"On The Street"

[Adept]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

^^^ 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]

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]

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.

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 blasé 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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

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'.

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 blasé 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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]

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

Well put! :rofl:

 

[lonecoyote]

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]

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]

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