Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Law abiding citizen.....

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by zap
    This is true....BUT...as a martial arts INSTRUCTOR......I can tell you that in real life situtuations...the average person cannot hit a windpipe accurately enough to cause the immediate incapacitation required to stop an attack. I have been punched in the throat...it did not crust my windpipe.

    I am seriously starting to wonder if you are cop or not. It is looking more and more like you are a troll with nothing better to do.

    Real life....real consequences....he stabs me....I shoot him too.

    ....what you might not be considering...is that my shooting him might stop him from stabbing you tomorrow.
    Tink is not a cop. Or obviously, a victim of any violence. Just a comfortable liberal.
    Jerry
    "If all else fails, stop using all else!"

    Comment


    • #92
      A bank is a federal building. In Michigan civilians are not allowed to carry in a bank.
      "In these modern times, many men are wounded for not having weapons or knowledge of their use."
      -Achille Marozzo, 1536

      Ne Obliviscaris - Do Not Forget

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Bluntforcetraum
        A bank is a federal building. In Michigan civilians are not allowed to carry in a bank.
        There are no CCW permits that allow concealed in a bank. At least not that I'm aware of. Thats why they have night deposit slots on the outside.
        Jerry
        "If all else fails, stop using all else!"

        Comment


        • #94
          Yep, we take handguns into banks here. Wouldn't be without it. Period. Had a bank robbery here yesterday with 7-armed suspects.

          As for hitting someone in the throat who is moving rapidly and trying to stab you and inflict a lethal wound to KILL you, it is highly unlikely you will be able to strike this area in a hurry, under duress, increased adrenalin and having already been stabbed. Gross motor skills come into play here... fine motor skills take a back seat. I'd like to see Tink do this in a "controlled" TRAINING enviroment and get it right...

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Tinkertoys
            What does that have to do with gun control? IF you had no gun, you would have slugged him, same result. Apart from gang crimes, how many murders are committed with illegal weapons? Not that many.

            -tink
            Jeez, where to start. How about with the above nonsense.

            I was stabbed in my stonmach. I was on my back when I shot the guy. Your an idiot. No further discussion is required.

            A bank is a federal building. In Michigan civilians are not allowed to carry in a bank.
            Banks are not Federal buildings. Unless it is forbidden by State Law, feel free to carry in your bank of choice. I do. The exception is the Federal Reserve of course.

            There are no CCW permits that allow concealed in a bank. At least not that I'm aware of. Thats why they have night deposit slots on the outside.
            See above.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by jerrymaccauley
              There are no CCW permits that allow concealed in a bank. At least not that I'm aware of. Thats why they have night deposit slots on the outside.
              I am fairly sure that it is legal to carry a concealed firearm into a bank in Missouri with a permit. If someone from the bank thinks you are carrying they can ask you to leave, if you do not voluntarily leave they can call the police.

              Where does the comment about all banks being federal buildings come from? I've never heard that.
              Banks are not Federal buildings. Unless it is forbidden by State Law, feel free to carry in your bank of choice. I do. The exception is the Federal Reserve of course.
              Well, that doesn't stop a state from making it illegal to carry concealed into a bank does it? Different states may have different laws on this...

              Comment


              • #97
                Here, a CHL holder can carry into a bank of his choosing...unless the bank posts otherwise.

                ....but you still missed the point .....he was violently and leathally attacked ....outside the bank.
                An impressionable child in a tumultuous world, and they say I'm at a difficult stage... --Meat Loaf

                Professional Stupidity Recognition Technician

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by ctt
                  I am fairly sure that it is legal to carry a concealed firearm into a bank in Missouri with a permit. If someone from the bank thinks you are carrying they can ask you to leave, if you do not voluntarily leave they can call the police.

                  Where does the comment about all banks being federal buildings come from? I've never heard that.
                  Well, that doesn't stop a state from making it illegal to carry concealed into a bank does it? Different states may have different laws on this...

                  Thats why I said
                  Unless it is forbidden by State Law
                  .

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Norm357
                    Thats why I said
                    Quote:
                    Unless it is forbidden by State LawThats why I said .
                    Details, details... =)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tinkertoys
                      Or thousands of people do it in similar circumstances. Your windpipe doesn't work, well.....

                      -tink
                      Name one person who has done that successfully.
                      Jerry
                      "If all else fails, stop using all else!"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tinkertoys
                        What does that have to do with gun control? IF you had no gun, you would have slugged him, same result. Apart from gang crimes, how many murders are committed with illegal weapons? Not that many.

                        -tink

                        One more time.

                        Shut up you are removing all doubt about your ignorance on this subject.

