Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on August 08, 2000, 04:00:00 PM
-
Three killed when van crammed with people rolls over on I-70
By RICHARD ESPINOZA - The Kansas City Star
Date: 08/07/00 22:15
Two women and a man died Monday morning when their van, packed with 15 persons, crashed on Interstate 70 near Russell, Kan., throwing 13 passengers from the vehicle.
Fernando Garcia, 56, of Yonkers, N.Y., was driving 14 passengers east on I-70 about 7 a.m. when his Ford minivan went into the median and rolled at least twice about 13 miles east of Russell, the Kansas Highway Patrol said.
Thirteen persons were thrown from the van; none wore seat belts.
The two who were not ejected -- Garcia and a woman who had been seated at the back of the van -- were wearing seat belts. That woman died, as did another woman and a man. None of the dead was identified.
The 1994 nine-passenger van was built with two front seats and two rear benches, but the middle bench had been removed, according to a Highway Patrol report. The van was registered in Yonkers.
At least seven of the passengers were from Mexico, but troopers did not know Monday evening where their trip had begun or where they were headed.
Because only one survivor spoke English, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was helping the patrol interview victims. The patrol said there were five women and 10 men in the van.
To reach Richard Espinoza, Johnson County police reporter, call (816) 234-7714 or send e-mail to respinoza@kcstar.com
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
All content © 2000 The Kansas City Star
Now, to use this incident the way the anti-gun folks use a gun accident......
1. Mr. Garcia illegally modified his Ford van to carry more passengers than the manufacturer intended.
2. Mr Garcia knowingly operated his van with more passengers than the manufacturer intended.
3. Mr. Garcia may well have been involved in an illegal activity, transporting illegal aliens across state lines.
4. Mr. Garcia's passengers violated Kansas state law that requires all occupants of a vehicle to have their seat belts on.
5. Mr. Garcia, despite obviously passing the NY state driver's license written and practical tests, failed to excercise his responsibility as driver to operate the vehicle safely, driving into the median, rolling the van and killing 3 of his passengers.
THIS CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN AGAIN!
We must register all cars! whoops..we had that.
We must train, test and license all drivers! whoops, we had that.
We must make sure all drivers and vehicles are insured so innocent victims get their due! whoops, we had that.
Ford! That's it, Ford! We must sue Ford for making the minivan seats removable thus enabling Mr. Garcia to get 15 people into a minivan. Ford HAS to be forced to make minivans safer! We must have seat belt interlocks!
Kansas! We must sue Kansas for having a median on I-70. Had it all been concrete, the van would not have rolled! The state must bear some resonsibility!
Most importantly, however, it is now perfectly clear that despite registration, training, testing and insuring, some infinitesimally small percentage of American drivers are going to abuse the use of the automobile. This fact is inescapable.
Therefore, we must urge the government to confiscate all automobiles from private hands. The police and military would of course be exempt. To paraphrase another individual in another thread...."car owners, especially AAA members are Mentally incabable of being responsable for a vehicle. They are simply not that bright."
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Punish the Group for the mistakes of a tiny minority of criminal group members!
Yah, that's the ticket!
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-08-2000).]
-
I agree with you, we need to negate the use of cars, except police and military (mmm, maybe police only).
AND...
shoot a bullet in mr Garcia's head.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
-
An gun is made for killing people.
An car is made for transporting people.
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
-
Originally posted by Maniac:
An gun is made for killing people.
An car is made for transporting people.
Maniac, what are we going to do with you?
You're not playing by the rules!
You're not supposed to introduce common sense into these threads! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
"From my cold dead hands!"
- Chuck Heston
-
Very rarly get into these but this is NOT a true statment.
A gun is made for killing people.
Thats like saying a knife is made for killing people. Or a hand becuse it can be made into a fist is used for killing people. Infact a car can be used as a weapon so it to can be used for killing people.
I shot my first gun when I was 3 years old.
Have been around guns all my life. Used to take my shot gun to school every fall , check it in at the principles office, and pick it up after school to go hunting.
We used to shoot skeet on the edge of the school yard with our biolgy teacher.
In all my life I have never wanted to use a gun to kill someone, just like a car,knife,or my fist. If the need ever arose where I have no other option I would use any tool at my disposle to defend myslef.
Point is gun's have many purposes just like most tools.
HiTech
-
HT for president!!! Pyro for Veep!!!!!
"Umm Mr. President, these income taxes seem to be WAY overmodeled, could you lower their destructive value?"
VP Pyro.. "Send us a screen shot of your paycheck and we'll look into it."
Udie (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Awright, HiTech, I see where you are coming from. I hope I will be able to allow you to see it from a different perspective.
Knives are great utility tools; we use them for cutting meat, sawing off ropes and what not. The sharp edge makes it very useful.
A few knives are made specifically for the purpose of either detterance (new word, look it up in the Scandinavian-English dictionary) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)) or killing/maiming. These knives usually have a very high carbon %, making them very sharp, but also brittle. Normally used by special forces people, or by wannabe special forces failures (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif). Or collectors of knives. But 90% of all knives can easily kill a person. The intent behind making the knives is, in all but the few special forces cases, not to aid in the maiming or killing of a human being.
The same can be said about cars; cars aren't made to deter others from attacking you. Primarily, they are a transportation tool, and secondarily, a tool used to express status. Under the right circumstances, it is quite easy to kill a person with a car. On the other hand, it takes a lot of setting up, and even then the result isn't given. Hard to kill a guy living on the second floor in an apartment building while he is at home with a car. Much easier with a knife. Or a gun.
Now, most mainstream handguns, with the exception of those specially constructed to be extremely accurate and used to precision shooting, can be said to be constructed for two or three purposes; one is for the fun of shooting them. Another one is to deter others from attacking you. The third is to kill, be it human beings or other animals.
