a vote for gun control is a vote for thunderdome.

Every martial art that involves direct unarmed hand-to-hand fighting has weight classes.  This is done because a bantamweight boxer will get his clock cleaned by a heavyweight ninety-nine out of a hundred times.  Sending a 115-pound fighter up against a 220-pound fighter is simply not an even contest, because the heavyweight can deal (and absorb) much more powerful punches.

Let me repeat that little factoid: even a trained fighter in prime shape has no realistic chance of winning an unarmed fight against a heavier opponent.

Now, would you consider it fair if we took the bantamweight out of the ring, and replaced him with a 60-year-old grandmother with diabetes?  How about a 110-pound college student who’s never punched anything or anyone in her life?  Or maybe a 50-year-old, near-sighted convenience store clerk?  A 28-year-old bank teller who’s eight months pregnant?  Would those opponents be a more even match for our heavyweight?  Would you consider any of those pairings a fair fight?

Well, if you think that law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns for self-defense, you’re essentially in favor of pushing all those folks into that ring with the heavyweight, because that’s the power balance on the street.  There are no weight classes, no referees, and no fair fights. 

Even if you imagine for just a moment that we could make all the guns magically disappear with the stroke of a legislative pen, you’d still have violent criminals out there, and they usually prepare the ring in their favor ahead of time.  They have no interest in fair fights, and they don’t pick their marks with an eye on keeping within the proper weight class.  They pick the time, they pick the place, and they pick the victim…who gets shoved into that ring at a moment’s notice.  One second you’re walking into the Stop-N-Rob to pay for your gas and grab some beef jerky, the next you’re in the middle of a fight for your life, with no referee around to call the low blows. 

The truth is that criminals who make a living threatening injury or death for the contents of a cash register or a wallet won’t be greatly handicapped by any laws that prohibit the carrying of guns.  They carry them anyway, but as I’ve pointed out, they’d still tilt the favors in their odds even if the magic gun control fairy could make all the guns go *poof* overnight.  Gun control is tossing their intended victims into the ring with them after forcibly disarming them…to make sure the violence doesn’t escalate.

Now, you let Grandma carry that .38 in her purse, and all of a sudden it’s no longer a automatic loss for her, even if you don’t handicap the heavyweight.  Whatever he can come up with, up to and including producing his own gun, the odds are roughly even at that point.  With that sixteen-ounce piece of alloy and steel in her hand, Grandma can suddenly negate the huge disparities in physical ability and fighting skill.

(On a side note regarding the sufficiency of being able to summon a cop via phone instead: take that gun from Grandma, and put a cell phone in her hand.  Does the fight become any more fair?  Does Grandma stand a better chance of walking away unharmed now?  Or do you think that heavyweight can punch Grandma halfway into the next zip code before she has finished dialing 911?)

Some gun control fans will say that everyone going armed will mean that the criminals will just pack bigger guns and shoot first every time, but they’re missing the point.  When you know your potential marks aren’t allowed to pack heat, you have a low-risk work environment.  You can pick the weakest-looking victim, and set all the parameters for the impending confrontation the way you want them.  When people aren’t prevented from carrying weapons, you never know which one of them has the means to even out the odds, and every mugging or convenience store register grab becomes a potential lethal confrontation or murder conviction.  It makes the job of the violent criminal a much riskier vocation, and serves to discourage rather than encourage the use of physical force.

Another school of thought (if you can grace it with that label) states that Grandma always has the option to just turn over the contents of her purse, give the opponent what he wants, and hopefully be allowed to leave that ring without any violence taking place.  Disregarding the fact that violence has already occurred (the implied threat of death or injury), just look at that course of action from a behavioral standpoint.  If you make an illegal activity low-risk and high-reward, and you guarantee that the attacker gets what he wants every time he mugs someone, do you think you’ll get a.) less, or b.) much more of that illegal activity?

Disarming the law-abiding doesn’t do a thing to control the lawless.  It’s the legal and moral equivalent of grabbing some random person off the street, taking away anything that could be used as an effective weapon, tossing them into the ring with a trained heavyweight boxer who has had days and weeks to prepare for the fight, and telling the surprised and unwilling opponent to “fight fair”.

About these ads

170 thoughts on “a vote for gun control is a vote for thunderdome.

  1. farmist says:

    Ayup!

  2. perlhaqr says:

    Fuck that noise.

    We love guns. ;)

    -Ogre, Death Guild / Thunderdome

    http://images.burningman.com/index.cgi?image=11729

  3. Lissa says:

    Ah, but Marko . . . what if the heavyweight fighter has been victimized by racism? What if Grandma has had unfair benefits her whole life because she’s white? Doesn’t Grandma really OWE it to Mr. Heavyweight Thug to lie down, roll over, and play (or be) dead?

    /stupidity

    Brava, sir!

    • Lawrence Ierardi says:

      Hate is masked by racism. It is an irrational act hidden under the cosmetic of excuses, some learned, some seeded, some nurtured and all undefensible! Self-defense is not irrational because it is natural, it is self-preservation and it is ingrown as well as acculterated. We nuture self preservation because we treasure life itself. Thus we teach and practice self protection. We are not living in a democracy. A democracy is ruled by majority vote and history has proven, time and again, that democracies evolve into tyranny of the majority. We are a republic. A republic is governed by laws. Note the difference; “governed” versus “ruled”.. a significant difference. Our republic recognizes the natural right to life but extremists have tormented that right into a myriad of “adjustments” under law. Among these the creation of limits on how and when a person can perform acts of self defense. When the method and means of self defense has been mitigated to the mininum or eliminated, then we will have totalitarianism masked as freedom!

      • Gregg says:

        Sadly, while we are de jure a Republic we are de facto a Democracy. That tyranny of the majority thing already exists.

  4. [...] Marko: a vote for gun control is a vote for thunderdome. [...]

  5. Weer'd Beard says:

    “Or do you think that heavyweight can punch Grandma halfway into the next zip code before she has finished dialing 911?” Now are you speaking about the big Norteast State Counties, or the little Southern Counties? Heh.

    Also you forget one point about compliance: Handing over requested goods changes very little to the threatening landscape. Somebody threatens bodily harm to me and presents a genuine threat (be it by presenting a weapon, being larger and stronger, or by sheer numbers) at the request for item X, turning over item X does little to change the scenario. You’re now light Item X, and still standing toe-to-toe with somebody you believe is capable of killing you. Furthermore somebody willing to engage in a dishonest trade such as robbery, what makes you think they will honor the “contract” presented?

    It’s my personal opinion that if somebody threatens my life for an item, I will disregard the item request in my threat assessment.

    “Hey buddy, give me your wallet or I’ll kill you.”

    Is no different than: “Hey Buddy, I’ll Kill you!”

    and should be treated the same.

    • fully_armed_biker says:

      Not to mention there is nothing keeping that criminal from deciding grandma can identify him/her in a police line-up and testify in court…in the mindset of many of today’s criminals…and more and more the criminals are taking steps to make sure there are no, or as few as possible, witnesses…even if that means killing their victim!

  6. pax says:

    “Another school of thought (if you can grace it with that label) states that Grandma always has the option to just turn over the contents of her purse, give the opponent what he wants….”

    People who say that, NEVER address the question of what Grandma is supposed to do when what the opponent wants is not the contents of her wallet, but to violate, rape, and torture her to death.

    Is the young college student supposed to just “give him what he wants” when what he wants is to violently rape and then strangle a young college student?

    Is the housewife supposed to “give him what he wants” when what he wants is to rape her, leave her beaten and slowly dying, and then drag her two-year-old by the hair out into the yard, throw the child into the car, and drive away …?

    Is the husband supposed to “give him what he wants” when what he wants is to force the husband to watch helplessly while he rapes the man’s wife and pre-teen daughters, and then douses the whole family in gasoline before striking a match?

    “Give him what he wants” might work if the only crimes ever committed were property crimes. But for people faced with true predatory violence … it will never, ever, ever be the answer.

  7. Matthew Groom says:

    An excellent post my friend.

    The problem that weak minded and spineless individuals who oppose self defense is that they believe that criminals are rational, caring individuals who have only turned to criminal activity out of necessity. They believe that this is because society is inherently racist and unfair, and won’t give this poor, gentile soul a decent chance to succeed without violence. That, of course, is idiocy.

    Criminals by nature are lazy, uninspired, indolent, and ignorant creatures. This is more true of violent offenders than con artist and so forth, but the ultimate reasoning behind their actions, if it can be called reason, is the ease at which wealth may be acquired from others by using force to commandeer it.

    If the probable risk exceeds the likely rewards, all but the most stupid individuals will find a better, more efficient way of acquiring their wealth, such as getting a job. The very notion that they’ll get “bigger guns” is very cartoonish and naive. Criminals commit crimes because it’s easy and the payoff is immediate. If it becomes less easy, they are less likely to do it. That’s common sense, which is unfortunately a rare trait amongst Lefties.

  8. Chrystoph says:

    Lawdog says it so much more eloquently than I ever will.

    http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2008/05/meditations-on-paper-armour.html

  9. geekWithA.45 says:

    You’ve hit another one out of the park, sir. Linked.

  10. MarkHB says:

    Voting for gun control is voting for street predation by the young and strong on everyone else. The ability to focus one’s life on cerebral persuits – be it quantum physics or crotchet – on something other than being a rock-hard buffed thump-meister is as essential to civilisation as not spending one’s whole life chasing gazelles. By spending a couple of hours a week at the range and on weapon drill, one is able to devote all the rest of one’s time to doing the shit that our brains are *really* good at whilst retaining our ability to defend ourselves properly.

    Also, even if you are one of these Slab Bonemeal types, time will have it’s way with you – as you age, you will slow down and soften up. There’s nothing we can do about that right now. So levelling the playing field permits people to stay able to defend themselves for the whole duration of their adult lives, not just their bright, fleeting youth.

  11. [...] has a really good post on what those who propose civilians be disarmed are really proposing.  Along the lines of Marko’s oft-plagarized tome Why The Gun is Civilization, which is [...]

  12. sasu says:

    An excellent article again, makes it worth following your blog daily. I hope you do not mind that I quoted a couple of paragraphs (with a proper link to this blog) on a Finnish discussion forum where we argue over the need for defense weapons.

  13. Jim Mills says:

    Marko, congratulations on your latest essay, “a vote for gun control is a vote for thunderdome.” I think it’s great, and it will rank right up there with “why the gun is civilization.”

    I hope you don’t believe that these comments are intended to take anything away from the great content of the essay, but I did note a couple of jarring points where our different choices in word selection caused a problem with the flow of the essay. These are just personal preferences in grammar, but I thought I would pass them along.

    In the third paragraph, you referred to “a 50-year-old, short-sighted convenience store clerk.” Well, I suppose that you could argue that anyone who is still a convenience store clerk at the age of 50 is short-sighted, but I believe the work you want is “near-sighted.”

    In the seventh paragraph, you referred to a “a lose-lose scenario for her”, Grandma. But the phrase “lose-lose situation” is properly used to described a negative outcome for both sides of the dispute. Such is not the case here, where the assailant stands to win, even as Grandma stands to lose. I think a better term would be “a losing situation for her.”

    In that same paragraph, and omitting the prefatory clause, you referred to the possibility that, “Grandma can suddenly negate the huge disparities in physical ability and fighting skill between herself and her assailant.” The word “herself” is a bit jarring there. Although “herself” is used as a reflexive pronoun, (a pronoun referring to the subject of the sentence, clause, or verbal phrase in which it stands), and this pronoun clearly refers to the subject of the sentence, Grandma, I believe the pronoun is too distant from the subject. Instead, it is the object of the preposition “between”, which modifies the noun “disparities.” Being so far removed from the subject and much closer to the disparities, I believe this sentence would read better if the pronoun “her” were used, instead of “herself.”

    Again, congratulations on a fine essay, and I hope these comments are constructive.

    Jim M.

  14. Absolutely stunning post. Truly in the same light with “Why the Gun is Civilization.”

    Just don’t tell Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret.).
    ;)

    tweaker

  15. John Gall says:

    Since I read it, I’ve been a firm believer in the statement, “An armed society is a polite society.”

  16. aczarnowski says:

    Hopefully you never get sick of knocking these things out of the park Marko. I can’t see myself tiring of watching them sail over the wall.

