Fire Power

[Demi @ CSPT]

Just finished work on the latest video project.

FIRE POWER

This new video/DVD from the CSPT covers the use of the semi automatic handgun and the pump action shotgun for fighting in a domestic or urban environment.

Just because you think you know how to shoot does not mean you know the first thing about fighting with firearms!

There is more info and pictures on my site at:

http://www.demibarbito.com/firepower.html

The site has also been updated and there is a new article on certification.

Demi

www.DemiBarbito.com

[Repulsive Monkey]

or what. This is a martial arts forum not a gun nut's.

[dnc101]

RM, firearms are a martial weapon, and some of us do train with firearms. So why is it you think that the topic has no place on a martial arts board?

Oh, by the way, very few nuts are used in the construction of guns.

[Radhnoti]

I, also, agree that this is the perfect forum for this topic. I've never had the opportunity to train with firearms, but I would love to do so.

[FatherDog]

This forum is stated to cover topics relating to reality fighting and modern self-defense. Firearms are extremely appropriate to both. Perfectly on-topic.

[Fred Sanford]

certified in Defensive Handgun/Tactical Handgun and Close Quarter Handgun Battle. Demi is also certified in the use of SIMUNITION® for Military and Law Enforcement. Demi also has a State of Ca. CCW.

Certified by who?

[Demi @ CSPT]

All certification is from the TACFIRE Institute.

The SIMs is from SIMUNITION Ltd.

Demi

[Repulsive Monkey]

Your not many nuts needed in gun construction joke was very droll. Having a gun doesn't ensure personal safety, as does having any other "martial weapon", and if one wishes to pursue this need for ultimate personal safety then it can lead to desperate ends. I've always thought that the licensing and allowing to caryy around firearms is just the thin edge of the wedge as this will in turn evolute into more appeasement to "securing persoanl safety". If one's excuse is well there is too much crime going on in my neighbourhood and I want to protect myself and my loved ones then the problem is not to ante-up and embed oneself into gun-culture, the problem is with the administration of law enforcement, and then further than that moral values and education (or lack of I should say). But this needless promotion of gun culture and idolatry is as I said RANK. Having a gun is one thing but boasting about making a video about it is RANK too. We all know that if education is to be solid one needs hands on advice so this kind of negates the worth of the video too.
Feel free to lat into this comment but its just an opinion, nothing more.

[Demi @ CSPT]

Just so we are clear...

Law Enoforcement is not about "crime prevention". They solve crimes and ensure punishment after they happen.

Morals??? Of course! but there will always be deviant, evil people in the world.

Videos can expose people to training that they may otherwise have never seen, give info on safety as well as a tactical approach.

The real proplem is that your are in the UK. I have no problem with that, but you do not have a frame of reference on firearms. It does not matter if you have "shot a few times". You would only be able to speak with clarity after becoming intimatly familiar with firearms - Safety, handling, training, fighting.

Demi

www.DemiBarbito.com

[dnc101]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Repulsive Monkey
Your not many nuts needed in gun construction joke was very droll.
(note subject)
Having a gun doesn't ensure personal safety,
No one said it does. But it can sure help.
and if one wishes to pursue this need for ultimate personal safety then it can lead to desperate ends.
Wild conjecture, unsupported by evidence. But if you are so afraid of them, I suggest you not get one.
I've always thought that the licensing and allowing to caryy around firearms is just the thin edge of the wedge as this will in turn evolute into more appeasement to "securing persoanl safety".
Again, no evidence or logical argument.
If one's excuse is well there is too much crime going on in my neighbourhood and I want to protect myself and my loved ones then the problem is not to ante-up and embed oneself into gun-culture, the problem is with the administration of law enforcement, and then further than that moral values and education (or lack of I should say). But this needless promotion of gun culture and idolatry is as I said RANK.
Your entire post is a serries of unsupported alegations and accusations. They do a great job of showcaseing your bias, but nothing more.
Having a gun is one thing but boasting about making a video about it is RANK too. We all know that if education is to be solid one needs hands on advice so this kind of negates the worth of the video too.
I missed the posts where you trashed Gene for promoting KF videos, or the grapplers for recomending their favorite videos. Or can we learn other martial arts solely from videos? I don't think anyone here is saying you can learn combat or defensive shooting just by watching videos. You can pick up pointers to augment your training though, and get a different perspective, maybe gain fresh insights.
And given your obvious hatred of guns and those who use them, what qualifies you to comment on training with them?
Feel free to lat into this comment but its just an opinion, nothing more. I did. At least you had the grace to label your attacks on these inanimate objects, and those of us who would use them for constructive purposes, as your opinion.

This topic has been debated many times here. I don't know why some of you liberals feel the need to jump in at every opportunity and spew your bile and hatred at anyone who disagrees with you. Might I suggest that, if you don't like guns, you don't jump into a thread about training with them. No political statements or moralizations were made here untill you started in. In fact, it was just an informative post. You've given it life!

[Repulsive Monkey]

Demi: when you say that in the UK we have frame of reference can you elucidate on that please? There are many shooting clubs for persoanl pursuit or for hunting, people (admittedly hardly any old memeber of the public) can be licensed to carry arms, and the streets and areas in the UK are awash with guns. There are easier to pick up than any drug one would care to obtain.

[Liokault]

Hey RM dont try to tell the Yanks about guns....they judge their worth by the size of their gun.




