Advantage Martial Arts Has Over Guns

[gyoja]

Why aren’t there national standards for something so important?

Amendment 10 of the Constitution.

 

[Steve]

Amendment 10 of the Constitution.

theres also the supremacy clause. I’m not suggesting that we federalize the police. Rather, that there are some minimum standards and best practices. There is, surely, a way to do something so common sense in a way that doesn’t run afoul of the 10th amendment. I mean, we got OSHA up and running.

 

[gyoja]

theres also the supremacy clause. I’m not suggesting that we federalize the police. Rather, that there are some minimum standards and best practices. There is, surely, a way to do something so common sense in a way that doesn’t run afoul of the 10th amendment. I mean, we got OSHA up and running.

There are a lot of information and seminars that can be attended. Letting the federal government regulate more things is the opposite of good.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

theres also the supremacy clause. I’m not suggesting that we federalize the police. Rather, that there are some minimum standards and best practices. There is, surely, a way to do something so common sense in a way that doesn’t run afoul of the 10th amendment. I mean, we got OSHA up and running.

Not all cops want those standards to exist. According to some sources, they have explicitly fought against them, successfully. Worse, if you have cops with particular healthy issues, and require training standards, it means the city has to bear a liability issue. Different police departments will be complacent versus vigilant. If your local cops look like they have cardiovascular disease, then I guess that tells you what you need to know.

 

[HighKick]

Based on what data is available, I am not sure training actually makes much of a difference. Experience plus good training might, but that would mean cops are seeing more opportunity to fire their weapons outside of training. A bit of a catch 22.

I haven’t been near a computer for several days, but if you looks at some past threads on similar topics, I’ve posted links to some studies here. Or you can check out organizations like Rand, which is referenced in the link below, as well.

https://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf

Don’t get me wrong. If cops every cop, regardless of what they do or where they work, is going to carry a sidearm, it would be great if we could figure out how to ensure their judgement and their aim is sound.

Just a few questions occur to me. You say “many”. I am pretty sure every single cop in every single department carries a sidearm at all times. How many departments would you say do a darn good job of training? And how many should? Why aren’t there national standards for something so important?

Because most of the certification is handled at the state or jurisdiction level, not Federally (thank God).
'Jurisdiction' as in a branch of the armed forces, CIA. FBI, or a constable at the other end of the spectrum.

For the sake of argument, how do you Know the quality of every doctor you see? We don't. Just like people in any other walk of life.

Not every officer is going to shoot 100 on the course every time (no one is). This does not make them a bad or untrustworthy officer. And there is the human factor. Yes, officers are put through a lot of heavy scenario training and repetition to increase the probability of reactionary tendencies, but there is never a 100% guarantee a situation is going to play out Exactly the way Steve (or anyone else) may think it is supposed to. The variables are endless.

 

[Steve]

Not every officer is going to shoot 100 on the course every time (no one is). This does not make them a bad or untrustworthy officer.

I completely agree and never suggested otherwise. I am only proposing that they not be issued a sidearm they aren’t competent to use. And that, in my opinion, the good news is a lot of cops don’t need a gun at all times.

We agree that there is an issue. We seem to agree on what causes the issue. We just simply disagree on how to address it, and I’m fine with disagreeing on that.

 

[gyoja]

I completely agree and never suggested otherwise. I am only proposing that they not be issued a sidearm they aren’t competent to use. And that, in my opinion, the good news is a lot of cops don’t need a gun at all times.

We agree that there is an issue. We seem to agree on what causes the issue. We just simply disagree on how to address it, and I’m fine with disagreeing on that.

I know that all local law enforcement has to qualify with their carry weapon.

 

[Steve]

I know that all local law enforcement has to qualify with their carry weapon.

Right. So in the same vein, why not improve the standards so that they are more consistent and effective? Or accept that this isn’t viable and stop issuing guns to cops like they’re a laptop. Anyway. Just food for thought.

 

[gyoja]

Right. So in the same vein, why not improve the standards so that they are more consistent and effective? Or accept that this isn’t viable and stop issuing guns to cops like they’re a laptop. Anyway. Just food for thought.

The issue is time and money. We get as proficient as we are in my prior profession because that is our job. We don’t have other tasks that eat up a majority of our time. We also had an almost unlimited budget.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

Right. So in the same vein, why not improve the standards so that they are more consistent and effective? Or accept that this isn’t viable and stop issuing guns to cops like they’re a laptop. Anyway. Just food for thought.

You’re dealing with administrators who think its a good idea to drop the entire department’s budget on new NODs, and then leave nothing over for the SWAT team to be trained, by someone who actually knows how to clear with NODS in close quarters. The good ones wind up seeking out training on their own time.

 

[Steve]

You’re dealing with administrators who think its a good idea to drop the entire department’s budget on new NODs, and then leave nothing over for the SWAT team to be trained, by someone who actually knows how to clear with NODS in close quarters. The good ones wind up seeking out training on their own time.

Administrators. Ugh!

 

[HighKick]

I completely agree and never suggested otherwise. I am only proposing that they not be issued a sidearm they aren’t competent to use. And that, in my opinion, the good news is a lot of cops don’t need a gun at all times.

We agree that there is an issue. We seem to agree on what causes the issue. We just simply disagree on how to address it, and I’m fine with disagreeing on that.

Certainly, don't try to drag me into agreement with you on this, rough or otherwise. I never said there was an issue.
Do we disagree? Yes.

 

[Steve]

Certainly, don't try to drag me into agreement with you on this, rough or otherwise. I never said there was an issue.
Do we disagree? Yes.

Well then we disagree. I’m cool with that. No need to drag you anywhere.

