Firearms???

[Don Gwinn]

Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you, Iron Arahat, for addressing my points in an intelligent manner. I could lose an argument of this sort and still learn something. Your points:

Now with this said the question should be what can be done to keep guns out of the hands of "bad people"?

The answer is "not much." See Britain, where you can buy a Beretta submachine gun in London no questions asked for less than $300 American. Criminals only want guns in order to use them to commit much worse offenses than the illegal possession of a firearm, so they don't care much about deterrents to firearm ownership. Only people who consider themselves law-abiding citizens have a real reason to follow that sort of law.

 

So the real question becomes how you stop those bad people from hurting others. The most immediate short-term solution is to encourage citizens to defend themselves as much as possible. Currently, we do the opposite. For more long-term results, raise employment, raise prosperity, lessen racial tension, and deal with drugs in a sane way. This would not include unthinkingly banning everything you don't like.

 

Prohibition DOES NOT WORK. We have tried to prohibit alcohol, narcotics, and firearms. It has never worked, and the only way to bring it close to working is to create a police state.

With all the "social problems" that Don has eluded to, are Americans as a country responsible enough to have firearms in the general public?

Absolutely. Without question. There are at least 75-90 million lawful gun owners in the U.S. and fewer than 1% of those will ever use a gun to commit a crime. Much fewer than 1% of firearms will ever be used in a crime, and that conclusion was reached with the assumption of each gun being used only once (it comes from the FBI Unified Crime Report from 1994.) It's actually a lot less than that, something on the order of .001%, but I can't find the exact numbers to do the math right now. The VAST majority of Americans are good and decent people who will never hurt anyone in their lives.

The first part is true, but you do not take into acount large centers such as Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, etc.. which are densly populated. Then look at places like Windsor, Ontario --- just across the river from Detroit, but nowhere near the violence.

I have a hard time believing those urban centers compare to places like New York, Detroit, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, etc in size or density of population.

 

Chicago: 7,750,000

 

New York: Close to 20,000,000 in 1996!

 

Los Angelese: About 4,000,000 in the city itself, not counting suburbs.

I would differ from you here on this point as well, there are racial tensions here as well, we deal with aboriginals, blacks, vietnamese, jamacians, and so on. We have white supremsists, gangs, the Hells Angels, and so on.

I did not mean that there is no diversity in Canada, only that it looks that way in comparison to the U.S. We have very deep and serious racial problems that go to the very center of who we are. We have entire communities based on nothing but race, and the gaps between white and black and white and hispanic are so wide as to cause huge turmoil.

 

I myself live in a small town in central Illinois where there are NO black families. This is NOT because there are no black families in the area, but because black people are so badly treated in this town that none would ever choose to live here. In fact, I've never seen a black person get out of his car in this town. The last time it happened, three black teenagers pulled into one of our restaurants. Some schoolmates of mine began taunting them, things escalated from there, and there was a large fight. Several of my schoolmates got a much-deserved beating out of that one, but of course those guys will never come back here. Why should they?

 

On the flipside, my TKD instructor grew up as a white kid in East St. Louis, which was how he learned to brawl long before TKD. If you're white in those areas, there's no other choice.

 

I'm sure there a lot of places in Canada where this happens, but in the U.S., it's everywhere. You can't get away from it. You are left with no choice but to deal with it.

 

We find that the cities with the worst gun control tend to be the worst hellholes when it comes to crime as well. Chicago and Washington, D.C, for instance, totally prohibit firearms and ammunition for all intents and purposes and they vie each year for murder capital of the U.S. (Chicago won last year with 666, a record *EDIT: they're on pace to break that number this year; before, I mistakenly said they had already surpassed it.) In these cities, gun crimes have not stopped, but self-defense with guns basically has.

