When they spit on You

[santaman2000]

Nowhere but the inference is there, what else do you do with a cutting weapon if used? And, if this is not so then what is their point? To threaten, to bolster ego/confidence or you tell us?

I believe the poster mentioning he would rather be allowed to be armed (Woof) was longing for a means to defend himself if attacked; not a means to attack someone who insulted him. I also don't recall that he (or anybody else) said anything about wishing for a "cutting" weapon.

 

[santaman2000]

.....As for the blanket metaphor, "if the cap fits".

As stated, no. A blanket does absolutely nothing for me. On the other hand a concealble hangun does quite well in most environments. However in the woods a large caliber repeating rifle does much better as a handgun is woefully underarmed against most large real predators.

 

[boatman]

It is indeed an inference - but it is not implied. You may infer whatever you wish - the original poster did not imply it.

Of course he doesn't but other posters ran with the idea otherwise why is being armed such a good idea? As to cutting instruments it is ingenuous not to recognise that an awful lot of posts on this board seem to be about cutting implements.

 

[santaman2000]

Of course he doesn't but other posters ran with the idea otherwise why is being armed such a good idea? As to cutting instruments it is ingenuous not to recognise that an awful lot of posts on this board seem to be about cutting implements.

"Even so, not being someone prone to violence I'd much rather not have to fight at all, or if I have to fight I'd much rather be armed than unarmed"

An exact quote. Nothing in there about a cutting implement. I took it to mean he wanted a real weapon.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Or this quote:

"Speaking for myself, if I was going to face a life or death struggle with some psycho who was off his head on meth, I'd rather have something more substantial than a set of car keys with which to defend myself."

Still don't see any mention of a "cutting" implement."

I did see several references to unarmed martial arts. But the only references to weapons (apart from those 2 above) specifically mentioned firearms.

 

[Bluebs4]

Sneering, disrespectful, vindictive yobbos are on the rise. Its the way it is today and I saw it coming years ago. Most on here of my age knew what the boundaries were and we knew the consequences of crossing them.

For many years now there has been no physical deterrent. No belt in schools, no quick slap or thumping from a Policeman. Uncivilised as this sounds, what have they to fear? They know the system works in their favour and know how to play it. having said that...

Years and years ago in my youth I was a bit feral and always getting into fights. Generally this was amongst my own peer group and above, but one thing none of us did was abuse or disrespect the infirm, the disadvantaged or OAP's. I was wild, I was jack the lad but knew I'd cop it when authority stepped in. I accepted that, it was part of the "game" and luckily for me only just stayed out of jail.

I grew out of this nonsense when sport/martial arts channelled my aggression (I abused it at first I admit), then when in the army I was scared, really scared, for the first time in my life, when civvy life and a young family meant I worked like a Trojan to feed and house them.

In other words I grew up - but I still had a short fuse for many years which I managed to keep under control most of the time. This earlier misbehaviour and running with the wrong crowd however did pay dividends when I moonlighted on the doors for extra money, as I could spot the chancers and fitted into that "culture" quite easily.

Thirty odd years of being slammed up and down a mat, injury and illness also took its toll and made me wake up to the fact I had to take it easy and wasn't the young thruster I thought I'd been. This took a while to get used to mentally as it was hard to admit I'd aged. Still I had my confidence and no longer had anything to prove as it were.

These days I bimble around quite happily enjoying life, volunteering with the wayward, keeping chickens and not looking for trouble. Unfortunately, trouble has found me on occasion and its been brought by yobbos like Corfe describes.

Had I been able to walk away I would have, but I must admit I've enjoyed allowing my nasty side out on these occasions. It may not seem very civilised, but talking sense to these types is only possible when they respect (fear) you, sometimes violence is the only language that'll get through. I was only ready to listen to advice when I was younger after I'd had a hiding and was licking my wounds wondering what went wrong. It still holds true with younger yobbos.

Did I warn the yobbos I have black belts in Jujutsu, Karate, Judo and Aikido and still run a club locally when they started? Oops, I must have forgotten to mention it in the heat of the moment and they never asked. Did I deliberately "adopt" a persona of just being an easy going middle aged bloke on his way to the allotment? Definitely.

I'm no Bruce Lee but experience made sure I got in there quick and I was nasty with it - I had to be, pre emptive is a lot easier than breathing out of my arrse trying to compete with youthful unboundless energy.

I've had a couple of cautions for having been a bit heavy handed, but on the whole the Police have taken the view I was outnumbered and they picked on the wrong guy.

