# Carrying a Baton



## Billy02 (Apr 30, 2018)

Is carrying a baton a good option to defend in rough situation, lets say you get attacked and you need to react to save yourself.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Apr 30, 2018)

Would it be effective?  Yes if you are trained with it.
Is it legal to carry?  Probably not.
Police, judge and jury will say your actions were premeditated. That you were going around looking for trouble. You actively went out with a weapon with the intention of hurting someone.


----------



## Buka (Apr 30, 2018)

A baton is fine for Law Enforcement, not really a practical option for civilian carry.


----------



## pdg (Apr 30, 2018)

Where do you live that you feel the need to be armed all the time? (Taking both your threads into account.)

How many times have you actually been called upon to try to defend yourself?

Your profile says you're 28, you come across more as a paranoid teenager...


----------



## Headhunter (Apr 30, 2018)

No


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 30, 2018)

It wouldn't be my first choice.


----------



## Mazouni (Apr 30, 2018)

I would not recommend carrying one at all. Keeping Arnis in your house I think is a good idea.


----------



## Runs With Fire (Apr 30, 2018)

Heavy and clunky.  Legal in my state, as long as it isn't concealed.  I know an older guy who goes to the mall to walk for exersice.  He always has a stout walking stick with him "just in cass.  Looks friendlier than a baton.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 30, 2018)

I think a lot of jurisdictions would have a law against carrying one concealed, maybe against carrying one wherever.  If you aren't properly trained in its use you might also run the risk of some tough deciding to take you on because he figures if you are carrying it in plain sight, you may not know how to use it.

I am not so quick to disdain a baton, especially an expandable one, as long as your have been well trained in its use.  That is very hard to find afik.  If there are any good Hapkido schools where you are, you might want to train there.  Somewhere between 1st and 2nd Dan, you should get a lot of training in the use of the short stick, which would translate to using a baton. 

Of course, by that time, you would have a lot of other defensive techniques and not so much need a baton.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 30, 2018)

pdg said:


> Where do you live that you feel the need to be armed all the time?



Planet Earth


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 30, 2018)

Buka said:


> A baton is fine for Law Enforcement, not really a practical option for civilian carry.



I miss the PR-24.....it was great.


----------



## pdg (Apr 30, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Planet Earth



I must live on a different planet then, because I've never felt the need to arm myself to leave the house.

I can't honestly think of anyone I know who does either.

No matter what the baseball series thinks, America and it's cities do not constitute "the world".

You should come and visit, see what it's like to just meander around unarmed with no fear whatsoever.

If you let me know if you're turning up I'll put the kettle on.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 30, 2018)

pdg said:


> I must live on a different planet then, because I've never felt the need to arm myself to leave the house.
> 
> I can't honestly think of anyone I know who does either.



You just live with a lower level of awareness and or preparation.

Violence exists throughout the world.....nothing wrong with having the means to defend yourself if attacked.


----------



## jobo (Apr 30, 2018)

pdg said:


> I must live on a different planet then, because I've never felt the need to arm myself to leave the house.
> 
> I can't honestly think of anyone I know who does either.
> 
> ...


I was at a conference in Denver and to leave the hotel, they got in a group of 12 four of which were armed with revolvers, I walked back on my own, armed with a cheerful smile


----------



## pdg (Apr 30, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> You just live with a lower level of awareness and or preparation.
> 
> Violence exists throughout the world.....nothing wrong with having the means to defend yourself if attacked.



Do you really think it's impossible that there exist places where there's not really anything to be especially aware of or prepare for?

I've made it almost to 41 and been attacked, erm, let me count.....



.... no times at all.


Oh, and "having the means to defend yourself", i.e. carrying a weapon, is illegal here anyway.


----------



## pdg (Apr 30, 2018)

jobo said:


> I was at a conference in Denver and to leave the hotel, they got in a group of 12 four of which were armed with revolvers, I walked back on my own, armed with a cheerful smile



Silly person.

You must've died like at least 7 times.


----------



## jobo (Apr 30, 2018)

pdg said:


> Silly person.
> 
> You must've died like at least 7 times.


To be fair it got a bit Dodgy when I went wandering around east la on my own, Bumped  in to A crips gang, told them I was from Salford , and we got on just fine


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 30, 2018)

pdg said:


> Do you really think it's impossible that there exist places where there's not really anything to be especially aware of or prepare for?
> 
> I've made it almost to 41 and been attacked, erm, let me count.....
> 
> ...



And my first homicide case I worked was an 87 year old woman who managed to live 87 years without defending herself.

She lived out in the country In a rural area with almost no crime.....that didn’t stop the guy and girl that decided to rob her from stomping her to death after the robbery.

Nothing wrong with being prepared.  If you choose not to be armed that’s fine.  But again it’s nothing wrong with those that choose to have that option.


----------



## pdg (Apr 30, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> And my first homicide case I worked was an 87 year old woman who managed to live 87 years without defending herself.
> 
> She lived out in the country In a rural area with almost no crime.....that didn’t stop the guy and girl that decided to rob her from stomping her to death after the robbery



I'm sure everyone can cite events where being armed could have made a difference, and where being armed may very well have made no difference whatsoever to the outcome.



CB Jones said:


> Nothing wrong with being prepared. If you choose not to be armed that’s fine. But again it’s nothing wrong with those that choose to have that option



I never said it was wrong to do it (within local legislation).

I'm simply curious as to why some people feel it's almost mandatory to be armed wherever they go.


----------



## Mazouni (Apr 30, 2018)

pdg said:


> I'm sure everyone can cite events where being armed could have made a difference, and where being armed may very well have made no difference whatsoever to the outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This world we live in is not a safe place anymore that's why I carry a knife on me wherever I go. Evil never going to change so you have to be prepared for the worst and hope for the best.


----------



## Anarax (Apr 30, 2018)

Billy02 said:


> Is carrying a baton a good option to defend in rough situation, lets say you get attacked and you need to react to save yourself.



IMO, a collapsible baton isn't a horrible choice to carry for self-defense situations if you know how to use them. You must first know the laws in you area of weapon restrictions and use of force. Carrying around any weapon without knowing when *and *when not to draw them is a recipe for disaster. You must also be trained on how to use the baton so you can use it effectively. A baton offers a wider spectrum of lethal and less than lethal force opposed to a knife. Meaning, a baton can be used for locks, chokes, takedowns and disarms. Either way, be sure to have all the facts and information on baton use before getting one.


----------



## mrt2 (Apr 30, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> And my first homicide case I worked was an 87 year old woman who managed to live 87 years without defending herself.
> 
> She lived out in the country In a rural area with almost no crime.....that didn’t stop the guy and girl that decided to rob her from stomping her to death after the robbery.
> 
> Nothing wrong with being prepared.  If you choose not to be armed that’s fine.  But again it’s nothing wrong with those that choose to have that option.


Sadly, when people get older, they do become vulnerable, often because at an advanced age, they need to allow strangers into their houses for services, or worse, lose their independence and move to assisted living.  

Awful as your story sounds, I am wondering what you would propose as far as 87 year old women and self defense.


----------



## mrt2 (Apr 30, 2018)

Mazouni said:


> This world we live in is not a safe place anymore that's why I carry a knife on me wherever I go. Evil never going to change so you have to be prepared for the worst and hope for the best.


I don't know where you live, but read the story I posted a few posts back.  Using a knife against an unarmed attacker might well result in you getting charged with a serious felony, and facing years in prison if you ever actually have to use it.


----------



## Mazouni (Apr 30, 2018)

mrt2 said:


> I don't know where you live, but read the story I posted a few posts back.  Using a knife against an unarmed attacker might well result in you getting charged with a serious felony, and facing years in prison if you ever actually have to use it.


Why do they teach knife fighting arts then?


----------



## Anarax (Apr 30, 2018)

pdg said:


> I'm simply curious as to why some people feel it's almost mandatory to be armed wherever they go.



I always carry a knife(I'm trained to use them) wherever I go. I carry it while being optimistic about having a good day, but at the same time recognizing my day may not go so well. It's a way of hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. You also should realize not everyone has had the same experiences you've had in life. Some people have been victimized, raised in bad neighborhoods or have been exposed to more criminal elements than we have. The point is there are a lot of real threats in the world and people wanting to have a means of defending themselves from it is understandable. That's not to say I find those naive that don't carry. I can see why some choose not to carry nor do I question their decision.


----------



## Mazouni (Apr 30, 2018)

Anarax said:


> I always carry a knife(I'm trained to use them) wherever I go. I carry it while being optimistic about having a good day, but at the same time recognizing my day may not go so well. It's a way of hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. You also should realize not everyone has had the same experiences you've had in life. Some people have been victimized, raised in bad neighborhoods or have been exposed to more criminal elements than we have. The point is there are a lot of real threats in the world and people wanting to have a means of defending themselves from it is understandable. That's not to say I find those naive that don't carry. I can see why some choose not to carry nor do I question their decision.


What I was pretty much saying. I agree 100% with you.


----------



## mrt2 (Apr 30, 2018)

Mazouni said:


> Why do they teach knife fighting arts then?



Not so you can cut people up on the street.


----------



## Anarax (Apr 30, 2018)

mrt2 said:


> I don't know where you live, but read the story I posted a few posts back. Using a knife against an unarmed attacker might well result in you getting charged with a serious felony, and facing years in prison if you ever actually have to use it.


Use of force is a spectrum not an absolute. Using a lethal weapon against an unarmed attacker will more times than not result in charges. You're not supposed to whip you knife out at the first sign of trouble. You must use reasonable judgement and know when and when not to draw your weapon.


----------



## Mazouni (Apr 30, 2018)

mrt2 said:


> Not so you can cut people up on the street.


If you take any martial art it used for a last resort. Great knife fighters don't carry a knife so they can hurt other it for self defense.


----------



## Buka (Apr 30, 2018)

The best thing about a collapsible baton is the sound they make when opening. Other than that, I think they work better unopened.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 30, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> You just live with a lower level of awareness and or preparation.



