Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What a load of BS. You only say that because you have not been attacked by someone stronger, larger and faster then you.
I have a 100 pounds of muscle and move a lot faster then almost every male I know. Every single one of them have confess that they would rather have a gun, then try to protect themselves from someone like me.
I'm 5'6" and weigh 125#. Just about everyone is larger than me. Growing up, there were plenty of people stronger than me also. But this isn't about strength, it's about body mechanics. The body only moves in certain ways, and if you hyperextend a joint, it isn't a function of how strong you are, it's hyperextended.
And the thing is--a gun doesn't make you invincible.
Really how are you going to "disarm" a man who is faster, stronger and is 100 pounds heavier then you, who is holding a baseball bat?
If he's close enough to swing it, you're close enough to step towards him, whip the arm on that side up and over the bat, and take it away. A bat doesn't make you invincible either...
You apparently deny that ANYONE has EVER in the history of the world, been able to disarm an attacker--whether that attacker had a gun or a knife. Even though there's evidence to the contrary.
Now, if you would agree that it is indeed possible to disarm an attacker, you further assert that a particular individual--me--is unable to do so--even though you know it to be possible. That does not fall under rational thinking, sport.
That folks are skeptical about a particular person, you, being able to disarm/subdue, an armed attacker, is not so much being discounted as impossible as improbable. You have been very quick to cite examples of personally having done so, and also quick to cite particular technique and circumstance, leading folks to believe the 'incidents' may be getting stretched a mite. There are many examples of people who have disarmed attackers. Wyatt Earp was fond of pistol whipping guys, who were obviously armed themselves, rather than shooting them. I'm sure a guy could do some research and find examples of people taking on armed attackers bare handed and coming out on top. That it is possible is not in dispute. That you, personally, have done so, multiple times, grappled hand to jaws with large dogs and choked them to death, etc, is the subject in dispute. This flat reeks of an overactive imagination (ala Walter Mitty). Kinda like Quigley told Marston, "This ain't Dodge City. and, You ain't Bill Hickcock".If someone were to actually take you seriously, and attempt these methods in the real world, there is a 99.9% chance this would end badly. Very badly indeed. That is rational thinking, sport.Believing oneself capable of taking on a guy with a gun, or a blade, with bare hands, and beating the odds is about as irrational as it gets. But, it would give the local Medical Examiner and interesting case, and probably give investigating police an example to use as a bad example in training new officers and informing citizens of what NOT to do.
If he's close enough to swing it, you're close enough to step towards him, whip the arm on that side up and over the bat, and take it away. A bat doesn't make you invincible either...
And he's close enough to coldcock you in the face while you're trying to get his bat.
Every single fight is as different as are the individuals involved. No one here is trying to say that a gun makes you invincible. However, it does open the door to taking the fight up a notch.
There are many Navy Seals and Green Berets who are in your size range and could kill much larger men with their bare hands. However, give them the choice of leaving their firearms at home, and they'll unequivocally tell you it's a bad idea.
It has nothing to do with confidence or ability. It has to do with using all the tools at one's disposal to be in the best position to win the fight.
I see no purpose to medicine. I have never sought medical care.
That's because you've been lucky enough to avoid a traumatic (physically inflicted by an outside force) injury. The best immune system in the world won't help you with a skull fracture, compound femur fracture, stab wound, gunshot wound, etc.
I'm 5'6" and weigh 125#. Just about everyone is larger than me. Growing up, there were plenty of people stronger than me also. But this isn't about strength, it's about body mechanics. The body only moves in certain ways, and if you hyperextend a joint, it isn't a function of how strong you are, it's hyperextended.
And the thing is--a gun doesn't make you invincible.
Nothing makes a person invincible. The old 'dynamite comes in small packages' thing is a saying coined by guys with an inferiority complex. While the saying is true, it would be prudent to remember that they still ship the stuff in boxcars. Hand to hand combat will ALWAYS see somebody get hurt, the idea of a fight, of any kind, is to win that fight. When a situation will have lethal consequences for coming out on the short end of the stick, then one should use lethal methods to win. Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kun Do talks of the escalation of force. "If an enemy bruises you, then smash his flesh, if he smashes your flesh , then break his bones, if he breaks your bones, then take his life". Nobody can dispute Lee's prowess as a hand to hand fighter, yet, not even he advocated trying to take on someone with a firearm, knife, bat or whatever, bare handed. Rather, he spoke of retiring from the situation in one piece, if the odds were unfavorable, or using an equalizer to tip the scales. He actually carried a firearm himself at times, and many of his techniques are applied as training tools for teaching LE, soldiers, and citizens, proper defensive tactics using firearms. Retaining control of the weapon being one of the top things. CQB, as it is refered to today.