Luck has played its part though and it might run out one day. In that case I'll just have to wheeze and cough and phlegm them into submission.


Liam


This lengthy post is also available in sarcastic.

If anyone's been adversely affected by the views I've expressed here, I've a box of sympathy in the freezer I can send you, but its probably years out of date.

Nothing is over! Nothing! You just don't turn it off! It wasn't my war! You asked me, I didn't ask you! And I did what I had to do to win! But somebody wouldn't let us win! And I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting. Calling me baby killer and all kinds of vile crap! Who are they to protest me? Who are they? Unless they've been me and been there and know what the hell they're yelling about! We know Liam we are here for you brother

 

[British Red]

As to cutting instruments it is ingenuous not to recognise that an awful lot of posts on this board seem to be about cutting implements.

It is "honourably straightforward" (synonymous with ingenuous) not to recognoise that many posts are about cutting instruments? Yes I agree - it is. Thank you for confirming my honour and strightforwardness. I assume that by bringing it up you were being disingenuous.

 

[boatman]

Score a point for you Red, if it matters, I should have put disingenuous my error.

 

[British Red]

Its so very easy to twist someone's words to something they didn't mean isn't it? In this case it is what you said, but not what you meant. In the case of Wook, he neither said, nor implied what you took exception to. The logic to being armed is so that a person can defend themselves - not attack others. We have a right to self defense in this country - but a right to defense, when denied the means of defense, is no right at all. A frail grandmother or grandfather cannot defend themselves in the street or at home from a large, strong attacker. They may wish to, they may have a right to, but they are incapable of doing so. So, in reality, we deny their right to self defense.

I certainly do not believe that anyone should have the right to attack or provoke another, nor to respond disproportionately to provocation. But nor do I think ones right to self defense should be proportional to ones physical strength or state of health. That is discrimination against the most fundamental of human rights.

There are many cases where people who have been armed have prevented crimes or ended threats. For me honest law abiding people will always be honest and law abiding. Criminals will ignore all laws whatever they may be. By removing rights from the law abiding, you remove their ability to protect themselves from criminals. Criminals will ignore the laws you pass - thats what defines them as "criminals".

We can disagree on this - but without, I trust, sinking to the level of insult and inaccuracy.

Red

 

[santaman2000]

Its so very easy to twist someone's words to something they didn't mean isn't it? In this case it is what you said, but not what you meant. In the case of Wook, he neither said, nor implied what you took exception to. The logic to being armed is so that a person can defend themselves - not attack others. We have a right to self defense in this country - but a right to defense, when denied the means of defense, is no right at all. A frail grandmother or grandfather cannot defend themselves in the street or at home from a large, strong attacker. They may wish to, they may have a right to, but they are incapable of doing so. So, in reality, we deny their right to self defense.

I certainly do not believe that anyone should have the right to attack or provoke another, nor to respond disproportionately to provocation. But nor do I think ones right to self defense should be proportional to ones physical strength or state of health. That is discrimination against the most fundamental of human rights.

There are many cases where people who have been armed have prevented crimes or ended threats. For me honest law abiding people will always be honest and law abiding. Criminals will ignore all laws whatever they may be. By removing rights from the law abiding, you remove their ability to protect themselves from criminals. Criminals will ignore the laws you pass - thats what defines them as "criminals".

We can disagree on this - but without, I trust, sinking to the level of insult and inaccuracy.

Red

I think you might have just displaced the post of the week.

 

[boatman]

Red, the fact remains that you state that it is a good thing if the "right" people are armed. How is anybody to judge who is a good person and therefore entitled to be armed? I am sure there are as many Grannies who would react disproportionally to a perceived threat as there are in the rest of the population. But then I seem to remember that you doubted the occurrence of accidental shootings in the States of children by adults who mistook them for intruders.

So with what should I be armed for self-defence with at age 66 that would have been disproportionate at age 55 and will be inadequate at age 77? You must have an idea what is appropriate to each age and condition of person in order to complain that the elderly are unarmed.

Could you give details of these cases- "There are many cases where people who have been armed have prevented crimes or ended threats.", in the UK.

 

[British Red]

Could you give details of these cases- "There are many cases where people who have been armed have prevented crimes or ended threats.", in the UK.

Sure, lets pick on a recent one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19496531

A four man gang invaded a home, a gun was used, the crown prosecution service deemed the use appropriate.

Of course in this country "self defense" is not a valid reason to own a firearm, so it was a lucky coincidence for them that they owned a sporting firearm. I shudder to think what a four man gang might have done if they had not been prevented in their aims.

