Jump to content

Quandary


Pants of Death

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply
What actually happened was Mcdonalds didn't want to have to make fresh coffee for orders, so they decided to make it extra hot. This way, they could get away with serving old coffee,and people wouldn't notice.

That isn't, in fact, true. McDonald's served their coffee at the temperature recommended by the National Coffee Association, as most places do. A bunch of idiots simply failed to comprehend that coffee is supposed to be hot. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and if the "layers" won, that means that they could prove they didn't have the most "stupid lawsuits". That is the law, which is the opposite in the uck (UK).

 

That's not the point. The point is that it should never have even gotten to court, it should have been thrown out in the first 5 minutes. This sort of 'law' as you put it, is what leads to people having to watch every word they say, just in case of reprisal.

 

Oh, and I'm not sure exactly what was meant by your final statement, perhaps YOU'd like to back it up with some evidence. Unless of course you're just making fleeting judgements, something you seem quite unhappy for US to do even when speaking about frankly ludicrous court cases and the 'sue culture' in the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner. Contrary to what the Wachowski Brothers would have you believe, no amount of karate gimmicks is any match for guns and the bullets they spit. And no amount of karate gimmicks can get a small, light person out of a jamb involving a large, heavy person: A petite woman cannot possibly know enough karate gimmicks to keep herself from being raped by a large, 300 lb thug. She needs a force multiplier. She needs a gun.

 

You've obviously never seen someone who is skilled in karate fight. Karate isn't about strength, or bulk, it's about movement. I wouldn't want to be that 300lb thug if that woman was skilled in karate "gimmicks".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Humor me for just a minute. How do you know that none of these "stupid lawsuits" (I'm not saying that that they're not stupid, FYI) don't happen in the UK or other parts of the world? Because you've never heard of them, or because they really never happen?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You've obviously never seen someone who is skilled in karate fight. Karate isn't about strength, or bulk, it's about movement. I wouldn't want to be that 300lb thug if that woman was skilled in karate "gimmicks".

 

It's obvious you've never talked to anyone who has taken karate for serious self-defense. Karate isn't intended to be used for self-defense. It's intended to be used for spiritual growth and to develop self-discipline. It is, furthermore, obvious that you've never asked a small karate expert what they think about their ability to deal with similarly skilled, but much larger karate experts. In hand-to-hand combat, the larger, heavier person holds an indelible physical advantage over a smaller, lighter opponent.

 

Further, karate requires constant and regular practice several days a week. A firearm merely requires that one clean and field strip their weapon twice a year and take it to the range once a year. There is, afterall, a reason why peasant militias armed with guns replaced knights armed with swords, lances, and crossbows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point being: I wouldn't trust anyone who practices once a year to shoot anyone in a street me or relatives happen to be in. Maybe it requires less training, but anything short of once a month is transforming yourself into something dangerous for your contemporaries if you're serious about using a gun for self defense.

What if the rapist has a gun too, with a CCW? after all, nothing would prevent that, if he thinks he can get away with the rape...

 

And Krav Maga would be a lot more efficient that Karate in those circumstances: kick the nuts, break an arm or something, and immobilise on the ground. It doesn't even require much force, good technique and speed are aquired with training (you got nothing without it anyway).

Or run very fast, which is still the best line of defense (if no gun is involved) and requires no particular technique, just a fit body. Now if you pretend to be able to protect others, train yourself, with a gun or at fighting. Hand-to-hand is just a lot less potentially harmful for the pthers that you try to protect...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not every place has self-defense courses taught regularly or at all. Even then, it's difficult to be certain whether or not it has any basis in reality or if it's just a carpet bagger. Hand-to-hand is also a lot more dangerous for you than using the handgun. Especially if the assailant is larger than you.

 

As for a rapist owning a handgun and possessing a CCW... most rapists are relatives. Those who are not are criminals and, therefore, cannot own any firearm (legally), much less apply for a CCW. And you're better off with a handgun and CCW in this case than without, anyway.

 

Here's a what-if for you: Let's say you've taken some self-defense classes in lieu of purchasing a handgun and acquiring a CCW. Let's say that, unlike most people, you're somehow able to practice it regularly enough for it to do you some good. What happens when you're attacked by someone who knows military-grade Krav Maga?

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's obvious you've never talked to anyone who has taken karate for serious self-defense. Karate isn't intended to be used for self-defense. It's intended to be used for spiritual growth and to develop self-discipline. It is, furthermore, obvious that you've never asked a small karate expert what they think about their ability to deal with similarly skilled, but much larger karate experts. In hand-to-hand combat, the larger, heavier person holds an indelible physical advantage over a smaller, lighter opponent.

