Thugs scared off by pocket knife

[Reloadron]

<RANT>

Well here in the wild, wild west law enforcement just sent another unhappy bad guy to meet his maker:

This story just happened this morning and here in Cleveland, Ohio US is just another day. It is very unwise to point a gun at the local law enforcement people.

The earlier link brought out a very good point about gun violence. What I have seen over the years is a coarsening of the US culture. Things that were unheard of 40 years ago are now common place and the gun is merely a tool.

I am a strong advocate of peoples right to own guns simply because I enjoy the shooting sports so much. What I see here in the US is the liberals screaming for gun control and more gun laws when they can't enforce the laws they already have. I see inept political leaders who can't deal with crime and mete out punishment blame the gun for their inability to deal with the criminal element. I am sick of pathetic leaders telling me what is good for me.

I'll give you 10;1 odds that the person in the above story, now the deceased, already had a criminal record. I'll further bet this person did not pay $350 for a concealed carry permit and take the required training. I will also take bets this person did not legally obtain his weapon and complete the required forms. Any takers? I will also bet this person would not hesitate to rob you on the street and take your life.

</RANT>

Ron

 

[HarveyH42]

You and I are not the court, nor the police, so it's not our job to protect the future of society by choosing to remove them from this planet - that would be vigilantism which is then another problem issue. As for getting one shot in life, that may be so, but these special situations demand quick reflexes brought on by sound thinking. You see, all these complications arise for the law abiding folks of society and all because some people choose not to behave properly. It's the innocent, law-abiding citizens in society that are forced to jump through the hoops. Once agani proving that life isn't fair to everyone.

Vigilantes, go after someone who the suspect committed a crime. I was referring to taking care of business, instead of becoming a victim of the crime. The thug chose to victimize me, I don't assume he is going to be gentle about it, or use only reasonable amount of force to rob me, or leave me alive to bear witness. I don't read minds, nor do I intend to waste time trying to figure out how bad some thug intends to beat me. I'm with Nigel on this one, use everything you got, to end it quickly. If the thug intends to beat you until you are no longer moving, he deserves the same consideration. I don't go out looking for trouble, and do my best to avoid inviting trouble, don't see any reason to show any self control in a confrontation.

I think there would few criminals, if death and serious injuries were more a major concern to their trade. There will always be crime and victims, but if they are caught in the act, it should be a right to administer any sort of justice you feel capable of at the time. Doesn't matter if it somebody trying to pick your pocket, or a burglar, who into your garage thinking you weren't home or asleep. There should be a more substantial threat, a few months in prison or probation isn't much of a deterrent. I think the third felony conviction, should be the very last conviction. Criminals don't observe the laws, why should we recognize their rights?

 

[Sceadwian]

I don't have time to read the whole thread right now so this is just a response based off the first post, I'll catch up with the rest later. The thing about a knife as a fear generator in people is that EVERYONE has been cut by a sharp object in their life, some many times, most non fatally, but things like papercuts and smaller scaring wound which are there to remind you every day of the pain have an absolutely incredibly psychological effect on human beings when they recognize an object as being sharp. Very few people have actually been shot. In third world countries in rural areas some people might not even fear having a gun pointed directly at their face, where the display of a simple knife would instantly cause fear or at least a heightened sense of awareness. With criminals it's the same thing, it's an instantaneous judgment, if you see a knife the first thing that comes to mind would naturally be 'this is not worth it' unless it were a drug crazed individual, rational human beings fear a sharp blade more than even fire.

 

[HiTech]

I think there would few criminals, if death and serious injuries were more a major concern to their trade.

Well there you have it! Justification to continue allowing US law enforcement and citizens to bear firearms. Now, go sell that to the Brits, but don't get 'em mad at you or they might pull a Boy Scout jack-knife on you!

 

[BrownOut]

What I see here in the US is the liberals screaming for gun control and more gun laws

Ron

I see conservatives kicking a political football.