This new video/DVD from the CSPT covers the use of the semi automatic handgun and the pump action shotgun for fighting in a domestic or urban environment.

So you are going to train people to use pump action shot guns in an urban enviroment? Who is this going to help?


Go on admit it...you just love guns dont you?

[Radhnoti]

A home is an urban enviornment. A pump shotgun is widely regarded as the best firearm for home defense for numerous reasons.
:rolleyes:
;)

[dnc101]

Radhnoti,
Actually, I prefer a .38 revolver shooting mild handloads with a reversed wadcutter for home defense. Enough to to the job at close range, but will not overpenetrate perpetrators or walls. Also, long guns are harder to weild in tight places and around corners. On the other hand, the intimidation factor of the 'cha-clack' of a pump action shotgun being brought into battery-:D awesome;) !


Originally posted by Liokault
So you are going to train people to use pump action shot guns in an urban enviroment? Who is this going to help?

Liokult, it helps:
The gun owner who has a legitimate interest in protecting his family and property.
The neighbor, who might be exposed to a hazardous situation if the gun owner can not avail himself of information like I just gave Radh.
The community the gun owner lives in, as it is far safer for his presence. Dialy there are countless crimes prevented or stopped, and criminals aprehended or shot, by average citizens exercising their right to defend themselves and their neighbors.

For the record, I like guns, but I don't just like guns. And I judge my worth by my ability to think instead of just hurling insults at people and topics I don't like. Really, if you Brits are going to continue to disarm you should at least keep your witts about you!

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by dnc101
Radhnoti,
Actually, I prefer a .38 revolver shooting mild handloads with a reversed wadcutter for home defense. Enough to to the job at close range, but will not overpenetrate perpsetrators or walls. Also, long guns are harder to weild in tight places and around corners. On the other hand, the intimidation factor of the 'cha-clack' of a pump action shotgun being brought into battery-:D awesome;) !


For me, it's a situational issue. If I've just been woken up, it's dark, I'm groggy, and I have to grab the gun beside my bed and suddenly defend myself, how likely am I to hit the intruder who's just entered my room with a revolver, and how likely with a shotgun?

[dnc101]

Pa Dawg,
I agree that it is a situational issue. Allwys grab the right tool for the job. I'd still prefer the pistola, but maybe a good .45 semi auto in the situation you describe. But for multiple assailants in the back yard- shotgun! For the occasional Brit trying to rape the neighbors dog at the end of the block, you'd want a rifle of course. And for massed terrorists- full auto, baby:cool: .

Fer tha Brits,
Don't get yer knickers in a twist. I don't dislike you, but I do get a kick out of your anti(cs). My wife is still a citizen of the UK. She once told a group of state troopers in a resturaunt that she thought it was terribly impolite of them to sit at the table with their guns on. Took a while for me to live that one down!:p

[Black Jack]

This is the perfect place for tactical firearm discussion.

I love hearing liberal brits ***** and whine about firearms when they have some of the worst rising crime rates due to the fact that there country deems them to stupid to defend themselves and their families. They are subjects and not citizens. Combat firearm use is a martial art very deep in tactical styles and viewpoints. Very similar to gung fu and how it has many different systems, training drills, outlooks, and tactics, but all grounded in the same deep functional fundamentals.

Over the last year I have reintroduced myself back into shooting for self defense and pleasure. Combined with a moral and trained human being it is the ultimate self defense tool. It is not a talisman, there is no such animal, but it is the best you can get to it.

[Water Dragon]

Radhnoti,
Perhaps if you lived in my neighborhood, you would feel differently about protecting yourself and your family:

http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2003/02/11/news/top_news/82de15bda953bbdf86256cca001e9217.txt

Or should I just let this be my children?

[dnc101]

WD, the only reference to a gun being used here was this:

"I heard that a lady and two grandchildren were shot," Perez said, adding she did not know them.

That is clearly hearsay. But, let's say she was correct. What then? I still support the use of firearms for self defense. Had the grandmother had a firearm and known how to use it she'd have stood a better chance of survival. And had (or if) the degenerate sod that killed them not had a gun, he could still have easily used aother weapon, or even his bare hands. (This of course makes the assumption that the criminal is stronger and more able or prone to inflict violence than a grandmother and two young children. But, I think this is a safe assumption). A firearm is a tool, neither inherently good nor evil. It is the person using it that has one of these characteristics. But a firearm, like no other tool invented, can help even the odds between good (grandma) and evil (murderer).

[Water Dragon]

yup. exactly.

[Fred Sanford]

for some reason it doesn't suprise me that liberal tai chi hippies don't like guns.

[Radhnoti]

I think Water Dragon meant:
"Repulsive Monkey,
Perhaps if you lived in my neighborhood, you would feel differently about protecting yourself and your family:

http://www.thetimesonline.com/artic...cca001e9217.txt

Or should I just let this be my children?"

You're preaching to choir if you're pro-freedom and looking my way my friend. ;)

[Repulsive Monkey]

Mainly because they are sane and have cultivated a sense of balance in their lives, which even incorporates and effectively deals with urban crime but without the ego-crutch of a gun.
Isn't strange but for some reason pathologically inane, and dead headed reactionaries with insecurity complexes don't like peace.

[Water Dragon]

yeah, I screwed up on the names. Embarrasing.

My main point was that no matter what you think things SHOULD be like, it is often very different from how things ARE.