As I've argued in the past, I'll argue that the ability to deter is proportional to the effectiveness of the gun in terms of killing power (and not just calibre, but overall effectiveness). A .22 gun doesn't scare me as much as a .45 Colt. The .22 will kill me if I am hit in the head, possibly, or if something vital like the liver takes a direct lucky hit. The .45 does a much better job.
So, according to this line of argument, most mainstreams guns are built to kill/maim. They deter by their ability to do so.
Or they are built to be amusing to handle, at which points we have to weight in the fun they produce and compare it to the grief it causes.
Caveat: this post has *nothing* to do with the right to bear arms, which I am confident you Americans are capable of handling. After all, you are the ones suffering the consequences of *either* decision. With the term hand gun, I am not referring to hunting rifles, but guns like the Colt .45, Glock 17 and so forth. I am also myself a gun owner, owning a 12 gauge shotgun I use for skeet and trap shooting.
Knives are much more versatile, and its killing power more of a sideeffect. When was the last time you used your gun to slice a piece of bread? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Just my views.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 08-09-2000).]
-
I vote for StSanta (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Bah, give a group of people any kind of object and ask them to tell you 10 things it could be used for.
The word "weapon" will always appear. Its just how people think.
Now guns on the other hand, are a RANGED weapon. That's the part I hate about them. I can run from a knife, I have a good chance of fighting someone with a knife..but a gun? Hmm.. Matrix time-slow-down I wish I had (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
StSanta I agree with your evaluation. If you re read your post I see in it the same thing im saying Guns are built for multiple purposes To argue your point ,you had to pick spefic gun types. This is far from the oringnal statment guns are made "implying all guns" to kill people.
I allso agree if your purpose for a gun is deternent bigger is better.
As far as the exact number's produced i.e. mainstream I realy have no idea of % of all types "non military" guns produced and hence can't argue the mainstream point.
And I do agree we are not debating anything to do with 2nd ammendment is more that we are debating inflamitory statements to validate ones ideals.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech:
As far as the exact number's produced i.e. mainstream I realy have no idea of % of all types "non military" guns produced and hence can't argue the mainstream point.
HiTech
There's ALOT of non military guns out there. When I was in college, in Kileen, Tx, I worked at a pawn shop. Our biggest selling item was the Lorcin .25 cal. I sold at least 1 a day, at $49.99. Sold them mostly to women too, I'd say about 75% to women. That doesn't count all the Taurus .45's I sold, at least 2 or 3 a week.
This was in a small town, granted an Army town so most of my sales were to military personel, or their wives. But I'm sure that the big cities sell MANY MANY more guns in a day than in Killeen, Tx. I don't see any way to get guns off the street other than the gov. going house to house and search every square inch of our country. That aint gonna happen, at least at my house (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I do admit though, that it is scarey how many freakin guns are out there, at least to me. But I am in NO way willing to give up any rights or freedoms for security (false security at that)
Udie
"Those that would give up freedom for security, deserve neither freedom nor security" -Benjamin Franklin
-
Rgr that HiTech, understand your position.
Udie, my guesses is that HT refers to the same guns I do, i.e guns not sold and used for defense or detterrent; i.e specialized precision shooting guns and so forth.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
My weapons have duel purposes, they can kill you, they can change the babies diapers, they can flip you the bird, they can feed you.
Hands should be outlawed!
BTW, can anyone tell me the last time time a gun jumped up off a table and killed someone by itself? Santa? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 08-09-2000).]
-
In my profession, we joke that we sneak our two deadliest weapons through airport security every day.
Our right and left hands!
-
Rip: Well, sort of thought I made my argument about purpose and intent sort of clear.
To really paint it out in black; nuclear weapons haven't jumped up and killed someone by themselves. Neither has normal biological weapons, or chemicals weapons.
The intent and purpose behind these two sorts of weapons is quite clear cut; they are not multi purpose tools. The primary function of hands is not to kill, or to deter from attack.
As I've argued, the primary purpose of handguns is either fun, detterence through ability to kill, or thirdly ability to kill.
Handguns facilitate killings and make them viable and easy. There are several factors involved when you are to attack a person; one is intent. Second is chances of success. How great a chance do you have to succesfully carry through the attack? A third would be ability to get away unscaved. Will the attack be risky, and will it have serious physical consequences to yourself? A fourth is consequences for the target - will he or she be a little sore, a bit beat up, seriously injured or killed?
Now, a normally trained person in a normal fight with fists and legs can cause serious injury to his enemy. On the other hand, as we see in most fights, the injuries aren't permanent. Intent is there, chances of succes depends on relative size and skill, and in the case of skill it takes at least a moderate amount of dedication to get good at it. Chances of getting away unhurt is fair, but not good; in a fist fight, the other guy can hit ya hard.
With a knife, you have an edge (no pun intended). Chances of success are greater but due to the close proximity required, you're still in the range of the other guys main weapons. Consequences for the other guy are serious; internal bleeding and possible death.
The handgun is the real equalizer in terms of skill and size, and allows you a standoff approach; effectively putting yourself outside the opponents effective range, and within your own. The chances of getting away unscaved are very good, and the chances of death or serious injury to the bad guy very high.
Most fights and so forth are spur of the moment things - it happens out of passion and strong emotional surges. With fists, a sore jaw and a wounded ego is normally the result. With knives, it begins to turn ugly. With handguns, it turns really deadly.
I feel I must reiterate that I in no way am advocating for the right to bear arms or against it - this is more of a low level common sense argument.
So, having said this, I hope I've answered this:
BTW, can anyone tell me the last time time a gun jumped up off a table and killed someone by itself? Santa? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
i.e that this is a bit simplistic, if amusing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
<S!>
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
The handgun is the real equalizer in terms of skill and size
Yes, exactly so. That's why we have that simplistic old saw that "God made man. Sam Colt made man equal.
