Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:44:57 -0700 (PDT) From: eskrima-request@martialartsresource.net Subject: Eskrima digest, Vol 9 #169 - 3 msgs X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.8 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Sender: eskrima-admin@martialartsresource.net Errors-To: eskrima-admin@martialartsresource.net X-BeenThere: eskrima@martialartsresource.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net X-Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net List-Help: List-Post: X-Subscribed-Address: rterry@idiom.com List-Subscribe: List-Id: Inayan Eskrima / FMA discussion forum, the premier FMA forum on the Internet. List-Unsubscribe: Status: O Send Eskrima mailing list submissions to eskrima@martialartsresource.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/eskrima or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to eskrima-request@martialartsresource.net You can reach the person managing the list at eskrima-admin@martialartsresource.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Eskrima digest..." <<----------- The Inayan/Eskrima/Kali/FMA mailing list ----------->> Serving the Internet since June 1994. Copyright 1994-2002: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource The Internet's premier discussion forum devoted to Filipino Martial Arts. Provided in memory of Mangisursuro Michael G. Inay (1944-2000). http://InayanEskrima.com See the Filipino Martial Arts (FMA) FAQ and the online search engine for back issues of the Eskrima/FMA list at http://MartialArtsResource.com Mabuhay ang eskrima! Today's Topics: 1. Banning apples (Marc Denny) 2. Re: Eskrima digest, Vol 9 #168 - 5 msgs (Tom Meadows) 3. gun crimes-media (MSKBEvans@aol.com) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: "Marc Denny" To: Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:31:04 -0700 Subject: [Eskrima] Banning apples Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Woof All: > The fact that a black market in banned weapons exists in the UK and other > parts of Europe is indicative of the motivation of the individuals wishing > to use them in criminal activity rather than frustrated hobbyists going to > any lengths to own such weapons (or indeed scared home-owners wanting to > protect themselves). Exactly right. Like the American gun nut bumper sticker says "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." >I fail to see how the introduction of handguns (and > indeed shotguns, rifles or assault weapons) into the general populous will > aid us in reducing the amount of gun related crime. Agree or disagree, the argument is that the general populace will have guns with which to defend itself and that fact will lead to a) self-defense and b) deterrence. >Or are we supposed to > assume that the less intelligent criminal will register his weapon thus > aiding the police when trying to track him down? You are right to doubt that smart or stupid criminals will register. > The recent tragedy in Germany in which an ex-student of a school later > returned and gunned down students, teachers and police officers is still > thankfully an isolated incident in Europe. Again it speaks more of the > frustration/motivation of the particular individual than of our society's > choice to limit access to such weapons. Various similar incidents (Dunblane > for instance) are part of the reasons that laws restricting weapon ownership > were stepped up in the UK in the first place. The aim of course being to > stop situations in which a disturbed individual is able to delve into his > personal arsenal of weapons because life happens to have dealt him a few bum > cards and he wants to make other people hurt as much as he. Of course it > hasn't stopped this happening but it certainly has meant that guns are > harder to source... enter the black marketeers. And this is of course where > the Police are targeting further resources. I am told ;-) that many Americans when they go abroad and are not understood simply speak louder. Your statement of the purpose of these laws is accurate, as is your statement of its non-success and your statement of the police speaking louder/targeting further resources. > Gun crime is at an all-time high in the UK and especially concentrated in > metropolitan areas such as London and Manchester. Gun use is not exclusively > the domain of murderers - I believe recent stats showed that less than 5% of > murders in the UK are committed with guns (although it does of course differ > depending on who creates the stats). This is an interesting datum. What are the other tools used? >Recent years have shown an increase in > the use of guns for crimes such as mugging and burglary too. Are we to > believe that an armed home-owner or person on the street is a deterrent to > such actions. Come on, please, are you seriously telling me you don't still > have such crimes in the US? The highest crime areas in the US invariably have the strictest gun laws, so actually yes, the data do strongly support the argument. Recently, with many states passing right-to-carry laws amidst general predictions of wild west armageddon by the opponents of these laws, we have fresh data and the data does support the argument of those believing in the right to bear arms. Crimes have fallen more and faster in these states. Here in California the argument is stated as "Society is safer when criminals don't know who is armed." > Who knows what the answer is? Certainly comparisons between the European and > American situations are hard to make since the US never had such restricted > access and Europeans never had a "right" to carry/own such weapons for > self-defence. I personally believe it will be a sad day when our Police > Officers wear firearms as par for the course (and they are beginning to in > certain areas). It would be worse if every Joe Schmo was also entitled to do > so. This is a fair question you raise here (the matter of culture/history) and one beyond my abilities to discuss here. However, it seems to me reasonable to think that human nature is universal. > I fear the author of the Wall Street Journal article is interpreting recent > media coverage to write a piece reflecting his own political agenda (as I > guess am I with the above). Exactly :-) >The difference of course being that I do not try > to publish my opinion or influence public opinion. Except for here and now? :-) >I would also suggest that > a professional journalist might also like to check his statistics and state > their source. The Wall Street Journal is one of the finest newspapers in the US, and has a highly superior record in this regard. Actually, checking stats of the unilateral disarmament faction shows massive, rampant, serial lying. Sorry to be so blunt about it. I am perfectly capable of respecting disagreement without name calling, but considerable reading on my part persuades me that the anti-gun advocates, persuaded by the correctness of their cause, do not let honesty get in their way. > On a separate note the ED is a great source of information for anyone > interested in the FMAs and indeed other martial arts. I have received no end > of