Western militaries and Samurai. Don't know how good it will be, but I'll go see it.

Have I offended you or something? I was under the impression that this thread was about Gunkata as practiced in Equilibrium. The answer to your question, in my opinion, is as follows: 1. Gun training? Sure, that might help, but it depends on what the training is. If you're talking about shooting, it's not a bad idea, but it won't teach you to disarm a shooter. 2. Disarm training? Better. If you take it seriously and work hard at it, it can work. You are ALWAYS at a BIG disadvantage when facing a gun unarmed, though. Disarms are techniques of last resort. 3. Gunkata? It's not real. A movie director made it up. No, it will not help. I am not disparaging you or your style by saying this, unless you study Fake Movie Gun Do, so I'm not sure why you seem to be taking offense.

Treebranch, if that's the impression I gave, I apologize. I'm pretty sure what I said was that the lawyer shooting showed that you must never give up and stay in the fight, that you should never assume that just because your enemy has a handgun you're doomed. In fact, I believe my advice, when asked about a totally hopeless situation involving being surrounded by a dozen government agents with firearms at contact distance, was to assault through the ambush, attack the cordon at the weakest point and attempt to break through and escape. Then, when even that seemed too negative, I posted an example of a man who survived 28 gunshots through dumb luck. I think, considering the nigh-impossible situations we're discussing, my outlook has been pretty sunny and definitely in favor of decisive action. You should of course be bearing in mind that I am no kind of expert. You are getting my opinions here, nothing more. That's an interesting question. . . . is there any record of a human being shot with a .454 Casull? I haven't heard of it. Can't be many, in any case. .44 Magnum is a powerful round for a handgun but nothing compared to a long arm and not a reliable stopper, especially with one shot. Ever hear all the stories about the dismal lack of power from the .30 Carbine in WWII and Korea? Lotta soldiers came back convinced that the M1 Carbine was a weak sister that couldn't be trusted to stop a charging enemy. The same soldiers were and are often heard expounding upon the awesome power of the .45 ACP, especially compared to something like 9mm. Truth is, by every objective measure possible, the .30 Carbine round is much more powerful than the .44 Magnum, even if you fire both from the same length barrel. Yet the .44 and even the .45 are considered man-stoppers, while the .30 is considered a wuss. Makes no sense. Most of what people say and write about handgun calibers is mythical. The bottom line is that although there are some differences, the degree of difference between most handgun calibers is actually very, very small in real terms. Put it in a convenient math format like foot-pounds, and it may look like one round is impressive and the other is weak. But look at how many foot-pounds would be needed to get impressive results and it becomes pretty clear that the handguns mostly get left behind.

So, what kind of knife are we looking for? Pocketknife? Work knife? Fighting knife? Whittlin' knife? It sounds like the last one you had was a cheap, sturdy work knife, emphasis on cheap. Knives in that price range tend to be cheaply made copies of reputable types made by good companies. Nothing wrong with a cheap knife, if it does what you need, but knockoffs are another story. Knockoffs take money out of the pockets of people and companies that actually produce value. If you're not familiar with knives, you might be surprised how prevalent the knock-offs are. Most of the "Smith & Wesson" and "Colt" brand knives, as well as a lot of "United Cutlery," are knock-offs. If I were looking for something inexpensive but very good quality, I'd look at Columbia River Knife and Tool, Kershaw, Spyderco, Case or Schrade, depending on what you want to do with the knife. For a defensive folder, Spyderco. Period. They have the price, the ergonomics, the quality, the service, and the edge that most others don't match. To compete with their quality, their edges, and their innovations, you have to go to a company that will charge you more for a knife. CRKT is just a hair behind Spyderco in my estimation as far as innovation, but they're very inexpensive and their knives are solid.

That's a giant topic.

That last post looks a little bleak as I look at it now. I suppose what I should have said was that you will not survive such a situation through skill 99.99999999% of the time. That does NOT mean you can't survive. The most famous recent incident happened in Tennessee, in Knoxville I believe. A man had been reported as walking around a parking lot with a handgun. It turned out to be a pellet gun, but there was a very tense confrontation between the suspect and 7 (IIRC) members of the PD. He was apparently committing suicide by cop. He responded to commands to drop his weapon by hiding the pellet gun behind his back and walking toward the officers, and they fired. 28 times. Twenty-eight. Only ONE officer hit the suspect. He only hit him with one shot, in the leg. The other 27 rounds missed (thank God, no one was downrange to be killed by them) and the suspect survived, albeit by simple stupid luck. Praying that the other side can't shoot is NOT a strategy, however.