Nope, I have a high awareness and am very prepared but still don't need to walk around as an armed civilian. It's not that different in most places here, the knife violence is gang related,  caused by youths carrying knives and feeling because they do they also have to use them. More youths carry them because _they_ feel afraid and are more inclined to use them, it's a vicious circle. 

We have a murder about every 20 years where i live and it's always a domestic event, we do get poaching and sheep rustling though. Landrover Defenders get stolen quite a bit, which is a bit worrying as we like ours but we have Farmwatch and actually catch most poachers and Defenders thieves.  We did have an 'armed robbery' at a village post office and the post mistress killed but it turned out to be her husband who killed her and faked the robbery. to be fair we all knew what he'd done, her too come to that because nothing happens in this area without everybody knowing, I do mean *everything* and *everybody*. Life for wife's fake robbery murder

Hard to work out your spouse is going to bump you off though, don't think a baton would help.


----------



## mrt2 (Apr 30, 2018)

Anarax said:


> Use of force is a spectrum not an absolute. Using a lethal weapon against an unarmed attacker will more times than not result in charges. You're not supposed to whip you knife out at the first sign of trouble. You must use reasonable judgement and know when and when not to draw your weapon.


 Correct.  And ideally, this will happen in front of witnesses or on a security camera so your version of events can be corroborated.  

I will say this.  If you actually had to use a weapon to defend yourself, what you do after the fight is over may be the difference between getting charged and not getting charged.  That said, you might still wind up getting charged as it comes down to prosecutorial discretion.  And if your vision of a prosecutor is a seasoned veteran with 20 or 30 years experience and a lot of time to investigate and mull things over, think again.  As often as not, it is an overworked 27 year old assistant dar sifting through dozens of police reports..


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 30, 2018)

pdg said:


> I'm simply curious as to why some people feel it's almost mandatory to be armed wherever they go.



It’s not mandatory.  It’s just a choice to be more prepared.

I just don’t understand why those who don’t carry feel the need to show that they never have needed one.

That’s great if you want to play the law of averages then go ahead.

Myself....I believe it’s better to have it and never need it than need it but doesn’t have it.


----------



## Mazouni (Apr 30, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Nope, I have a high awareness and am very prepared but still don't need to walk around as an armed civilian. It's not that different in most places here, the knife violence is gang related,  caused by youths carrying knives and feeling because they do they also have to use them. More youths carry them because _they_ feel afraid and are more inclined to use them, it's a vicious circle.
> 
> We have a murder about every 20 years where i live and it's always a domestic event, we do get poaching and sheep rustling though. Landrover Defenders get stolen quite a bit, which is a bit worrying as we like ours but we have Farmwatch and actually catch most poachers and Defenders thieves.  We did have an 'armed robbery' at a village post office and the post mistress killed but it turned out to be her husband who killed her and faked the robbery. to be fair we all knew what he'd done, her too come to that because nothing happens in this area without everybody knowing, I do mean *everything* and *everybody*. Life for wife's fake robbery murder
> 
> Hard to work out your spouse is going to bump you off though, don't think a baton would help.


Weapons such as guns or knives don't kill people. People kill people the weapon is a tool of your trade and it up to you if you can use it responsibility.


----------



## mrt2 (Apr 30, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> *Hard to work out your spouse is going to bump you off though, don't think a baton would hel*p.


If your spouse wants you dead, he or she could just kill you in your sleep.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 30, 2018)

mrt2 said:


> If your spouse wants you dead, he or she could just kill you in your sleep.




Exactly my point.



Mazouni said:


> Weapons such as guns or knives don't kill people. People kill people the weapon is a tool of your trade and it up to you if you can use it responsibility.




Do you cliché much?

I can't see what your cliché has to do with the dynamics of youth gangs. I am also trained to use a knife ( by Royal Marine Commandos, we were bored waiting for the weather to clear for jumping) and I do not see a knife as a tool of my trade, sounds way too Rambo'ish and actually made me giggle, sorry but I read that in the distinctive voice used for film previews.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 30, 2018)

mrt2 said:


> Sadly, when people get older, they do become vulnerable, often because at an advanced age, they need to allow strangers into their houses for services, or worse, lose their independence and move to assisted living.
> 
> Awful as your story sounds, I am wondering what you would propose as far as 87 year old women and self defense.



My point was it doesn’t matter how long you have made it without needing it.

Again...if you don’t want to be armed that’s fine....thats your decision.

But there is nothing wrong with someone else choosing to be armed so they can better defend themselves.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 30, 2018)

I don't need no weapon.  I am a weapon.   

I haven't carried a weapon since I retired from the US Army.  I'll admit I felt a little naked, but I got over it.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (Apr 30, 2018)

I recently went through baton training at my unit. At one point in the training, one of my SNCOs said that, in his mind, the only time he would want a baton over his firearm or a TASER/OC spray would be a riot control control situation. Otherwise, he said the baton would work, but would generally be a suboptimal solution.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 30, 2018)

To hell with OC spray.....hate that crap.


----------



## Anarax (Apr 30, 2018)

mrt2 said:


> Correct.  And ideally, this will happen in front of witnesses or on a security camera so your version of events can be corroborated.
> 
> I will say this.  If you actually had to use a weapon to defend yourself, what you do after the fight is over may be the difference between getting charged and not getting charged.  That said, you might still wind up getting charged as it comes down to prosecutorial discretion.  And if your vision of a prosecutor is a seasoned veteran with 20 or 30 years experience and a lot of time to investigate and mull things over, think again.  As often as not, it is an overworked 27 year old assistant dar sifting through dozens of police reports..



That's why I said to know the use of force and self-defense laws in your area. You can find cases that both support and oppose your view in this situation, no matter what it is. There are many factors that go into being arrested, charged and tried in a court of law. It's good to consult with a lawyer before you have to defend yourself to know what to say and how to say it to police after a self-defense scenario.


----------



## Tez3 (May 1, 2018)

Anarax said:


> You're not supposed to whip you knife out at the first sign of trouble.




This is the problem with the gang knife crime we are seeing at the moment. someone carries a knife and because they do the temptation to use it is too much and because they do, others carry knives and they use them as well, it escalates. these are young teenagers feeling their oats, they want to prove themselves, there's also peer pressure, an age old problem. it's not symptomatic of anything else other than young males (and now young females) wanting to make their mark in the worst possible way.

When people carry weapons the first thought is often to use them before anything else. Weaker people often will use weapons more easily because they think they give them an advantage against stronger people. 

it's all well and good telling us who live in countries where weapons are uncommon and rarely carried that we are somehow 'less' than those who carry weapons but because we don't we don't resort to using them as easily as people who have the perception ( mostly because it's true) that everyone has a weapon of some sort. It's a very different cultural difference. I'm not sure that people actually realise there is a big difference between the US and Europe in many things policing, laws and politics. We assume because we've known each other so long that we have more in common than we do and tend to assume that we know what life is like in each others countries so can make statements about violence, crime etc. The truth is I have little idea of what life is like in any American town, city or village so I don't tell people they are wrong about carrying guns because I simply don't know.

Now the reverse is also true, most people don't know what it is like living in British cities, towns and villages, we are five different countries with a couple of Crown Dependencies, each with differing laws, we have a culture of not carrying weapons with the subject rarely comes up in political discussions, the crime figures for each country vary because of the way figures are reported. Here those killed in terrorist attacks such as the Manchester Arena are counted in the homicide figures, as are people murdered overseas including military killed in attacks by insurgents.  

The fact we don't carry weapons doesn't mean we are helpless or unaware of the dangers the world carries, it means we know our countries better than outsiders, it means we know what the dangers to us are and we cope with them. There is a tendency to assume non weapon carrying means being naïve and we get looked down on, our weapons laws are mocked and many assume an air of superiority but really they should actually just stick to what they know and leave us to worry about here.


----------



## pdg (May 1, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> The truth is I have little idea of what life is like in any American town, city or village so I don't tell people they are wrong about carrying guns because I simply don't know.



That was kind of what I was getting at, but worded better.

If someone feels they need to be armed I'm curious as to why - is it based on media reports, reputation or personal experience of previous encounters?

The reply of "planet earth" suggests that person thinks the whole world is a place where it's not safe to ever be unarmed - yet there are literally millions of people who go through their entire lives without so much as a scuffle.

Maybe it really is mortally dangerous to venture out in your location so carrying a personal arsenal is warranted - hence my initial question.


----------



## pdg (May 1, 2018)

To illustrate where I'm coming from, over the past month there have been two "violent incidents" deemed newsworthy in my local city and the surrounding area.

In one, a young boy was "threatened with a pocket knife" - he managed to escape with his life by leaving the area.

In the other, there was an argument in a pub garden



			
				local rag said:
			
		

> A man aged in his forties was punched several times during the assault which resulted in a lump and pain to his head



I have to go to town for work later, best not forget my bren...


----------



## wab25 (May 1, 2018)

I don't recommend carrying a baton with you, for the reasons already listed... mainly it makes the legal side messy.

However, I really recommend training with the hanbo. There are a ton of different ways to use one. But what I really like is that if you can find something between 12 inches and 4 feet in length... all of a sudden you have a bunch of options you would not have had with just your hands. Sure, you won't be able to do all the hanbo techniques with everything you can pick up, but you should be able to do a few. Walking stick, umbrella, wrench, stick, rolled up magazine... there are lots of things. 

I took a hanbo class from a guy that taught the police to use their batons. He said that in many states, you can't carry a weapon like a baton. But, you can carry a long lug nut wrench in your car for more leverage when changing your tire, you can carry a flashlight in your car that is a three cell flashlight with an aluminum body to see, you can carry a wooden handled window washing tool to clean your windshield even if the sponge part has a hard time staying on... He suggested we have something of that shape in our cars to be used to work on the car.