 

I also notice that Illinois, with much stricter gun controls on both ownership and bearing of arms than its neighbors Missouri, Iowa, Kentucky, Indiana, and Wisconsin, has violent crime, murder, rape and robbery rates much higher than any of these. I do not suggest that gun control has caused these high crime rates. I simply point out that it has done nothing to alleviate them, and yet all I hear are calls for more. Indiana, in particular, is much more peaceful and safe than Illinois. It allows ownership of pretty much anything (including machine guns or those short-barrelled shotguns we were discussing earlier) and allows "shall-issue" concealed carry. This means that anyone who meets the state-set guidelines cannot be denied a permit. Basically, anyone over 21 with no history of crime or mental illness.

 

If guns cause crime, why does the place with more guns in more places have less crime?

 

 

 

[ This Message was edited by: Don Gwinn on 2002-07-07 17:10 ]

[Iron Arahat]

Source Research Division Correctional Service of Canada "Robbery offenders are also more likely to use weapons than other offenders. In fact, about one-quarter of robberies involve the use of a firearm, another one-quarter involve the use of offensive weapons (such as clubs or knives), and about one-half involve the use or threat of physical force."

 

"The rate of firearms used to commit robberies in the US was 39.7% in 1997 and 38.2% in 1998" (FBI Uniform Crime Report).

 

"Studies of robbery indicate that, compared with other robbers, those who carry a gun are more likely to complete their robberies without experiencing victim resistance and without injuring the victim. However, because gun injuries are so much more likely to be lethal, the fatality rate for gun robberies -- four per 1,000 -- is about triple the rate in knife robberies and ten times the rate in robberies with other weapons. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997)."

 

Now looking at this information armed robbers in Canada are less likely to use a firearm than their American counterparts. Why?

 

One could argue that Canadians are less violent by nature, but we are exposed to the same media, images as the US.

 

One could argue that because of tighter controls on firearms that they are less accessable by criminals.

 

One could also argue that criminals in the US resort to friearms, because they don't want to bring a knife to a gun fight.

 

Food for thought

 

 

[Don Gwinn]

Yep, I'd say all those are contributing factors. As I've said all along, if you feel better being unarmed vs unarmed, knife, pipe or whatever than you do armed with a firearm vs. unarmed, knife, pipe or gun, that's your business.

 

You are certainly welcome to your opinion.

 

The point where we disagree is when you try to force your opinion on me.

 

 

[Iron Arahat]

Intresting that presenting facts is "forcing an opinon" on someone.

 

I thought Americans believed in freedom of speech.

[Don Gwinn]

No, no. The presentation of any fact or opinion you want to present is fine and, indeed, I want to hear it.

 

However, I was under the impression that you were advocating laws that would limit my right freely to purchase, sell, own, carry and use guns even more than what I face today. If you have not been arguing for gun control, I apologize.

 

If you have been arguing for gun control, you advocate using the power of government to force me to conform to your opinions of how the world ought to work. That's all I meant. I want you to speak your mind, but let's not kid ourselves about what you're saying. You're free to say it, but doing it is another matter entirely.

 

I'm curious. What would all of you who "fear" or don't like guns do if attacked? Guns may be harder to get in Canada or Britain, but we all know it's a long way from impossible. As I said, I could manufacture a working firearm in half an hour in my garage; give me a few days and I can turn out a fully automatic submachine gun (they're actually simpler to make than semi-autos.)

 

But I digress. Again, if you don't believe in guns, what would be your method of defense against, say, a mugger with a knife?

 

Would you run?

 

Would you fight him unarmed and hope you could beat a knife?

 

Would you bring out your own knife, a baton, OC spray?

 

Call 911 (police emergency number?)

 

 

[Iron Arahat]

Again I am asking to look at some serious issues which do involve firearms and crime. In the case of armed robbery why do you think that a firearm is the weapon of choice in the US?

 

As for an armed robber with a knife, do you feel that a gun is your best defense?

 

Would you pull out your gun and try to shoot him?

[Strife]

This whole damn argument is going no where. Neither one of you is goin to change your mind on this so heres a suggestion.All you anti-gun mofo's who dont live in the US can all go back to your caves and worry about your own society and shut the hell up about the states and all matters that even remotely involve them.