I suppose I can see that, but I'm speaking purely of entertainment value. I found gunkata much more interesting than blatant wire-flying in much the same way that I find Batman or the Punisher more interesting than Superman. When I said gunkata was no different or worse, I meant to imply that there was nothing wrong with the flying scenes. Simply not my cup of tea. Are they arranged in a circle around me at a distance of a few feet and all armed with firearms, as in the film? It's an impossible situation. Survival would be based on pure dumb luck. Best thing would probably be to assault the weakest part of the circle, attempt to get past the guns and break through the cordon, and somehow escape. Realistically, that's just not going to happen in that situation. I know someone is going to say it, so I will: yes, they're going to shoot each other in the crossfire. However, they will also shoot YOU and the crossfire won't bring you back to life. However, as has been pointed out, under stress you can't tell what you're going to do unless you've trained hard for that particular situation. I have not trained for that and probably won't unless I get awfully good and awfully bored someday. There's really no point, because with the life I lead, I'm unlikely ever to face such a situation. If I ever did, the odds would then be pretty high that it was some sort of mistaken identity (who would do such a thing except the police or the Latin Kings? I have no quarrel with either) and attacking might not be the best option. This is kinda like asking what you would do if you were hanging out the emergency ramp of Air Force One while a crazy Russian played by Gary Oldman tried to kill you. It is conceivable that it could happen to someone, but not only is it just about impossible to survive but it's not as likely as a lot of other situations I still need to train to face.

You CAN get a "real" live blade for under $1000. However, in the long run, if you plan to stick with it, you'll probably be happier if you save up and get the "right" blade. That said, you need a LOT more knowledge before you even think about giving anybody any money. Put down the Bud K catalog and step away slowly! There MIGHT be five things in the Bud K catalog that aren't a complete waste of time for a user. The rest are strictly wall-hangers and most are too gaudy and ugly even for that. I bought a set of United Cutlery katana/wakizashi when I was 10, and the other day I found them in my attic. Just out of curiosity I picked up the wakizashi and squeezed. I was able to bend it into a perfect "U" shape with my bare hands. Totally soft, untreated steel. Go here and here and read as much as you can: http://www.swordforum.com http://www.bladeforums.com These will lead you to other places you'll want to check out. By the time you're ready to spend money, you should know enough to make a good choice.

Some random thoughts on this thread in no particular order: 1. Gunkata is not intended to be a serious proposition. The director created it and has stated over and over that it was developed purely as a way of having a theatrical wushu-type art that could incorporate guns without being boring. It's no different and no worse than the goofy flying scenes in "Crouching Tiger." To my way of thinking, it's also more entertaining. 2. If you want to see a movie that actually shows how guns are used by knowledgeable fighters, go rent "Way of the Gun." Good stuff. Lesson Number One--NEVER, and I mean NEVER, dive into an old dry fountain in the courtyard of a Mexican bordello, no matter how many bagmen are shooting at you. If you see the film, you'll agree. 3. The reason Gunkata could never, ever work, even if the physical movements would actually avoid gun shots instead of just looking cool, is that it is based on statistical analysis. "When you are here and he is there, the temperature is thus and the ambient light is so, then he will fire a bullet precisely there and nowhere else, so you simply avoid it." In the real world, no fighting style that works is based on that kind of concept, because humans are too unpredictable. In Gunkata, your opponent would actually be more likely to shoot your dumb butt the clumsier he is! I'm no expert, but that can't be positive. 4. If you actually DID have some way of dodging bullets, you still wouldn't want to stand still in the middle of a circle of opponents unless you could trust them to be smart enough not to fire across at each other. 5. That lawyer did a great job of keeping himself going when a lot of people would have laid down and died for purely psychological reasons. Handguns are underpowered weapons for all their positive attributes, and the proverbial "one shot stop" is very nearly a myth. The truth is that the large majority of handgun gunshot victims DO survive. The fact that the weapon was a .38 Spl. from what I've seen does not increase my amazement. The .38 has long been known to be an inferior stopper against anyone determined to continue the fight. He used cover very well and is to be commended on his cool head. His action limited his opponent to peripheral, non-stopping targets even at close range. 6. The other thing to remember about handguns, besides their inferior stopping power compared to long arms or even knives in many cases, is that they are not magic talismans. Many in the MA community are fond of speaking with distaste of how firearms have made killing too easy, since any fool can point a gun and pull a trigger. Well, that's not quite true, just as any fool can't hit a high moving target with a fast, powerful kick. Both require training. Simply pointing and pulling doesn't get the job done. Now, in this case, that's a good thing! But when it's you vs. your mugger, it would be better if you had trained so you'll use your front sight, squeeze the trigger, and keep firing COM until the threat goes down. 7. In summary: Gunkata is not real or realistic, but it's wonderful to watch. Equilibrium was one of the best films of the year, no matter what some effete snob at Cannes thinks. When facing a handgun, the main thing is to keep your head and use your training to stay in the fight and look for a chance to counterattack or "assault through the ambush." If you get shot, don't give up. Chances are good that you have not been mortally wounded unless you lie down and give up because you "know" from watching TV that people who get shot immediately fall down and die. If you are forced to use a handgun in self-defense, don't assume that you can just point and shoot. If you are forced to use a handgun in self-defense, don't assume that your mugger will immediately keel over, even if you shoot him in the head or heart. He may not have a TV.