  17. [...] << A shirt I should have picked up | Home Windmills. Some tilting required Marko speaks complete and utter sense. Too bad you can't argue with the illogical using logic. posted @ 8/25/2009 12:59:46 [...]

  18. Robb Allen says:

    Good work. Useless, as the people we argue against have no capacity for rational thought, but good to read to remind me I am fighting on the right side.

    The counter argument I get when I bring things like this up is that guns enable the 110 pound thug to be violent when otherwise he’d much rather go to school to study a trade and become a useful and productive member of society. That without guns, sure the old lady would get raped for her pain medications and left for dead, but there would be an even GREATER decrease in overall crime that would make all the extra trips to the funeral parlors so worth it.

    Again, how do you explain 2+2=4 to people who think 2+2=POTATOE!!!! ?

  19. Jay G. says:

    Hey, I’m a firm believer in “give the mugger what they want”.

    As long as they really want 230 grains of lead wrapped in a shiny copper wrapper, that is…

  20. Excellent! =) I have been thinking about getting my CC for some time and now that I’m having a baby it seems even more important. I have a coworker who thinks I’m a total hillbilly for my belief in the 2A. She’s also admitted that she wouldn’t let her kids go to a house that had guns. Completely illogical. Those kids are better protected than kids in a home with no guns (and obviously the guns needs to be put ‘up’ and safe).

    My kid will learn about guns and learn how to use them as a tool…not something to be terrified of. It is, after all, an inanimate object.

    I also want him to go to a school that allows CC. Non gun campuses are just shooting targets for psychos.

  21. James E. Grriffin says:

    Forgive me that this is a bit long, but I have a problem with your first two paragraphs, which make it harder than it should be for me to get to your main premise. First your main premise.

    This essay is yet another elaboration on some age-old human arguments, and is part of why what used to be taught in schools as “Western Civ.” is so important to the Anglo-American experiment. Essentially, the rights of the individual vrs. the rights of the group; or, more importantly, the rights of the individual vrs. the “rights” of the State.

    It is important, now more than ever, to make these arguments. Because it’s currently “fashionable” to utterly denigrate everything “Western,” we’re loosing those basic concepts of the right of the individual that made The West the guiding light of the world.

    Folks are forgetting, or were never taught, that the premise of “human rights” is founded in the basic thought that makes up Western Civilization.

    Part of the Judeao-Christian underpinnings of Western Civilization is the idea that my right to defend myself is given me by God; no king, no legislature, no county council has ANY say in that matter. And you should see folks freak out when I say that here in Byzantium-on-the-Potomac!

    All that said, I’ll point out that the first paragraph is an over-simplification. And in many forms of martial arts, the second paragraph is incorrect.

    The problem has to do with another of the age-old problems in any self defense regimen: How do we train, and how does our training “stack-up” against the training of another. Does the other guy know something I don’t, and will that get me, and/or those I’m responsible for, killed.

    In Tai-Chi, Akkido, all kinds of Silat, Arnis, Ju-jitsu, Kung fu, and even in medieval western wrestling, there are extremely effective techniques for evening the score between smaller-weaker and bigger-stronger. Yes, bigger-stronger is an advantage, and is in general true, but not in all cases. And in many cases, bigger-stronger is a detriment.

    An age-old argument is tournament vrs reality. The medieval Japanese sword smith had a similar problem. Something that self defense with firearms has dealt with from the inception of firearms.

    That said, the gun is the ultimate equalizer, as you point out. There’s an old saw that “You can’t kung-fu a gun.” OK, yeah, that’s an over-simplification, but basically true. It’s the reason I carry a gun.

    For folks who have studied martial arts and dealt with these issues, your first two paragraphs make difficult – unnecessarily so – to get to your main premise.

    • Caleb says:

      Let me repeat that little factoid: even a trained fighter in prime shape has no realistic chance of winning an unarmed fight against a heavier opponent.

      Actually James, most folks that have studied martial arts and that are realisitc about the application of their particular flavor of chop-sockey would agree wholeheartedly with that statement. The most accomplished Brazilian jujitsu welterweight would be absolutely manhandled by a 240 pound linebacker, that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. I used to believe that my black belt in hapkido and the skills I had spent years developing would allow me to defend myself from attackers of greater size and strength until I had some violent reality slapped into me courtesy of the military.

      I’m not saying that you shouldn’t study martial arts. But don’t believe that a black belt in aikido or 5 years of MMA experience is going to let a 145 lb guy like me stand toe to toe with a 240 lb guy that’s six inches taller me.

      • Gregg says:

        In a nutshell, speaking as another person with extensive martial arts experience, training in the martial arts is a force multiplier. However, a firearm is a greater force multiplier. Add the martial arts training and ability to control distance with a firearm and you have one incredible force multiplier.

        Is it possible to take down a larger opponent who is of a lesser skill level? Of course it is. Yet, the goblin might not be of a lesser skill level.

        Many martial artists with extensive training (greater than 10 years) will have no trouble getting to the main gist of the article. Primarily because they actually agree with Marko.

      • perlhaqr says:

        It’s true. My lover has 25 years of fairly heavy martial arts training. But she weighs literally half of what I do, and is roughly a foot shorter.

        When we spar, I tend to win 2 of 3 falls. She certainly does much much better than if she had no training at all… but it’s definitely not a guaranteed win for her.

        (I have essentially no formal unarmed martial training.)

  22. Kaerius(SWE) says:

    You’re inspiring me to give some real thought to sending in a debate article in this vein to a major swedish newspaper.

    Note, we are already disarmed here, and gun smuggling has risen exponentially since we joined the EU. Gun related crime has gone from almost unheard of, to something you see at least every few weeks in the news(mostly criminal-on-criminal, thankfully, but sometimes someone say shooting up a nightclub entrance).

    Our criminals are getting more and more well-armed, but the population is still disarmed.

    There is no legal carry here unless you’re a police officer. You can own a handgun(or several) if you’re an active member of a shooting club and you do competition shooting. You can own rifles for the same reason, or for hunting(requires a hunting licence, which also requires land to hunt on).

  23. correia45 says:

    Wait a second…

    Am I the only one that is looking foward to the Thunderdome?

    Personally, I can’t wait to have a chainsaw duel while hanging from bungee cords against a retarded guy with a bucket on his head.

    MASTER BLASTER!!!!!

    On a serious note:

    “Yes, bigger-stronger is an advantage, and is in general true, but not in all cases. And in many cases, bigger-stronger is a detriment.”

    Uhm… In practical reality? Seriously? Unless you are a serious bad mamba-jamba, the big dude is going to win. That’s physics.

    Male vs. Female? You can take the toughest female you can find and she will be physically destroyed by an average male. My aunt spent 25 years as a prison guard in a maximum security facility. She is 6’o” tough as nails, and had survived several knock-down-drag-outs, and she was the first to admit to that fact.

    Training and mindset make a huge difference, no doubt, but don’t delude yourself that the fact you’ve got a black belt is going to save you when the guy who benchpresses 365 punches you once in the face.

  24. James E. Grriffin says:

    ” ‘Let me repeat that little factoid: even a trained fighter in prime shape has no realistic chance of winning an unarmed fight against a heavier opponent.’

    Actually James, most folks that have studied martial arts and that are realisitc about the application of their particular flavor of chop-sockey would agree wholeheartedly with that statement.”

    Caleb, I’ll have to disagree with you. And I have some familiarity with realistic applications, especially those military. While I agree – in general, bigger-stronger is an advantage – and teach that with appropriate caveats, it is too broad a generalization to teach in martial arts without the caveats.

    Here, I’ll use the example of Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of Akido. Or that of Gichin Funakoshi, who had terrible disagreements in the 1930’s in Tokyo, with how his own Shotokan was being changed to accommodate training. It’s a long story, and an old one.

    Your mileage may vary, and your own experiences are best for you; and, I’ll not ague at length because my own experience is best for me.

    To paraphrase a saying from the Koran, “Let him who will, believe in it, and him who will deny it.”

    Folks can disagree without being disagreeable, and if someone else’s experience works best for them, that’s cool.

    I have seen what I’ve seen, and I speak not only from my own experience. Vaya con Dios.

  25. Caleb says:

    Larry hits it – here’s an example for James of why martial arts training is only good so far.

    I’m 5’6, I weigh 145 lbs. That puts me at the upper band of UFC welterweights (or lightweights, I forget which). I’m fast, athletic, and very strong for my size.

    Larry is 6’12 or something and has at least an 80 pound weight advantage on me, not to mention have a much longer reach than me. What that means is that he can reach me before I can reach him, and that means that the second he can touch me, his strength is now the deciding factor in the fight. Guys like me survive fights with guys like Larry by never getting close enough for some huge mf’er to grab me. Not because I’m good at kung fu.

  26. Anthony says:

    But… but… you’re using logic!

    Did you not get the unicorn and rainbow memo?

  27. Caleb says:

    James, I’m sorry, it just doesn’t work like that. 99 times out of 100, the bigger-stronger guy is going to pummel the smaller guy. And I say this as the smaller guy. Any time you’re giving up more than 20 pounds and 5 inches, you’re at a serious disadvantage.

    Sure, I’ve seen it happen. I saw a 6’2 Samoan kickboxer knock out a dude at K1 that was 7’0 and had 60 pounds on him, but I’m not foolish enough to think that because the huge guy doesn’t protect his jaw means that I’ve got a snowball’s chance in hell in a similar situation.

    • Marko Kloos says:

      If the exceptions didn’t prove the rule, there wouldn’t be any weight classes in martial arts.

      • Tam says:

        I think a certain amount of talking past one another is going on here. I have little doubt of the credentials of James, Caleb, Larry, or you, but…

        Yes, there are weight classes in martial arts. However, a martial arts bout takes place between two people who both know a fight is about to take place, are operating from at least roughly comparable skill levels, and doing so within a structured set of rules.

        On the other hand, a bigger, stronger, heavier opponent may indeed be defeated by a smaller, more skilled, and more determined one. It’s not necessarily the way to bet, but as the old saw goes about the hound dog who just got his ass kicked by the rabbit: “He was fighting for his life; I was just fighting for my supper.

  28. Gregg says:

    Marko, fantastic thank you for articulating an argument that many of have presented over the years. I hope that you submit this to the blue press, alternatively I hope that you have already submitted this…

  29. James E. Grriffin says:

    “Guys like me survive fights with guys like Larry by never getting close enough for some huge mf’er to grab me.”

    and

    “when the guy who benchpresses 365 punches you once in the face.”

    Yes, Mr. Correia, I well understand your point. It’s also why a “prison rush” is sometimes so effective with a blade.

    I’ll agree completely with both Caleb and Correia here on these points, it’s what both Ueshiba and Funakoshi, and a great many others have based their life’s work on.

    It’s also why I strength train to the extent I can, and have a variety of tools available.

    There’s a problem with averages, as the statistician learned, when he drowned crossing a river that averaged three feet deep. I’ve had to use that illustration when helping some very large, powerful and skilled men rehab injuries from a real-world fight. Affectionately known as my Vikings, they were sometimes unlucky, sometimes made a mistake, and on a few occasions outclassed.

    It’s why I say the weapon is your brain. Your training and weapons skill are tools. the more tools you have, the more options you have.

    We never know exactly what’s coming at us in the real world so in some instances martial arts techniques are appropriate, in others the blade, or the gun. A trained person will not always know what he’s going to use in close quarters, to the point a common debrief statement is “What I think I did was…”

    Then again, sometimes the statement is “What the Hell was I thinking???”

    I stand by my statements. Your mileage may vary. Again, Vaya con Dios.

