# Self defence situatio



## Headhunter (Mar 8, 2018)

So I had a situation tonight which has shaken me up quite bad and people think this is fake or whatever as I've seen these types of threads been accused of it but whatever.

Tonight I was out for a meal with my kids at a small place nothing flashy just a cafe. But I went to the toilets and nt long after I went in another guy entered he was talkinh to himself and seemed edgy and jumpy. I went to leave and the guy got in front of me and asked if I had a lighter, I politely told him I didn't but he refused to move and got angry yelling and swearing at me saying I was a liar and out to get him, obviously the guy was off his head on drugs or something.

I simply asked him to move out the way then he refused so I tried to push past him and he yelled your going no where and he grabbed hold of my wrist. At that point pure instinct took over. For any kenpo guys reading I basically used the technique gripping talon. It's hard to explain but I twisted my wrist and basically got his fingers in a lock position which made him go up on his toes in pain then dropped a right hammer fist to his groin which buckled him slightly. I used that moment to push him to the side so I could get out. I ran out and told the staff in the cafe and told them to call the police and gave my number to them to give to the police to come talk to me as I had no intention to stick around while that guy was still around so me and my kids left quickly. Later on the police called and I went down and gave a statement. They knew who the guy was and was a known drug user who'd often got violent.
That was the first time I've ever had to use my training for real life and it has shaken me a bit even though I was able to do it successfully. Also I'm surprised I used that particular technique in instinct as its not one I like and honestly not one I train that often. I know other wrist grab defences which I'm way better at but I guess when instinct takes over anything can happen.


----------



## Kababayan (Mar 8, 2018)

I'm sorry, buddy, that you were in that situation. It's always nice to talk martial arts theory but when something actually happens, it's a reality that none of us wants. I'm just glad that you and your family are safe.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 8, 2018)

I'm not surprised you're feeling shaken up; most of us don't usually deal with things like that.  Sounds like you handled it pretty well.  I'd encourage you to talk about it with friends, maybe your instructor or training partners to help you get a handle on things.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 8, 2018)

Well done, you did all the right things. The adrenaline dump is a nasty thing though. What you mustn't do now is second guess yourself or go off on a list of 'what ifs'. You did well, the situation is sorted so just keep training and give your kids an extra hug. All's well that ends well.


----------



## Buka (Mar 8, 2018)

I'm glad you're okay. As for getting shaken - happens to all of us. Good job, man.


----------



## Anarax (Mar 8, 2018)

I'm glad you're okay and your training kicked in when you needed it. That's interesting considering someone on here was questioning the usefulness of wrist grab defenses in another thread.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 8, 2018)

Dramas are never fun


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 8, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> I simply asked him to move out the way then he refused so I tried to push past him and he yelled your going no where and he grabbed hold of my wrist.


  (looking for that discussion about wrists grabs and "how no one grabs a wrist.")



Headhunter said:


> Also I'm surprised I used that particular technique in instinct as its not one I like and honestly not one I train that often. I know other wrist grab defences which I'm way better at but I guess when instinct takes over anything can happen.


I like when this happens.

All you have to do now is exhale. Accept what you are feeling. Embrace it as something normal.  JKS and Tez make a good recommendation.  I never been in a fight that I enjoyed.  But congrats, you did everything correctly.  You handled your business, got out of the area, took your family's safety into consideration, told someone what happened and left your number so the police could get in contact with  you.  

I know for me it's always easier to put my own safety on the line than my family.  The way I approach conflict when I'm out with my family is not the same way I approach conflict when I'm alone.  I would definitely share the experience with chief instructor of your school.  It may provide a teachable moment for him.  It will definitely give others a new perspective on their training.  Some people only train for exercise, and your experience may open their eyes and cause them to think about how they are training.

By the way thanks for sharing this experience.  I think things like this are good to hear, especially for those who live in the U.S. where many people think the only answer is always "carry a gun"


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 9, 2018)

I can't really say much more than what others have already said.  Good job on defending yourself and your family.  Good job on instinctive reaction.  I agree with sharing it with your teacher and with other students if your teach asks.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 9, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> (looking for that discussion about wrists grabs and "how no one grabs a wrist.")
> ...



Yep, wrist grabs are not the most common way for a person to try and restrain you, but it can happen.  But that comment comes up often by people who simply cannot believe it could ever happen in anyone's existence, or that wrist grab defenses could provide building blocks for more complex moves.


----------



## Steve (Mar 9, 2018)

Sorry this happened.  this is becoming a lot more common in my area, as the homelessness and meth/heroin addiction is out of control.


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 9, 2018)

@Headhunter speaking from personal experience, don’t dwell on what happened.  It’s all too easy to ask yourself a million “what if” questions.  And there’s no worthwhile answers.

Several years ago I was walking to my car late at night after work.  It was a pretty bad section of the Bronx.  As I was walking and minding my own business, a guy walking towards me asks if I have a light.  Before I could finish saying I don’t smoke, he reached to a gun in his waistband.  Without thinking, I stepped in and hit him with a right hook clean on his jaw.  He dropped, and I followed up with a few soccer kicks to his head.  Then I ran.  It was all a matter of a few seconds.  What actually happened didn’t hit me until the adrenaline dump ended.

Way too many what ifs...

What did he want
Why did he target me
Why didn’t I give him my wallet (if that’s what he wanted)
What if I gave him what he wanted and he shot me anyway
What if I missed or it didn’t hurt him
What if he killed me

I could keep going.  

I talked about it to my boss a few days later, and he had the best advice I could’ve been given, so I’ll share it with you...

You walked away unharmed.  Not matter what could’ve, would’ve, should’ve you come up with, the bottom line is you did the right thing - you did whatever it took to get the hell out of there unharmed.  Don’t second guess that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 9, 2018)

Sorry you had to go through that. I’ve never had a physical or near-physical altercation that didn’t leave me feeling shaky. I even spent some time in my adolescence courting the adrenaline dump to get a bit more used to it. Still sucks. 

I’m glad your training came through. I have theories (unlikely to ever be subjected to real evidence) as to why sometimes people come out with one of the techniques or sequences they don’t like in training.


----------



## jobo (Mar 9, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> So I had a situation tonight which has shaken me up quite bad and people think this is fake or whatever as I've seen these types of threads been accused of it but whatever.
> 
> Tonight I was out for a meal with my kids at a small place nothing flashy just a cafe. But I went to the toilets and nt long after I went in another guy entered he was talkinh to himself and seemed edgy and jumpy. I went to leave and the guy got in front of me and asked if I had a lighter, I politely told him I didn't but he refused to move and got angry yelling and swearing at me saying I was a liar and out to get him, obviously the guy was off his head on drugs or something.
> 
> ...


you could had avoided that if you carried a lighter


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 9, 2018)

jobo said:


> you could had avoided that if you carried a lighter


I guess I could’ve too 

It’s been such a sh!tty day.  I needed that laugh.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 13, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think things like this are good to hear, especially for those who live in the U.S. where many people think the only answer is always "carry a gun"


Very few people, comparatively, who live in the U.S. and actually carry a gun think that the only answer is always carry a gun.  I know that this is the stereotype but that's all it is.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## pdg (Mar 13, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Very few people, comparatively, who live in the U.S. and actually carry a gun think that the only answer is always carry a gun.  I know that this is the stereotype but that's all it is.



There's enough of them (who are vocal enough about it - they may be few, but they're loud) for the stereotype to have a basis though.

Stereotypes don't magically appear, something has to start them and they must be reinforced - otherwise they never get to be stereotypes...


----------



## lklawson (Mar 13, 2018)

pdg said:


> Stereotypes don't magically appear, something has to start them and they must be reinforced - otherwise they never get to be stereotypes...


Often they're based on misinformation or misunderstandings of the actual circumstance by those on the outside, making the stereotype.  Or are you suggesting that "pollocks" really are generally stupid or that there is actual truth to the "red-headed temper" stereotype?  Or that grapplers are actually just gay men looking for an excuse to aggressively snuggle sweaty men?

It's the same here.  The stereotype is a myth, not based on reality but on misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

Do you want to know the *real* reason why stereotypes exist?  Because humans are afflicted by the desire to find an easy solution (often called a "soundbyte solution" today) and by the desire to find easily identifiable differences to differentiate between "us" and "them."

Much like human's desire to "see" patterns and things they recognize (like the "face on mars") and the desire to anthropomorphize everything from animals to rocks to frick'n "mother nature," forming stereotypes is, literally, just human nature, not representative of actual evidence or logic.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## CB Jones (Mar 13, 2018)

pdg said:


> There's enough of them (who are vocal enough about it - they may be few, but they're loud) for the stereotype to have a basis though.
> 
> Stereotypes don't magically appear, something has to start them and they must be reinforced - otherwise they never get to be stereotypes...



Typically it’s started by someone against that group in an attempt to discredit them though.  Hence why it’s sily to put much weight in stereotypes.

Gun owners aren’t some crazy wackos waving around pistols at the drop of a hat....that is just how people who oppose gun ownership want to portray them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 13, 2018)

pdg said:


> There's enough of them (who are vocal enough about it - they may be few, but they're loud) for the stereotype to have a basis though.
> 
> Stereotypes don't magically appear, something has to start them and they must be reinforced - otherwise they never get to be stereotypes...


Nearly all stereotypes have some basis. Confirmation bias still needs examples.


----------



## CB Jones (Mar 13, 2018)

lklawson said:


> truth to the "red-headed temper" stereotype?



Gingers are soulless though....that’s a fact. 

Disclaimer:  I am part ginger


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 13, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Very few people, comparatively, who live in the U.S. and actually carry a gun think that the only answer is always carry a gun.  I know that this is the stereotype but that's all it is.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


I don't think of it as a stereotype as much as it's the mindset that is being pushed in the U.S.  When I think of stereotypes I think of it as an incorrect understanding of someone or something.  In the case of guns, this mindset is actually being pushed for the purpose of getting people to believe that having a gun is the only solution and it's this reason why I don't think of it as a stereotype.


----------



## pdg (Mar 13, 2018)

lklawson said:


> just human nature, not representative of actual evidence or logic



I never said it was logical, just that initially it had a basis which was confirmed by whatever means.



CB Jones said:


> Typically it’s started by someone against that group in an attempt to discredit them though.  Hence why it’s sily to put much weight in stereotypes.
> 
> Gun owners aren’t some crazy wackos waving around pistols at the drop of a hat....that is just how people who oppose gun ownership want to portray them.



There's very few stereotypes I put any weight behind at all (pretty much only the ones about gingers and essex girls )

I shoot, and I think everyone should have some grounding in what a gun is and what it does - that doesn't necessarily make me any more (or less) 'wacko' than the cop who carries a gun for work.


----------



## pdg (Mar 13, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think of it as a stereotype as much as it's the mindset that is being pushed in the U.S.  When I think of stereotypes I think of it as an incorrect understanding of someone or something.  In the case of guns, this mindset is actually being pushed for the purpose of getting people to believe that having a gun is the only solution and it's this reason why I don't think of it as a stereotype.



It can also be a matter of perspective.

In the UK, we generally see the media reports of Americans saying having a gun will solve all the issues - so it becomes a reinforced stereotype.

Having no way to verify whether that's actually a widely held view or simply a widely publicised view doesn't help.


In the same way, there's the stereotype that Americans are generally fat, dressed in 80s pattern track suits, loud and gun obsessed. Because it's what is seen.

I used to work in a petrol (gas) station fairly near a tourist attraction, I remember quite a few that perfectly fit that description.

Stereotype reinforced.

The fact that I probably served hundreds of perfectly normal Americans who just didn't stand out is by-the-by, because I don't remember them.


----------



## CB Jones (Mar 13, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think of it as a stereotype as much as it's the mindset that is being pushed in the U.S.  When I think of stereotypes I think of it as an incorrect understanding of someone or something.  In the case of guns, this mindset is actually being pushed for the purpose of getting people to believe that having a gun is the only solution and it's this reason why I don't think of it as a stereotype.



Who is pushing the mindset that you need to have a gun for when someone grabs you by the wrist?

Who is claiming that is the only solution?


----------



## lklawson (Mar 13, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think of it as a stereotype as much as it's the mindset that is being pushed in the U.S.  When I think of stereotypes I think of it as an incorrect understanding of someone or something.  In the case of guns, this mindset is actually being pushed for the purpose of getting people to believe that having a gun is the only solution and it's this reason why I don't think of it as a stereotype.