Fair enough. Those are the right questions to ask, and it sounds like you've done a very honest assessment. Again, not to sound like I'm judging your worthiness, but I'm impressed.

Whoa . . . . that's not even in the right thread! Anyway, that topic was closed in the other thread, so Taezee gets the last word here--I just wonder how the heck the software did that.

I see what you're saying, Ironberg, and I'm sure that's true for SOME people here (and I'm also sure a lot would object if I assumed it applied to all, which is why I emphasized that word.) But it's so unnecessary! A real and serious understanding of the use of guns in combat can only improve your understanding of the empty-hand art you practice, and it would certainly be folly to depend on a gun to defend you without empty-hand skills and conditioning (that's why I began training in the martial arts in the first place.) Firearms are just weapons, as are swords, knives, staffs, sticks, etc. Firearms have their own strengths and weaknesses compared to the others, although on balance I think firearms are the most effective. What I don't understand is why people who think it's fun to train with swords, knives and sickles (truly gruesome, brutal weapons) somehow find it "icky" to train with firearms. I understand longing for a nostalgic time, although no one here is old enough to remember the days before firearms were commonplace, reliable weapons, but at some point you've got to deal with the real world as it exists. In the real world, not all fighting is an exercise in sport or nostalgia, and it's a bad idea to handicap yourself by refusing to study the most effective weapons.