  30. Traywick says:

    I am sorry but I read about everyone freaking out about the right to bare arms being taken away and being left defenseless. At no time has any bill been proposed to ban gun ownership all together. All the bills have been purposed to make it harder for the people that do not deserve the right to bare arms. (Felons, people with criminal backgrounds) I mean if I have to wait a month before I can take home my new pistol or rifle so be it. People with criminal records have no rights as far as I am concerned. Piss on all of them. If I have to jump though more hoops to buy my guns I will gladly do it if it slows or stops the shit of this country from holding a weapon. Everyone wants to cry about their second amendment rights. So far every argument I have gotten into about gun control ends up being with someone who could not buy a gun due to new restrictions in a bill that’s being looked at. You sale drugs, steal or whatever you have no rights. And if you have nothing to hide who cares if someone has a list of the weapons you own. To me that just lets the people with the list know don’t bring shit to my door unless you want to see someone defend their family or property. Pass all the gun control laws you want to prevent people that don’t have any reason or right to carry them. And NO everyone does not have the right to bare arms. If you cannot play buy the rules you do not get to benefit from the rules. I will get all upset and show my rights if and when there is ever a proposal to take law abiding citizens arms. But until then drop the conspiracy crap. Everyone wants to jump to the evil government is out to get us side before looking at the other side. If this helps make the schools and community where my son lives and plays a safer place so be it. And to the people crying well I can’t by a weapon… Sucks to be you, you lawless bastard should have thought about that before you did what you did. And no you have no rights.

    • Bob S. says:

      Trayvick,

      Ever get a traffic ticket? Then you have a criminal record. Should your right to defend yourself be forever denied because of that action?

      How about someone jaywalking? How about the person who cheated on their taxes?
      Why does a person’s right to defend themselves effectively disappear with a criminal conviction?

      If I have to jump though more hoops to buy my guns I will gladly do it if it slows or stops the shit of this country from holding a weapon.

      I can’t afford any more hoops. In Texas, it is $140 fee for the Concealed Handgun License (CHL)…closer to $180 with all the extras – not including the required class.

      Do you think the criminals are getting their CHL before they commit an armed robbery? Nope.
      The restrictions on purchasing and carrying firearms don’t affect the criminals. Just the law abiding.

    • Tam says:

      Trayvick,

      Paragraph breaks. They’re the latest thing; you should try them sometime.

    • Roberta X says:

      I have seen a lot of felons with bare arms. Some of them were even bearing arms. Funny, no law stopped either.

    • ATLien says:

      LOGIC FAIL

      Please go the back of Life.

      Thank you.

    • I stopped reading at the word “bare.” If you can’t be bothered to learn fifth-grade spelling, then I doubt your ability to form a reasoned argument.

  31. Kristopher says:

    Traywick:

    Try getting any firearm legally in Chicago. Then get back to us.

    That is the model the President and Pelosi want. They aren’t trying for it because they know it will cost them their jobs.

  32. Traywick says:

    So you cant get firearms in Chicago?

    • Marko Kloos says:

      Suggestion: do some basic research before you jump into a debate on a subject.

      • LabRat says:

        It probably also helps to be clear on whether you’re debating the right to own and carry firearms or the right to sleeveless shirts.

    • Robb Allen says:

      It’s easy to get ‘em in Chicago. Go find a thug, offer him a few bucks for a pistol. He’ll more than likely go get a 4473 out of his jacked up 94 Corolla, run a background check on you, then make you wait 3 days before transfer.

      Wait…

    • Dixie says:

      Traywick-

      Qui non intelligit aut discat aut taceat

      /Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur

  33. James E. Grriffin says:

    Sure, as Tam says, there’s some talking past each other here. I for one never consider reasoned discussion as questioning another’s bona fides.

    These kind of discussions run around the martial arts world the way 9mm vrs .45 ACP go around gunnies. In a ideal world I’d be able to sit down with folks with a beer on these, and have fun and arguing the whichness of the wherefor of it, and then go have fun at the shooting range and the dojo.

    Ya never know where you’re gonna learn something.

  34. Traywick says:

    OK so I read hand guns are illegal in Chicago. That’s not a federal law. If you want to own a hand gun MOVE. Or you want to defend yourself from the local thugs GET OUT OF CHICAGO. What do you expect?
    Look I love my pistols but I think any weapon that can be concealed should be illegal to make or own. And punishable by 5 years automatic sentence. (no exceptions) But that’s not the way the world works. You could not get an automatic sentence passed if you wanted. Then you would have to deal with the people that say “That’s not far” or whatever. So if your local laws upset you move to a new local. I lived in Chicago for 2 years. You can keep the place.

    • Larry says:

      Wow, Traywick. The entire point of the essay flew about 6′ over your head. Making handguns completely illegal will do nothing to keep them away from those who don’t give a damn about laws in the first place.

    • Laughingdog says:

      “Look I love my pistols”

      Right. I’ve never heard the “I love my guns, but…” argument before. What a creative and unique tactic.

    • I love my pistols but I think any weapon that can be concealed should be illegal to make or own.
      So apparently you think they should be illegal for everyone but you, eh?

  35. MarkHB says:

    Problem is, Traywick, those controls and hoops aren’t really very good at stopping criminals from getting guns. They don’t work in Sweden as Kaerius pointed out, they don’t work in the UK as I can grimly attest, and there’s no reason to think they work in the US.

    Problem is, y’see, the criminal’s already breaking a bunch of laws, and doesn’t care about breaking more. He’s already in an “I won’t get caught, I’m too good” mindset – or to shit-thick to think past the next score, either setup comes out the same.

    He’s not going to buy from a “proper gunstore”, and he’s not going to be buying expensive, sexy AR variants or any of Ronnie Barrett’s fine produce. No, he’s going to be getting some cheap, crapulent thing from the same fence he sells his crap back to.

    So banning ARs, large bore rifles, high cap magazines, sale of semi-autos and their associated paraphenalia, waiting lists for handguns… Banger Chunklug isn’t actually going to be in any way inconvenienced by that. The only people who will are you and I.

    How shockingly, predictably boring.

    The one vague bright side is having seen how quickly the Democrats lost control of the whole ball of wax last time they tried to push gun controls, they’re too scared to try the same shit again. Downside is, when a frontal assault doesn’t work, unrelated bills start getting garnished – shitty that that’s even possible with the lawmaking process, IMAO. Ho hum. Time to re-read “An Essay on Civil Disobedience” and have a drink, I guess….

  36. Traywick says:

    And by the way THEY are not trying for it because it is a direct violation of the constitution. And considering that Obama is a constitutional lawyer and has spent his whole life fighting for constitutional rights (not just about race) including the right to bare arms. They are not trying for it because some people realize to reduce violence and hatred you must work on the social order in your community and government. And to strip law abiding citizens of their rights in this day and time would be the worst thing you could do. Good people have the right to defend their self’s and family. The uneducated thing to do is say those darn democrats are going to go after our guns. Look I am not a democrat or republican (they are all crazy at the government level) I go the avenue to educate myself and use some common sense. I see some valid point from republicans and democrats.

    And the reason it does not work in other countries is it is still legal to produce those weapons. And the person that goes out and buys a pistol legally and has it for 3 or 4 years decides to sale it to his cousin Billy bob down the street that has a criminal record. Does not have to check the back ground of the person it is being sold to. And that person is not held responsible if Billy bob goes down the street and kills his wife. The problem is not the fact of making people wait for a background check but that after that purchase that weapon now is in free play on the market. And last time I have checked I have never meet someone that needs an AK with a Banana clip for hunting or protection.
    And you are right the criminal is not going to buy from a gun store. Which makes it all better when I have to splatter his brains all over the wall behind with my legal gun when he tries to rob me or my neighbor. I walk away without being looked at twice, and they call the piece of shits mother to tell her that her babies shit is all over the wall because she had no clue where he was at or that her brother sold him his 9 for 40 and a crack rock. Nothing will stop violence but NO we do not need large capacity clip semi automatic weapons. If you do you have reached a point of obsession with weapons and need help. To protect and to hunt the only 2 reasons anyone needs a weapon.

    • Tam says:

      And last time I have checked I have never meet someone that needs an AK with a Banana clip for hunting or protection.

      “Hunting” and “Protection” have precisely fuck-all to do with the 2nd Amendment, although they are pleasant side effects.

      • Kristopher says:

        And on top of that, I did completely shut down some retard who made the mistake of violating a restraining order and showed up on my doorstep with a pistol … by shoving a federally registered Galil’s barrel in his face.

        The fuck’tard dropped the pistol and nearly wet his pants on my door step.

        An example of a very good use of a real assault rifle in a defensive situation.

    • ATLien says:

      Ok, traywick…you’re just fucking with us now, right?

      Right??

    • Rick R. says:

      Um, Tarywick?

      Obama was wholly in support of DC’s near-absolute ban (you could have a handgun IF you had registered it by 1976 and IF you never let that regsitration lapse for a single day), right up until SCOTUS said it was unconstitutional.

      Insnatly, magically, Obama was now OPPOSED to the DC gun ban.

      His entire career has been anti-gun whenever the subject came up — unless he was speaking where he thought a string anti-gun position would cost him votes. His allies have been reliably anti-gun whenever teh subject came up — unless they were speaking where they thought a string anti-gun position would cost them votes.

  37. Traywick says:

    And no Larry I did not miss the point of the essay. Your right making hand guns illegal would do nothing. Because of the point I just made. If you make carrying a weapon illegal but allow that weapon to still be made of course it will make it out in the public and people will still be killed. And my point (I guess I will have to speak very clearly and spell out what I was saying) we will never get the problem under control as long as these weapons are made. So in making it hard to obtain these weapons you draw a very clear legal line between right and wrong and who is to blame when someone gets shot. And yes we could make this very effective (not in 1-5 years ) if a point was set that every single gun made had to be accounted for though every step of its life and that everyone that owned that weapon was responsible for to whom it was sold to. The amount of illegal guns floating around would start to slowly dwindle.

    • Linoge says:

      So how is that War on Drugs working out for you?

    • Robb Allen says:

      The amount of illegal guns floating around would start to slowly dwindle.
      You know, besides the one on top of your soft, little noggin, you have a point there.

      When Thomas the Thug breaks into my house and steals a firearm, I’m pretty sure he’s going to ensure that he registers it with the cops. Then, when he goes to sell it, he’ll ensure that whoever purchases it will also keeps that chain of information going. It would be silly to assume that just because someone steals something that they wouldn’t be honest enough to tell the government about it, right? Because, man… if the criminals didn’t keep a paper trail, it’d almost be impossible to determine what happened to the stolen arms and that’d ruin your entire premise.

      So in making it hard to obtain these weapons you draw a very clear legal line between right and wrong and who is to blame when someone gets shot.
      Good idea. Shooting someone over disrespectin’ yo shnizzle is too difficult to define as ‘right or wrong’, but I bet criminals will COWER IN UTTER FEAR of being ‘wrong’ by purchasing a gun (which they’ll definitely keep track of).

      Another failure of yours is the misconception that guns are items that can only be made by large corporations with billions of dollars of machinery. It’s not like uneducated sheep herders could make them by hand using machinery cobbled together from scrap. Or can they? Ever hear of Khyber Pass.

      Man, speaking of people totally out of their weight class.

  38. correia45 says:

    James, Tam, I’m not saying that a smaller person can’t win. Heaven knows I would never willingly get into a fight with John Shirley for example! I might win but I bet I lose at least an eye and an ear.

    For someone who’s trained, motivated, and has skills and determination, nothing is impossible. I have personally been choked out by a guy who weighed 165 while I clocked in at a muscular 275. Little bastard locked up on my neck before I could get out of it… I remember thinking “look at the pretty flashing lights…” right before everything went black.

    I also had a 150 pounder smash the top of my foot with his fist in a match when I tried to snap kick him. Dropped me like a sack of crap. :) Aww. Good times.

    People like that are the exception to the rule though. Take 100 big men off the street and 100 average people off the street and you’ll have about 90 badly damaged average people when you get done. Change that to 100 hardened criminals and it’ll get worse.

    I’m all about physical training, but for the vast majority of people, given the amount of time they’ve got available to train, the gun is the great equilizer. That 1% of the population that is into fighting can take larger opponents, but for most, they’re toast.

    Traywick… Dude, you’re preaching to the wrong crowd here. I think you need to go back and read some of Marko’s other essays on the topic before he busts out his +5 Cluebat of Slaying.

  39. [...] What gun control really amounts to Posted August 25, 2009 Filed under: Guns, self defense | Tags: Guns, self defense | Marko pens a piece on what gun control really does. [...]

  40. Traywick says:

    Sorry “dude” I don’t play WOW or what every you are referencing to +5 Cluebat of Slaying.

    • Michael says:

      Sorry “dude” I don’t play WOW or what every you are referencing to +5 Cluebat of Slaying.