No, it really isn't.  All of the available online instruction and every instructor is teaching that the firearm is a Deadly Force option and *ONLY* legally applicable and morally justified when faced with deadly force or serious bodily harm.

The idea that people carrying guns in the U.S. think that "guns are the only option" is a myth.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 13, 2018)

pdg said:


> In the UK, we generally see the media reports of Americans saying having a gun will solve all the issues - so it becomes a reinforced stereotype.


Stereo type is what you believe.  It's becomes different when a certain mindset is pushed.  For example, there is no organized push to "there's the stereotype that Americans are generally fat, dressed in 80s pattern track suits, loud and gun obsessed. Because it's what is seen."   You don't have spokes people pushing this narrative.  Gun Use and Gun Ownership is actually pushed on the national political scene in the U.S.  The last time I checked there wasn't an organization that pushes the mindset of Generally fat, dressed in 80's pattern track suit wearing Americans.

Once a stereotyped group starts pushing a narrative, it no longer becomes a stereotype.  It doesn't mean that what they are pushing is true in general, it just means that it's no longer a stereotype.  The intentional push of a mindset , belief of an organizations and some of it's members, is in itself verification of that belief.  It's no longer what I believe, but what the organization pushes and what the organization states they believe.



CB Jones said:


> Who is pushing the mindset that you need to have a gun for when someone grabs you by the wrist?


That's a specific and very few people push a specific.  The mindset that someone will most likely push is.  "What do you need to protect yourself from an attacker?"  You were attacked so you would fit in this category.  Martial artist push the narrative of martial arts skills,  Self-defense instructors push the narrative of self-defense skills, be it unarmed or armed defense.  Employeers have a different approach to this so they push the solution from the mindset of a corporation or business.  For example, a business or corporation are going to tell the employees not to fight back, but to give to the demands of the attacker.  

No one carries a concealed gun with the mindset that paper targets will suddenly attack them.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 13, 2018)

lklawson said:


> All of the available online instruction and every instructor is teaching that the firearm is a Deadly Force option and *ONLY* legally applicable and morally justified when faced with deadly force or serious bodily harm.


Not everyone takes these classes, just like everyone who gets into a fight don't take a self-defense class.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 13, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Not everyone takes these classes, just like everyone who gets into a fight don't take a self-defense class.


So what you're saying is that your stereotype is based on your own assumptions about what does and does not happen instead of any actual fact or examples.

Again, the stereotype is a myth.  People who carry guns in the U.S. do not have a "mindset" that the gun is the only option.  Even people who are "untrained" don't believe this.  No one does, because it is false on the face of it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## CB Jones (Mar 13, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> The mindset that someone will most likely push is. "What do you need to protect yourself from an attacker?" You were attacked so you would fit in this category.



You use what you need based on the specifics of the attack....whether that is verbal judo, hands on fighting, or lethal force......or perhaps all 3

Gun carriers push having all your options available instead of just some of them.


----------



## pdg (Mar 13, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Stereo type is what you believe



Whether I choose to believe a stereotype or not doesn't qualify it as a stereotype nor disqualify it from that label.

I happen to have it on excellent authority that not all Americans are overweight, and that other types of clothing are sold in great numbers.

So, I don't believe it, but it's still a stereotype.

Just like the stereotype that all Australians drink fosters and wear those hats with the corks hanging off them.

My school french teacher was Australian, and I never once saw her hat nor her tinny...

It's still a stereotype though.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 13, 2018)

lklawson said:


> So what you're saying is that your stereotype is based on your own assumptions about what does and does not happen instead of any actual fact or examples.


What I'm saying is that stereotypes are no longer stereotypes, once it's pushed through organized efforts. Once an organization starts pushing the idea or belief becomes a message. It doesn't matter if the message is true or false.  Because it's the message the organization want others to believe.



lklawson said:


> People who carry guns in the U.S. do not have a "mindset" that the gun is the only option.


 This is not a true statement.  So you can tell me that 100% of the people who carry guns in the U.S. believes this?



CB Jones said:


> Gun carriers push having all your options available instead of just some of them.


Not all of them think this, which is why we have gun related crimes and killers. 



pdg said:


> I happen to have it on excellent authority that not all Americans are overweight, and that other types of clothing are sold in great numbers.


  I happen to have it on excellent authority that many Americans are overweight, 
This is true and not a stereotype.   The only word I changed was All to Many.  
Here are the stats:
Source: Overweight & Obesity Statistics | NIDDK
*Fast Facts*
According to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2013–20142,3,4,5


More than 1 in 3 adults were considered to be overweight.
More than 2 in 3 adults were considered to be overweight or have obesity.
More than 1 in 3 adults were considered to have obesity.
About 1 in 13 adults were considered to have extreme obesity.
About 1 in 6 children and adolescents ages 2 to 19 were considered to have obesity.

Does this mean that there aren't Americans who are fit and not overweight.  Nope.  But my statement never make that claim.   The only thing that would make your statement a stereotype is the use of ALL.

The only thing that would turn your stereotype into a Message.  Is if you created an organization that pushed and marketed to the public that "I happen to have it on excellent authority that not all Americans are overweight, and that other types of clothing are sold in great numbers."


----------



## pdg (Mar 13, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> The only thing that would turn your stereotype into a Message. Is if you created an organization that pushed and marketed to the public that "I happen to have it on excellent authority that not all Americans are overweight, and that other types of clothing are sold in great numbers".



But, that statement isn't a stereotype whether it's pushed as a message or not.

It's simply a fact, just like saying "some Americans are fat" and like saying "some Brits wear a monocle". Some are and some do. Fact, not stereotype.



JowGaWolf said:


> What I'm saying is that stereotypes are no longer stereotypes, once it's pushed through organized efforts. Once an organization starts pushing the idea or belief becomes a message. It doesn't matter if the message is true or false. Because it's the message the organization want others to believe.



I somewhat agree with that, with caveats.

Something can start as a stereotype and become a message.

But, it can remain a stereotype at the same time too.

Using the same scenario, I can cite the stereotype "generally, Americans think carrying a gun is the best form of self defence". I can then use the message that an organisation promotes that idea to support that stereotype.

Note that it's still a stereotype even though it didn't use "all", and it's not changed by a message or mindset being pushed.

However, if such a campaign is successful and it convinces the majority of Americans to believe it, the stereotype of 'generally' ceases to be a stereotype and becomes a fact.

Not until that point though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 13, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I happen to have it on excellent authority that many Americans are overweight,
> This is true and not a stereotype.


The stereotype is that Americans are fat (not that _some_ Americans are fat). That's how stereotypes work - they are gross overgeneralizations, usually (not in this case) based on a broad overgeneralization of usually negative traits.


----------



## pdg (Mar 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The stereotype is that Americans are fat (not that _some_ Americans are fat). That's how stereotypes work - they are gross overgeneralizations, usually (not in this case) based on a broad overgeneralization of usually negative traits.



Sweeping generalisations are by far the best and most entertaining kind


----------



## CB Jones (Mar 13, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Not all of them think this, which is why we have gun related crimes and killers.



What organization of criminals and killers is pushing the message that guns are the solution to all problems?

The American Den Of Thieves Society?

The Killer and  Murders Guild?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 13, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Very few people, comparatively, who live in the U.S. and actually carry a gun think that the only answer is always carry a gun.  I know that this is the stereotype but that's all it is.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Yet the phase God created man and Colt made them equal gets used enough.

Talking to American gun owners they want their cake and eat it too.

So I will hear it is only a tool when the reliance on guns to function is mentioned.

And the horror that I can't stop ninja's raping my children when I say I don't carry one.

And so will just flip from one end to the other depending on what they think makes them seem more reasonable at the time.


----------



## pdg (Mar 13, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yet the phase God created man and Colt made them equal gets used enough



Unfortunately, that's false on two counts 

Skip the first one...

Give two people guns, one will be faster and better than the other - there's no equalisation.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 13, 2018)

pdg said:


> Unfortunately, that's false on two counts
> 
> Skip the first one...
> 
> Give two people guns, one will be faster and better than the other - there's no equalisation.



When you look at defensive gun and compare how much time is spent using it to feel good. And how much time is used to kill baby rapers.

You can get a gist of where the focus of gun carry is.


----------



## pdg (Mar 13, 2018)

drop bear said:


> When you look at defensive gun and compare how much time is spent using it to feel good. And how much time is used to kill baby rapers.
> 
> You can get a gist of where the focus of gun carry is.



I think I can see what you mean.

It's like a security blanket?

But whatever the colt marketeers meant, it's never about equalisation, it's about gaining an advantage...


----------



## Anarax (Mar 13, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Often they're based on misinformation or misunderstandings of the actual circumstance by those on the outside, making the stereotype.  Or are you suggesting that "pollocks" really are generally stupid or that there is actual truth to the "red-headed temper" stereotype?  Or that grapplers are actually just gay men looking for an excuse to aggressively snuggle sweaty men?
> 
> It's the same here.  The stereotype is a myth, not based on reality but on misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
> 
> ...



I agree with you how stereotypes are usually ignorant and are based off of misinformation/misunderstanding. The only thing I would add about stereotyping is what the context is and how people act on them. I'm more so referring to cultural differences and genetic differences. For example; a lot of Japanese people I've met are very polite and well-mannered. Japanese culture places tremendous emphasis on manners and etiquette. That's not based off of misinformation nor ignorance, it's just acknowledging cultural differences.

Another example is certain ethnicities age better than others. Not saying ethnicity is the end all and be all of aging, just that certain ones age better than others. Neither of the examples I've given should be considered offensive, but there are many different examples that are. I personally don't see a problem acknowledging certain differences between races/cultures/ethnicities. It's only when stereotypes become bigoted are they a problem.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The stereotype is that Americans are fat (not that _some_ Americans are fat). That's how stereotypes work - they are gross overgeneralizations, usually (not in this case) based on a broad overgeneralization of usually negative traits.


 I understand this which is why I try to be mindful to use words like Some or Many.


----------



## CB Jones (Mar 13, 2018)

pdg said:


> I think I can see what you mean.
> 
> It's like a security blanket?
> 
> But whatever the colt marketeers meant, it's never about equalisation, it's about gaining an advantage...



Its about having the tools needed to protect yourself when your life is endangered.  When the guy broke into my cousins house her gun wasn't a safety blanket...it was a tool to protect herself and her baby.


----------



## pdg (Mar 13, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Its about having the tools needed to protect yourself when your life is endangered.  When the guy broke into my cousins house her gun wasn't a safety blanket...it was a tool to protect herself and her baby.



Nor was she walking around with it on her hip under the mistaken belief it somehow made her invincible - well, I assume not anyway...

Because, y'know, that's the stereotype.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 13, 2018)

I wanted to show this video as a way to highlight how an implied message is pushed and how an organization can take the personal beliefs and perspective that a group may have and then turn those beliefs and perceptions into a message.





Here's another one. If you wake up and someone suffocating you, then a gun will probably not be an option at that point either unless it's under your pillow or in your hand. 










There are many more ads like this.  The one thing that they have in common is that these ads play on the some of the misconceptions and inaccurate information that people may have.  For example, the guy at the end speaks about problems that are going on in society as if the government isn't trying to address the problem.  He even says,  "if the politicians are using the carnage that they refuse to stop."  This is the narrative that the organizations pushes.  They push this narrative not because the organization believes it, they push it because they know there are people in their market believes it.  To them it's a business decision.

He says that what is allowed to happened in the inner city is an absolute disgrace.  Then he talks about if the same happens in the politicians neighborhoods then they would be talking about real solutions. This plays on peoples ignorance and or quick judgement.  By ignorance I mean the person does not have the knowledge.  It causes people to grasp onto their emotions instead of thinking if the message is true are not.  Here's the reality.

Drugs infect the well to do neighborhoods.  Mass school shootings happen in non-inner city schools.  Mass killings often don't happen in the inner cities.  The inner city has a problem with the frequency of shooting and not so much with 15 people getting shot on the same day at the same location.  What also isn't mention is that gun control isn't directed at law abiding citizens.  It's directed at criminals.  It's no different than laws against murder or drunk driving. We don't see the same argument (at least I don't) that drunk driving laws some how attacks law abiding drivers.  The reason you don't hear these is because they are pushing the message that will be beneficial to their bottom line.