Taezee, I mean no offense and I'm sorry if this brings up painful memories for you, but as long as you're making these assertions I have to answer. If we get to a point where you don't want to continue because of that, I'll certainly understand. But a lot of what you're saying is simply not true and I feel compelled to answer it. I wasn't accusing you of racism. My point was that you would not say something as silly as "The NAACP has got to go!" or "The ADL has got to go!" You wouldn't demand that those organizations be disbanded simply because they fight for the rights of their members, even though you might sometimes disagree with one of their policies or another. But when it comes to the NRA, your first thought is "The NRA has got to go!" Why is that? Why is it good that the NAACP fights to protect its members' Constitutional rights, but bad that the NRA fights to protect its members' Constitutional rights? There's a double standard there. Fine, but the point is that those laws are already on the books. Everything you just mentioned is already illegal. In fact, it's a federal felony. You do hard time in a Federal penitentiary if you're convicted. The GCA1934 has been around for 68 years. The GCA1968 has been around for 34 years. The Brady Bill has been around for about ten years. They were all in force when Muhammed bought his rifle, and both he and the seller simply ignored them (that's what criminals do with laws.) So why are you still demanding that these laws be passed if they've been on the books for years? Is it possible there are aspects of this issue you don't fully understand? Again, it's great that you want a law against this, but . . . well, again, the things you want to outlaw are already federal felonies. Any kid under 21 who buys a handgun is already committing a federal felony. In New York, I believe you've got to have a Pistol Permit as well, so it's also a state felony. Here in Illinois, we've had the FOID (Firearms Owner ID) law for years and it hasn't done squat to reduce crime, but again, a kid doing what you suggest is legal would be committing both federal and state felonies. In accordance with the Law of Unintended Consequences, you also commit a state felony in Illinois if you let your teenage son (or an adult without a FOID card) touch your handgun, even to shoot a tin can on your own property with your supervision. Thank God we're protected from those kinds of horrors. Of course--when statistics support my side, they're nothing but numbers. When you were quoting your highly scientific study of crime rates--reading the paper and seeing how many heart-tugging articles about shootings there were each day--that was a valid argument. There's that double standard thing again. Again, I don't want to sound like I don't care about your father's loss, but that is the key phrase. Would gun control have kept that from happening? Would that twice-convicted felon who, for whatever unimaginable reason, got sent out into society and told to sin no more have simply given up and gone straight if he'd had a harder time getting a gun? Come on. You know better than that. It would have been a knife, a razor, a pipe, whatever. And your father, being the nice guy that he was, would still have tried to do what he thought best, which still means a wrestling match, which means he still would have fallen. What happened to your father was terrible, but blaming it on the availability of guns is not logical. Look, I don't know what you're so pissed about. I'm not the one who posted a public call for your property and your rights to be stolen by the government. Anyway, the argument has already been made (and I notice you didn't bother to respond to it.) I was simply offering to back up my assertions so that you could see for yourself that I'm telling the truth. In other words, simply offering a courtesy you didn't offer me. You've made all kinds of assertions about statistics, trends, etc. without ever once offering any kind of proof that any of it was true. . . . . and we're back to anecdotal evidence gathered by looking at newspapers. Not exactly rigorous science, sir, especially since we all know the news media emphasizes blood and gore as much as possible and is generally anti-gun to boot. The Center for Media Research looked into this and found that for any given incident, the average gun crime received about three times as much coverage as the average defensive use or other positive story. They also found that when so-called "experts" were consulted in the news, members of anti-gun groups were quoted several times more often than those from pro-gun groups. Do you still really believe you can find the truth by reading the newspaper? Riiight. Poor kid was just trying to show his love--by murdering the woman he claimed to love, plus the guy she chose over him. That makes sense. He couldn't have. It isn't possible. Possession of one of those has been against Federal law since 1934, and we all know that gun control stops people from getting guns, right? Therefore it couldn't have happened, right? No need. In 2000, according to the CDC, the number of accidental gun deaths for children 14 and under was 86. The number of suicides was 110, and the number of other deaths (meaning homicides, both murder and justified, and the large category of "undetermined intent") was 239. How many kids 14 and under do you think there are in the U.S.? Maybe 30 million? Maybe 50-60 million? Let's try 30 million. Divide 86 by 30 million. Hell, divide 435 by 30 million. What do you get? 0.0000145. One hundred and 45 per ten million. You don't call that incredibly rare? Are you being honest about this? By the way, the numbers for drowning, exposure to smoke and fire, and auto accidents were 943, 593, and 2,591 respectively. Compare those to the eighty-six accidental gun deaths. Face it, Taezee. You are being fed a pack of lies. Now, as for having heard of someone who had a child die in a gun accident, that has nothing to do with whether it is rare or common. That only means that it is newsworthy, not that it is common. I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist bolding the word "seems" above. That's the crux of our disagreement. I'm dealing in facts here, and you simply aren't. Your whole argument is based on how it "seems" and how it "feels" when you read newspapers. I'm not trying to be snide here, but I can't argue with your feelings, and you can't use them to support any real argument. Now, I've already explained that the VAST majority of defensive uses of a gun (98%) do not involve the firing of a single shot, much less the killing of the assailant. It is indeed rare for an armed citizen to shoot an intruder or an attacker, because it's not generally needed. Most flee at the sight of the firearm. And I've already explained to you that it has been proven that the majority of the news media reports the news the way they want it to appear. In fact, they simply don't report things they don't personally find newsworthy, like an armed citizen chasing off an attacker with no shots fired and no gory pictures of blood on the pavement. If you'd lived in the 1930's and I'd told you Roosevelt was in a wheelchair, I suppose you'd have called me a liar then too. After all, it wasn't printed in the news, so it couldn't have been true. . . . . right? Again, those PEOPLE were the problem, not the fact that someone else was allowed to own a gun. Most of them were probably legally barred from owning a firearm by federal law (if they had an past convictions or mental illness history, or if they were addicted to drugs or alcohol) They'd have done the same thing with knives, pipes, swords, or whatever weapons were current, had they lived in a different time or place. If your father had been on night patrol in ancient Greece he'd have been in just as much danger (well, maybe not in Sparta) except that they'd have been using knives or short swords. The spirit is the same. The criminal ethos of "work and honesty are for suckers, and suckers are there for me to steal from" is nothing new and it did not appear with guns. I already did. You just don't seem to want to hear it. As I say, that's your choice. Give your father my best and tell him I thank him for his service--and thank you for yours. I'm sorry you can't get past your image of me as somehow evil or responsible for the evil of other people.

