Archive for the ‘Law’ category
People in Australia and Britain think they live in a superior utopia to the US, because they think they don’t have shootings and mass killing sprees. Instead, they have this social benefit, called home invasions, where burglars and other criminals think a house is just some rest and recreation station along the way of a criminal career in getting rich.
In many parts of the US, that isn’t controlled by EUropean style politicians such as the cities, burglars do not ever want to confront a human when conducting theft, burglary, or breaking/entering. Why? Because chances are they will be executed. Being shot is not worth 1000 dollars. Or 40 dollars. Or 40,000 dollars. Because being shot means you can die, and even if you don’t, you’ll likely be in a hospital when the police come pick you up. Which isn’t bad, as prison is just another R and R spot for career crims, but it puts a stop to their money making. So while the profit and the value of sexual satisfaction may be high, it’s not worth the damage or the prison time. Criminals are free to make this decision, the state and Leftist utopias cannot stop them, short of keeping them locked up as animals.
For every killing spree that the Aussies and Brits think they avoid, they only do so by sacrificing countless families and children, to save themselves. America is no different, at least in the cities. Outside the cities, though, like I said, criminals would be fools to risk such things. Contrary to public opinion, Brits and Aussies that support their gun ban laws are merely sacrificing the lives of strangers and their families, in return for a false sense of security.
When a crim demands my money, most people raised as cattle on the city farm say, “just give it to him, your life isn’t worth 50-150 dollars anyway”. Well, yes, my life is worth proportionally more than 50 dollars. But a criminal’s life is also not worth 50 dollars. But he’ll give his life to me, in return for 50 dollars? Let’s re-frame the issue. Whether I kill him or not, is my decision alone, not anyone else’s. By getting in my range, he is trying to make me decide whether his life is worth more or less than the money I have. And as such, that is the difference between the thinking of prey vs a predator. That is the difference between a city raised livestock cattle and a person raised in freedom and independence.
“Citizens” that cannot even protect their own life or property, have no ability to command their government or higher authority to do anything. The livestock on a farm doesn’t tell the human owners what will be.
Some people think America’s going through this phase or trend about how to make gun legislation and control better. What they don’t know is the truth behind the smoke and mirrors, what is going on underneath the table.
In essence, it’s about who is on the side of justice and whether one faction should trust the others. Without a knowledge of why people are for or against justice or why they support this faction or that one in America, there’s no way people can decipher the truth from the propaganda or the propaganda from the truth.
Most of the actual human reasons and motivations are included in the article. It’s a convenient way for me to avoid doing the linking.
I often told people that tens of millions of Americans would rather fight criminals and terrorists with their bare hands than trust the government with their protection. There’s also the issue that there’s no particular reason to trust elected federal officials over one’s neighbors. Guns in the hands of a neighborhood work rather well, since people can learn to trust each other. Guns in the hands of the government or urban cities controlled by socialist gangs, is a different matter since they are above the common man, and DC considers itself part of the ruling class. Trust in one’s neighbors has nothing to do with trust in one’s “ruling aristos”. It doesn’t matter if somebody wants to vote in a tyrant. That doesn’t mean I should trust them with my guns, my kids, my house, or my vault full of gold. People should seriously consider fences and property lines when it comes to trust. It’s not an omnipotent or all encompassing thing, at least not for humans.
(Title: But even if it was, it wouldn’t matter to domestic American policies)
(Increase in violence with confiscating and elimination of gun ownership) OP, my response:
It has happened in the UK. Whether it will continue to happen in Australia or Canada, is up to those countries. The only thing that should matter to Americans is the American Constitution and internal politics. Those who look outwards, are either using Switzerland as a defense against the people who want to transform America based upon the British and Euro model, or looking for ways to convince the anti-US Constitution and pro Europeans of other things. Either way, international law is not American law, no matter how many people wanted to vote in the US elections because they think US law affects them overseas.
“This is what “gun control” means. As far as I’m aware, no one in the US (aside from a loony fringe) is suggesting the outright “banning” of all gun ownership.”