In this case the example is NRA, but "pushing the message" is not an NRA thing.  It's a business thing. It's not a stereotype thing it's a marketing thing.  The stereotype is where people's beliefs are.  The message plays off of those stereo types that people have.   The NRA plays off both side, but for them it's just a message to help there business be more successful.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 13, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Its about having the tools needed to protect yourself when your life is endangered.  When the guy broke into my cousins house her gun wasn't a safety blanket...it was a tool to protect herself and her baby.



Except if you are carrying a gun because that one time your cousin got broken into. 

It is a safety blanket.

I mean I had a friend who had a tree drop on his head. I don't wear a helmet.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 13, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I wanted to show this video as a way to highlight how an implied message is pushed and how an organization can take the personal beliefs and perspective that a group may have and then turn those beliefs and perceptions into a message.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I read this on an American pro gun forum. The best self defence is moving to somewhere where there is less crime.


----------



## pdg (Mar 13, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> What also isn't mention is that gun control isn't directed at law abiding citizens. It's directed at criminals. It's no different than laws against murder or drunk driving.



I disagree a bit with that.

I was under the impression that in most areas in the US you weren't allowed to own a gun if you had a criminal record - is that wrong, a bit wrong or slightly misinformed?

In any case, murder being illegal targets everyone. The act itself makes you a criminal whether you were of a criminal mindset before or not. Ditto drink driving.

It's the likelihood of getting caught and punished that's the deterrent, in the hope it keeps people on the right side of the law.

With gun control, how do you restrict said control to existing criminals? How do you identify who is a criminal if they have no record but are only obtaining a gun in order to carry out a criminal activity?

There's a saying, "if you criminalise guns, only criminals have guns".

Following that, it's self fulfilling - you've made having a gun illegal, so anyone with a gun is breaking the law and is automatically a criminal irrespective of their intent.

Over here, guns are very restricted with handguns being extremely difficult to get licenced - I couldn't qualify because I don't have "good reason".

I could source one if I wanted though. Say I wanted one because I thought it was pretty and never intended to use or even load it - getting it would instantly make me a criminal...


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 13, 2018)

pdg said:


> There's a saying, "if you criminalise guns, only criminals have guns".


This is not a true statement.  In the U.S. you cannot make owning a gun a crime because it is protected as a right defined by the Constitution.  You would have to have a constitutional change in order to ban all guns, and I can tell you that most people don't want that unless they are a pacifist.

Even congress cannot make a law banning all guns.  They would have to make a change to the constitution before it even becomes possible and as far as I know,  not a single politician has ever pushed a constitutional amendment to outlaw all guns.  Outlawing all guns not only affects individuals but it also affects the hunting industry, which in turn affects the nature conservation efforts.  

So to say "If you criminalize guns, only criminals have guns." is a generalized statement that makes the assumption that all guns are criminalized.    If you criminalized, say shot guns, then people would still be able to buy hand guns, and as such that statement still wouldn't be true.  

See it's stuff like that saying that I will often refer to as a messages that are pushed, not because it true or not, but because they know people have this misconception.  So instead of explaining it just like I did, they will use statements like this to play off the fears and the ignorance and or the misinformation that others may have. Think of it this way.  If I can spark an emotional response in you, then you are less likely to think it out.   This is true to every human that I know of including me.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 13, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I read this on an American pro gun forum. The best self defence is moving to somewhere where there is less crime.


I do that and have a dog that can freak out about things I'm unaware of.  Entertaining story.   We had a dog that didn't like any strangers in the yard. She was actually a really good guard dog with the exception that she was prone to bite the neighbor's kids, and there was a time where she slipped by the door and went after the UPS guy.  But anyway.  We had no problem when we had her.  Houses in the same neighborhood experienced break ends.  We got rid of the dog,  a few months later  we got robbed.  They stole some iron furniture that was outside.  The furniture was about 200 years old.  Gone, which is a shame.  So we got another dog. Now we don't have those problems again.

Nothing beats a good dog as an early alert system.  A stray pit bull took over my yard one day and people  were scared to walk by.  One of my neighbors got into his car just to ask me if that was my dog.  I don't blame him, because that dog scared to crap out of me.  I just had to hold the fear in lol.   Other than that dog trying to stare me down in my own yard, it would have been a cool pet to have, just not that one.lol

This is the type of dog that took over my yard.  Minus the play.  He just looked serious.  lol


----------



## pdg (Mar 14, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is not a true statement.  In the U.S. you cannot make owning a gun a crime because it is protected as a right defined by the Constitution.  You would have to have a constitutional change in order to ban all guns, and I can tell you that most people don't want that unless they are a pacifist.
> 
> Even congress cannot make a law banning all guns.  They would have to make a change to the constitution before it even becomes possible and as far as I know,  not a single politician has ever pushed a constitutional amendment to outlaw all guns.  Outlawing all guns not only affects individuals but it also affects the hunting industry, which in turn affects the nature conservation efforts.
> 
> ...



Ok, modify it slightly - if you criminalise *guns then only criminals have *guns.

In the same way, once it was legal to drive drunk - criminalising drink driving made all drink drivers criminals.


I'll repeat and reword my question...

How does any form of gun control only target criminals?

Firstly, define criminal - someone who has already done something illegal? In at least a few shootings, the perpetrator had not physically done (or at least been caught for doing) anything illegal to make them an existing criminal.

I have to agree with some of the pro-gun propaganda I've seen on an interpretive level. It's stated as a right, introducing licencing or any other form of control impinges upon that right.

Anyone introducing control of a certain category of arms, say EBRs, is playing with interpretation.


----------



## pdg (Mar 14, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> She was actually a really good guard dog with the exception that she was prone to bite the neighbor's kids



Playful nip or chase and bite as they walked past your property (or were in their own)?

If my neighbour's dog, unprovoked, bit my kids it wouldn't finish the day - same goes for my own dogs actually.


----------



## Buka (Mar 14, 2018)

One must understand what gun ownership in The United States is. It's BIG F'kn Business.
Big business rules America, baby.

Stereotypes were created for a necessary anthropological need of common tribal bonding.....for telling jokes.

Speaking of stereotypes, you're probably not aware of the one depicting Martial Artists who never actually trained together, arguing about......_.everything!_


----------



## lklawson (Mar 14, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> What I'm saying is that stereotypes are no longer stereotypes, once it's pushed through organized efforts. Once an organization starts pushing the idea or belief becomes a message. It doesn't matter if the message is true or false.  Because it's the message the organization want others to believe.


So who do you think is pushing this stereotype-that-no-longer-is?  Is it the people carrying guns for self defense or is it some other person or group?

And, for the record, I find your proposition that "stereotypes are no longer stereotypes, once it's pushed through organized efforts" to be a bit, um, labored.



> This is not a true statement.  So you can tell me that 100% of the people who carry guns in the U.S. believes this?


OK.  Give me an example.  What's the person's name?  What did he say and what was the context?

So far, I've seen lots of claims that "people carrying guns for self defense in the U.S." think this morph into "some people carrying guns for self defense in the U.S." which morphed into "I believe some people carrying guns for self defense in the U.S."  But I haven't seen any actual references or evidence.  Just some examples of "there exist some poorly dressed fat people so my supposition must be true."



> Not all of them think this, which is why we have gun related crimes and killers.


Which has nothing to do with people in the U.S. who carry for self defense, which is what this thread is about and what the gun question was in reference to: Self Defense.



> I happen to have it on excellent authority that many Americans are overweight,
> This is true and not a stereotype.   The only word I changed was All to Many.
> Here are the stats:
> Source: Overweight & Obesity Statistics | NIDDK
> ...


That's nice.  It's also estimated that 2-6% of the U.S. has red hair.  Which proves nothing about the proffered stereotype of U.S. self defense gun carriers supposed believe that the gun is "the only option."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Mar 14, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yet the phase God created man and Colt made them equal gets used enough.
> 
> Talking to American gun owners they want their cake and eat it too.
> 
> ...


Can you rephrase that as a logical, coherent question or statement with less babble?


----------



## lklawson (Mar 14, 2018)

pdg said:


> Unfortunately, that's false on two counts
> 
> Skip the first one...
> 
> Give two people guns, one will be faster and better than the other - there's no equalisation.


The intention of the statement is to simplify the concept of Disparity of Force and Force Multipliers.  The concept of Disparity of Force, a general legal concept in the U.S., is that people are physically unequal.  The classic example is a 90 pound aged grandmother matched against a 300 pound muscle-bound athlete or one person against 2 or more.  Many times the U.S. legal system considers these sort of Disparity of Force attack situations to be the equivalent of Deadly Force threats.  

Weapons are considered Force Multipliers.  A weapon, any weapon, will allow someone to project more force using it than bare handed; someone with a stick or a rock will be able to inflict more damage and injury, for good or ill, than they would be able to do bare-handed.  The firearm is generally considered the current apex of personal carry weapons; able to project the most force with the least training and physical requirements of the user.  

Thus a gun is the most efficient and effective force multiplier in situations where Deadly Force is justified because of Disparity of Force.  The phrase "God mad man, Col. Colt made him equal" is nothing more than shorthand for that.  It means that a smaller, weaker, frailer person with a gun will be able to protect themselves from attack by a stronger, larger person, or persons.  That's all.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Mar 14, 2018)

pdg said:


> I think I can see what you mean.
> 
> It's like a security blanket?


Either-or fallacy.  The tool can be both a tool for protection & self defense and also a tool for entertainment and enjoyment.  Much in the same way "traditional" martial arts can be studied for self defense, entertainment, health, social reasons, etc.



> But whatever the colt marketeers meant, it's never about equalisation, it's about gaining an advantage...


Nah.  That's not right.  This is generally attributed as an old West adage but may not predate the 20th Century (research is sketchy).  I don't recall it being a Colt invented marketing slogan.  It appears in various statements such as "Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal" and others which include "small, large" and "men and women."  But it's a phrase about Self Defense and Disparity of Force.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Mar 14, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I wanted to show this video as a way to highlight how an implied message is pushed and how an organization can take the personal beliefs and perspective that a group may have and then turn those beliefs and perceptions into a message.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What you are not seeing is a lot of subtext about policies in inner-city areas related to how crime and criminals are treated.  Much of it surrounds the "revolving door of justice" conversation but this is a seriously huge topic, best covered in multiple books, classes, or at least weekend-long seminars.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Mar 14, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Except if you are carrying a gun because that one time your cousin got broken into.
> 
> It is a safety blanket.
> 
> I mean I had a friend who had a tree drop on his head. I don't wear a helmet.


Which is why you don't have fire insurance or a fire extinguisher.


----------



## pdg (Mar 14, 2018)

lklawson said:


> The intention of the statement is to simplify the concept of Disparity of Force and Force Multipliers. The concept of Disparity of Force, a general legal concept in the U.S., is that people are physically unequal. The classic example is a 90 pound aged grandmother matched against a 300 pound muscle-bound athlete or one person against 2 or more. Many times the U.S. legal system considers these sort of Disparity of Force attack situations to be the equivalent of Deadly Force threats.



But however you dress it, it's not about equalisation.

In a punching match, the disparity of force is in favour of the athlete, not the granny - unfair on granny?

Giving granny a gun doesn't equalise the situation, it shifts the disparity of force to be in her favour instead - unfair on the athlete?



As an aside - it's somewhat intriguing how a thread started as "I was pleasantly surprised I instinctively used my training" turned into a gun suitability debate...


----------



## lklawson (Mar 14, 2018)

pdg said:


> I disagree a bit with that.
> 
> I was under the impression that in most areas in the US you weren't allowed to own a gun if you had a criminal record - is that wrong, a bit wrong or slightly misinformed?


It is illegal to commit crime.  Circular but true.  It is illegal to use a firearm, or any weapon, in the commission of a crime.  For illogical reasons using a firearm in the commission of a crime is generally treated as a vastly worse crime.  If you murdered someone with poison, you get a few charges like murder, and assault.  If you murder someone with a gun, you also get "up charged" with gun specific crimes along with your existing murder &tc. charges.



> It's the likelihood of getting caught and punished that's the deterrent, in the hope it keeps people on the right side of the law.


Not in the U.S.  Here the "revolving door of justice" is very often at work.  The law abiding are worried that a criminal charge will render it so they lose their job, can't get credit, and can't support themselves and their family.  A criminal who's been in and out of prison since they gained the age of majority (or before) another charge is not a big deal.  Often it's considered a badge of honor or earing points.