I also like learning to use the yawara stick and or a kubotan. While you can't carry one of those, you can carry a pen, and apply most of those techniques as well. I would not suggest a tactical pen, way too expensive and you then run the risk of the legal carrying a weapon thing. But, I can go to the office supply store and get a 2 pack of aluminum body pens for $3, that write really well. (you don't really need aircraft grade aluminum to get your point across... regular old, cheap aluminum will do just fine)

Training hanbo and yawara will open up a lot of improvised weapons for you.... that you could carry for their intended uses or you might even be able to find nearby.


----------



## Anarax (May 1, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> This is the problem with the gang knife crime we are seeing at the moment. someone carries a knife and because they do the temptation to use it is too much and because they do, others carry knives and they use them as well, it escalates. these are young teenagers feeling their oats, they want to prove themselves, there's also peer pressure, an age old problem. it's not symptomatic of anything else other than young males (and now young females) wanting to make their mark in the worst possible way.


That's a serious problem



Tez3 said:


> When people carry weapons the first thought is often to use them before anything else.


If you're referring to gangs and criminals then I agree. However, if that's referring to weapon carriers in general then I disagree. There are definitely those that reach for the weapon too quickly, but there are also carriers who are well trained and have the temperament for it. Like any group there's good and bad.



Tez3 said:


> Weaker people often will use weapons more easily because they think they give them an advantage against stronger people.


Yes, but there's a spectrum of force and power discrepancy. Meaning if I stabbed a man to death who only struck me then I'm probably going to prison. However, if an 80 year old woman shot a younger man twice her size for striking her down then that will probably be ruled justified. This is based on the old woman had no other means of defending herself thus shooting him was the only option she had. She doesn't possess the same physical faculties than myself or someone similar in age and size would. 



Tez3 said:


> it's all well and good telling us who live in countries where weapons are uncommon and rarely carried that we are somehow 'less' than those who carry weapons but because we don't we don't resort to using them as easily as people who have the perception ( mostly because it's true) that everyone has a weapon of some sort.


I don't criticize other people who don't carry nor other countries that don't allow it. I feel the same way you do when others criticize me for carrying or criticize US weapon policies. 



Tez3 said:


> The fact we don't carry weapons doesn't mean we are helpless or unaware of the dangers the world carries


I agree that line of reasoning is flawed and illogical. There's a whole list of reasons why many choose not to carry even where it's legal.



Tez3 said:


> There is a tendency to assume non weapon carrying means being naïve and we get looked down on, our weapons laws are mocked and many assume an air of superiority but really they should actually just stick to what they know and leave us to worry about here.


I agree that there's a subculture that looks down on others that don't carry, I've met them in person. More times than not they like to refer to people without weapons as "sheep" and view themselves as a superior breed of human. I can't stand people like that either, but there are also a lot of weapon carriers that are respectful.     

What I've seen in this thread and others is a tendency for some to question people who carry weapons. They then criticize their answer and explain to them why they don't carry. This is where some more of the argumentative side comes into play. When you ask someone of an opposing ideology why they subscribe to an opposing ideology, prepare for an answer that will obviously conflict with your ideology. For example, if I'm Veagn(I'm not) and a meat eater were to ask me why am I Vegan, I'll tell them because livestock is treated cruelly. That person will then feel obligated to defend eating meat because they asked someone of an opposing ideology of why they don't something they themselves do. Weaponry in general is a controversial topic, thus is why I think it's next to impossible for two people of opposing views to have a productive conversation. I think most of the time it's about "proving" the other person wrong than it is about seeing it from their point of view.


----------



## pdg (May 1, 2018)

Anarax said:


> What I've seen in this thread and others is a tendency for some to question people who carry weapons. They then criticize their answer and explain to them why they don't carry. This is where some more of the argumentative side comes into play



If this is in reference to my post, I think it was taken wrong.

I have no experience of living somewhere that I've felt the need to arm myself - if I did live in such an area I would carry without hesitation (or move if that option exists).

My question was more about whether it was really that much of an issue - hence the "where do you live" part. Getting an answer from someone else saying "planet earth" suggests they wouldn't go anywhere on earth without being armed, which is actually quite a sad position to find oneself in imo.


----------



## Buka (May 1, 2018)

And sometimes I still carry. And if you're in danger I'll help you.


----------



## Tez3 (May 1, 2018)

Anarax said:


> If you're referring to gangs and criminals then I agree. However, if that's referring to weapon carriers in general then I disagree. There are definitely those that reach for the weapon too quickly, but there are also carriers who are well trained and have the temperament for it. Like any group there's good and bad.



It's simpler for us here, we don't have legal carriers so that takes them out of the equation. 

I don't comment on American gun carriers or non carriers, it would be good if the courtesy was returned by some though.



Anarax said:


> I agree that there's a subculture that looks down on others that don't carry, I've met them in person. More times than not they like to refer to people without weapons as "sheep" and view themselves as a superior breed of human. I can't stand people like that either, but there are also a lot of weapon carriers that are respectful.



People who call people sheep obviously don't know much about sheep especially tups who will kill people, we've had a couple of deaths here. Sheep are intelligent enough to know how to protect all the sheep in the flock, they have great survival skills and are easily as intelligent as dogs, proven by science btw.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 1, 2018)

Anarax said:


> If you're referring to gangs and criminals then I agree. However, if that's referring to weapon carriers in general then I disagree. There are definitely those that reach for the weapon too quickly, but there are also carriers who are well trained and have the temperament for it. Like any group there's good and bad.


I've noticed that responsible weapon-carriers often become extra-cautious about avoiding and resolving conflict. It's one thing to get into a shoving match. It's another thing to get into a shoving match with a gun on your hip.


----------



## Tez3 (May 1, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I've noticed that responsible weapon-carriers often become extra-cautious about avoiding and resolving conflict. It's one thing to get into a shoving match. It's another thing to get into a shoving match with a gun on your hip.




The important word here is 'responsible' though. However that requires they maintain a cool head, often the 'fear' factor comes into play which is what happens as I said in the gang killings we have at the moment in London. Scared people will likely shoot/stab whatever more than a steady person. You can be a responsible person but if you are terrified for your life or others then the chances are you will attack first. Now, here at least that is legal self defence, whether it's advisable depends on whether you nullify the danger or not.


----------



## Runs With Fire (May 1, 2018)

Anarax said:


> IMO, a collapsible baton isn't a horrible choice to carry for self-defense situations if you know how to use them. You must first know the laws in you area of weapon restrictions and use of force. Carrying around any weapon without knowing when *and *when not to draw them is a recipe for disaster. You must also be trained on how to use the baton so you can use it effectively. A baton offers a wider spectrum of lethal and less than lethal force opposed to a knife. Meaning, a baton can be used for locks, chokes, takedowns and disarms. Either way, be sure to have all the facts and information on baton use before getting one.


Just don't get a cheap one.  I was at a conference in a class on using the expandable batton.  They had a box of cheap ones for each student to use in the class, and take home.  Half of them didn't make it through the first hour ling session.  They flew apart upon flicking them open.


----------



## Billy02 (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> Where do you live that you feel the need to be armed all the time? (Taking both your threads into account.)
> 
> How many times have you actually been called upon to try to defend yourself?
> 
> Your profile says you're 28, you come across more as a paranoid teenager...


i have been mugged twice, so i think one should be prepared for any situation, age does not matter i think in these situations. any one can come under such situations. Buy Tactical Heat Tempered Square Grip Flashlight Baton 26 in Online at Lowest Price this is what i think i use get, as it has flash and seems it will be easy to use, plus i will have to see if the state law allows it to carry.


----------



## Anarax (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> I have no experience of living somewhere that I've felt the need to arm myself - if I did live in such an area I would carry without hesitation (or move if that option exists).


Geographical location isn't the sole factor when people decide to carry a weapon. Other factors include past experiences, exposure to criminal elements(Police, Prison guards, Judges, etc), weapon proficiency, upbringing(both positive and negative), physical limitations and wanting to lawfully carry a firearm in case of potentially lethal encounters. There are other factors that play into it, I'm just touching on the major ones.  


pdg said:


> Getting an answer from someone else saying "planet earth" suggests they wouldn't go anywhere on earth without being armed, which is actually quite a sad position to find oneself in imo.


There's nothing sad about it. If you're obeying the law and proficient with the weapon then there's no problem. Again, it's not about how you feel what others should and shouldn't do. It's about acknowledging how some have different preferences than you do. Some are more cautious than others, but that doesn't make it "sad". 


pdg said:


> How many times have you actually been called upon to try to defend yourself?
> Your profile says you're 28, you come across more as a paranoid teenager...


Wanting to lawfully carry a weapon doesn't make you paranoid, it's simply preparing for a potential altercation.   


pdg said:


> I must live on a different planet then, because I've never felt the need to arm myself to leave the house.


You're only seeing it through your eyes and not from their point of view. If that's the intention of your post, to better understand their point of view, then that's great. However, calling them "paranoid" or their outlook "sad" isn't the best approach.


pdg said:


> Do you really think it's impossible that there exist places where there's not really anything to be especially aware of or prepare for?
> I've made it almost to 41 and been attacked, erm, let me count.....
> .... no times at all.


By the same reasoning only people who have been attacked should study martial arts for self-defense. It's the idea of waiting for something bad to happen then taking precautions in the future to prevent it from reoccurring. Some people don't wait though, some choose to be more proactive than your average person.


----------



## Anarax (May 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> I don't comment on American gun carriers or non carriers, it would be good if the courtesy was returned by some though.


That's more than fair, but a lot of people get heated over this issue on both sides. I think that's why it usually gets personal and more argumentative 



Tez3 said:


> People who call people sheep obviously don't know much about sheep especially tups who will kill people, we've had a couple of deaths here. Sheep are intelligent enough to know how to protect all the sheep in the flock, they have great survival skills and are easily as intelligent as dogs, proven by science btw.


Yeah, it's just the vernacular they use. They like to see themselves as "wolves" that protect the flock. They like to think they're enlightened and better than everyone else.