I have a six year old son, the same age as the murdered child. My best friends Father was murdered in his restaurant last spring. Another close friend's cousin was assasinated gangland style last fall. All of this happened within a 10 minute drive of my house. One was 4 blocks away.

So my question to the Brits is, How do you suggest I deal with my environment? Do I just hope it's not my turn next, or do I take measures to protect myself and my family?

It doesn't really matter if I believe in guns or not. The ba$tards around me do.

Oh yeah, the guns being used here were NOT bought legally. So making guns illegal would not have stopped these murders.

[Water Dragon]

Anyhow, looks like they caught the ba$tard that did it.

http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2003/02/12/news/lake_county/4f147408a6dfa99086256ccb0007c8e7.txt

[Liokault]

I love hearing liberal brits ***** and whine about firearms when they have some of the worst rising crime rates due to the fact that there country deems them to stupid to defend themselves and their families

Could u back that up?

The level of gun crime in the UK is tiny and we like it that way. I am still ( have posted this before) the only person that I know that has ever been in a situation with a gun on the street.

Also the highest profile gun crime in years was recently when 2 black teenagers were shot down in a gang related fight out side a semi legal party. Thos was a shock to the nation and stayed on the front pages of our news papers for weeks. How long would a drive by shooting of 2 young black girls be news in america?

[Black Jack]

Of course I can back that up. After a bit o' lunch I will do so.

[dnc101]

Well, well! I was right. The perp didn't use a gun. He did jimmy the door to get in, which would have given grandmother enough advance notice to have retrieved a firearm had she had one. Her and the kids would still be alive instead of brutalized and killed.

But, from the left we get:

Originally posted by Repulsive Monkey
Mainly because they are sane and have cultivated a sense of balance in their lives, which even incorporates and effectively deals with urban crime but without the ego-crutch of a gun.
Isn't strange but for some reason pathologically inane, and dead headed reactionaries with insecurity complexes don't like peace.

Let's see, he got all emotional (there's a surprise), called names, made accusations..., not a single logical argument there. And we're supposed to take these clowns seriously? I guess because he used a couple of big words, we're supposed to think he's smart enough that we shouldn't question his opinion.

I don't see a permanent vertical smilie, so this will have to do- ( I )

[Black Jack]

Lio,

I am not going to get involved into another anti-gun thread as it seems I have defended the pro-gun side enough times where it is getting to be a bit of a merry-go-round but I will showcase my viewpoint at hand. First you seem to be confusing crime with just firearms as the sole source of violence, which is not the case, crime is crime either way you paint the picture, in the hands of law abiding citizens firearms are frequently used to prevent crime, its been documented over and over again. Guns save lifes.

Socialists who restrict the born rights of one to protect themselves and their families in the quest for a totalitarian utopian experiment just do the reverse.

Since the strict firearm/self defense ban has been in place there has been an increase of 53% in armed street robbrey in 2001 report. Since the 9/11 attack on America London has seen muggings and home-envasions go up 40%.

Here is a BBC article on the subject:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1741336.stm

Here is also article on the civil liberities and gun problems in the UK as well:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html


The harvard teacher Joyce Lee Malcom has done many studies in her books which have shown that England due to its strict anti-self defense ban have become one of the most crime-ridden countries in the developed world.

Here is here link to her book for you to do your own reading and save me time.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MALGUN.html

Also here is a fine example of english gun control at work-

http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?pt=n&id=28681

Criminals do not obey gun laws-the only people who get hurt are those that are disarmed. If links did not work let me know. I can also show numerous examples of where guns saved people lifes and where gun bans have hurt them, both from a basic level of freedom and the fact that they could not defend themselves from a violent attacker.

Oh and I have never seen a drive by either-tv series are not the same as real life.

[Water Dragon]

I've been caught in a driveby (two actually) And no, they are not the same as on TV

[Black Jack]

Links should be fixed,

Water, though you would have to agree that is not the norm for our society, the reason I am asking is because it seems that a lot of our oversea brothers tend to believe the propaganda/a.k.a tv shows and news that America is one giant old west gun fight, which it is not.

btw, that must of been as scary as hell.

Never seen any drive bys but I was almost car napped once in my very early teens.

[dnc101]

Originally posted by Black Jack
I am not going to get involved into another anti-gun thread as it seems I have defended the pro-gun side enough times where it is getting to be a bit of a merry-go-round

Black Jack, unfortunately, that is the basic liberal strategy. They have no logic, facts do not support their position, and they can only argue from emotion. So, at every opportunity, they jump in with their stupidity and try to wear us down. We get tired of the same old arguments over and over. But they never get tired of p!ssing and wailing. So, try this; I find it so much more fun to go after and expose them, while also debunking their 'arguments'. Eventually, they usually get in a snit, take their ball and go home- exposing themselves as the immature people they are. But, every once in a while, one will stay for the fun.:D

[Black Jack]

True dat!

Ever have those days where you wanted to get some extra energy in your workouts and pretended the heavy bag was a blubbering liberal:D

[Water Dragon]

BlackJack,
Drive bys are definately not the norm for American Society. But then again, neither are poverty levels of 27 % :(

Both of those "situations" occurred by my Father in laws old house. Both were definately opportunistic rather than planned. Person A didn't like Person B and just happened to see them on the street. It wasn't even a drive by, it was more of a stop the car and start bucking out the window and then take off bys.

