# "On The Street"



## MJS (Nov 15, 2005)

Looking through a recent Black Belt magazine article the other day, I came across an interesting article. The author was writing regarding the myths of what people think an attack and the attackers on the street will be like. His first remark states that the people that we may face on the street, are not the big, bad people that we imagine. He states that people who tell us to watch out for certain parts of town, because they may be ridden with drugs, gangs and prostitution are simply preying on our fears. 

He goes on to examine the 'typical' street fighter, giving the impression that the most common will be someone out of shape. His next step is looking at the skills of the average street fighter, stating that their skills are limited to poor boxing skills consisting of right hand punches and kicking someone once they're down. 

He concludes his examination by saying that fighting on the street is no different than in the ring. We're still facing someone determined to hurt us, the difference being, that on the street, we don't have to fight fair. He also states that the chances of your street attacker pulling out a knife and killing us are slim. 

So, thoughts on this? Is the picture that he painted accurate, or is he clueless as to what its really like? IMHO, this person either lives in an area where the crime rate is low or he just isn't keeping up with the times. Oddly enough, I read an article in this past weekends paper, talking about a gun that was used in 11 recent shootings in the City of Hartford. In addition to the shootings, it also mentioned that this single gun, was also used to muggings, drug deals, etc. Hmmm...but then again, I thought the odds of a weapon being used were slim??

Mike


----------



## MJS (Nov 15, 2005)

Not sure how long the article is going to be kept online, but here is a link for anyone interested in reading the story.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hr/hc-guns1113.artnov13,0,2136341.story


----------



## Drac (Nov 15, 2005)

I must have missed that article, thank God...Speaking from my own experiences as an officer..They may be old and out of shape but they will keep on fighting, they will bite and spit..Do they do that in the ring??? What was this guy smoking???
I have responded to calls where a veteran "street fighter" took apart a trained martial artist whose never been bloodied..If they are carrying a weapon they will use it without hesitation..I'm sure other will have better comments..


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Nov 15, 2005)

Depends what you're talking about: An assault like a mugging? a bar room brawl? gutter punks scrapping in the street? a gang initiation? an attempted kidnapping or rape? home invasion? was the attacker provoked? 

If it is a _street-fight_, then by definition that means there are no victims involved, both (or all for a group encounter) have agreed to the activity.

If is is a form of predation, then the nature of the attack will depend on the attacker's motivation.

I think the article you reference is describing a very specific situation and isn't really describing street violence as a whole.

It sure doesn't match up with my experience.


----------



## MJS (Nov 15, 2005)

Drac said:
			
		

> I must have missed that article, thank God...Speaking from my own experiences as an officer..They may be old and out of shape but they will keep on fighting, they will bite and spit..Do they do that in the ring??? What was this guy smoking???
> I have responded to calls where a veteran "street fighter" took apart a trained martial artist whose never been bloodied..If they are carrying a weapon they will use it without hesitation..I'm sure other will have better comments..


 
Thanks for the reply! I'm sure that being in the line of work you're in, you've seen quite a bit!!!  By all means, feel free to share more if you choose to!  The article in question was in the Jan. 2006 BB mag.  I also forgot to mention that the author of this article was using those street fighting videos that you can view online or buy in stores, as a basis for his theory.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Nov 15, 2005)

Shizen Shigoku said:
			
		

> I think the article you reference is describing a very specific situation and isn't really describing street violence as a whole.


 
I took the article as him talking about an assault on the street and the types of people that would commit these acts of violence on the street.

He very well could have been referring to something else, but that is my interpretation.

Mike


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Nov 15, 2005)

Frankly, if I should be confronted on the street, my first line of defence would be to high-tail it out of the area and avoid the p*ssed-off thug altogether.

I did not find this author's view very realistic.


----------



## Drac (Nov 15, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reply! I'm sure that being in the line of work you're in, you've seen quite a bit


 
Mike.
       All of the members who are LEO's have seen their share..I am going to find that article and maybe write a response..I want to work in his city..

Dan


----------



## arnisador (Nov 15, 2005)

The street-fight videos are helpful, but I think the fact that they were taped biases the sample. A weapon is pretty common, I'd wager. I also think *Drac* makes an excellent point: These people will keep coming, fight dirty, and often win. If they didn't, they'd have stopped by now! Never underestimate the advantages conferred by aggression and tenaciousness.


----------



## MJS (Nov 15, 2005)

Drac said:
			
		

> Mike.
> I am going to find that article and maybe write a response


 
Go for it!!  I was thinking of doing the same thing.




> ..I want to work in his city..
> 
> Dan


 
The author put Columbus, OH as his city/state.

Mike


----------



## terryl965 (Nov 15, 2005)

All I know is where and when a street fight begins all bets are off and only the strongest will be able to leave.Street fighting and getting in a ring are two totally different approaches to fighting. A thug don't care about rules and if he hurts you or how many of there friends jump in the middle of a fight, they are there to hurt you for that dollar in your pocket.
Terry


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Nov 15, 2005)

sounds like a load of poop to me.
ive seen guys getting kicked in the head when they were down like their head was a football. 
i agree with the whole conditioning aspect of the average guy on the street....but they usually get you when your back is turned.


----------



## AdrenalineJunky (Nov 15, 2005)

The problem with this is that it's all speculation; the only solid information comes from people's past experiences, which vary, to say the least. I've hung out in Oakland and San Francisco's Mission a lot, without having anybody mess with me. On the other hand, I've been to smaller towns and had people pick fights and pull weapons on me. Street fighting = unpredictable. I spent four years bouncing at a rough hip-hop club in my area. . .drunk people feel less pain and don't think about the consequences of their actions. . .that's about the only constant, at least in my experience. Otherwise, anything goes.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 16, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Looking through a recent Black Belt magazine article the other day, I came across an interesting article. The author was writing regarding the myths of what people think an attack and the attackers on the street will be like. His first remark states that the people that we may face on the street, are not the big, bad people that we imagine. He states that people who tell us to watch out for certain parts of town, because they may be ridden with drugs, gangs and prostitution are simply preying on our fears.
> Mike


 
If that were the case, than those "certain" parts of town of which he speaks would have no higher of a crime rate than anywhere else. It sounds a little to me like an informmercial for "unarmed" fighting techniques, because if most people aren't armed, and you buy HIS videos - you WILL prevail. Yeah, right.

My car broke down one evening in "that" part of town, and let me tell you, I got some real looks and even had a group of 4-5 young males try to follow me. I ran and hid and had the tow truck pick me up at the Police substation down the street.


----------



## Drac (Nov 16, 2005)

AdrenalineJunky said:
			
		

> drunk people feel less pain and don't think about the consequences of their actions. . .that's about the only constant, at least in my experience. Otherwise, anything goes.


 
Also very true..


----------



## MJS (Nov 16, 2005)

AdrenalineJunky said:
			
		

> The problem with this is that it's all speculation; the only solid information comes from people's past experiences, which vary, to say the least. I've hung out in Oakland and San Francisco's Mission a lot, without having anybody mess with me. On the other hand, I've been to smaller towns and had people pick fights and pull weapons on me. Street fighting = unpredictable. I spent four years bouncing at a rough hip-hop club in my area. . .drunk people feel less pain and don't think about the consequences of their actions. . .that's about the only constant, at least in my experience. Otherwise, anything goes.


 
Thats true.  Certain areas will have more/less crime than others.  I just find it odd that the person who wrote this article is making a general assumption of all areas.

Mike


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 16, 2005)

I read the article when I got my copy of BB this month (articles like this make me wonder why I subscribe).  I think the guy is definately wearing a pair of "rose-colored glasses." 

The impression I got from the article was that he thinks people who train in self-defense are being deceived because the are training for situations that, according to him, are extremely rare.  

Maybe it's just me but I thought the reason that we trained was to handle those [thankfully] rare incidents.


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2005)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> I read the article when I got my copy of BB this month (articles like this make me wonder why I subscribe). I think the guy is definately wearing a pair of "rose-colored glasses."


 
Unfortunately, this guy seems very set in his ways.  I highly doubt that those glasses will ever come off.



> The impression I got from the article was that he thinks people who train in self-defense are being deceived because the are training for situations that, according to him, are extremely rare.
> 
> Maybe it's just me but I thought the reason that we trained was to handle those [thankfully] rare incidents.


 
Well, I don't know about him, but I'd rather be over-prepared than under-prepared.  

Mike


----------



## Adept (Nov 20, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Well, I don't know about him, but I'd rather be over-prepared than under-prepared.
> 
> Mike



Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it, eh?


----------



## MJS (Nov 20, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it, eh?


 
Absolutely!  If we think about our training, we have techniques for countless situations, some of which may never come, but we're still training in the event that we do find ourselves there.

Mike


----------



## CuongNhuka (Nov 21, 2005)

yah well heres what i've seen and saddlyu been involved in.

condition of the "averige" (cause there is no norm.) street fighter.: terrible to far better then me. alot, i notice, are either vastly out of shape or in great shape. great from lifting weights (though poorly) and playing various sports like basketball or soccer, yadda, yadda, yadda. 

skills: common are pour boxing skills. alot have picked up material from watching freestyle wrestling, greako-roman wrestling, wwe wrestling (b.s.), ufc machtes, martial arts demos, muay thai matches, tournaments (karate), and all kinds of martial art and other sources.

tactic: punch in the face, shin kick the other guys shins (sounds painfull), head butt the gut (don't know why), crappy elbows and knees aimed at no were. also try to do WWE crapp when and were possible. if it is pointless or you'll hurt yourself: do it some more!!! they go on the ground, kick them, ALOT. or follow them and try wrestling. normally while punching them on the top of the head (sounds painful). if you think your gonna loss, well thats next.

group fighting: when ever they think you're equal or at a disadvantige to you. which is alot. group fights are so common that any self defense class that doesn't tech verse small groups is just wasteing there time if you think about it.

knife useage: as abouve, but when they don't what help.

gun useage: as knife, but they what a MAJOR advantige.

run 'em over: mostly a show off thing.

and i agree with alot of you guys. the dudes really rather dumb. on average (from what i've seen at middle/high school/by middle schoolers/by high schoolers in NE) you're most likely to end up in a street fight against a dude, who is trying to hurt you ALOT, doesn't care about what he can (or is) doing to you, is in a gang or in some way affailiated with one. and if you donn't win in about 30 seconds will end haveing to deal with a knife, gun, chain, brick (or other weapon), or a group. even if you beat 'em quickly, you might have to deal with the dudes freinds. alot of the folk i've seen go look for fights are into drugs. that means they wont feel alot of pain. i have acctuly had the dispelsur of fighting a dude that done meth most of his life. he didn't feel pain. at all. I gave him a massive bruise, and got expelled since he appaernintly didn't fight back. will he didn't, but he did all but ask me to hit him.i'm not falling for that again. and know have troubles with gangsters at my new school. mostly the chicano's. the rest of the chicanos (not gangsters that is) are more-or-less all my freinds. not shure how that works out. but i'm rambling, latter.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 22, 2005)

Dude, seriously, spell-check is your friend.  I not trying to attack you personally but trying to interpret the numerous grammar and spelling mistakes in your posts makes my head hurt.  Really, I've gotten to the point that if I see your username at the top I skip it because I don't want to strain my brain.

A simple way to deal with this (other than learning how to write clearly) is to type your posts in *Word*, or a similar program.  Then you can spell/grammar check and copy/paste your post to the reply box.

Give it some thought.


----------



## Drac (Nov 23, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Absolutely! If we think about our training, we have techniques for countless situations, some of which may never come, but we're still training in the event that we do find ourselves there.
> 
> Mike


 
Absolutely..It a crisis situation you will respond based on how you train..


----------



## CuongNhuka (Nov 23, 2005)

My apologies, Ill do that for now on. but if you would, could you try to read my post and give me a comment.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 24, 2005)

coungnhuka said:
			
		

> condition of the "averige" (cause there is no norm.) street fighter.: terrible to far better then me. alot, i notice, are either vastly out of shape or in great shape. great from lifting weights (though poorly) and playing various sports like basketball or soccer, yadda, yadda, yadda.