You don’t really understand what’s going on in the US at the moment. Nor what has gone on in the past. There are some parallels and similarities to other nations, but again, it’s not necessarily the same thing because even if people had the same political and religious beliefs, they are Australians and British/Scottish/Irish, not Americans.
The issue about knives still apply, but in a different fashion.
It is true that guns are still allowed in Australia and the UK. The difference is that the government won’t let them be used to defend oneself against crime or other types of violence, except if one is a duly authorized member of said government or part of the bodyguard detachment assigned to said government’s protection. In almost all cases where one could use firearms to defend life, the government takes that power away and invests that power in itself, whether this means prosecuting home owners or releasing criminals, doesn’t matter in the end.
When Americans talk about gun control, they’re really talking about a couple of ancillary issues the international world doesn’t pick up on. First of all, the reason why the Leftist alliance for human totalitarian utopia prefers the term gun control, is because they consider or at least claim guns as being evil totems where just touching one corrupts the soul in unsafe manners. This is also derived from the transnational Leftist alliance where gun control has been favored and put into law. Whether it actually outlaws guns or not, isn’t the issue. The fact that it eventually leads to the government monopoly on force and the conversion of citizens into subjects, not defenders of society or of themselves, is the primary issue America’s 2nd Amendment was installed against.
Japan actually has a more or less workable system against guns and swords. But that works for Japan because Japan is Japan (a police box containing an armed officer every mile or so). Australia is not the UK, nor is America either Australia or Japan. To confuse the politics between countries is sort of like why America thought Iraq would rebuild itself into a democracy on day 1 or at least day 95. But it didn’t, because people had their own domestic problems international critters didn’t seem to know much about.
Australia, or at least Sidney, has some pretty bad knife crimes. That nation or city tolerates it, because they would prefer to be assaulted with violence on a regular basis, so long as they aren’t killed by it. The American philosophy has always been, and still is to some degrees, the refusal to accept 24 hour violence. Instead, we accept the penalty of death for stupid actions and expect our fellow citizens to realize the folly of their actions, or we will, not the state or the feds, execute them in defense of our own civilization, community, society, family, etc.
In our bar fights, we don’t pull out guns and shoot people when we start losing. It’s primarily because if anyone was going to do that, they would do that in the beginning. And when everyone saw the gun, they would just run for it, and stop fighting for stupid chest thumping justifications. Flashing guns and what not, has actually deterred more bar room brawls which escalate into killings overseas than people might expect. Those that didn’t believe this, usually did something stupid when talking to a gang banger and got killed for it. In Sidney, where no one carries guns while walking to or from the bar, there’s fights, that escalate into beatings, that escalate into stabbings. In the UK, the perpetual aura of violence around urban cities is on a similar level, although their issue seems to be home invasions and family murders/rapes that are just opportunity crimes stacked on top of other issues. That which Australians and UK loyalists believe is safe and comfortable, isn’t exactly what the rest of the world thinks.
” Because you just don’t have the accuracy, the rate or number of rounds to do the “job”.”
You conveniently forgot Ft. Hood.
Again the international focus is not the American focus. We here in the States don’t really like living in slavery, whether that’s due to dependence on the government or on somebody else for protection. A degree of national protection via communal sacrifice is tolerated, but it’s not the preference. The US is big enough that even this baseline doctrine is challenged by urban policies.
The division in this country is between urban cities that are basically fiefdoms controlled by the Democrat politicians at the top, and “other places”. Urban cities have even more severe restrictions on guns than international countries have, yet produce the majority of US crime statistics. Such restrictions were witnessed when New Orleans police officers going house to house before Katrina started confiscating hand guns. NOPD then promptly disappeared and went awol, letting the robbers, rapists, and murderers start looting and breaking stuff. Now with a populace totally disarmed, except the ones that didn’t volunteer to hand over their only defense, New Orleans descended into a chaos that was wholly man made, yet instigated by a natural disaster. But American domestic policy makers never talked about banning cities, mayors, police, criminals, or natural disasters after that event wrecked havoc with people’s lives. Even though such things were the direct cause of the destruction. There was no political power in it, so to speak.