 

[ljcox]

EDIT: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Could not have said it better... And it is SO true.

I disagree. As I wrote in an earlier post, the criminal has the advantage of choosing the time, place & victim. The Rambo element think they will be able to defend themselves. But it is a bit hard to do so if you're laying on the ground dead, dying or seriously injured because the criminal took you by surprise.

There is also the issue of accidental shootings. I suggest that you investigate the number of accidental gun deaths compared to the number of gun homicides.

Some years ago I heard of a case where a woman in the US shot what she thought was an intruder and, when she turned the light on, found she had killed her son who came home late and came in the back door presumably so he would not wake her.

 

[Hero999]

I am a strong advocate of peoples right to own guns simply because I enjoy the shooting sports so much.

In my opinion, that's the only sane argument for allowing people to own guns - nothing else makes any sense.

What I see here in the US is the liberals screaming for gun control and more gun laws when they can't enforce the laws they already have. I see inept political leaders who can't deal with crime and mete out punishment blame the gun for their inability to deal with the criminal element. I am sick of pathetic leaders telling me what is good for me.

You have a different gun culture in the US, a large portion of the population have owned guns for many years, it's really too late to start trying to legislate against it.

I'll give you 10;1 odds that the person in the above story, now the deceased, already had a criminal record. I'll further bet this person did not pay $350 for a concealed carry permit and take the required training. I will also take bets this person did not legally obtain his weapon and complete the required forms. Any takers? I will also bet this person would not hesitate to rob you on the street and take your life.

He was an idiot for pulling a gun on the police, he should've known they would've been prepared for it and be a better shot than him.

 

[Reloadron]

I see conservatives kicking a political football.

So what would you suggest here in the US as to gun control laws? I'm open to suggestions and don't see where existing laws have helped what seems to be a deteriorating situation.

Ron

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Ok then, where does the line get drawn when a situation transitions from self-defense to self-offense?

If they don't attack you, then there's no need to defend yourself - pretty simple really.

 

[Mikebits]

The word reasonable force comes to mind. One has a right to protect themselves, their loved ones, property, and by reasonable force. A reasonable response to an attack would be one that removes the danger of the attacker and once the danger has been removed, then no further retaliation to the attack is warranted. In other words; after being attacked, it is perfectly reasonable to subdue the attacker and restrain any further attacks, but once the aggression is thwarted and subdued, any further aggression would be considered unreasonable. That is to say, it would be improper to kick the man when he is down.

 

[Hero999]

If they don't attack you, then there's no need to defend yourself - pretty simple really.

How do you prove who threw the first punch?

Suppose you'd beaten someone to death, after they tried to punch you in the face and there were no witnesses.

If the man had a broken leg, a punctured lung and multiple fractures to the back of the shull, an injury consistent with his head being repeatedly banged against a concrete floor. If I were a jurer I would send you down for murder, especially given your knowledge of Jujutsu.

However, if he had a a broken neck, injury consistant with being thrown to the floor, I'd be more inclined to aquit you on the grounds of self defence.

The difference between the first and second scenarios is reasonable force. In the first one, you acted like a total nutter, by beating the poor man to death once he was already on the floor and then defenceless , akin to shooting them in the back when they were running away. In the second one, you threw your attacker to the ground where he broke his neck and died as a result.

To be honest, there's a chance you'd be done for murder either way because the man was dead and you had virtually no injuries. If there were witnesses then it'd certainly be murder if they told the court you'd thrown him to the floor, broken his leg and banged his head repeatedly against the concrete until he was dead. and you'd be more likely to get self defence if you just threw him to the floor causing him to break his neck.

The word reasonable force comes to mind. One has a right to protect themselves, their loved ones, property, and by reasonable force. A reasonable response to an attack would be one that removes the danger of the attacker and once the danger has been removed, then no further retaliation to the attack is warranted. In other words; after being attacked, it is perfectly reasonable to subdue the attacker and restrain any further attacks, but once the aggression is thwarted and subdued, any further aggression would be considered unreasonable.