> With gun control, how do you restrict said control to existing criminals?


That's the point.  Law abiding folks follow the law, by definition.  Criminals don't care about the law and are going to flout it anyway.



> How do you identify who is a criminal if they have no record but are only obtaining a gun in order to carry out a criminal activity?


In the U.S. there is usually a progression of the criminal starting off with petty crimes which lead to more serious crimes of violence which eventually leads to armed crimes.  That is the pattern.  Those people are bared from legal possession and will find a gun either by black market or straw purchase.



> There's a saying, "if you criminalise guns, only criminals have guns".
> 
> Following that, it's self fulfilling - you've made having a gun illegal, so anyone with a gun is breaking the law and is automatically a criminal irrespective of their intent.


Nah.  That's a misunderstanding of the phrase.  The phrase means that criminals, by definition, break the law and are undeterred by laws making their possession of guns illegal.  We see this all the time in the U.S.  It's direct evidence that gun control laws which claim to reduce or prevent crime are a fantasy.



> I could source one if I wanted though. Say I wanted one because I thought it was pretty and never intended to use or even load it - getting it would instantly make me a criminal...


And you won't.  Because you're not a criminal.  The criminal, on the other hand, has no compunction.  So how does the law preventing you from having a gun but not effectively preventing the criminal make you any safer?  Or is it just a "security blanket" (to repeat a term that has been used in this thread)?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Mar 14, 2018)

pdg said:


> As an aside - it's somewhat intriguing how a thread started as "I was pleasantly surprised I instinctively used my training" turned into a gun suitability debate...


Blame JowGaWolf who wrote, "By the way thanks for sharing this experience. I think things like this are good to hear, especially for those who live in the U.S. where many people think the only answer is always .carry a gun'."

It's untrue on the face.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 14, 2018)

I'm glad your okay and that your training served you well!


----------



## pdg (Mar 14, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Everything in this post



If you want me to reply to each point I will, but I'll give you a generalised overview of my opinion first 

There are two ways to get rid of gun crime:

Make anything done with a gun legal

Get rid of all guns completely and utterly remove any access

Both options are a bit silly and not really practical.

I firmly believe that any gun (or any weapon) control measures only affect law abiding people.

I used to shoot target pistol a bit, but the tightening of restrictions means that's no longer possible in this country. I never used a pistol (or any other weapon) in an unlawful manner, nor did any of the targeteers I knew - but we were no longer able to pursue our interest. It really didn't affect the black market in the slightest though...

We've never really had the same level of gun related criminal activity here, but personally I don't put that down to laws.

As for the security blanket version - if we developed the situation where guns were routinely used in criminal activity, I would happily criminalise myself by obtaining one... I still wouldn't be a pre-existing criminal, I still wouldn't be intending to take it out and use it, but I would be committing a criminal act.

In essence, I don't see 'guns' as the problem, they're just a tool. Sat on a table they are no more dangerous than a banana.

The problem is societal - even if you achieved the fantasy I alluded to of uninventing guns, people would still kill people - they'd use arrows, or knives, or hammers, or sticks.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 14, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Can you rephrase that as a logical, coherent question or statement with less babble?



It was understood fine.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 14, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Which is why you don't have fire insurance or a fire extinguisher.



Like a fire extinguisher in their house?

I don't know anyone who has one.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 14, 2018)

lklawson said:


> So who do you think is pushing this stereotype-that-no-longer-is? Is it the people carrying guns for self defense or is it some other person or group?


The NRA pushes a lot of messages for gun ownership and they play on the stereotypes that they their market believes. They push (markets) these messages to their target market because it increases sales. 



lklawson said:


> And, for the record, I find your proposition that "stereotypes are no longer stereotypes, once it's pushed through organized efforts" to be a bit, um, labored.


 *Simply put.  If an organization is pushing (marketing) a stereotype it stops being a stereotype and it becomes a message*. 

There's nothing labored about It only sounds labored because I'm spending time trying to communicate to you in a way that you will understand what I'm saying.  I don't care if you believe this or not.  But I do care if you understand what I'm saying vs you thinking that I'm saying something that I'm not.



pdg said:


> In the same way, once it was legal to drive drunk - criminalising drink driving made all drink drivers criminals.


But it did not make all people who drink alcohol or get drunk criminals.  The law only made the act of driving drunk illegal.  As long as you don't drive drunk then you can't be arrested for being drunk.  If you drive drunk then yes this law will target you as it should.



lklawson said:


> So far, I've seen lots of claims that "people carrying guns for self defense in the U.S." think this morph into "some people carrying guns for self defense in the U.S." which morphed into "I believe some people carrying guns for self defense in the U.S."


Below is my original statement.  My statement didn't morph.  Note where I say.  "Where* many people* think the only answer is always "carry a gun""  Many does not mean all.  It also doesn't imply that there aren't people who think differently.


JowGaWolf said:


> I think things like this are good to hear, especially for those who live in the U.S. where many people think the only answer is always "carry a gun"



Instead of you trying to understand what I was saying. You instantly jumped on the defense.  These are your own words "Very few people, comparatively, who live in the U.S. and actually carry a gun think that the only answer is always carry a gun."  I can actually prove that more than a "Very few people" believe that the gun was the only solution by pulling up gun violence statistics, which is full of people who used a gun in a criminal act to settle an argument, to prove a point, to gain fame, to take from others, or to get rid of people they don't like.   Not only can I show you stats about this, I can actually show you a history of this.



lklawson said:


> Blame JowGaWolf who wrote, "By the way thanks for sharing this experience. I think things like this are good to hear, especially for those who live in the U.S. where many people think the only answer is always .carry a gun'."
> 
> It's untrue on the face.


 Show me how it's not true.  Again please note.  I stated MANY and not ALL.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 14, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Blame JowGaWolf who wrote,


lol.. you could have just ignored what I stated and I would have said nothing more.


----------



## pdg (Mar 14, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> lol.. you could have just ignored what I stated and I would have said nothing more.



But where's the fun in that?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 14, 2018)

pdg said:


> But where's the fun in that?


I got nothing...lol.  I don't even know how to respond lol.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 15, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> The NRA pushes a lot of messages for gun ownership and they play on the stereotypes that they their market believes. They push (markets) these messages to their target market because it increases sales.


Increase sales?  No.  That's not the point or goal of the NRA.



> *Simply put.  If an organization is pushing (marketing) a stereotype it stops being a stereotype and it becomes a message*.
> 
> There's nothing labored about It only sounds labored because I'm spending time trying to communicate to you in a way that you will understand what I'm saying.  I don't care if you believe this or not.  But I do care if you understand what I'm saying vs you thinking that I'm saying something that I'm not.


I understand your claim about the way you feel a stereotype becomes a message.  I disagree with it and don't believe that it is a very strongly supported proposition.



> Below is my original statement.  My statement didn't morph.  Note where I say.  "Where* many people* think the only answer is always "carry a gun""  Many does not mean all.  It also doesn't imply that there aren't people who think differently.


And I have repeatedly contested that claim.  There are not "many people" who think this.  There are somewhere between 110 million and 160-ish million gun owners in the U.S.  If you could find the ridiculously over-stated number of even 10,000 people who believe as you claim, that would still only be 0.000090%; a statistically insignificant number which does not even reach the level of statistical noise.  The thesis that there are "many people" who think that "the only answer is carry a gun" is simply wrong and disproved by the numbers.  This is because U.S. "gun culture" is, by and large, very concerned with safe ownership, use, and storage; a message driven home repeatedly by the NRA which includes safety in every one of its courses, features safety online in its web based educational material, and funds and promotes the Eddie Eagle safety program for children.

You seem like a nice, generally thoughtful, guy, but the thesis is just wrong and, again, based on stereotype, not on reality.




> Instead of you trying to understand what I was saying. You instantly jumped on the defense.


Note quite.  I corrected you.  Your supposition is demonstrably wrong.  I know that no one likes to hear this or be corrected, but your statement is wrong.



> These are your own words "Very few people, comparatively, who live in the U.S. and actually carry a gun think that the only answer is always carry a gun."  I can actually prove that more than a "Very few people" believe that the gun was the only solution by pulling up gun violence statistics, which is full of people who used a gun in a criminal act to settle an argument, to prove a point, to gain fame, to take from others, or to get rid of people they don't like.   Not only can I show you stats about this, I can actually show you a history of this.


Horsefeathers.  First, you make a false equivalency of "gun crime" and *criminal actions* to that of people who are carrying a gun for self defense.  As a reminder, legal self defense is what this thread started with and what your initial response was clearly responding to, *not* criminal actions such as robbery and murder.  I like you but you can't get away with that.  Second, there are, at the lowest under-estimated number, at least 108 million legal gun owners and somewhere around 300 million guns, the vast majority of which are in the hands of those legal gun owners.  This number dwarfs to the point of humor the number of times where an otherwise law-abiding gun owner carrying a gun for self defense misuses the firearm in cases where Deadly Force would not be justified.   There are between 70,000 and 2 million Defensive Gun Uses (DGU's) per year depending on which stat you prefer (low-ball under-reported or high end estimate).  How many cases per year are prosecuted for misuse of the gun by a licensed carry?  So few that they don't even show up in national statistics.  The closest you can get is Licensed carriers are convicted of Felonies at a rate of about 1/6th that of even "trained" Police Officers in the U.S.

I'm sorry but, again, your claim is just not true.



> Show me how it's not true.


Happy to help.  



> Again please note.  I stated MANY and not ALL.


And again, the term "many" is just wrong.  If I concede that there may be "some" the actual percentage is less than statistically insignificant.  It's just not a problem at all.  It's a stereotype based on fear, not reality.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Mar 15, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> lol.. you could have just ignored what I stated and I would have said nothing more.


I didn't want such a dramatically inaccurate statement to be left unchallenged.  It has even less basis in fact that the, also false, stereotype that all inner-city black men in the U.S. are gang-bangers.  That stereotype is wrong and so is the stereotype that "many" people in the U.S. who carry a gun for self defense think that it is the only option.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Mar 15, 2018)

drop bear said:


> It was understood fine.


So that would be a "No, I can't rephrase that as a logical, coherent question or statement with less babble."

OK.  It was worth a shot anyway.


----------



## pdg (Mar 15, 2018)

lklawson said:


> I didn't want such a dramatically inaccurate statement to be left unchallenged.  It has even less basis in fact that the, also false, stereotype that all inner-city black men in the U.S. are gang-bangers.  That stereotype is wrong and so is the stereotype that "many" people in the U.S. who carry a gun for self defense think that it is the only option.



I've sort of said it already, but...

The thing with stereotypes is they always have a basis in fact, and they always have to be reinforced (usually by the media) - otherwise they'll never get to be a stereotype.

If one American in 1932 said "you need a gun to defend yourself" it wouldn't be a stereotype.

But, throughout recent history there's been enough people say it loud enough that it's become part of the image.

Every time there's a shooting you'll get a relative on the news hourly shouting "_everyone_ is wrong, guns aren't the answer" or similar, paired with some sort of official saying "this could have been avoided if the security guard/teacher/binman/tour guide had a gun".

So, stereotype reinforcement by soundbite reporting. It's human nature that loudest=most.

For the black gangs, there are some. They get reported. At least a few times a year somebody's grandmother is on the news screaming "someone needs to stop all our kids joining gangs", usually with a group of gang member looking youths on every corner for 10 miles in the background. Then it's followed up by a report on how you're statistically 1,243 times more likely to be involved in gang activity if you're an inner city African American.

What never gets reported (or noticed) is the massively higher number of black people (and all other ethnic groups) going to work, supporting their families, meeting their friends for a drink and going home quietly - the ones who know who their father is and how many kids they've got.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 15, 2018)

pdg said:


> I've sort of said it already, but...
> 
> The thing with stereotypes is they always have a basis in fact, and they always have to be reinforced (usually by the media) - otherwise they'll never get to be a stereotype.
> 
> ...


That's not an example, in either case, of the suggested stereotype.  

There is a set of Self Defense scenarios which include a self defense person carrying a gun which "other than gun" is an option.
There is a subset of that set in which only a gun is the most appropriate and effective response.

The claim, and the stereotype is that there are "many" law abiding people who carry a gun for self defense which conflate the second for the first.

