Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I cannot imagine how they could possibly hope to enforce such a law. I am certain it would crumble at the first legal challenge, if they did try to enforce it.
On Hitting First
- Thread starter Bill Mattocks
- Start date
I think you may be confusing 'challenge' with asking to spar.
And in the 1870's, 1770's and 1670's, people challenged each other with deadly weapons and deadly intent. And killed each other.
It's not any of those '70's anymore.
OP
OP
It has never been enforced, but the way the law was written, anyone who chose not to have a gun didn't have to have one.
Kennesaw, Georgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
It was intended as a symbolic response to a town in Illinois that banned guns completely (Morton Grove, IL). The Morton Grove law has since been repealed, but Kennesaw's has never been enforced, so it's never been challenged in court.(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
It's impossible to enforce and it does crumble under legal challenges. People are just idiots and unfortunately some of those idiots are in government. There are people who think that guns are the ultimate protection and politicians feed on that. The NRA has stated that if people had guns then they could stop bad people. Unfortunate someone had to learn the hard way that just because you have a gun doesn't mean you can't get shot.
āHe thought he could helpā: Concealed carry gun-wielder intervenes in domestic dispute and is shot dead
This kind of plays back to the multiple discussion on here about schools that teach useless self-defense which makes the person put themselves in a worse situation than they would have been in, if didn't take the self-defense class. Ironically had this person not had his gun, he wouldn't have made the decision that he did and would still be alive.
What's the difference? When a stranger who asks you for sparring, how will you know whether his intention is friendly, or unfriendly?
It's all crazy to me. It looks like there are some other towns in other states that are trying or thinking about making similar laws. I guess everyone misses "The wild west" lol
Nothing special about 70th. It just both events happened in the 70th. In the last 40 years, I have not heard about any American who travel to Taiwan (or China) and ask for open challenge. I assume when Robert Smith went to Taiwan, that kind of challenge was quite popular.
OP
OP
Well, it was a nice thread while it lasted.
I'll know after the first punch and I'll be 100% certain about his intention if he fails to ease up.
It's still a good thread lol. And hitting first is still valid
That's the problem. When a stranger asks you for sparring, you truly don't know whether he tries to spar with you in light contact, or full contact. In MA, there is a big difference between accepting challenge from a friendly challenger vs. from an unfriendly challenger. The problem is how will you know?
One guy asked, "May I spar with you?", I said. "OK". I then moved in and took him down. Someone asked me, "Why didn't you wait for him to attack you?" I said, "He asked for challenge, why should I give him any chance to attack me first?"
To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself. That's why to "hit first" is always toward your advantage.
The one thing I can say about hitting first is that. If you do it, then you better make sure you do a good job at it. There's nothing like swatting at bee that was only buzzing around you, and then to be stung because you swatted at the bee.
Hitting someone first in an effort to defend yourself is really no different than someone hitting you first as an attack. After that first hit is thrown all hell may break loose.
If you have to hit someone first then understand that you will most definitely have to hit that person more than once to get out of it.
Hitting someone first in an effort to defend yourself is really no different than someone hitting you first as an attack. After that first hit is thrown all hell may break loose.
If you have to hit someone first then understand that you will most definitely have to hit that person more than once to get out of it.
This is probably deserving of a separate thread.
Three points:
1 - He made a LOT of mistakes that led up to his being shot.
2 - For every case like this you can find, there are dozens (hundreds?) more where the armed citizen does, in fact, stop the bad guy.
3 - How could you possibly know what he would have done if he had been unarmed?
OP
OP
It shall go on without me.
I see what you are saying now. In my case I was sparring with a stranger and it wasn't really a formal challenge. In martial arts, you know when it's a formal challenge because they come off that way as being hostile. If someone came to my school and wanted to spar then I could do that with no problem. If someone came to the same school challenging me saying that Jow Ga was useless, then I'll make him sign a waiver and then proceed to kick his butt, if possible.
If I win then I have to win in a way that would make him less likely to come back to shoot me. lol. (sorry about the gun reference but it's true). If I lose then he won't have any hard feelings about beating me. I know for most martial arts schools sparring rules are set before sparring is done. Outside of schools sparring rules may or may not be set. It may be difficult to tell when someone will take sparring too far, but when someone formally challenges you then there is no mistake.
I worked at Blockbuster Videos in my 20's and a customer came to me yelling at me if I wanted to fight him. He kept saying that, and now that I've read a little about Mutual Combat law, I'm thinking he was trying to get me to say yes so he could claim that. Unfortunately for him my low paying part-time job was more important than he was. I left the building and the manager took over. When the guy came outside he had nothing to say. Go figure.
Yep it does. I'll be willing to talk about it in a different thread
If you hit first "with control", your opponent can feel your speed and not your power. If he is smart and understands that you have no intention to hurt him, the challenge can be ended "friendly" there. If you break your opponent's nose on your 1st punch, the challenge fight may end "unfriendly".
I don't get into street fight that much except when I was young. I do get into a lot of challenge fights. IMO, there is nothing wrong to attack first in any challenge fight.
Last edited:
When I spar with strangers I'm 100% defense and <30% attack power. I can never tell if someone decides to lose control so I'll defend myself as if that's what they will do.
