Since you own a gun...

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The physical conditioning and training regimen required to be Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan is not practical for most people.
The basic moves aren't sufficient against someone with their finger already on the trigger, wound tight as a clock spring, and with the option to take your wallet off your body instead.
It only works with robbers that are distracted, sloppy and careless which is how they get when they think nobody has a gun. If you take away guns, you have to have the Mossad train everyone and that's not practical or possible. I'll keep my guns, thanks.

I was not suggesting that it was a substitute, I was a bouncer for years... it was just part of my training. I did a lot of close quarter, disarming, combat.
My guns will never be taken from me.
Krav Maga does not take physical prowess or years of training, that is the great thing about it, btw. Just practice and commitment.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I'd still like to see many, many fewer handguns on the streets.

That's why I carry concealed. You'll never see it. Even if you are a specs vet.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Flint

How do you "prevent gun violence"...?

A good first step would be by identifying the actual problem (which is "criminals"), instead of indulging in spintalk.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

MaggieL insists that crime will decrease with more people carrying guns. That is total nonsense.

Severely wrong, tw. That crime decreases with liberalized concealed carry is the UNIVERSAL experience of absolutely EVERY ONE of the 39 states that has liberalized concealed carry. Read the books I cited earlier in the thread or remain silent, tw, for your ignorant, evil, and neurotically hoplophobic point of view gets innocents killed: it is the viewpoint of an unmitigated immoral son of a bitch.

You can prove whether you are an unmitigated son of a bitch or otherwise by your actions after this date. You think you know anything? Let's see how good you are at educating yourself away from the pro-crime, progenocide point of view. Start reading the NRA, too, for updates -- they too have come around to the understanding that gun control plants a vital seed for later genocide.

And I'll take the documented experience of the several states over the present views of tw.

Aside note to poster Ibram: this is an example of a not-libertarian tw post. Libertarians reckon general arms ownership a good idea.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Ibram

If NOBODY has 'em, nobody can use them on those that dont.

Swords, pollaxes, bows and bills, pikes and lances, maces and warhammers. Changes the sound of battle from boom bang rattatat to clatter thump and scream, but really just about as bloody.

Lots of fun when you get rid of the blood part, though:

http://www.sca.org

Been in a few melees myself.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The physical conditioning and . . . basic moves aren't sufficient against someone with their finger already on the trigger, wound tight as a clock spring, and with the option to take your wallet off your body instead.
It only works with robbers that are distracted, sloppy and careless which is how they get when they think nobody has a gun. If you take away guns, you have to have the Mossad train everyone and that's not practical or possible. I'll keep my guns, thanks.

Very well said, Bruce. There's hope for you yet. This thread so far is making good argument for having an array of options for self defense, non-lethal to quite-.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Flint

How do you "prevent gun violence"...?

How about door-to-door searches. If the police find a gun, but no permit, all occupants of said how get executed on the spot.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Flint

How do you "prevent gun violence"...?

More cops? Oh wait....then we'd have to raise taxes. Better check with Maggie to see if that expense is on her "collectivism" list. We'd also better inform the police to be careful of RZ, he doesn't trust cops, you know.:p

[BigV]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The physical conditioning and training regimen required to be Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan is not practical for most people.
The basic moves aren't sufficient against someone with their finger already on the trigger, wound tight as a clock spring, and with the option to take your wallet off your body instead.
It only works with robbers that are distracted, sloppy and careless which is how they get when they think nobody has a gun. If you take away guns, you have to have the Mossad train everyone and that's not practical or possible. I'll keep my guns, thanks.

Emphasis mine, quoted entire for context.

Question, xoB: In the situation highlighted above, what is sufficient?

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Severely wrong, tw. That crime decreases with liberalized concealed carry is the UNIVERSAL experience of absolutely EVERY ONE of the 39 states that has liberalized concealed carry. Read the books I cited earlier in the thread or remain silent, tw, for your ignorant, evil, and neurotically hoplophobic point of view gets innocents killed: it is the viewpoint of an unmitigated immoral son of a bitch.

You can prove whether you are an unmitigated son of a bitch or otherwise by your actions after this date. You think you know anything? Let's see how good you are at educating yourself away from the pro-crime, progenocide point of view. Start reading the NRA, too, for updates -- they too have come around to the understanding that gun control plants a vital seed for later genocide.

And I'll take the documented experience of the several states over the present views of tw.

Aside note to poster Ibram: this is an example of a not-libertarian tw post. Libertarians reckon general arms ownership a good idea.

I really hate it when I agree with what you, or anyone, are saying, but you descend to making such a point acting like this, name calling and such.
There is no need, it does harm to the debate.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

How about door-to-door searches. If the police find a gun, but no permit, all occupants of said how get executed on the spot.

You want a police state, searches with no probable cause, no fourth ammendment?
You can go to the anti-island if you want, you will be happy there.... there is no freedom there.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I really hate it when I agree with what you, or anyone, are saying, but you descend to making such a point acting like this, name calling and such.
There is no need, it does harm to the debate.
--snip--

Originally Posted by BigV

Welcome to the Hall of Fame, Urbane Guerrilla. While I have had my doubts that you would deserve mention in this thread, and I have quoted you rather narrowly, this statement is absolutely on the mark. It is succinct, germane, uncommon and above all true. It is all the more startling coming from you as it stands in stark contrast to many, many of your posts. I'm delighted to see this change, however brief it may be.

Your observations aren't the first, nor is this example UG's first recidivous offense. Frankly, this is the norm and my HoF quote is the exception, sadly.
__________________

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

More cops? Oh wait....then we'd have to raise taxes. Better check with Maggie to see if that expense is on her "collectivism" list.

Actually, I don't think the gun crime problem is amenable to attack with "more cops" as long as the judges won't send the criminals to jail, and the urban mayors won't build enough jails to hold them. Criminals know that the chances that they will face meaningful punishment is very, very small.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

Emphasis mine, quoted entire for context.

Question, xoB: In the situation highlighted above, what is sufficient?

In that case, sufficient would be as good as the movies portray their heros(or anti-heros) to be. I know I, and I suspect you, will never be that good.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Actually, I don't think the gun crime problem is amenable to attack with "more cops" as long as the judges won't send the criminals to jail, and the urban mayors won't build enough jails to hold them. Criminals know that the chances that they will face meaningful punishment is very, very small.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

More

jails

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

? Oh wait....then we'd have to raise taxes. Better check with Maggie to see if that expense is on her "collectivism" list.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

jails

I'm perfectly willing to have the government collect taxes to pay for law enforcement; that is a proper function of government.

Oh, by the way, your sig line is totally bogus.

Originally Posted by spexxvet

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetant"-Robert A. Heinlein

Heinlein never, ever said that. You've confused him with Asimov's character in the Foundation series, Hari Seldon. Which pretty much indicates you haven't read much Heinlien...or if you did you didn't inhale

Appropriate Heinlein quotes might be:

"Place your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark."
or
"An armed society is a polite society."
or
"There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men."
or
"I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of individuals... I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating in their purpose."

Heinlein and Asimov had nothing in common except both being SF writers and having worked together at the Frankford Arsenel in Philly duriung WWII. Hanging his name on that wishful pacifism desecrates his memory.