It's a double-edged sword <pun> isn't it?
If you are small and weak, an equalizer is a GOOD thing. A non-violent person of small stature is no longer at the mercy of a big mean violent person. Hooray for Sam Colt!
OTOH, an armed big mean person is even more dangerous, especially to a person without an "equalizer". Boo! Bad Sam Colt!
It gets back to one thing. It's the PERSON performing the act that is the problem, not whatever inanimate object he/she chooses to wreak havoc on another human being.
Perhaps the biggest problem I see in society today is our inability to place responsibility on an individual. There is always an excuse to justify misbehavior. It's never any individuals "fault".
I just don't agree with that approach.
-
Great anaolgy regarding the car/gun thing.
My dad had a case once that is pretty relevant to this.
Two fellows back home were always at each other's throats, and one day one of them laid in wait outside of the other guy's local watering whole, where the parking lot was across the street. When the guy in the bar left, he walked out the door and started to cross the street, when his killer wasted him.
The guy wasn't shot, he was run down by the killer's car. This killer had some brains though, and as best the police could tell, we was drinking in the car just enough to stay over the limit, and then guzzled the rest of the bottle once he had hit his target at about 80 km/h (only 20 km/h over speed limit, but quite deadly to human body). Five minutes later the police came and arrested him.
He ended up pleading down from manslaughter 2 to dangerous driving causing death. He spent less than 1 year in prison.
Anything can be used as a weapon, and just becuase firearms are "en vogue" with the criminals/gangbangers the laws shouldn't be changed to hurt legit owners.
-
Toad:
Well, the other side of the coin is now you have intent, great chance of succes, little risk and serious consequence to the target in the hands of people who otherwise wouldn't dare do anything. I.e the "crime of passion" shootings. Both two sides of one coin, I guess; can't have one without the other.
Agree completely about "never the individual's fault". We all have baggage; those of us that are responsible *deal* with it instead of use it as a bad excuse.
PC'ness is a real bad disease.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Hello Boy's
Couldn't resist.
A gun only has one purpose. To kill.
A car has only one pupose. To transport.
A knife has many purposes.
A baseball bat is meant to hit baseballs.
When I drive a car I am volentarally getting into the vehical and assuming the risk of driving or being a passenger.
When my neighbor buy's a gun what am I agreeing too? That my neighbor now has the right to shoot me whenever they please?
Could this person try to kill me with a knife? Yes. But I would have the same odds of defending my self against him and surviving weather I am armed or not. The same applies to a baseball bat or crowbar or whatever. Even with a car I can just go inside my house and the threat is over. With a gun my life looses value to some gun nut with a God complex and his "rights".
Oh, and by the way. Charlton Heston has just admitted to having an alchohol problem and having spent three weeks in rehabilitation.
Yipee, guns for everyone. I feel safer already. I sure wish he was my neighbor.
Ripsnort,
If people would do as you say and use their fist then you would see much less violence in the world. But cowardness is the rule in this country and a gun is an easy way to win an arguement when you know you can't win the fight. Deadly weapons? Hardly ever. More people get killed in their bathtubs every year than do in fist fights. I know, why don't we outlaw bathtubs? You gun folk are predictable.
Later
-
Ok I'll throw my bucks worth into the ring.
I'm 47, I've owned guns of one sort or another since I was 14.
I have never in all that time felt the need to directly threaten anyone with any gun.
They have put food on my table, money in my pocket (used to be a fair marksman with the .22) made me feel confident walking into any patch of woods or rough country. I have spent endless hours of enjoyment shooting at everything from clay pidgeons to live pidgeons, and bucks to beer bottles.
The reason we have problems with guns today has nothing to do with guns. It has everything to do with respect.
Anytime a tool is missused the potential for damage exists. The more powerfull the tool the greater the potential damage.
Lets go back to teaching respect and peacefull ways of settling our differences.
-
Ah! F4! We knew you'd be back! Welcome!
FIFTH TIME, F4.......
So, come on, cut to the point...if we register, ballistic fingerprint, background check, ad nauseum...
Are you going to stop? Will you agree to and vouchsafe our rights to own and use guns in a traditional sporting manner?
-
You have to have an driving license to drive an car.
To own an gun you dont need nothin...
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
-
TOAD,
Yes, and then I'll probably go out and buy a gun. I have said I am on the fence about owning one personally but I do not wish to contribute to the national problem of rampant abuse of a "Right". I too grew up with firearms. I starting shooting when I was 10yrs old. I really enjoy it. I also have family in Israel (where I am going in to weeks) and when you walk around on their streets you see 18tr old Girls and Boys walking around with Uzi's and Mac 10's.
Even on the beaches. I will take a picture and post it when I get back. I do not think the problem is guns in this country. I think it is the people in this country are the problem. Israel is a democratic country with big cities and drugs and prostitution and other social problems. But virtually no gun deaths or violent crime(other than terrorism which is rare). So it can work in socioty. The problem is that people in the US have to many social predudices and are by far the most violent socioty in the world.
Do you know that the USA has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prisoners? How is this possible? It sounds like Stalins Russia but it's true. I don't know what the problem with people is in this country but legalizing drugs would probably reduce the prison population by half and cut gun violence in half.
But in todays socioty there is no way you can say that it would be a better place if everyone had a gun. It would just make for the largest gun battle in history.
Later F4UDOA
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
TOAD,
So it can work in socioty. The problem is that people in the US have to many social predudices and are by far the most violent socioty in the world.
Yep, gotta change peoples hearts. IMHO that's the only solution to the gun problem. That starts with HONEST debate, like what we're having here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Do you know that the USA has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prisoners? How is this possible? It sounds like Stalins Russia but it's true. I don't know what the problem with people is in this country but legalizing drugs would probably reduce the prison population by half and cut gun violence in half.