 So either they're really bad, really good, or somewhere in between? 



			
				coungnhuka said:
			
		

> skills: common are pour boxing skills. alot have picked up material from watching freestyle wrestling, greako-roman wrestling, wwe wrestling (b.s.), ufc machtes, martial arts demos, muay thai matches, tournaments (karate), and all kinds of martial art and other sources.
> 
> tactic: punch in the face, shin kick the other guys shins (sounds painfull), head butt the gut (don't know why), crappy elbows and knees aimed at no were. also try to do WWE crapp when and were possible. if it is pointless or you'll hurt yourself: do it some more!!! they go on the ground, kick them, ALOT. or follow them and try wrestling. normally while punching them on the top of the head (sounds painful). if you think your gonna loss, well thats next.
> 
> ...


The above may be true, however this discussion was more in the context of a violent criminal assault (to facilitate another crime or with the assault as the goal) as opposed to a high-school fight. Now I'm not saying that you can't get messed up just as bad by a middle/high-schooler. Just that I imagine that if you were able to analyze the results of, say 100 high-school fights vs. 100 violent assaults by "professional criminals," you would probably find that the school fights resulted in less actual damage/trauma/injury.



			
				coungnhuka said:
			
		

> and if you donn't win in about 30 seconds will end haveing to deal with a knife, gun, chain, brick (or other weapon), or a group. even if you beat 'em quickly, you might have to deal with the dudes freinds.


30 seconds is about 20-25 seconds too long, especially if there are weapons or multiple attackers involved.


----------



## Ric Flair (Nov 24, 2005)

Drac said:
			
		

> I must have missed that article, thank God...Speaking from my own experiences as an officer..They may be old and out of shape but they will keep on fighting, they will bite and spit..Do they do that in the ring??? What was this guy smoking???
> I have responded to calls where a veteran "street fighter" took apart a trained martial artist whose never been bloodied..If they are carrying a weapon they will use it without hesitation..I'm sure other will have better comments..


 
Sometimes for a "trained martial artist" to truely develop his/her true potentials, they must get bloodied by good street fighters or other fighters of different martial arts.  

The bloodying part is just one of the processes that a Martial Artist MUST someday go through in order for his/her body to get de-sensitized from the fear of being hit/hurt.  

You can train and train all you want in class, even if you improve in sensitivity training and reaction timing, etc etc, if you never ever get into a conflict or get attacked on the streets, you will never feel the full experience of a violent situation.  I mean you ARE taking martial arts (well most of us) for the purpose of self protection and awareness right???  For Spiritual awareness too right???
Like Bruce Lee said, is there a point in "practicing swim strokes on dry land and never going into the Ocean and testing these skills out???".

Obviously you need to survive your beatdown in order to learn from the experience though right??? lol because even if you get beaten down in the streets, it gives you the opportunity to re-evaluate your art or at least your approach to your art.  The experience itself simply will help you recognize the difference between the warzone of the streets compared to your class environment.
Thats if you LIVE to continue learning from your mistakes though.  Maybe that is why it is wise to pick your battles/fights properly???

Of course, times have changed to the point someone on the streets might very well A) pull a knife on you (or various improvised objects for weapons)  B) pull a gun on you and C) get their friends to mob you.  And surprise surprise!!!  You might not even know what their intentions are until it happens!!!

= So since times in certain streets and environments have gotten worst in these regards, it gives us Artist more the reason to train seriously and think outside the box to prepare for todays chaos, just in case chaos targets one of us...


----------



## Odin (Nov 24, 2005)

Ive seen a pattern in you guys posts here,I notice that everyone seems to be refering to streetfights as being attacked by 'thugs' who seemed to be evil doers who walk around with flip knifes in their pocket looking like badguys from steven seagal films..this is the REAL WORLD!!
'Thugs' are normal people!anyone in this forum could be taken for one.
A bunch of normal guys on a night out are more likely to get in a scrap then a 'hoodlum' waiting in a dark alley! 
But anyway streetfighting..and ring fighting are two combats completly removed from each over,streetfights usally last seconds with most of the damage being done in the first 3 secs and then that would be it.most people if they are going to attack you hunt in packs,and im afraid that even if you are a 1st dan black belt you could be in trouble,'the average fighting ability of a normal name is low' that might not be true really since thugs can learn martial arts to you know plus think about it whats the average fighting ability of a martial artist??
You could be a black belt with a glass jaw,what then???
Or be unseasoned in a ring,your be suprised how many martial artists have not actually practiced thier combat skills on real life situations,its easy to slip a jab if it's been thrown slowly over your shoulder try a fast one at your face!
My kru said it best 'you could be the greatest martial artest in england and get hit with by a lucky punch form a 19 year old redneck from staines and kiss the floor!''


----------



## Ric Flair (Nov 24, 2005)

Odin said:
			
		

> Ive seen a pattern in you guys posts here,I notice that everyone seems to be refering to streetfights as being attacked by 'thugs' who seemed to be evil doers who walk around with flip knifes in their pocket looking like badguys from steven seagal films..this is the REAL WORLD!!
> 'Thugs' are normal people!anyone in this forum could be taken for one.
> A bunch of normal guys on a night out are more likely to get in a scrap then a 'hoodlum' waiting in a dark alley!
> But anyway streetfighting..and ring fighting are two combats completly removed from each over,streetfights usally last seconds with most of the damage being done in the first 3 secs and then that would be it.most people if they are going to attack you hunt in packs,and im afraid that even if you are a 1st dan black belt you could be in trouble,'the average fighting ability of a normal name is low' that might not be true really since thugs can learn martial arts to you know plus think about it whats the average fighting ability of a martial artist??
> ...


 
That is why some Martial artist require that beat down experience in order to gradually become less fearful, anxious, stiff in similar violent situations in the future.  Even if you lose to a guy on the streets and you get seriously injured, that is better than going around town thinking you are the **** because you just got your black belt; even though the only experience you have is in a controlled setting of the classroom.

I know a friend who took Wing Chun for many years.  he didn't seem to really have it either.  I would visit him sometimes in his class and think, whatever.  So i find out a few years later he was living in some youth shelter systems, i decided to visit him on a certain day.  Here an amateur Thai boxer beat him pretty bad in the male washroom at a certain shelter.  My friend hesitated and didn't know what to do!!!  he got knee'd in the ribs on his left side of the body and, for at least 2 weeks walked around with a fractured painful rib.  He couldn't breath properly
 with ease while sleeping at night

anyways a short time later(3 weeks??? i think) the same Thai boxer challenged him to a fight in a public park.  My friend called me to come watch and make sure everything was not carried overboard during the fight.  Sure enough i thought my friend was in for another *** whooping and started to doubt Wing Chun, martial arts myself.  What do you know.  the Thai fighter starts attacking my friend and, surprise my friend's arms come up naturally to defend his center.  This time, my friend seemed more relaxed and instead of backing away or cowering from the Thai boxer, he moved forward with a counter every time the opponent tried to hurt him (guess the first time an artist get assaulted in a major way, he becomes less sensitized and fearful to getting hit).  All in all i was very impressed with my friend, not perfect but improved from the previous week where he got his body beaten.  I on other numerous occasions witnessed first hand my friend be able to stop other attackers (and of course him losing some fights too) either on the street or in other shelter systems.  He was only a junior at that time!!!  And i believe these experiences have taught him to realize what real life can be like= anything goes!!!  He is now more advanced and still improving himself.  Only thing i don't see him really prepared for right now is a weapons attack (knife, gun) or a group attack.  He still has a long way to go.

He used to be so insecure of himself and hesitant, now his body, hands, feet does the reacting for him.  2nd nature.


----------



## Ric Flair (Nov 24, 2005)

picture a boxer practicing at a local gym for a few years without ever stepping foot into the actual ring to fight or even simply spar!!!

he spends most of his time skipping rope, running, and doing other various exercises.  He feels confident with himself because he is faster and stronger than the average joe on the street.

However, all of a sudden somehow he stumbles his way into the ring and there is another boxer with similar attributes like him, coming to attack him.  Our guy panics, gets his jaw broken and falls unconscious.  His first lesson.

All those hard years of training training training but, never doing doing doing cost him his jaw!!!  The boxer who knocked him out obviously not only trained but, also took the time out to test his skills in the ring with live, moving, unrehearsed individuals who boxed!!!

This can apply to a street situation too, only maybe slightly different with less restrictions...

If you take a martial art for many years but never test what you are taught, you can panic in a real life violent situation and getting beaten down pretty bad or worst, lose your life.  

Without testing your skills, you also will never know if what your teacher taught you was b.s or not.

its like riding a bike, you can practice the invisible leg motions all you want but, if you never get on an actual bike how much can you actually learn???


However, with today's very umpredictable streets and alleys, testing your skills in such a way with a stranger can lead to you having a bullet in your head or some deep knife wounds in your stomach or heart... and your martial art life can come to a short unexpected end.

Sparring can in a sense make up for this, if you are worried about taking it to the real streets.  Sparring, depending how you approach it can be almost like a real life fight too.  Depends how you attempt it.

but when its all said and done, you can say sparring is considered a stationary gym exercise bike VS a real bike where you can test it out in the bumpy concrete world we call society.  Only by attempting the real bike can we fully understand the dynamics of 
how to effectively eventually ride a bike in the outside world.


----------



## Odin (Nov 25, 2005)

Martial artists are all good but what do guys think of 'natural' fighters,ive seen guys whith no martial art's training at all yet could still kick two shades of Edited to conform to MT's Profanity rules **** out of practiced martial artists,dont get me wrong im not saying all but differently some.

In England you get pikey's (brad pit snatch) who's diet includes fags and beer and whos training avolves around selling moody gear on street corners,yet its a fact that a pikey bare knuckle fighters are the 'hardest' people on the planet.


----------



## Adept (Nov 25, 2005)

Odin said:
			
		

> In England you get pikey's (brad pit snatch) who's diet includes fags and beer and whos training avolves around selling moody gear on street corners,yet its a fact that a pikey bare knuckle fighters are the 'hardest' people on the planet.



Some people are just naturally hard. They've lived a life (and been 'blessed' with the right genes) that lead to them being a dangerous person without ever recieving any formal training.

However, someone who has that background in _addition_ to formal training is exponentially more capable.


----------



## Ric Flair (Nov 25, 2005)

Odin said:
			
		

> Martial artists are all good but what do guys think of 'natural' fighters,ive seen guys whith no martial art's training at all yet could still kick two shades of s**t out of practiced martial artists,dont get me wrong im not saying all but differently some.
> 
> In England you get pikey's (brad pit snatch) who's diet includes fags and beer and whos training avolves around selling moody gear on street corners,yet its a fact that a pikey bare knuckle fighters are the 'hardest' people on the planet.


 
Are they not martial artist if they effectively fight on the streets???  
I mean, what was the original intent of certain martial arts like Escrima and Wing Chun???  Where they created and modified to be fancy in front of cameras???  Were the purposes of certain arts created for board breaking + show and tell???

Or were certain martial arts created specifically for the handling and dealing of street situations, and wars???


----------



## MJS (Nov 25, 2005)

Odin said:
			
		

> Martial artists are all good but what do guys think of 'natural' fighters,ive seen guys whith no martial art's training at all yet could still kick two shades of s**t out of practiced martial artists,dont get me wrong im not saying all but differently some.
> 
> In England you get pikey's (brad pit snatch) who's diet includes fags and beer and whos training avolves around selling moody gear on street corners,yet its a fact that a pikey bare knuckle fighters are the 'hardest' people on the planet.


 
It all comes down to how one trains.  If someone is training in more of a sport oriented MA, compared to someone more along the lines of RBSD or is adding in aliveness and some realism to their training, there should be a considerable difference in the performance.  

Mike


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 25, 2005)

Ric Flair said:
			
		

> Are they not martial artist if they effectively fight on the streets???
> I mean, what was the original intent of certain martial arts like Escrima and Wing Chun??? Where they created and modified to be fancy in front of cameras??? Were the purposes of certain arts created for board breaking + show and tell???
> 
> Or were certain martial arts created specifically for the handling and dealing of street situations, and wars???



