"Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang"

I believe that's Terry Techno

BANG BANG BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cyberbeast:

A lot of the time when you're doing practice and training without blanks, Marines will say "Bang!" or something. Maybe it's for reasons of timing, or maybe it's just no one likes to point a gun, pull the trigger and not hear anything.

So you get people walking around saying "BANG! BANG!"
Marines with M16s are supposed to be doing what is affectionately referred to as "Two in the heart, one in the mind." This means that you have two stopping rounds in the chest, (one round, or even two is not always enough to kill people, especially a .223. Also, a lot of times the insurgents are drugged up)and one in the head. That last one ensures that after they are on the ground, they can't just lay there and shoot you when you walk away.
So, in effect, you have a three round shot. So then you have Marines saying something like "Bud-da-da!"
Sort of sounds like "Butter", no?
Throw in the fact that they are cranky weapons, and you get "Butter Butter Jam!"

P.S. - Thanks, Rembar!

Kind of makes me sick, guys....

Boom boom, bang bang, ain't we great?

Can you fix your awesome "Bang Bang" video?



I'd love to promote it.

Great fine.

Yea, Deano, watch where you're pointing that thing.

*bang, *bang

*bang bang!







*(you're dead)

Look, I understand that there pretty much will always be those that think the best deterrent against someone with a gun is for yourself to have a gun. My view is to keep guns out of as many hands as possible.

"Bad guys will always be able to get guns" I hear you cry (I do really, it's a weird power I have)... But strict gun control laws and a general feeling that guns are damn hard to come by mean that far fewer crimes are committed with them, far fewer deaths result because of them. And while you say that there are many ways to kill someone, shooting them dead seems to still be the quickest and most effective. I know I'd feel like I had a bit more of a chance against someone with a knife vs a gun. (I could run away for starters).



In reply to your comment:
“well i can't seem to find any solid statistics on violent deaths across countries, mainly because i dont subscrube to resources like those, but heres a BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

or maybe its because:
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

i agree with what you're saying about more guns might cause crimes of passion on impulse, but what makes Switzerland different?

United Kingdom vs Switzerland

A European example would be to compare the violent crime levels of the United Kingdom, which has very strict rules against gun ownership, with Switzerland, which has fully automatic assault rifles in 14% of homes. [1] According to the British Home Office, Switzerland had a homicide rate per 100,000 of 1.2 average over the years 1999-2001, which is less than England & Wales at 1.61, although Scotland is higher at 2.16, while Northern Ireland - with its historically exceptional conditions - is at 2.65. The latter compares with the Irish Republic (with similar gun control laws to the UK) at 1.42. [2]

These data indicate a negative correlation between gun ownership and crime. However, simple correlative evidence concerning two examples is inconclusive as to causation. Put another way, these data do not conclusively indicate that the higher gun ownership rate in Switzerland is a cause of that country's lower homicide rate, although that conclusion is frequently drawn.

Data can be skewed to say that there is a positive correlation between guns and crime, and that there is a negative correlation betweeen the two depending on what countries and how you poll etc. This correlation, does it necessarily imply causation? I think theres much more at hand than just how many guns are floating around, its definately got something to do with their culture and how they view guns and violence in everyday life.

i dont know about you but i'd think twice about waving around a gun when everybody has access to those same guns. Its sort of like when everyone has nukes what an awesome deterrent huh.. (btw, what an ugly truth)
besides, if someone is intent on kiling somebody they dont need a gun to do it (one way or another, see: milions of pissed off wives who drug their husbands to death when they come back home smelling like perfume)

on the other hand, not having guns only does the opposite, it prevents the people who can put a stop to a situation like VT massacre and renders them useless while they wait for the SWAT team to arrive. (last incident over there was stopped by a man with a gun) and it like i said you dont need a gun to kill, not having guns wont prevent the millions of other ways to render a person not breathing.

In reply to your comment:
“And?
Where in that does it say anything in regards to gun ownership and a link to gun violence?

Check out this greaph which shows a strong link between suicides with guns and gun ownership levels. (and in case you were going to say... "and shows that there is little evidence that rates of homicide and suicide by means other than firearms increase where gun ownership is lower.")

It's just basic common sense isn't it? Don't give guns to more people, how is that going to make things better? "FUCK YOU MAN, I DESERVED A High Distinction ON THAT PAPER!" BANG, BANG, BANG... Having guns easily accessible means that in the heat of the moment people have the opportunity to do really stupid, deadly things.

Not having guns during heated situations means that there may be fist fights, yelling etc. but not deaths, not anything that can't be apologised for and made right. You can't make right shooting someone in the head.

In reply to your comment:
“i'll play devil's advocate and link you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_policy_in_Switzerland

In reply to your comment:
“I SO HATE those that try and suggest 'If others had had guns, he could have been stopped'... because we all know to stop violence, just arm more people.