The first one scared the living $hit out of me. I was maybe 100 feet from the action. The second happened right around the corner. I don't know why, but I wasn't really bothered by that one at all. Of course, I'd lived in the Harbour for about 3 years by that time, so maybe I was desensitized.

[Water Dragon]

ps, I consider myself a liberal

[dnc101]

Originally posted by Water Dragon
ps, I consider myself a liberal

That's fine with me. So's my wife. But you aren't jumping in and hurling insults and emotions all over the place. Maybe I should say 'ultra liberal' or 'liberal fanatic' instead. How about 'frothing, rabid, gun hating sons of ...'. They know who they are.

[Black Jack]

Would of fooled me. I have liberal friends, like dnc said, a better term might be liberal fanatic or something.

I am not a pure conservative either. More a independent.

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by Black Jack
Would of fooled me.

Ahh, how quickly you forget our discussion on immigration last year.

[Black Jack]

Oh yea...now I remeber.:D

[FatherDog]

Fanatics are irritating, no matter what ideology they espouse.

[Shah]

With fists: "Sometimes you win some, sometimes you lose some, but you get to come back and fight another day." Guns are a major problem in the US. I recently read the auto-biography of Sanyika Shakur a.k.a Monster Kody. He was a L.A. gang member since the age 12. That's the time he killed his first person....

But in defense of guns, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But then again guns do help a lot in this.

[dnc101]

Shah, guns are not a problem in the US. More to the point, some people in the US have a problem with guns.

Our real problem is over 50 years of this grand liberal experiment we've indulged in as a nation. A legal system that punishes the victim more than the criminal. Laws that often unreasonably tie the hands of police. Judges that let criminals walk on the flimsiest excuses. Parole boards that make a prison gate a revolving door. Advocates that find prisoners 'rights' where none exist, and prisons run by the inmates. There is no deterrent to these degenerate scum. We do, however, have a welfare system that guarantees an abundant supply of degenerates. But our libs can't face up to the fact that everything they've tried has been a disastrous failure, so they blame an inanimate object for their problems.

Edit: By the way, with fists you don't allways get to come back another day. Try facing a bunch of these gang bangers on a wilding spree with just your fists. You chances of comeing back are pretty minimal.

[Liokault]

Black Jack


Oddlu Black jack my friends woukd say that im on the far right.

If we are going to start posting facts and refering to web sites here are some good ones


http://www.gun-control-network.org/facts.htm (http://www.gun-control-network.org/facts.htm)

On this site we learn that per 100,000 of population there were 4.08 homicides and 6.08 suicides with guns in the USA.

In the UK there were only 0.12 homicides and .22 suicides.

Is that 34 times you are more likely to be killed with a gun against your will than us?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2123249.stm

Now on this web site we learn that crime in the UK is down 39 percent from 1997!!!!

It does state that there has been a rise since 2000 but it also states that our method of counting changed at that time.

[Water Dragon]

Hate to say it dnc, but you are wrong. Below is listed Maslow's Hiearchy of Needs Take a moment and look at the categories:


Self To do what you must to become fully
fulfillment yourself. To develop your own
needs individuality. To become everything
you are capable of becoming.


Ego and Respect and liking for yourself and
esteem needs and others. Strength, competence,
status, achievement, freedom, fame.


Love needs Acceptance, membership, affection,
social needs belonging, feeling loved and wanted.


Safety needs Protection from physical and
psychological threat, fear, and
anxiety. The need for order,
structure, and security.


Physical/ Food, water, shelter, clothing, etc
survival needs

You need to understand that in most areas with rampant crime rates, people are still struggling to achieve the first tier: Physical Survival needs. What happens, is that since these needs are not being met, there is not much consideration being given to the higher tiers.

High murder and crime rates are the result of people being too preoccupies with tier one to give consideration to tier two. Per the year 2000 census, 94 % of the American population is at tier 3 and above (as evidenced by a 6 % poverty level.

Per the year 2000 census, 27 % of East Chicago is below the poverty level (which places them in tier one and MAYBE tier 2)

Blaming what is going on in the US on the legal/criminal justice system is a case of looking at effect to define cause. One of the ideas I really do like in most European governments is the more socialistic approach they take in regards to the distribution of wealth. Until people can enjoy a certain standard of living where survival needs are being met, people will continue to take what they need in order to survive.

[dnc101]

WD, it is the socialistic aproach that keeps these people in that base tier. When government 'redistributes wealth', as in welfare checks, there is no incentive to work to better yourself. And by the second or third generation of welfare recipients, we have people who are incapable of careing for themselves. The PC term for them is 'unemployable', the correct term is 'degenerate'. And they'll never be able to enjoy any standard of living, because all they know how to do is consume and demand more.

Wildings, random killings, and other such mayhem are not the result of poverty. Most poor people don't do those things, even in Chicago. Those things are the result of a total lack of morals or respect for others, and total disrespect for the rule of law.

And, I didn't blame the legal system. I blamed the liberal failures that run it, and those who commit crimes against others.

The libs blame guns (an object with no will of its own) and those who disagree with their views. Their problem is, the libs have had their way for more than a half century now, and during their reign things have gotten progressively and rapidly much worse. They have a track record, and it sucks!

[Water Dragon]

Sorry dnc, that boat won't float. I was on the welfare rolls from 1995 - 1998 (when I got me B.S. in Finance from Indiana University.

At one point, I was working 40 hours a week (for minimum wage)and taking 10 credit hours. Our caseworker told me that I should quit school and get another part time job.

