Don Gwinn

Desert Eagle--the ultimate firearm for dumbbell weight training! But that's my point. I don't like the DE. It's heavy, it's huge, it fires cartridges that could probably be better utilized from a simpler, lighter, more reliable revolver (except .50 AE.) And its gas system is unreliable if you use the "wrong" ammunition, which could be any brand and can't be identified without experimenting. BUT. . . . and it's a big BUT. . . . it works. And it's accurate, and it's powerful. And if you are smart enough to train with that monstrosity so that you know which ammunition is reliable, and keep the gas system clean, and are used to the weight, then you can still win with it over someone who has a better gun but has not trained as hard as you have.

I used to lose between 4 and 8 pounds every DAY in football three-a-day practices. These are days when you do three hours, take an hour off, do another hour and a half (mostly running, "shells" only and only very light hitting and then another three hours in the afternoon. I could verify this by weighing myself in the morning and again after the last practice. I would go home, drink a gallon of water at a sitting and gain it all back. Then I'd drink smaller amounts throughout the evening. I weighed about 260 at the time, though, and I'm one of those sweaty people regardless of weight.

When Kickchick talks about "depth" plyometrics, I believe she's talking about the really high box jumps, the jumps down from big heights (like at least shoulder height) to rebound back up, etc. I have to agree. Those exercises should not be attempted by anyone without massively strong legs, great joints and exceptional balance, if at all. Can't compare them to jump squats and Hindu squats (as long as they're unweighted) though. Those are great exercises.

All neat stuff, but what he wanted was simple definition of pound for pound, right? This just means how much weight you move in the chosen test as a ratio of your bodyweight. In Olympic weightlifting, for instance, bodyweight measurements are very carefully taken. If three athletes all snatch, say, 100 kilos, then the top place goes to the one with the lightest bodyweight. The reasoning is that he lifted more pounds per pound of bodyweight. Thus, "pound for pound" he is stronger. This is NOT an automatic strength advantage for smaller people, and it has nothing to do with the actual amount of weight moved. If you weigh 100 kilos and can squat 200 kilos, you lifted 2kg per kg of bodyweight. If I weigh 150 kilos and can squat 250 kilos, then clearly you have lifted more "pound for pound." In the real world, however, I moved more weight in absolute terms.

Hey, wait--you guys who wanted a mace can get a very good one with modern design and materials for about $40! Just in case: http://www.ltspecpro.com/specpro/90m.html http://store1.yimg.com/I/specpro_1692_2839518 http://store1.yimg.com/I/specpro_1692_2853943

Crucio, it ain't about your feelings, brother. A lack of healthy fear is how martial artists who should dominate street thugs get killed by street thugs. Still, it's not about being afraid all the time. It's about being prepared. Are you deathly afeared of a car accident every time you drive? No? Me either. But I wear a seatbelt. The point of mace has been well-covered except for one thing--I would advise against considering mace or OC as "backup" to fighting hand to hand. If you check with your local police, you'll find their force continuum probably goes something like: 1. Presence 2. Verbal commands 3. Chemical spray 4. hand to hand/restraint 5. baton 6. firearm The spray is ahead of hand to hand because it is less dangerous to you (distance is good) and because it will have no lasting harmful effects 99.999% of the time, which is often a better option than breaking an arm or a bullet between the eyes. However, it has its drawbacks. First, you're almost certain to get it all over yourself in the process of using it, so you will be a teary-eyed, burning, snot-nosed mess too. This is especially true if your assailant is quite close, is able to close and grapple with you, or if there's a lot of wind or you're in an enclosed area. Second, remember, OC and Mace are very effective deterrents most of the time, but they are only deterrents. People CAN and DO fight right through them on occasion, some of them without pausing to notice they've been sprayed. They do NOT mechanically incapacitate an attacker. Break a man's knee and he will not chase you. Not because he doesn't want to--he still might--but because he cannot. Put two bullets through his heart, brainstem, or spine, and he cannot continue the attack. Not "may not," cannot. Cut through his triceps and he cannot punch you. . . . I'm sure you all get the picture. I'm not saying not to carry Mace. My wife, my younger sister and my mother all carry it after what happened to my sister, and I'm glad. Most of the time it will work well. Just don't count on it to be a reliable fight stopper every time. Do NOT mace someone and try to continue the fight--spray and RUN. If it dropped him, you no longer have any right to hurt him. If it didn't drop him, he's not someone you want to go toe-to-toe with.