      Now that’s funny. . .

  41. Rick R. says:

    Traywick —

    Double fail.

    You really don’t know what a “cluebat” is? (Hint — it’s a common, if idiomatic, English word.)

    You really cannot recognize a sarcastic, snarky sentence, one that advises you to DO SOME HOMEWORK before spewing your factual ignorance in public?

    Yet you think YOU know how to interpret and protect everyone else’s Constitutionally ennumerated and protected rights, when you aren’t even aware of the EXISTING infringemnets on it. . .

    Typical hoplophobic ignorance and arrogance.

  42. Rick R. says:

    Forgive the typos. Typing fast without a spell check feature to catch common letter inversions is annoying.

  43. Kaerius(SWE) says:

    In general yes the larger guy wins. Though with sufficient skill gap, the smaller guy will win.

    I’ve trained martial arts for 10 years, I’m 5’8″, and about 150-160lbs(been a while since I stood on some scales). I don’t have a doubt in my mind that oh say Shimazu Kenji(grandmaster of Yagyu Shingan Ryu Heihojutsu) would wipe the floor with me. He’s about 5’0″, 110-120lbs, and in his 70s.

  44. MarkHB says:

    One thing everyone seems to be assuming is a one-on-one engagement. Bad Guys are cowardly, mephitic shitheels who are too fuckerly to ever, ever, ever go one-on-one unless they’ve already got the advantage of position, surprise and weaponry. Because, you see, they’re unspeakable, cum-quaffing cockbites. You will almost never encounter a single Bad Guy, because they want their little fwiends with them.

    This is how six-foot-four of Me got beaten to bloody jelly – by about a dozen little c*nts, any one of which I could have broken like a twig, but en masse … jackals taking down whatever jackals pack up on to take them down.

    Bad Guys come in groups. So the mano-e-mano stuff is great for grading, great for practice, great for gathering belts, but generally useless in almost any real-world engagement because these human-shaped meatbags are not playing Queensbury rules, they are not into “fair fighting” and they’re too fucking craven to ever even think of going one-on-one when they can go mob handed like the bendy-headed fudge-buffs they are.

    This also contributes my rebuttal as to how high capacity magazines are not necessary.

  45. correia45 says:

    Cluebat = What people like Marko hit people like you with. It provides hours of amusement. +5 because Marko has MAD SKILLZ.

    Dude = It was the most polite thing I could come up with at short notice.

    Man, I sure would like to live in Traywick’s magic fairytopia where illegal things ceased to exist!

    Marko, can I have your permission to fisk the crap out of this guy over on my blog?

    • Marko Kloos says:

      Hell, Larry, you don’t need my permission for that. Fire away. I’d formulate a reply, but I have some other writing to do, and in any case I fear that Traywick and I are literally inhabiting two different realities.

  46. MarkHB says:

    Mr. Correia, you surely wouldn’t. I’ve been spending some time escaping from one.

  47. [...] Marko has a well meaning but misinformed post in favor people carrying guns. The early UFC matches didn’t have weight classes and the big guys didn’t always win. Smaller trained fighters routinely prevail against larger untrained fighters. Regardless, professional criminals are armed criminals and gun control isn’t going to change that. I am all for armed citizens, but it has nothing to do with disparities in size or training. [...]

    • Tam says:

      …’cause criminals have never been involved in a knuckle-joust before, right? They’re all just like the compliant tackling dummies that Suzi Suburbanite faced in the McDojo every Thursday night from 6:15 to 7:00, so her green belt in taekwondo should more than even up the odds against Teddy, the just-released rapist and ex-golden gloves light-heavyweight.

      • planetcaveman says:

        Ok, so maybe taking Take-yur-doe isn’t a very good thing if real world self-defense is what you’re interested in.

      • Tam says:

        Y’know, that’s what every instructor of every technique says.

        Like Suzi Suburbanite is going to go register at Bullshido and read through the archives. Who’s she gonna believe? The first pitchman to tel her he teaches REAL street self-defense. If she goes for a couple years, she’ll probably be all kinds of confident, and be able to make all the right mouth-noises to be one of Brillianter’s “smaller, trained” fighters.

        Let’s say she takes “ninjutsu” from a guy who clipped his credentials out of the back of an Ashida Kim fantasy story, then…

    • Rick R. says:

      “The early UFC matches didn’t have weight classes and the big guys didn’t always win. ”

      Yeah, in a GAME. There are rules — something notably lacking in dark alleys, where your opponant is free to pluck out your eyeball as a snack if he can manage it.

      They were also contests between poeple with roughly equivalent skills.

      Now, Grandma is in her 70’s, has osteoporosis, uses a walker, and gets winded in about a block. Even if she has a Sagan (“billy-ons and billy-ons”) of belts, knots, and awards in every martial art from Judo to the Dark Side of the Force, she’s not really physically capable anymore.

      JoJo the Prison Yard Dog does not have these limitations. And JoJo needs to get himself some meth today.

      Mano-a-Grandmano, Grannie’s gonna lose, and lose hard.

      Yet Grannie can still muster the physical strength and dexterity to drop JoJo, using only one hand and one finger. Not through some ystical one inch punch, but by punching repeated doses of copper jacketed lead through JoJo’s soulless heart.

      The thought that Grannie can do that, and JoJo is seriously rethinking changing his career path from “robbery” to “burglery” and “check fraud” makes me smile. (Sure, being ripped off sucks — but if I had to swap “property crimes” for “assault & property crimes”, I’ll buy all you can sell, at 1:1.)

  48. MarkHB says:

    Point missed by about three country miles there, Brillianter.com . *sighs*

  49. ASM826 says:

    Marko,

    Don’t suffer the trolls.

    This is clear, concise, and noteworthy enough that I am linking to it and making an addition to my blogroll.

    ASM826

  50. planetcaveman says:

    “even a trained fighter in prime shape has no realistic chance of winning an unarmed fight against a heavier opponent”

    Marko,

    While I’m opposed to gun control as much as one can be this statement is absolute nonsense. What are you basing this on?

    For starters, history is absolutely littered with examples proving you wrong: from David felling Goliath to countless examples of intelligently used small armies defeating larger forces. There is a multitude of factors determining an Army’s success and numbers are only one of them, similarly physical size is only 1 attribute that goes into a fight.

    Without a doubt THE most important factor in determining who will win is mindset. Many people out there simply cannot deal with the idea of facing an aggressor who wants to do them harm, it’s not uncommon for people to piss themselves and crawl into the fetal position, which allows the aggressor to easily shoot or stab them.

    I’m probably a good deal larger than your average person and I’m not ashamed to admit that I wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell against my martial arts instructor, who I am significantly taller than, have a much longer reach than, and am MUCH stronger than. His senior student is 23 years old, 5’6, and about 140 lbs and he can absolutely kick the crap out of me.

    My superior size and strength don’t matter to him because he’s not trying to outmuscle me: the idea of yielding and melding are very common in good martial arts but they’re seldom done/explained well.

    Just consider this, the heavier someone is the more pressure is one their joints. So, if you give a good kick to the knee of a 300lb man it’ll do a lot more damage than by kicking the knee of someone 150lbs. We can refer to this as “counter-pressure”, it’s why you can smack a fly in the air really hard and not do any real harm to it, it’s tiny mass doesn’t provide sufficient counter-pressure to allow your swat to harm it, smack a human with the same force and you’ll do much more harm due to the greater mass of the human.

    Greater mass also means gravity is acting on them more, the whole ‘the bigger they are the harder they fall’ bit, a heavy person will sustain more damage (all things being equal) then a lighter person.

    As far as martial arts having weight classes, it’s usually sport martial arts that do that, which also have rules against a plethora (I love that word) of moves which would easily disable someone regardless of weight, gauging the eye of a 300lb person will take them out just the same as a 200lb person. Sport martial arts can also be counter-productive as far as actual self-defense goes so you don’t really want to use them as a barometer.

    • Tam says:

      While I’m opposed to gun control as much as one can be this statement is absolute nonsense. What are you basing this on?

      I think you’re letting your allegiance to your fighting hobby blind you to the larger truth behind what Marko is saying here.

      I am reminded of the kid in the gun forum who, in a thread where some middle-aged guy tossed off an impromptu Star Wars analogy responded with “Well, actually, the bolts from a blaster don’t move at light speed…

      Okay, yes, a 140-lb dude whose kung-fu is strong can maybe beat up Bear at the door of the Boot Hill Saloon. That has precisely dick-all to do with the point of the post.

      • planetcaveman says:

        Hmmm,

        If Marko is using a “fact” to support his argument, how is my refutation of that “fact” not relevant?

        It seems to me that the main gist of what he’s saying is that it’s a very stupid to deprive someone the use of a tool to defend themself, but why does that idea need to come at the expense of the importance of skill in using that or other tools?

        I find it amazing that gun enthusiasts love to point out to antis that “the gun is just a tool, it’s the person that commits the crime” yet in the next breath they’ll claim that a gun magically eliminates the physical limitations of it’s user, I thought it was JUST a tool? The user needs to have sufficient skill in order to deploy the weapon and use it, hopefully in a timely manner.

        Don’t we love to quote Jeff Cooper regarding guns, pianos, and pianists? It seems to me he is saying that skill is quite important. I see plenty of people at the range shooting at stationary targets but I have never seen anyone actually practicing their draw, let alone practicing their draw while someone is physically messing with them. Being able to effectively utilize a tool should probably be considered right up there the with ability to have that tool. Being able to work with improvised weapons as well as empty hands is similarly a good idea.

        Also, not only is it not true that a smaller person doesn’t have a chance against a larger one but believing that statement might cause someone to give up on a situation they might have otherwise prevailed in. If one’s goose is cooked because the opponent is larger why even try to fight back? It also teaches dependence on a gun, which also gets people into trouble.

        So, yes, gun control is a bad idea, but so is getting so wrapped up with tools that one fails to see the bigger picture.

      • Clint says:

        “It seems to me that the main gist of what he’s saying is that it’s a very stupid to deprive someone the use of a tool to defend themself, but why does that idea need to come at the expense of the importance of skill in using that or other tools?”

        That is were You don’t get it. Marko never said that people should drop Martial Arts and just use guns. Marko said we should have guns because hand-to-hand skills are not always enough. This was NEVER a case of either/or.

        “Also, not only is it not true that a smaller person doesn’t have a chance against a larger one but believing that statement might cause someone to give up on a situation they might have otherwise prevailed in.”
        If that is true, then they obviously lack the Mindset you talked about earlier.

        “If one’s goose is cooked because the opponent is larger why even try to fight back?”
        If they feel that way from Marko’s essay, that means they never had the proper mindset anyway, they never trained, never prepared. Their self-defense mechanism was most likely denial. They don’t need some internet post to give up because they already decided to not even try.

        “It also teaches dependence on a gun, which also gets people into trouble.”
        It called “weapons fixation” It is a known pitfall and one every gun-guy (and gal) has to deal with. Mostly we do pretty good.

        Furthermore, there are people who get a false sense of security from martial arts (think McDojo) just the same as with guns, knives, stun guns, pepper spray, etc.

    • Rick R. says:

      Caveman —

      That eye gouging analogy works BOTH ways. Again, the stronger, larger opponant has the advantage, all other things being even within whistling distance.

      I’ve SEEN guys large enough that, if they go a hold of me and held me at arms length, I COULD NOT reach their eyes. getting close enough to got for joint locks and such on a large, fast, aggressive opponant is a losing proposition, unless your skills are SO far ahead of his that you can get inside his OODA loop, destroy him, and get out before he touches you. Even then, one slippery alleyway can bring all your skills to naught if you faceplant at his feet.

      There is plenty of surveillance film showing prison inmates practicing takedown techniques in the prison yard. Frankly, many of these goons have pretty good skills — I mean, they’re not Bruce Lee, but neither is their target likely to be.

      A bull rush pump stab attack with a knife from a guy who is significantly larger is hard to deflect if the guy has ANY clue as to keeping on balance. i seriously doubt you can REANABLY say that you’ll maintain your head after JoJo slips 6″ of steel into your abdomen, lathers, rinses, and repeats.

      And they do have one critical advantage over all but a statistically insignificant amount of their potential targets.