Later F4UDOA
Can we say TOO MANY LAWS? Our gov seems to like changing our behavior with new laws, ie.. Feds tell states "we want seat belst laws or you get no federal highway money" like they did back in the 80's (good ole democrats) Excuse me, but I sent part of that money to washington, you salamanders. We have SO many now that I doubt any 1 person knows 25% of them. We've been in a police state for my entire 30 yrs on this earth. To me it's not much diferent than the KGB asking a Russian citizen for his "papers komrad". "May I see your ID please sir?, you don't have one? Come with me please your under arrest." Hasn't happened to me, but it has happened to a couple of friends of mine.
On drugs, wow I can't believe they'd put somebody in jail with rapist and murderers for smoking pot and yet I can drink myself to death w/ Jack Daniels and there's no problem with that. Here's my favorite analagy... "I've never smoked a joint and gone out and started a fight like a drunk" Pot I think should be decriminalized, I don't know about heavier drugs, because they do have a tendency to make people lose track of reality. I've yet to know/see anybody O/D on marijuana too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) Heck if they'd make it legal I bet violent crime would be cut into just because people would be too "tired" to get up off the couch hehe.
I've had plenty of people call me a hipocrate because of being a THC Republican (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) But to me they go hand in hand, i want the gov. OUT of my life. I also know many conservatives that feel the same way that I do about marijuana. hehe wouldn't that freak the hippies out, if a republican decriminalized pot.
Sigh, what do you do in a world of 5.5 BILLION people all of whom have their own idividual opinion? Give em all a gun and let em work it out the old fashion way (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) j/k
Udie
-
F4,
Now you have the very beginnings of a compromise.
Once the "anti-gun" <for lack of a better characterisation> manages to assure the law abiding gun owners that the ultimate aim is not confiscation and provides safeguards to that effect then progress will be made.
Until that time, the folks on both the extreme ends of this argument are going to make progress impossible.
I cannot resist, however, pointing out...
Israel and Switzerland. Many military assault weapons in the hands of everyday citizens. Yet low gun deaths and violent crime.
Is it just the gun? Obviously not. We need to look far deeper than that. Simplistic slogans and banal statements about inanimate objects are not going to help.
There is something that has arisen in our free society that is not right. I suggest to you that it starts with the premise that Freedom does NOT allow you to do anything you please. It comes along with a huge amount of responsibility and accountability.
Unfortunately, we have lost that. Therein lies our problem. The Swiss and the Israelis have not.
-
The debate on guns in America will never be solved on this BBS.
I do enjoy reading all of the different opionions though.
My own views are really screwed up.
I grew up on a farm and was exposed to guns early in life. I enjoyed hunting when I was younger and did it quite often. As I grew older hunting became less and less important but my brothers are all still big hunters.
I have shot every kind of gun possible from a .22 pistol to a M-60 mg (dont ask) and still own a family heirlom shotgun.
But I have also seen the damage done by handgun violence, much to close and much to personal. I do believe in some type of gun control in reference to handguns but not long guns. Does that make me a hypocrite?
Yes it does but it has to do with my personal experience.
My solution, and I am not joking, If you are convicted of a felony that involves the use of a gun, it is an automatic death penality.
Harsh, unreasonalbe, maybe but if people are not forced be be responsible for their actions--we as a people are heading into the abyss.
------------------
JG 2's current cannon magnet
Milo
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
TOAD,
<snip>
Do you know that the USA has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prisoners? How is this possible? It sounds like Stalins Russia but it's true. I don't know what the problem with people is in this country but legalizing drugs would probably reduce the prison population by half and cut gun violence in half.
<snip>
The more laws you make
The more criminals you create.
-Tao Teh Ching
-
Originally posted by Udie:
But to me they go hand in hand, i want the gov. OUT of my lifeUdie
Welcome to the ranks, Udie!
You are not alone!
"That government governs best which governs least."
--Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience
I had incorrectly attributed this to Thomas Jefferson. Apparently it was Thoreau, although some sources still credit TJ.
Many of the signers of the Constitution are on record against a strong central government; their writings clearly show a preference for leaving most decisions in the hands of the people. Even the Bill of Rights highlights this idea.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Almost redundant aren't they? Two Amendments that focus on restricting the power of the Federal Government. Additionally, note the clear distinction in Amendment X between the "STATES" and the People. Three clear entities here: the United States <Fed>, the States and the People. This is a clear signal that helps interpret the 2nd Amendment.
I don't know how to label myself, but I know I don't fit the traditional party definitions. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
I don't know how to label myself, but I know I don't fit the traditional party definitions. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Are we Republitarians? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I wish they'd start a constitutional party. Honestly I wish the politicians would stop lying and the people in the middle would start paying attention. I don't understand people in the middle. There are HUGE idiological diferences between democrats and republicans, HUGE diferences. Don't people know what they believe in?!
The main thing is for the poloticians to stop lying though. (YEAH RIGHT!) We fight a WAR of ideas. In this war our weapons are WORDS. When you take the TRUTH out of the argument, you take away the weapons. What weapons are we supposed to use if we lose the words?
Heck, maybe we should make our public officials debate on UBB forums, we have good debate here, and the time it takes to write a paragraph usualy calms me down enough to backspace over the venom and make rational arguements.
At least we can all come here and debate these isues. Liberty, what a concept (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Udie
hehe sorry for taking this thread on a tangent...
-
Perhaps we need a new party...republicrats?
It's the nature of man guys....it has and always will be the issue. It should be so easy to blame a gun.
I personally feel we have to many freedoms in this country...everyones so worried about their own rights, no one cares about each other anymore...Just ask a homebuilder when the last time he built a front porch on a house was...we all want decks in the back with privacy fences...as long as we have two German cars in the driveway and a bigscreen, I don't care what happens to my neighbor..."A house divided against itself cannot stand".