----------



## Anarax (May 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I've noticed that responsible weapon-carriers often become extra-cautious about avoiding and resolving conflict. It's one thing to get into a shoving match. It's another thing to get into a shoving match with a gun on your hip.


I've noticed this too, they usually want to avoid the conflict all together. Most of the weapon carriers I've met are pretty chill.


----------



## Anarax (May 2, 2018)

Runs With Fire said:


> Just don't get a cheap one.  I was at a conference in a class on using the expandable batton.  They had a box of cheap ones for each student to use in the class, and take home.  Half of them didn't make it through the first hour ling session.  They flew apart upon flicking them open.


Absolutely, there are a lot of cheap ones out there you want to avoid. Monadnock, ASP and some of the S&W heat treated batons supposed to be good.


----------



## Tez3 (May 2, 2018)

Anarax said:


> If you're obeying the law and proficient with the weapon then there's no problem.



In many countries those two are mutually exclusive. Carrying weapons isn't legal however proficient you are.




Anarax said:


> Wanting to lawfully carry a weapon doesn't make you paranoid, it's simply preparing for a potential altercation.



It does often seem like that though when you read what people say about why they want to carry a gun. It would appear in the UK as well as most of Europe and I suspect Australia as well as New Zealand to be not just paranoid but dangerous. To all our perceptions carrying weapons 'just in case' seems unnecessary because of the way we live, our countries and well, just everything. To us living in a country where you think you have to carry weapons is unimaginable. this is why I think so many comment on the 'gun thing' in the US, we simply cannot imagine doing it so it's weird to us.




Anarax said:


> You're only seeing it through your eyes and not from their point of view. If that's the intention of your post, to better understand their point of view, then that's great. However, calling them "paranoid" or their outlook "sad" isn't the best approach.



As I've said above, it's unimaginable to us. To feel you have to carry weapons is something that many in the rest of the world don't understand at all and seems verging on madness or living in a war torn country hence there are many comments that weapon carrying people won't like or in turn don't understand.


----------



## Tez3 (May 2, 2018)

Billy02 said:


> i have been mugged twice,




have you thought why? Are there actions you are taking that could be changed that would mean you would be in less danger of being mugged? Do you feel that if you carried a baton it would prevent a mugging or would escalate the situation and leave you worse off? Batons aren't an ideal weapon for civilians quite frankly.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

Anarax said:


> You're only seeing it through your eyes and not from their point of view. If that's the intention of your post, to better understand their point of view, then that's great. However, calling them "paranoid" or their outlook "sad" isn't the best approach.



By using the term "paranoid teenager" I'm referring to the attitude displayed by some youths here, where they have the thought that they're going to get attacked every time they open their eyes.

What led me to that is my interpretation of the OP being along the lines of "I must carry a weapon at all times, everyone is a threat"...

As for sad, well that's down to how you define the word.

It saddens me that some people's experience of their society leads them to see danger everywhere and need a weapon to feel a bit more secure.

I'm not using the teenage vernacular and saying "you're sad" - I'm using English and saying "your situation saddens me".



Edit: and by your definition someone saying that "earth" is a place that's dangerous enough to arm yourself everywhere you go is only seeing it through their eyes.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I've noticed that responsible weapon-carriers often become extra-cautious about avoiding and resolving conflict. It's one thing to get into a shoving match. It's another thing to get into a shoving match with a gun on your hip.



There is some truth to the saying "An armed society is a polite society."


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> There is some truth to the saying "An armed society is a polite society."



Does that imply that an unarmed society is impolite?


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

Anarax said:


> By the same reasoning only people who have been attacked should study martial arts for self-defense. It's the idea of waiting for something bad to happen then taking precautions in the future to prevent it from reoccurring. Some people don't wait though, some choose to be more proactive than your average person.



But there are levels.

Firstly, it could be said that if you get your fists out you've failed with 90+% of what defence should mean...

Going on from that, MA for self defence is usually about subjugation and/or escape.

Further, a blunt force weapon is the next level.

Carrying a blade or a gun is up from there, it's no longer subjugation but dominance and destruction - you honestly don't expect me to believe you could shoot someone a little bit?


Oddly, I can imagine the kind of response someone would get if they asked which art they should study to be able to kill anyone that confronts them with their bare hands - "I wanna be totes street lethal innit", or "what's the best way to break someone's neck?".

They would probably be ridiculed and told that's not what is considered self defence - and some of the people doing that would be the ones carrying guns...


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> Does that imply that an unarmed society is impolite?



Sometimes. The point is that if being a douche canoe can get you killed, you might think twice (or even three times) before acting like a walking phallus.



pdg said:


> Further, a blunt force weapon is the next level.
> 
> Carrying a blade or a gun is up from there, it's no longer subjugation but dominance and destruction - you honestly don't expect me to believe you could shoot someone a little bit?



I disagree with the statement that a knife is inherently and automatically more lethal than a blunt force weapon. That's simply not true.
And no, I cannot shoot someone a little. If I ever shoot someone, you may rest assured it's because they need to be dead.


----------



## Tez3 (May 2, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> There is some truth to the saying "An armed society is a polite society."



I would have said a society that knows how to queue, how to do things fairly and in turn, while chatting  is more of a polite society in that weapons aren't needed to make people polite rather they learn to be polite because it's the right thing to do not because you might get killed.

Being polite out of fear of being killed isn't the sort of society most would wish to live in.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sometimes. The point is that if being a douche canoe can get you killed, you might think twice (or even three times) before acting like a walking phallus.



If that were universally true though, nobody in the US would assault anyone else (because of the high chance your victim is armed) and the UK, where almost nobody is armed, would be one big shoving and scuffling arena...



Dirty Dog said:


> I disagree with the statement that a knife is inherently and automatically more lethal than a blunt force weapon. That's simply not true.



You can choose to use a baton - or other stick like blunt force weapon - as a blocking or diversionary tool, or as a restraining tool, either or both without intentional trauma.

A knife, not so much.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> I disagree with the statement that a knife is inherently and automatically more lethal than a blunt force weapon. That's simply not true



Another thing about this particular point - given the choice I would much rather face an opponent armed with a blunt force weapon (of any type) over one armed with a bladed weapon.

Can you honestly say that someone coming at you with a knife is an equal or lesser threat than someone with a baton or baseball bat?


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> I would have said a society that knows how to queue, how to do things fairly and in turn, while chatting  is more of a polite society in that weapons aren't needed to make people polite rather they learn to be polite because it's the right thing to do not because you might get killed.
> 
> Being polite out of fear of being killed isn't the sort of society most would wish to live in.



You're looking at it backwards. Because I am armed, I do my best not to provoke a situation in which I might feel it necessary to use the weapon.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> If that were universally true though, nobody in the US would assault anyone else (because of the high chance your victim is armed) and the UK, where almost nobody is armed, would be one big shoving and scuffling arena...



Right. Because everything needs to be taken to extremes and must be an absolute. #facepalm



> You can choose to use a baton - or other stick like blunt force weapon - as a blocking or diversionary tool, or as a restraining tool, either or both without intentional trauma.
> 
> A knife, not so much.



Maybe you can't.


----------



## Tez3 (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> and the UK, where almost nobody is armed, would be one big shoving and scuffling arena...




People all around the world know that isn't true because they constantly make fun of our politeness, which is fine but is a 'thing'.
Random observations from an American in London: Why are the British so darned polite? - RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

But then being rude doesn't get you into a lot of trouble, you will either be ignored or get a tirade of inventive invective, we are the country that came up with 'cockwombling spunktrumpet' after all. What doesn't happen is getting shot  for being rude.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> Another thing about this particular point - given the choice I would much rather face an opponent armed with a blunt force weapon (of any type) over one armed with a bladed weapon.



How many times have you actually faced either?



> Can you honestly say that someone coming at you with a knife is an equal or lesser threat than someone with a baton or baseball bat?



Yes. I can.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> You're looking at it backwards. Because I am armed, I do my best not to provoke a situation in which I might feel it necessary to use the weapon.



But that's not even remotely related to what you said:



Dirty Dog said:


> Sometimes. The point is that if being a douche canoe can get you killed, you might think twice (or even three times) before acting like a walking phallus.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Right. Because everything needs to be taken to extremes and must be an absolute. #facepalm



No, but maybe you're also looking at it backwards.

Consider the possibility that the majority of the US is comprised of naturally polite people, a proportion of which happen to be armed.

You can either say that the weapons enforce politeness, or that they are completely incidental in most cases.

The majority of the UK is comprised of naturally polite people, a proportion of which happen to carry a wallet.

Does that mean a walleted society is a polite society?



Dirty Dog said:


> Maybe you can't.



I'd like to see how a knife can be used to apply a joint lock with no inherent danger of cutting...



Dirty Dog said:


> How many times have you actually faced either?



That's irrelevant, I have a smattering of knowledge in how to use both which leads me to my conclusion as to which I would rather face.

You say you would prefer to face a bladed assailant over a club wielding one - while I can't understand your reasoning I can accept that as your opinion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> have you thought why? Are there actions you are taking that could be changed that would mean you would be in less danger of being mugged? Do you feel that if you carried a baton it would prevent a mugging or would escalate the situation and leave you worse off? Batons aren't an ideal weapon for civilians quite frankly.


What about a baton do you think makes them not a good choice for a civilian (assuming they are proficient in their use, and it's legal for them)?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> Does that imply that an unarmed society is impolite?


The saying isn't "An armed society is the only polite society."


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The saying isn't "An armed society is the only polite society."



True, but it's still not exclusive.

There exist societies that I (and probably you) consider exceedingly impolite, but where most people are armed in one way or another


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 2, 2018)

Oni_Kadaki said:


> I recently went through baton training at my unit. At one point in the training, one of my SNCOs said that, in his mind, the only time he would want a baton over his firearm or a TASER/OC spray would be a riot control control situation. Otherwise, he said the baton would work, but would generally be a suboptimal solution.