I effectively handled myself on the streets before my Official training began.

Hmmm, let me see, I would hit people with wild swings, I would get scared and hurt them really bad so they were in the hospital. I would bear hug them and drop them on the ground, a car, or what ever what available. I would slam their head into a wall, car or table. I was effective, in that I broght more to the table then most are willing to, and a manner of escalation that many were not ready for or had time to prepare for. 

So, I trained, and got better, but I got hurt more often. I hesitated. (* Maybe it was polive investigations, or the investigation, while being a witness to a stabbing that made me think twice or that my training had slowed me down in my approach. Not sure, it probably was both. *)

So, Trained some more, and then I decided that I would not get hurt, and started to escalate sooner, but the issue was that I still got hurt or other got hurt. 

So, then I consciously choose, to bring the most the soonest, and bring in a fashion that they could not handle.  This assumed that the talking phase did not work, or the taking of the names as the walk out phase, did not work. This woudl occur when the guys buddies would go to surround you, or they would begin to hit themselves to get the adrenaline dump. If it was at that point I would bring it. Was I the best, no way. Was I effective before training? Yes. After Training. I brought a lot, and hurt people, but there were less hospital visits, and less police reports to fill out. 

This does not mean I would fight every time. A couple of times I could see theguys were so high on drugs they did not even know they were alive. Yet they wanted to fight. I got people away from them called and waited for the police, and then I had assist the police in one case, as they could not contain him, so they called in more back up while I assisted. 

Do, I recommend this for anyone? I do not. You life expectancy is very short, you get stabbed, and you get shot at or even shot, and hit with weapons and go through windows, and hit by cars, and what have you. Also the police do not like it even when there are four or five of them and you are still standing when they arrive and some of them are not, and you all look like you have been in a fight. Their opinion then and there was that if you could do this, then you should have been able to control the four or five with out the damage involved. I learned real early and before those cases, that I just said "yes, Sir" and "No, Sir" and did not argue with them. If they wanted to take me down, I then asked to press charges and for my lawyer, and since I was a broke college student, I asked if they could call me one. 

Now, if you call street brawling an art form then you could say they are martial artists. I would saw they are warriors, and capable of being such, but are not trained to optimize thier movements and techniques.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Nov 25, 2005)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> So either they're really bad, really good, or somewhere in between?
> 
> The above may be true, however this discussion was more in the context of a violent criminal assault (to facilitate another crime or with the assault as the goal) as opposed to a high-school fight. Now I'm not saying that you can't get messed up just as bad by a middle/high-schooler. Just that I imagine that if you were able to analyze the results of, say 100 high-school fights vs. 100 violent assaults by "professional criminals," you would probably find that the school fights resulted in less actual damage/trauma/injury.
> 
> 30 seconds is about 20-25 seconds too long, especially if there are weapons or multiple attackers involved.


 
Sorry for the delay. And on topic, kempotex. For the most part Im not going off fights between just any of the idiots at school in fistfights. Im mostly going off gang fights (were at least one fighter is a gangster). And I know that you really only have a few seconds, but I added some time so the folks who arent good fighters have a little more time until they need to get really serious (though you should be any ways). Thats one of the main reasons I dont think that MMA fights are as realistic as they say. Its definitely the closest you can get safely and legally. I have to go soon, but will add more later.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John


----------



## Odin (Nov 25, 2005)

Ric Flair said:
			
		

> Are they not martial artist if they effectively fight on the streets???
> I mean, what was the original intent of certain martial arts like Escrima and Wing Chun??? Where they created and modified to be fancy in front of cameras??? Were the purposes of certain arts created for board breaking + show and tell???
> 
> Or were certain martial arts created specifically for the handling and dealing of street situations, and wars???


 
.....good points but I think martial arts are more then fighting in the streets???come on if my little brother beat up a kid how would that make him a martial artist it would make him a good fighter,thats one of my points as streetfighting go there are natural fighters,mike tyson is not a great boxer mike tyson is a good fighter,they even said there was little difference the way he thought before he started boxing!as for marial ats like what you mentioned,you'll find that becuase those who practised them forms mainly fought men that used the same art so a lot of the defensive blocks and parries would be to defend wing chun moves but would be used for little else,plus these arts were created years a go times change and so does the way the common man fights so how useful are these moves???....as with a lot of martial arts.

Think about it though,in order for the human race to have survived throught the ages a 'form' of defendering yourself must have been programmed in your head kinder like no one really tells you how to chew and swallow food or to cover yuor face if something is thrown at you,i think it would be more present in some people then others (which would be your fighting ability) this is what topic i was trying to raise is do people really need martial arts to be good fighters there seems to be a theory that just because you do a martial art you can beat up any normal tom dick and harry which i dont relly believe to be true.


----------



## Ric Flair (Nov 25, 2005)

Odin said:
			
		

> .....good points but I think martial arts are more then fighting in the streets???come on if my little brother beat up a kid how would that make him a martial artist it would make him a good fighter,thats one of my points as streetfighting go there are natural fighters,mike tyson is not a great boxer mike tyson is a good fighter,they even said there was little difference the way he thought before he started boxing!as for marial ats like what you mentioned,you'll find that becuase those who practised them forms mainly fought men that used the same art so a lot of the defensive blocks and parries would be to defend wing chun moves but would be used for little else,plus these arts were created years a go times change and so does the way the common man fights so how useful are these moves???....as with a lot of martial arts.
> 
> Think about it though,in order for the human race to have survived throught the ages a 'form' of defendering yourself must have been programmed in your head kinder like no one really tells you how to chew and swallow food or to cover yuor face if something is thrown at you,i think it would be more present in some people then others (which would be your fighting ability) this is what topic i was trying to raise is do people really need martial arts to be good fighters there seems to be a theory that just because you do a martial art you can beat up any normal tom dick and harry which i dont relly believe to be true.


 
True.  But with Wing Chun and some other arts, they are adaptable to many situations.  Remember that W.C was created and honed from a Woman's perspective and body structure to fight smartly and not with force against other Chinese arts where the men with bigger bodies, bone structures dominated.  Remember that with W.C, it is about striking the places that count, feeling for the right opportunities... and not fighting force  with force.  For a woman with a smaller frame, she does not have the time or risk to try and outmuscle the bigger male.
it is true in class W.C you often do the drills and such with similar W.C artist but, when it comes down to it as long as you progress, in time you learn anything goes in real life and you need to learn to adapt to your opponent.  For every opponent is different from the next.  

Who knows, perhaps back in the days the only way to figure out if something really worked was to try it on the battlefields or the streets of the ancient world.  Whatever was effective on different situations were passed down from generation to generation, while those that only worked in theory but not in actual application were either deleted or improved.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 25, 2005)

Ric Flair said:
			
		

> Or were certain martial arts created specifically for the handling and dealing of street situations, and wars???



Definitely. Look at kenjutsu! Wing Chun is another good example, I think.

Of course, not all arts created for that purpose are created well, I suppose...but most of those, if created when the skills were actually needed, would've fallen to survival of the fittest.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 26, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Looking through a recent Black Belt magazine article the other day, I came across an interesting article. The author was writing regarding the myths of what people think an attack and the attackers on the street will be like. His first remark states that the people that we may face on the street, are not the big, bad people that we imagine. He states that people who tell us to watch out for certain parts of town, because they may be ridden with drugs, gangs and prostitution are simply preying on our fears.


  The average person doesn't run in to violent assault all that often (But once or twice in a lifetime is MORE than enough).  



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> He goes on to examine the 'typical' street fighter, giving the impression that the most common will be someone out of shape. His next step is looking at the skills of the average street fighter, stating that their skills are limited to poor boxing skills consisting of right hand punches and kicking someone once they're down.


  What they'll be are masters of surprise.  They know their game, even if they don't have it polished.  A big right hand from a meth freak, jacked up and tweaking for days at a time, is as dangerous as a polished boxer....IF you don't see it coming.  Moreover, they are not as predictable.  If they're attacking you, it's because you have something they want.  They'll usually use a weapon, sometimes a gun or a knife, often just a bludgeon.  If they came to take something from you, it's because they feel they have the upper hand, and they aren't playing fair.  They don't want to fight, they want to dominate and control.  It's purely predatory.  What's more, it's usually pack aggression, as they often don't come alone.




			
				MJS said:
			
		

> He concludes his examination by saying that fighting on the street is no different than in the ring. We're still facing someone determined to hurt us, the difference being, that on the street, we don't have to fight fair. He also states that the chances of your street attacker pulling out a knife and killing us are slim.


  They're a lot more like WWF than any kind of fair contest.  As for pulling out a knife, if they're trying to rob you, they'll likely use what they brought.  Again, like the WWF, anything goes, and they can bring friends.



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> So, thoughts on this? Is the picture that he painted accurate, or is he clueless as to what its really like? IMHO, this person either lives in an area where the crime rate is low or he just isn't keeping up with the times. Oddly enough, I read an article in this past weekends paper, talking about a gun that was used in 11 recent shootings in the City of Hartford. In addition to the shootings, it also mentioned that this single gun, was also used to muggings, drug deals, etc. Hmmm...but then again, I thought the odds of a weapon being used were slim??
> 
> Mike


 Sounds like the author hasn't been around much.  He's likely relying on the fact that the average person doesn't find themselves in these situations....BECAUSE they avoid the bad parts of town, and pay police to patrol their neighborhoods at night.  The truth is, those of us in polite society tend to insulate ourselves from the "harsher realities" by avoiding them as much as possible.  This includes crossing the street to avoid the group of young toughs, not going in the gas station with the tough looking individuals loitering around outside.  We call the police when we see someone suspicious in our neighborhoods.  

Just because we manage to avoid those situations most of our lives, however, doesn't mean we should convince ourselves they don't exist.  They're always one turn of the corner away.


----------



## Gliby (Nov 26, 2005)

I pretty much agree with sgtmac_46.  

People who regularly fight on the street tend to be good at it, they have to be otherwise they will get hurt badly, so they are skilled at what they do which is namely causing as much pain as possible while not getting themselves hurt too badly.

Most people who grow up to be fighters (on the street) have had a form of training, not formal training in MA but training none the less.  Ever seen a group of people, gang members hanging about on a street corner or in a park, notice how regularly spontaneous mock (practice) fights break out among them?  You'll see some really dirty techniques, punches, kicks, sweeps, trips, grabs, grappling, throws and even locks and chokes being practiced and perfected, while it is by no means a formal form of training, it is a form of sparing and it keeps them sharp.  combine that practice with the real fights they have, then you have a skilled opponent.    

The fitness issue is also wrong.  You ever seen a gang member running from the police, don't care what you think about fitness them boys can move.  Most of them are built pretty well too, usually from doing sports, football or rugby most of the time.   A lot of gang members spend time at home or the local community center lifting weights, doing crunches, push-ups and sit-ups because they need to be able to both hit hard and take a good hit to survive.  All of the above makes them very, dangerous in my opinion and experience.   

If you then factor in drink and/or drugs then you have a really dangerous opponent, someone on amphetamine for example tends to have a very high pain threshold. Not only that but a person on Amphetamine will tend to hit harder than they normally would. Sure you might break their nose with a good shot to the head, but the guy on meth probably wont even feel it until the meth wears off.  Okay so the guy on meth tore his rotator cuff with a punch that nearly took your head off, because he hit you harder than his body could normally hit, hes not going to feel that torn cuff till the meth wears off but your still KO'd at his feet and thats all that matters.

The biggest danger is underestimating someone because they fight on the street and not in a Dojo, if you do that then you may get badly hurt.  

Best advice is run if at all possible, if you cant run then stand your ground and act aggressively.  Wolfs prefer to attack sheep rather than fight a fellow Wolf, so if you are in a situation where you cant run then acting aggressively may make them back down.


----------



## Adept (Nov 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The average person doesn't run in to violent assault all that often (But once or twice in a lifetime is MORE than enough).