I agree.

That is to say, it would be improper to kick the man when he is down.

Yes, that's just cowardly.

 

[HarveyH42]

I don't think Nigel is referring to using the thug as a practice dummy, but using the quickest most efficient response to the threat. The damage is done, before the thug hits the ground. Doubtful it's much of an actual beating, just one fluid motion, a reflexive action, in response. More will follow as needed, but most people aren't as determined to steal, as they are to survive.

Accidental shootings... I think there are more death and injuries from automobiles, but numbers don't mean a whole lot these days, too many clever ways to fit them on a Hockey-Stick type graph, to convince the captive audience of the critical situation we are in. My dad collected guns, almost 300 at one point, ammunition for most, even reloaded and cast his own bullets. I've got 4 brothers, and we always had easy access to the guns, ammunition, powders, everything. We all survived, no accidental shootings, few powder burns from homemade fireworks... We took guns out in the woulds and did a little shooting occasionally while the parents were away, never an incident. If you own guns, you need to be educated on how to handle the safely, as well as everyone in the house. You need to practice, and use your guns often, so that knowledge stays fresh in your mind.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

I think we're somewhat at cross purposes here?.

As I said "remove the threat" - if your attacker is on the floor, and getting back up, then you certainly "kick him when he's down", because he's still a threat. If he's NOT getting back up, then he's no further threat, and you don't kick sh*t out of him for fun.

However, most likely scenario (for a bare handed attacker) is him choking on his own blood, and nursing a broken limb. Most common atemi strike in Ju Jitsu is a leopard paw to the throat, which is intended to crush the trachia, causing it to swell (preventing him breathing) and for blood to run in to his lungs, further preventing breathing.

It would be nice to be able to accurately restrain such strikes, but there's no way to do so (it's not something you can practice) - you're fighting for your life, you hit as hard as you can, then complete some other techique, probably a throw ending in a limb break. Swift medical attention, even after a full power strike, 'should' be able to save them.

For an attack with a weapon, you generally train to remove the weapon, and use it against them, or dispose of it and carry on as bare handed.

 

[Roff]

Post deleted.

 

[ljcox]

Accidental shootings... I think there are more death and injuries from automobiles, but numbers don't mean a whole lot these days, too many clever ways to fit them on a Hockey-Stick type graph, to convince the captive audience of the critical situation we are in.

I disagree.
Statistics & graphs can be relied upon if the following conditions are met.

1. The research is done by ethical people using a verifiable methodology.
2. The methodology & data are checked by others – ie. peer review.
3. The results are confirmed by others using a variant or alternative methodology.

For example, in the 1950’s, a statistical link was found between smoking & lung cancer.
This work was confirmed by others, but the tobacco companies used every trick in the book to discredit the work for obvious reasons.
We now know that smoking causes lung cancer and a host of other illnesses also.

 

[HarveyH42]

I disagree.
Statistics & graphs can be relied upon if the following conditions are met.

1. The research is done by ethical people using a verifiable methodology.
2. The methodology & data are checked by others – ie. peer review.
3. The results are confirmed by others using a variant or alternative methodology.

For example, in the 1950’s, a statistical link was found between smoking & lung cancer.
This work was confirmed by others, but the tobacco companies used every trick in the book to discredit the work for obvious reasons.
We now know that smoking causes lung cancer and a host of other illnesses also.

It's very questionable results, since what actually causes cancer, has yet to be discovered. Not every smoker develops cancers, or any of the other related illness. There are claims that second hand smoke, also causes the same ailments, but not everyone exposed, gets sick (little nauseous from the smell). It's not so cut and dry, you smoke and you get cancer. If it were, they would have been banned long ago. Its still a battle between two groups, the research is done to prove their own position in the battle, not to find the truth. There are no cures for cancer, only treatment, there is a strong chance the cancer will return.