Bruce, to what truth are you referring? Tell me what it is and I'll tell you if it hurts. People, it's not that complicated. Iron Arahat gets it, so what's so difficult? I understand why Americans would be reluctant to come to the conclusion he did, out of simple national pride. But I should think a Brit or a Canadian would love a chance to bash American culture. I've never met one who liked it much. Why not bash the parts that deserve it?

Sin, that's what he said AFTER I called him on his original comments which were, and I quote: Can't be much clearer than that. Obviously one of those quotes might represent his real opinion, but they can't both be real. They're mutually exclusive. So which one is real? I chose to address the one he put out of his own accord before I nailed him. As for blanking out "moron," are you for real? If he replaces the letters in the word, even though he, I, and everyone else still know exactly what he's saying to me, then it's suddenly acceptable? I think not. Again, I'm not sure he would do that if we were face to face. If he would, I'm not sure why I would bother to have a face-to-face conversation with anyone with such poor manners and self-control. Finally, you say you would do the same if I "didn't accept your point of view." Did you read that before you posted it? Did you really mean to say that you consider everyone who disagrees with your opinions to be a moron? And whenever someone disagrees with you, you start calling them morons? How do you get through the day? Am I the only one here who thinks this sounds a little crazy? Is this acceptable behavior on this site? I can call names with the best of them, but if that's all we're doing here, it's not worth my time. You'll notice that I've been answering the posts of two or three people at a time here, constantly on the defensive, hounded from a couple of sides--but I have not resorted to name-calling and flaming. Could that mean my argument is stronger? Or am I really that much more in control of myself?

Throwing knives are fun, but difficult to use in combat. The only recorded use I've ever been able to find was a reported incident in which "Skeeter" Skelton (I hope that's the correct last name) threw a knife into a German sentry at a reported 85 feet. Of course, Skeeter was a traveling performer who did knife throwing exhibitions both before and after the war, and the distance cannot be verified. But it sure is fun! Many knives are BAD news if thrown from a blade grip; be careful doing that kind of thing. Has anyone here tried the Cold Steel Torpedo? It's a steel cylinder tapered to a very narrow, round point at both ends and about an inch thick at the center. Not only will either end stick, but the heavy weight makes it stick with authority. It can also be used to smash bricks and concrete, which is difficult with a knife, so you can imagine that even it lands "flat" damage is still done. http://www.coldsteel.com/torpedo.html

I hadn't thought about metal being so scarce in Okinawa. Of course everyone has heard of the low quality of Japanese iron and steel which forced the Japanese smiths to develop such extreme layering and heat treat techniques to compensate. I'd go insane on an island with no steel. No smithing, no peace!

AHA! A light goes on! Overstated, but this is the problem in a nutshell. Of course, the U.S. is far from unique in this. England has its own problems, like its skinheads and yardies. Canada doesn't see much, but with all due respect, Canada's population density and diversity are nil compared to the U.S. Japan doesn't have much of a crime problem, but they show signs of a big problem with innocent people going to prison after being tortured by police. They also have a huge suicide problem. The U.S. is unique in the scope of our "social problems" as you call them. Few other societies have to deal with the racial tensions we do, nor are drugs the kind of giant criminal enterprise in most countries that they are here. And, of course, prosperity attracts criminals. We also, quite frankly, have a harder time convicting people than many other countries because of the safeguards we've built into our law. However, as Jefferson said, I prefer even dangerous freedom over tranquil slavery.