The other issue to bear in mind is those of us who work with violent people, be it as security or in law enforcement. Not only do we encounter violence much more often, but it is a different _kind_ of violence. I know I would respond differently 'on the street' than I would at work.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 26, 2005)

Great points *Gliby*. Sreet experience counts the same as training--I've heard it said that every fight is worth 8 months of training. (Plus, these people often share tricks with one another.) Additionally, they are often in good shape, at least for fighting. The mock fights do indeed keep them sharp and force them to keep learning.

Don't underestimate a street fighter's experience and aggressiveness and sheer desire to win!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 27, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> The other issue to bear in mind is those of us who work with violent people, be it as security or in law enforcement. Not only do we encounter violence much more often, but it is a different _kind_ of violence. I know I would respond differently 'on the street' than I would at work.


 Most definitely.  A professional needs to approach these kinds of things far differently.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 27, 2005)

Also keep one thing in mind.  Mindset.  The average street punk (note I said average, not every) doesn't really want a fight, despite the fact that they are likely very physically capable.  He wants someone to dominate.  While they are usually in quite good shape, many of them are naturally cowards, especially those who gain their courage from the group.  Much like a wolf pack, the group is extremely dangerous, but the individual wolf won't confront a large or dangerous predator by itself, and will usually shy away from confrontations.   The group, however, will attack if they sense weakness.  Placating a wolf-pack isn't possible, you have to show them enough aggression to make them wonder if it's worth tangling with you.

One need look only at the effect of a wolverines stand against a wolf pack to determine how one should act if cornered by a human wolf pack.  Do as much damage as possible to anyone who gets near, and make them think you're absolutely out of your mind.  You CAN control and dominate a group, if you have the proper mindset.

I first saw this done at a river when I was a teenager.  A 40 year old biker (who was alone except for his girlfriend, another woman and a young boy) got in to a confrontation with a group of 20 something year old man/boys.  

Initially, the first 20 year old man courageously ran up to the biker, and pushed him off in to the water, with a buddy on each wing.  The biker rose up from the water and promptly knocked the gentleman unconcious.  At that point, he struck the unconcious man several times.  

The rest of group, consisting of approximately 7 to 8 men, were more than physically capable of coming to their friends aid, and beating this biker unconcious.   At this point, however, they stopped thinking as a mob, and started thinking of individual safety, because this biker had put such pressure on them.  He stared the rest of the group down and defied any man in the group to 'bring it on'.  He told every man there that he'd kill any man who stepped up.  Whether he would/could or not, they all believed him.  They collected their friend and proceeded to leave. 

Now, i'm not suggesting this is the way to deal with a group of thugs, but the lesson is there for anyone who wants to learn it.  When cornered, sometimes the answer is "attack, attack, attack" no matter how long the odds.


----------



## Gliby (Nov 27, 2005)

Sorry sgtmac i have to disagree with a couple of your points.  

Your right if your talking about mouthy punks, guys who try and dominate you by words before ever thinking of atacking you.  Those guys are the "fake hardmen" they guys who in their head think they are gang bangers and street fighters.  These guys tend not to come from the really tough areas of town, they are usually just punks who cant fight, they are just trying to front it out.  But as soon as someone stands up to them, as soon as they meet agression then they will usually back down even if they are in a group, they will only attack if the other person (or persons) seem week.     

If we are talking about proper fighters on the street (Street Fighters, Gang Bangers etc, etc) then your barking up the wrong tree.  These people dont tend to to hang around in a fight, they wont talk too much they tend to hit first, fast and hard.  Thats the way they stay in one piece, keep their image and credability.  

Why will they want to hit you? for looking at them in a way they think is disrespectful, walking down their street or neighbourhood when they dont know you, looking at their girlfriend or just wearing the wrong colour of tracksuit or hoodie (i.e accidently wearing a rival gangs colours) can get you a beating.  There are a whole host of reasons for them giving you a kicking, most of which to you dont seem logical.  The streets work in a different way from the rest of society, their own rules and code of conduct.    

Also street fighters and especially Gang Members wont tend to run if you knock one of their friends down.  Thats becase they know if they run and the rest of the gang dont then they are in for a punishment beating for being a coward, they have probably allready received or seen a few punishment beatings and they dont want to be on the end of one.  What you can do to them right there and then is not as bad as what their fellow gang members will do to them if they run, there more scared of their friends than they are of you.  Thats the issue of self preservation that a gang banger has to worry about, you aint even a blip on their radar.  

They also tend not to run because they have to protect their "image", they have to walk down those rough streets every single day of their lifes.  If they cant hold their head up, if there fellow gang members think they are a coward, if people in their street think they have any weakness then they wont be able to walk out of their front door without risk to themselves.  Its a case of not losing face in front of their peer group, they would rather stay and risk you beating them up because to them and everyone they know that shows that "I am a man, i am not afraid of a beating".

So if your talking about "fake gangs", guys just mouthing off after some drinks or people with a false hardman image in their own head then i agree.  If you talking about the dangerous blokes (real gang members and fighters) who hit first, talk later then i dont agree.  Your best bet is to try and front it out with agression, attack them first and keep hitting but the odds are you are going to get one hell of a hiding from them, so when you go down roll into a ball, put your hands over your head and hope they dont hurt you too much.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 27, 2005)

Gliby said:
			
		

> Sorry sgtmac i have to disagree with a couple of your points.
> 
> Your right if your talking about mouthy punks, guys who try and dominate you by words before ever thinking of atacking you. Those guys are the "fake hardmen" they guys who in their head think they are gang bangers and street fighters. These guys tend not to come from the really tough areas of town, they are usually just punks who cant fight, they are just trying to front it out. But as soon as someone stands up to them, as soon as they meet agression then they will usually back down even if they are in a group, they will only attack if the other person (or persons) seem week.
> 
> If we are talking about proper fighters on the street (Street Fighters, Gang Bangers etc, etc) then your barking up the wrong tree. These people dont tend to to hang around in a fight, they wont talk too much they tend to hit first, fast and hard. Thats the way they stay in one piece, keep their image and credability.


 I think I already covered that upthread.  However, "gang bangers" are pack animals, thus the term "gang member".  They derive their courage from the group.  I've found very few gang members who want a REAL fight if they can avoid it.  If they're armed, and you're not, that's the same thing.  They know you're a mark. 



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> Why will they want to hit you? for looking at them in a way they think is disrespectful, walking down their street or neighbourhood when they dont know you, looking at their girlfriend or just wearing the wrong colour of tracksuit or hoodie (i.e accidently wearing a rival gangs colours) can get you a beating. There are a whole host of reasons for them giving you a kicking, most of which to you dont seem logical. The streets work in a different way from the rest of society, their own rules and code of conduct.


 Yes, and ALL of those things break down the fact that THEY believe you are an easy mark.  Name one gang member who will PURPOSELY walk up to a man who THEY know is A) Armed and B) THEY KNOW will kill them with the slightest provocation.  Very few (as the ones who WILL are usually killed off young).  



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> Also street fighters and especially Gang Members wont tend to run if you knock one of their friends down. Thats becase they know if they run and the rest of the gang dont then they are in for a punishment beating for being a coward, they have probably allready received or seen a few punishment beatings and they dont want to be on the end of one. What you can do to them right there and then is not as bad as what their fellow gang members will do to them if they run, there more scared of their friends than they are of you. Thats the issue of self preservation that a gang banger has to worry about, you aint even a blip on their radar.


  Maybe you misunderstand me.  I'm not talking about administering a "beating" to a gang member...I'm referring to taking goblins out of the gene pool.  They don't have to worry about a beating with me, as the accurate application of controlled fire usually takes care of trolls and goblins.  



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> They also tend not to run because they have to protect their "image", they have to walk down those rough streets every single day of their lifes. If they cant hold their head up, if there fellow gang members think they are a coward, if people in their street think they have any weakness then they wont be able to walk out of their front door without risk to themselves. Its a case of not losing face in front of their peer group, they would rather stay and risk you beating them up because to them and everyone they know that shows that "I am a man, i am not afraid of a beating".


  You've invested far too much respect in to the false machismo of the gang culture.  Those that join a gang usually do so out of a sense of vulnerability.  Gang members, again, are a threat in groups.



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> So if your talking about "fake gangs", guys just mouthing off after some drinks or people with a false hardman image in their own head then i agree. If you talking about the dangerous blokes (real gang members and fighters) who hit first, talk later then i dont agree. Your best bet is to try and front it out with agression, attack them first and keep hitting but the odds are you are going to get one hell of a hiding from them, so when you go down roll into a ball, put your hands over your head and hope they dont hurt you too much.


 A gang is a gang, you've invested FAR too much stock in this "gang culture myth".  Some gang members are more dangerous than others, but one thing that makes ALL of them dangerous, is the idea that YOU are an easy mark.  

Prisoners who go to prison learn this early.  Walking around in fearful awe of others only makes you become a "punk" in prison.

Myself, I would much prefer to escalate the situation FAR beyond the level the average gang member is going to go.  If you're unarmed, that means you're going to have to work VERY hard, and if you're unarmed, and they AREN'T, you're behind the curve.

If i'm confronted by a group of men wanting to do me harm, the situation is going to turn DEADLY violent very fast.  Shoot first, shoot last, and do ALL of the shooting in between.  Those of you who say: "Hey, you'll go to jail for shooting a group of men who are attacking you" obviously live a part of the world where the law frowns upon law abiding citizens defending themselves.  Where I live we still make a distinction between CRIMINALS and law abiding citizens.  Here, we call that situation "Justifiable force".  Besides, my chances are far better with the legal system, than with the medical system (probably cheaper too).  

Those of you who live in a society or culture that believes the private ownership and carrying of small arms by law abiding citizens should be a crime, I feel VERY sorry for the state of your society.  The culture I live in, is MUCH more polite, and it's the trolls and goblins that live in fear.  We don't have lawless streetgangs wondering around harassing law abiding citizens, because we are likely to cure the problem with the appropriate application of high-velocity projectiles.  

I've been in law enforcement for 10 years, and I DO NOT FEAR a lawfully armed citizen.  The threat is from illegally armed thugs, and the answer is to punish those who us firearms in the commission of a crime.  It's ironic how lawfully armed citizens tend to have a freezing effect on thugs, especially when the law decides to be on the side of law abiding citizens, and not in the buisness of protecting trolls and goblins.  

Though unarmed martial arts training is a necessity, it's NOT a substitute for training and access to that greatest and most equalizing of martial tools, the firearm.  Unarmed martial arts should be part, not all, of a well-rounded martial education.  An understanding of the firearm, the knife and the stick, should be a pre-requisite for any self-respecting member of a free society.  

An armed 80 year old woman is an easy mark for thugs and hooligans in her own home....An 80 year old woman armed with a 12 guage shotgun, however, has often been MORE than a match for groups of goblins and ghouls.  What's more, it's amazing how, once confronted with the business end of said shotgun, those same thugs are "reluctant" to return (if they survive).


----------



## Gliby (Nov 27, 2005)

> Yes, and ALL of those things break down the fact that THEY believe you are an easy mark. Name one gang member who will PURPOSELY walk up to a man who THEY know is A) Armed and B) THEY KNOW will kill them with the slightest provocation. Very few (as the ones who WILL are usually killed off young).


 
I think perhaps you are laboring under the false impression that i live in a country where it is legalto own a handgun, not only is  *illegal* to own a handgun it is illegal to carry a fire arm of any type (unless its a licensed rifle or shotgun unloaded and secured in a locked case).  

So from purely my own experience then i think what i have said is valid, a gang member in my own country can step up to someone and pretty much guarantee that that person is not a) armed (with a gun) and B) they will also be aware that the balance of probability is that the person will not posses a high caliber weapon, so cannot kill them with the_ "slightest provocation"_.  In those circumstances many gang members are willing to walk up to someone and carry out an act of unprovoked or casuall act of violence, i have both witnessed and been on the receiving end of this form of violence.  



> Maybe you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about administering a "beating" to a gang member...I'm referring to taking goblins out of the gene pool. They don't have to worry about a beating with me, as the accurate application of controlled fire usually takes care of trolls and goblins.


