Fire Power

[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?

( )

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 ...

[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.