 

The fact is that of course its not the wepon that kills but the person weilding it. So instead of gun control how about we ban everything and live in fear of death or imprisonment the rest of our lives. You could die right now as your reading this post from a leaky gas main exploding in your house just as easliy as someone could do a drive by and kill you.

 

So, i guess the point im tryin to make is that i could kill you just as easily with a knife as with a gun. Or with my bare hands for that matter. Your all arguing over something thats been discused for hundreds of years. Half of you i dont even live in the US or are even affected by it. So mind your own friggin' business and leave the damn yanks to kill themselves with their "statisticaly deadly guns"! Then your problem is solved and someone else will replace that fallen government. Congradulations. Your repeating history.

[Don Gwinn]

IA, this is not exactly fair--you haven't answered my question yet, and I asked first. But I'll play along. Your second question is easier. Criminals choose guns because guns are the best weapons they can find for their purposes. Guns are especially well-suited to armed robbery because they allow you to cover someone from outside fist range and control their actions.

 

This is also, by the way, the reason I choose guns. Why do you suppose armed robbers choose to get away in cars and not on horseback? Shall we ban cars?

 

Your first question is a bit more complicated, because I can't tell you now what I would do a year from now without knowing the situation. However, as a general rule:

 

A gun is not a defense at all. It is one weapon, and in many circumstances it is the best one available. Clearly it can't solve all your problems, nor is it a magic talisman that will automatically make you safe.

 

My first choice would be to defuse and, if that's not possible, escape. This includes the use of OC or other weapons that are used to "incapacitate" without harm.

 

Second choice would be to fight using a firearm.

 

A very, very distant third would be to fight without a firearm.

 

You make a very common assumption, which is that if I want to carry a gun I must want to use it very badly or consider it the solution to my problems. I hear this a lot. It's not about wanting to use the gun one someone, it's about having the option should that become necessary. I can do anything with a gun on my belt that I could do without it (with the possible exception of boarding an airplane, although it's starting to look like you could do that too.) But without the gun, I no longer have the same options.

 

There may never come a day when you need a firearm. However, like insurance, fire extinguishers and seat belts, I put up with it because if I ever DO need it, I'm going to need it VERY BADLY and my life may depend on it.

 

By the way, according to the FBI's unified crime report, fighting back with a gun is statistically the safest thing you can do when assaulted or confronted by a criminal. Several times safer than fighting back with any other weapon, going along with the attacker and giving him what he wants, or fleeing.

 

In short, I would "pull out my gun and shoot him" if I could not escape and if there was an opening. I see nothing wrong with this. He has threatened my life and I have every right to walk away and go home. If he won't let me, and is willing to threaten my life to keep me there, then I have the right to remove him as an obstacle and as a threat. If I can do this by talking him down, great. If I can get away from him, fine. If I can't, I will HAVE NO CHOICE but to fight. The only choice left will be how to fight. I choose to fight with the most effective weapon I can get my hands on.

 

Now, Iron Arahat, will you answer my questions? Knowing you, I think you will. It's too bad you'll probably be the only one.

 

_________________

 

____________________________________

 

* Ignorant Taekwondo beginner.

 

http://www.thefiringline.com

 

[ This Message was edited by: Don Gwinn on 2002-07-08 08:13 ]

[Iron Arahat]

Don Gwinn stated "Criminals choose guns because guns are the best weapons they can find for their purposes....This is also, by the way, the reason I choose guns. Why do you suppose armed robbers choose to get away in cars and not on horseback? Shall we ban cars?"

 

So the chance of fatal violence is increased here, as it says in the FBI crime report, is triple the rate of knife robberies and ten times that of other weapons. If a criminal a gun is present you are more likely to die, but it is also escallated by what the victim has. If he is armed that also increases this chance. It again is also intrestig that firearms are used in a higher percentage of armed robberies.

 

As for the car / horse example. The car is firstly not an offensive weapon. Secondly it is more accesable than a horse. I imagine at the advent of the car, when the horse was still the major mode of transport, robbers still used horse. Why because they were easier to get.

 

As for the knife wielding mugger. First I would do my best not to put myself in a situation like that. Making good choices in were I go how I get there, and so forth to minimize risk, ie. taking the main streets vs. backalleys.