I love my country, I just get tired of no personal accountability...its always Chuck Hestons fault or this group or that...makes me tired to hear it all.
Guess what boys...its our own collective fault (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Cyas Up!
-
hehe living up to that name Rude (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) How dare you come into our rational debate and introduce fact! I think you should just leave!
BTW, I'm a home designer. I'd say about 1/2 of the houses i've done in the last 3 years have large front porches. Here in houston at least, architecture has been on a mediterainian feel for the last 10 years. That style of home has very large lanai's, veranda's (patios (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) in the rear of the house, but not much at the front. But I've notice the ranch style home coming back into style over the last year.
udie
-
I've always liked those huge 3/4 wrap around porches (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Yup Rude, it's our own collective fault. Only way to change things is to get up and vote for what you believe in, and if you think your representatives are lying bags of toejame, write'em and tell them so. It's our responsibility to keep them in check
-
I don't own any guns and I don't think that I ever will. I do own two swords which I sorta know how to use.
The real problem here is responsibility and the fact that we will never have a situation in which everyone is responsible. This applies only to law abiding citizens. Criminals aren't responsible by definition.
One problem I have with guns is that it is too easy to do something that cannot be taken back. I can too easily imagine two people having an arguement. Lots of tension. One has a weapon, a gun, and is pointing it at the other. Hand is tense on the trigger. They're pissed and scared and BANG the gun goes off. Finger got too tight. One guy is maimed or dead. Shooter didn't mean to pull the trigger. Now the guy was an idiot for getting a gun out in anger, but its done.
Now if we replace the gun with a knife the weapon bearer has to actually stab to victim, a much more aggressive and hard to do accidentally type of action.
Another problem with guns is that they are hard to run from. I stand a decent chance of running from a guy with a knife or sword, but a gun reduces my chances dramatically. A bow could also hit me as I ran, but bows take much more skill to use with any effectivness. I know that I am much MUCH more accurated with a pistol than I am with a bow.
There are always ways to kill somebody, guns just make it easier. The pro-gun people could help their image if they admitted that. Their posturing about knives being used instead is silly. Yes, knives would be used, but far fewer murders would occur.
Now the reality of the situation is that we live in an armed society and that is not going to change anytime soon. I think that if we had wanted to be a gun free society we would have had to have banned guns 100 or 150 years ago. What we need to do now is figure out ways to get people take responsibilty for their guns and to figure out effective ways of keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Palm print detectors, DNA activation, or something even better. Maybe with that kind of technology we could even stop requiring licenses and just run a background check at the time of purchase. To transfer ownership, go into your local sporting goods store, run a check on the purchaser and the purchaser's authorized user list and have the gun imprinted to the purchaser and the purchaser's authorized user list, wife, son, daughter, ect. Accidents would still happen, but gun murders would gradually drop off I think.
I think that this is a problem that we can solve through common sense, technology and a willingness to work together. We don't need to ban guns.
Sisu
-Karnak
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 08-10-2000).]
-
Gun violence, naked force; has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion (that violence never settles anything) is wishful thinking at its worst.
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. No man can assume or accept reponsibilty for the actions of any other.
When a citizenry is disarmed; it is no longer in a position to determine it's own laws.. or it's leaders. Your government knows this.. wherever you are.
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, republican, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria for a gun debate.
Societies tend to divide politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number.
The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. I'm with this crowd.
Owning a gun is a right.. and a moral responsibilty. I'll not trade or suborn that right or responsibilty, period.
Hang
-
Gun violence, naked force; has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion (that violence never settles anything) is wishful thinking at its worst.
And the other side is that it has caused a lot of issues or tragedies. Naked force sparked WWI. Naked force drove it. Naked force also drew out the Nazi's from power, after they've used it to seize and murder.
Naked force, combined with an eye for an eye philosophy, drives into an evil descending violent spiral.
War, to me, is the last political move made to resolve an issue. It has serious consequences and drawbacks that are quite obvious.
There *are* times for naked force. On the other hand, there are times when the application of such is detrimental to a society.
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. No man can assume or accept reponsibilty for the actions of any other.
I am unarmed, but a citizen. And to be quite honest, I *do not buy* the "government will opress me if I do not own a gun and scare them from it" argument. Not in civilized stable democracies like the one I live in.
If you are referring to being able to defend yourself against other citizens or criminal, the tune changes a bit. But, at least here, I benefit more from having a strict gun control than having guns free. In the US, I percieve that the situation is quite different, largely due to cultural differences and lots of handguns already in circulation.
Furthermore, if being armed was the issue; we have rifles. I do not carry them on me, and am not allowed to wander into a shop carrying one. To me, it seems like common sense. Others disagree, as I am sure you will, Hangtime (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
When a citizenry is disarmed; it is no longer in a position to determine it's own laws.. or it's leaders. Your government knows this.. wherever you are.
We're quite capable of it here. As I said, I don't buy the government vs people argument in democracies like the one I live in.
Will you take up arms if the government enforces laws you disagree with? Usually, such laws are implemented because it is the wish of the people in one way or another.
Do you seriously believe the American government would attack its own people - I mean middle class normal American families?
If so, and if you label me gullible or following an authority, I will call you paranoid and anti-authoritarian (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, republican, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria for a gun debate.
Agreed completely (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Societies tend to divide politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
Yup.
The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number.
The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. I'm with this crowd.
Heh, well. All I've have to say on the issue that I've met people of both categories. And, unlucky for those of us who *can* govern ourselves, we're in a minority. Or if we were 50/50, the actions of those in need of "guidance" would be such that we'd have to interfere.
And I reckon the reason we have the current system is some sort of attempt at fairness that falls short, but not as short as the alternative.