 
So if i am right then your talking about _"kill them with the slightest provocation"_ and thereby _"taking goblins out of the gene pool_" (the bits in italics are directly quoted from you). It worries me that someone would have the opinon that a law abiding citizen who feels "_the slightest provocation"_ should be able to _"kill them"_ i.e the person who has slightly provoked them. Thats essentially the view that anyone you view as a law abiding citizen should both legally and in principle be entitled to act as judge, jury and executioner should they feel they are under the _"slightest provocation"?_ 

Thats a lot of power and responsibility to put into law abiding citizens hands, most society's don't give that amount of individual power to police officers, judges or politicians.  But thats the society you live in so its not really my concern, you have the right to protect yourself anyway you legally can in your own country and i have the right to do the same in mine.  



> You've invested far too much respect in to the false machismo of the gang culture. Those that join a gang usually do so out of a sense of vulnerability. Gang members, again, are a threat in groups.


 
Ive not really invested too much respect in the machismo of the gang culture, i grew up in one of the worst housing estates  (perhaps in your terms projects) around.  Where i grew up is known locally as "little Bosnia", "Bad Baghdad" or wherever there was currently a war going on, the indication is that its almost as bad as living in a war zone.  I am under no illusions, its bad but its not as bad as being shot at and mortared, its just an analogy thats used.    

Ambulance crews, fire engines, doctors etc, etc will not enter the area without a police in attendance.  In general the police, certainly after dark will only enter the area in force (i.e lots of officers).

With a Glock .40 tucked in at your back you can afford the luxury of thinking that gang members generally have a _"false machismo" _around them and are cowardly pack hunters.  But if i walk around the streets with that same attitude and *no* Glock .40 then from my own experience I'm setting myself up with a _"false machismo"_ of my own and that _"false machismo"_ may just end up getting me hurt (or worse)_.  _I think its relativly (i emphisise "relativly") easy for anyone to be brave (even facing a gang) with a firearm in their hand but its a whole different story to sucsessfully face down 5 or 6 guys if you don't have a gun in your hand.  

So all things being even i reckon that i will continue to walk around with my normal amount of caution and due care, regardless of your views on how i should conduct myself.  I think that what i have said in previous posts is a grounded aproach to self defense when you do not have legal acess to firearms.    

All they other bits you have in your post regarding society's who do not allow firearm ownership, compared to those who do allow firearms to be owned is not really germain to our discussion.  Its essentially just your view of how all societies should be in your own opinion and that is not what we were discussing.  

We were discussing self defense in a real situation, as the reality is that not all people have the legal right in their own country to bear arms or indeed may as an idividual choose not to bear arms even if they have the right to do so.  Simply talking the view that any form of defense without a gun is purely secondary to any defense involving a gun is not facing up to the real situations that many of us may find ourselves in.  Where i live and others no doubt live the only real option to defend yourself is Martial Arts training, it cannot (legally) be subsituted for firearms training.         

Whether or not you agree with the laws in other country's regarding firearms usage and ownership, i am sure (as a serving police officer) you will agree that anyone who wishes to be regarded as a "law abiding citizen" within their own country cannot chose to ignore those gun laws because they are inconvenient and carry a firearm regardless.

We live in two very different cultures, however i hope i can respect and appreciate the options you have to defend yourself and i hope you can do the same in regard to the options i have available.  Our experiences may be wildly different, but perhaps we can learn something from each other.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 27, 2005)

Gliby said:
			
		

> I think perhaps you are laboring under the false impression that i live in a country where it is legalto own a handgun, not only is *illegal* to own a handgun it is illegal to carry a fire arm of any type (unless its a licensed rifle or shotgun unloaded and secured in a locked case).


 No, I was not under that illusion, I think I made it perfectly clear that you are apparently from a culture that shuns the rights of law abiding citizens defending themselves against thugs and hooligans.  That's why violent crime has been on the rise in several nations in Europe.  



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> So from purely my own experience then i think what i have said is valid, a gang member in my own country can step up to someone and pretty much guarantee that that person is not a) armed (with a gun) and B) they will also be aware that the balance of probability is that the person will not posses a high caliber weapon, so cannot kill them with the_ "slightest provocation"_.


  The quotes "slightest provocation" is purely yours.  I said "Reasonable Force", and that doctrine is clearly understood to anyone who studies it.  I also use the term imminent threat.  Again, the reason your streets are crawling with hoodlums, is that your courts have decided that they are the same as you, and deserve to protected FROM you.  Again, is it any wonder that law abiding citizens fear to walk the streets.  The idea of protecting law abiding citizens from guns, has really created a situation where the law is protecting criminals from law abiding citizens.  Young toughs don't need guns to terrorize law abiding people.  



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> In those circumstances many gang members are willing to walk up to someone and carry out an act of unprovoked or casuall act of violence, i have both witnessed and been on the receiving end of this form of violence.


  I'm sure you have.  That's what happens in the kind of culture that denies the average citizen the means of self-defense.  I'm well aware that the British government has stated, clearly, that self-defense is not a legitimate claim.




			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> So if i am right then your talking about _"kill them with the slightest provocation"_ and thereby _"taking goblins out of the gene pool_" (the bits in italics are directly quoted from you). It worries me that someone would have the opinon that a law abiding citizen who feels "_the slightest provocation"_ should be able to _"kill them"_ i.e the person who has slightly provoked them. Thats essentially the view that anyone you view as a law abiding citizen should both legally and in principle be entitled to act as judge, jury and executioner should they feel they are under the _"slightest provocation"? _


_  I know this is a foreign concept to those who live in the more "peaceful" realms where 'friendly' socialist governments believe it is the best thing to render average citizens harmless, but here, we believe the average citizen deserves the right to lethal force as an option self-defense.  Again, "slightest provocation" is not the correct term, defending one's self against felonious assault IS.  I believe the average citizen has the right to use lethal force to prevent himself from being the victim of a violent felony.  Our courts agree.  Just the other night, a 'goblin' in the night tried to break in to the home of a young couple.  In Europe, they would have been left to call the police and hide, hoping the hooligans didn't decide to hurt them "Too badly".  Here, they loaded a 12 guage shotgun and announced to the would-be intruder that they were armed and going to SHOOT him.  After begging the couple NOT to kill him, he promptly ran away without a shot being fired._



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> Thats a lot of power and responsibility to put into law abiding citizens hands, most society's don't give that amount of individual power to police officers, judges or politicians. But thats the society you live in so its not really my concern, you have the right to protect yourself anyway you legally can in your own country and i have the right to do the same in mine.


  Most governments fear their citizens.  The US has a history of believing that the citizen IS the government.  That's the fundamental philosophical difference.  With the exception of a few would-be banana republics we call urban areas, the US as a whole still believes that concept.  You'll probably be surprised to hear that my state, Missouri, grants law-abiding citizens above the age of 23 who desire them, and don't have a criminal record, pass a safety course, and pay the fee,  a concealed carry permit allowing them carry a concealed handgun.

Contrary to the prognostications of doom and gloom leftists who predicted 'shootouts in the streets', the reality has been that crime has WENT DOWN.  I can not recall one single incident of a concealed carry holder being involved in a crime.  




			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> Ive not really invested too much respect in the machismo of the gang culture, i grew up in one of the worst housing estates (perhaps in your terms projects) around. Where i grew up is known locally as "little Bosnia", "Bad Baghdad" or wherever there was currently a war going on, the indication is that its almost as bad as living in a war zone. I am under no illusions, its bad but its not as bad as being shot at and mortared, its just an analogy thats used.


 I've seen those rough areas, and they are hell-holes.  They are very violent, and it is easy to get beaten and even killed by violent gangs.  We have those areas here too.  Anyone familiar with Missouri knows what it's like to visit parts of St. Louis and Kansas City.  



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> Ambulance crews, fire engines, doctors etc, etc will not enter the area without a police in attendance. In general the police, certainly after dark will only enter the area in force (i.e lots of officers).


  Again, i've been to those areas, and you are correct.  



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> With a Glock .40 tucked in at your back you can afford the luxury of thinking that gang members generally have a _"false machismo" _around them and are cowardly pack hunters. But if i walk around the streets with that same attitude and *no* Glock .40 then from my own experience I'm setting myself up with a _"false machismo"_ of my own and that _"false machismo"_ may just end up getting me hurt (or worse)_. _I think its relativly (i emphisise "relativly") easy for anyone to be brave (even facing a gang) with a firearm in their hand but its a whole different story to sucsessfully face down 5 or 6 guys if you don't have a gun in your hand.


 My references to fighting back discussed, specifically, being cornered by these sorts of animals.  If you have a way of escaping, by all means do so.  However, when cornered, the only response is aggression.



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> So all things being even i reckon that i will continue to walk around with my normal amount of caution and due care, regardless of your views on how i should conduct myself. I think that what i have said in previous posts is a grounded aproach to self defense when you do not have legal acess to firearms.


 Perhaps you misunderstood me.  My claim was that when it came time to fight, fight with all out aggression.  At no time did I suggest looking for a confrontation.  However, crossing the street to avoid a group of individuals, showing signs of submission, appearing to BE a mark, can often lead to a violent attack.  Anyone familiar with prisons, one of the most violent places on earth, understand completely the rules guiding aggression.



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> All they other bits you have in your post regarding society's who do not allow firearm ownership, compared to those who do allow firearms to be owned is not really germain to our discussion. Its essentially just your view of how all societies should be in your own opinion and that is not what we were discussing.


  They are very germain in discussing how to defend yourself in a society that views a distinction between criminals and law abiding citizens.  They certainly don't apply when a society feels it needs to protect criminals from the average citizen.  In that sense, you are correct.

[quote-Gliby]
We were discussing self defense in a real situation, as the reality is that not all people have the legal right in their own country to bear arms or indeed may as an idividual choose not to bear arms even if they have the right to do so. Simply talking the view that any form of defense without a gun is purely secondary to any defense involving a gun is not facing up to the real situations that many of us may find ourselves in. Where i live and others no doubt live the only real option to defend yourself is Martial Arts training, it cannot (legally) be subsituted for firearms training. [/quote] So what you're saying, in essence, is that what applies HERE does not apply there.  I agree with you on that point.  



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> Whether or not you agree with the laws in other country's regarding firearms usage and ownership, i am sure (as a serving police officer) you will agree that anyone who wishes to be regarded as a "law abiding citizen" within their own country cannot chose to ignore those gun laws because they are inconvenient and carry a firearm regardless.


  Many of us Americans have a more cautious attitude about our roles in relation to the government.  We consider ourselves, as we do, citizens, not subjects.  Laws are not just handed down to us.  We have fought to retain our rights to possess arms and defend ourselves despite the social engineering pressures exerted in the nations of Europe and Austrailia.  We've been infinitely more successful, likely as a result of our natural rebellous nature.  



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> We live in two very different cultures, however i hope i can respect and appreciate the options you have to defend yourself and i hope you can do the same in regard to the options i have available. Our experiences may be wildly different, but perhaps we can learn something from each other.


 Again, I agree, however, I do pity the fact that your governments believe that rights and priveleges of defense rests in their hands alone.  That it feels it cannot trust the private citizen with those responsibilities is a shame.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 27, 2005)

Just an example to illustrate the contrast above.  From the Missouri Revised Statutes


Below applies to the average person on the street

"2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless he reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson."

Basically, if a robber approaches a law abiding citizen on the street, and attempts to apply force to rob that person, in Missouri, that citizen is justified in using, up to and including, lethal force.

The law is even less restrictive on use of lethal force in a persons own home.

"563.036. 1. A person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of the crime of trespass by the other person. 
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 of this section only: 
(1) When such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or 
(2) When he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or burglary upon his dwelling; or 
(3) When entry into the premises is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering physical violence to any person or being in the premises and he reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony."

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5630000036.HTM


Lawful uses of force as listed above, would and has, sent law abiding citizens to prison in Europe.  We consider them perfectly justified here.


----------



## Ric Flair (Nov 28, 2005)

Gliby said:
			
		

> Sorry sgtmac i have to disagree with a couple of your points.
> 
> Your right if your talking about mouthy punks, guys who try and dominate you by words before ever thinking of atacking you. Those guys are the "fake hardmen" they guys who in their head think they are gang bangers and street fighters. These guys tend not to come from the really tough areas of town, they are usually just punks who cant fight, they are just trying to front it out. But as soon as someone stands up to them, as soon as they meet agression then they will usually back down even if they are in a group, they will only attack if the other person (or persons) seem week.
> 
> ...