In 1997 my wife almost died dur to aburst appendix. Welfare would not give us any health benefits because we earned too much. Apparently, $ 13,000.00 a year is too much for a family of three.

Our case worker also told my wife that she should divorce me so that they could get more money.

Right before I went to Bloomington to finish school. We had no electricity for 3 weeks. We had to decide whether to have our water cut off or our electricity or our water. We chose electricity. I'm not proud of how I got the money to get my electricity put back on but desperate situations call for desperate measures. That's all I'll say on that subject.

The welfare system in the U.S is designed to hold people back, even after the 1996 "reforms" I'm part of the maybe 3 % that gets out and becomes productive. Not because the other people in the system want to be in the system. It's that the system holds them back.

And by the way, how do you figure that providing food, shelter, and health care for society gives them no incentive to better themselves? Most people naturally want luxuries like a TV. telephone, car, etc. That gives an incentive to work right there. As it stands, many have to steal or kill just to get those "luxury items."

[dnc101]

Wd, you said my boat won't float, then launched it in grand style! Your post, and experiences, prove my point.

WD: "The welfare system in the U.S is designed to hold people back, even after the 1996 "reforms" I'm part of the maybe 3 % that gets out and becomes productive. "

dnc: "WD, it is the socialistic aproach that keeps these people in that base tier. "

I never said it wasn't by design. In fact, I agree whole heartedly that the system is designed to work to maintain a dependant class.

As to their wanting better, I'm sure they do. Most people do. The question is, are they willing to work for it? You were, and I sincerely aplaud you. But 97% are not, by your count. They are apparently satisfied with having their basic needs met by someone else, and choosing (Idisagree with 'having') "to steal or kill just to get those 'luxury items'."

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with helping those who need it. But, as your own experiences bear out, need is not the actual criteria. It is whether or not you are willing to become a permanent member of a dependant class, living in squalor. This is compassion as defined by the liberals. Contrast that to the conservative view- a hand up, not a hand out!

[Black Jack]

Water,

"Untill people can enjoy a certain standard of living where survival needs are met, people will continue to take what they need in order to survive."

Sounds like a cop out to me for a persons responsibilites and a nonjudgemental attitude toward crime. Aspects that the liberal welfare state encourages. Not that this is your viewpoint-just pointing out the paragraph.

I can not agree with you any less, so called "wealth distribution" IMHO is a major problem in our country, many-many people use welfare as there only means of living, without any attempt to better themselves and in turn there society, its a foundation supported poverty not for the deserving poor, those 3%, but for a class of addicts and welfare mothers, people who do not wish to take on a mantle of responsibilty in their lifes.

Why should they work when the goverment gives them a free ride, I know of one lady, and I use that term in jest, that has been on welfare for the last 15 years, no "serious" attempt to get a job, unless you consider her job to be shatting out new kid after new kid by different father after different father, to increase the perks that the government now gives her.

Things such as **** near free rent, though in a ****ty apartment complex, alocated spending money every month, a free used car, extra money for food for all the kiddies, free utilities, the works. But she still finds the cash to buy that extra dime bag of weed, to get cable, to buy beer.

Do not get me wrong, I understand people need a helping hand, there is nothing un-noble about asking for assistance, and sometimes you may have to do what you have to do, but when a certain class of thinking develops behind such alignments as "its bad to be rich-they have so much money-why do they need so much", forced wealth distribution off of someone elses hard work, blood sweat and tears, and the liberal growing sense of hey its not my fault, its the other guys, then I think we are getting into a thicket of problems.

Just my thoughts.

Jack Handy

[Water Dragon]

OK, Then answer me this. Currently in the U.S., the minimum wage id $ 5.15/hour. Let's assume that the average non-skilled worker can earn $ 1.50/hour above that or $ 6.65/hour.

At 40 hours a week, that puts you above the estimates to receive full welfare benefits with a yearly salary of $ 13,832.00. At this point you will receive about $ 150/month in food stamps, no rent assistance, no health coverage, and no gov't check.

Let's look at the reality that the National poverty rate for single mothers is 24 %, in my City it is 47 %. And let's also assume that Child care will be $ 100/week , which is about fair.

Now, when you take away the $ 100/week, you don't get $ 13832 any more, you get $ 8632. Remember that once you crossed the $ 13K threshold, you also lost benefits so you need to get thos with your job. I pay about 10 % a year for my benefits. at $ 13,832.00, that's $ 1383.20 a year taken out for benefits.

That leaves you with a whopping $ 7248.80/year. Since you've lost your rent assistance, you need to pay rent. You can rent a basement apartment, all utilities paid for about $ 400.00/month in E.C. That's $ 4800.00/year.

So now you're real earnings are $ 2448.80/year or $ 204.00/month.

We haven't even covered transportation, clothing, telephone, and money for emergencies. And hopefully you can feed a family of 3 off $ 150/month or you have to figure that back in.

That's the welfare system after the 1996 reforms. The reforms have also NOT initiated any type job skill training, or education programs. Like I said before, they even tried to get me to quit school.

Next post will be the welfare figures

[Water Dragon]

Now, if you don't work at all you get: Section 8 or full paid rent w/utilities.(projects) about $ 300/month in food stamps, health care, and a check for about $ 450.00/month. That comes out to $ 5400.00/year compared to the $ 2448.00/year if you chose to work for $ 1.50/hour above the minimum wage.

What decision would you make if that was your position?

