Carrying a Baton

[Dirty Dog]

I've noticed that responsible weapon-carriers often become extra-cautious about avoiding and resolving conflict. It's one thing to get into a shoving match. It's another thing to get into a shoving match with a gun on your hip.

There is some truth to the saying "An armed society is a polite society."

 

[pdg]

There is some truth to the saying "An armed society is a polite society."

Does that imply that an unarmed society is impolite?

 

[pdg]

By the same reasoning only people who have been attacked should study martial arts for self-defense. It's the idea of waiting for something bad to happen then taking precautions in the future to prevent it from reoccurring. Some people don't wait though, some choose to be more proactive than your average person.

But there are levels.

Firstly, it could be said that if you get your fists out you've failed with 90+% of what defence should mean...

Going on from that, MA for self defence is usually about subjugation and/or escape.

Further, a blunt force weapon is the next level.

Carrying a blade or a gun is up from there, it's no longer subjugation but dominance and destruction - you honestly don't expect me to believe you could shoot someone a little bit?


Oddly, I can imagine the kind of response someone would get if they asked which art they should study to be able to kill anyone that confronts them with their bare hands - "I wanna be totes street lethal innit", or "what's the best way to break someone's neck?".

They would probably be ridiculed and told that's not what is considered self defence - and some of the people doing that would be the ones carrying guns...

 

[Dirty Dog]

Does that imply that an unarmed society is impolite?

Sometimes. The point is that if being a douche canoe can get you killed, you might think twice (or even three times) before acting like a walking phallus.

Further, a blunt force weapon is the next level.

Carrying a blade or a gun is up from there, it's no longer subjugation but dominance and destruction - you honestly don't expect me to believe you could shoot someone a little bit?

I disagree with the statement that a knife is inherently and automatically more lethal than a blunt force weapon. That's simply not true.
And no, I cannot shoot someone a little. If I ever shoot someone, you may rest assured it's because they need to be dead.

 

[Tez3]

There is some truth to the saying "An armed society is a polite society."

I would have said a society that knows how to queue, how to do things fairly and in turn, while chatting is more of a polite society in that weapons aren't needed to make people polite rather they learn to be polite because it's the right thing to do not because you might get killed.

Being polite out of fear of being killed isn't the sort of society most would wish to live in.

 

[pdg]

Sometimes. The point is that if being a douche canoe can get you killed, you might think twice (or even three times) before acting like a walking phallus.

If that were universally true though, nobody in the US would assault anyone else (because of the high chance your victim is armed) and the UK, where almost nobody is armed, would be one big shoving and scuffling arena...

I disagree with the statement that a knife is inherently and automatically more lethal than a blunt force weapon. That's simply not true.

You can choose to use a baton - or other stick like blunt force weapon - as a blocking or diversionary tool, or as a restraining tool, either or both without intentional trauma.

A knife, not so much.

 

[pdg]

I disagree with the statement that a knife is inherently and automatically more lethal than a blunt force weapon. That's simply not true

Another thing about this particular point - given the choice I would much rather face an opponent armed with a blunt force weapon (of any type) over one armed with a bladed weapon.

Can you honestly say that someone coming at you with a knife is an equal or lesser threat than someone with a baton or baseball bat?

 

[Dirty Dog]

I would have said a society that knows how to queue, how to do things fairly and in turn, while chatting is more of a polite society in that weapons aren't needed to make people polite rather they learn to be polite because it's the right thing to do not because you might get killed.

Being polite out of fear of being killed isn't the sort of society most would wish to live in.

You're looking at it backwards. Because I am armed, I do my best not to provoke a situation in which I might feel it necessary to use the weapon.

 

[Dirty Dog]

If that were universally true though, nobody in the US would assault anyone else (because of the high chance your victim is armed) and the UK, where almost nobody is armed, would be one big shoving and scuffling arena...

Right. Because everything needs to be taken to extremes and must be an absolute. #facepalm

You can choose to use a baton - or other stick like blunt force weapon - as a blocking or diversionary tool, or as a restraining tool, either or both without intentional trauma.

A knife, not so much.

Maybe you can't.

 

[Tez3]

and the UK, where almost nobody is armed, would be one big shoving and scuffling arena...