I did not by the way state that it was a "good thing" if the "right" people were armed. I said that law abiding citizens had a right to defend themselves - I merely cited an example that the right to self defense is curtailed when the means is denied. Anyone can find themselves in a situation where they are out numbered or our muscled. How should that be judged? Well a start would be being a law abiding citizen (no criminal record) and being of sound mind (no history of mental illness). That would seem a minimum criteria. Rather like the lady in question who would have had to satisfy those criteria to gain her shotgun certificate.

Red

 

[santaman2000]

Red, the fact remains that you state that it is a good thing if the "right" people are armed. How is anybody to judge who is a good person and therefore entitled to be armed?.....

I think you must have overlooked the part of his statement that said criminals already are and always will be armed if they choose. The law only affects the law abiding.

 

[roger-uk]

National Service - Not in employment or education for 6 months and fit to work, end the benefits and send them on their way...simples

No way - why should the Forces be stuck with Societies problems.

 

[santaman2000]

.....So with what should I be armed for self-defence with at age 66 that would have been disproportionate at age 55 and will be inadequate at age 77? You must have an idea what is appropriate to each age and condition of person in order to complain that the elderly are unarmed......

What you are armed with only defines how much force is available. NOT the amount of force appropriate. I carry firearms daily. Does that mean it's appropriate to use them daily? No.

Appropriate force is that amount of force to end an attack. Deadly force would only be appropriate if the victim (or someone intervening to protect the victim) reasonably believes that the attacker has the intent and means to cause death or serious bodily injury. Anything over that amount needed is inappropriate.

And "deadly force" is not defined just as the force that will cause death; it's that amount of force which a reasonable person might expect could cause death OR serious bodily injury. Examples of "serious" bodily injury might include permanent loss of sight, permanent loss of hearing, permanent crippling, etc. But not a bruise.

An older teenager beating an old lady in a wheel chair would most certainly fit the definition.

I'm sure the legal terminology and definitions are a bit different in the UK. But I'm equally sure that the basic philosophy of what is and is not legitimate defense is not.

 

[santaman2000]

No way - why should the Forces be stuck with Societies problems.

Best observation yet. They're there for national defense, not for a corrections agency.

 

[brambles]

National Service - Not in employment or education for 6 months and fit to work, end the benefits and send them on their way...simples

The days when National Service were in any way relevant are long gone. It is expensive to train modern infantry, they don't wear wool serge and carry bolt-action rifles anymore, they need to understand and operate all sorts of weapon and communications systems, interact with ground and air support vehicles etc , let alone that the training for the various peacekeeping/police actions that they often spend large amounts of time on is substantially different from the machineguns v. natives armed with fruit days of Blackadder conscript armies. A modern army needs dedicated professional soldiers and needs to pay for them .... simples.

 

[Corfe]

Guys, I've been away for a while and am now coming back and reading this thread I started with intense interest. It seems to have meandered into a kind of philosophical and legal argument over how much force is either morally or legally justified when one is a victim of violence, or when you percieve yourself to be in danger.

I can see both sides of the story. I lived in the States for a few years, and loved it. I lived briefly in London, and detested it. Not for the same reasons, but still; I felt safer in Paterson New Jersey (which was a bad place in the mid nineties), than I did in Camden. Maybe I was just younger and more ignorant in the US - that is a definite possibility!

Anyway; another anecdote. In 1993 my girlfriend (who has for the last seventeen years been my wife) and I were having a kebab in Shaftsbury Square, Belfast. She was groped by a guy. I smacked him. He had seven friends with him I hadn't noticed. I don't exaggerate - there were eight of the buggers, all told.
They glassed me and put me down, and when she tried to help me like the little tiger she was, they beat her unconscious. She is five feet one inch tall. We spent the night in hospital, dozens of stitches, detectives and me waiting by her bed for her to wake up.

At the time, I was carrying a walther semi-automatic on my hip. I had had a few beers, but I was still compos mentis. Even at that point, I knew I couldn't shoot these... animals. I knew I would be done for it. So I didn't. It had been drilled into us that it was only for life and death situations.

But that decision - I know it was the right one now - kept me awake for years afterwards.

My point being - sometimes there is no warm fuzzy feeling about doing the right thing, the proper thing, the legal thing. It's cold comfort being in the right, when those in the wrong simply walk away with a sneer. (They never found the guys who beat up me and my wife; no-one was ever charged. And oddly, that makes me far less inclined to press charges on the guy who spat on me.)