You never did say how many of those department do a darn fine job of training. You said “many”. What does that mean? Is that more than a couple but less than several?

 

[PhotonGuy]

Do you know how stupid and trite the "I'd rather be tried by 12" line is? And how much is wrong with that whole mindset?

So would you rather be carried by 6? Would you allow yourself to be injured or killed just because you don't want to deal with the consequences in court for stopping a bad guy?

You are out of your depth.

If I am then I seek to be educated, and that's what Im doing in this thread, Im seeking to be educated.

You're trying to talk about preclusion, which applies regardless of duty to retreat laws -- and has nothing to do with your original post that said, in sum, the courts are going to look more kindly upon unarmed self defense than a pistol. And I've said that the means are immaterial -- the reasonableness and proportionality of the use of force in question is what will matter.

Well, with unarmed self defense you're less likely to cause death or serious injury than with a pistol.

There's your problem -- right there. How you see it doesn't matter

Im only stating my opinion and if I'm wrong I seek to be educated.

The question amounts to what a "reasonable person" would consider to be likely to cause significant bodily harm or death.

Well what a "reasonable person" considers can be wrong because with some stuff you really do need in depth knowledge to understand it, not just common knowledge. For instance, most reasonable people without the proper background and training on ballistics would consider a handgun quite likely to cause significant bodily harm or death when in fact a handgun is less than 50% likely to kill, unlike a rifle or shotgun with its much greater ballistics.

Blackjacks are most certainly capable of this -- and would very likely lead to assault with a deadly weapon charges, especially if you hit someone in the head.. The Taser is a less lethal weapon; it is not likely to cause serious bodily harm or death, and Axon will say that nobody has died from the Taser, but rather from medical complications due to drugs, or from falls, or other factors. They actually have quite a bit of research, and it's largely publically available on their website. (www-dot-axon-dot-com) Pepper spray is also considered less lethal, as most people will simply suffer from it. A few are allergic, or otherwise experience complications.

As I said just about anything can kill. There are a few rare instances where people have died from pepper spray. It's extremely rare but it can and has happened.

Again -- you are out of your depth.

You made your point the first time you said that.

Absolutely. See here. Or here. Or here. I can't find the one I was looking for; I think it actually got discussed here on MT where an off duty cop got in a bar fight, punched someone who hit their head and died -- and was charged with murder.

I would have to see details about the fight the off duty cop got into, how did it start? Did the cop have any other options besides punching the person he got into a fight with? ect.

I've never claimed to be an attorney. I'm not sure if we have any on this site; we don't inquire about professions.

Even if you were or even if there are attorneys on MT, being an attorney is very broad as there are many different types of attorneys. It would have to be an attorney who specializes in the use of force laws for them to understand this discussion.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I really do. Even as part of the prosecution. It is a day I would rather spend doing something else.

If someone burst in to my home at 3am. And I shoot them. I don't get to go back to bed. I have to fart around explaining to police why I shot them.

I have to clean a whole bunch of home invader off my walls.

It is just hassle after hassle I would rather not deal with.

You're from Australia aren't you? If Im correct, in Australia you can't use guns for self defense, period. Isn't that how it is in Australia?

 

[PhotonGuy]

Sending someone home with a black eye is far easier on a sane human being's conscious than sending them to the morgue.

It's also much easier for you in court, if you give somebody a black eye instead of sending them to the morgue.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Your knowledge of medicine is every bit as good as your legal knowledge.

And just how good is your knowledge of medicine?

 

[PhotonGuy]

One problem with "better weapons" (wether arms or not) is that once your opponent even SUSPECT or knows you HAVE a it, you give your opponent the TIME to prepare his more perful weapon. Eventually everyone is walking around beeing more inclined to respond with more force.

I think the secret weapon is best. So no gun-flashing or "I am a black belt" t-shirt

OTOH, if one is considering the chance of beeing mugged, you don't want to appear to the be easiest pray, so it's a balance I think.

So you're saying element of surprise is best.

 

[PhotonGuy]

“Stopping power” is a word often thrown around by people, without knowing what it means.

It means exactly what it says, the ability to stop. The ability to make it so that your attacker is no longer coming at you.

The main difference between other weapons and a gun, is that the gun achieves force at distance. Well, technically you can use a sling shot,

Unless you're in NJ where the sling shot is banned.

or throw something, but it’s a hell of a lot harder. I think the only successful throw I’ve seen, was footage of someone tossing a traffic cone onto someone’s head, in Glasgow.

What if you're a star pitcher? You could be very effective with a rock or any object roughly the same shape and size of a baseball.

“More lethal” is another one people like to throw around. If you shoot someone in the T-zone, stab them in their left ventricle, throw a pipe at their temple, or bang their head against the edge of a hard table—the result is the same.

Lethal force is lethal force. Some places care how you apply it, others only care if it’s justified. Some of that is explicitly written in law, some of it is jurisdictional culture.

Violence isn’t a movie. You’re not gonna pull a Jason Bourne, or a Road House unless you’ve trained for decades into particular areas of martial arts. Even then, it’s always 50/50. You may beat him up, but you may also drop dead in the process.

What Im talking about is how to deal with the situation afterwards, when the law comes into play.

A lot can happen once that first punch is thrown, and just because you were unarmed, doesn’t mean you’re safe legally.

Self-defense training, without providing context for the use of force continuum, deescalation, avoidance, and talking to authorities after, is not proper self-defense training.

Most dojos do not teach that, at least none of the dojos that I've been to, and I've been to quite a few.

 

[PhotonGuy]

This is why I teach gun owners in my shooting course that it is their responsibility to be proficient with their weapon, including regular range time.

So where do you teach?