Different weapons are best for different situations.  Personally, since in riot control, you probably are dealing with multiple individuals, I would think OC spray would be best.  TASER and baton tend to be best against one other individual imho.


----------



## Runs With Fire (May 2, 2018)

As a man raised up in the "rual American gun culture"  I figure why not be armed? It's what people do.  Not because I'm scared of people or I feel in danger, it's just standard in my social group. Like how the French noblemen carried swords about.  (I think, remembering my European history).  I don't often see danger or feel threatened, but I have a gun in my car or on my hip.  It's what many of us do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> I would have said a society that knows how to queue, how to do things fairly and in turn, while chatting  is more of a polite society in that weapons aren't needed to make people polite rather they learn to be polite because it's the right thing to do not because you might get killed.
> 
> Being polite out of fear of being killed isn't the sort of society most would wish to live in.


I agree, and none of those circumstances is inherently non-existent in an armed society, either (assuming the US qualifies as such, at least). Most people know how to queue, wait their turn, etc. And most aren't polite out of fear.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 2, 2018)

Runs With Fire said:


> As a man raised up in the "rual American gun culture"  I figure why not be armed? It's what people do.  Not because I'm scared of people or I feel in danger, it's just standard in my social group. Like how the French noblemen carried swords about.  (I think, remembering my European history).  I don't often see danger or feel threatened, but I have a gun in my car or on my hip.  It's what many of us do.


I grew up in (or at least around) that culture, and I know quite a few people who have a similar view. They don't really carry (or even own) for a reason - it's just something they're used to.


----------



## mrt2 (May 2, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> You're looking at it backwards. Because I am armed, I do my best not to provoke a situation in which I might feel it necessary to use the weapon.


15 years of work as a defense attorney has me convinced this is not at all the case.  A d-ckhead who goes armed is now an armed d-ckhead.  the weapon does nothing but make that individual a more dangerous person.  And now, a confrontation between two armed d-ckheads suddenly becomes a deadly fight, rather than one that might result in a black eye.


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> No, but maybe you're also looking at it backwards.
> 
> Consider the possibility that the majority of the US is comprised of naturally polite people, a proportion of which happen to be armed.
> 
> ...



There is some evidence that where concealed carry can be legal, there is a reduction in crime.  I haven't analyzed the studies, so I don't know if there are other factors that also play into it.

But how do you think it is irrelevant if you have ever faced attack(s) by someone armed with a blunt force object or a knife?  Or since you brought up that aspect, how a smattering of knowledge will make it less dangerous for you?


----------



## Runs With Fire (May 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I grew up in (or at least around) that culture, and I know quite a few people who have a similar view. They don't really carry (or even own) for a reason - it's just something they're used to.


Yup


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I agree, and none of those circumstances is inherently non-existent in an armed society, either (assuming the US qualifies as such, at least). Most people know how to queue, *wait their turn,* etc. And most aren't polite out of fear.



Sadly, over the last twenty years of so I have seen that change.  When I first got to the greater Washington, DC area, people would climb the sidewalks to allow any emergency vehicle to pass.  Now they seem to be looked at more as a bother to be endured, and emergency vehicles should wait for lights and traffic like most other drivers.  I have seen people insolently cut all kinds of lines, including voting lines (apparently the desire to exercise citizenship practices runs strong).  Normally nobody calls them on it.

Hmmmm,  maybe I need to start concealed carrying.  Or not.  But I have considered it.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> But how do you think it is irrelevant if you have ever faced attack(s) by someone armed with a blunt force object or a knife? Or since you brought up that aspect, how a smattering of knowledge will make it less dangerous for you?



The smattering of knowledge doesn't make it less dangerous.

What it does is give me an idea as to how each item can be used, how easy it is to use them to what effect and a bit of how I might defend against them - or not.

Give me the guy with a stick over the guy with a knife any day.


----------



## Tez3 (May 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> What about a baton do you think makes them not a good choice for a civilian (assuming they are proficient in their use, and it's legal for them)?



It's dependent on a few things, where you carry it, can you get to it quickly, do you have time to extend it for example. Police officers carry their on their belts, easy to get to, they more or less know in advance they are likely to need it so will have it to hand and extended. One on one it's fine but if there's a few people it can be hampering. I saw an RMP hit one of my colleagues with a baton because he missed his target when jostled by someone else. They are a limited use weapon, I rarely used mine.






Runs With Fire said:


> it's just standard in my social group.



Is that a good reason to do _anything_?





Runs With Fire said:


> Like how the French noblemen carried swords about.



They carried them because of robbers etc. times were violent and there were no police. They also needed them in times of war when they were expected to lead men into battle. They also like to duel each other. They weren't carried for fun or fashion.


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> The smattering of knowledge doesn't make it less dangerous.
> 
> What it does is give me an idea as to how each item can be used, how easy it is to use them to what effect and a bit of how I might defend against them - or not.
> 
> Give me the guy with a stick over the guy with a knife any day.



Inasmuch as an attack with either can be dangerous, I wish you luck first, in never having to defend against either, and second in a successful defense.

And in truth, I wish the same for myself.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> Inasmuch as an attack with either can be dangerous, I wish you luck first, in never having to defend against either, and second in a successful defense.
> 
> And in truth, I wish the same for myself.



While I very obviously can't guarantee success (nor can anyone else) I know against which I rate my chances higher.

Your wishes are reciprocated


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> It's dependent on a few things, where you carry it, can you get to it quickly, do you have time to extend it for example. Police officers carry their on their belts, easy to get to, they more or less know in advance they are likely to need it so will have it to hand and extended. One on one it's fine but if there's a few people it can be hampering. I saw an RMP hit one of my colleagues with a baton because he missed his target when jostled by someone else. They are a limited use weapon, I rarely used mine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You know Tez3, I think this is a discussion that just leaves people baffled.  Different countries/societies are different, and attitudes and/or laws change.

In the US history, there was a time when good, law abiding British citizens carried firearms for a variety of reasons; protection against robbers, protection against hostile natives who seemed to think the British were encroaching on their land, and the occasional chance to secure tasty meat for the supper table.  During westward expansion, the need for firearms continued to be considered a part of one's tools, again by the British, and eventually by American citizens.  They weren't carried 24 hours a day by everyone, especially in larger cities, but it became a part of clothing for some.  In the plains and in cattle country, guns could be protection against the occasional bad guy, pesky natives who hadn't been exterminated, or snakes and bears who might attack them or their livestock.

Especially in the fantasized old west, they were sort of an item of clothing, only to be used when needed of course, and everyone was an expert in their fair and proper use against the bad guys, the pesky natives, and dangerous wildlife.

We just got used to the idea and have a hard time understanding those who don't see things like we do.

You and other societies feel the same way about our "fascination" with "guns."  

Just ain't never goin' to be any agreement as I can see.


----------



## Runs With Fire (May 2, 2018)

Funny, but true
I spent alot of spare time in the woods and swamps.  The state record black bear was killed thirty minuets from my house.  I go on woods walks all the time.  If I should run in to a grumpy mamma bear or a massaug rattler, I,ll have options.  I have a 2/3 acre vegetable garden so I'm outside alot. I also raise ckickens and ducks. I watched a red tailed hawk grab my rooster last fall.  I carry a .22 revolver in case I need it for lthat hawk or the golden eagle that keeps flying over the hen house tries to take another chicken. ( lost five fowl last year).  I have a small shotgun that sits against the wall in my garden shed.  I lost 87 pole bean plants and 200 row feet of radishes from rabbits last spring.  Ended up with five pots of rabbit stew.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> firearms continued to be considered a part of one's tools





oftheherd1 said:


> You and other societies feel the same way about our "fascination" with "guns."



Well, I have something for you (and others) to consider before you jump to any conclusions about my feelings concerning a "fascination" with "guns".

Growing up, around the farm, everyone had a gun of some description within reach - we might not have had bears, but foxes and rats etc. can cause a lot of damage.

They were just another item in the toolbox, much like fencing pliers for instance.

They got used for protection of livestock or crops, and sometimes for food (I actually think it's better to shoot some food instead of going to the supermarket and being removed from what it was before it was food).

Here's a roughly 4 year old me...


 

Don't judge the clothes, the 80s had only just started 


The part I struggle to understand is how otherwise normal people feel their society is so dangerous they aren't comfortable unless carrying lethal force.


----------



## Tez3 (May 2, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> You know Tez3, I think this is a discussion that just leaves people baffled. Different countries/societies are different, and attitudes and/or laws change.




I have already said as much and that was why I wasn't commenting on Americans and their weapons.

However perception of gun carrying in the UK is somewhat different from how it really was.  Gun carrying has never been prevalent here for many reasons, cost being probably the foremost one, availability being another. Most people here have never carried guns in the UK at anytime in our history. That's not say they didn't carry weapons, these would edged or things like heavy walking sticks/clubs though. The military of course carried firearms both at home and abroad. Most gun owners would have been wealthy people who would use them for shooting (what we call standing on the moors shooting game birds driven towards you by beaters), duelling pistols were fashionable for a long time but not used that much, more beautiful objects to be looked at and a bit useful at other times. Poor people which was actually most of the UK had to do without.

The gun laws here were aimed at specific groups because of the real fears of uprisings.  After the Gunpowder Plot laws against Roman Catholics stopped them serving in the Army and Navy, being lawyers among other things but also from carrying guns. Most of these laws laws weren't repealed until the late Victorian times in England, in Northern Ireland is was much much later. We still can't have a Catholic monarch though. Much has been made of so called gun control in the UK but the truth is there has never been much of a gun culture here, guns have always just been seen as something some people need for work ie gamekeepers. I've seen articles saying British people want their guns back but the truth is few had them to start with and certainly no one within living memory. There was an influx of hand guns at the end of the two world wars but as these were only issued to officers they were still in the hands of the well off upper classes! 

