This is a knife attack. NSFW and bloody.

eh.. it's still relevant.. somewhat.. if I thought it was really bad I would split it into two topics. knives guns.. self defense... the defense of others... still all very related.

At least it's not another debate about religion.

Sleepless wrote:

At least it's not another debate about religion.

yes! this is true.

Sleepless wrote:

It's not about what they could have done, it's about what they did. It's about not ignoring the fact that the reason those kids were killed and maimed, wasn't because they could've burned the school down, it's not about whether they could have blow it up, it's because pissed off kids had access to guns.

Yeah I'm sure deranged people could kill by other means, but that doesn't mean giving them access guns is a good idea.

The asinine logic of "I'm sure they'd find another way anyways,"" is bullshit, it's like saying, "That guy looks like he's going to kill people... lets make it easier for him, if we don't give him guns I'm sure he'd just find another way anyways."

They were sold these guns illegally by unlicensed individuals who were subsequently convicted and are serving prison time. Once again, they obtained these firearms illegally.

"giving them access guns" sounds like they were handed out to these kids with their breakfast cereal. "Here's your Big Mac, would you like a Glock with that?" Let's be realistic here. They actually put some effort in to meeting the right people and purchasing these guns that they never would have been able to obtain legally. I'm not going to get derogatory here and call what you are saying asinine or bullshit, but columbine is a prime example that gun regulation is far from iron clad. In the end my original statement stands. They worked hard to do what they did, so if the guns weren't there, they would have found another means.

fascinating:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Proteus wrote:

Sleepless wrote:

It's not about what they could have done, it's about what they did. It's about not ignoring the fact that the reason those kids were killed and maimed, wasn't because they could've burned the school down, it's not about whether they could have blow it up, it's because pissed off kids had access to guns.

Yeah I'm sure deranged people could kill by other means, but that doesn't mean giving them access guns is a good idea.

The asinine logic of "I'm sure they'd find another way anyways,"" is bullshit, it's like saying, "That guy looks like he's going to kill people... lets make it easier for him, if we don't give him guns I'm sure he'd just find another way anyways."

They were sold these guns illegally by unlicensed individuals who were subsequently convicted and are serving prison time. Once again, they obtained these firearms illegally.

"giving them access guns" sounds like they were handed out to these kids with their breakfast cereal. "Here's your Big Mac, would you like a Glock with that?" Let's be realistic here. They actually put some effort in to meeting the right people and purchasing these guns that they never would have been able to obtain legally. I'm not going to get derogatory here and call what you are saying asinine or bullshit, but columbine is a prime example that gun regulation is far from iron clad. In the end my original statement stands. They worked hard to do what they did, so if the guns weren't there, they would have found another means.

They didn't work hard, they used the same method I used as a kid to get smokes, it's not some form of rocket science.

Only one of the guns was purchased illegally, the tech, the 2 shotguns and rifle were bought at a gun show, the illegality of the guns was that it was a straw purchase for two minors and the person who bought the guns was the person convicted. The ammo was also bought legally at a local kmart.

Nothing is Iron clad, but that's not an excuse to do nothing. I realize they could have found other means, but they didn't need to that's the problem.

As we're petering down to semantics now, it's best that we just agree that them having the guns to begin with was shady. Never should have happened.

Proteus wrote:

As we're petering down to semantics now, it's best that we just agree that them having the guns to begin with was shady. Never should have happened.

Agreed, but no one should own an automatic handheld.

the 2nd amendment was written to protect citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic. primarily governments, including our own. should they ever try and rule over the country by force. in other news: statistics!



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

japan has one of the lowest crime statistics in the entire world, second to only chile according to that last link. I read in a book "more guns, less crime" they'd had two gun related deaths in one year (towards the beginning of this century I believe). this is how they accomplish this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In response to UA's link.

Quote :

'No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords'

I don't agree with the sword part. That seems very out of place, I collect handmade swords because I find them to be very artistic. Guns, on the other hand, are hardly artistic at all.

Quote :

...the Sword Hunt was presented to the masses under the pretext that all the swords would be melted down to supply nails and bolts for a temple containing a huge statue of the Buddha. The statue would have been twice the size of the Statue of Liberty. The Western missionaries' Jesuit Annual Letter reported that Hidéyoshi 'is depriving the people of their arms under the pretext of devotion to religion'. Once the swords and guns were collected, Hidéyoshi had them melted into a statue of himself.

As a sword enthusiast, this makes me rage.

Oh, go look as some old, collectable colt single action armys. The craftsmanship and designs are simplly gorgeous. As for swords, go watch "the last samurai". It explains why they outlawed the sword.

Urban Avenger wrote:

Oh, go look as some old, collectable colt single action armys. The craftsmanship and designs are simplly gorgeous. As for swords, go watch "the last samurai". It explains why they outlawed the sword.