If you want to see something really interesting, go check out how proud the U.S. is of the number of people they got off the welfare rolls since 1996. Then go look at the estimates of the increase in homeless persons from 1996-2000.

[dnc101]

So, WD, it doesn't pay to get off welfare. They keep you as a dependant class. I think we're all agreed on that.

The bigger question is, why create a dependant class in the first place?

[Black Jack]

I see your figures but there are also other aspects not in consideration. These aspects may be vague as all people have different situations but their still aspects nontheless.

1. People can get second and third jobs, its called working to the bone backed by a responsibility of having a family to feed, many people do this and have done it, there is a track record of it in the great depression and with immigrents of our past, work is work.

2. What about kids, why three kids, I know this will sound hard but its often very bad judgement, people have kids that they can not afford, when they are not ready on a financial level, call it what you will but those factors add up, even more so when the kids keep on coming, when does it become an absurd number. I believe this one has to do with a serious lack of education.

3. When does a helping hand to the deserved poor or needy become enough. Why should the horse need to be brought to the water when the water is brought to him. It's this third one that makes one consdier why is the figure not higher than 3%.

Is it just because all those 3%' ers are hard working people looking to increase there lot in life, I would take that bet, but I would hedge my bets by knowing that the welfare state keeps it down, by supporting it through its very own foundation, a circle that never ends.

Again I am all for helping, thats what being a good neighbor is all about, but not to the point of abuse.

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by dnc101

The bigger question is, why create a dependant class in the first place?

Now that I can't really answer. Economicallt it makes no sense. By providing incentives to work, you get a "trickle up" effect as people will start spending more, this increases small businees which leads to more jobs etc.

Even if you want to go Illuminati and say they do it so the rich can have more, it doesn't make sense with 6 % unemployment rates.

I think it's more of a matter of those in power not really understanding the problem. You only have to a couple of things to fix the situation.
1. You provide healthcare assitance up to around $ 25K a year. Doesn't everyone deserve the right to see a doctor when they are sick?
2. You set up a voucher system for Daycare so that it makes economic sense to work low paying jobs. This in turn directly creates jobs through the increased need for childcare workers.
3. You provide skill training and education programs so that the people on the bottom have an opportunity to compete.

Unfortunately, the Republicans, who claim to be capitalist oriented, don't see the benefit in helping the people to compete in a capitalist society.

[Water Dragon]

1. People can get second and third jobs, its called working to the bone backed by a responsibility of having a family to feed, many people do this and have done it, there is a track record of it in the great depression and with immigrents of our past, work is work.

But if you still have the childcare problem, this won't help.

2. What about kids, why three kids, I know this will sound hard but its often very bad judgement, people have kids that they can not afford, when they are not ready on a financial level, call it what you will but those factors add up, even more so when the kids keep on coming, when does it become an absurd number.

Lack of education and self esteem, pure and simple. It's not hard to get a piece of uneducated @ss with no self worth. When Espy was pregnant with our first, she was usually the oldest woman in the doctor's office. And she was 19.

3. When does a helping hand to the deserved poor or needy become enough. Why should the horse need to be brought to the water when the water is brought to him. It's this third one that makes one consdier why is the figure not higher than 3%.

See my above post for my thinking on this one.

[dnc101]

WD,

I could go along with limmited, basic health care assistance. But make no mistake, they have no right to it. That is part of the problem here. These people have been told they have a right to things like this just becaue they live here. They are educated to the viewpoint that it is someone elses responsibility to provide for them. There is no incentive to improve themselves, just to demand more.

We have child care vouchers and skills training for various classifications of people. There are programs in place that welfare recipients could avail themselves of in many states. And, I think Bush just proposed a massive program of this type nationally.

Concerning the practical, working rich- unemployment doesn't help them. They are investors, so they make money by putting people to work. Some might argue that unemployment keeps wages down, but I disagree. The free market ballances prices and wages when left alone.

Your Illuminate, or whatever we could call that group of ultra-ultra rich and powerful, are a different issue. At their level, it is no longer about money and proffits. It is power and influence, plain and simple.

[Black Jack]

WD,

I can only really answer your 1st question/remark as the others I would need to look at deeper, as for your first I would say a heavy no, health care is a privelage, not a right by any means.

dnc answered it well IMHO.

[Water Dragon]

I could go along with limited, basic health care assistance. But make no mistake, they have no right to it. That is part of the problem here. These people have been told they have a right to things like this just becaue they live here. They are educated to the viewpoint that it is someone elses responsibility to provide for them. There is no incentive to improve themselves, just to demand more.

This one I will never agree with. I believe Society involves Social Contracts, and the social contract states that society takes care of it's own. Also remember that when you talk about "These people", you're speaking about me and my wife. How can you justify that it was OK for my wife to die because we couldn't afford health care. I think society does have a responsibility to that end.

The Bush plan sucks, pure and simple. It's tied up through the HUD Empowerment Zone prgram and to a lesser extent, The EDA's revolving loan fund program. Both are designed to help business and HOPEFULLY help the people through VooDoo Economics. A small amount of the funds can be set aside for daycare and job training, but that's purely at the discretion of the City Gov't where the zone is set.

[Water Dragon]

Hey guys, I think we just hijacked this thread and flew it to Beirut.

[dnc101]

Originally posted by Water Dragon
Hey guys, I think we just hijacked this thread and flew it to Beirut.

:D I was sorta wondring how we got to this myself.