I know Zin Ju says he's leaving, but perhaps he'll check in. If you don't like seeing this, what can I say? What do you expect from a moron? Then clearly I am not, because I said no such thing. I said that it is foolish to be afraid of the gun itself. Since you brought up the analogy, are you afraid of fists? In other words, when you see someone's hand in a fist, does that frighten you? Of course not. You might feel reasonable fear of being punched, but the mere existence of a fist doesn't frighten you; that would be silly since the fist is not going to hurt you of its own accord. It's the owner you have to watch. Guns are the same. I have a very healthy fear of being shot, but I am not frightened in the presence of a gun unless it's pointed at me. Simple common sense. I know it's been done to death, but guns really and truly don't kill people. Read the passage above. If you'd read my original posts you'd see that there was no contradiction. They were afraid of being SHOT, not of the fact that a gun existed or might be present. And the use of those rifles by good people saved lives and property that night, a fact you seem to be glossing over. A gun is a tool the same as a knife, a tonfa or a car. In the hands of a good man it is good and in the hands of a bad man it is bad because it has no good or bad will of its own. It is an inanimate object. I don't need to respond to this one, I just wanted everyone to look at it one more time and think about who they believe is more deserving of such an epithet. On the board I work for, http://www.thefiringline.com , you'd be banned for that kind of language and personal attack, but clearly the rules are a bit looser on this board. Your punishment will have to be having your words put up again for everyone to see as a reflection of your character.

A healthy fear of being shot is not the same thing as being frightened of a gun just because it exists. Are you afraid of cars? Candles? You could be hit with a car and you'd stand less chance of making it than with the average gunshot. You could wake up surrounded by a deadly house fire started by some fool who left a candle burning. However, you are not frightened of cars and candles. You recognize that the way to prevent these things is not to ban cars and candles, but to stop people from being stupid, irresponsible, or malicious. This is a very unpopular point of view because it's a lot more difficult and holds out less hope of success than a politician yelling "licenses and bans!" The question is, would you rather have false hopes and make-believe action, or results? And always remember, folks, no matter how strongly you may feeeeel them, your feeeeelings do not cancel my rights. You do not have a right to feel any certain way. I do have a right to defend myself (and again, I can't believe I have to argue that point on a martial arts forum!) "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." --Ronald Reagan describing the liberal philosophy of life.

Uhhh. . . .depends on how broadly you define "farm equipment." Nunchaku Tonfa Kama Bullwhip (western styles.) Rope Chain ANFO Bomb. The type McVeigh used in OKC was based on fertilizer (Ammonium Nitrate) mixed with fuel oil. Probably not the kind of weapon you had in mind, but . . . .

Uhhh. . . .depends on how broadly you define "farm equipment." Nunchaku Tonfa Kama Bullwhip (western styles.) Rope Chain ANFO Bomb. The type McVeigh used in OKC was based on fertilizer (Ammonium Nitrate) mixed with fuel oil. Probably not the kind of weapon you had in mind, but . . . .

If anyone ever pulls a knife on me while I'm armed, he will see the wrong end of a Glock 30. There is nothing immoral in this. I am not obligated to get all cut up and possibly killed just to save some thug from his own stupidity in attacking me. If he doesn't like finding that he attacked the wrong person, he could do what I do: don't attack ANYBODY! This is not complicated. As the defender you have every right to incapacitate your attacker to the point that he is no longer a threat. Thinking that you can or must take it easy because you're a martial arts master and your attacker is just a sloppy drunk is what gets martial arts masters killed by sloppy drunks.

I'm not a big fan of the British government, but I love the beer, the history, the people, and the beer. I'll take Lennox Lewis as champ any day. Tyson is. . . . well, he's Mike Tyson.

There's a decent telling of the story about halfway through Ronin with Robert De Niro. This is not a MA movie and really has nothing to do with Samurai or Japan, but you should still see it. Best Car Chase EVER. De Niro. Jean Reno. Awesome. One of your great-great-grandfathers was one of the 47? About what time period would that be--about 1850-1900? My great-grandfather was born in 1899, so about that, right? I thought that story went back a lot farther than that, but I wouldn't really know. I rented Sanjuro[/i and Samurai I today. Good stuff, though Sanjuro is more interesting.