Another strange thing, people who have never smoked, and rarely exposed to cigarette smoke, still contract the same ailments blamed on tobacco. True, smoke does boost your chances, but its not exclusive to smokers. Could be that many people that are likely to get these diseases, are more likely to smoke, or perhaps there are other common factors in their lifestyles, not related to an unpleasant product being tested...

Anyway, this is derailment, and don't want to be a 'thread-killing-troll', or banned for 48-hours...

I think anyone who makes the choice to commit a crime, should be dealt with harshly and quickly. They take a chance with your life, the same odds should apply to them. If they get beaten or killed, as a result of their choice to steal, they accepted the bet, and lost. I'm not saying that it's okay for a citizen to hunt down criminals, and administer 'justice', but what happens during the attempted robbery, is of the criminal's own choosing. Not just the intended victim, should have the right and the power, but anyone in the area, shouldn't be afraid of legal problems if the step-up to help stop the problem. Criminal shouldn't have the same rights, or really any rights guaranteed those who obey the laws. They shouldn't be allowed to sue anyone for their injuries or losses, they were the ones who initiated the problem, and should be fully responsible.

 

[ljcox]

It's very questionable results, since what actually causes cancer, has yet to be discovered. Not every smoker develops cancers, or any of the other related illness. There are claims that second hand smoke, also causes the same ailments, but not everyone exposed, gets sick (little nauseous from the smell). It's not so cut and dry, you smoke and you get cancer. If it were, they would have been banned long ago. Its still a battle between two groups, the research is done to prove their own position in the battle, not to find the truth. There are no cures for cancer, only treatment, there is a strong chance the cancer will return.

Another strange thing, people who have never smoked, and rarely exposed to cigarette smoke, still contract the same ailments blamed on tobacco. True, smoke does boost your chances, but its not exclusive to smokers. Could be that many people that are likely to get these diseases, are more likely to smoke, or perhaps there are other common factors in their lifestyles, not related to an unpleasant product being tested...

As far as I know, no-one has ever said that smoking is the only cause of cancer.

What they have said is that smokers have a significantly higher risk of contracting lung cancer than non smokers.

Science seeks to find the truth. Otherwise we would be still living in the stone age.

There is nothing wrong with objective scepticism, it is esential in science.

But non objective scepticism is pointless and destructive.

 

[HarveyH42]

As far as I know, no-one has ever said that smoking is the only cause of cancer.

What they have said is that smokers have a significantly higher risk of contracting lung cancer than non smokers.

Science seeks to find the truth. Otherwise we would be still living in the stone age.

There is nothing wrong with objective scepticism, it is esential in science.

But non objective scepticism is pointless and destructive.

My point, was only that there seems like a lot of 'science', where the results are already in, they just need to find a way to prove it to the masses. Failed tests are swiftly discarded. A lot of the proof, is in numbers and statics, aren't computers great, rather than actual lab results.

 

[Sceadwian]

ljcox, science does seek the truth, but you worded the following text in a non-scientific way.

We now know that smoking causes lung cancer and a host of other illnesses also.

We do not know that smoking causes lung cancer with everyone, we know that people that smoke have an increased rate of lung cancer, for specific cases it is often impossible to prove what caused what, cancer is often fickle in who it strikes. This doesn't mean that smoking can't cause cancer but you have to be very precise in the wording you use.
If smoking caused cancer then why do some 90 year olds die of old age after smoking for the bulk of their life? There is obviously more going on.

 

[ljcox]

My point, was only that there seems like a lot of 'science', where the results are already in, they just need to find a way to prove it to the masses. Failed tests are swiftly discarded. A lot of the proof, is in numbers and statics, aren't computers great, rather than actual lab results.

That is not science according to my definition above.

If that was the case, we would still be in the stone age.

Real science is based on data and evidence derived from lab experiments, field studies, etc. And it is sujected to rigorous peer review.