assistance from digest members and there is a real sense that people are > willing to share their collective experience. However I fail to see what > relevance all the recent gun-related material has to Escrima or the FMAs? In > the past people has been censored for expressing opinions not within the > remit of this digest, why not now? In my humble opinion, the connection has to do with the philosopy of self-defense, which, in doses limited by common sense, is a fair topic here. Thought experiment: Why not limit/prevent martial arts training because it can be misused? Distinguish the arguments used from those used with regard to guns. > With respects, Likewise, > Jamie > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Davies [mailto:Patrick.Davies@Halliburton.com] > > Not balanced enough an article to allow to go unpassed. > , , , > We accept Marc McYoung and co's analogies of people who want to take you out > sneaking up behind you and getting you at the weakest moment, yet this > article seems to assume that this wont happen just because you can apply for > a licence. I don't understand the logic. May I take a stab at it? It is that you will have a shot a defending yourself it it does. > >Another inconvenient fact is frequently ignored by gun control advocates: > >Many countries with high homicide rates have gun bans. > > If X wants to kill Y and knows that Y has a gun then X will use a gun. The > reason for homicide amounts are separate and it would be naiive to think > that guns would be the answer to that. This is an interesting point. If the reasons are separate, then what would it matter if someone desirous of killing didn't have a gun? OTOH, if attacked by a younger/bigger/meaner person, would not a gun be an equalizer? Every month in the NRA magazine, there is a page of excerpts from sundry local newspapers from around the country of guns used in self-defense. Many are of women and older people defending their homes from criminals breaking in to do harm. I have heard that in England you are expected to run away. Is this true? Was there not a case of some old coot living in an isolated farm house who was convicted of murder for defending his home against break-in? These questions are sincere-- I recognize that the facts may well be incomplete by the time that they get to us American readers. > While the UK and US are different > cultures there are also different reasons that cannot be pigeon holed to > satisfy self interest. I live in an area where there is very little gun > crime, no kids accidentally shooting themselves. To say that it a result of > gun banning would be as naiive as the article posted. A fair point. >Does mean though that > I am more likely to personally step forward when someone needs assistance > with the confidence that im not going to get shot. Another fair point as far as it goes. But, just as your area allows you to step forward without fear of getting shot, so too making guns illegal does not guarantee similar confidence for those of us not blessed to live where you do. The logic of your previous paragraph cuts both ways. >You want to reduce > homicide then look at how we as a society live. We worship the wrong role > models. The guns not the blame, it's the IQ of the people using it Yes! As the American gun nut bumper sticker says "Guns don't kill, people do." >and until > the balance is there in terms of all the input that people see about guns it > will never be achievable. Not quite sure of the meaning here. > You keep your guns if that's what you want. Im happy here without the > culture under the current circumstances. > Pat Davies I am happy for the edenic garden in which you live, but I do wonder if banning apples will protect it when the snakes come slithering along. Woof, Crafty Dog --__--__-- Message: 2 From: "Tom Meadows" To: Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:29:23 -0700 Organization: Simple Solutions Subject: [Eskrima] Re: Eskrima digest, Vol 9 #168 - 5 msgs Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Greetings, Regarding Jamie's remark "However I fail to see what relevance all the recent gun-related material has to Escrima or the FMAs? In the past people has been censored for expressing opinions not within the remit of this digest, why not now?" Guns disarms are and have been an integral part of the FMA's since well before the turn of the century, and coming into greater play post WWII, with the prevalence of hand to hand gun and knife jungle fighting. Grandmaster Cacoy Canete's recently published book on Pangamot devotes no less than 15 pages to gun disarming, and I know he was teaching them to his military regiment as early as 1938. The reason we train in all ranges: kicking ,punching, trapping and grappling is so that we will have both superior firepower ( rapidity of attacks) and superior technical breadth to apply this firepower. This is why if the other person has a gun and you do not, you are at a great disadvantage, and martially outgunned so to speak. The reason for stick or empty hand superiority is to win an encounter and the same applies to dealing with guns. We as a group have spent endless hours talking about which knife to carry in order to deal with a knife wielding opponent and this applies equally well to guns . When confronted with a gun the most effective equalizer is another gun. There are currently more guns in America than Americans by about 4% last time I checked: This is well over 200 million guns. The bull is out of the pen, and it is not going back in. I fully support learning to bullfight..... Tom Meadows --__--__-- Message: 3 From: MSKBEvans@aol.com Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:27:26 EDT To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Subject: [Eskrima] gun crimes-media Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net <<<>>> Yes most of us do. The reason people think america is so dangerous is the media hype. They just GOT to sell that advertising and if bending the truth or blowing things outta proportion helps sell adds, isnt anything going to stop them. I really love the blurbs you see advertising that evenings news on TV. They will come on real serious and say " ARE YOUR CHILDREN AT RISK? SEE WHAT OUR INVESTIGATOR FOUND OUT ABOUT YOUR SCHOOLS!" They make is sound like if you dont watch the news and find out about it your a bad parent who doesnt protect their children. Then if you actually watch the BIG news story.. it will be stupid lame and blown out of proportion. However most folks wont watch the BIG new story. They just believe what the blurb told them. That america is SOOOO dangerous. Grrrrrr i despise the media. They claim such high standards and sell out so often, like vultures feeding on the road kill. hehe done venting thx Bill Evans --__--__-- _______________________________________________ Eskrima mailing list Eskrima@martialartsresource.net http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/eskrima http://eskrima-fma.net Old digest issues are available via ftp://ftp.martialartsresource.com. Copyright 1994-2002: Ray Terry and the Martial Arts Resource Standard disclaimers apply. Remember 9-11! End of Eskrima Digest