As with most things in the UK, class has a lot to do with whether you would have owned a gun or not.


----------



## Tez3 (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> Growing up, around the farm, everyone had a gun of some description within reach - we might not have had bears, but foxes and rats etc. can cause a lot of damage.
> 
> They were just another item in the toolbox, much like fencing pliers for instance.



*Exactly! *


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> I've seen articles saying British people want their guns back but the truth is few had them to start with and certainly no one within living memory



I'm British, loosely able to be classified as a person - and I'd "like my guns back" 

More specifically, easier access to them - I used to like pistol target shooting, but that's entirely out now unless I go the low powered air pistol route (and that option may well be gone before long too).

Rifle target shooting has become much more hassle - mandatory club membership and minimum attendance and the like - the cost for doing it has rocketed over the last 20 ish years.

Shotguns are still relatively straightforward I suppose...


----------



## Runs With Fire (May 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> I have already said as much and that was why I wasn't commenting on Americans and their weapons.
> 
> However perception of gun carrying in the UK is somewhat different from how it really was.  Gun carrying has never been prevalent here for many reasons, cost being probably the foremost one, availability being another. Most people here have never carried guns in the UK at anytime in our history. That's not say they didn't carry weapons, these would edged or things like heavy walking sticks/clubs though. The military of course carried firearms both at home and abroad. Most gun owners would have been wealthy people who would use them for shooting (what we call standing on the moors shooting game birds driven towards you by beaters), duelling pistols were fashionable for a long time but not used that much, more beautiful objects to be looked at and a bit useful at other times. Poor people which was actually most of the UK had to do without.
> 
> ...


Sounds strange, but it makes sense.


----------



## Tez3 (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> I'm British, loosely able to be classified as a person - and I'd "like my guns back"
> 
> More specifically, easier access to them - I used to like pistol target shooting, but that's entirely out now unless I go the low powered air pistol route (and that option may well be gone before long too).
> 
> ...




Ah but as I said we've never had the handgun ownership there is in the US so we 'can't have our guns *back*', the articles telling us that we want our guns back are invariably American and hark back to a golden age of gun ownership in the UK that never happened. As you say though you want something new.

My OH goes rifle and pistol shooting and has little bother, perhaps it's where you go? As with H&S a great many places make things far harder than the law *actually *demands because they fear being sued or closed if they allow things to be easier.


----------



## Tez3 (May 2, 2018)

Runs With Fire said:


> Sounds strange, but it makes sense.




Not strange at all, different countries are just that ..different. Different cultures, different customs, different beliefs, it's not yours but it's not strange, we just have a couple of thousand years more history than you do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> It's dependent on a few things, where you carry it, can you get to it quickly, do you have time to extend it for example. Police officers carry their on their belts, easy to get to, they more or less know in advance they are likely to need it so will have it to hand and extended. One on one it's fine but if there's a few people it can be hampering. I saw an RMP hit one of my colleagues with a baton because he missed his target when jostled by someone else. They are a limited use weapon, I rarely used mine.


I'm not trying to be argumentative, so bear with me. I don't see those as problems specifically for civilians, and perhaps some of them less so for civilians. If there's no time to get it out and extended, you just don't get it out. It hasn't made the situation worse, at that point. And in most (certainly not all) cases, civilians aren't going to find themselves fighting for their lives in a group, so collateral damage is perhaps less of an issue. Even when it is an issue, if someone has decided they are in danger enough that they need a metal stick in their hands at that moment, even the chance of accidentally hitting a friend is maybe worth the risk.

Personally, I think it's a better choice for civilians than a gun or knife (again, assuming competence and legality). A stick might be a better choice in the moment of the fight, but would be harder to carry (the whole reason the collapsible batons are used).


----------



## jobo (May 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not trying to be argumentative, so bear with me. I don't see those as problems specifically for civilians, and perhaps some of them less so for civilians. If there's no time to get it out and extended, you just don't get it out. It hasn't made the situation worse, at that point. And in most (certainly not all) cases, civilians aren't going to find themselves fighting for their lives in a group, so collateral damage is perhaps less of an issue. Even when it is an issue, if someone has decided they are in danger enough that they need a metal stick in their hands at that moment, even the chance of accidentally hitting a friend is maybe worth the risk.
> 
> Personally, I think it's a better choice for civilians than a gun or knife (again, assuming competence and legality). A stick might be a better choice in the moment of the fight, but would be harder to carry (the whole reason the collapsible batons are used).


Agree, but Battons like most other things are banned in the uk, so it makes little difference to me if they are effective or not, if they were allowed i would certainly consider one of i needed to be armed


----------



## CB Jones (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> The part I struggle to understand is how otherwise normal people feel their society is so dangerous they aren't comfortable unless carrying lethal force.



Again it just about awareness and prepartion.

If you feel you reside in a place that you will never be in danger.....good luck, I hope you never do.

Some of us believe that sometimes things change and that there is no guarantee that your life will  never be in danger.  Due to this, we just choose to be prepared....just in case.

I’d rather spend my life carrying a weapon I never use than being in one situation of needing a weapon I never had.

As a former homicide detective.....I also may have a little different perception of things.


----------



## Tez3 (May 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> civilians aren't going to find themselves fighting for their lives in a group,



Actually they are very likely to. 
Liverpool football fans and Roma fans fight - Bing video

Two Roma fans held over 'attempted murder' as Liverpool fan left critically ill

That's the tip of the iceberg, wait until the football world cup in Moscow, there are going to be deaths.

Hitting a friend is not the point of my story, the point was *missing the attacker.
*


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Ah but as I said we've never had the handgun ownership there is in the US so we 'can't have our guns *back*', the articles telling us that we want our guns back are invariably American and hark back to a golden age of gun ownership in the UK that never happened. As you say though you want something new



It's not so much something new, as going back to something I have experience of.

Let's call it "pre dunblane".

At one time, I could legally own (and keep at home) a handgun/short pistol purely for target use, and I could (sensibly) use it on my own property, and carry it to and from the range (subject to certain conditions).

Now, I can't.



CB Jones said:


> As a former homicide detective.....I also may have a little different perception of things



And that could very well be a huge reason that my perception is different to yours.

You spent your life dealing the absolute worst society can offer and the aftermath of those events, you were (I can only assume) only really called upon when things had gone seriously wrong - if you went through that occupation and thought everything was hunky dory I'd think there was something wrong with you  For most of us, coming into contact with 'that sort of thing' is a rare to never event.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> If you feel you reside in a place that you will never be in danger.....good luck, I hope you never do



I consider that I live in a place where I'm exceedingly unlikely to be put in enough danger to have to resort to lethal force.

It's so statistically unlikely that putting effort into preparing for that event is pretty much a waste of time.

It's more likely (although tbf, still very unlikely) that I might be put in a position where I have to defend myself, but not to the extent that shooting my way out is the only sensible option available.


----------



## Tez3 (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> At one time, I could legally own (and keep at home) a handgun/short pistol purely for target use, and I could (sensibly) use it on my own property, and carry it to and from the range (subject to certain conditions).
> 
> Now, I can't.




That's a problem of democracy, not everyone gets to do what they want.  probably just as well seeing the things I'd like!
However, you were in the minority in owning a handgun, the general population didn't nor wanted to, that was my point to the Americans who think we all had guns in the same way they do and lost them all suddenly. We never went from an armed country to an unarmed one.

I do think people who enjoy using guns on ranges might think differently if they'd had to shoot at real people or be shot at back. It's a unique situation to have metal wasps flying around your head and a traumatic experience to take a life even one who is intent on taking yours, you'd think there would be no feeling about it seeing as they tried to kill you but it's a powerful thing to kill someone.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Actually they are very likely to.
> Liverpool football fans and Roma fans fight - Bing video
> 
> Two Roma fans held over 'attempted murder' as Liverpool fan left critically ill
> ...


Missing the attacker can happen with any weapon, or with your hands, as well. 

The big fights over football (or any sport) are much less common around here, so I often forget about those. It usually takes a political or social issue to start a riot here, and those are far less predictable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> the Americans who think we all had guns in the same way they do and lost them all suddenly.


Just wanted to point out that gun ownership is far from ubiquitous over here, in most areas. The region I live in, it's probably the majority of people, but far less in other areas. And most folks I've talked with understand that the UK never had the gun ownership level the US has.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 2, 2018)

We all decide for ourselves the level of paranoia to which we subscribe.  Nobody else can do that for us.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> However, you were in the minority in owning a handgun, the general population didn't nor wanted to,



Yes, that's very true. There certainly weren't huge numbers of us. It's just a shame that 'our' legal enjoyment of a sporting hobby got absolutely decimated.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 2, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> And my first homicide case I worked was an 87 year old woman who managed to live 87 years without defending herself.
> 
> She lived out in the country In a rural area with almost no crime.....that didn’t stop the guy and girl that decided to rob her from stomping her to death after the robbery.
> 
> Nothing wrong with being prepared.  If you choose not to be armed that’s fine.  But again it’s nothing wrong with those that choose to have that option.


Somehow i suspect that if that 87 year old woman had been armed with anything other than a grenade with the pin already pulled, the results would have been the same.


----------



## CB Jones (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> I consider that I live in a place where I'm exceedingly unlikely to be put in enough danger to have to resort to lethal force.
> 
> It's so statistically unlikely that putting effort into preparing for that event is pretty much a waste of time.
> 
> It's more likely (although tbf, still very unlikely) that I might be put in a position where I have to defend myself, but not to the extent that shooting my way out is the only sensible option available.


 
Fair enough.

That’s the decision you choose to make.

We can what if it to death.


----------



## CB Jones (May 2, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Somehow i suspect that if that 87 year old woman had been armed with anything other than a grenade with the pin already pulled, the results would have been the same.



I dunno....she had roughly 20-30 minutes laying on the floor of the living room while they went through her home looking for valuables to sell to buy crack.

After searching the house they went through her pockets and then stomped her to death before leaving.