Owning a gun is a right.. and a moral responsibilty. I'll not trade or suborn that right or responsibilty, period.
Well, it is a right in one country only. In two others, it is a duty. In most other western democracies, it is considered a public health issue, much akin to drugs and nuclear weapons (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
But, since it *is* a right in the US, I agree completely with the moral responsibility bit. Are people lacking here? I don't live in the US and do not know, but would like to (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Quote:
"You have to have an driving license to drive an car."
LOL!!! And it's not worth the paper it's printed on. Lowlife's have no problem driving without a license. The penalties for doing so are very minor.
These anti-gun types. What world to they live in?? "Fantasyland" is my best guess.
Cabby
-
The world is grey, not black and white.
Once we agree on this, we can begin discuss which shade of grey it is (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
LOL Santa.. Yep; I know I sound like a sanctimoniuos old cummudgeon, and despite the fact that I am; I remain someone who KNOWS from experience just how evil and invasive a government can become when the citizenry is unable to oppose affronts on it's citizens civil rights.
Chile
Vietnam
Nicaragua
Sierra Leone
Congo
Bosnia
Rhodesia
South Africa
Phillipines
Cambodia
Thailand
Indonesia
The list goes on.. places where the populace, by law, faces death, or worse, for having in their possesion the means to resist their oppressive governments. Some of these places I've been.. others have passed into history.
And, history is clear... the lessons are most unforgiving. At one time; Roman matrons would tell their sons, "Return with your shield, or upon it" When this practice died out.. so did Rome.
Consider this fact from history.. Arms Control is not a new issue. It's been with us for a long; long time.
Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.
'A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands.'
--Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the Younger" (4 B.C.E-65 C.E.)
Yes; I submit that as Americans, as a people; as the motive force behind the most powerful Nation this world has ever seen we must remain vigilant, we must remain alert to the nuances from our government; for by nature all government is self serving and will usurp for itself if unchecked the rights that should be held by they people it governs.
And a Rouge American Government; un-checked, unanswerable to US; its constituents that demand accountabilty for it's actions would be a very very scary thing to turn loose upon the world. (Of course.. it'd be nice to sick 'em on the French for a few days, anyway)
This lands immigrant populace expressed it's desire to arm itself and demanded self-determination. Our fore-fathers made it abundantly clear that our freedoms are tenative; and we keep them only as long as we keep the means to resist oppression in the hands of the people. Much blood was spilled for these ideas.. and we can do no less than insure that their gifts, so precious in cost; are not handed quietly to any oppressor, forigen or domestic.
It's our own local history lesson.. our revolution was bloody and painful.. our civil war was an atrocity that still bleeds. But we learned.
Did Germans under Hitler have the ability to throw out the Tyrant? No. Would they have?? Maybe.. if they had a free press, and learned of the atocities. Fact is, the German citizens were not armed... had no free press. And an unarmed citizen is a SUBJECT. What chance does an unarmed populace have to get and keep a free press?
"Honor the Threat" is an axiom that guided our Military though the cold war.. and I might add, by extension, allowed Europe to withstand the darkness.
Yes; to you, we rabid howling gun toting gangster opportunist Americans must seem quite insane.. and to have an American expouse the concept of an evil government being spawned from the wreckage of a benign one seems very far-fetched.
In your lands; particulary, I am amazed that your social memory is so short. Did not this very thing happen on your conteninent just a few generations ago? I submit another time worn truth... those that fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it.
S! StSanta.. I think we are probably more alike than diffrent. I understand your points.. and snap and growl loudly from the end of my leash because from the youngest age I have been taught to 'Question Authority'. Another Americanisim. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
You'll probably also find it amusing that I don't have a gun in my home.. a personal choice forced by circumstance. I have a daughter.. who's mother elicted a promise from me to remove them from our home when she was born. Further, I've personally never felt the desire to have a gun to hand since I came home from the service 30 years ago. In short, I've never seen a pressing need to shoot anybody in this country. Day ain't over yet; though. (and the kids about grown up) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hang
[This message has been edited by Hangtime (edited 08-11-2000).]
-
This thread was so much fun I hate to see it die....<stirs pot>...so I thought I'd respond to F4's first post in here. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I used the Santa method so I could reclaim the "longest post" trophy.
Hello Boy's
Couldn't resist.
A gun only has one purpose. To kill.
This is the simplistic type of logic that you claim to deplore. A gun does not have one purpose. At it’s invention the purpose was clearly to kill. However, like everything else, it evolved. Is trap or skeet shooting with a shotgun killing? Obviously not. They are sports, Olympic medal sports enjoyed by literally millions of people.
It’s easy to come up with buzzwords and catch-phrases. Unfortunately they don’t make a convincing argument by themselves.
A car has only one purpose. To transport.
This is true, unless you count the car as a mobile bordello. Unfortunately the car is a much more proficient "killer" than the gun. The facts are that misused cars kill far more people than guns in the United States every single year. This despite registration, licensing, testing, vehicle inspections, more police on traffic duty than violent crime duty, continually improving safety equipment and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
This gets to the heart of the issue. Too many people expect simply passing a law or confiscating a gun to solve the problem. The problem is one of personal responsibility for one’s actions. Bottom line, we don’t prosecute and KEEP in prison violent criminals. How many violent criminals are repeat offenders? Ask yourself how that happens. Primarily this happens because we never treat the underlying causes of the problem The English, at one time, would HANG you for stealing a loaf of bread. Bread still got stolen; a starving man has no choice. When are we going to address the underlying problems that are the source of so much of this violence?
A knife has many purposes.
As do guns, cars, ball bats, croquet sticks, shovels, knitting needles, pots, pans and fingernail clippers. Unfortunately you can be killed with any one of those. Those are inanimate tools; they are inert until a person picks them up and makes the choice to use them for good or evil. Unfortunately, in the US of today personal responsibility and accountability are foreign concepts.