F*cktards.””””

well i can't seem to find any solid statistics on violent deaths across countries, mainly because i dont subscrube to resources like those, but heres a BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

or maybe its because:
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

i agree with what you're saying about more guns might cause crimes of passion on impulse, but what makes Switzerland different?

United Kingdom vs Switzerland

A European example would be to compare the violent crime levels of the United Kingdom, which has very strict rules against gun ownership, with Switzerland, which has fully automatic assault rifles in 14% of homes. [1] According to the British Home Office, Switzerland had a homicide rate per 100,000 of 1.2 average over the years 1999-2001, which is less than England & Wales at 1.61, although Scotland is higher at 2.16, while Northern Ireland - with its historically exceptional conditions - is at 2.65. The latter compares with the Irish Republic (with similar gun control laws to the UK) at 1.42. [2]

These data indicate a negative correlation between gun ownership and crime. However, simple correlative evidence concerning two examples is inconclusive as to causation. Put another way, these data do not conclusively indicate that the higher gun ownership rate in Switzerland is a cause of that country's lower homicide rate, although that conclusion is frequently drawn.

Data can be skewed to say that there is a positive correlation between guns and crime, and that there is a negative correlation betweeen the two depending on what countries and how you poll etc. This correlation, does it necessarily imply causation? I think theres much more at hand than just how many guns are floating around, its definately got something to do with their culture and how they view guns and violence in everyday life.

i dont know about you but i'd think twice about waving around a gun when everybody has access to those same guns. Its sort of like when everyone has nukes what an awesome deterrent huh.. (btw, what an ugly truth)
besides, if someone is intent on kiling somebody they dont need a gun to do it (one way or another, see: milions of pissed off wives who drug their husbands to death when they come back home smelling like perfume)

on the other hand, not having guns only does the opposite, it prevents the people who can put a stop to a situation like VT massacre and renders them useless while they wait for the SWAT team to arrive. (last incident over there was stopped by a man with a gun) and it like i said you dont need a gun to kill, not having guns wont prevent the millions of other ways to render a person not breathing.

In reply to your comment:
“And?
Where in that does it say anything in regards to gun ownership and a link to gun violence?

Check out this greaph which shows a strong link between suicides with guns and gun ownership levels. (and in case you were going to say... "and shows that there is little evidence that rates of homicide and suicide by means other than firearms increase where gun ownership is lower.")

It's just basic common sense isn't it? Don't give guns to more people, how is that going to make things better? "FUCK YOU MAN, I DESERVED A High Distinction ON THAT PAPER!" BANG, BANG, BANG... Having guns easily accessible means that in the heat of the moment people have the opportunity to do really stupid, deadly things.

Not having guns during heated situations means that there may be fist fights, yelling etc. but not deaths, not anything that can't be apologised for and made right. You can't make right shooting someone in the head.

In reply to your comment:
“i'll play devil's advocate and link you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_policy_in_Switzerland

In reply to your comment:
“I SO HATE those that try and suggest 'If others had had guns, he could have been stopped'... because we all know to stop violence, just arm more people.

F*cktards.”””

And?
Where in that does it say anything in regards to gun ownership and a link to gun violence?

Check out this greaph which shows a strong link between suicides with guns and gun ownership levels. (and in case you were going to say... "and shows that there is little evidence that rates of homicide and suicide by means other than firearms increase where gun ownership is lower.")

It's just basic common sense isn't it? Don't give guns to more people, how is that going to make things better? "FUCK YOU MAN, I DESERVED A High Distinction ON THAT PAPER!" BANG, BANG, BANG... Having guns easily accessible means that in the heat of the moment people have the opportunity to do really stupid, deadly things.

Not having guns during heated situations means that there may be fist fights, yelling etc. but not deaths, not anything that can't be apologised for and made right. You can't make right shooting someone in the head.

In reply to your comment:
“i'll play devil's advocate and link you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_policy_in_Switzerland

In reply to your comment:
“I SO HATE those that try and suggest 'If others had had guns, he could have been stopped'... because we all know to stop violence, just arm more people.

F*cktards.””

Haha, yeah, some of that self-defense stuff can be intense, although I've gotta say I enjoy more light-hearted stuff along the lines of Rutten's instructional, that stuff cracks me up.

Do you remember who/where this instructor was? If you do, you could message me privately if you want. The BJJ world is relatively small, especially for instructors and high-level belts, maybe I might know him.

Background on Audio Bullys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bullys


About Nancy Sinatra:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Sinatra


Background on the song "Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang_Bang_%28My_Baby_Shot_Me_Down%29"


DJ Maximus 3000 wasn't in Wikipedia just yet, but I found this bio:

http://www.dartradio.com/

And there is also his site:

http://www.djmaximus3000.com/

No bang bang, no kiss kiss