Legally and morally, the difference is in justifiable use of deadly force.  In the case you present of a "shooting" of apparently an unarmed person then, yes, there was deadly force being used on innocent parties.  In that case deadly force is both a legally and morally justifiable response and, yes, a gun is the most effective and efficient small arm available for projecting deadly force as a defensive response to deadly force.

Sorry, but the stereotype is not justified, certainly not by the scenario you are suggesting.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## pdg (Mar 15, 2018)

lklawson said:


> That's not an example, in either case, of the suggested stereotype.
> 
> There is a set of Self Defense scenarios which include a self defense person carrying a gun which "other than gun" is an option.
> There is a subset of that set in which only a gun is the most appropriate and effective response.
> ...



You're trying to apply logic and real substantiated justification to a stereotype.

Unfortunately, you can't.

I'm not trying to justify the stereotype at all - just explaining how, as an outsider to the country, these stereotypes have developed here.

It matters not a jot whether a person is correct in shooting someone who is trying to shoot them - that's entirely irrelevant. Legality and morality have no place in this context.

What 'matters' is that the reporting essentially gives the impression that 'most' Americans are of the opinion "someone might try to hurt me, better get a gun". The same style of reporting suggests that black males are probably gang members, and reinforce that by only showing the family of black male gang members or said members themselves.

So, the stereotype is set and reinforced.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 15, 2018)

pdg said:


> You're trying to apply logic and real substantiated justification to a stereotype.
> 
> Unfortunately, you can't.
> 
> ...


Fair enough.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## AngryHobbit (Mar 15, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> So I had a situation tonight which has shaken me up quite bad and people think this is fake or whatever as I've seen these types of threads been accused of it but whatever.
> 
> Tonight I was out for a meal with my kids at a small place nothing flashy just a cafe. But I went to the toilets and nt long after I went in another guy entered he was talkinh to himself and seemed edgy and jumpy. I went to leave and the guy got in front of me and asked if I had a lighter, I politely told him I didn't but he refused to move and got angry yelling and swearing at me saying I was a liar and out to get him, obviously the guy was off his head on drugs or something.
> 
> ...


So sorry you had to go through something like that. In retrospect, it might seem odd your body and mind picked out a technique you normally wouldn't have thought of. But the good thing is - they picked something. And it worked. Kudos to you - you didn't freeze up, you managed to disable the jerk successfully. Your kids should be so proud of you.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 15, 2018)

lklawson said:


> So that would be a "No, I can't rephrase that as a logical, coherent question or statement with less babble."
> 
> OK.  It was worth a shot anyway.



It was more that everyone else got it. So therefore it was logical and coherent.

The problem was you.

By the way do you conceal carry or open carry your fire extinguisher?


----------



## CB Jones (Mar 15, 2018)

drop bear said:


> It was more that everyone else got it. So therefore it was logical and coherent.
> 
> The problem was you.
> 
> By the way do you conceal carry or open carry your fire extinguisher?



What color paint chips did you prefer when you were younger?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 15, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> What color paint chips did you prefer when you were younger?



No seriously a gun is just like a fire extinguisher or insurance. You carry a fire extinguisher around. Support the local National Extinguisher Association. Get accreditation in extinguisher use. Go to the range and fight fires on the weekend. Defend extinguisher rights when ever possible. Lobby the government about pro extinguisher issues. Have threads about the best extinguisher holster to use. Have massive arguments arguments about how to protect your extinguisher should someone try to wrestle it off you.

I mean when you guys put it that way. It doesn't sound crazy at all.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 15, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Increase sales? No. That's not the point or goal of the NRA.


 I never said that it was their point or goal.  To increase sales.  Here is my statement.   
"The NRA pushes a lot of messages for gun ownership and they play on the stereotypes that they their market believes. They push (markets) these messages to their target market because it increases sales."
Where in this statement did I say anything about the points or goal of the NRA?
*How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA*
"The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, *much of it originating from gun industry sources.*"

*Source:*
How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA


----------



## drop bear (Mar 15, 2018)

So. A guy from work got his wallet phone and shoes stolen the other day.

He was upset that he ran away.

I may have suggested running away a bit earlier next time.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 16, 2018)

drop bear said:


> It was more that everyone else got it. So therefore it was logical and coherent.
> 
> The problem was you.
> 
> By the way do you conceal carry or open carry your fire extinguisher?


Nah.  You're just trying to troll me but I'm not playing that game.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 16, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> "The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, *much of it originating from gun industry sources.*"
> 
> *Source:*
> How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA


Unfortunately, that claim misrepresents the truth.  It makes it sound as if most of the NRA's funding comes from "the corporate gun lobby."   But it doesn't.  Notice the earlier "contributions" part.  That's where the bulk of it comes from.  I, and every other NRA member, frequently get fliers, mailers, and email begging for money.  Most of us will throw a little their way if we can.  Some of us throw a lot.  "Grants" are similar.

The whole article is smoke and mirrors trying to make it appear as if something is there that isn't.  The NRA's Ballance Sheet is a matter of public record.  IRRC, as a charity, it has to be.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Headhunter (Mar 16, 2018)

Jeez is this still going


----------



## drop bear (Mar 16, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Nah.  You're just trying to troll me but I'm not playing that game.



Well yeah. But your fire extinguisher analogy was pretty stupid.


----------



## Tames D (Mar 17, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Nah.  You're just trying to troll me but I'm not playing that game.


Oh... but you are.


----------



## _Simon_ (Mar 17, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> So I had a situation tonight which has shaken me up quite bad and people think this is fake or whatever as I've seen these types of threads been accused of it but whatever.
> 
> Tonight I was out for a meal with my kids at a small place nothing flashy just a cafe. But I went to the toilets and nt long after I went in another guy entered he was talkinh to himself and seemed edgy and jumpy. I went to leave and the guy got in front of me and asked if I had a lighter, I politely told him I didn't but he refused to move and got angry yelling and swearing at me saying I was a liar and out to get him, obviously the guy was off his head on drugs or something.
> 
> ...



Very sorry to hear you underwent that mate, it's never a pleasant thing... any sort of conflict can shake anyone up for sure... and can take time process. Sounds like your training really helped you out big time, but it's definitely a credit to you though.

Thanks so much for sharing too.

You did an awesome job and you and your family are safe, win-win!


----------



## Isaiah90 (Jul 27, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> So I had a situation tonight which has shaken me up quite bad and people think this is fake or whatever as I've seen these types of threads been accused of it but whatever.
> 
> Tonight I was out for a meal with my kids at a small place nothing flashy just a cafe. But I went to the toilets and nt long after I went in another guy entered he was talkinh to himself and seemed edgy and jumpy. I went to leave and the guy got in front of me and asked if I had a lighter, I politely told him I didn't but he refused to move and got angry yelling and swearing at me saying I was a liar and out to get him, obviously the guy was off his head on drugs or something.
> 
> ...



Not bad how you handled the situation. You did good in leaving quickly and getting the police on your side. 

I'd prefer knocking the guy out. He can't chase you if he's out cold. That's just me.


----------



## Headhunter (Jul 28, 2018)

Isaiah90 said:


> Not bad how you handled the situation. You did good in leaving quickly and getting the police on your side.
> 
> I'd prefer knocking the guy out. He can't chase you if he's out cold. That's just me.


That shows exactly what you know about self defence...if I'd done that I'd have been arrested for excessive force


----------



## Martial D (Jul 28, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> That shows exactly what you know about self defence...if I'd done that I'd have been arrested for excessive force


Pretty sure he has already shown us what he knows on the subject of self defense


----------



## Headhunter (Jul 28, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Pretty sure he has already shown us what he knows on the subject of self defense


Surprised he hasn't charged for that great piece of self defence advice...knock him out...damm that's some revolutionary stuff right there


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 28, 2018)

Isaiah90 said:


> I'd prefer knocking the guy out. He can't chase you if he's out cold. That's just me.



That would’ve gotten you beaten or killed.


----------



## FriedRice (Jul 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I read this on an American pro gun forum. The best self defence is moving to somewhere where there is less crime.



The problem though is that poor people can't just pack up and leave. Many poor or the elderly, are held hostage by the criminals elements of their cities. The ability to carry a gun, not only allows grandma & grandpa to go out and buy food, but to also live in dignity. 

Here's an example of such an element, although not necessarily criminal, but just a scumbag.


----------



## FriedRice (Jul 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Except if you are carrying a gun because that one time your cousin got broken into.
> 
> It is a safety blanket.
> 
> I mean I had a friend who had a tree drop on his head. I don't wear a helmet.



LOL, but it's the best safety blanket. If you were a lumberjack, you'd wear a helmet. Just as you'd probably carry a gun if you lived in some bad areas of the USA where bullets fly by, daily.

Especially the Stand Your Ground provision, which allows people to shoot if someone cause them to fear for their life. This SYG would protect more people of the inner cities than anyone else.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 30, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> The problem though is that poor people can't just pack up and leave. Many poor or the elderly, are held hostage by the criminals elements of their cities. The ability to carry a gun, not only allows grandma & grandpa to go out and buy food, but to also live in dignity.
> 
> Here's an example of such an element, although not necessarily criminal, but just a scumbag.



Yep. Economic freedom is the most useful freedom.

Giving grandma a gun but letting her live in squalor is not really giving her her dignity.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 30, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> LOL, but it's the best safety blanket. If you were a lumberjack, you'd wear a helmet. Just as you'd probably carry a gun if you lived in some bad areas of the USA where bullets fly by, daily.
> 
> Especially the Stand Your Ground provision, which allows people to shoot if someone cause them to fear for their life. This SYG would protect more people of the inner cities than anyone else.



Yeah protect people from being pushed in an argument about a car space. like in Florida recently.

Florida man could avoid charges after fatal shooting because of "stand your ground" law. - CNN


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yeah protect people from being pushed in an argument about a car space. like in Florida recently.
> 
> Florida man could avoid charges after fatal shooting because of "stand your ground" law. - CNN


The headline is misleading. The SYG law isn't the problem in that situation.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The headline is misleading. The SYG law isn't the problem in that situation.



Isn't the only problem.

Shooting a person who pushed you in a fight you started doesn't exactly fit the narrative though.

I thought it was all about protecting your family from ninjas.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Isn't the only problem.
> 
> Shooting a person who pushed you in a fight you started doesn't exactly fit the narrative though.
> 
> I thought it was all about protecting your family from ninjas.


I don’t know the case other than the report you linked.  As it’s written, it’s pretty obvious how messed up the whole thing is.  

But when does the news report the entire story?  Especially a news channel that time and time again has a blatantly liberal bias and agenda?  That doesn’t mean CNN got it wrong this time; it just means read with caution.  No different than if Fox News reported it the opposite way, with or without anyone else reporting on it.

It’s so unfortunate what the news has become around here lately.  Not that they ever got it right in the past, but it’s just so far out of control lately.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Isn't the only problem.
> 
> Shooting a person who pushed you in a fight you started doesn't exactly fit the narrative though.
> 
> I thought it was all about protecting your family from ninjas.



The shooter did not start the fight....the person who was shot started the fight.


----------



## Anarax (Jul 30, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> The shooter did not start the fight....the person who was shot started the fight.



Wait. So the person who actually committed assault/battery started the fight? Not the person who was verbally conveying disdain for a non-handicap driver parking in a handicap spot? 

You've lost me


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 30, 2018)

Anarax said:


> So the person who actually committed assault/battery started the fight?



Exactly



Anarax said:


> Not the person who was verbally conveying disdain for a non-handicap driver parking in a handicap spot?



Correct.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Isn't the only problem.
> 
> Shooting a person who pushed you in a fight you started doesn't exactly fit the narrative though.
> 
> I thought it was all about protecting your family from ninjas.


Guns don’t stop ninjas. That’s just silly.


----------



## FriedRice (Jul 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yeah protect people from being pushed in an argument about a car space. like in Florida recently.
> 
> Florida man could avoid charges after fatal shooting because of "stand your ground" law. - CNN



That's a tough one really, more of an aberration than anything. There will be nutcases, as in this guy who apparently has an unusual record for confronting people over such illegal parking. But such an aberration does not negate the 2nd Amendment. There are multitudes of cases where law abiding citizens have protected themselves and their loved ones from harm to even possible deaths, with firearms. You just don't hear it in the news often b/c it goes against their anti-gun narrative.