A baseball bat is meant to hit baseballs.
When I drive a car I am volentarally getting into the vehical and assuming the risk of driving or being a passenger.
When my neighbor buy's a gun what am I agreeing too? That my neighbor now has the right to shoot me whenever they please?
Obviously, your neighbor does not have that right. This is specious, inflammatory rhetoric that does nothing to bring this issue to a mature discussion.
The odds of your neighbor accidentally shooting you are most likely about equal to him running you over as he backs out of his driveway. You know that to be true, too. An infinitesimally small number of people in possession of a gun use it for unjustified violence. Many who do are repeat criminals, not your average neighbor. However, once again inflammatory rhetoric is used rather than reason. It still doesn’t make a convincing argument.
Could this person try to kill me with a knife? Yes. But I would have the same odds of defending myself against him and surviving weather I am armed or not. The same applies to a baseball bat or crowbar or whatever. Even with a car I can just go inside my house and the threat is over. With a gun my life looses value to some gun nut with a God complex and his "rights".
Could a really big strong guy kill you with his hands? Yes. If you were a small person or a woman, you would be in SERIOUS trouble. In fact that’s exactly why guns became popular. Because they significantly increase the chances for a small person to survive an attack by a larger, violent person or group of persons.
Thomas Jefferson said it better than I can:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
This was true at the founding and it’s still true. But maybe TJ was "some gun nut with a God complex".
Oh, and by the way. Charlton Heston has just admitted to having an alchohol problem and having spent three weeks in rehabilitation.
Yipee, guns for everyone. I feel safer already. I sure wish he was my neighbor.
Teddy Kennedy is a major pro gun control advocate. What does his drinking have to do with his position? I can’t count how many times he’s been dried out. Maybe he drinks to forget drowning Mary Jo when he accidentally drove his car off a bridge. Damn, killed her with a car; I bet her parents are glad it wasn’t a gun! But what does that have to do with his position? His bodyguards are armed; does he deserve that right more than a average citizen? Are you really going to argue that a recovering alcoholic (and they are all always "recovering"...ask one) is in some way incapable of reason or making a valid argument? If so, then after Heston, I suggest we start removing this type from the Congress! Let’s start with Ted!
OK, enough with the sarcasm. You can see that this type of commentary absolutely does not bear on the important issue before the nation. It’s just another example of inflammatory rhetoric that can be used by both sides. It’s pointless and that is my point here. T
Ripsnort,
If people would do as you say and use their fist then you would see much less violence in the world. But cowardness is the rule in this country and a gun is an easy way to win an arguement when you know you can't win the fight. Deadly weapons? Hardly ever. More people get killed in their bathtubs every year than do in fist fights. I know, why don't we outlaw bathtubs? You gun folk are predictable.
Gun folk are no more or less predictable than anti-gun folk. In a nation that has had a "war on drugs" for the last 35 years or so, do you see any indication that illegal drugs are in short supply? In a nation that totally banned alcohol during Prohibition, was there any real shortage? Prostitution has been illegal everywhere almost forever. See any shortage of hookers? Pick whatever illegal activity you wish and you can find it almost anywhere.
The case can probably be made and proved that prohibition of anything leads to a rise in that illegal activity. After all, it’s this same group…CRIMINALS…that cause the present gun problem.
Yet you would have us believe that if all of us law-abiding citizens gave up our guns, everything would work out perfectly. No criminal would smuggle in AK-47’s from China or the Soviet Union. No criminal would toss a bale of handguns in with the next shipment of coke. No "coyote" leading illegal immigrants across the border would make them carry some contraband firearms for him for a little extra profit.
After all, in the entire history of the US, law enforcement has been totally successful in enforcing the laws against prohibited behaviors.
Puh-leez. Do you really expect people to believe that?
It’s exactly as Jefferson said:… "Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides…"
.....ah, I feel better now! Let's argue some more.
I like this way better than the gun/HO/FM whines. ;D
-
If everyone has guns we'll all be safe !!
-
I've sorta spoken my mind about the differences of guns, knives, rocks and cars. I see good arguments from both sides, as is expected when something as debateable as this shows up.
Hang and Toad, thanks for the chat. I know there are many who feel and think in similar ways. Conversely, there are many on the other side of the fence.
Now, if you were to settle this the old fashioned way, you'd win; don't bring a knife to a gun fight (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Actually, we're simply going to bring the Constitution to the discussion.
The pen is mightier than the sword!
-
I've seen endless discussions on the 2nd amendment; and it's ended to different interpretation and semantic matters.
But go ahead (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
"LOL!!! And it's not worth the paper it's printed on. Lowlife's have no problem driving without a license. The penalties for doing so are very minor."
Then it might be about time to look over that too.....
Look i only used that example because Toad used the Car vs Gun example to begin with..
Regards.
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
I've sorta spoken my mind about the differences of guns, knives, rocks and cars. I see good arguments from both sides, as is expected when something as debateable as this shows up.
Hang and Toad, thanks for the chat. I know there are many who feel and think in similar ways. Conversely, there are many on the other side of the fence.
Now, if you were to settle this the old fashioned way, you'd win; don't bring a knife to a gun fight (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
St Santa,
I know you don't really care about firearms but are mildly interested in the subject. Cool.
About the knife argument. I spent a career in Law Enforcement. I was a full time cop and a Reservist in the U. S. Army.