 
You are right.  Well at least in Los Angeles.  If a gang member gets into a fight with someone and backs down, he is toast in the gang world.  Especially this is the case in the prison systems.  Once an enemy in the range is spotted (especially if there is an active war on the streets between the two sets) a confrontation and fight WILL eventually happen.  They fight dirty in there.  Anything from biting, throat hits, testicle grabs and attacks, the worst case is the eyes.  Another thing that happens often is one of the "fighters" is hiding an ice pick or a shank ready to use it.  No one is allowed to back down in prison unless they want to be labelled a "mark/buster" and get beaten up by the rest of the prison inmates for his whole stay there.  And you are also right, usually its the guy who takes the initiative and attacks first who most of the time wins.  though there are a few occasions where the attacker gets countered and has his jaw broken.

On the streets, your people are supposed to have your back through thick and thin.  Though i must say times have changed, a lot more snitching , backstabbing, and set ups occur more than ever b4.  Seems like the code of the streets is being currupted for the all mighty dollar in some sets...


----------



## MJS (Nov 28, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The average person doesn't run in to violent assault all that often (But once or twice in a lifetime is MORE than enough).


 
I tend to think that the area that you live in would play a part in the amount of assaults you may face.  I do my best to avoid areas in which an assault has a higher percentage of happening.



> What they'll be are masters of surprise. They know their game, even if they don't have it polished. A big right hand from a meth freak, jacked up and tweaking for days at a time, is as dangerous as a polished boxer....IF you don't see it coming. Moreover, they are not as predictable. If they're attacking you, it's because you have something they want. They'll usually use a weapon, sometimes a gun or a knife, often just a bludgeon. If they came to take something from you, it's because they feel they have the upper hand, and they aren't playing fair. They don't want to fight, they want to dominate and control. It's purely predatory. What's more, it's usually pack aggression, as they often don't come alone.


 
Agreed.




> They're a lot more like WWF than any kind of fair contest. As for pulling out a knife, if they're trying to rob you, they'll likely use what they brought. Again, like the WWF, anything goes, and they can bring friends.


 
Agree again.



> Sounds like the author hasn't been around much. He's likely relying on the fact that the average person doesn't find themselves in these situations....BECAUSE they avoid the bad parts of town, and pay police to patrol their neighborhoods at night. The truth is, those of us in polite society tend to insulate ourselves from the "harsher realities" by avoiding them as much as possible. This includes crossing the street to avoid the group of young toughs, not going in the gas station with the tough looking individuals loitering around outside. We call the police when we see someone suspicious in our neighborhoods.
> 
> Just because we manage to avoid those situations most of our lives, however, doesn't mean we should convince ourselves they don't exist. They're always one turn of the corner away.


 
Seems to me that the author is assuming that because in his lifetime or experience, whatever that may be, that because he has not seen much violence, that everyone else in the world will have the same outcome.

Mike


----------



## lonecoyote (Nov 29, 2005)

What's interesting when we're talking about "the street" is how people always bring up the wrong side of the tracks, the bad part of town, gang members etc. as if there was a secret mystical world apart from our own where everything is exponentially more dangerous. I'm not saying things aren't  dangerous elsewhere, but they are dangerous where you are at right now too!  I've lived in the bombed out looking inner city, lived as a homeless man, and I've lived in a small picturesque (mountains in the distance, clean air, neat looking old houses) town out on the high plains in the middle of nowhere.  Guess which was more dangerous? Which one had more real violence? Which one had more perceived violence? You are in danger of violence whereever you live. The difference is you perceive the violence elsewhere differently, turn those people into "the other". Not saying those terrible "others" don't exist, just saying they could easily exist on your suburban cul de sac too.


----------



## Ric Flair (Nov 29, 2005)

^^^ True.  And for those who have lived in gang territory before, you would know that for the most part the local gang members in your area would leave you alone, as long as you mind your business and get to know them and respect them.  however gang members from rival area's or nearby who don't know you can target you for robbery and such.  

I'm not saying gangsters in your own area would not pick on you, some of them do.  But most of the time it is people from rival areas or nearby neighborhoods (even those who are allied with the gangsters in YOUR neighborhood) would try to rob you or start stuff with you simply because you live in their rivals turf or because it is easier and safer to rob someone out of your home range. 

I know a non gang member guy for example who lived in a very notorious Los Angeles neighborhood for his whole life.  he's been robbed by guys from a rival turf more than a few times (different members on each occasion though) and even had a few fights with his gang bang neighbors.  Yet despite all this he was able to stay out of trouble.  He eventually left Southern California and went to College i think in Seattle.  During a late night session of classes, he and another guy got in an argument over a stolen computer on the campus.  My friend and the guy started fighting and were quickly stopped by campus security.  However unfortunately for my friend, his opponent came back with a gun and shot him once in the leg.  My friend survived luckily because he still fought off this other guy, while the security assisted in restraining him against the lockers.  This happened outside of Los Angeles in another state in a supposed "safe" environment called a campus.  go figure.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 29, 2005)

lonecoyote said:
			
		

> What's interesting when we're talking about "the street" is how people always bring up the wrong side of the tracks, the bad part of town, gang members etc. as if there was a secret mystical world apart from our own where everything is exponentially more dangerous. I'm not saying things aren't dangerous elsewhere, but they are dangerous where you are at right now too! I've lived in the bombed out looking inner city, lived as a homeless man, and I've lived in a small picturesque (mountains in the distance, clean air, neat looking old houses) town out on the high plains in the middle of nowhere. Guess which was more dangerous? Which one had more real violence? Which one had more perceived violence? You are in danger of violence whereever you live. The difference is you perceive the violence elsewhere differently, turn those people into "the other". Not saying those terrible "others" don't exist, just saying they could easily exist on your suburban cul de sac too.


 The town where I was born had one murder in 20 years, despite a major interstate and 5,000 people.  If you figure the murder rate is 3.5 per 100,000, that put them below the national average.  

It's a fact that violence is concentrated in certain areas of this country.  The murder rate in most of the US is actually 1 to 2 per 100,000, in many places much less....in Places like Washington DC it's 45.5 per 100,000 annually....that dramatically increases your odd's of getting murdered in Washington DC and, it would follow, much more likely to get assaulted, robbed, and raped as well.  Likewise Detroit, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Kansas City, Baltimore, etc., have per-capita murder rates WELL in to the double digits. 

With 45.5 murders per 100,000, that means you are over 40 x's more likely to get murdered than the place I grew up, with a murder rate of less than 1 per 100,000.

The idea that violence can happen anywhere, is true, from a theoretical perspective, but you're much more likely to get attacked in prison or a bar than in church. 

The violent gang and crime cultures of the inner-city are the single variable that drives US murder rates above those of Europe (which have been on the rise, while ours are declining).  3% of the population is responsible for nearly half of the murders in this country.  Violence is not evenly distributed by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Gliby (Nov 29, 2005)

sgtmac

Your really not attempting to keep this anywhere on topic are you mate.  Okay here we go, you've made some interesting points in an earlier and ill take the time to reply, thats a curtisy you deserve.  


_



That's why violent crime has been on the rise in several nations in Europe.   

Click to expand...

_ 
Its significant that while violent crime has this year risen slightly in Britian, it has for the previous 2 years been on the decrease so statistically i am safer now than 3 years ago.  The European country's that experience the larger rises in violent crime are European country's that have a more blas&#233; attitude to wards firearms and weapons in general.

Its also interesting that while some countries in Europe may have rising Violent crime rates, none are anywhere near the rates of Violent Crime in America.  So i think you are hardly in any position to criticize the laws of those countries, especially not the laws in the UK as our violent crime rates have in net terms fallen over the past 3 years and are quite literally no place near as high as your countries rate of violent crime per head of population.  

_



the reason your streets are crawling with hoodlums, is that your courts 

Click to expand...

 _

If we refer to the above, then as our rate of violent crime per head of population is actually decreasing in real terms and indeed has never been anywhere as high as the rate of violent crime per head of population in the United States of America.  Then it would be more apt to say that your streets are crawling with "hoodlums" and that your courts, penal system, laws, legislation and police force are completely impotent to protect their citizens.  It would perhaps be better if you said that my streets are far safer than yours and that the laws and penal system in my country are more effective in relation to violent crime.    

Also as the rate of crime in the United States of America is not decreasing  or maintaining a constant, but is rising then we can conclude that the powers you give your citizens to protect themselves isn't really working either, as statistically more and more US citizens are victims of violent crime each year. Again you really aren't in a position to criticize a country with a infinitely lower rate (and an overall a falling rate) of violent crime per head of population.  

_



Again, is it any wonder that law abiding citizens fear to walk the streets.

Click to expand...

_ 
Actually your pretty much wrong there, people don't walk the streets in fear, we know that our instances of violent crime are decreasing in real terms.  Just because there is less violent crime here than in America doesn't mean we walk around with our heads in the clouds, we tend to still walk around with due care and attention, i.e situational awayness.  As your rates of violent crime are higher than ours, as they continue to rise  then i bet your citizens walk with more fear than ours, in fact they are so twitchy and jumpy that they want to walk about armed.  Fearful people in my experience dont allways act in a rational, and if they are armed then accidents and misunderstandings can and will happen. 

_



 The idea of protecting law abiding citizens from guns, has really created a situation where the law is protecting criminals from law abiding citizens. Young toughs don't need guns to terrorize law abiding people. 


Click to expand...

_ 
Now this next sentence will really surprise you until about 9 years ago i would have had the *legal right to posses a handgun in Britain* (either a pistol or revolver), providing that i had the relevant permits and had no criminal record (which for me is the case). 

That changed on March the 16th 1996 a man called Thomas Hamilton walked into a school with 4 handguns and 700 rounds of ammunition, importantly handguns and ammunition that he had a legal right to own (he had the permits).  

He cut the telephone wires at the school and then burst into the school hall where a group of 5 and 6 year old pupils were having a gym lesson, he then started shooting.  After he had shot dead one teacher and 16 children who were all aged 5 and 6 years old, he then turned one of the guns on himself and committed suicide.

As a society and a culture we decided that this would not happen again, and that we would use all of the powers we had available to prevent it.  People signed petitions around the country, there were organized marches so that the government knew the strength of public opinion.  The government listened to the people and the will of the people was carried out when the right to own a handgun was revoked, thats called democracy (i believe you say a government for the people, by the people) although you seem to mistake democracy for Socialism (we will get to your socialism comments shortly).    

Since then no person (either pupil or otherwise) has walked into a school with a gun (either legal or illegal gun) and proceeded to slaughter students.  For that i am terribly grateful and i feel great sadness that in your country you cannot say the same, Columbine, Red Lake (Minnesota, which is your own state) and tragically quite a few other instances.  

The sad thing is that in the vast, in fact all most all cases the handguns and other firearms being used in US school ground killings are all legally owned weapons, in the case of pupils using them it is usually a firearm owned by a parent (or other relative) that is used.  In the United States for the school year 2004-2005 the stats show 24 pupils were killed by firearms while they were *in* their school, so not only do your people walk the streets in fear your kids aren't safe in schools either.  Again your not in a position to really critisise our laws, we seem to protect ourselves and our children without handguns in a far better way than you do with handguns. 



> _I'm well aware that the British government has stated, clearly, that self-defense is not a legitimate claim.
> _


 
Your obviously not as well aware as you think you are.  I have a legally enshrined right (as does every British citizen) to protect myself, my family and my property with reasonable force (thats a term you use in a post).  This in Britain is known as the right of self defense with reasonable force.  You should at this point Goggle the Uk's laws regarding Self Defense as they are more in depth than i can go into here, the Government "Home Office" website can help you with this.  Please note that the British Government has *never* said that there is no right of self defense, they have said there is no right of self defense with a firearm of any type. 

_



I know this is a foreign concept to those who live in the more "peaceful" realms where 'friendly' socialist governments believe it is the best thing to render average citizens harmless

Click to expand...