While getting shoved like this was clearly a violent attack as the guy was towering over the old guy on the ground and continued moving forward in an aggressive manner, seemingly, to stage another violent attack. He was well within range to soccer kick the head for the KO and/or continue for a coma to even death. To begin with, you can die by such a shove if your head cracks on the cement. Quite a few cases of 1 punch KO's resulting in deaths, which this wasn't a punch, but it's still dangerous.

The Stand Your Ground provision affords citizens who are weak, frail and especially the elderly from having to live in fear from the criminal elements that are all over poor areas. Grandmas won't be as afraid to go outside and buy food. And scumbags would think twice before trying to win arguments with violence when there's a chance that Grandpa is packing heat. 

Ever been around places where many people are armed? Most everybody's very polite.


----------



## FriedRice (Jul 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Isn't the only problem.
> 
> Shooting a person who pushed you in a fight you started doesn't exactly fit the narrative though.
> 
> I thought it was all about protecting your family from ninjas.



So if some grandpa told your girl that the parking spot she was in, was meant for handicapped people.....and both starts arguing back and forth.....maybe yelling.... then you think that you should have the right to use physical violence to end the discussion?

Personally, I'd love to live in such a world b/c that would be pretty damn fun..... but old grandpa ain't a fighter....and this would mean that the strong, young, and trained would dominate the weak and elderly, at will.


----------



## FriedRice (Jul 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yep. Economic freedom is the most useful freedom.
> 
> Giving grandma a gun but letting her live in squalor is not really giving her her dignity.



Yea but you live on a giant island, we don't. 300,000,000 people plus another 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 that are illegal and getting lots of free stuff, like free emergency healthcare, to full healthcare, etc.


----------



## Anarax (Jul 30, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Exactly
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.


Jeez CB, what's next? You telling us not to break into people's houses?


----------



## pdg (Jul 31, 2018)

There's two ways of looking at this, without further evidence.

One way is the old guy politely told the woman she was inappropriately parked and she reacted by screaming and shouting, which brought her boyfriend into the fray who got violent. The old guy, in genuine fear for his life responded by using his legally carried firearm.

The other way is that the old guy waited for the boyfriend to leave before confronting the woman about her parking (because he doesn't mind shouting at women), her boyfriend wondered why she was taking so long and went to investigate whereupon he discovered a man verbally assaulting her. So he went to her defence, pushing the man away, who then shot him. This family trip to the shop ended with a 5 year old going home without his father.


I can't say which is the actual course of events, but quite honestly the old guy's "history of confronting people over parking" goes against much of what has been said about people who carry - in this case it looks more like that knowing he had a gun he was much more prepared to start an argument.



FriedRice said:


> So if some grandpa told your girl that the parking spot she was in, was meant for handicapped people.....and both starts arguing back and forth.....maybe yelling.... then you think that you should have the right to use physical violence to end the discussion?



It apparently wasn't a discussion though was it?

If someone was having a go at my wife, damn right I'd step in - why would my right to protect my family be less than the rights of "some grandpa" to protect himself?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 31, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> Ever been around places where many people are armed? Most everybody's very polite.


Is that really true, or is it just what we in the South (and Southwest) see?


----------



## FriedRice (Jul 31, 2018)

pdg said:


> There's two ways of looking at this, without further evidence.



I hear what you're saying....it's hard to find just the entire video of the incident w/o commentary from the News Media. YouTube is SHADOW BANNING and censoring a lot, these days. Mainstream News Media will get the top spots whenever you do a search causing the need to weed through pages, even 10+; and even then, you may not get the raw version that's unbiased.  Here's the best I've found so far:








> One way is the old guy politely told the woman she was inappropriately parked and she reacted by screaming and shouting, which brought her boyfriend into the fray who got violent. The old guy, in genuine fear for his life responded by using his legally carried firearm.
> 
> The other way is that the old guy waited for the boyfriend to leave before confronting the woman about her parking (because he doesn't mind shouting at women), her boyfriend wondered why she was taking so long and went to investigate whereupon he discovered a man verbally assaulting her. So he went to her defence, pushing the man away, who then shot him. This family trip to the shop ended with a 5 year old going home without his father.
> 
> ...



Here are my opinions:

1)  Speech, does not physically hurt nor kill anyone. The only speech that's illegal are threats of violence and inciting violence. 

2)  Grandpa, may be  an ***hole, but this lady was definitely one for parking in a handicap space while there were plenty of other spaces available. 

3)  Grandpa kept a reasonable distance from the car. The woman got out of the car to get in his face. She clearly felt no danger nor fear and clearly wanted to escalate by getting out of her car.  The Husband was already approaching from the side, unbeknown to Grandpa. 

4)  That wasn't protecting his woman, that was a clear attack on Grandpa to end the argument through violence. A surprise attack on a Grandpa by a much bigger, stronger, younger man....can seriously injure or even kill someone if their head cracks open from hitting the cement.

5)  Grandpa was in fear for his life....because it was a sudden, suckerpunch type situation. Then the big guy was towering over him, moved forward, reaching into his pockets and pulling up his pants....he could've been reaching for a weapon....AND....the act of pulling up one's pants is a common mental tick, often done when someone's about to fight....because the pants/shorts causes a restrictive feeling. I often do this during sparring or fights. Muay Thai fighters generally do this a lot.

6) The Husband was in range to soccer kick Grandpa's head. 1 kick like this can easily kill a grandpa. Headstomps that may follow, certainly will. 

7)  Grandpa shot in fear....why? Because he only shot once. Most people who train, hell...just read crap on the internet.....will know to always shoot at least TWICE, center mass, to stop a threat. Even cops would often unload all 17-19 rounds at that range and predicament. Grandpa was very hesitant but obviously in fear. If he was out to execute a Black man that day, he would've at least shot TWICE. He made a split second decision. 

8)  It's easy to watch the video and see that the Husband backed up when he saw Grandpa reaching for something....and say that the threat was over. But this was about 1 freakin' second, then the single shot was fired. We're all armchair quarterbacking and Grandpa was certainly not a fighter or anything, so he prob. ain't used to physical violence on his old ***. Grandpa could've been the biggest wimp ever, but with a gun. This is one of the main reasons for the Stand Your Ground provision....so that the weak, the elderly, etc. don't need to live in fear.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 31, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> I hear what you're saying....it's hard to find just the entire video of the incident w/o commentary from the News Media. YouTube is SHADOW BANNING and censoring a lot, these days. Mainstream News Media will get the top spots whenever you do a search causing the need to weed through pages, even 10+; and even then, you may not get the raw version that's unbiased.  Here's the best I've found so far:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bad choices - very bad - on both sides. The big guy was out of line shoving the old man, especially with that kind of force. The old guy _might_ have been justified to draw, but I doubt even that - the big dude shoved him and never stepped toward him after that.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 31, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Bad choices - very bad - on both sides. The big guy was out of line shoving the old man, especially with that kind of force. The old guy _might_ have been justified to draw, but I doubt even that - the big dude shoved him and never stepped toward him after that.


I watched the video.  What we can’t ascertain from it is what was actually said between all 3 parties.  Did the guy who got shot say anything before or after he pushed the old man?  Did the old man say anything to him?  Did the old man verbally threaten the woman saying he had a gun or anything else along those lines?

While the verbal exchanges may seem inconsequential, they might’ve better explained why it came to this.  Probably not,  it you never know. 

The whole situation is a huge mess.  So many failures at so many levels.  My heart goes out to the kid.  He’ll never unsee his father getting shot.


----------



## Anarax (Jul 31, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> the big dude shoved him and never stepped toward him after that.



From 48 to 52 seconds the assaulter took 2 steps towards the man after he shoved him to the ground and continued to walk towards him until he drew his firearm.


----------



## pdg (Jul 31, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> Yea but you live on a giant island, we don't. 300,000,000 people plus another 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 that are illegal and getting lots of free stuff, like free emergency healthcare, to full healthcare, etc.



You should come to this island then - everybody gets free healthcare.

Me, my wife, my mum, the neighbours, everyone in my village, everyone in town...



FriedRice said:


> Ever been around places where many people are armed? Most everybody's very polite



Ever been around places where just about nobody is armed at all and never has been?

Like say here?

A place where politeness is so rife it's become stereotypical...

I can't help but think there's something false about being polite just because the person you're talking to might be armed.



FriedRice said:


> This is one of the main reasons for the Stand Your Ground provision....so that the weak, the elderly, etc. don't need to live in fear



Oddly, there are very few areas in this entire country where the weak and/or elderly etc. live in fear.

Maybe a few places, like the places where gang violence is common and members are likely to be armed...


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 31, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> So I had a situation tonight which has shaken me up quite bad and people think this is fake or whatever as I've seen these types of threads been accused of it but whatever.
> 
> Tonight I was out for a meal with my kids at a small place nothing flashy just a cafe. But I went to the toilets and nt long after I went in another guy entered he was talkinh to himself and seemed edgy and jumpy. I went to leave and the guy got in front of me and asked if I had a lighter, I politely told him I didn't but he refused to move and got angry yelling and swearing at me saying I was a liar and out to get him, obviously the guy was off his head on drugs or something.
> 
> ...


Good on ya my friend. Hopefully you process it as a positive with time.


----------



## FriedRice (Jul 31, 2018)

pdg said:


> You should come to this island then - everybody gets free healthcare.
> 
> Me, my wife, my mum, the neighbours, everyone in my village, everyone in town...



What island would that be?  And the point was, the USA is vastly greater than the other guy's giant island of Australia = we have a lot more $$$$ problems if we were to give everyone free $$$ to get out of poverty.



> Ever been around places where just about nobody is armed at all and never has been?
> 
> Like say here?
> 
> ...



No, I meant like at a gun range. But you don't have to be polite if you didn't want to.



> Oddly, there are very few areas in this entire country where the weak and/or elderly etc. live in fear.
> 
> Maybe a few places, like the places where gang violence is common and members are likely to be armed...



Well yeah, that's where the Stand Your Ground law is most helpful to people who are weak and elderly living in bad areas. Why do you think that there are many people packing heat in the 'hoods of Detroit? 

But if people want to conceal carry in rich neighborhoods, then that should be their right also.


----------



## FriedRice (Jul 31, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> I watched the video.  What we can’t ascertain from it is what was actually said between all 3 parties.  Did the guy who got shot say anything before or after he pushed the old man?  Did the old man say anything to him?  Did the old man verbally threaten the woman saying he had a gun or anything else along those lines?
> 
> While the verbal exchanges may seem inconsequential, they might’ve better explained why it came to this.  Probably not,  it you never know.



It didn't seem like he even had much time to hear what was being said or yelled, back and forth between Grandpa and his wife. He just walked out of the store and saw his wife get out of the car to get in that guy's face.....so she was def. not afraid of Grandpa.  She said he was trying to protect her, which is probably BS. Grandpa was clearly keeping distance from the car while they were arguing.

He used physical violence (by surprise) to impose his will onto someone. It's like if you argue with people on this forum but can't come to an agreement, so you seek them out in person, to punch their lights out. Stand Your Ground would afford the victim to shoot and not have to cower in fear, teaching other bullies the essence of this law.



> The whole situation is a huge mess.  So many failures at so many levels.  My heart goes out to the kid.  He’ll never unsee his father getting shot.



Yeah, that's very sad all around. Grandpa may have been a busy body and a complete AH, but this should not detract from the fact that this law protects many, many more people, esp. of poor areas, than causing these rare cases such as this type of questionable shooting. Otherwise, this could be any of us when we're old, frail and can't do ****.


----------



## pdg (Jul 31, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> What island would that be? And the point was, the USA is vastly greater than the other guy's giant island of Australia = we have a lot more $$$$ problems if we were to give everyone free $$$ to get out of poverty.



The UK, so you'll obviously say it's not comparable. Only it is, as is Australia. It is because the per capita amount is pretty much the same, it's only the total that's different.

And you didn't say getting out of poverty, you said healthcare. We still have poor people.

Before the NHS was introduced we had much the same system in place as you do now - that being the people who could afford to pay a doctor got treatment, anyone else was pretty much left to get on with it or die.

Not really an aspirational model.



FriedRice said:


> Why do you think that there are many people packing heat in the 'hoods of Detroit?



Simple.