I was an instructor for both agencies. On the Police side I had the oportunity to take the defensive tactics instructors course. I learned quite a bit about knife attacks. Most street cops feel comfortable talking to someone while they are within 10 feet (3 meters). This is the prime killing zone for a knife attack. The reason is reaction time. The assailant can cover 21 feet in less than 1.5 seconds. That means they will be all over the victim and CUTTING him before anyone can react other than to raise their hands to ward off the blade. In studies conducted during training a "knife guy" was to play the part of being interviewed by a police officer (real street cop with experiance but in training excercise). In every case the cop was told this was a "suspicious person" (no real crime that they were aware of at this point) and they were to "interveiw" the subject. The "knife guy" was to attack the officer without notice during the training scenario. In every case the officer "died". The officer had a firearm and in only one out of 25 attacks did the officer get a gun drawn. That was the officer who tried to talk from 21 feet away. He "died" too. He did hit the suspect but no shot other than a head shot is instantly fatal.
Later training with the same officers and suspect but now using better tactics and over 25 feet distance between them still had the officers getting "cut" but the suspect would likely have died from multiple gunshots as well.
If you think you can fight a knife assailant or out run them, I suggest you make damn sure you are at least 25 feet away BEFORE the suspect can make his move. I think you will still die even then as most "civilians" aren't used to violent situations and freeze briefly wasting their escape time. Try it yourself sometime with a friend and a rubber knife. Try to turn away and run before the "knife person" can catch you and "kill" you. Remember that almost anyone can run faster forward than backwards so you WILL have to turn your back on the assailant to run. It should open your eyes a bit.
With the exception of a head shot a trained knife person can kill you as fast or faster than a gun and with a wound that is less suvivable than a gun shot. You won't believe me of course and I sincerely hope you never have to face a knife assault. I did, I was fortunate it was an old man with a dull hunting style knife and my bullet proof vest stopped it. He hit me 3 times with a stabing attack in the abdomen with the knife BEFORE I could react. I was trying to pat him down for weapons during an arrest for a misdemeanor at the time. I couldn't have any safety distance at that time.
Later in my career I was disabled by a teenager in a car. He claimed it wasn't his fault, it was an "accident". I lost my career due to his "accident" He turned left in front of my Police motorcycle at a residencial intersection. The car was totalled from the impact.(30 MPH) It was his 3rd "accident" in a month as the Officers who came to investigate the collision remembered him from the others. The kid, or his daddy, paid a $65.00 fine for the collision that stopped my career.
In the experiances I have had, I found that if you really want to kill someone. Do it with a car. The vehicle is extremely deadly (Far in excess of any handheld firearms including long guns) and you are far more likely to get away with it because it would be an "accident". I have seen it happen many times.
Over 40,000 people die in the U.S. from auto collisions and almost all of them are labled "accidents".
What do I fear the most? Mostly those I share the road with and anyone that threatens me with a knife.
Mav
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 08-17-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Actually, we're simply going to bring the Constitution to the discussion.
The pen is mightier than the sword!
Wrong Toad,
the correct citacion is:
"The noodle is mightier than the sword!" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
---------------
Interesting informations Mav.
I thank my Sensei i have trained myself to defend from stab and knife attacks.
But i still dont feel safe, training never enough.
A little hint:
if you have a suspect of such kind of attacks, keep a jacket rounded to your arm (if you are right-hand to the left, if youre left-hand to the right), and put it 10 cms in front of your abdome, prepared to use it as shield, move always, dont offer easy target, keep distance... and call help!!!
[This message has been edited by Naso (edited 08-18-2000).]
-
Maverick:
Thanks for the story. Very interesting reading. My comment on don't bring guns to a knife fight was more a tongue in cheek one than anything else.
It saddens me to hear about your accident (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif). I've caught myself being afraid when in a car; not because I do not trust the driver, but because I do not trust those I meet who are in cars. I sincerely hope for your recovery and well being.
I think that what requiring a license for driving shows us is that no matter how hard you try to train and educate people (driving licenses in Denmark are exceedingly expensive and the tests harder than in the US), some of them will not learn, or ignore what is taught. Still, it is my opinion that without this training, our roads would be much more dangerous.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Originally posted by Naso:
Wrong Toad,
the correct citacion is:
"The noodle is mightier than the sword!" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
---------------
Interesting informations Mav.
I thank my Sensei i have trained myself to defend from stab and knife attacks.
But i still dont feel safe, training never enough.
A little hint:
if you have a suspect of such kind of attacks, keep a jacket rounded to your arm (if you are right-hand to the left, if youre left-hand to the right), and put it 10 cms in front of your abdome, prepared to use it as shield, move always, dont offer easy target, keep distance... and call help!!!
[This message has been edited by Naso (edited 08-18-2000).]
Uh Naso, reread the post please. Notice the situation. I was in process of making an arrest. It is a bit difficult to pat down a suspect with a coat wrapped around your arm and hand. Secondly, if there is too little time to run away from a knife attack, do you honestly think the assailant is going to: 1. give notice he is going to kill you with a knife. 2. Wait patiently for you to remove your coat and wrap it firmly around your left arm. 3. Allow you to find a coat if you aren't wearing one. 4. Let you prepare mentally for the attack.
I hope you have great medical coverage or life insurance because you will need it. Every martial arts instructor I have spoken to has stated the obvious. The best way to avoid being killed by a knife attack is to not be there. Never think you will be able to "disarm" and handle a knife attack. Flee it if you have ANY chance to do so. No one is really trained to handle that type of attack without a severe risk of serious injury or death. Ask your Sensei what he thinks you should do. I think he'll say the same.
Naso
Please, do not think I am ridiculing you for this. I would just hope it might keep you from being cut. As my instructor said during the course. Unarmed and unwarned in a knife attack you WILL get cut. If you do not take out the assailant almost immediately, you will likely suffer life threatening wounds.
Knife assaults aren't like Hollywood. The suspect stabs and slashes continuously and as fast as he can. You will lose any protracted fight under those circumstances.
Enough preaching...
Mav
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 08-18-2000).]