 

Further, karate requires constant and regular practice several days a week. A firearm merely requires that one clean and field strip their weapon twice a year and take it to the range once a year. There is, afterall, a reason why peasant militias armed with guns replaced knights armed with swords, lances, and crossbows.

 

Just quizzed my resident karate expert (well, purple belt) on those matters you posted above, and they seem to be so much horses elbows.

 

Karate is just as much centred around defending yourself as it is about self-discipline, that much he concedes. But weight is of no value in a karate duel. Sure, they could slug at each other until one concedes, and the heavier man would have the advantage. But, karate uses such difficult concepts as (slow me down if I'm going too fast for you) dodging, movement and deflection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's obvious you've never talked to anyone who has taken karate for serious self-defense.

 

Wrong i'm afraid, his step father is a purple belt in karate, as well as being rather adept in shotokan, Jujitsu, Tae kwon do and another i've never heard of. I find it improbable that he would have never talked to him, especially as i've seen Madness talk to his step father. Not only did he consider Karate a self defense skill, he used it to earn money being a bouncer.

Karate isn't intended to be used for self-defense. It's intended to be used for spiritual growth and to develop self-discipline.

The purple belt in karate says that you are wrong there, it is for self defence and for spiritual growth. Now i don't know whether you have attained any Martial arts experience at all, but i'm inclined to believe the person who has spent 30 years practicing.

It is, furthermore, obvious that you've never asked a small karate expert what they think about their ability to deal with similarly skilled, but much larger karate experts. In hand-to-hand combat, the larger, heavier person holds an indelible physical advantage over a smaller, lighter opponent.

Wrong again i'm afraid, Madness step father is around 5'10", and during his years being a bouncer in Birmingham he obviously didn't find loosing a few inches reach a problem.

As far as i've always found, any martial arts rely on technique and speed. It doesn't matter how strong you are if your temple has been caved in before you can move.

 

Further, karate requires constant and regular practice several days a week. A firearm merely requires that one clean and field strip their weapon twice a year and take it to the range once a year.

The practise is only necessary to keep in shape, not to be able to have the knowledge and skill to bring down any opponent before they can react.

what you say about the gun is correct. You don't seem to take in to t he account the skill and technique, let alone mental capabilities to shoot dead an intruder who does not wishes to be shot.

It should be noted that karate not only gives you the knowledge to act in a certain way, it also prepares the mind to knock someones teeth out of their back side. Taking a gun to a range once a year does not mentally prepare someone for blowing chunks out of someones body.

 

There is, afterall, a reason why peasant militias armed with guns replaced knights armed with swords, lances, and crossbows.

There is a reason yes. This is mainly that its's easier to kill some one with a gun that it is with a crossbow or sword. However we're talking about self defence- not mass bloodletting. However I accept there may be differences in the culture between the USA and the UK when it comes to guns and defense, due to our vastly different laws.

 

It should be noted that there is a vast array of karate schools which teach vastly different types of Karate. Not all of them will teach you how to actually kill some one with your bare hands.

 

i'm not saying that martial arts are the best way to defend your self. I'm arguing that they are a viable option, that guns arn't always the best way of dealing with problems and finally that skill, technique and speed will always beat physical strength.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong i'm afraid, his step father is a purple belt in karate, as well as being rather adept in shotokan, Jujitsu, Tae kwon do and another i've never heard of. I find it improbable that he would have never talked to him, especially as i've seen Madness talk to his step father. Not only did he consider Karate a self defense skill, he used it to earn money being a bouncer. 

 

The purple belt in karate says that you are wrong there, it is for self defence and for spiritual growth. Now i don't know whether you have attained any Martial arts experience at all, but i'm inclined to believe the person who has spent 30 years practicing.

 

Wrong again i'm afraid, Madness step father is around 5'10", and during his years being a bouncer in Birmingham he obviously didn't find loosing a few inches reach a problem. 

As far as i've always found, any martial arts rely on technique and speed. It doesn't matter how strong you are if your temple has been caved in before you can move.

 

 

The practise is only necessary to keep in shape, not to be able to have the knowledge and skill to bring down any opponent before they can react.

what you say about the gun is correct. You don't seem to take in to t he account the skill and technique, let alone mental capabilities to shoot dead an intruder who does not wishes to be shot.

It should be noted that karate not only gives you the knowledge to act in a certain way, it also prepares the mind to knock someones teeth out of their back side. Taking a gun to a range once a year does not mentally prepare someone for blowing chunks out of someones body.

 

 

There is a reason yes. This is mainly that its's easier to kill some one with a gun that it is with a crossbow or sword. However we're talking about self defence- not mass bloodletting. However I accept there may be differences in the culture between the USA and the UK when it comes to guns and defense, due to our vastly different laws.