      They know how to take a hit. Pain is kinda part of their life, usually since childhood.

      Now, one can spend decades perfecting his open hand techniques (keeping in mind that many do not work really well when faced with an experienced knife, clup, or chain wielding opponant), hardening oneself for Der Tag, capable of smashing through bricks with a single finger, “Death with Two Fists”, etc.

      And if that’s cool and neat to you — GREAT! Everyone’s got to have a hobby.

      Of course, it doesn’t help the weak, the infirm, the out-of-shape office drone, or the just-a-little-too-young to have had the decades of intense practice yet.

      Luckily, it takes FAR less skill to master a handgun to the level of being able to reasonably defend oneself against an opponant, REGARDLESS of his level of training or conditioning.

      • planetcaveman says:

        Rick,

        I don’t think you’re quite understanding my point, I’m not attacking the use of a gun in defending oneself, I think guns are great tools but it’s foolish to think owning a gun is a replacement for skill, wisdom, and situational awareness. Think about how many people will spend hours debating Glock v. 1911, 9mm v. 45, and Hydra-shoks v. Silvertips, how many of them do you think practice their draws?

        Think about a situation where you’d want to use a gun to defend yourself, how difficult is it to deploy and use the weapon? If you hear some noise outside and can just grab your 12 gauge and wait for the bad guys to come through the door, no problem. OTOH, if a nasty drugged out psycho is in your face and you think he’s going to pull a knife on you or your family, that’s a different story. You, grandma, and Santa Claus will all need skill in order to deal with that situation.

        I think many gun enthusiasts find this idea very uncomfortable because they think because they own a gun they’ve taken care of the self-protection issue, it’s checked off in the same manner a cafeteria Christian goes to church on Christmas and Easter and thinks they’re all set.

        How much skill you chose to obtain is determined by how serious you view self-protection. You can try to dismiss empty hand training as a hobby but why don’t you dismiss target shooting as a hobby? If a bad guy is in front of me I can just go to work with my hands, if I depend on a gun I need to bring my hand back, grab my gun, and then draw it forward. What are my chances of doing that before he clocks me? .

        Many people try to needlessly create a distinction between empty hand work and weapons training where none need exist. Skill training benefits both armed and unarmed work, as does being able to recognize an aggressive jerk who is looking for a fight, and being able to talk that guy down so that he’s not interested in fighting you.

      • Clint says:

        “I’m not attacking the use of a gun in defending oneself,”
        No, you WERE debating the whole bigger-man-beats-smaller-man idea. Now you have changed your argument.
        “I think guns are great tools but it’s foolish to think owning a gun is a replacement for skill, wisdom, and situational awareness.”
        Good idea, let us sit on that one awhile.
        “Think about how many people will spend hours debating Glock v. 1911, 9mm v. 45, and Hydra-shoks v. Silvertips, how many of them do you think practice their draws?”
        The world is full of posers. It has nothing to do with a)the original debate, big vs small, b)the new debate, gun or bare hands, or most importantly c) the people who do, in fact, practice.
        “OTOH, if a nasty drugged out psycho is in your face and you think he’s going to pull a knife on you or your family, that’s a different story.”
        Oh yes, it so very is.
        “If a bad guy is in front of me I can just go to work with my hands, if I depend on a gun I need to bring my hand back, grab my gun, and then draw it forward. What are my chances of doing that before he clocks me?”
        Besides the fact that you mean “stab” not “clock” I direct your attention the the aforementioned “skill, wisdom, and situational awareness” that you brought up earlier. For it is “skill, wisdom, and situational awareness” that will keep yourself alive.
        BTW, look up Mike Janich, he covers this stuff Much better than you do. Also, a proper, practiced draw is all one fluid motion. Before you argue that punching, etc, is faster than shooting, look up Tueller Drill. A simply sidestep can add the time needed to draw a gun on a knife bearing attacker.

    • Clint says:

      Caveman, take the quote at the beginning of your comment and add the words: “of equal skill.” because that is what most of us as taking for granted here. That despite how much training we have and how much practice we do, there will always be someone bigger, meaner, better. Sure there are exceptions, but they, literally, exceptional! They are famous because they could take all comers, because they could fight bigger foes, and because they devoted a lifetime, and lots of time, to practice. For us in the remaining 99.9%, even if we could be more skilled than a bigger opponent, we’ll lack *enough* skill to take on a bigger, meaner, attacker in a hand-to-hand conflict and .

      Furthermore, even if we (the masses) could win, we can’t do so without experiencing massive injures that need hospital care. That means the skills we do have are one really bad fight away from leaving us. Compared to the gun: I have more chance of winning, less chance of injury, and despite age of injuries and can still defend myself.

      Back on topic, Marko’s line should be read like this:
      “even a trained fighter in prime shape has no realistic chance of winning an unarmed fight against a heavier opponent” (of equal skill)

      Please remember Marko’s essay is aimed at “normal” people and for normal people he is very much right. Especially considering that most attackers will have better street fighting skills that us, their potential victims.

      This even applies to you You are neither the Master nor the Expert Student. They can take on a case of 300 lbs of prison muscle. YOU CAN’T!

    • perlhaqr says:

      “even a trained fighter in prime shape has no realistic chance of winning an unarmed fight against a heavier opponent”

      [H]istory is absolutely littered with examples proving you wrong: from David felling Goliath to countless examples of intelligently used small armies defeating larger forces.

      Shit, I could have sworn last time I read that tale, when David kicked Goliath’s ass, he was armed. Like, that was the whole gorramn point of the story.

  51. mikeb302000 says:

    Sorry to come to this discussion so late. I’d like to point out that reducing the argument to “Disarming the law-abiding doesn’t do a thing to control the lawless,” is a mistake. Some gun control advocates don’t want to disarm anyone but criminals, and since everyone agrees they don’t obey the laws, the laws need to be designed so the law-abiding compliance of them affects the criminals. How’s that sound?

    • Linoge says:

      It sounds like unjust punishments against individuals who have broken no laws – in short, another continuation of your “appeal to authority” logical fallacy.

      Any other questions?

    • Linoge says:

      Strike “appeal to authority” and replace with “appeal to probability”. Bleh.

    • Rick R. says:

      Mike —

      We have that.

      It’s a felony for a convicted felon to even be alone in a room with a gun, much less buy, possess, or carry one. (A felon carrying a gun or trying to buy one from a dealer is a separate charge, on top of “possession”.)

      We know we CANNOT charge someone prohibited from possessing a gun with failure to register. SCOTUS decided that, under self-incrimination grounds, back in the 1960’s.

      We CANNOT keep criminals from acquiring (often by theft), possessing, or carrying arms if they choose to break the law — futility, thy name is Prohibition.

      We CANNOT raise a magical force field that automatically keeps out armed criminals.

      What we CAN do is enforce some of the already 20,000 laws already on the books. It’s truly amazing how many criminals have prior records for criminal possession and/or misuse of guns, which were never prosecuted. Routinely dropping charges that will have 10-year sentences is the same as if those laws weren’t even on teh books.

      If JoJo is doing back to back (i.e., consectutive, not concurrent) 10 year stints for gun crimes, ON TOP of his other offences, eventually either JoJo will learn, or he will die in prison. And JoJo’s buddy Phreakmaster may look at JoJo and say, “Man, that dude’s gonna be locked up until he’s OLD!” and decide that, whatever crime he is planning on committing might be better served if he left the gat at home.

      I also don’t think it helps when some wannabe gangsta celebrity (usually a jock or a singer) gets a slap on the wrist when he gets busted in criminal behavior with a gun. If JoJo is going down for 10+10 consecutive for possession of dope and a gun, and SuperJock the ballplayer gets 6 months suspended, no felony record, it does NOT help the image in the inner city that “Illegal use of guns is cool”.

    • Clint says:

      Mike can you rephrase that? Line 5 contradicts line 4.

      Also, watch your pronouns. The phrase “everyone agrees they don’t obey the laws” literally reads:”everyone does not obey the laws”
      Somehow I doubt this is you messsage.

      • Kristopher says:

        Clint:

        The curly quotes in the second quoted statement are both oriented the same way.

        With proper html use, you can avoid this embarrassment.

      • Kristopher says:

        Oh, and I think you might want to use the word your instead of you in the last sentence.

      • Clint says:

        No , not improper HTML, just simply posting while in a hurry. Glad you got the point anyway.

      • mikeb302000 says:

        Clint, Thanks for the editorial comment. Sometimes I type faster than I think. How about this?:

        Some gun control advocates don’t want to disarm anyone but criminals, and since everyone agrees criminals don’t obey the laws, the laws need to be designed so the law-abiding compliance of those laws affects the criminals.

      • mikeb302000 says:

        Clint, You’re right that wasn’t very clear. How’s this?

        Some gun control advocates don’t want to disarm anyone but criminals, and since everyone agrees criminals don’t obey the laws, the laws need to be designed so the law-abiding compliance of those laws affects the criminals.

      • Linoge says:

        No matter how you rephrase it, MikeB, you are still proposing that all people of “group related to X” suffer for the misuse of “X”, even if those people in question did not actually misuse “X” themselves.

        Undoubtedly, you would not feel the same way concerning automobiles, kitchen knives, or swimming pools. No, your bigotry revolves entirely around firearms… talk about single-minded.

        Oh, and by the way, punishing someone for something that they had no control over is no better than holding them responsible for the same – both are inherently flawed and fallacious positions to take, and both still rely on the logical fallacy of “appeal to probability”.

      • Clint says:

        I’m not so such Mikeb is a dyed-in-the-wool anti, maybe just a guy who thinks there must be a solution to the problem. He made two points, 1) disarm only the criminals and 2) have laws that wherein the actions of the law-abiding affects the law breaking. If we use that as a standard, we can strike down most of the GCA and NFA.

        CCW is an act where the law-abiding reduce the violence of the criminals.

        Although I am having a problem thinking of how to make a law/program/etc where the acts of honest people can disarm all of the criminals AND only the criminals.

        If we are lucky maybe we can help Mikeb turn pro-gun and get a CCW of his own!

  52. Gregg says:

    mike,
    How exactly does that work, since last I checked people who break the law by definition are not law-abiding.

    Seriously, if guns can not be kept out of prisons and out of the hands of the prisoners therein, what makes you think that there is a snowballs chance in Hell of any of the laws that you advocate acutally working?

    • mikeb302000 says:

      Greg, Are you saying there’s a problem of guns in prisons? I think you’re mistaken about that. There may be the occasional weapon smuggled in, but basically prisons are gun free. In fact prisons are a perfect example of how gun control works, albeit in a controlled environment that would be impossible to duplicate on the outside. Access to guns is very limited in that environment. Even law enforcement personnel disarm when they enter.

      • Rick R. says:

        So, what you are proposing is to transform the United States into a prison state?

        Seems to be, since that’s one of the ONLY examples you can give of keeping guns out of criminal hands in a residential setting.

        The only other one that come right to mind are mental hospitals — see prison comment, above.

        Where else has a prohibition on guns in a residential setting actually kept guns out of criminal hands?

        Keep in mind that mental hospitals and prisons have one additional feature that discourage criminal possession of firearms.

        If a gun is used ANYWHERE within them, it’s pretty easy INSTANTLY know about it and lock it all down and tear the place apart until you find the gun.

        Guns are noisy.

        Guns are harder to conceal than stabbing weapons.

        Guns are harder to camoflage than impact weapons.

        Let’s contrast the presense of contraband items that have about the same visibility in use inside the secure facility as guns do outside.

        Drugs.

        Shivs.

        Heavy objects in socks.

        Yeah, eventually the use of all these items WILL come to the attention of the authoirities — but it may not for the critical period necessary for the user to dissassociate himself from the incident well enough to avoid conviction.

        Just like guns outside, where people are free to just go elsewhere.

        So yes, I ACCEPT your assertion that prison is the perfect model of effective gun control.

        But I refuse to live in a prison.

  53. Caleb says:

    hoo boy, I can see this thread rapidly veering towards the “reality based self defense vs. MMA” discussion again.

    The reason that your 5’6 140 lb senior student can wipe you up is that you guys are all playing by the same rules, sparky.

    • planetcaveman says:

      We don’t have “rules”, we don’t practice a “sport” martial art, he just has phenomenal skill.