Hey, Ogre, ever tried it? Building a full auto like Britain's "Sten" gun is not that hard either, if you're a decent machinist (I could do it in my garage.) So what? You can't have it both ways. Full auto-can't be useless to a normal person and useful to a criminal at the same time. Zin-Ju, I'm sorry, but if you're more afraid of guns than people then you're not paying attention. That's as nicely as I can put it. As for the fact that you have your feeeeelings hurt because you're scaaaaared of the big bad guns, that sounds like a logic problem on your part to me. I doubt the gun has psychic powers to implant fear into your brain, so I'd say the fear starts in your own head. And frankly, if you're afraid of guns, you don't understand what they are. I can't own my property because you feeeeel scared when you see it? What kind of idiot policy would that be? You're exactly right that an AR-15 was only created for use as a weapon for fighting and sometimes killing other humans. What of it? So are swords, daggers, shuriken, pikes, spears, bows, atlatls, slings, greek fire, and clubs. Hell, why do you think jiu-jitsu, taijutsu, karate, hapkido, aikijutsu, kali and escrima developed in the first place? People didn't create those arts because they had nothing better to do with their time; they wanted to survive their next martial encounter and they recognized that this might require anything from a bloody nose to death. Human beings have always found it necessary to fight and often kill other human beings. That's because there will always be some human beings who think that being stronger or better armed gives them the right to take what you have and destroy you if you resist. As Clint Smith puts it, "Some people have to be killed so that the rest of us can live. Don't be food!" During the LA riots, the only Korean stores that survived in the riot zone were the ones that had store owners and their families banded together on the roofs with AR-15 and AK-47 rifles. They didn't kill anyone, but they kept their stores and their families from being burned, bashed, or otherwise destroyed. They were ready and willing to use those AR15's for exactly the purpose you ascribe and it's what kept them unharmed while others lost everything including their lives. Meanwhile, thousands of people in LA were outraged that California had a ridiculous 2-week waiting period for the purchase of a firearm, which had seemed a "reasonable control" until they needed a firearm immediately. After the riots, of course, people promptly forgot their outrage. I should know better, but I can't get over the fact that a group of people ostensibly dedicated to the study of the martial arts, in a forum dedicated to the use of weapons in those arts, are screaming and whining that the most effective weapons they could learn to use should be banned! Don't any of you take your self-defense seriously?