The legal means of nullifying the 2nd Amendment would be to amend the Constitution legally and fairly by the mechanism clearly set out in the Constitution itself: 1. Get 2/3 of both houses of Congress, or 2/3 of state legislatures, to call for a Constitutional convention. 2. Propose an amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment at the Convention. 3. Get 3/4 of the state legislatures or state conventions to approve the amendment. "Illegal means" are all the 20,000-plus laws that have been passed to date which violate the 2nd Amendment but have not been struck down. Illinois' FOID law, for instance, or Chicago's de facto ban on guns, or D.C.'s total ban on gun ownership or possession, or the Brady Bill, or GCA 1968, or the GOPA 1986, or GCA 1934. According to the Supreme Court's accepted doctrine, any law which is contrary to the Constitution is automatically null and void. However, for going on 70 years now, the Supreme Court has refused to rule one way or the other on the 2nd Amendment. They know they have little choice about this. On the facts, it's obvious to most Constitutional scholars that the 2nd was raped in 1934 and the Justices turned a blind eye. Now the Justices don't want to see gun control invalidated because they personally believe it's a Good Thing. If they rule, they either have to uphold gun control (thus gutting the 2nd, removing all hope of gun owners and other Constitutionalists that the Constitution can be restored by peaceful means, and--possibly--touching off another civil war. Obviously no one wants that. But if they rule in accordance with the 2nd, those 20,000 gun control laws become null and void overnight and we go back the the 1930's in terms of gun control. I think that's wonderful, but they don't, so they don't want to do that either. So they simply refuse to rule on the issue and have for almost 70 years now. I sometimes forget that not everyone spends as much time on civil-rights stuff as I do. I apologize if I sometimes lapse into jargon or make assumptions.

No offense, guys, but how exactly did you earn the right to run your neighbor's life? Do you own yourself, or does society own you? If you own yourself, how dare anyone throw you in prison for ingesting a substance when you haven't hurt anyone? If an addict shoots somebody, prosecute him. If he's high and he runs someone over, prosecute him. Throw him in jail for doing harm. Not for inhaling some smoke. I don't smoke either pot or tobacco, but I'm sick of being oppressed by a giant nanny "for my own good."

Cooper is absolutely right and, as usual, he expressed an important concept more clearly, simply, and elegantly than most could have done with an entire essay on the subject. Worth thinking about, since it applies equally to all the weapons mentioned in this thread. That said, Kickchick, I wonder why you choose not to carry a firearm? Permits are apparently not hard to come by in Connecticut. Feel free not to answer this if you don't want to (as if you would answer me if I ordered you ) A kubotan is a fine weapon for someone who is confident in her empty-hand abilities, but a firearm would give you many options the kubotan can't. Personally, I find a handgun meets your definition of practicality better for me. I have it with me, and I conceal it so that it is not obvious to my attacker. Folks, I'm not saying that everyone has to carry a gun. All I'm saying is that I'm getting tired of being lectured about how fists and ki are superior to firearms or that the use of firearms is not "legitimate" for whatever reason. It's ridiculous.