      You want to bring up MMA, fine, but it’s probably wise to consider the paradigm MMA exists in: entertainment! Simply biting an opponent’s arm or leg nullifies a good 80% of Brazilian jujitsu, the fact that I can use my pocketknife probably pushes it to the high 90s.

      Determining if stuff will work in the real world isn’t rocket science, a few good questions to determine that would be:

      – Do I need to warm up and/or wear flexible pants for it to work? If so, it’s probably not very practical for the real world. Flashy high kicks put you off balance, telegraph to the opponent, and are relatively slow. If one does ever kick an opponent your foot should probably never be above knee level.

      – Does the “art” teach punches to the face? Faces are filled with hard bones and teeth, punching there makes it rather likely that you will really mess up your hand, this includes your ability to pull a trigger. If you are going to punch you do it to soft areas like the neck.

      – Does the art deal with weapons and multiple opponents? One on one with no weapons is the exception, not the rule, why train for something that almost never occurs as opposed to what usually occurs?

      – Will the art still be functional in a cramped space with a hard floor? You probably won’t have big open spaces like in a typical dojo. Also, does the school train people in different environments?

      There are a lot more aspects to go into but those points should at the least help people eliminate a lot of bad stuff out there. The unfortunate truth is that there are VERY few real schools out there that teach people to deal with real world stuff, even worse is that many people out there who train are actually not interested in real world self-defense, they actually just want to do things that make them feel secure and powerful as opposed to what will actually make them secure and powerful.

      • Caleb says:

        Let me ask you something – in your “training”, do you actually suit up and hit people, or is your training “so dangerous you can’t practice on other people.” Because if it’s the latter, and there’s no actual hitting of other people (and I don’t mean that silly assed slap-and-tickle sparring you find in some places) at full speed, then it’s not really training.

      • Gregg says:

        I really, really, really tried to stay out of this one. However, you finally stomped right the heck on the center of that button.

        Most “reality based” schools are utter pieces of crap. Yep I said it, and I stand by it. For the most part the practitioners do not perform the precision repetitions necessary to get good muscle memory. In other words, most of them are incredibly sloppy. Lack of precision means both wasted energy and less effective, or ineffective techniques.

        As far as “We don’t have “rules”, we don’t practice a “sport” martial art, … ” That is utter horsecrap. if you spar then you have “rules” no way around it or you would have people in the hospital or morgue every time that you sparred. While I will agree that the sport subset has become too rules bound, a certain number of rules is vital to the continued health of all participants.

        As far as your list of what does not constitute a “real” art. It is all utter hogwash. While it is vital to practice various “real world” techniques in street clothes, it is equally important to train in loose fitting clothing. Basic technique training/ forms (kata) is vital, it effectively teaches balance, movement, power generation etc… There is no substitute for it that I am aware of. No, it is not to be used for fighting, but it teaches the bones of the martial arts.

        Yes, I have trained in multiple opponent defense and agree with teaching it. However, I also believe in starting people in the shallow end of the pool rather than just dropping them 2 miles offshore.

      • Kaerius(SWE) says:

        Some minor points from a fellow budoka:

        1) Brazilian jujutsu is VERY strength reliant. Skill counts for a lot sure, but brute force does too. Take it from someone who’s trained in it.

        2) Punches to the face are best done open handed, you’re not going to break your own hand if you punch with the heel of it. Go for nose or chin. It’s not going to knock them out, but it’s going to distract/disorient them long enough to do something else. Punches to the throat are another matter.

        3) The one caveat to no kicks above the knee is kicks to the groin, or the stomach of a rushing opponent.

        Re: Caleb

        Most of what I train isn’t “too dangerous” but there’s a couple of notable exceptions, one’s a kidney punch, the other a piledriver(we flip instead during training)… then there’s the training with swords and other weapons.

        Fortunately what I train is a real warrior style that’s been adapted and improved over the course of a few hundred years(it was created as an amalgam of two other styles in the 16th century) and was never converted to a sport.

        Sensei doesn’t like me talking much about it though, so I’ll leave which one it is unsaid.

        But even with all that, I’d much rather have a gun if push came to shove. Sure I can deal with your average knucklehead or two, but I wouldn’t want to fight that oh say a higher weightclass prison kickboxing champ, or that 300lb junkie on PCP.

  54. Rick R. says:

    Given the “success” of such gun control schemes such as teh islands of Ireland, Great Britain, the island continent of Australia, the complete and utter control the SS had over Warsaw (where the locals actually set up large scale production of submachineguns in private homes; the arms control problem was so bad the Germans had to stop in the middle of a logistics sucking war to dissassemble, move, and reassemble certain arms factories so the slave gnomes would stop stealing critical componants and handing them over to the locals!), why do you suppose it will work any better here?

    How about Soviet arms control in their occupied provinces, like the Baltic states and the Ukraine? The last anti-Soviet Ukraninian field force wasn’t conquered until the 1950’s, and THAT was an opponant in teh open faced with heavy armor, artillery, complete air supremacy, and an internal intelligence and police network unequaled in history. One of the jokes about the Balts goes like this:

    Q: Why do Estonians (or insert favored Baltic nationality here) pour motor oil in their gardens?

    A: To keep their guns from rusting.

    Even discounting areas of open rebellion, the Soviet murder figures were dramatically higher than US figures — and Soviet era gun laws were what even the Brady Bunch would call, “strict”.

    The Brits couldn’t keep the Jews from stockpiling guns in Palestine. They couldn’t even keep them from stockpiling covert GUN FACTORIES.

    We cannot keep thousands of individuals and tons of contraband from crossing our borders NOW. Never have been able to — ever hear of something called “Prohibition” and the resulting transport network?

    We cannot lock down access to common, everyday ordinary power tools (read up British news acocunts as to some of their “homegrown” gun problems, including mass conversions of toys into machineguns). It doesn’t take a $15,000, half ton CNC controlled milling machine. You can make a machinegun with no more tooling than a “Big Lots” drill press. (Machineguns are EASY — it’s making legal semiuatos that are mechanically challenging.)

    The toughest part to make from scratch is a rifled barrel. You really think you can police the supply of metal tubes that are only apparant as gun parts if you look INSIDE? Two options will get one around that — either make smoothbore guns, or one guy specializes in the underground rifling of barrels for sale, using such advanced technology as was available in 1600 AD. . .

    Contrast areas where guns are common and fairly easy to legally obtain, like Switzerland (where each member of the militia — i.e., every male between 20 and 50) keeps his issued fully automatic rifle (or his pistol, if he’s an officer) at home, has ready access to ammo (the issued “at home” pack of ammo has been discontinued), and can get his service weapon from the government at the end of his service (they convert the rifles to semiauto in that case). They can buy more weapons, and only guns purchased from dealers (as well as guns that generally meet the stanadrds of the US National Fireeamrs Act that controls machineguns, silencers, artillery, etc.) require registration or permits. Gun permits are nearly automatic, provided teh applicant is 18, with a clean mental and criminal background. (Machineguns and artillery permits require, in addition, certain safe storage measures.) Citizens are ENCOURAGED to take their assault rifles to public ranges, where government ammo is sold at government cost. The usual method of disposing of obsolete government pistols and rifles is by sale to the general public.

    recent changes in their law have, unfortunately, made concealed carry permits harder to get — for the previous 800 years, permits were either not required (most of the period, and even recently, in half of the cantons), or were pretty much automatically granted to anyone not prohibited from owning a gun.

    Switzerland (last figures I saw) has a firearms crime rate of 0.44 incidents per 100,000 persons. Even though they have a much higher suicide rate than the US, their gun suicide rate is much less.

    Let’s go over that again:

    ONE THIRD of the population has fully automatic military assualt rifles they didn’t pay for at home, with ready access to ammo, and permission to take it out shooting anytime they like, with government subsidized ammo.

    Most of the rest have semiautomatic versions of the same (or the earlier, more powerful standard issue model) rifle, with the same ease of access to ammo and ranges.

    Even if you could wave your magic wand and make all guns illegal overnight — no manufacture, no sale, no import. Even if you could magically prohibit the sale of any gun PARTS.

    What are you going to do about the millions of guns already present — all of which are now going to be possessed solely by criminals?

    OK, let’s let you wave the magic fairy wand and make ALL the guns outside official police and military hands evaporate. We’ll give you a magic Smart Gun tech that ensures that the government guns ONLY work in government hands (note that teh tech is SO reliable, that NO police or government agency is willing to let themselves be bound by any Smart Gun requirements.)

    Now, all use of force between citizens and criminals is mano-a-mano.

    No thanks — you can play Thunderdome if you like.

    If I have to be stuck in a movie-inspired system, I’ll take a clue from Indiana Jones — I’ll just shoot the dumb ass with the sword. Or the club. Or the 300 lbs of rage-and-dope-fueled meat.

  55. planetcaveman says:

    Caleb,

    We hit people, no suits.

    • Rick R. says:

      Caveman,

      If you are hitting people, no suits, you are NOT doing it full speed, full power.

      Therefor, you are NOT training for a realistic fight.

      Now I’m not syaing that EVERY sparring match for training needs to be in full on Redman suits — there IS a place for slow, precise repetition.

      But if you don’t incorporate full contact for regular training, it’s an exercise program. It may be an EXCELLENT exercise program that teaches valuable msucle memory that one could potentially employ in a real fight — but you’ll only know that after the fight, since you’ve not been practicing for it beforehand.

      It’s like dry firing and weapons practice. Yes, dry firing is valuable. But if you don’t load up some full load ammo and actually shoot at realistically ranged targets, it’s a pale imitation of training.

      • planetcaveman says:

        Rick,

        I’ve been in several altercations since taking up training about 5 years ago and have not gone full power/speed in any of them. This includes drunks at a bar I was bouncing at as well as a few on the street.

        The faster you move the less you’re in control of your movements, you’re also less able to change directions.

      • Rick R. says:

        Caveman,

        “Full speed” and “full power” DO NOT mean “as fast and as hard as you possibly can go.”

        They mean “as fast and as hard as is effective”. (Which is still WAY faster and harder than you can safely spar at without protection.)

        As a trained fighter, you should be aware of that.

      • Rick R. says:

        Followup —

        For example, if you do not KNOW (through training at full power and speed) how fast is “too fast” to use in real life, then you are VERY prone to go too fast or too hard, and either miss the precision, hurt yourself, or put yourself off balance when you try to speed up from “how hard can I spar at without crippling my partner?” to “how hard do I have to hit this guy to stop him?”

        It’s too late to try and figure this stuff out when the dance starts for real. You MUST have discoerved it beforehand, and have it firmly programmed into you so when you don;t have time to clearly plan, the skills and calibration are already there.

        Basically, your own point makes mine —

        Going too hard is bad. (your point)

        But not training for full on force levels menas you’ll never figure out how hard is “too hard”. (my point)

      • Kaerius(SWE) says:

        Or you can simply train a martial art where most of it is based on grappling and control. You don’t have to break arms in practice to know you can do it for real… you practice with one guy being an attacker, no set pattern of attack, and no specified technique to counter, and simply use whatever works. It’s great practice.

      • Rick R. says:

        Kaerius,

        There IS something to what you say.

        But a grappling contest means that “skill” is far less of a force multiplier compared to “size and strength” than it is in non-grappling arts.

        If JoJo (who started off at over 6 feet tall and 200 pounds has been lifting weights for hours every day for the last few years behind bars) grabs a good hold on you, he is very likely to be able to break you with very little skill.

      • Kaerius(SWE) says:

        “But a grappling contest means that “skill” is far less of a force multiplier compared to “size and strength” than it is in non-grappling arts.”

        Quite the contrary. Size and strength becomes far LESS of a factor than in striking arts. If someone grabs me, I have techniques that basically nullify his strength, makes it not work, or work against him. One of my regular training partners is about 6’4″ and 250lbs(vs my 5’8″ and 150lbs). Some techniques are less or more effective against him, because his joints are less flexible, but overall if he grabs me he’s my plaything.

        As long as we’re vertical, technique is much more of a factor than strength. If the fight goes horizontal, it’s more in BJJ territory where strength matters more.

      • Rick R. says:

        Unfortunately, the only thing needed to take a verticle grappling contest horizontal is gravity.

        Which again favors size — if there is a significant disparity.