                        God how I hate amateurs and incompetents.


                        Are you let out without adult supervision?
                        Kelly

                        We are the thin blue line
                        between you
                        and all the money in the world.

                        And no you can't have any.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ghostrider_RSA
                          Yep, we take handguns into banks here. Wouldn't be without it. Period. Had a bank robbery here yesterday with 7-armed suspects.

                          As for hitting someone in the throat who is moving rapidly and trying to stab you and inflict a lethal wound to KILL you, it is highly unlikely you will be able to strike this area in a hurry, under duress, increased adrenalin and having already been stabbed. Gross motor skills come into play here... fine motor skills take a back seat. I'd like to see Tink do this in a "controlled" TRAINING enviroment and get it right...
                          I thought S Africa banks had security screens when entering and leaving banks? Arent you required to leave your gun at the door? (Apart from cops I presume)

                          As for hitting in the throat, I have incapacitated armed people many times without a weapon. Never in the throat cause I wouldnt want to kill them and there is a risk by hitting the windpipe. Of course I wouldnt be as quick if it was a gun in my face.

                          Comment


                          • Frank says that no-one is law-abiding, and in support of that cites a list of very minor offenses at least one of which almost everyone has at some time committed.

                            In my opinion, that is a frivolous point. If the term "law-abiding" is not to be meaningless, one may call someone that if he does not commit any serious violations of the law.

                            The distinction between "malum in se" (bad in themselves) offenses and "malum prohibitum" (bad only by virtue of non-compliance with lawful prohibition) offenses is applicable here.

                            A person who does not commit felonies (literally, "badnesses" -- especially the common law felonies -- murder, arson, rape, grand larceny, robbery, mayhem, serious assault and battery, and a few other terrible crimes) or serious misdemeanors, may legitimately call himself "at least substantially" law-abiding.

                            In reference to the gun law issue, "law-abiding" refers to persons who are apt to want to bear arms for defensive purposes, as opposed to "outlaws" who are apt to want guns to aid them in the perpetration of serious crimes.

                            Like other persons who have posted in this thread, I think that "Tinkertoys" exhibits an astounding naivete and complacency in his assessment of the efficacy of non-armed self defense against armed opposition.

                            Regarding the facile and dismissive attitude that "Tinkertoys" exhibited concerning use of a non-armed self-defense technique against an assailant armed with a screwdriver, I am nonplussed.

                            I have never seen a departmental use-of-force model that restricts an officer to non-weapon-only options against an assailant who is using a potentially deadly weapon such as a screwdriver.

                            In fact, not only police offers, but all persons are permitted to use whatever weapon may be at hand to defend against such an attack. While some states and municipalities have (in my opinon unconstitutionally) enacted blanket (with certain exceptions, such as for LEOs and PIs) restrictions against the people bearing firearms, using one against an armed assailant is not an additional offense.

                            "Tinkertoys" is pinning his hope on landing an incapacitating unarmed strike to the throat of his screwdriver-armed assailant. To be immediately incapacitating, such a strike would have to be extremely forceful and accurate. Even with a crushed trachea, if the assailant still had an intact spinal cord, "Tinkertoy" would still be in mortal danger.

                            While "Tinkertoys" is administering his throat strike, that assailant is close enough to "Tinkertoys" to stab him. If he stabs him in the neck, he can sever the exterior and/or interior carotid artery and/or jugular vein; if he stabs downward behind the clavicle (collarbone), he can sever the subclavian artery; if he ducks out the throat strike, and attacks the leg, he can sever the femoral artery; if he punctures a lung, he could cause immediate or post-pneumothorax respiratory failure; if he stabs at the center of the chest, he could puncture the heart; if he sidesteps to his left and stabs the lower right abdomen he could puncture the liver. Any of those injuries is likely enough to be fatal, as could for that matter the schock associated with being stabbed in any part of the body.

                            "Tinkertoys" would be much better off using his .45 ACP to put 2 rounds through his assailant's nose from 25 feet, destroying the assailant's lower brain and instantly incapacitating him.

                            But if we assume that "Tinkertoys" is right, that he can be just as lethal with a no-weapon throat strike as with a firearm, then what's the problem with letting law-abiding persons (not to exclude sidewalk spitters or overtime parkers, Frank) bear them?

                            If "Tinkertoys" truly believes in the awesome efficacy of a throat strike, and truly believes that the populace should not possess significant capacity to infict lethal injury, shouldn't he advocate that that the populace should not be allowed walk around without wearing some kind of restraints that would prevent them from doing one of those terrible throat strikes?