New Orleans isn’t particularly liberal or conservative. It’s a Democrat fiefdom in a Republican state, but it’s still a fiefdom because it is an urban center. The rest of the nation doesn’t particularly want to become like New Orleans, Oakland, Los Angeles, New York, or any other place controlled by 99% Democrats either. They may not realize exactly why they dislike it, but the form it takes is usually a response to the “gun control” deceptive speech and propaganda by the Left.
We don’t need Australian cities or Japanese cities or UK cities as examples for American laws banning civilians from defending themselves. We already know where we are going because our cities are already there. So it has never been the case of some delusion or slippery logic slope as international critics would like to see it as. Frankly, Americans don’t care what happens in other countries. Even the Democrats that say we should become like Australia and the UK, because they don’t have people shooting each other, only care about their domestic power inside the US, not outside it.
Unless the mass media decides to cover it, Americans don’t even realize the crime and killings going on in our inner black neighborhoods and white ghettoes. The fundamental problem is not gun control or banning guns, but has gone far beyond that little caricature of a propaganda phrase.
“Leaving aside the practicability/possiblity of “cultural change” (which I will discuss in a minute), is it not more appropriate to compare the US to another frontier Anglo-based society like Australia? “
Only if you have a position that would benefit from said comparison. The reason people compare it is not because we are similar to Australia, but because they benefit from the comparison. Americans have been doing this with the EU for decades now. Domestically, unless you fought a civil war to kill your British masters to gain said freedom, it’s hard to make the comparison. It could easily be said that South Africa, Liberia, and Iraq/Afghanistan have more in common with US problems than modern Europe or Anglo Saxon speaking countries. Americans speak the same language, yet our beliefs and problems differ greatly from state to state, city to city, Alaska to Detroit. China and Japan had states warring against each other, even though the people they fought spoke the same language. Just because somebody speaks the same language and shares the same culture, doesn’t mean the differences diminish to nothing. If anything, the differences are magnified and distorted precisely because people speak the same language.
The fact that foreigners understand more about their own country than they do about the US, is obvious. What isn’t obvious is that most everyone expects the US to be ignorant of things outside the US, but never applies that perspective to their own cultural perspective. CNN and other American so called media, don’t do much of anything to educate Americans inside America about the things going on in America. That is why that actor told people to stop watching the news, and instead investigate using the internet and use something called critical thinking, not sitting in front of a box being told the gospel. It isn’t going to do much to educate foreigners about America if they watch CNN either. The same goes for Hollywood movies and other such cultural artifacts from the US.
The United States of America is progressing towards another civil war. If we don’t even understand why it is so or what is causing it, foreigners won’t have much of a better chance.
One of the things that foreigners don’t hear much about, since Americans don’t hear about it much domestically either, is the incidents where mass murderers have tried to kill a lot of people with guns, but failed. There are a lot of reasons they failed, but primarily they failed because the citizens themselves, the so called victims, fought back and disabled or killed the would be mass murderer. This cultural and societal belief that one is the defender of oneself, one’s family, and one’s community, is not exactly strong in other places that rely on military and police for protection.
One might notice that these incidents didn’t involve people killing the gunman. It just resulted from a certain idea, that is usually associated with church goers, of a community and one’s duty to it. It would be hard to find courage to do something similar when one has invested the police and military forces with the firepower and the right to use it all the time.
These are the live shooting examples.
As foreigners are fully cognizant, whether you are living inside the US or outside it, you don’t get much say in US policies regardless of what you think “should be” the case. But if you did have full awareness of the problems and solutions, many Americans would still trust you, the foreigner, to make a rational decision about the Final Policy, than we would trust the people in our very own country that we have seen deliberately increase the number of victims to mass killings.
