1)spears, bows, and crossbows are for hunting and war, not for daily self-defence. such things are bulky and awkward for daily use, and not practical. 2)guns require no skill or practice whatsoever to kill large numbers of people, as we see everyday. it takes more skill, effort, and intent to kill someone with a blade or blunt object. granted, it's easier to simply injure, but that supports the "hot stove" theory of learning, and also brings violence to an extremely personal level. quote:"i once worked with a guy who bragged that he always wore a gun. i said,'so? i always carry two knives.' his face went white, and he said 'oh man, i could never stick a guy, i'm not that brave.'
the point here? people don't like having to see the consequences of their actions. guns make it easier to psychologically distance oneself from the blood and gore and trauma of dead human. skill with blade or blunt weapons is what can keep an armed opponent from killing you or others, whereas a person with a gun can just fire away. learn the skills, and learn the attitude of defense. learn that consequences are unavoidable, and learn some subtlety. if you truly want to mess someone up, there are much more rewarding ways than taking their lives and throwing away your own humanity. i suggested swords because of the history, the connotations imprinted on the collective psyche of humanity, and because it WOULD require the learning of a skill, especially if one really wants to kill. need i reiterate once more the difference between swing a sword and a stick? a weapon in the hands of an untrained and frightened person is always dangerous, but i'd worry abou the guy with the gun first. all he has to do is twitch, and people can die. so, one more time, how many people do YOU know that are confident and competently skilled in the use of blades for self-defence?
3)burglers and rapists...may i illustrate with my own experiences as a woman? thank you, you're too kind. burgler: i see a gun in the back of his pants, tucked in. i unsheath sword. he hears the noise, sees the blade, and runs away. he even dropped the stuff he was pawing through! had he not run, i was fully prepared to use my skills to drive away or apprehend the man without killing ANY ONE. rapists:would-be rapists run from girls who hold knives to their throats, did you know that? big guy runs from girl in miniskirt walking alone in seattle at 3 am. hmmm...... 4)duels would you prefer that people shoot up each others' friends and family when they're pissed, or effectively jump in the ring and beat each other up for awhile? they'd have and audience betting on sides anyway, and this way they can have an "honorable" outlet for their aggressions, etc, etc. duh! of course dueling is instituted and entertainment. so were public executions. a harsh way to live, but much more respect for the law and living. not that the law is always right or ethical, but that's a whole nother arguement. dueling is not attatched to self-defence, except that sanctioned and regulated, it could cut down on the need for self-defence. do you understand the formal process of challenge and acceptance? if not, do some research. 5)wounds- like you said,a gut wound will go septic regardless. such is the nature of gut wounds. however, bullet holes are, by nature, harder to clean out and keep clean than your basic lacerations. bullet-holes may lose less blood, but they have this amazing tendency towards minute shrapnel and subsequent infection. and what the hell does wounding have to do with skill levels of usage? stay on topic, please. of course i realize that punctures are such regardless. do you realize that it's rather more difficult to "accidentally" puncture someone with a blade than with a gun? less often deadly, too.
i don't expect anyone to change their attitude about their godgiven right to be narrowminded. we all are from someone else's perspective. but i do ask that you all think about how the right to bear arms does not specify which arms. i personally feel that guns are the tool of cowardice and irresponsibility, and that is my right to feel. at least i have skills and experiences to back my beliefs.
no subject
2)guns require no skill or practice whatsoever to kill large numbers of people, as we see everyday. it takes more skill, effort, and intent to kill someone with a blade or blunt object. granted, it's easier to simply injure, but that supports the "hot stove" theory of learning, and also brings violence to an extremely personal level.
quote:"i once worked with a guy who bragged that he always wore a gun. i said,'so? i always carry two knives.' his face went white, and he said 'oh man, i could never stick a guy, i'm not that brave.'
the point here? people don't like having to see the consequences of their actions. guns make it easier to psychologically distance oneself from the blood and gore and trauma of dead human.
skill with blade or blunt weapons is what can keep an armed opponent from killing you or others, whereas a person with a gun can just fire away. learn the skills, and learn the attitude of defense. learn that consequences are unavoidable, and learn some subtlety. if you truly want to mess someone up, there are much more rewarding ways than taking their lives and throwing away your own humanity.
i suggested swords because of the history, the connotations imprinted on the collective psyche of humanity, and because it WOULD require the learning of a skill, especially if one really wants to kill. need i reiterate once more the difference between swing a sword and a stick? a weapon in the hands of an untrained and frightened person is always dangerous, but i'd worry abou the guy with the gun first. all he has to do is twitch, and people can die.
so, one more time, how many people do YOU know that are confident and competently skilled in the use of blades for self-defence?
3)burglers and rapists...may i illustrate with my own experiences as a woman? thank you, you're too kind.
burgler: i see a gun in the back of his pants, tucked in. i unsheath sword. he hears the noise, sees the blade, and runs away. he even dropped the stuff he was pawing through! had he not run, i was fully prepared to use my skills to drive away or apprehend the man without killing ANY ONE.
rapists:would-be rapists run from girls who hold knives to their throats, did you know that? big guy runs from girl in miniskirt walking alone in seattle at 3 am. hmmm......
4)duels
would you prefer that people shoot up each others' friends and family when they're pissed, or effectively jump in the ring and beat each other up for awhile? they'd have and audience betting on sides anyway, and this way they can have an "honorable" outlet for their aggressions, etc, etc. duh! of course dueling is instituted and entertainment. so were public executions. a harsh way to live, but much more respect for the law and living. not that the law is always right or ethical, but that's a whole nother arguement.
dueling is not attatched to self-defence, except that sanctioned and regulated, it could cut down on the need for self-defence. do you understand the formal process of challenge and acceptance? if not, do some research.
5)wounds- like you said,a gut wound will go septic regardless. such is the nature of gut wounds. however, bullet holes are, by nature, harder to clean out and keep clean than your basic lacerations. bullet-holes may lose less blood, but they have this amazing tendency towards minute shrapnel and subsequent infection.
and what the hell does wounding have to do with skill levels of usage? stay on topic, please. of course i realize that punctures are such regardless. do you realize that it's rather more difficult to "accidentally" puncture someone with a blade than with a gun? less often deadly, too.
i don't expect anyone to change their attitude about their godgiven right to be narrowminded. we all are from someone else's perspective. but i do ask that you all think about how the right to bear arms does not specify which arms. i personally feel that guns are the tool of cowardice and irresponsibility, and that is my right to feel. at least i have skills and experiences to back my beliefs.