        I can MAKE you take it to the ground, unless you can free lift me above your head.

        {grin}

  56. planetcaveman says:

    Greg,

    You get around the hospital/morgue issue by not going full force/speed, just like starting off in the shallow end of the pool it makes sense to hone your movements before speeding them up. Many people work against themselves by trying to go too fast, as Wild Bill Hickok said “you need to take your time while being in a hurry”.

    You’d be amazed how much damage you can do while not going full strength/speed, especially when you know how, when, and where to hit.

    So, please tell me why my list is hogwash? If you NEED to wear flexible clothes to do your art it means you can’t function without them, what sense does it make to study an art that is useless if you’re not wearing certain clothes?

    I think you’re assuming several things about me what I’m saying that simply aren’t true.

  57. planetcaveman says:

    Rick,

    Many people get injured in training because they tense up, it’s the same reason why drunks usually do a lot better in car accidents than the sober people, the drunks are relaxed. Learning to work relaxed is essential if you want to avoid injury.

    We’re very good at being relaxed, that being said, we do sometimes leave from training a bit tenderized.

    • planetcaveman says:

      Follow-up –

      If a doing a movement causes pain then you know you don’t want to go beyond that, you can more easily discover that when starting slow and moving from there. Pain is also a good indicator of doing things wrong, when you are moving yourself and your partner on the right angles you can get very impressive results with very little force.

    • Rick R. says:

      Caveman, as you so elequently said to another poster earlier, “I think you’re assuming several things about me what I’m saying that simply aren’t true.”

      At what point did I say, or even imply, that the ONLY type of training was “go as fast as you can, as hard as you can”?

      Just as I wouldn’t recommend that a newbie buy a 1911, strap on a Batbelt of magazines, and start hitting the IPSC circuit as their primary (or sole) training method, I don’t advocate that.

      The difference is that I DO advocate doing it as close to real as you can reasonably and safely train on a regular basis — anything less is leaving you half trained at best.

      The same people who will tense up and hurt themselves in training by trying to “go faster” will end up hurting themselves THE SAME WAY when the very first time they try to go faster and harder than they can safely hit an unarmored sparring partner is in the dark against a real opponant.

      It’s bad enough bunging yourself up in a dojo through excessive speed and power.

      It’s potentially LETHAL when it occurs against a aggressive hostile.

      And it is AVOIDABLE (not 100%, but then nothing is), by the simple expeidient of incorporating SOME full on training on a regular basis.

      This is why newbies need to start their “full power, full speed” practice in a controlled environment, with experienced trainers to correct them BEFORE they pop their wrist out of joint hammering a Redman opponant (or even a sandbag) too hard.

      Refusing to train them in this control AT ALL, and refusing to train yourself in it AT ALL, means woefully unprepared people who will survive any real encounters by luck as much as by training.

      • Kaerius(SWE) says:

        Incidentally, you are faster and stronger if you’re relaxed. If you tense up, you slow down and get weaker. Ideally you’ll want to tense your stomach muscles and relax everything else, this is one of the reasons many martial arts have kiai(shouts), sure it’s also a distraction, but it tenses up your stomach muscles.

  58. planetcaveman says:

    Rick,

    Newbians (as we call them) shouldn’t be going full speed at all. What activity on the planet can one learn better by going faster at first as opposed to going slower? When kids learn first learn to write there is no emphasis on what speed they’re going, they go fast or slow enough to make the proper shapes, if they can still make the proper shape at a faster speed great, but you need to learn to do it correctly first.

    Many people move full speed because they’re panicking, it’s an uncomfortable situation and they feel more comfortable by moving harder/faster, even if they’re moving in a manner that’s counter-productive. One vital aspect to self-defense is becoming comfortable with that discomfort, I suppose you can call it ‘fear inoculation’. Being ok with someone screaming at you while trying to hit you allows you to be free and relaxed, in control of yourself essentially.

    Once I can do that I can control the opponent, and since he’s likely churning with tremendous tension the hits my training partners take from me will probably be devastating for him.

    We occasionally do harder faster training when new people come into the school but they very quickly want to slow it down after they start getting banged up.

    • Rick R. says:

      Again,

      At what point did I say, imply, or advocate tossing newbies (in ANY endeavor) directly into the deep end of the pool?

      No, newbies CANNOT be expected to go full speed ahead in ANY training — whether unarmed martial arts, guns, or even knitting.

      But, in the martial arts, until you get them to a level where they CAN and DO train part of the time at “real world” power and speed, they ARE NOT adequately trained.

      Sorry — that’s just how it is. In any field, there is a chunk of the learning curve where you’re still in the training wheels mode. Not “apprentice being trained”, not “not wuite ready for prime time” — but at the level where they are not REALISTICALLY ready to use their skills for real. (And that doesn’t mean that they are INCAPABLE of winning if forced into a situation — just that they are not adequately trained yet to a level of reliable success.)

      For arts of the open hand, that portion of the curve includes the portion labelled “only training at safe unarmored sparring levels”.

      • planetcaveman says:

        Ok, I don’t think I can clarify my position much more than I already have. The speed I work it training is more than sufficient for real world scenarios, one time I accidentally broke the rib of a training partner while moving at a rather pedestrian speed, I just managed to hit him in the right spot as he was moving towards me.

        If one moves smoothly in a coordinated manner one doesn’t need to move fast, learning to move “right” will allow the speed to take care of itself.

      • Rick R. says:

        So in other words — you train at a speed an power where you can hospitalize people fairly easily, and do so with no protection.

        Thus neatly underscoring my point about needing to use protection when sparring full on contact. And, by extension, emphasizing my point about, if you’re training with no protection, you are either NOT training for real situations, OR you are training in a negligently dangerous fashion.

  59. lace wigs says:

    i’m against guns, but i am for the constitutional rights of all americans. a vote for gun control is a continued erosion of our rights guaranteed by the document written so long ago.

    • Kristopher says:

      Kewl … made the trip all the way from ace.mu.nu, did you?

      Heh.

      It isn’t a real moron thread without lace wig spam.

  60. planetcaveman says:

    Just for the record, “protection” is exactly what the 2nd is about.

  61. thedavo says:

    Slippery Slope
    Sensationalism

    • Kristopher says:

      How so?

      NJ, CA, Il, and NY all enacted registration … and then used registration lists to find firearms they later forbade.

      Simple fact … not sensationalism.

      Best way to fight a ban is to fight the lesser stuff tooth and nail. This works.

  62. MarkHB says:

    “By the data to date, there is only one animal in the Galaxy dangerous to man–man himself. So he must supply his own indispensable competition. He has no enemy to help him. ” – Lazarus Long, by way of Robert Anson Heinlein.

    We provide our own competition. The only question that bears asking is will the productive, law-abiding person walk away, or the criminal?

    I have lost too much to the criminal. Next time, I’m walking away, no matter how many of them I have to kill. All I hope is to live in a land which will look at me, my actions, my works – then look at the corpses assuming room temperature and say “Boy did good”.

    Or, at the very least leave a fight that will make my friends proud of me, and pay my Ferryman’s Fee. Though all being equal, I’d rather be a live man surrounded with cooling corpses, than a cooling headline surrounded with anchors.

  63. Assrot says:

    Well said Marko. I wish we could get the MSM to print articles like this.

    I think the gun control debacle would die a quick death in the USA if stuff like this were printed in the daily papers and read on the morning news shows.

    Those whiney as Brady folks and their ilk would finally be shown for what they truly are and hopefully STFU.

    Joe

    P.S. – I know. I know. It’s a day dream. One can always hope right?

  64. MarkHB says:

    Assrot,

    Having realised that the people I would most dearly have side with me to build a better union are more interested in scoring Party Points of their Pet Side, and find being Party Members more important than actually siding against who’s doing the most destruction of the constitution… yeah I’ve realised I stand alone.

    I find it very relaxing, actually. There’s a moment of free breath when the trapdoor swings clear, and before the noose bites. I’m just going to enjoy it.

  65. planetcaveman says:

    “That is were You don’t get it. Marko never said that people should drop Martial Arts and just use guns. Marko said we should have guns because hand-to-hand skills are not always enough. This was NEVER a case of either/or.”

    Here is Marko’s direct quote “even a trained fighter in prime shape has no realistic chance of winning an unarmed fight against a heavier opponent.”

    So, apparently skill and training are inadequate if the BG is heavier but possessing a gun is.

    “If that is true, then they obviously lack the Mindset you talked about earlier”

    Yes, in part because they believed Marko’s incorrect factoid.

    “If they feel that way from Marko’s essay, that means they never had the proper mindset anyway, they never trained, never prepared. Their self-defense mechanism was most likely denial. They don’t need some internet post to give up because they already decided to not even try”

    So, is Marko’s “factoid” part of the solution or part of the problem?

    “No, you WERE debating the whole bigger-man-beats-smaller-man idea. Now you have changed your argument”

    Now, I was responding to Rick’s defending the use of firearms, which I never had issue with in the first place.

    “The world is full of posers. It has nothing to do with a)the original debate, big vs small, b)the new debate, gun or bare hands, or most importantly c) the people who do, in fact, practice.”

    No, skill and ability were part of the components in the debate, and it wasn’t big v. small, it was size X vs. greater than size X. Practicing a draw increases one’s skill and thus their ability to defend themself.

    “Besides the fact that you mean “stab” not “clock”

    No, I meant EXACTLY what I wrote. He might not chose to go to his pocket for his knife, he might see me moving for my gun and take the most direct route by hitting me.

    “I direct your attention the the aforementioned “skill, wisdom, and situational awareness” that you brought up earlier. For it is “skill, wisdom, and situational awareness” that will keep yourself alive.”

    Yeah, and I’m thinking that it’s a lot more important than how much we weigh.

    “BTW, look up Mike Janich, he covers this stuff Much better than you do. Also, a proper, practiced draw is all one fluid motion. Before you argue that punching, etc, is faster than shooting, look up Tueller Drill. A simply sidestep can add the time needed to draw a gun on a knife bearing attacker”

    I’ll check out his stuff, but it seems that you really don’t get what I’m saying in the first place so maybe you’re not a good one to judge how well I cover it.

    “Compared to the gun: I have more chance of winning, less chance of injury, and despite age of injuries and can still defend myself”

    One does not have to come at the expense of the other, again, there is this false distinction between weapons work and empty hands work. Learning how to step in positions that make it very difficult for the opponent to use their superior strength is applicable if I have a weapon or not, so is being able to get out of the way of a strike.

    On the other hand, I’ve trained with some people who shot IDPA quite a big and told them to draw their weapon (replaced with a plastic trainer) when I was in front of them, none of them could. I wasn’t trying to hurt them, just a little poke in their side or a tug on their arm and they couldn’t deploy the weapon. Going for a weapon is a sort of investment that might or might not pay off, you need sufficient distance and time to pull it off. If you don’t have those you can put yourself in a worse position.

    “even a trained fighter in prime shape has no realistic chance of winning an unarmed fight against a heavier opponent” (of equal skill)”

    Sorry but in the real world skill isn’t equal, someone is going to be better, yet both parties could always be better than they are.

    “Please remember Marko’s essay is aimed at “normal” people and for normal people he is very much right. Especially considering that most attackers will have better street fighting skills that us, their potential victims”

    If Marko is right then the skill doesn’t matter, it’s the weight that is important, and if you have a gun.

    “This even applies to you You are neither the Master nor the Expert Student. They can take on a case of 300 lbs of prison muscle. YOU CAN’T!”

    I’m very curious how you know what I can and cannot do.

    • Clint says:

      I’ll break this into two parts, since there are two main fields to be addressed. Firs tare the rules of debate second is Marko’s main point. I ‘ll try to dovetail (cram) them together.

      I’m very curious how you know what I can and cannot do.

      “His senior student is 23 years old, 5′6, and about 140 lbs and he can absolutely kick the crap out of me.”
      That is how I know what you can’t do. Just because the Senor Student can do it….. well, you are obviously not that good.

      Practicing a draw increases one’s skill and thus their ability to defend themself.
      The topic was not about skill, it is about how size is an advantage and weapons trump size. You are trying to incorporate topics (drawing the gun) that are, frankly, off topic.