Ft. Hood= Gun Free zone, all guns confiscated to the armory with MP exceptions. Columbine=gun free zone. Virginia Tech=gun free zone. Churches=usually gun free zones, unless you’re in the Bible Belt, then you’re kind of screwed if you try to kill people there. Cities=not gun free zones, just gun free for people who aren’t criminals or part of the government elite class.
People outside and inside the US should really ask themselves why they don’t hear about mass killings that were stopped. Why do they only talk about and hear about the failures? Because the failures give the power brokers justifications to make more failures perhaps? If people wanted “solutions”, America has plenty of them. But they aren’t the ones people talk about vis a vis gun control. There’s a reason for that. And it’s one that benefits the dead not at all.
If and when the power brokers in our nation want to make it turn citizens into protected children, there is no “gun control” solution, unless the solution is to disarm the people of their only defense. Whether that only defense is their hands or their knives or a bat. We’re definitely talking about gun control and not ignoring it, but a lot of domestic American policies are worded in a sort of “war is deception” mode in order to deceive both domestic and foreign audiences. Things are not what they appear to be. But even if they were, many Americans would still not accept the role of victim sheep forced to survive based upon the random dictates of luck and some guy with an armed bodyguard telling them who is part of the protected class and who is not.
We’re not interested in whether knives are more dangerous and lethal than guns. If anything, we prefer guns because it requires less work and is more lethal, since a woman defending herself against rapists and mass murderers, better be as dangerous as she can be, without 10 years training in “knife fighting” to compensate. What is true with criminals using guns and knives, is 1000 times more effective and applicable when speaking of the broader civilian and citizen defense forces. A nation that has gotten its people to think of security as giving more power to the elite nobles, rather than doing things for themselves, has created a habit in its people that will not lead to anywhere safe or good. The US is not particularly interested in whether Japan or Australia can make such a philosophy work. What we are interested in is whether the people enforcing such philosophies and religious doctrine in our cities, is going to be able to enforce their views on the rest of us who don’t live in Democrat states or urban cities.
The TSA has stopped 0 terrorist attacks. The civilians on Flight 93 stopped the White House or the Capital (full of bodyguard protected Ivy League lawyers and politicians) from being burned to ash. Americans will always favor the latter over the former. Until non-Americans and anti-Constitutionalists win the civil war, at least. Until then, though, it applies.
Freedom is hard. It is not safe. And it definitely isn’t luxurious. People don’t climb mountains and train in martial arts because it is fun like eating chocolate is fun, but because it sharpens the senses and makes living worthwhile. America has always taken such beliefs to a certain extreme, beyond what other nations were willing to do. If the case ever ceases to be true, then you will have known one side or the other won over completely. But before then, expect nukes to explode a few times on this planet and a few millions to die. Australians would never rise up in armed rebellion against the local or state government, primarily because they lack the means. United States is slightly different. We’re much more similar to barbarian states and old historical dramas like Japan’s Sengoku period, than many people would expect from the vision of the US as exemplified in Hollywood (that of a gluttonous, gun violence filled, pathetically weak and decadent culture focused on no beliefs worth living for whatsoever). Some of the barbarian/decadence element is exemplified in our invasions of foreign nations, but most call that just bombing people from a safe place: cowardice essentially.
Now many people would normally call this self defense but legally it isn’t.
What it is is a citizen protecting someone other than himself, like the police, the neighborhood, the peace, or his country.
Some simple principles you can pick up here.
I also suggest you search for CCTV records of crime, in order to familiarize yourself with potential threats. It shaves off some decision cycles in times of danger.
Luck and the fact that the attacker was of equal or so strength saved that guard. Not exactly things people should count on.
If a system deals with these scenarios to your satisfaction, take it.
Self defense is a legal term that means you have the right to use force, if it is justified, to prevent harm to yourself. Depending on where you are at, your particular local or national laws may also include the use of force in protection of property or loved ones.