 
Again i would have to refer you to my answer further up the page.  The Government did not arbitrarily remove handgun ownership, it was decided by the people and the government enacted this change on behalf of the people.  Just to repeat this is called democracy, government by the people for the people.

Furthermore, to infer that Britain is a Socialist government does in my opinion show that you are completely ignorant of Britain and its Government.  Britain is regarded by both those who live here and those in other country's who are politically aware as a Consecrative (middle, leaning toward right, as is America).  Perhaps before you infer that a goverment is Socialist you should check the meaning of "Socialist" in the dictionary and also perhaps have done a little bit of Goggling about Britain and its Government.





 Most governments fear their citizens. The US has a history of believing that the citizen IS the government. That's the fundamental philosophical difference. 

Click to expand...

 
To be honest the above statement is nothing more than an unsupported generalization born of ignorance of Britain.  We too believe the "citizen IS the government", so when we wanted rid of handgun ownership our government did it for us, as citizens we democratically decided to remove handguns (because that was the majority view).  So what you state as a "fundamental philosophical difference" is not a philosophical difference, its actually a view that is common between both our countries that the citizen is the government.  

The fundamental philosophical difference is that the handgun owners (especially the majority of NRA members) would view any attempt to revoke handgun ownership, even one that was democratically decided by the people as a sinister action on the part of their own government.  

The true philosophical difference is that you partially fear your own government, so believe that you not only need to have a handgun to protect yourself from criminals but that you need a gun to protect yourself from the Government (i.e you believe you can only exercise your democratic rights with access to a gun)  Coming from a country where people aren't afraid of their government that just seems bizarre, a democracy that needs to be ensured from the barrel of a gun isn't democracy in my opinion. 





Many of us Americans have a more cautious attitude about our roles in relation to the government.

Click to expand...

 
That statement goes a very long way toward showing that you live in a society where you do not trust your own government, you are at least partially in fear of your own government.  Indeed you are so afraid of your own government that you feel you should bear arms, which are you really afraid of?  Are you more afraid of your government or a criminal? or are you equally fearfull of both? I'm glad to say that i am not afraid of my government, because it is in general a government by the people and for the people.    





We consider ourselves, as we do, citizens, not subjects

Click to expand...

 
We too consider ourselves citizens (just one more thing we have in common), but importantly a large tract of British people do not consider themselves to be a British subject (i.e a subject of the Queen of England).  For example a large number of people from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not consider themselves to be a subject of the Queen of England (note she is not known as the Queen of Britain).  

A good example of this would be myself, I do not regard myself as a subject of the Queen of England because she is not my Queen.  She is from the royal line of Windsor (Hanoverian), as a Scotsman if i were to consider any person to be either my King or Queen then they would have to be from the Royal Line of Stuart.  Of course as Scotland was forced to sign an act of unity a long time ago the members of the Royal Stuart line were at that time exiled and an idividaul throne of Scotland ceased to exist.   Personally i do not believe in any system of monarchy as i am a republican and a scottish nationalist.  

However i am in legal terms a British citizen, as i  posses a British passport and i have the right to vote in a British National Election.  

However i do not specifically consider myself to be British, i consider myself to be a Scottish National.  This is because we have our own Scottish Parliament (separate from the British/English Parliament) and i have the right to vote in Scottish Parliamentary Elections (which are seprerate from British National Elections, which i can also vote in).  

Also in Scotland we retain our own separate legal system which is different from English law, no other part of Britain has a legal system separate from English law, as the Welsh and Northern Irish follow English law. So that too identifys me as seperate from the rest of the Uk. 

I know the above is a little complex, and i had to write quite a lot to explain it.  But before you start calling people subjects and commenting on their status as citizens you should perhaps carry out at least some cursory research or background reading.  Goggle is your friend :uhyeah:  





 We have fought to retain our rights to possess arms and defend ourselves despite the social engineering pressures exerted in the nations of Europe and Australia. We've been infinitely more successful, likely as a result of our natural rebellous nature. 


Click to expand...

 
Funnily enough we fought and exercised our democratic right to remove handguns.  There has never been any social engineering pressures exerted on America from either Europe or Australia, can you back that up with any from of documentation.  Or is that statement, as I suspect just some stale and empty generalization that you once heard someone say, and now you repeat it as if it was your own thought?  

Like i said before i don't care how your society is conducted, its not my problem as I do not have to live their?  All i wanted to do was talked about self defense in a street fight, specifically for those without a gun (believe it or not, but even most americans cant legally carry a gun on the street) so it was vailid to most people.

Lets face it you took exception to someone with a different view from yourself and rather than talk about the real issues that the majority of people including your own countrymen will face you just went on a random rant involving  grandmothers with shotguns, socialist, British and European politics, British citizenship and the self defense laws in Britain, British Legal System and British Society (all of the things about Britain and Europe you were pretty much ignorant of).  To be honest you have a need to compare yourself with Europe and then attempt to justify your own higher rates of violent crime, thats pathetic.  

Way to go with the topic drift, your a master at that.   
_


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 29, 2005)

Gliby said:
			
		

> sgtmac
> 
> Your really not attempting to keep this anywhere on topic are you mate. Okay here we go, you've made some interesting points in an earlier and ill take the time to reply, thats a curtisy you deserve.


 Well, I do appreciate the 'curtisy'.  As for me sticking with the topic, I was just taking the discussion in the direction you apparently wanted to go with such hyperbole as 'shoot any with with the slightest provocation'.  





			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> Its significant that while violent crime has this year risen slightly in Britian, it has for the previous 2 years been on the decrease so statistically i am safer now than 3 years ago. The European country's that experience the larger rises in violent crime are European country's that have a more blas&#233; attitude to wards firearms and weapons in general.


 Actually, the US violent crime rate has been in free-fall for the last 15 years.  What's more, with the exclusion of a narrow cultural sphere, the violent crime rate in the US is equal or less to that of the UK.  Scotland was found, in a study conducted last year, to be the most violent society in the industrialized world.  I'll note that Scotland doesn't have a 'blase' attitude toward firearms and weapons.



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> Its also interesting that while some countries in Europe may have rising Violent crime rates, none are anywhere near the rates of Violent Crime in America. So i think you are hardly in any position to criticize the laws of those countries, especially not the laws in the UK as our violent crime rates have in net terms fallen over the past 3 years and are quite literally no place near as high as your countries rate of violent crime per head of population.


  Again, I note that, with the exception of a few urban areas in the US that drive up the violent crime rate, the US is actually below many parts of the UK.  Furthermore, those urban centers usually have firearms laws that mimic the confiscatory practices of the UK.  Washington DC, the most violent city in the US, has ban private ownership of firearms since the 1970's.  In the decade AFTER the firearms ban, Washington DC experienced a 400% INCREASE in violent crime.




			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> If we refer to the above, then as our rate of violent crime per head of population is actually decreasing in real terms and indeed has never been anywhere as high as the rate of violent crime per head of population in the United States of America. Then it would be more apt to say that your streets are crawling with "hoodlums" and that your courts, penal system, laws, legislation and police force are completely impotent to protect their citizens. It would perhaps be better if you said that my streets are far safer than yours and that the laws and penal system in my country are more effective in relation to violent crime.


 Again, the section of our society that is most inept in handling their violent crime rates, i.e. the decayed urban areas, are the ones who adopt the socialist solutions so popular in Europe.  They are getting the same results, as well.  

While those of us who believe that criminals are responsible for crime, not inanimate objects, are enjoying quite peaceful living conditions.



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> Also as the rate of crime in the United States of America is not decreasing or maintaining a constant, but is rising then we can conclude that the powers you give your citizens to protect themselves isn't really working either, as statistically more and more US citizens are victims of violent crime each year. Again you really aren't in a position to criticize a country with a infinitely lower rate (and an overall a falling rate) of violent crime per head of population.


 Actually, you are operating under a misconception.  The violent crime rate as WELL as the overall crime rate has been falling dramatically for the last 15 years.  It's now at the lowest rate since the 1960's.  More and more US citizens are NOT the victims of violent crime...quite the contrary.  While the UK is rising, the US is falling in crime rates.




			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> Actually your pretty much wrong there, people don't walk the streets in fear, we know that our instances of violent crime are decreasing in real terms. Just because there is less violent crime here than in America doesn't mean we walk around with our heads in the clouds, we tend to still walk around with due care and attention, i.e situational awayness. As your rates of violent crime are higher than ours, as they continue to rise then i bet your citizens walk with more fear than ours, in fact they are so twitchy and jumpy that they want to walk about armed. Fearful people in my experience dont allways act in a rational, and if they are armed then accidents and misunderstandings can and will happen.


  That's a common misconception about armed societies.  The reality is far less violence, and relatively no misunderstandings.  Law abiding people are quite capable of being armed AND polite.  Criminals are not.




			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> Now this next sentence will really surprise you until about 9 years ago i would have had the *legal right to posses a handgun in Britain* (either a pistol or revolver), providing that i had the relevant permits and had no criminal record (which for me is the case).


 Yes, and since the total ban on firearms, Britain has experienced and increase in both violent and property crime.  How's that working out for you?



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> That changed on March the 16th 1996 a man called Thomas Hamilton walked into a school with 4 handguns and 700 rounds of ammunition, importantly handguns and ammunition that he had a legal right to own (he had the permits).


 Anyone can come up with isolated incidents to try and prove a point.  In the US, however, cars are far more deadly than guns, and many of the most dangerous people driving them have a permit as well, which proves nothing.  



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> He cut the telephone wires at the school and then burst into the school hall where a group of 5 and 6 year old pupils were having a gym lesson, he then started shooting. After he had shot dead one teacher and 16 children who were all aged 5 and 6 years old, he then turned one of the guns on himself and committed suicide.


 The most deadly attack in US history was not done with firearms, they were done with airplanes.  Again, you're making a purely emotional argument.  The statistics don't bear out your conclusions.



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> As a society and a culture we decided that this would not happen again, and that we would use all of the powers we had available to prevent it. People signed petitions around the country, there were organized marches so that the government knew the strength of public opinion. The government listened to the people and the will of the people was carried out when the right to own a handgun was revoked, thats called democracy (i believe you say a government for the people, by the people) although you seem to mistake democracy for Socialism (we will get to your socialism comments shortly).


 And as a culture, you've been short-sighted and responded out of pure emotion.  Your ban of guns has not saved lives.  In fact, as evidenced in the US, it may actually be killing more people than they will ever save.  The most violents parts of the US deny the average citizens the tools to defend themselves, and the result is higher murder rates.



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> Since then no person (either pupil or otherwise) has walked into a school with a gun (either legal or illegal gun) and proceeded to slaughter students. For that i am terribly grateful and i feel great sadness that in your country you cannot say the same, Columbine, Red Lake (Minnesota, which is your own state) and tragically quite a few other instances.


 Again, erroneous, more children are killed by high-school football in the US every year, than are killed by guns in school.  I feel great sadness that people can't use their brains.



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> The sad thing is that in the vast, in fact all most all cases the handguns and other firearms being used in US school ground killings are all legally owned weapons, in the case of pupils using them it is usually a firearm owned by a parent (or other relative) that is used. In the United States for the school year 2004-2005 the stats show 24 pupils were killed by firearms while they were *in* their school, so not only do your people walk the streets in fear your kids aren't safe in schools either. Again your not in a position to really critisise our laws, we seem to protect ourselves and our children without handguns in a far better way than you do with handguns.


 Another erroneous statement.  None of the school shooters were of a legal age to own a gun.  What's more, a whole HOST of issues are killing children at a FAR greater rate than gun violence.  The fact that none of these other issues are as titilating news, and therefore, don't enter the radar of the average TV watching zombie, is the sad part of this equation.




			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> Your obviously not as well aware as you think you are. I have a legally enshrined right (as does every British citizen) to protect myself, my family and my property with reasonable force (thats a term you use in a post). This in Britain is known as the right of self defense with reasonable force. You should at this point Goggle the Uk's laws regarding Self Defense as they are more in depth than i can go into here, the Government "Home Office" website can help you with this. Please note that the British Government has *never* said that there is no right of self defense, they have said there is no right of self defense with a firearm of any type.