Because someone/everyone else likely is as well.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 31, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> It didn't seem like he even had much time to hear what was being said or yelled, back and forth between Grandpa and his wife. He just walked out of the store and saw his wife get out of the car to get in that guy's face.....so she was def. not afraid of Grandpa.  She said he was trying to protect her, which is probably BS. Grandpa was clearly keeping distance from the car while they were arguing.
> 
> He used physical violence (by surprise) to impose his will onto someone. It's like if you argue with people on this forum but can't come to an agreement, so you seek them out in person, to punch their lights out.
> 
> ...


I agree with you in principle, and I think we’re on the same page.  But my point is we can’t hear exactly what was said during any of this.  For all we know the old man could’ve been telling the woman he’d hurt her, shoot her, telling her very offensive things, etc.  For all we know the boyfriend could’ve been telling him to back off and he didn’t.  The body language tells me otherwise,  it that doesn’t mean anything.  

We don’t know any of that.  All we see is a silent video and have to interpret it.  And the entire truth will most likely never come out.  It seems like everyone involved handled the situation the wrong way.  It’s really unfortunate for everyone.  I’m sure the woman is thinking about a lot of what ifs.  Same for the old man.  And the kid is going to be scared for life.

“It’s a big sh!t sandwich, and everyone’s going to have to take a bite.”
~ Full metal jacket.


----------



## FriedRice (Jul 31, 2018)

pdg said:


> The UK, so you'll obviously say it's not comparable. Only it is, as is Australia. It is because the per capita amount is pretty much the same, it's only the total that's different.
> 
> And you didn't say getting out of poverty, you said healthcare. We still have poor people.



Sorry, I was responding to Drop Bear, who implied poverty. I already type a ton of text, so that would be a lot more if I had to repeat everything.



> Before the NHS was introduced we had much the same system in place as you do now - that being the people who could afford to pay a doctor got treatment, anyone else was pretty much left to get on with it or die.



You still don't have 30-40 million illegal immigrants with 1-1.5 million entering every year + 1 million legal ones entering, also each year.



> Not really an aspirational model.



Says you, but not most of us.



> Simple.
> 
> Because someone/everyone else likely is as well.



I like it too.


----------



## FriedRice (Jul 31, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> I agree with you in principle, and I think we’re on the same page.  But my point is we can’t hear exactly what was said during any of this.  For all we know the old man could’ve been telling the woman he’d hurt her, shoot her, telling her very offensive things, etc.  For all we know the boyfriend could’ve been telling him to back off and he didn’t.  The body language tells me otherwise,  it that doesn’t mean anything.



True. But unlikely because she  got out of the car to get in his face. She clearly wasn't afraid of him, especially if he'd said that he was going to hurt and/or shoot her with his gun. When she was in the car, you can see him keeping a distance to not be the aggressor and respecting her space.



> We don’t know any of that.  All we see is a silent video and have to interpret it.  And the entire truth will most likely never come out.  It seems like everyone involved handled the situation the wrong way.  It’s really unfortunate for everyone.  I’m sure the woman is thinking about a lot of what ifs.  Same for the old man.  And the kid is going to be scared for life.
> 
> “It’s a big sh!t sandwich, and everyone’s going to have to take a bite.”
> ~ Full metal jacket.



Very true, it's horrible for the kid.


----------



## pdg (Jul 31, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> You still don't have 30-40 million illegal immigrants with 1-1.5 million entering every year + 1 million legal ones entering, also each year.



From what I can find, your figures are somewhat inflated.

You're claiming that 10% of the entire population is there illegally, while official figures list the _legal_ immigrant figure at 13.5%, somebody's numbers are awry.

And from what else I can find, the percentage of the whole population that is made up of immigrants (both legal and illegal) is broadly similar in the UK and US.



FriedRice said:


> Says you, but not most of us.



So most of you fully support letting the vulnerable members of society die of curable diseases because they can't afford treatment? How is that a societal model to aspire to?

You say the weak, elderly etc. should be allowed to arm themselves to defend against external attackers, but refuse to help them fight internal attacks...


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 31, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> True. But unlikely because she  got out of the car to get in his face. She clearly wasn't afraid of him, especially if he'd said that he was going to hurt and/or shoot her with his gun. When she was in the car, you can see him keeping a distance to not be the aggressor and respecting her space.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true, it's horrible for the kid.


All the stuff I said could’ve been said is unlikely for the reasons you claim (and I thought the same thing), but it’s possible.  And we’ll never know.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 31, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> Sorry, I was responding to Drop Bear, who implied poverty. I already type a ton of text, so that would be a lot more if I had to repeat everything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


64,000 illegal immigrants. Most of them English and American.

There abouts.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 31, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Most of them English



Ugh....the worst kind.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 31, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> So if some grandpa told your girl that the parking spot she was in, was meant for handicapped people.....and both starts arguing back and forth.....maybe yelling.... then you think that you should have the right to use physical violence to end the discussion?
> 
> Personally, I'd love to live in such a world b/c that would be pretty damn fun..... but old grandpa ain't a fighter....and this would mean that the strong, young, and trained would dominate the weak and elderly, at will.



Yes.

This means you talk **** you get hit.

The strong trained and athletic dominate the weak in a world with guns.

And the pope agrees with me.


----------



## Anarax (Jul 31, 2018)

drop bear said:


> This means you talk **** you get hit.



Are you stating that's how others think? Or this is how you think?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 1, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> Sorry, I was responding to Drop Bear, who implied poverty. I already type a ton of text, so that would be a lot more if I had to repeat everything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


C'mon dude, don't make up numbers. You're making both conservatives and libertarians look bad...


----------



## drop bear (Aug 1, 2018)

Anarax said:


> Are you stating that's how others think? Or this is how you think?



You don't get to play self defence if you have provoked people. Legally.

And I agree with that concept.


----------



## pdg (Aug 1, 2018)

drop bear said:


> You don't get to play self defence if you have provoked people. Legally.
> 
> And I agree with that concept.



I agree with that too.

Although, there is a little bit of what is classified as provoking.

Shouting, threatening - definitely provocation.

What about "excuse me, but I believe you doing xyz isn't quite right"?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 1, 2018)

drop bear said:


> 64,000 illegal immigrants. Most of them English and American.
> 
> There abouts.


You'd think the spiders would keep them away.


----------



## Balrog (Aug 1, 2018)

The classic statement about adventures:  while you're having an adventure, you wish you weren't.

Good job.  You went home with your kids.  That's a win any day of the week.


----------



## FriedRice (Aug 1, 2018)

pdg said:


> From what I can find, your figures are somewhat inflated.
> 
> You're claiming that 10% of the entire population is there illegally, while official figures list the _legal_ immigrant figure at 13.5%, somebody's numbers are awry.



The official number of Illegals is 11-12 million, estimated in year 2000 and then again in 2006.  How does that even make sense that it stayed about the same in the span of these 6 years and was the SAME figure quoted in the last Presidential Election of 2016; which was another 10 years later, totaling a span of 16 years that this 11-12 million figure didn't change.



> And from what else I can find, the percentage of the whole population that is made up of immigrants (both legal and illegal) is broadly similar in the UK and US.



You keep saying this, but don't post any numbers. What are the number of immigrants being allowed into the UK each, especially in the last 5 years?



> So most of you fully support letting the vulnerable members of society die of curable diseases because they can't afford treatment? How is that a societal model to aspire to?



You mean you want us to be like your healthcare system where many people die while waiting for treatment?
Record numbers dying while waiting for hospital appointments

And get crappy healthcare to boot? No wonder that those Brits who are rich, often comes here for their serious operations and treatments. We already know what crappy Govt' operated healthcare systems can do, as we already have the VA here, where our Veterans commit suicide by a rate of about 20 per day.



> You say the weak, elderly etc. should be allowed to arm themselves to defend against external attackers, but refuse to help them fight internal attacks...



Oh so you complain about our weak, elderly, etc. having no healthcare, but now you want to take away their rights to be armed to protect themselves too? Isn't that making it even worse? What next, break 1 of their legs to make it even more challenging for them?  Haha, nice try though.  Oh, and we do have Medicaid for them.


----------



## FriedRice (Aug 1, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> C'mon dude, don't make up numbers. You're making both conservatives and libertarians look bad...



Give me YOUR numbers then.  Go ahead, quote that Wikipedia chart that will popup first when you google, so I can refute it.  

My 1-1.5 million number was actually quite conservative.


----------



## FriedRice (Aug 1, 2018)

drop bear said:


> 64,000 illegal immigrants. Most of them English and American.
> 
> There abouts.



Must be nice there.


----------



## FriedRice (Aug 1, 2018)

drop bear said:


> You don't get to play self defence if you have provoked people. Legally.
> 
> And I agree with that concept.



We have Freedom of Speech in the USA though.  And the 2nd Amendment to back it up.


----------



## FriedRice (Aug 1, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yes.
> 
> This means you talk **** you get hit.



And Stand Your Ground means, you hit first = you can get shot and die.



> The strong trained and athletic dominate the weak in a world with guns.



But the weak, untrained and fatty will have a much better chance with a gun (vs. gun) then without.

Actually, there are plenty of Grandpas, Fatties and Grandpa Fatties that train  at the range like crazy and for tens of years, perhaps throughout their life....over a million rounds fired....they probably can't sprint 50 feet w/o gassing + passing out.....but no way in hell would I want to get into a firefight vs. one of them, and I do shoot quite a bit.



> And the pope agrees with me.



LOL, this Pope should do standup comedy instead of playing w/young boys for a hobby.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 1, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> The official number of Illegals is 11-12 million, estimated in year 2000 and then again in 2006.  How does that even make sense that it stayed about the same in the span of these 6 years and was the SAME figure quoted in the last Presidential Election of 2016; which was another 10 years later, totaling a span of 16 years that this 11-12 million figure didn't change.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hey steady on my friend 

Don't go bashing the NHS (no it not perfect) and the rich Brits as you put it well that is there choice, As for waiting times don't put all your faith in what the press says (they do have a bit of a habit of well making the most out of things), And for your info in case you do not know the NHS is not free like you may think before you start yelling that. 

As for immigration there is a illegal problem here just as in the states (no where as big ) it just they have to be a bit more creative getting here due to the big lump of water that surrounds us. They do however. 

You seem to be coming at this all charged up and the rest. I have had friends who have had medicaid and it did not cover all by any means 

There is always going to be a difference of views on medical care between stateside and here.

I had a friend who is dead now who was a MD and I once asked him his opinion on why he thought there was a difference in approach and this is what he said paraphrased and shortened

The  second war hit both the US and the UK badly in terms of soldiers lost (I include airmen and sailors marines too before you jump on that) however he said the states did not suffer the infrastructure hammering that we did and the civilian losses so he said the UK had to rebuild and had to look to how it could do that as it had many that were going to require long term care and people that had lost everything and could not pay for anything let alone medical care, So the view was taken cradle to grave in the UK (argue all you like but any UK subject -note I do not say citizen as technically were are not citizens - can go to a doctor or present at a hospital and not have to concern themselves as to can they afford it or is their health insurance going to cover it, also north of the border scripts are free so again if Doc prescribes people can get). He said that the states didn't see the need to do that (cradle to grave ) as he said the civilian population and infrastructure had not been hit in the same way , so they went down the insurance route and that as it had gone on so long it was never going to change or be permitted to change due to the money to be made.

That was what he told me and well there is more to it but I def could see the logic


----------



## now disabled (Aug 1, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> We have Freedom of Speech in the USA though.  And the 2nd Amendment to back it up.



Oh dude please we have freedom of speech here too and we don't have a constitution or want one lol so please don't start that please


----------



## now disabled (Aug 1, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> We have Freedom of Speech in the USA though.  And the 2nd Amendment to back it up.




Can you actually quote the second amendment and I don't mean just the bits you want but all of it ,,,,,I do have a reason to as seen as you wanna bash the UK (who in truth stands squarely behind ya and at times puts the breaks on when things are gonna get outta hand )


----------



## pdg (Aug 1, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Oh dude please we have freedom of speech here too and we don't have a constitution or want one lol so please don't start that please



We sort of do, only it's not distilled into a single document.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 1, 2018)

pdg said:


> We sort of do, only it's not distilled into a single document.