Oh, man. This is starting to take longer and longer each time. 1. The LAX shooting. You're darn right he could have killed just as many with his bare hands. He killed two people. That is terrible, but HE did it. The gun was a tool in his hand. A paring knife or a boot would have done the same. Let me guess--you didn't bother to figure out how many people he killed before you posted that, did you? The other thing that ticks me off on this story, and it's not your fault at all because you didn't say it, is the reporting that there was a "Three-victim shooting" at LAX. There were NOT three victims! There were two victims and one murderer who got killed while he was committing his crime. That last one is a Good Thing. To refer to that thing as a victim is ridiculous. 2. The LA bank robbery. I never said this wasn't a problem, I said it was not CAUSED BY GUNS. I will not respond to straw men. Unless Jesse James or feudal Japanese bandits used M16's, you're not going to be able to show that the guns used to rob that bank caused the bank robbery. Again, robbery and killing predate firearms of any type by thousands of years. How could firearms have caused these things if they existed when firearms didn't? It's like blaming global warming on time travel. 3. Short-barreled shotguns. Sigh. You keep switching your argument here. First of all, "less accurate than a longer barrel" is not the same thing as "the accuracy is terrible." The accuracy is not terrible. I've used them and I'm telling you this from personal experience. They aren't the same as a nicely customized SIG 220, but their inaccuracy and uselessness is a Hollywood myth. 4. Wal-Mart. Double sigh. They are NOT "starting a buying application program." Wal-Mart is a Federal Firearms Dealer, which license you must hold if you sell firearms for profit in order to earn a living. When you buy a firearm from an FFL, ANY FFL, you must submit to a background check of the NICS system. If you pass it (no criminal record, no mental illness, no orders of protection against you, etc.) then you can purchase the gun. If not, then you cannot. In that case, it was a felony for you to attempt to purchase the gun, but this is almost never enforced. In the last year for which stats were kept, there were SEVEN people prosecuted out of a supposed 50,000 or so rejections. If the check is inconclusive after three days, federal law says you can then go ahead with the sale. This clause was inserted to make sure that delays in the process couldn't be used to purposely deny purchases, as in "Justice delayed is justice denied." Are you with me so far? Those are all matters of federal law. Now, Wal-Mart's policy has been to follow that law, which means they would sell to people if the feds took three days to do an NICS check and still couldn't come up with a conclusion. Recently, a report alleged that a few thousand people who should have been denied were allowed to purchase because the Feds' NICS database is screwed up. Most of these were people with domestic violence convictions, which should be in the system but somehow aren't. Don't ask me how that happened, it's the federal government. Now, Wal-Mart took a look and found out that about 5% of their gun sales were made after the three-day rule came into effect. They have now announced that from now on, they will not make a sale until the approval comes in, however long that takes. This is their right as a private business enterprise. Now, let's look at your claims. So far, you've claimed that a majority of Wal-Mart's gun sales end up used in a crime and that Wal-Mart is thus adopting a new program wherein they will require applications to buy. Claim 1: Again, given the number of guns Wal-Mart can be estimated to sell in one year versus the number of gun crimes committed, even assuming that each gun is used only once, it's virtually impossible that the majority of Wal-Mart's guns were used in crimes in any year, ever. That's with the most favorable estimates; with realistic estimates it is clearly NOT possible, because the number of guns sold by Wal-Mart is so close to the number of guns used in crimes that it would mean that no one else could have sold guns used in crimes. More to the point, if Wal-Mart's move came about because they think the majority of their sales are used in crimes, why are they only changing their policy on 5% of their sales? I haven't been in school in awhile, but as I recall, 5% is not a majority. Claim 2: This one is pretty easy. Just look it up for yourself in the source I gave you and you'll find out for yourself that Wal-Mart is NOT establishing some new program. OK, last thing about sawn-off shotguns and other "evil, nasty" weapons. The same features that people like you cite as making a gun "useless for anything except crime" are the ones that people look for in a self-defense weapon. What a sawn-off shotgun has going for it is that it is generally simple, it is very powerful, it is easy to hit with (as long as you use it within its range--yes, it has "terrible accuracy" at 100 meters. So what? That's not what it's for) and easy to handle in close quarters. Clearly it's not useless. If it were, people would not want to use it. I'm still waiting for someone to name a problem CAUSED BY GUNS. [ This Message was edited by: Don Gwinn on 2002-07-05 12:17 ]

Uhhhh, yeah. And from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need, right?

I'm sorry. I know I'm new here, and I don't want to be a jerk, but I have to call BS on that one. That can't possibly be true; anyone who has spent any time on this issue on either side in the U.S. would be shocked. It would be front page news. It's practically impossible. Do you have a source? This is mine: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119922 The source I have not only doesn't mention that, but says that Wal Mart doesn't release its stats. For the majority of Wal Mart's sales to be used in crimes, they'd have to have found that almost ALL their guns were used in crimes. Practically no one else in the nation could have sold a gun used in a crime. The number of guns used in crimes is that infinitesimal compared to the total number in circulation and the number Wal Mart must sell in a year. If you're going to make stuff up, I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this. We take driving tests because we are going to operate vehicles in public on the same roadway used by everyone else. If you want to drive your car on private property (yours, the racetrack, etc.) no test, license, insurance or anything else is required. Next? The point is that the average person bent on murder will find a way. If a firearm is available he will use it. If a knife is available, he'll use that. If a brick is available, he will use that. I don't know of anyone using a puppy or a butterfly, but the moment you declare it impossible someone will come up with a source. I know a cop who once had a man try to commit suicide by Emu in Texas: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=95cb26b81ac8039ba5a205a193d3cf66&threadid=46160 (In fairness to the perp, he thought he was committing suicide by chicken.) If nothing is available but his hands and feet, he will use those. You can keep denying this, but you're flying in the face of established fact. That should bother you. Sawn-off shotguns are great tools for their designed purpose. They are close-quarters, powerful weapons. There's nothing wrong with the accuracy of a short shotgun, especially with slugs. Yes, this makes them useful for crime, along with about a million other things. It also makes them excellent weapons for good people to use to defend themselves. I'm told that self-defense is not a legally valid reason to own anything in the UK, but here it certainly is in most cases. I repeat: do you want to hear the answer to your question about what controls there are on sawn-off shotguns and what the reasoning is? Or was that a rhetorical flourish? _________________ ____________________________________ * Ignorant Taekwondo beginner. * Black Belt--Chow Yun Fat Gun Foo * Master--Ralph Severe Method of Ninja Fatness [ This Message was edited by: Don Gwinn on 2002-07-04 23:06 ]