Nothing makes a person invincible. The old 'dynamite comes in small packages' thing is a saying coined by guys with an inferiority complex. While the saying is true, it would be prudent to remember that they still ship the stuff in boxcars. Hand to hand combat will ALWAYS see somebody get hurt, the idea of a fight, of any kind, is to win that fight. When a situation will have lethal consequences for coming out on the short end of the stick, then one should use lethal methods to win. Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kun Do talks of the escalation of force. "If an enemy bruises you, then smash his flesh, if he smashes your flesh , then break his bones, if he breaks your bones, then take his life". Nobody can dispute Lee's prowess as a hand to hand fighter, yet, not even he advocated trying to take on someone with a firearm, knife, bat or whatever, bare handed. Rather, he spoke of retiring from the situation in one piece, if the odds were unfavorable, or using an equalizer to tip the scales. He actually carried a firearm himself at times, and many of his techniques are applied as training tools for teaching LE, soldiers, and citizens, proper defensive tactics using firearms. Retaining control of the weapon being one of the top things. CQB, as it is refered to today.
we shouldn't forget that bruce lee (one of my heroes), despite his impressive physical condition, died at age 32, apparently from a reaction to the chemicals in a fairly common and simple drug.
his son, brandon lee, also an impressive martial artist, died at age 28 of a gunshot that did not even have a full load of powder behind it. to say that physical conditioning and martial arts training is all that someone needs in order to survive any accident or hostile encounter would be as foolishly incorrect as to say that all someone needs is a gun.
despite tk's claims, no one here has argued that a firearm makes you invincible. guns, martial arts, physical exercise, an alert mentality, dogs, door locks, alarm systems, exterior lighting, a working phone, etc; all of these are factors that can increase your survivability in an emergency.
but none of them guarantee anything.
still, i would rather prepare myself and enjoy the increased chances than not. i know that i am not invincible; it is primarily for that reason that i stopped trying to take on every loudmouthed thug that i come across; i'm not a superhero, and some of the thugs i am going to have to leave to their mothers or the cops to take care of.
but if they come after me or my family with hostility, you can bet your money that i am going to fight them with anything i am capable of, whether that is my ar-15, a metal pipe, my belt, my fists, feet, and teeth, or something else.
we shouldn't forget that bruce lee (one of my heroes), despite his impressive physical condition, died at age 32, apparently from a reaction to the chemicals in a fairly common and simple drug.
his son, brandon lee, also an impressive martial artist, died at age 28 of a gunshot that did not even have a full load of powder behind it. to say that physical conditioning and martial arts training is all that someone needs in order to survive any accident or hostile encounter would be as foolishly incorrect as to say that all someone needs is a gun.
despite tk's claims, no one here has argued that a firearm makes you invincible. guns, martial arts, physical exercise, an alert mentality, dogs, door locks, alarm systems, exterior lighting, a working phone, etc; all of these are factors that can increase your survivability in an emergency.
but none of them guarantee anything.
still, i would rather prepare myself and enjoy the increased chances than not. i know that i am not invincible; it is primarily for that reason that i stopped trying to take on every loudmouthed thug that i come across; i'm not a superhero, and some of the thugs i am going to have to leave to their mothers or the cops to take care of.
but if they come after me or my family with hostility, you can bet your money that i am going to fight them with anything i am capable of, whether that is my ar-15, a metal pipe, my belt, my fists, feet, and teeth, or something else.
Quite. Jeff Cooper (another whose philosophies I admire) said 'Fight back, at all costs, fight back, never resolve that you have lost". I live in a very rural setting, so, I can generally see a threat from a ways off. My dogs are my first line of defense. They are hardly vicious killers, but, they ARE noisy, and I can tell , from the tone of their yapping, if I need to attend to something. You cannot be prepared for everything, but it does not hurt to try. If I were to go to fightin' with every loudmouth blow hard punk with a chip on their shoulder, I would be a sorry example indeed. Every trip to the city sees an encounter of this type. Some punk with something to prove. I usually just defer to their 'superiority' and walk away knowing that it was good for them to not have pushed the issue to physical confrontation. I have nothing to prove, to anyone, but will fight if pushed, and fight for keeps. Especially if my family is in danger. Someone can push me all they like, but touch or accost my wife or child, and it's on. The lesson of 'stupid hurts' needs driven home at that point. When , and when not, to apply lethal force is something I have trained in for a LONG time. I have backed away from far more confrontations BECAUSE I was armed than I can remember. I have no problem letting some punk think he's a tough guy, and that he backed me down. No skin off my nose. My wife will still curl up with me that night, and my son will still love me, and I'll be around to enjoy that. Should someone actually attack us, with the intent to do harm, the results will be the same, in that regard, minus that the perp will have MAJOR regrets at having pushed the issue.
That folks are skeptical about a particular person, you, being able to disarm/subdue, an armed attacker, is not so much being discounted as impossible as improbable. You have been very quick to cite examples of personally having done so, and also quick to cite particular technique and circumstance, leading folks to believe the 'incidents' may be getting stretched a mite. There are many examples of people who have disarmed attackers. Wyatt Earp was fond of pistol whipping guys, who were obviously armed themselves, rather than shooting them. I'm sure a guy could do some research and find examples of people taking on armed attackers bare handed and coming out on top. That it is possible is not in dispute. That you, personally, have done so, multiple times, grappled hand to jaws with large dogs and choked them to death, etc, is the subject in dispute. This flat reeks of an overactive imagination (ala Walter Mitty). Kinda like Quigley told Marston, "This ain't Dodge City. and, You ain't Bill Hickcock".If someone were to actually take you seriously, and attempt these methods in the real world, there is a 99.9% chance this would end badly. Very badly indeed. That is rational thinking, sport.Believing oneself capable of taking on a guy with a gun, or a blade, with bare hands, and beating the odds is about as irrational as it gets. But, it would give the local Medical Examiner and interesting case, and probably give investigating police an example to use as a bad example in training new officers and informing citizens of what NOT to do.
It is not rational to think that I'm not one of those people that can do so. I've had to fight to survive since I was very young. Experience is my teacher.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