We don't need it in a document lol


----------



## pdg (Aug 1, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> The official number of Illegals is 11-12 million, estimated in year 2000 and then again in 2006. How does that even make sense that it stayed about the same in the span of these 6 years and was the SAME figure quoted in the last Presidential Election of 2016; which was another 10 years later, totaling a span of 16 years that this 11-12 million figure didn't change.



It's possible it didn't change enough to nudge a million - it's called turnover, some in, some out.



FriedRice said:


> You keep saying this, but don't post any numbers. What are the number of immigrants being allowed into the UK each, especially in the last 5 years?



I don't keep saying it, I said it once.

Figure for the US is officially 13.5%, UK is about 12% (first figure I found).



FriedRice said:


> You mean you want us to be like your healthcare system where many people die while waiting for treatment?
> Record numbers dying while waiting for hospital appointments
> 
> And get crappy healthcare to boot? No wonder that those Brits who are rich, often comes here for their serious operations and treatments. We already know what crappy Govt' operated healthcare systems can do, as we already have the VA here, where our Veterans commit suicide by a rate of about 20 per day.



The VA is in no way comparable to the NHS, nor is medicaid.

If our system is so bad, why is our suicide rate something like half yours?



FriedRice said:


> Oh so you complain about our weak, elderly, etc. having no healthcare, but now you want to take away their rights to be armed to protect themselves too? Isn't that making it even worse? What next, break 1 of their legs to make it even more challenging for them? Haha, nice try though. Oh, and we do have Medicaid for them.



Nothing like a bit of bias is there?

I didn't say take anything away, I implied giving them healthcare.

Which, if you pause and think, is exactly the opposite.


----------



## pdg (Aug 1, 2018)

Oh, and honestly...

I'll take 'free' healthcare with a bit of a waiting list over zero healthcare because my insurance doesn't cover every single day of the week.

With a cash/insurance based healthcare system my dad would have died 3 years sooner than he did - that's 3 extra years my kids had with their grandparent, thanks to the 'terrible' NHS.


----------



## pdg (Aug 1, 2018)

And I forgot to mention...

I'm out of this discussion unless the subject changes a bit - it's a bit too close to political, even for me.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 1, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> What island would that be?  And the point was, the USA is vastly greater than the other guy's giant island of Australia = we have a lot more $$$$ problems if we were to give everyone free $$$ to get out of poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am glad I live in TN where we have a stand your ground law. What I looked at said there are 23 states with the law. The others are bound by law with a "duty to retreat". How messed up is that. California does not subscribe to the law and is considered the safest state to live in. I am sure a big part of that equation is that the population is much less dense compared to say, New York.


----------



## Anarax (Aug 1, 2018)

drop bear said:


> You don't get to play self defence if you have provoked people. Legally.
> 
> And I agree with that concept.



Provoking is a loose term. People coming up and threatening you or your family/friends is one thing. Someone verbally confronting you in a non-threatening manner doesn't give you the right to assault/batter them.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 1, 2018)

pdg said:


> I agree with that too.
> 
> Although, there is a little bit of what is classified as provoking.
> 
> ...



There are nuances. Like me nuances as to what is an assault and what you carry a gun to shoot people for.

I mean Headhunters original situation in Florida could have ended with a body.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 1, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> We have Freedom of Speech in the USA though.  And the 2nd Amendment to back it up.



We don't. Which means news programs are required to tell the truth. You can't lie in an advertisement.  I can't slander or incite violence. And I can't make fun of black people.

And we have an impartial legal system and a democracy to back that up.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 1, 2018)

Anarax said:


> Provoking is a loose term. People coming up and threatening you or your family/friends is one thing. Someone verbally confronting you in a non-threatening manner doesn't give you the right to assault/batter them.



Look I am OK with that. What I am pointing out here is what constitutes gun for self defence.

We hear it is for home invasions and terrorists. But in reality it is for being pushed over a car space.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 1, 2018)

Folks,
As I'm involved way back at the beginning, consider this a friendly reminder that we don't do political discussion here at Martial Talk.  Things get heated enough with style politics, we really don't need to bring national/international stuff in...


----------



## JR 137 (Aug 1, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I am glad I live in TN where we have a stand your ground law. What I looked at said there are 23 states with the law. The others are bound by law with a "duty to retreat". How messed up is that. California does not subscribe to the law and is considered the safest state to live in. I am sure a big part of that equation is that the population is much less dense compared to say, New York.


NY’s population isn’t very dense outside of the Metro NYC area.  Drive from Albany to Buffalo, a straight shot across I-90 westbound that takes about 4.5 hours, and you’ll have a drastically different opinion of our population density.  Same for I-87, once you get about 50 miles outside NYC, you’ve got Albany 2.5 hours away from NYC, and practically nothing until Montreal, Quebec.  NY state isn’t very densely populated.  I wonder what it’s official density stat is if you take out NYC, Long Island, and Westchester County.


----------



## JR 137 (Aug 1, 2018)

Not to dwell on New York State’s population density, but...

New York State total population - 19.85 million
NYC - 8.54 million
Long Island - 7.57 million
Westchester County - 980,000

So 17.09 million people in the NYC, LI, Westchester area.  That leaves 2.76 million people for the rest of the state, and it’s a good sized state (27th out of 50).  New York is not very densely populated outside the metro nyc area at all.  The Albany area has a population of about 1.2 million, leaving 1.5 million people for the rest of the state.

Yeah, my mind is going in odd places.  Too much googling.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 2, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> Not to dwell on New York State’s population density, but...
> 
> New York State total population - 19.85 million
> NYC - 8.54 million
> ...


I didn't mean to offend. Just grabbed New York as an example. I knew there is a lot of farm land up there. Obviously I should of said NYC. 
I cannot comprehend the NYC (or anywhere near that dense) lifestyle. Packed in and living vertically. Never quiet. I can go on and on. Funny how we are conditioned to our environment over time.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 2, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> Not to dwell on New York State’s population density, but...
> 
> New York State total population - 19.85 million
> NYC - 8.54 million
> ...



Man, you got me started too.
Tennessee total population 2018 - 6.78 million
Nashville (middle of state & capital) - 660,000
Memphis (west state border) - 652,000
Knoxville & Chattanooga 
(east before the state line tapers north/northest) - 363,000
So only about 1.8 million live in the major cities. The rest is mostly still zoned agricultural. In our area the only way a building lot can be less than 1 acre is if there is an existing premise with a living family member who deeds space for a building site. That is the scenario where manufactured homed are common. Legislation has change to eliminate people setting up campers as permanent living spaces and it is very difficult to set up a single wide trailer. 
I have traveled to every state except Hawaii & Alaska. I enjoy visiting, but place like LA really give me the creeps. I won't go into details but a guy tried to mug me there. He was not successful.


----------



## JR 137 (Aug 2, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I didn't mean to offend. Just grabbed New York as an example. I knew there is a lot of farm land up there. Obviously I should of said NYC.
> I cannot comprehend the NYC (or anywhere near that dense) lifestyle. Packed in and living vertically. Never quiet. I can go on and on. Funny how we are conditioned to our environment over time.


I didn’t take any offense to it, it just seems like everyone thinks the entire state is like NYC.  The numbers were more my own curiosity to be honest.

I live right outside of NYC and worked in NYC for about 8 years.  It would be fun living in Manhattan for a few months, but that’s about it.

There is a very big allure to living in or near NYC - there’s always something going on.  Any day, and any time.  You can get whatever you want, whenever you want.  There’s no shortage of options to amuse yourself.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 2, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Hey steady on my friend
> 
> Don't go bashing the NHS (no it not perfect) and the rich Brits as you put it well that is there choice, As for waiting times don't put all your faith in what the press says (they do have a bit of a habit of well making the most out of things), And for your info in case you do not know the NHS is not free like you may think before you start yelling that.
> 
> ...



OK, I've stayed away from this up to now.  Note that I have taken the precaution of putting on my flame suit and decided to post this from just outside my nuclear defense bunker.   

I think a lot of the differences between us and our British cousins (including many of the commonwealth nations) has to do with our history.  In much of Europe and England, for a very long time, there were kings and the king's appointed people.  Sometimes good and sometimes not so good, but the King was the owner of most of the territory, with the exception of whatever parts he gave to those below him who were nobles or supported the king sufficiently to get royal grants.  So there were owners and serfs.  They expected that whatever good things they got (or not), would come from the landowners or nobles.  That got to be a way of life.  The state provided what you got for working the land or being allowed to be a merchant or craftsman.  If I am way off  base please post to let me know.

Now in the US, although we came from 'Britain,' once we got here things began to change.  We eventually had to fight for the change, specifically on taxation, but we began to learn to do for ourselves.  We began to seek out unused land and farm it, or denude it of trees or fauna, to our own individual profit.  If there were problems with others, natives or not, we either learned to take care of it ourselves, or with the aid of people we would support if they needed it.  Over time, we made our own laws with our own style of government, but it was always with a sense of independence and self-sufficiency.

So a government that provides more things, especially hearth care and protection, fit those who stayed under the British system.  Those who came here took up a different paradigm.  We didn't want the government into everything, only those things that we specified they could be in, usually confined to a certain jurisdiction; national, state, county or city.  National laws for everything would have been anathema to us due to our culture of independence to make as many decisions as we could for ourselves or a jurisdiction.

As an aside, health care is a silly thing as far as I can see.  What I never understood, other than as one political party's desire to look protective of their constituency (as they all do), was that we already had health care.  All one had to do was go to a hospital emergency room late at night, and watch those who came in and had no money.  Federal law denied them the right to turn away non-paying customers.  They had to take them and treat them.  Oh, and they were reimbursed for providing that care: national health care.

Just some ramblings by me.  Nobody has to agree and can feel free to point out anyplace I am wrong.  I am always happy to learn.  I have no desire to turn this into a political debate, but more looking to what may be a cultural difference from a royal government to a our form of a self-governing government.  Granting that both of our cultures (and therefore governments) have migrated more towards each other's over time.

BTW @now disabled, I had never heard your doctor friend's explanation, but there is some sense to it.  But I wonder if the culture might have influenced those decisions on both sides as well.  What do you think?


----------



## pdg (Aug 2, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> They expected that whatever good things they got (or not), would come from the landowners or nobles. That got to be a way of life. The state provided what you got for working the land or being allowed to be a merchant or craftsman. If I am way off base please post to let me know.



I think that's a little off. Closer to communism than under a monarchy.

The state doesn't provide as such, it takes a portion and decides what to do with it. That's the basis of taxation. We do have slightly more choice now as to what is done, but no more on an individual level than you.

It's only relatively recently that taxation was used to 'provide' for the population.

Go back a while and unless you got support from something like the church, then if you didn't work or earn you were simply left to starve.

Excepting slavery, there hasn't been a time (to my knowledge) when your occupation was dictated by the state. You could ask permission to work someone's land and in return a portion of your produce (or income from it) was taken as tax. Or, you could work someone else's land and retain a portion of the produce for yourself, or get paid.

We've always had things like wandering tradesmen who sought short term employment wherever they could find it for instance.



oftheherd1 said:


> As an aside, health care is a silly thing as far as I can see. What I never understood, other than as one political party's desire to look protective of their constituency (as they all do), was that we already had health care. All one had to do was go to a hospital emergency room late at night, and watch those who came in and had no money. Federal law denied them the right to turn away non-paying customers. They had to take them and treat them. Oh, and they were reimbursed for providing that care: national health care.



But does that cover ongoing care of chronic conditions or just emergency treatment?

For instance, here, for most adults dental care isn't available under the NHS (well, it is, but it's discounted rates for limited procedures, not full service type thing).

If I fall over and smash a couple of teeth I can go to an emergency dentist and get it fixed to some degree for "free" (I'll come back to that). Anything further, like dental reconstruction or cosmetic treatment, isn't covered. I have to personally pay for that, or take out dental insurance.

As to "free", it's not free, everyone contributes. Well, everyone who generally pays tax - it's (supposed to be) a separate deduction from income for that specific purpose. The idea being that a small percentage from most provides everyone with a level of care.

Of those who contribute, some never need treatment, and some get treatment that exceeds what would ever be provided were those contributions put into a personal insurance plan.

It's still basically like an insurance scheme (hence being called "national insurance") but without the individual restrictions based on premiums paid. Need more chemotherapy? Fine, have some - there's no "sorry, you've reached your insurance limit, do you have a credit card?"


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 2, 2018)

Thread locked pending staff review.

Please take political discussion to US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------