Thanks, Zin Ju. I'll keep that in mind.

Yes, that must be it. Too many rights, not enough privileges. Americans are bad people because they don't have to grovel before a nanny state government as much as the enlightened Europeans. The short answer on short-barrelled shotguns is that they are legal. However, they are "controlled." The reasoning gets pretty long and involved; many legal gymnastics were required to overcome the plain simple language of our nation's highest law: 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. If you prefer privileges to rights, fine. Continue to ask permission to be a human being. It's not for me.

First of all, I asked for a problem caused by firearms. A person killed with a firearm could easily be killed with just about anything else, including butterflies, daffodils and cute little puppies. Therefore, the gun did not cause that death. Ever read the accounts from the crusades of entire towns put "to the sword" and the streets "running in blood?" Those were literal accounts--thousands of people killed with swords, fire, spears, bows, diseases--all before firearms as we know them existed. Firearms did not and do not CAUSE anything. This may sound like sophistry, but it's not, and the reason is that removing an item that is not the CAUSE of the problem will not stop the problem. Did you even bother to read my whole post above? Violent crime and murder in the US would be higher than the rates for Japan and Canada COMBINED even if every gun in American magically disappeared. How can you say with a straight face that guns caused that problem if they can be removed and the problem comes back? It's like banning silverware so people won't get fat. We believe that controlled and banned are equal because we have been shown over and over that "control" and "registration" and "common-sense gun control" are only precursors to confiscation. Think about it for a minute--if I didn't know from long experience that the people asking to "control" firearms in America are really after a ban, why would I object to filling out a license every once in awhile? That would be a small price to pay if it ended there. Places where "registration" and "control" became bans: California ( so-called "Assault weapons") Chicago (Registration law passed, then citizens not allowed to register. Presto! De facto gun ban for the last 20 years) Australia (Gun owners register after being promised that the registry is all the antis want. A few years later the lists are used to round up hundreds of thousands of guns which are stolen and cut into scrap. Crime skyrockets.) Britain (Gun owners get licenses after being told that licensing is common sense and no big deal. After Dunblane, licenses are used to track gun owners and steal their weapons (compensation is promised, but most never see a dime) New York (Licensing law passes, gun owners register, guns are taken away.) Germany (Weimar Republic gun licenses required as a "common sense safety measure" used by Nazi regime to round up gun owners and steal their guns) Turkey (Gun licenses used to round up guns and take them. Then ethnic minorities, now unarmed since they don't control the military and had only their own arms, are slaughtered by the million.) I can go on, but I hope I've made my point. We're simply not dealing with honest people. Sarah Brady: On one hand, she says she wants only "control." Then, while speaking to allies in the Senate but still in public, she declares that "gun owners have no rights" and "the sale of firearms must stop now." BS. Violence Policy Center: On one hand, they castigate pro-gunners for opposing "limited, common sense control." However, their "scholarly" reports, each and every one, conclude with a call for a ban on all firearms beginning with handguns. Million Mom March: Before their first rally, they talked about wanting common sense safety measures. The NRA offered to put in one million dollars for any gun safety training program for children that the MMM might choose. It did NOT have to be an NRA program, only accredited by any state or the federal government. IF the MMM had not been lying about their numbers, this should have been less than one dollar per person and they would have had complete control of a $2 million dollar gun safety program! They refused. At the rally, they led chants of "No more guns! No more guns!" on the Mall. Shenanigans!