The same is true for what level of force you are justified to use. In the US most places allow justified lethal force in a number of situations. In Australia or Canada, the law is more slanted towards “proportional force”. So if he has a bat, you can’t shoot him. Regardless of whether he is 300 pounds and you are a 100 pound woman. This is only one reason Americans are called gun obsessed by the world. The world normally handles security through police. And individual citizens only have a self-defense recourse to the police, not much else going on there. To use a weapon against a burglar, the burglar must either have an equivalent weapon threatening you, or a more powerful weapon. Doesn’t really stack the odds in your favor, legally or otherwise. Anyone other than police in Japan cannot legally have a gun, at all, for example. Your level of “justified force” then conforms to the local laws and conditions. Assuming you are in the US, your options are greatly expanded.
Now that you know the bare bones definition of SDt, you can start on tactics, the “how to” side of things.
Self defense is composed of many different layers that are usually defined in terms of range and time. Is the threat happening now? How far away is the threat from you? Two basic, very simple questions.
Let’s say you and your friends decide to go out on the town and you have a choice of picking a spot close to gang infested neighborhoods or you have a choice of picking a more upbeat and expensive place. Your decision as to where to go has already decided your self-defense situation. By choosing high risk environments, you have not only made the threat closer to you in space but in time as well. It’ll happen sooner rather than later due to some random happenstance. It’ll happen because you engaged in high risk behavior. Same is true for a girl getting drunk at a party and thinking she’ll be okay because she can trust the rest of the strangers and drunks around not to do anything bad to her when she passes out. It is high risk behavior. These decisions are taken way before the threat gets close in space or time. It’s before you got drunk. It’s before you got jacked. It’s before you got caught in an ambush. It’s before you got angry. It is before all of that.
Now if you are taking money out of your ATM account and 3 guys who were watching the machine now comes up, surrounds you, and wants the money, welll now the threat is much much closer in range and time. Now the distance is about 5 feet or 2 feet. The time is NOW, not later, not days away or even hours away;the threat is here. It is happening NOW.
Self-defense takes into account the different ranges and time, and has different solutions for threats that occupy different zones and periods. For long range defense, you need avoidance, awareness, common sense, and being prepared (like a gun or long rifle). For tactical solutions that must be handled Now or you are ending up in the hospital or morgue, you need to learn effective movement and striking.
The objective in tactical self defense is to incapacitate, disable, or kill the threat. And the threat isn’t the knife or the gun, but the person wielding it. If you are taking more than 15s to do this against one-two people, you’ve been trained badly. Ineffective movement and strikes makes things into a sort of boxing match that lasts however long it takes them to kick you to the ground and stomp on you. Effective movement and striking means your tactical solution will destroy enemy attacks before they disable your ability to resist. That is the core difference between effective attacks and ineffective attacks. Ineffective attacks may do some damage, but it does not cripple, incapacitate, or kill the target.
Self defense courses are usually either geared towards avoidance strategies or they are geared towards tactical solutions. Both are necessary, of course, although if you don’t live in high risk environments, you will probably only ever use the avoidance and awareness strategies. But tactical H2H training is like swimming or CPR. When you do need it, nothing else will substitute for that ability. It is not like you will use it all the time.
Also, much of the avoidance strategies of not allowing your ego to dictate your actions in a social setting comes only from having the self-confidence that the person you are dealing with cannot harm you physically. This decreases tension internally in order to reduce tension externally. Total control over a situation will steer the result towards an approved one. If the approved result is a defense of self, then so it will be. However, total control over a situation depends first and foremost upon control of the people in that situation. And first amongst those that are there, is you yourself. Without a control of your own mind and emotions, you cannot expect to control the behavior of other people. There will often be situations where you can talk your way out of having to use violence, but only if you have violence ready as a backup. There will be more situations where people get angry at you, than there will be situations where they will ambush you out of the blue. By learning and using long term strategic verbal and body skills, you can prevent people from getting angry enough that they will start thinking about ambushing you.
That’s the basic formula. Avoid using indirect methods when you can. Annihilate the enemy when there’s a conflict on going with you as the center. That is Self Defense.