Advantage Martial Arts Has Over Guns

True, but bullet tech is the driving factor for all major LE agencies and Military. Effective round plus capacity.
They’re [supposed to be] professional shooters with departmental budgets. They are in more of a position to get nitty-gritty.
 
They’re [supposed to be] professional shooters with departmental budgets. They are in more of a position to get nitty-gritty.
True, but they spend money doing the research, and then publish it. Wealth of good information out there!
 
Does the FBI provide their latest ballistics data to the plebs?
The idea that the everyday Joe Schmoe shouldn't concern himself with ballistics is a bad one. With the many different firearms and calibers that are available to choose from, Joe Schmoe looking for a firearm has a decision to make, and is likely going to gather the information he needs to make that decision. Mocking Joe Schmoe for this makes zero sense.
 
Oh. I understood that it’s only available for LEO departments.
To get the official document, you have to request it through a LE department on official letterhead, or request through FOIA.
 
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?
Correct.

We did have a guy stab an intruder to death recently. And now his house is a crime scene.

So my point stands.

 
The idea that the everyday Joe Schmoe shouldn't concern himself with ballistics is a bad one. With the many different firearms and calibers that are available to choose from, Joe Schmoe looking for a firearm has a decision to make, and is likely going to gather the information he needs to make that decision. Mocking Joe Schmoe for this makes zero sense.
Mr. Schmoe here, I definitely do research. I definitely want to have the best setup I can legally and financially obtain. I definitely nerd out on every aspect of it, just like all my martial arts pursuits. I’m totally ok with being mocked by people who don’t have the same mindset.
 
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.
Lethal force is defined, in a legal setting, as force likely to cause significant bodily harm or death. A handgun can most assuredly cause significant bodily harm or death, even if it's not automatically fatal.

And, in a legal setting, a "reasonable person" is someone with ordinary judgment, education, intelligence, and reason. Legal Definition of REASONABLE PERSON
 
Lethal force is defined, in a legal setting, as force likely to cause significant bodily harm or death. A handgun can most assuredly cause significant bodily harm or death, even if it's not automatically fatal.

And, in a legal setting, a "reasonable person" is someone with ordinary judgment, education, intelligence, and reason. Legal Definition of REASONABLE PERSON
But it certainly does not have to be a firearm, and this has been used in court countless times. Especially in lesser offenses like involuntary manslaughter where the COD was unintentional. There have been some bizarre causes of death, and some incredible weapons of elements of death.

I imagine you have read this several times, but as a reminder:

Title 18
 
I'm in Sweden. I'm not expert on all the details of the laws, and yes there are some differences but I think generally all the scandnavian countries are quite similar in this respect. The culture is also quite similar as we are neighbours and a tradition of cooperation and common history even before EU, although there are differences of course.
Well from what I heard about in Sweden is that you can get guns if you have a legitimate reason for getting them. Legitimate reasons would be reasons such as hunting and target shooting. Self defense, however, is not legitimate reason and carrying not just guns but any kind of weapon for the purpose of self defense can get you in trouble. Carrying so much as a stick for self defense in Sweden can get you in trouble, from what I've heard.
 
Massad Ayoob. Look him up, Youtube, Amazon, Spotify.
Yes I am familiar with Massad Ayoob and I've got one of his books and I even once met him. The thing about Massad Ayoob though, at least from what I know about him, is that he focuses on self defense with guns and the aftermath in court if you use guns in self defense. He doesn't really get into self defense without guns or weapons, where you just use your hands and body, not that I know of.
 
Correct.

We did have a guy stab an intruder to death recently. And now his house is a crime scene.

So my point stands.

Sounds to me like the homeowner was right, as the officer said "We have been informed that the occupant, in self defense, in attempting to defend himself, has armed himself with a knife..."

If you ask me the homeowner was absolutely justified.
 
Yes I am familiar with Massad Ayoob and I've got one of his books and I even once met him. The thing about Massad Ayoob though, at least from what I know about him, is that he focuses on self defense with guns and the aftermath in court if you use guns in self defense. He doesn't really get into self defense without guns or weapons, where you just use your hands and body, not that I know of.
The overall theory still applies. If it makes you feel better, get Rory Miller’s books too. At the end of the day, once that first swing flies, you don’t know what the result will be.
 
Back
Top