 

It should be noted that there is a vast array of karate schools which teach vastly different types of Karate. Not all of them will teach you how to actually kill some one with your bare hands. 

 

i'm not saying that martial arts are the best way to defend your self. I'm arguing that they are a viable option, that guns arn't always the best way of dealing with problems and finally that skill, technique and speed will always beat physical strength.

 

Well that beat the hell out of my post :D lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two articles. One written by a black belt in Ninpo, another written by a three-year veteran of karate.

 

Anyone who says karate is about self-defense is full of bullsh__. It's not a defensive art. There are very few techniques that are useful for defense in it. It's a sport, and as such, the techniques that are taught are intended to be used for sport. Not defense. I don't care what your rank is in a martial art.

 

If it were useful, it would be taught to military, police, and intelligence personnel. It isn't. The only exception to this is the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program, which even their recruiters freely admit is not intended to teach anything practical (it should say something that recruiters in the middle of an unpopular war are more honest about the usefulness of such martial arts than the civilians who practice them).

 

Practical martial arts and unarmed defensive courses can be taught, learned, and mastered in a matter of weeks. How many years must one toil away at karate before earning a Black Belt? One year? Five? A dozen?

 

Firearms are not the best way to deal with every problem that comes knocking. But if you cannot avoid the problem knocking, it's better to neutralize the problem quickly, efficiently, and sustaining the least amount of harm possible. A firearm will always be superior to a martial art for the simple reason that you cannot tell whether or not your attacker has a black belt or practical martial hand-to-hand experience or not: If you can put bullets in him or her, it's better than risking your life trying to wrestle him/her to the ground.

 

EDIT: Oh, and the potential threat of a good *albatross*-whopin' at the hands of a black belt is much, much less intimidating than the presence of a firearm. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry mate, i'll take first hand experiance from some one who knows what ther'ye talking, rather than some guy from the internet.

 

To put it even more bluntly than that, Living in Britain means shooting some one dead in self defence isn't likly to happen very often, (especially as theres only a 410 shotgun in the house).

For me this means guns are useless as self defence, as i can't get acess to one.

 

On a moral note, anyone who is willing to blow people up first ask questions later is better off a long way away from me. Luckily thats the case! ;)

 

Oh, where's the sledge signal when i need it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, enough of the kung fu ######. The real point of legalizing CCW is not to put guns in the hands of every person, but two very simple reasons.

One, because it is our right as guaranteed in the US Constitution 2nd amendment.

Two, because statistics have proven that states with CCW laws have lower crime rates. Why? Could it be due to the fact that criminals know that almost any law-abiding citizen could be packing? Might that deter some criminals? Compare that to a state that bans CCW. Criminals know that almost every citizen who isn’t a criminal wouldn’t be packing (for some reason, criminals tend to ignore the law. Go figure).

A majority of those people who do take advantage of the law and carry protection are responsible enough to know how to handle and when to use their firearms. There are no ‘cowboy shootouts’ over petty squabbles or barroom fights gone bad. Those are only figments of the anti-gun crowd’s imagination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with carrying guns is the reason why we don't allow it here. (I believe this is so, someone correct me if I'm wrong.) The problem is called escalation. We start carrying guns, they carry bigger guns, and then we need bigger guns to protect us and vice versa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns arn't even in the top 10 leading causes of death in America. In fact death by firearms are down in the past 20 years, even after the sunset of the 'assualt' weapons ban.

Medical malpractice and blood poisoning are more likely to kill you than a gun in America.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But more on the point of the original subject, which was being comparative to other countries?

 

Or are you just trying to tell me that a lot of people die for silly things in America ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people die for silly things, period.

 

Oh, and the thousands of deaths every year (tobacco, alcohol, and automobiles kill more than firearms every year, BTW) wasn't what isn't the problem. It is a problem. Escalation is not a problem: The key to any firearm is not the size or the capacity, but the skill of the person using it. If a gangster pulls a larger gun on you, it doesn't really matter, because you (should) be better trained with using your own, smaller gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of people die for silly things, period.

 

Oh, and the thousands of deaths every year (tobacco, alcohol, and automobiles kill more than firearms every year, BTW) wasn't what isn't the problem. It is a problem. Escalation is not a problem: The key to any firearm is not the size or the capacity, but the skill of the person using it. If a gangster pulls a larger gun on you, it doesn't really matter, because you (should) be better trained with using your own, smaller gun.

 

But what if he's very skilled with his larger gun? Guns should never have to be the solution (a bit odd to hear on an airsoft board lol).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.