      Furthermore:
      “Besides the fact that you mean “stab” not “clock”
      No, I meant EXACTLY what I wrote. He might not chose to go to his pocket for his knife, he might see me moving for my gun and take the most direct route by hitting me.

      So, first you write about a guy with a knife, THEN you talk about said guy punching you. And when called on it you back-tract.

      Gee, back in college debate we called this a Red Herring; you start taking about “A” then pull a switch-a-roo and conclude about “B”. Not a good way to score points friend.

      Also:
      For starters, history is absolutely littered with examples proving you wrong: from David felling Goliath

      David used a SLING. You just made Marko’s point. Skill with projectile weapons beats skill with hand weapons or bare hands. (Oh and armies win by choosing the time and place, if you choose the time and place it is no longer self defense)

      “If that is true, then they obviously lack the Mindset you talked about earlier”
      Yes, in part because they believed Marko’s incorrect factoid.

      No, they felt that way BEFORE Marko’s factoid.

      “If they feel that way from Marko’s essay, that means they never had the proper mindset anyway, they never trained, never prepared. Their self-defense mechanism was most likely denial. They don’t need some internet post to give up because they already decided to not even try”
      So, is Marko’s “factoid” part of the solution or part of the problem?

      Neither, it is simply a reflection of what already is. It is recognizing the problem not contributing to it.

      Caveman, you believe that is a subset of people who will give up due to Marko’ s factoid. But anyone who would be discouraged by these mere words was never dedicated in the first place. In other words, in a world a Wolves, Sheepdogs, and Sheep, these discouraged people are the sheep relying on someone else to make society safe (these are the sheepdogs).

      Please try to understand the point we are making and understand that the horse goes In Front of the cart.

    • Clint says:

      Part two

      No, skill and ability were part of the components in the debate, and it wasn’t big v. small, it was size X vs. greater than size X.

      Is English your first language? Please note that “size X vs. greater than size X” is the same as “big v. small”. Perhaps it would have helped if I stated “small guy vs big guy” or “big guy vs bigger guy”.(or should I have typed “small vs big”?)

      But THAT’S NOT THE POINT! The point is there will always be weak people for whom no amount of skill, or training, or strength will enable them to overcome the typical Thug. Because thugs don’t (deliberately) attack people bigger and stronger than themselves. Therefore, the thugs will (almost) always be bigger and stronger than the victim. Skill and strength are nice, but they are seldom enough, that is where the gun comes in and that is the point Marko made.

      Reading comprehension sir, please try harder.

      BTW Caveman, since no one here seems to “get it” Just what ARE you arguing for? What is you point, your thesis?

      Seriously, relax, step back, re-read these comments and focus and what people are trying to state, the real meaning to their words.(not what you want to read into their words)

      You seem to think none of us “get it” but the rest of us think you are the one who is confused. You are talking about a tree while the rest of us discuss the forest.

      If Marko is right then the skill doesn’t matter, it’s the weight that is important, and if you have a gun.
      Marko never dismissed skill because he never addressed it. Furthermore, it is not: “skill is unimportant, weight and guns are important”. Marko’s thesis follows the line of “if you have a gun then weight is unimportant”. You have the importance of weight mixed up.

      And statements like this:
      Here is Marko’s direct quote “even a trained fighter in prime shape has no realistic chance of winning an unarmed fight against a heavier opponent.”
      So, apparently skill and training are inadequate if the BG is heavier but possessing a gun is.

      Where you read too much into things that leads us to believe you Just. Don’t. Understand. (BTW it is bad English)

      If you seriously think Marko is anti-skill and training, it is you, sir, who does not “get it.”

      As for me, I just ran out of popcorn. Good Night everyone, sleep safe.

      • Clint says:

        (BTW it is bad English) “It” being Your statement I mean, as it is even worse to have an orphaned pronoun. Sorry ’bout that.

        New rule: I should avoid correcting other people’s grammar when checking my own, especially after midnight.

        Night ‘all.

  66. planetcaveman says:

    “That is how I know what you can’t do. Just because the Senor Student can do it….. well, you are obviously not that good.”

    What are you talking about? My instructor can own me as can the #1 student, that means they’re better than me, that’s all, I never said anything about the ex-con you brought into the situation, you have NOTHING to base an assessment of my abilities relative to the ex-con’s.

    “The topic was not about skill, it is about how size is an advantage and weapons trump size. You are trying to incorporate topics (drawing the gun) that are, frankly, off topic”

    Marko specifically mentioned “a trained fighter in prime shape” to make his point, so skill and training ARE part of the main point, sorry if that’s inconvenient to the point your argument.

    “So, first you write about a guy with a knife, THEN you talk about said guy punching you. And when called on it you back-tract.”

    Try reading more and super-imposing your ideas less, the BG had a knife in his pocket in my scenario, if I draw my pistol I bring my hand backwards, away from him, if he sees that and decides to simply move forwards to strike me he has less distance to transverse as opposed to going for his own weapon, which would put him a beat behind me.

    “Gee, back in college debate we called this a Red Herring; you start taking about “A” then pull a switch-a-roo and conclude about “B”. Not a good way to score points friend.”

    Again, read more, super-impose less.

    “David used a SLING. You just made Marko’s point. Skill with projectile weapons beats skill with hand weapons or bare hands. (Oh and armies win by choosing the time and place, if you choose the time and place it is no longer self defense)”

    A sling is an example of technology, using superior biomechanics is also technology, using specific phrases timed at certain points to influence the other guy’s emotional state is also the use of technology, I’ve resolved MANY conflicts over the years by doing exactly that. This is why someone with very high skill can prevail over someone heavier. If you read the story Goliath thought little of David because of his age and size, maybe there’s a lesson there.

    Also, is that the ONLY reason an army can win? I seem to remember germ warfare being very effective on Native Americans, I also read about the Incas being so frightened by the sound of the Spaniard’s guns that they broke and ran.

    “No, they felt that way BEFORE Marko’s factoid.”

    If someone doesn’t have any information and then reads something coming from what seems like an authority figure it will have an impact, in this case the impact is negative, and his “factoid” is still untrue no matter what time of day it is. If they already thought that way he just confirmed their incorrect thought just a little more and made it less likely that they would wake up.

    “Neither, it is simply a reflection of what already is. It is recognizing the problem not contributing to it.”

    Nope, Marko’s factoid is flat out incorrect as are you for supporting it, here you go, smaller guy beating the bigger guy.

    You lose.

    “Please try to understand the point we are making and understand that the horse goes In Front of the cart”

    Nice use of an Obama persuasion technique, I mean, who can argue with the horse going in front of the cart, you MUST be correct.

    “Is English your first language? Please note that “size X vs. greater than size X” is the same as “big v. small”. Perhaps it would have helped if I stated “small guy vs big guy” or “big guy vs bigger guy”.(or should I have typed “small vs big”?)”

    Do you always try to insult people when you can’t back up your arguments? Would you consider a 200lb man “small” relative to a 204lb man? If we throw in a 135lb man in as a reference point I wouldn’t think so. Keep in mind that Marko specifically mentioned “heavier”, his words, not mine. So if that’s true to the 204lb guy would obviously win. If not then hopefully we’ll get some clarification to how much weight is needed to prevail over how much skill, be sure to throw in times for a 40yd dash and bench press.

    “ But THAT’S NOT THE POINT! The point is there will always be weak people for whom no amount of skill, or training, or strength will enable them to overcome the typical Thug. Because thugs don’t (deliberately) attack people bigger and stronger than themselves.”

    Criminals look for victims, plain and simple, that victim can sooner be a bigger guy who is chatting away on his cell phone without a care in the world then a smaller guy who is very aware of his surroundings and might have a weapon on him. According to the criminals whose cases I’ve worked on more goes into the equation than “is he bigger/heavier than me”. If someone is weak maybe they should try not to look like a good target, I know a woman who listed her name a J. Smith instead of Jane Smith with her apartment building for that very reason. Maybe she should have just gone to the gym and bench pressed instead.

    “ Therefore, the thugs will (almost) always be bigger and stronger than the victim. Skill and strength are nice, but they are seldom enough, that is where the gun comes in and that is the point Marko made”

    Where is your gun when you need it? Can you access it with a BG in your face, what about when he’s trying to take your head off? Unless you have the gun in hand and have adequate position before the conflict begins you are essentially unarmed until you deploy the weapon. Maybe it’d be a good idea to train that situation instead of having blind faith that the gun will save you.

    “Seriously, relax, step back, re-read these comments and focus and what people are trying to state, the real meaning to their words.(not what you want to read into their words)”
    Take your own advise, I’ve repeatedly posted Marko’s EXACT words, which you conveniently ignore.

    “Where you read too much into things that leads us to believe you Just. Don’t. Understand. (BTW it is bad English)”

    Again, I’m taking the EXACT words, you are the one trying to reconfigure what Marko apparently meant to write but didn’t.

    “If you seriously think Marko is anti-skill and training, it is you, sir, who does not “get it.”

    He’s placing WAY too much importance on the weapon and not nearly enough on the user, precisely the thing we criticize antis of doing.

    The scenario of the Grandma is a tool to help change a reader’s opinion, especially if the gun is the ONLY way she can defend herself. I get it, it pre-empts the stupid anti argument that people should ‘just take karate’ if they want to defend themselves and that because of that we shouldn’t have guns.

    Depriving a law abiding person of a useful tool is stupid, but so is belittling the skill and ability in using that or other tools.

    • Rick R. says:

      I give up.

      Caveman,

      You have devolved from making ANY coherent argument into grasping at straws in some [pathetic attempt to be “right” by virtue of being teh last man standing in the discussion.

      But I will go over one point you and others have dragged out.

      David versus Goliath.

      It is incomprehensible to me (and others) how you keep using David as an example as to how a smaller trained HAND TO HAND fighter can defeat a larger man in HAND TO HAND combat.

      David used a projectile weapon that DID NOT require him to have LEET MAD SKILLZ as a melee guy. His size compared to Goiath is IRRELEVANT in terms of any hand to hand discussion, as the story doesn’t concern them fighting hand to hand.

      David didn’t even let Goliath get close.

      David stood off, and punched a projo right between Goliath’s eyes. Goliath’s size (and even skill — for all we know, he could have taken Jet Li and the entire UFC line up with one hand tied behind his back) didn’t come into play at all.

      Because David had a distance weapon.

      Just like Granny with a gun.

    • Kristopher says:

      Caveman:

      I’ll go by the Kleck study, thank you.

      Injury rate for the victim in robberies drops to 1% when the victim simply silently produces a pistol and starts shooting.

      That’s good enough for me.

      If I run into super-ninja-dude from Kentucky Fried Movie, I’ll throw a transmission at him after I shoot him, just to be sure.

  67. [...] in, and this is happening in a state with a “stand your ground” law.  Based on what I saw of the reaction to Marko’s post from the other day, I think a lot of folks out there are confused about what a force disparity is, and when you can [...]

  68. crankylitprof says:

    “Bear arms.”

    “B-E-A-R arms.

    Not “bare.”

    Just like it’s “martial law,” not “marshall law.”

    Jesus H. Bald-headed Christ on a motor-driven crutch.

    If you’re going to argue, for fuck’s sake, don’t shoot your argument in the foot by writing like a halfwit with a scorching case of congenital syphilis.

  69. [...] not so hard question goes like this If you make an illegal activity low-risk and high-reward, and you guarantee that the [...]

  70. tweell says:

    A sidenote to all the wrangling – don’t expect that your martial arts skill is superior to a criminal. I get to see the inside of prisons quite a bit, and there are some knowledgeable folks there. They give classes to their fellows, too. Being in prison means they have nothing but time, people who have jobs and lives simply cannot train like they can.
    It is quite possible to run into a criminal who is bigger, much stronger (the magic of steroids as well as lots of time spent lifting) and has the equivalent of a black belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsu.

  71. [...] is a skill that can be used for self-defense.  More eloquent people than I have pointed out that firearms are a force equalizer.  And that the police, well intentioned though they may be, have no duty to protect anyone that [...]

  72. Buck Weekley says:

    Hi, thanks for not putting a spin on this! bad, specially from the major news corperations with the big slants to the left or right. Did you see last nights Late Late Show? haha, that was hilarious! Sorry, I’m rambling along once more. Have a Wonderful one!

Comments are closed.