 Actually, that was the conclusion of the UK homeoffice in the 1960's, that the policy of the UK government was that the duty of protecting the citizens rested in the government, not the individual.



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> _Again i would have to refer you to my answer further up the page. The Government did not arbitrarily remove handgun ownership, it was decided by the people and the government enacted this change on behalf of the people. Just to repeat this is called democracy, government by the people for the people. _


_ If you think that it was a democratic decision, you're being extremely myopic.  It has been the intention of the UK government to systematically eliminate private ownership of firearms for decades._



			
				Gliby said:
			
		

> _Furthermore, to infer that Britain is a Socialist government does in my opinion show that you are completely ignorant of Britain and its Government. Britain is regarded by both those who live here and those in other country's who are politically aware as a Consecrative (middle, leaning toward right, as is America). Perhaps before you infer that a goverment is Socialist you should check the meaning of "Socialist" in the dictionary and also perhaps have done a little bit of Goggling about Britain and its Government._
> 
> _
> 
> To be honest the above statement is nothing more than an unsupported generalization born of ignorance of Britain. We too believe the "citizen IS the government", so when we wanted rid of handgun ownership our government did it for us, as citizens we democratically decided to remove handguns (because that was the majority view). So what you state as a "fundamental philosophical difference" is not a philosophical difference, its actually a view that is common between both our countries that the citizen is the government. _


_ I've already shown that i'm far less ignorant of the UK government, than you are of the US.  Watching US popular media in no way makes you an expert on the US.



			
				Gliby said:
			
		


			The fundamental philosophical difference is that the handgun owners (especially the majority of NRA members) would view any attempt to revoke handgun ownership, even one that was democratically decided by the people as a sinister action on the part of their own government.
		
Click to expand...

  The difference is, Gliby, most US citizens view the government as the servent of the people, not as a benign benefactor are as a master.  We are not subjects, we are citizens, most of whom believe less is better when it comes to government intrusion in our lives.  It's served us well for over 200 years.



			
				Gliby said:
			
		


			The true philosophical difference is that you partially fear your own government, so believe that you not only need to have a handgun to protect yourself from criminals but that you need a gun to protect yourself from the Government (i.e you believe you can only exercise your democratic rights with access to a gun) Coming from a country where people aren't afraid of their government that just seems bizarre, a democracy that needs to be ensured from the barrel of a gun isn't democracy in my opinion.
		
Click to expand...

  Fear of government is the most rational state for a citizen to have.  At the point you believe that the government is your mother and father from cradle to grave, you move from being a citizen, to being cattle.  If you believe your government is benign, you're obviously ignorant of it's history.  Our first views of guns were formed when dealing with your government.




			
				Gliby said:
			
		


			That statement goes a very long way toward showing that you live in a society where you do not trust your own government, you are at least partially in fear of your own government. Indeed you are so afraid of your own government that you feel you should bear arms, which are you really afraid of? Are you more afraid of your government or a criminal? or are you equally fearfull of both? I'm glad to say that i am not afraid of my government, because it is in general a government by the people and for the people.
		
Click to expand...

 Again, that you believe the government line, just goes to show what extent your government has succeeded in feeding their line.



			
				Gliby said:
			
		


We too consider ourselves citizens (just one more thing we have in common), but importantly a large tract of British people do not consider themselves to be a British subject (i.e a subject of the Queen of England). For example a large number of people from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not consider themselves to be a subject of the Queen of England (note she is not known as the Queen of Britain). 

A good example of this would be myself, I do not regard myself as a subject of the Queen of England because she is not my Queen. She is from the royal line of Windsor (Hanoverian), as a Scotsman if i were to consider any person to be either my King or Queen then they would have to be from the Royal Line of Stuart. Of course as Scotland was forced to sign an act of unity a long time ago the members of the Royal Stuart line were at that time exiled and an idividaul throne of Scotland ceased to exist. Personally i do not believe in any system of monarchy as i am a republican and a scottish nationalist. 

However i am in legal terms a British citizen, as i posses a British passport and i have the right to vote in a British National Election. 

However i do not specifically consider myself to be British, i consider myself to be a Scottish National. This is because we have our own Scottish Parliament (separate from the British/English Parliament) and i have the right to vote in Scottish Parliamentary Elections (which are seprerate from British National Elections, which i can also vote in). 

Also in Scotland we retain our own separate legal system which is different from English law, no other part of Britain has a legal system separate from English law, as the Welsh and Northern Irish follow English law. So that too identifys me as seperate from the rest of the Uk. 

I know the above is a little complex, and i had to write quite a lot to explain it. But before you start calling people subjects and commenting on their status as citizens you should perhaps carry out at least some cursory research or background reading. Goggle is your friend :uhyeah: 

Click to expand...

 You might try to do some research as well.  The fact that you fallen on the typically ignorant European belief that crime is rising in the US shows the basic assumption errors you've made.





			
				Gliby said:
			
		


			Funnily enough we fought and exercised our democratic right to remove handguns. There has never been any social engineering pressures exerted on America from either Europe or Australia, can you back that up with any from of documentation. Or is that statement, as I suspect just some stale and empty generalization that you once heard someone say, and now you repeat it as if it was your own thought?
		
Click to expand...

 What you did was cave to the will of the government, and they made it look like your idea.   Bravo. 



			
				Gliby said:
			
		


			Like i said before i don't care how your society is conducted, its not my problem as I do not have to live their? All i wanted to do was talked about self defense in a street fight, specifically for those without a gun (believe it or not, but even most americans cant legally carry a gun on the street) so it was vailid to most people.
		
Click to expand...

 Nor, do I quite frankly care about the way you conduct yours.  Europeans, however, have a long history of giving advice to us 'ignorant Americans', much of which is bogus and wrong.



			
				Gliby said:
			
		


			Lets face it you took exception to someone with a different view from yourself and rather than talk about the real issues that the majority of people including your own countrymen will face you just went on a random rant involving grandmothers with shotguns, socialist, British and European politics, British citizenship and the self defense laws in Britain, British Legal System and British Society (all of the things about Britain and Europe you were pretty much ignorant of). To be honest you have a need to compare yourself with Europe and then attempt to justify your own higher rates of violent crime, thats pathetic.
		
Click to expand...

 The same can be said about you, as well.  I did not, however, resort to false assumptions not supported by fact. 



			
				Gliby said:
			
		


			Way to go with the topic drift, your a master at that.
		
Click to expand...

_ Hey, I take it where it goes. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I'm sure the moderator would prefer any further discussion along these lines be taken where they belong, i.e. to another thread which is directly along these lines.  http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=459923#post459923
You'll find a mountain of facts there you can take exception to.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 30, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Our first views of guns were formed when dealing with your government


Well put! :rofl:


----------



## lonecoyote (Nov 30, 2005)

Well, sgtmac-46, your reply to my post sure did include a lot of numbers. Politicians like numbers too, I only know what I see. Thing about figures is, they don't always tell the whole story. This town of 2,000 had 3 murders in the last 3 years though one was not investigated as such, countless acts of domestic violence, my wife worked at  one of two stores in town saw and knew who they were, the town also had a bully, grown man, owned a lot of property, got away with quite of lot of pretty bad stuff, I personally try to stay out of trouble but have been in two street fights, had a knife pulled on me, watched a guy almost get cut. And the high school, though it was kept off the national news just barely as everyone presented a united front, had an incident with the hazing of freshman football players where a kid got his arm broke. Good thing small towns aren't violent. I encountered street hassles in the city, too, but never have I felt in fear of my life in the same way. Lots of other stuff, but I guess what I'm saying is,it seems like you've got this thing already broken down to yourself in regards to area, that these crimes take place. You've made up your mind, I'm sure, not just about these areas but the people who live in them. Maybe you've got a plan? Let's hear it. Most gang violence that I was aware of was gang vs. gang, and that was terrible, and civilians got caught in the crossfire sometimes sure, but how much more dangerous would the city be if you factored out some things, say a person is not in a gang, not a drug user, it would alter some of your raw numbers a bit.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 3, 2005)

lonecoyote said:
			
		

> Well, sgtmac-46, your reply to my post sure did include a lot of numbers. Politicians like numbers too, I only know what I see. Thing about figures is, they don't always tell the whole story. This town of 2,000 had 3 murders in the last 3 years though one was not investigated as such, countless acts of domestic violence, my wife worked at one of two stores in town saw and knew who they were, the town also had a bully, grown man, owned a lot of property, got away with quite of lot of pretty bad stuff, I personally try to stay out of trouble but have been in two street fights, had a knife pulled on me, watched a guy almost get cut. And the high school, though it was kept off the national news just barely as everyone presented a united front, had an incident with the hazing of freshman football players where a kid got his arm broke. Good thing small towns aren't violent. I encountered street hassles in the city, too, but never have I felt in fear of my life in the same way. Lots of other stuff, but I guess what I'm saying is,it seems like you've got this thing already broken down to yourself in regards to area, that these crimes take place. You've made up your mind, I'm sure, not just about these areas but the people who live in them. Maybe you've got a plan? Let's hear it. Most gang violence that I was aware of was gang vs. gang, and that was terrible, and civilians got caught in the crossfire sometimes sure, but how much more dangerous would the city be if you factored out some things, say a person is not in a gang, not a drug user, it would alter some of your raw numbers a bit.


 I'm not a politician, and what politicians have to do with this debate, I have no idea.

The problem with anecdotal statements is THEY are notoriously flawed.  If a man sees one murder in his town, forever his town becomes a violent place.  This may have been the only murder in 50 years, but that personal experience will forever color his perception of that town.   For an understanding of the difference between perceived risk and actual risk, you should check out the book "Freakonomics" by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics


Well, again, we could factor out those things, but they would alter reality a bit.  The fact remains, that over HALF (52.1%) of the murders committed in the US are committed by 3% of the population (Black urban males between the ages of 17 and 50, many involved in the drug trade).  Further, the victims of those over half of all murders are, likewise, from the same demographic group of urban dwelling black males between 17 and 50. (46.8%)

Now, i'm not giving those statisitics to make any comment on why violence is so incredibly skewed in that direction, as the reasons are a multitude and have a great deal to do with economics, but the statistics are clear.  

Now, perception of risk and actual risk is two different things.  If we look at where the majority of murders happen, we have to conclude they are concentrated and over-represented in Urban areas.

Now, that does not mean that violence cannot happen anywhere, but I stand by my statement that you are more likely to be assaulted in a bar, than in church.  You're making a false argument by claiming that I said small towns aren't violent.  The question isn't whether or not small towns are violent, but, relatively speaking, which areas are MORE violent.  I think i've shown that conclusively.

Anecdotal stories do nothing to change the statistical facts.  These statistical facts are simple and straightforward.

(Per Bureau of Justice Statistics) http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm


----------



## MJS (Dec 3, 2005)

IMO, there are so many things that can be factored into the situation.  The town that I live in is not overly large.  Sure, there is crime everywhere, but I can drive down pretty much any street, and not see prostitution, open drug deals, etc.  However, I can drive a few minutes South, to the city in which I work, take a drive to the north end, and see quite a bit.  I can also drive north of my location, and there is open drug deals, gang violence, carjackings, armed robberies, etc.  

Stats or not, I have to agree with Sgt_Mac on this.

Mike


----------



## lonecoyote (Dec 3, 2005)

Well said, sgt mac, and I certainly see where you're coming from. Thank you. I see your point, too, arnisador. One last thing, though, I do see that anecdotal evidence is inherently flawed, but your assertion that "these statistical facts are simple and straightforward" well, no, nothing having to do with statistics and social sciences is simple and straightforward. I concede that you are right, though, violence is more likely to happen in certain areas.  More important is why, and what can be done? Thanks for some thought provoking conversation.


----------



## lonecoyote (Dec 3, 2005)

One more thing, nothing gets a heated conversation going like "the street" I've written a song about it: The melody is 1/2 adams family 1/2 mexican hat dance The street The street The street, The street is where we'll meet, some have guns and some have knives and some have stinky feet That's the chorus, I'm working on verses, please feel free to help.


----------

