Hitch was simply the best. Never, ever, did I see him beaten in any debate. He was succinct, intellectually disarming and erudite. He had wit, common sense in abundance and his rational debunking of religion was a joy to behold. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett are all excellent in their own way, but Hitch? He was in a league of his own, and died leaving so much unsaid.

Apples and oranges.

It's a lot more difficult to kill people with a knife. It's nearly impossible to kill someone from a distance with one unless you've had lots of knife-throwing training--and even then it's pretty iffy.

Plus, knives require the attacker to get close to the victims, meaning the victims have a lot better chance of seeing the attacker coming and running away or even disarming the attacker as he approaches.

So, good luck killing 20 people in under ten minutes (like Sandy Hook) with a knife unless they all happen to be unconscious on the floor.

So what you are saying is that the lawmakers are bowing to NRA lobbyists and not passing laws that would disarm black youth.

I'd love to know what laws would disarm black youth.

If these folks can afford guns, then the good, hard-working people in Oakland can most certainly afford guns.

In fact, this small Mexican town really understood the meaning of the "consent of the governed." They disarmed the police!

One thing I think gets missed by most people is that people aren't saints. But nor are they devils. If empowered, they won't let a minority of criminals take over their community. Even when this drug cartel tried to take over this Mexican town, the residents eventually said "Enough" and took matters (and arms) into their own hands. (And of course, the police tried to stop them.)

In addition, few people grasp how the belief/faith in the need for a police force in order to "protect" us from our neighbors, implicitly engenders a tacit distrust among those with whom we share community -- all in the name of some faceless, unnamed "third party" called The State.

I don't know about you, but between the police and my friends, I will invariably trust my friends more than any cop. Every. Single. Time.

@bcglorf - That was the original intent of the 2nd amendment, to allow the people to keep the government in check. They wanted to mitigate the possibility of any heads of state from becoming overzealous and using their power against the people. The British tried to put an embargo on firearms and tried to disarm the colonies in order to leave them defenseless against the British military, and the revolutionaries didn't want that to happen to the people again.

Checks and balances were a major part of the planning of our government. If the three branches somehow failed to keep each other in check, it would be up to the people to defend themselves from tyranny.

Nowadays local government is more likely a threat to individual citizens than is a tyrannical dictator, but the constitution doesn't seem to help much on that front. The only thing that seems to keep police in check, for example, is the video camera. And even then, innocent people end up dead, and cops end up with relatively light or no punishment.

That's human nature for you.

Jesus Christ and the gun-bashing bandwagon is leaving the station. My ramblings lost in the ether regardless of facts or fucking figures (death stats by firearms or violence), become mute when you consider that more Germans die of complications from their annual Bratwurst intake than from violent crimes. MY POINT was to pooh-pooh quadrophonic who turned the thread in the direction it went with a simple comment.

Then comes the bandwagon, which I attempted to derail, and now everyone wants to jump in and whine about their take on issues surrounding firearms in the United States, like they are some fucking problem. The problems' with criminals being created by a broken criminal justice system, the fear mongering fomented by news organizations and the cunts proposing legislation whenever some imbecile snaps, and the lackeys that feed on their output like pablum.

All stats, all anger directed at senseless crimes committed by the uncommitted with guns (mass shootings), and all dumb assess who feed on news organization's and their editorializing on sensible laws for guns (that we don't already have) in order to justify more laws become IRRELEVANT when you consider, that by design disarming partially or completely the average citizen is the goal of any fascist.

Most of you who UP-voted ASMO's comment without this explained context or with it, are pretty much the lay-down-and-fuck-me types who, should some fascist regime pop-in and tell them what and how to do things now, would enthusiastically succumb, especially if the offer were candy-coated and the statistics looked good, and you could keep things like groceries and your fucking car.
(and yeah, I up'ed quad's comment...I love to jump head-first into threads hi-jacked by passionate fools)

Or, you simply live in another paradigm (being in a country who has not systematically programmed their inhabitants with violence, fear, and race-tensions) and have no reference for the consternation of a sane, reasonable person surrounded by minions of dutiful robots.

Yeah, actually it does. I know a few people that have mugged at knife point and gun point. Everytime they handed over the money and walked away from the experience. In my book that worked out "super well".

The vast majority of time they're not out to kill you. Most of the time they want your money. Is it worth risking your life?

If you're in a situation where they want to kill you, I completely agree that running away is pointless. At that point, you may as well try this kind of move, since you have nothing to lose.

Probably still won't work anyway. Maybe if you practiced it a few thousand times first, but random guy on the street?

@bareboards2, that's obviously a bad situation for the woman, but there are still better ways of dealing with it than trying some ridiculous gun disarm.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I'd like to see a video where the gun is filled with blanks, and safety is off. (both should have proper hearing protection too). Then they demonstrate the same disarm technique and see if "the perp" can pull the trigger, or even if he can't, the gun might go off anyway during the disarm procedure. Then the instructor repeats this with several different students.

Not directly related - I wonder why you don't see more stories of muggers using tasers?

Actually it's pretty easy to disarm someone within 3 feet of you -- the closer they are the better. (Bruce Lee popularized the idea but it's a concept that's been around for a long time.) We did it the other way though so as to break the trigger finger and keep the gun to the outside.
No need for a water pistol -- I would do this experiment.
I would get in front of a student, hands at my side. I WOULD TELL him: "I'm going to smack you in the forehead with my open hand. All you have to do is stop me. Ready?"
Within 3 feet you will always tag them EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW IT'S COMING. The human brain cannot perceive motion and react to it fast enough. Go ahead and try it for yourself...
The Hollywood cliche where one guy has a gun to the other guy's forehead makes me laugh. Dude could easily pluck that gun from him.
Now if the gunman is any further than 3 feet from you... then you ARE in trouble.

My preferred technique is to disarm an assailant with charm and flattery.

Step 1: My, that's a handsome neck tattoo.
Step 2: Beautiful evening for an armed robbery
Step 3: Let me get you my wallet
Step 4: I always tell my wife how you meet the most interesting people in dark alleys and you sir, do not disappoint.
Step 5: Well, I've really enjoyed meeting you. Give my best to your baby's mama and...watch out for the limit on that American Express card. I'll be on my way.

Did they disarm the cops in Australia?

LooiXIV , LOOOIE!


Lemme address all yer whack points from free-associative angles:

The reality of some increased level of moral or ethical degradation of a society or a segment of her constituents shouldn't frighten you away from availing yourself of tools needed for the job. Sadly, the U.S. is full of developmental disability but please tell me it's not going to be people whose process is so skewed who will take us all into a kindler and gentler future?? What do we do, reeducate?? Sensitize and sanitize the environment we share? A fantasy.

Biden clips, Biden clips, ok, BIdens' first of all, a fucking idiot on camera, off, and an ineffectual sack of meat as a Vice President. His interview with the slug from Parent's magazine was embarrassing and worthy of scorn. What he has to say on the issue parrots on a 3rd-grade-level the horseshit dialog coming from Feinstein and her ilk so simply using what he had to say as a talking point screams moral weakness and a lack of will.

One may expect a confrontation in life to whatever degree, DAILY! The last thing I would do in a situation where someone was either in my home or attempting to break in would be hide somewhere until they were gone. If I saw that they had a weapon, it's my house-I know where 20 objects are in my personal space with which to disable or disarm someone better than the burglar....He's fucked.