Maybe had she she been armed they would have fled.....but that will never be known.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Maybe had she she been armed they would have fled.....but that will never be known



Exactly, we'll never know if the outcome could have been any different - if she had a gun she might have scared them off, or they might have 'dealt' with her first then made off with stuff they stole, plus a free gun...


The difference I was getting at is that here death by burglary is so rare that when it happens it makes the national news.

A quick look around suggests that I'm actually more likely to get struck by lightning than have my life properly threatened in my own home - and furthermore I'm more likely to die in a comedy style incident involving my trousers than to have my life properly threatened while out (I don't live in one of the major cities, and rarely go there, so stats saying how dangerous London might be aren't relevant).


----------



## Tez3 (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> Yes, that's very true. There certainly weren't huge numbers of us. It's just a shame that 'our' legal enjoyment of a sporting hobby got absolutely decimated.




Did it though, I have ex RAF friends who keep shooting and don't seem to have problems, my OH doesn't either. I'll have to have a chat with them and see what they think.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Did it though, I have ex RAF friends who keep shooting and don't seem to have problems, my OH doesn't either. I'll have to have a chat with them and see what they think.



I'd like to know if you find out anything of interest - pm is fine if you'd prefer to not put it in a relatively unrelated thread.


----------



## CB Jones (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> A quick look around suggests that I'm actually more likely to get struck by lightning than have my life properly threatened in my own home - and furthermore I'm more likely to die in a comedy style incident involving my trousers than to have my life properly threatened while out



Ok good luck with that.

But on the other hand....nothing wrong with the person who doesn’t share your optimism and prefers to be armed just in case.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Ok good luck with that.



Why is it that every time I see that sort of comment in this sort of context I always asign a certain sarcasm to it?

Like if someone says "I'm going to try juggling tigers", I'd reply "ok, good luck with that".



CB Jones said:


> But on the other hand....nothing wrong with the person who doesn’t share your optimism and prefers to be armed just in case.



I don't consider it optimism, it's more realism based on my societal environment.

Can you direct me to where I've said it's wrong to arm yourself?

My position has only been to question whether armaments are actually really necessary in the area in which people live, and if it really is necessary, to what extent.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

Oh, and I haven't failed to notice that my "street lethal bare hand killing machine" comment was conveniently and completely ignored...


----------



## Anarax (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> Firstly, it could be said that if you get your fists out you've failed with 90+% of what defence should mean...
> Going on from that, MA for self defence is usually about subjugation and/or escape.


Many Martial Artists and weapon carriers are taught deescalation techniques to avoid conflict. However, you can try to deescalate which is a great option, but still must defend yourself regardless. If we're talking about some guy you brushed shoulders with, then deescalation has a good chance of working. However, when it's a dedicated attacker(mugger, murder, rapist, kidnapper), deescalation will most likely not work. Unfortunately, some situations require use of force.
I was addressing your logic of "because it hasn't happened to me yet, thus* I *have no need for it". The point I made was, some people don't want to wait to see if it happens, some are more proactive.



pdg said:


> Carrying a blade or a gun is up from there, it's no longer subjugation but dominance and destruction


Lawfully carrying a firearm *is *about self-defense. Responding with lethal force doesn't mean the carrier is more interested in shooting someone than they are about defending themselves. It means they are neutralizing the threat(self-defense) with lethal force against the attack directed at them. 



pdg said:


> Oddly, I can imagine the kind of response someone would get if they asked which art they should study to be able to kill anyone that confronts them with their bare hands - "I wanna be totes street lethal innit", or "what's the best way to break someone's neck?".


Your example is on the extreme side of the spectrum though. Already stated before, there are situational parameters for lawful use of a firearm, you can't just shoot someone for asking you what time is it. Many lawful weapon carriers are responsible individuals that understand the ramifications for using their firearm recklessly.    



pdg said:


> They would probably be ridiculed and told that's not what is considered self defence - and some of the people doing that would be the ones carrying guns...


Is it? How many MA styles have lethal techniques? I study Kali which is a weapons based system. Does that mean I'm only interested in stabbing people to death because I know how to use a knife?



Tez3 said:


> In many countries those two are mutually exclusive. Carrying weapons isn't legal however proficient you are.


I know, I wanted to clarify the group I was referring to were trained with firearms in the US. 



Tez3 said:


> It does often seem like that though when you read what people say about why they want to carry a gun. It would appear in the UK as well as most of Europe and I suspect Australia as well as New Zealand to be not just paranoid but dangerous. To all our perceptions carrying weapons 'just in case' seems unnecessary because of the way we live, our countries and well, just everything. To us living in a country where you think you have to carry weapons is unimaginable. this is why I think so many comment on the 'gun thing' in the US, we simply cannot imagine doing it so it's weird to us.


Referring to reading people's reasons for carrying, there is a mixed bag when it comes to any group. I acknowledge that some who carry have different reasons than I might have. However, the overwhelming majority who lawfully carry are responsible.



Tez3 said:


> To feel you have to carry weapons is something that many in the rest of the world don't understand at all and seems verging on madness or living in a war torn country hence there are many comments that weapon carrying people won't like or in turn don't understand.


I understand that people differ on the issue. However, when one actively questions people about it they in turn will get answers that they may not like either. Keeping it a discussion and preventing it from turning into an argument is the challenging part. I think one or both sides seeming more enlightened than the other is also a problem. 



pdg said:


> What led me to that is my interpretation of the OP being along the lines of "I must carry a weapon at all times, everyone is a threat"...


I don't see how "Is carrying a baton a good option to defend in rough situation, lets say you get attacked and you need to react to save yourself." can be interpreted that way. 



pdg said:


> It saddens me that some people's experience of their society leads them to see danger everywhere and need a weapon to feel a bit more secure.


It's not about seeing danger where ever you go, it's a precaution some take to prepare for a potential worst case scenario. Again, not everyone who carries have been victimized, some choose not to wait to see if and when it happens.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

While it's true that I can only speculate as to what daily life is like when most people around you might be armed, I really don't think it's truly appreciated what it's like in an 'unarmed' society.

So here's a hypothetical question for the guys who say that I'm being overly optimistic and unprepared:

If you lived here (or a comparable location) and you knew (as I do) that the very vast majority of people are unarmed, and that violent crime outside of the metropolis is actually extremely rare (tbh, it's pretty rare there too) - would you still want to carry a weapon 'just in case'?

In this type of environment, do you think you could ever feel completely at ease going for a wander around town carrying nothing more than you car key and enough change in your pocket to buy a coffee?

I very often go out with nothing more than that (not even my phone) and never have cause to feel nervous in the slightest.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> I'd like to see how a knife can be used to apply a joint lock with no inherent danger of cutting...



You've never seen a folding knife that wasn't open? You've never seen a fixed blade knife in a sheath? You've never seen a single edged knife? 



> You say you would prefer to face a bladed assailant over a club wielding one - while I can't understand your reasoning I can accept that as your opinion.



You might try re-reading what I've actually written. Because I never said that. Based on the type and severity of the injuries resulting from real world attacks with knives and batons, I'd place them at the same level of threat.


----------



## CB Jones (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> If you lived here (or a comparable location) and you knew (as I do) that the very vast majority of people are unarmed, and that violent crime outside of the metropolis is actually extremely rare (tbh, it's pretty rare there too) - would you still want to carry a weapon 'just in case'?



Yes



pdg said:


> In this type of environment, do you think you could ever feel completely at ease going for a wander around town carrying nothing more than you car key and enough change in your pocket to buy a coffee?



I can be at ease here without a gun....I just choose to have it in case I need it.

I would feel less at ease wandering around town with no money.....why would I want to do that.

What if I come across something I want to buy. I would rather have the means to buy something if need be.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> While it's true that I can only speculate as to what daily life is like when most people around you might be armed, I really don't think it's truly appreciated what it's like in an 'unarmed' society.



I think it's pretty clear that you don't appreciate what it's like in a society that doesn't restrict your options, either.
I've lived in "unarmed" societies. I've lived in a country run by a dictator. 
I prefer making my own choices.



> If you lived here (or a comparable location) and you knew (as I do) that the very vast majority of people are unarmed, and that violent crime outside of the metropolis is actually extremely rare (tbh, it's pretty rare there too) - would you still want to carry a weapon 'just in case'?



Violent crime is pretty rare throughout most of the first world. House fires are also pretty rare. I still have home owners insurance. Tetanus is pretty rare. I still make sure my vaccination is up to date.



> In this type of environment, do you think you could ever feel completely at ease going for a wander around town carrying nothing more than you car key and enough change in your pocket to buy a coffee?



And this demonstrates the truth of what I said above. You (and many many others) act as if those of us who choose to be prepared in ways you're not (or are not allowed to be) are running around scared all the time. That's nonsense. I travel a fair bit. In lots of countries. Many of which wouldn't exactly be considered first world. None of which recognize my concealed carry permit. Doesn't mean I spend my time hiding in my room.


----------



## pdg (May 2, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> I think it's pretty clear that you don't appreciate what it's like in a society that doesn't restrict your options, either.
> I've lived in "unarmed" societies. I've lived in a country run by a dictator.
> I prefer making my own choices.



Technically, society doesn't restrict my options, legislation does. The fact that the members of society who disregard that legislation are so very few means that I can happily comply with it too.

If I woke up in the morning and found that the legislation had changed, I still wouldn't seek to arm myself unless society also changed, because there would be no verifiable need.

Likewise, if society changed such that a significant number of people were armed, I wouldn't be bothered about ignoring the legislation as well to counter the increased likelihood of meeting an armed assailant.



Dirty Dog said:


> Violent crime is pretty rare throughout most of the first world. House fires are also pretty rare. I still have home owners insurance. Tetanus is pretty rare. I still make sure my vaccination is up to date



House fires and tetanus aren't really valid comparisons - they don't share a common cause by any stretch of the imagination (except arson, but I'll warrant that by itself isn't why you have insurance).