 

The rest is all situational OC spary, and gun both require a minimum of 22 feet if the armed assailant has his weapon showing, as well as if my weapons are holstered. Most robberies take place within that range, therefore nulifying those defenses in many cases.

 

If possible I'll run, if there is an escape route. I will also try to difuse the situation. Yeah the guy can have my wallet. If not and he's within the range of 22 feet, open hand tactics are your best chance for survival.

[Don Gwinn]

You lost me on some of that, so you may have to repeat some.

 

1. You didn't answer my question. Robbers use cars. Should we ban cars because robbers use them, or recognize that the rest of us have use for them too and concentrate on putting robbers in prison?

 

2. Cars most certainly are offensive weapons if they're used as offensive weapons. This is one of the biggest threats police face today. Pick out any large sample of articles on police shootings, and I'll be dollars to donuts that several will be cases where an officer was forced to shoot an "unarmed" driver who was trying to run him down. Last year a nut drove a Cadillac into a day care and killed four people (twice as many as the nut at LAX killed with a gun.)

 

3.

First I would do my best not to put myself in a situation like that.

Well, yes, that would clearly be best. However, this is a martial arts board. I thought everyone here would understand that sometimes crime finds you. Avoiding dark alleys is foolproof and, again, is part of the attitude that gets people hurt. When my sister was almost abducted, she was attacked a few minutes after noon in the parking lot of a gas station on a busy street in a nice neighborhood in Springfield, IL.

 

4. I agree that he can have your wallet, but he is threatening you with a knife. Think about it. We are no longer talking in terms of your wallet at that point. Once you give it to him, how does that guarantee he won't stick you for fun, or to get rid of his witness, or because there's not enough money in your wallet (happened in Springfield last year. Guy said it was disrespectful.)

 

5. "The chance of fatal violence" and "escalation" are misleading terms. The chance of fatal violence is indeed 100% if I shoot the slug who is threatening to kill me. However, that is not a bad thing. The chance of fatal violence inflicted upon the innocent party is actually much less if you resist with a firearm than it is for any other form of resistance OR for cooperation.

 

6. I don't understand what you mean by a gun "requiring" 22 feet. Mine works properly an inch from the target; I've checked. Are you referring to the Tueller Experiments? If so, you should understand that Tueller NEVER showed or concluded that a man with a gun had to get 21 feet away from his attacker or lose.

 

What he showed was that a knife-wielding attacker, if his weapon is in his hand and ready, can generally close a distance of 21 feet and strike a gunman before the gunslinger can draw and fire. This assumes that the gunman's weapon is holstered, that his hands are at his side, and that the knifer is not distracted and makes the first move. Action beats reaction, of course.

 

A. Unlike Dennis Tueller's subjects, you can distract, startle or frighten your attacker. You can scream, throw your wallet in his face, spit on him, or whatever you have to do. I believe this is called atemi in Aikido. Any of these things will distract most people and gain them time.

 

B. You can lull your attacker into overconfidence by seeming to go along or cower. The knifers in Tueller's experiment were intent and focused on attacking first. Your thug may not be and you can help him along by appearing not to present a threat.

 

C. You can attack first. Action beats reaction almost every time. This was the main conclusion drawn by Tueller. That's why he did NOT advise police officers to throw their guns in the river or to start carrying knives instead, but to draw and be ready at the first sign of threat so that they would not be in this kind of standoff. If they find themselves in one anyway, he advocates drawing and pulling back as soon as possible; with any luck, this will mean you draw first.

 

D. Even if none of that works, it doesn't mean you've lost. The "Tueller Distance" refers to how close the knifer must be to get in the first attack. Getting the first attack does NOT mean he wins and you lose. You can keep fighting, and a gun is your best method.

 

Why do you suppose counter-terrorism teams use pistols instead of knives for CQB and entries? They spend most of their time inside Tueller's distance, so if a gun requires more than that to be the most effective weapon in the fight, why wouldn't these professionals switch?