I didn't say it was ok to let any one die for lack of health care. I said I'd support a limmited health care plan. My point was the focus on the imperative of such a plan. It comes from the goodness of our hearts, not from some nebulous right. And the Bush plan probably does, or will, suck. Government programs allways do. Just another good reason not to depend on the government for everything.

I'd like to expound on the term 'limmited health care plan'. When you focus on healthcare as a right, the question comes up as to where that 'right' ends. If it is a right, that implies unlimmited access to any medical services. We had a case in Washinfton state a few years back where one welfare recipient, a veritable baby factory, got to where she could have no more children. This would have seemed to have been a good thing, since she couldn't take care of the ones she had. She produced them regularly, and just as reegularly turned them over to the state to care for. This drudge went to DSHS and demanded a very expensive operation so she could once again reproduce. They gave it to her. This is a liberal state, after all, and she had a 'right' to it. If it is acknowleged that someone has to work to pay for your health care, and it is a privilage generously granted, this kind of abuse would be unthinkable. Abuses would still occur, no doubt. But not the ridiculous extremes you get when we find 'rights' around every corner.

[Water Dragon]

Well I guess what you're calling "limited" is what I'm calling healthcare for everyone. I simply think that if you're sick, you should be able to see a doctor and get a prescription to fix it. Nobody should be walking around with pneumonia and no doctor to see, but it happens. No one should walk around with a condition that will kill them because they can't afford an operation but it happens. In fact, I even think that if you're coughing so hard you can't sleep at night you have a right to an antibiotic to make the cough go away. The reality is that right now in the US, it doesn't work that way.

What you're talking about is an extreme example. That's not health care. That's idiocy. But if you lump them all together, it's good people who suffer.

[dnc101]

Originally posted by Water Dragon
What you're talking about is an extreme example. That's not health care. That's idiocy. But if you lump them all together, it's good people who suffer.

WD, of course it's an extreme example, but not uncommon. The point is, if we view health care assistance as a privilage granted by a benevolent society instead of a right, these kinds of excesses would not be prevalent.

[Black Jack]

Could we have flown it to somewhere tropical instead?

[Radhnoti]

...I dropped out to work a few days and look where this thread goes! :)

Health care for everyone seems to be a bad thing in Canada...sending everyone (if they're able) south to partake of our superior system, including their best doctors. I've heard of doctors in the U.S. setting up "private patient only" schedules in the wake of Clinton's health care reforms. Patients pay a yearly fee (a few hundred bucks) and they get to come to the office and on serious occasions receive house calls. Reduce the salaries of doctors by totally standardizing care, and this is the path the better doctors will take. Right now, in my section of my state I have 4 hospital options. These hospitals are now forced by Clinton's reforms to accept a standardized amount for Medicare and Medicaid patients. They don't break even, and it's expected that two hospitals will be forced to close their doors in the next 10 years. This will place some outlying areas an hour and a half or more from an emergency room/hospital.

In my area the state (welfare) employees are encouraged to explain to recipients the best way to "work the system"...since the more people they have on the rolls, the more secure their jobs become. Everyone on welfare also gets food stamps and SSI. Kids who's parents don't work get a "medical card" to cover all emergency visits...meaning it's cheaper for parents to take their kids into the emergency room for the smallest thing instead of making an appointment at some doctor's office...clogging our emergency rooms with trivial things...like fevers. I know at least 3 women who've been offered jobs that didn't take them for fear of losing their kid's "medical cards". They only take jobs that pay cash with no records. Southeastern KY is a sea of rusted trailers with 2 Honda 4-wheelers in the drive...next to the camaro, under the DirecTV satellite dish. Drawing from the government frees up a lot of time for marijuana cultivation and drug dealing/taking. Ask some kids what they're gonna be when they grow up, and I've SERIOUSLY gotten the answer "Draw a check like my dad!"
My mother is a speech language pathologist. A child in her care was ridiculed by the other kids for her speech problem. Luckily it was a small physical thing and could be fixed with a relatively inexpensive surgery. Mom (after a LOT of chasing) caught up with the parents who refused on the basis of expense. Mom set it up so it was PAID FOR, a done deal. The parents told her to get lost and mind her own business. Seems they were getting a government check because their kid had such a serious speech problem. Mom turned them in for abuse...that was 7 years ago and nothing ever came of it.
THAT is a small sample of the welfare problem in SE Kentucky.

[Aslan]

Trying to get back to the original topic...

I train regularly with firearms, everything from target to using a shoot house. I do have a concealed carry permit, even though the state I live in allows open carry.

First and foremost, you have to understand, that by carrying a firearm, you LIMIT the choice of responses you have available to you.

Say what?!!

First off, if you are carrying a weapon, it is your responsibility to see to it that any given situation does not escalate to the point where the weapon is required. (this is both from a moral and a LEGAL standpoint)

If you get into a war of words with someone and you continue until the use of deadly force happens, you're guilty of murder.

If you could leave but don't because you feel safe because you have a gun, guess what, guilty again.

If you don't bring the weapon into play, there's no guarantee that the bad guy (your opponent?) won't discover your weapon in the course of a fight and use it against you. (more police are killed with their own weapons than by the weapons of others...)

When carrying a firearm, your first course of action should always be to escape. Your last course of action is to bring the weapon in to use (brandishing or heaven forbid, firing).

This, of course, changes in a home invasion situation, or in dealing with a rapist, arsonist, etc. (And no, you cannot shoot someone stealing something.)