Dirty Dog said:


> And this demonstrates the truth of what I said above. You (and many many others) act as if those of us who choose to be prepared in ways you're not (or are not allowed to be) are running around scared all the time.



That's not what I said or implied - unless you're taking my statement of "feeling of security" way into the extreme.



Dirty Dog said:


> I travel a fair bit. In lots of countries. Many of which wouldn't exactly be considered first world. None of which recognize my concealed carry permit. Doesn't mean I spend my time hiding in my room.



If you don't have at least an inkling of insecurity in those places then I'd question the perceived requirement to arm yourself at 'home' - unless you consider 'home' to be more dangerous...


----------



## Tez3 (May 3, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> I think it's pretty clear that you don't appreciate what it's like in a society that doesn't restrict your options, either.



We don't live in a society that restricts our options, the majority of our society asked that legislation be enacted to make certain things harder to get and our Parliament ( _not government_) obliged as they are actually bound to as servants of the State. It was the will of the majority that wished this, now of course not everyone agreed because you will hardly ever get 100% on anything but then we do allow people to disagree, protest and petition Parliament to change things.

Whether it was right or wrong to enact these Acts is open to debate but the fact remains that the majority still wish weapons to be restricted. Are they wrong perhaps but there it is and I can't see it changing any time soon but the protesting voices aren't enough to bring it to Parliament yet. It's not even debated in the House of Commons which it could be it enough signed a petition to have it debated. What does that say? Please do not tell us we are brainwashed either which is a common reply nor tell us that the will of the majority should not be respected. I am against quite a few things that have gone through Parliament but I'm stuck with them because it's what the majority wants, tough on me but that's life in an open society.
*We are very different societies, neither better than the other, just different..... 
*


----------



## Tez3 (May 3, 2018)

pdg said:


> If I woke up in the morning and found that the legislation had changed, I still wouldn't seek to arm myself unless society also changed, because there would be no verifiable need.



 I agree with this totally,I think that is where understanding is lacking, it's not that we have legislation again weapons, it's that our society doesn't actually need them. 

My daughter and her husband have an American friend who's stationed at one of the American airbases near them, we were talking not long ago. He said he didn't realise how different Britain is from the US culturally. He said most American just assumed that the two countries were the same, just different accents but everything he'd seen or read in the States was actually wrong. He'd also been stationed in Germany and the culture shock there was far less than it had been in the UK. London of course was London, unique in itself and not typical of the UK so couldn't be counted as being typically British. I Imagine that the opposite is also true that life in the US is nothing like life here, so telling us we are 'restricted' or legislated against is pointless and just snide remarks.


----------



## sinthetik_mistik (May 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> He'd also been stationed in Germany and the culture shock there was far less than it had been in the UK.


 so he thought Germany was closer to America than the UK? that's interesting. I've been to both England and Germany and to be honest for me Germany was definitely more different than England. I guess different people have different perspectives


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> I have already said as much and that was why I wasn't commenting on Americans and their weapons.
> 
> However perception of gun carrying in the UK is somewhat different from how it really was.  Gun carrying has never been prevalent here for many reasons, cost being probably the foremost one, availability being another. Most people here have never carried guns in the UK at anytime in our history. That's not say they didn't carry weapons, these would edged or things like heavy walking sticks/clubs though. The military of course carried firearms both at home and abroad. Most gun owners would have been wealthy people who would use them for shooting (what we call standing on the moors shooting game birds driven towards you by beaters), duelling pistols were fashionable for a long time but not used that much, more beautiful objects to be looked at and a bit useful at other times. Poor people which was actually most of the UK had to do without.
> 
> ...



As always Tez3, thanks for your enlightening post.  I never fail to learn from your posts on your country.


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 3, 2018)

Runs With Fire said:


> Funny, but true
> I spent alot of spare time in the woods and swamps.  The state record black bear was killed thirty minuets from my house.  I go on woods walks all the time.  If I should run in to a grumpy mamma bear or a massaug rattler, I,ll have options.  I have a 2/3 acre vegetable garden so I'm outside alot. I also raise ckickens and ducks. I watched a red tailed hawk grab my rooster last fall.  I carry a .22 revolver in case I need it for lthat hawk or the golden eagle that keeps flying over the hen house tries to take another chicken. ( lost five fowl last year).  I have a small shotgun that sits against the wall in my garden shed.  I lost 87 pole bean plants and 200 row feet of radishes from rabbits last spring.  Ended up with five pots of rabbit stew.



Where I grew up we understood such things, but I was closer to a large city (for us at the time), and that wasn't so common.  Where my parents grew up in the Ozarks, that was not uncommon at all.  Especially on my mother's side.


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 3, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Again it just about awareness and prepartion.
> 
> If you feel you reside in a place that you will never be in danger.....good luck, I hope you never do.
> 
> ...



Despite many protestations here on MT, I think most people who study a MA at least have it somewhere in the back of their mind that their MA knowledge at least partially nullifies the need for weapons carry.


----------



## Tez3 (May 3, 2018)

sinthetik_mistik said:


> so he thought Germany was closer to America than the UK?




No he didn't , he was prepared for a culture shock there so wasn't surprised things were different, he just didn't expect one in the UK. I've lived in Germany with the RAF, didn't like it much so spent most of the time four miles away in the Netherlands where my mother came from.


----------



## hoshin1600 (May 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> We don't live in a society that restricts our options, the majority of our society asked that legislation be enacted to make certain things harder to get and our Parliament ( _not government_) obliged as they are actually bound to as servants of the State. It was the will of the majority that wished this, now of course not everyone agreed because you will hardly ever get 100% on anything but then we do allow people to disagree, protest and petition Parliament to change things.
> 
> Whether it was right or wrong to enact these Acts is open to debate but the fact remains that the majority still wish weapons to be restricted. Are they wrong perhaps but there it is and I can't see it changing any time soon but the protesting voices aren't enough to bring it to Parliament yet. It's not even debated in the House of Commons which it could be it enough signed a petition to have it debated. What does that say? Please do not tell us we are brainwashed either which is a common reply nor tell us that the will of the majority should not be respected. I am against quite a few things that have gone through Parliament but I'm stuck with them because it's what the majority wants, tough on me but that's life in an open society.
> *We are very different societies, neither better than the other, just different..... *


To make a counter post,,
in America the government has a way of forcing things upon us that as a nation we do not want.  we have a system that, if it gives us any choice at all, it gives us choices between equal evils. as example Trump VS Hillary Clinton.  that was not much of a choice.  but for the most part laws are passed that are against the will of the over all population.  there is also a factor that the majority lives in a very small select section of the county, primarily California and New York, both of which are extremely left leaning and control the bulk of the media.
my opinion is that we now live in an aristocratic divide. those in government vote in policy that best serves themselves.
so perhaps our distrust of government gives us a bias and we believe the same would hold true in the UK as well.


----------



## Tez3 (May 3, 2018)

In the UK we moan and whinge like hell about out governments, our politicians and political parties but we do realise that we do actually have the historical advantage over many in that we've had all sorts of governments as well as none, been conquered by the Romans and the Normans, invaded by Vikings, had Kings, Queens and Protectors,  had dire rulers, inspired ones as well as dire governments and some amazing ones that pulled us through a horrific war not that long ago. We complain about the members of Parliament but we do know how to make them go away, we demanded a Cabinet Minister resign last week and she did, we forget that the 'we' in the UK are actually quite powerful, we need to remind ourselves every so often of that ( and the politicians though every so often we do remind them who's in charge)

We are a few small countries with shared history ( often bloody and hate filled) but we have managed to last a few thousand years and despite everything we'll crack on for a bit more, arguing, queuing, getting rained on, having street parties for Royal Weddings, and annoying the rest of the world.


----------



## Buka (May 3, 2018)

pdg said:


> Well, I have something for you (and others) to consider before you jump to any conclusions about my feelings concerning a "fascination" with "guns".
> 
> Growing up, around the farm, everyone had a gun of some description within reach - we might not have had bears, but foxes and rats etc. can cause a lot of damage.
> 
> ...



Good luck in your struggle. Sincerely.


----------



## Buka (May 3, 2018)

pdg said:


> Well, I have something for you (and others) to consider before you jump to any conclusions about my feelings concerning a "fascination" with "guns".
> 
> Growing up, around the farm, everyone had a gun of some description within reach - we might not have had bears, but foxes and rats etc. can cause a lot of damage.
> 
> ...






 

And I kinda dress the same way now. At least at work.


----------



## Brian King (May 3, 2018)

Billy02 said:


> Is carrying a baton a good option to defend in rough situation, lets say you get attacked and you need to react to save yourself.




Bill02 -Baton, blade, and firearm – all can be the perfect weapon of choice for specific circumstances and ironically can be worst weapon of choice for specific circumstances.

No personal weapon system is perfect; not one is a talisman against evil, a shield against wrong doers, none comes with a guarantee of personal safety.

There is only one thing that every personal weapon system inherently comes with, responsibility. Responsibility, if you choose to *respond* you had better have the *ability*. If you chose to carry and use a weapon, it behooves you to use it morally, responsibly and well.

It does not matter what weapon you decide to study Billy02, any can give you years and years of study and enjoyment as you learn to master it and yourself. The ironic thing, the more you study and the more skill you absorb, the less likely you are that you will ever need to deploy the weapon or the skill in its use.

Rather than looking for the perfect weapon (an impossibility) look around, seek a good person who has a calmness and skill that you would like, and learn from them.


Good luck

Regards

Brian King


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 4, 2018)

Buka said:


> View attachment 21433
> 
> And I kinda dress the same way now. At least at work.



Awwwkk!!!!!  Then that was you?


----------



## Balrog (May 4, 2018)

Billy02 said:


> Is carrying a baton a good option to defend in rough situation, lets say you get attacked and you need to react to save yourself.


A long flashlight is a better option.  It's not a club, and shining the light in the attacker's eyes is a great distraction.


----------