Taezee, I can understand the temptation to rant, but please take a moment now and read through that post. See if it still makes sense. Maybe. Does that mean that we should also strike out the First Amendment? After all, the founders couldn't have known about bullhorns, laser printers, desktop publishing, the internet, blogs, self-publishing services, microphones, typewriters, telephones, radio, television, the telegraph, photography, cinema, or a dozen others. Nor could they have known that there would be lots of "other" religions flooding into this country when they guaranteed religious freedom. They didn't know there would be "Five-Percenters," for instance, who would sympathize with Islamicist terrorists and kill Americans while proclaiming themselves to be God. Is Freedom of Religion out of date? How about the right to a trial by jury? After all, they surely couldn't have known what sort of TV-addicted ignoramuses Americans would become. Quite frankly, I'm on your side. If you're talking about actually trying to amend the Constitution in legal fashion to get rid of the Second Amendment, bring it on! At least you want to do it honestly and somewhat fairly, unlike most people who've tried to nullify the Amendment by illegal means. Well, it ain't gonna happen, Tiger. Four million Americans are members of the NRA, far more than the membership of the top three or four anti-gun orgs combined, and there's a reason for that. I suppose since the perpetrators were black, next you'll tell me that the NAACP has to go? The ACLU, the NAACP, NOW, and the NRA all have their roles to play. They all protect rights that are vital to individual Americans and thus to all Americans. Discard them at your own peril. Why? You do know that Muhammed broke lots of federal gun laws when he bought his AR-15 "off the books," don't you? Why didn't the tough penalties for what he did stop him? Could it be because he's a murderer and murderers don't follow laws? The guy is going to be executed for his murders, and you want to sentence decent people who simply want to possess weapons for their own defense to prison in order to discourage him. And you very rarely will, because it almost never happens. In about 98% of successful defenses with a firearm, not a shot is fired. Don't fall into the "Kellerman trap" of believing that self-defense is only real when someone kills an intruder. Conservative estimates of crimes prevented each year by private citizens using firearms range between 750,000 and 1.5 million per year. Now, not all of these are preventions of murders, but you can still see how many lives are being saved. On the other paw, deaths of all types involving firearms (murder, suicide, accident, justified shootings, etc.) total just over 30,000 per year. You do the math. Most successful defenses are simply not newsworthy. I can understand how these seem to be commonplace, but they simply aren't. They're newsworthy; "if it bleeds, it leads." They get massive attention, just like the so-called "sniper." It has however been statistically proven that the media in the U.S. overwhelmingly favors negative stories about firearms while ignoring positive ones. I can post the numbers and citations later; I don't have them in front of me. . . . . are, again, incredibly rare. Accidental deaths among children 14 and under amount to a few hundred per year. That sounds like a lot until you remember that there are about 280,000,000 people in the U.S. and about as many firearms. More children are accidentally killed by drowning, eating household cleaners, falls, bicycle accidents, etc., every single year than by gunfire. Among adults, accidents are the second lowest cause of accidental deaths. The only thing rarer is "specific types of poison." That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I can give you a lot of reasons that contradict it. Will you read them with an open mind?

I know a lot of non-Americans who would argue about that, but I'm an American so it doesn't bother me much. I like being an American. Could you please elaborate on that statement? Are you suggesting that using a firearm in justified self-defense will somehow send me to one of those three places? How is it that a stick can keep me out of them while a gun can't? It would not be wise to start making assumptions. I'm well aware that we're talking about a fight here, which is why I suggested the safest and most effective weapon available to a human being today. Who cares if he's cocky? I've never heard that firearms don't work against cocky opponents. I've also never known anyone who knew anything about firearms who thought they wouldn't work against "barehanded" or knife-wielding attackers, so what exactly was the argument here? Assuming that I can't get out or avoid the confrontation: Rather than a firearm? Then you don't understand how those weapons work. That would be my first choice as well. I wouldn't care to count on it for my safety, though. I'd rather backpedal and shoot him, but that's just me. I don't enjoy gaping wounds and my firearm gives me a better chance of avoiding them than just giving a knifer my arm. To paraphrase an old friend of mine: "If Plan A is to offer him your arm so he can slice it up, you need a Plan B."

And cheers to you, ma'am! See? I knew you could find something with which I could disagree. The rest of your post made a great deal of sense.

I can remember being in diapers and drinking from a bottle. . . . but to be fair, that was this morning.