With martial arts, you have many more options.
So, the question for those contemplating incorporating firearms into their repetoire is:

"are you willing to accept the limitations placed upon you by this choice?"

I carry regularly, but only where I feel circumstances warrant it. The majority of the time, I'm confident my other skills will keep me alive.

just somethings to consider....

[dnc101]

Aslan, what's that got to do with free healthcare?:confused:

(:D )

Actually, that is an excellent post. You bring up a point that is seldom considered by many people. Carrying any weapon, like learning a martial art, carries a lot of responsibility. Good point!

[Knifefighter]

Can anybody confirm or disprove the following:

The statement that a person who owns a firearm is more likely to be killed by a firearm than a person who does not own one.

The statement that a person is more likely to be killed by a firearm used by someone known to the victim, rather than a stranger.

Water Dragon:
How would a gun help you if you were caught in a gang crossfire. Wouldn't your best bet for survival be to duck for cover rather than trying to shoot it out with guys who are trying to shoot each other?

[dnc101]

Knife,

Even if you could find the statistics, which you probably can if you're willing to dig, they'd probably be skewed. There are reasons these may be tru other than just having a gun.

People who carry guns usually have a reason to, as it really is a pain in the butt to have one with you just for company. They may be in a high risk proffesion, or in a bad area. They're already more likely to get offed any number of ways, including shot.

I've heard many times that you are more likely to be assaulted in almost any way, including murdered, by someone known to you rather than a stranger.

As to getting caught in a gang crossfire, you can still duck for cover even if you have a gun. But what do you do if one of them goes for the same cover? Or, if there is no cover? How 'bout if your position is exposed on one side? What if they want no witnesses and decide to walk over and kill you? What if you want no survivors and ... :cool:

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by Knifefighter


Water Dragon:
How would a gun help you if you were caught in a gang crossfire. Wouldn't your best bet for survival be to duck for cover rather than trying to shoot it out with guys who are trying to shoot each other?

The gun is for if this miss. So they can't just walk up to the car you're cowering behind and shoot you point blank.

[Aslan]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
Water Dragon:
How would a gun help you if you were caught in a gang crossfire. Wouldn't your best bet for survival be to duck for cover rather than trying to shoot it out with guys who are trying to shoot each other?

Even though this is directed at Water Dragon:

If you cannot think of how a gun would help in this situation, I can't think how it would hurt?

Best option is not to get between two people or groups of people bent on killing each other. Bullets are pretty much indiscriminate.

Getting caught between two groups that mean to do you in, is pretty much guaranteed to mess up your day.

If you think this may happen to you, you will need to learn the difference between cover and concealment.

Cover will protect you from the gun fire. Concealment just means you're harder to hit.

If the bad guys are using pistols, a car can provide cover. If they are using rifles, the car can become concealment, except for by the engine compartment. Most rifles will have no trouble shooting through a car.

Personally, I cannot think of too many scenarios where I would have to worry about being a target.

[Water Dragon]

My in-laws got caught in a cross fire once. It was around 3:00 in the afternoon after the Mexican Independance Parade. My in-laws were walking back to the house. There's this one street that has a laundramat on one side and a bar on the other. My In-laws are walking down the street and there is a group of LK's on one side and a group of IG's on the other. All of a sudden, they start shooting at each other across the street. My in-laws just start running, neither got hurt. A gun would definately NOT help in that situation.

[Aslan]

It might not have helped, but it would not have hurt either ;)

It would have had zero impact, as they did the absolute right thing and got the heck outta dodge.

Generally speaking, if you aren't a target, you won't be deliberately fired upon and should run like the wind. (stray shots & random bullets not withstanding)

If you cannot run away, seek cover.

[dnc101]

Aslan, sensable posts. You also hadd the good sense to quote Ed Parker in your signature line! Good job!

[Water Dragon]

Yeah, I like this Aslan guy too.

[Aslan]

Well, thanks guys!

I've always liked Ed Parker - I'll take sources of wisdom where ever I can find them.

I'm glad I found this board. There's a lot of information floating around. It's good to see some of the discussions.

(Even though there also seems to be a bit of trash talk and trolling from time to time - I guess it comes with being on the internet. <sigh>)

[dwid]

I realize I'm arriving a bit late to this particular debate.

However, I'd like to add something.

People like RM that claim that you should be able to rely on your h2h self-defense skills, making a gun unecessary, etc... really offend me. Usually this comes from the same people who advocate some variation of socialism for protecting the weakest portion of the population, and it seems totally hypocritical, as it is arguing that only the strongest portion of the population with the proper level of skill and physical development deserves to be able to defend itself.

The fact is that nobody is young forever, and many people have any number of reasons for not being able to physically overpower an attacker. Being vehemently opposed to carry laws smacks of being opposed to these people having a right to defend their lives. It's darwinism in its most callous form.

[tnwingtsun]

"I'm glad I found this board. There's a lot of information floating around. It's good to see some of the discussions."

Another good board


http://www.falfiles.com/forums/index.php

[Aslan]

Originally posted by tnwingtsun
"I'm glad I found this board. There's a lot of information floating around. It's good to see some of the discussions."

Another good board


http://www.falfiles.com/forums/index.php

I've built two and bought a century POS, which the Gunplumber made into a thing of beauty with ironwood furniture.

(You'll know of which I speak if others don't...)



:D :D :D