Why they outlawed the sword is irrelevant to me, it's the fact that they destroy them that pushes my buttons.

Imagine a master bladesmith working for months on a single blade, his masterpiece, beautiful and artistic in every way, only to be obliterated if somebody is stupid enough to ship it to Japan.

Perhaps it's not so easy to relate to my perspective. The study of swords is just a bit of a passion for me.

It's quite simple IMO. The more easy accesable weapons effective for killing there is, the more people get killed. You might get down crime rate, but that's not the only point here.

There are a lot of nations who take care of their unfortunate, so crime never become a big problem. There is also cultures with higher morality than others, so crime is less likely to become a way of life.

Giving people guns to get crime rates down is just a cheap shortcut, and the side effects are escalation in voilence.

Posted by Silver Sentinel on Facebook...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

E0N wrote:

Posted by Silver Sentinel on Facebook...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Damn your on-topicness! I was waiting for the big fight and thread lock over gun control!

I've seen vids of a couple of blackbelts who looked absolutely stunned when they tried the chop suey on a skilled guy with his practice knife at an exhibition. They went one on one with the guy, one at a time.

They went into stances, got all prepared and then just fell apart when the knifer charged like a maniac and started shanking them right and left. It was eye opening.

That's a guy coming at you though.
A real good knifeman will hide it, wait til you're close, and then try to surprise you by stabbing you in the liver thirteen times in three seconds.

Midnite Detective wrote:

That's a guy coming at you though.
A real good knifeman will hide it, wait til you're close, and then try to surprise you by stabbing you in the liver thirteen times in three seconds.

Yep.

Even with the stabber being blatant about it as he was here I can't think of any "solution" to this scenario that doesn't involve being more aware in the first place.

At 0:00:01 in the video "run like hell" might have worked better than "hold up jacket."

The guy was totally overwhelmed. Look at him, he doesn't even hold it up. It's more of a hunch over my jacket helplessly.

The only thing I could have seen to do, if you can think that fast, is to whip the jacket over his knife arm forcefully. it's at least better than hunching over your coat and waiting for death.

So how can you defend against something like that without a jacket?

There are many techniques for dealing with a knife attack. The problem is that a skilled knife fighter knows them all, and knows how to get around them. Even an unskilled knife-wielder has the advantage against an unarmed opponent, and you usually end up getting stabbed in such a confrontation. If you have mid-range weapons, use them. If you can run, do it. Just don't stand there.

Your armor will help, UA, if you're wearing it, but it's not magical. Even though you have it I'd forget about it completely in deciding what to do.

I say if you don't have the option of running away, savagely attack the person... and in this case I don't mean "savagely" as some kind of funny overstatement.

If you don't have a weapon ready, I wouldn't spend any time trying to get one ready, either. And even though they say if someone is threatening you for your wallet or something to just give them your wallet... I still say run away or savagely attack if someone at close range threatens you with a knife.

You'll probably have to justify it later and might get in some trouble.

Also 20 years of Aikido will apparently make this is a simple situation for you, but I haven't done that personally.

Urban Avenger wrote:

So how can you defend against something like that without a jacket?

This guys a whole lot faster and scarier than our girlfriend stabbing maniac from the first video, yes?

Col. Fairbairn (google him and Col. Applegate of you don't know these names..........shame on you) suggests the best weapon is a chair, lion tamer style, and a good old knee kick, then probably run like Hell.

But let's assume we're unarmed:

Run like Eon said. Good luck if you're slow.

Get lucky. Get a good hit into his hand and knock the thing away.

Accept the stab and hopefully take it somewhere you can live with it while you're hurt, bloody, and grappling for a knife.

The happy side kick the the knee and run as above.
Applegate expands on Fairbairn and suggests parrying the knife arm and trying to lock it down. There's a few ways to do this and they all involve risk, of course.

Think about when you stabbed that person. What could they have done to avoid/block it?

Edit:
Above all KEEP IT SIMPLE.
Fancy gets you cut up with guys like that.

E0N wrote:

Your armor will help, UA, if you're wearing it, but it's not magical. Even though you have it I'd forget about it completely in deciding what to do.

I say if you don't have the option of running away, savagely attack the person... and in this case I don't mean "savagely" as some kind of funny overstatement.

If you don't have a weapon ready, I wouldn't spend any time trying to get one ready, either. And even though they say if someone is threatening you for your wallet or something to just give them your wallet... I still say run away or savagely attack if someone at close range threatens you with a knife.

You'll probably have to justify it later and might get in some trouble.

Also 20 years of Aikido will apparently make this is a simple situation for you, but I haven't done that personally.

I'd rather get in trouble than give up my cash or get stabbed. I'm taking that guy as a threat to my life. Good luck to him.