People all around the world know that isn't true because they constantly make fun of our politeness, which is fine but is a 'thing'.
Random observations from an American in London: Why are the British so darned polite? - RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

But then being rude doesn't get you into a lot of trouble, you will either be ignored or get a tirade of inventive invective, we are the country that came up with 'cockwombling spunktrumpet' after all. What doesn't happen is getting shot for being rude.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Another thing about this particular point - given the choice I would much rather face an opponent armed with a blunt force weapon (of any type) over one armed with a bladed weapon.

How many times have you actually faced either?

Can you honestly say that someone coming at you with a knife is an equal or lesser threat than someone with a baton or baseball bat?

Yes. I can.

 

[pdg]

You're looking at it backwards. Because I am armed, I do my best not to provoke a situation in which I might feel it necessary to use the weapon.

But that's not even remotely related to what you said:

Sometimes. The point is that if being a douche canoe can get you killed, you might think twice (or even three times) before acting like a walking phallus.

 

[pdg]

Right. Because everything needs to be taken to extremes and must be an absolute. #facepalm

No, but maybe you're also looking at it backwards.

Consider the possibility that the majority of the US is comprised of naturally polite people, a proportion of which happen to be armed.

You can either say that the weapons enforce politeness, or that they are completely incidental in most cases.

The majority of the UK is comprised of naturally polite people, a proportion of which happen to carry a wallet.

Does that mean a walleted society is a polite society?

Maybe you can't.

I'd like to see how a knife can be used to apply a joint lock with no inherent danger of cutting...

How many times have you actually faced either?

That's irrelevant, I have a smattering of knowledge in how to use both which leads me to my conclusion as to which I would rather face.

You say you would prefer to face a bladed assailant over a club wielding one - while I can't understand your reasoning I can accept that as your opinion.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

have you thought why? Are there actions you are taking that could be changed that would mean you would be in less danger of being mugged? Do you feel that if you carried a baton it would prevent a mugging or would escalate the situation and leave you worse off? Batons aren't an ideal weapon for civilians quite frankly.

What about a baton do you think makes them not a good choice for a civilian (assuming they are proficient in their use, and it's legal for them)?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Does that imply that an unarmed society is impolite?

The saying isn't "An armed society is the only polite society."

 

[pdg]

The saying isn't "An armed society is the only polite society."

True, but it's still not exclusive.

There exist societies that I (and probably you) consider exceedingly impolite, but where most people are armed in one way or another

 

[oftheherd1]

I recently went through baton training at my unit. At one point in the training, one of my SNCOs said that, in his mind, the only time he would want a baton over his firearm or a TASER/OC spray would be a riot control control situation. Otherwise, he said the baton would work, but would generally be a suboptimal solution.

Different weapons are best for different situations. Personally, since in riot control, you probably are dealing with multiple individuals, I would think OC spray would be best. TASER and baton tend to be best against one other individual imho.

 

[Runs With Fire]

As a man raised up in the "rual American gun culture" I figure why not be armed? It's what people do. Not because I'm scared of people or I feel in danger, it's just standard in my social group. Like how the French noblemen carried swords about. (I think, remembering my European history). I don't often see danger or feel threatened, but I have a gun in my car or on my hip. It's what many of us do.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would have said a society that knows how to queue, how to do things fairly and in turn, while chatting is more of a polite society in that weapons aren't needed to make people polite rather they learn to be polite because it's the right thing to do not because you might get killed.

Being polite out of fear of being killed isn't the sort of society most would wish to live in.

I agree, and none of those circumstances is inherently non-existent in an armed society, either (assuming the US qualifies as such, at least). Most people know how to queue, wait their turn, etc. And most aren't polite out of fear.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

As a man raised up in the "rual American gun culture" I figure why not be armed? It's what people do. Not because I'm scared of people or I feel in danger, it's just standard in my social group. Like how the French noblemen carried swords about. (I think, remembering my European history). I don't often see danger or feel threatened, but I have a gun in my car or on my hip. It's what many of us do.

I grew up in (or at least around) that culture, and I know quite a few people who have a similar view. They don't really carry (or even own) for a reason - it's just something they're used to.