                            That point is of course a reductio ad absurdum argument form advanced against the position advocated by "Tinkertoy"; nevertheless, I recognize that the topic of deadly-force defense is extremely serious. I hope that "Tinkertoys" will think his position through again.

                            I think "Tinkertoys" might benefit himself and others by carefully and conscientiously perusing Dr. John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime".

                            Regards,

                            Monty
                            Last edited by Monty Ealerman; 12-02-2005, 09:41 PM.

                            Comment


                            • And just to prove Monty's point in a real-life situation, I give you Kennesaw, GA.

                              "What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed."
                              You have no right to not be offended.-Neal Boortz

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Monty Ealerman
                                Frank says that no-one is law-abiding, and in support of that cites a list of very minor offenses at least one of which almost everyone has at some time committed.

                                In my opinion, that is a frivolous point. If the term "law-abiding" is not to be meaningless, one may call someone that if he does not commit any serious violations of the law.

                                The distinction between "malum in se" (bad in themselves) offenses and "malum prohibitum" (bad only by virtue of non-compliance with lawful prohibition) offenses is applicable here.

                                A person who does not commit felonies (literally, "badnesses" -- especially the common law felonies -- murder, arson, rape, grand larceny, robbery, mayhem, serious assault and battery, and a few other terrible crimes) or serious misdemeanors, may legitimately call himself "at least substantially" law-abiding.

                                In reference to the gun law issue, "law-abiding" refers to persons who are apt to want to bear arms for defensive purposes, as opposed to "outlaws" who are apt to want guns to aid them in the perpetration of serious crimes.

                                Like other persons who have posted in this thread, I think that "Tinkertoys" exhibits an astounding naivete and complacency in his assessment of the efficacy of non-armed self defense against armed opposition.

                                Regarding the facile and dismissive attitude that "Tinkertoys" exhibited concerning use of a non-armed self-defense technique against an assailant armed with a screwdriver, I am nonplussed.

                                I have never seen a departmental use-of-force model that restricts an officer to non-weapon-only options against an assailant who is using a potentially deadly weapon such as a screwdriver.

                                In fact, not only police offers, but all persons are permitted to use whatever weapon may be at hand to defend against such an attack. While some states and municipalities have (in my opinon unconstitutionally) enacted blanket (with certain exceptions, such as for LEOs and PIs) restrictions against the people bearing firearms, using one against an armed assailant is not an additional offense.

                                "Tinkertoys" is pinning his hope on landing an incapacitating unarmed strike to the throat of his screwdriver-armed assailant. To be immediately incapacitating, such a strike would have to be extremely forceful and accurate. Even with a crushed trachea, if the assailant still had an intact spinal cord, "Tinkertoy" would still be in mortal danger.

                                While "Tinkertoys" is administering his throat strike, that assailant is close enough to "Tinkertoys" to stab him. If he stabs him in the neck, he can sever the exterior and/or interior carotid artery and/or jugular vein; if he stabs downward behind the clavicle (collarbone), he can sever the subclavian artery; if he ducks out the throat strike, and attacks the leg, he can sever the femoral artery; if he punctures a lung, he could cause immediate or post-pneumothorax respiratory failure; if he stabs at the center of the chest, he could puncture the heart; if he sidesteps to his left and stabs the lower right abdomen he could puncture the liver. Any of those injuries is likely enough to be fatal, as could for that matter the schock associated with being stabbed in any part of the body.

                                "Tinkertoys" would be much better off using his .45 ACP to put 2 rounds through his assailant's nose from 25 feet, destroying the assailant's lower brain and instantly incapacitating him.

                                But if we assume that "Tinkertoys" is right, that he can be just as lethal with a no-weapon throat strike as with a firearm, then what's the problem with letting law-abiding persons (not to exclude sidewalk spitters or overtime parkers, Frank) bear them?

                                If "Tinkertoys" truly believes in the awesome efficacy of a throat strike, and truly believes that the populace should not possess significant capacity to infict lethal injury, shouldn't he advocate that that the populace should not be allowed walk around without wearing some kind of restraints that would prevent them from doing one of those terrible throat strikes?

                                That point is of course a reductio ad absurdum argument form advanced against the position advocated by "Tinkertoy"; nevertheless, I recognize that the topic of deadly-force defense is extremely serious. I hope that "Tinkertoys" will think his position through again.

                                I think "Tinkertoys" might benefit himself and others by carefully and conscientiously perusing Dr. John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime".

                                Regards,

                                Monty

                                Simply well said.......
                                An impressionable child in a tumultuous world, and they say I'm at a difficult stage... --Meat Loaf

                                Professional Stupidity Recognition Technician

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4642 users online. 316 members and 4326 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X