Self defence situatio

[Anarax]

Often they're based on misinformation or misunderstandings of the actual circumstance by those on the outside, making the stereotype. Or are you suggesting that "pollocks" really are generally stupid or that there is actual truth to the "red-headed temper" stereotype? Or that grapplers are actually just gay men looking for an excuse to aggressively snuggle sweaty men?

It's the same here. The stereotype is a myth, not based on reality but on misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

Do you want to know the real reason why stereotypes exist? Because humans are afflicted by the desire to find an easy solution (often called a "soundbyte solution" today) and by the desire to find easily identifiable differences to differentiate between "us" and "them."

Much like human's desire to "see" patterns and things they recognize (like the "face on mars") and the desire to anthropomorphize everything from animals to rocks to frick'n "mother nature," forming stereotypes is, literally, just human nature, not representative of actual evidence or logic.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I agree with you how stereotypes are usually ignorant and are based off of misinformation/misunderstanding. The only thing I would add about stereotyping is what the context is and how people act on them. I'm more so referring to cultural differences and genetic differences. For example; a lot of Japanese people I've met are very polite and well-mannered. Japanese culture places tremendous emphasis on manners and etiquette. That's not based off of misinformation nor ignorance, it's just acknowledging cultural differences.

Another example is certain ethnicities age better than others. Not saying ethnicity is the end all and be all of aging, just that certain ones age better than others. Neither of the examples I've given should be considered offensive, but there are many different examples that are. I personally don't see a problem acknowledging certain differences between races/cultures/ethnicities. It's only when stereotypes become bigoted are they a problem.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The stereotype is that Americans are fat (not that some Americans are fat). That's how stereotypes work - they are gross overgeneralizations, usually (not in this case) based on a broad overgeneralization of usually negative traits.

I understand this which is why I try to be mindful to use words like Some or Many.

 

[CB Jones]

I think I can see what you mean.

It's like a security blanket?

But whatever the colt marketeers meant, it's never about equalisation, it's about gaining an advantage...

Its about having the tools needed to protect yourself when your life is endangered. When the guy broke into my cousins house her gun wasn't a safety blanket...it was a tool to protect herself and her baby.

 

[pdg]

Its about having the tools needed to protect yourself when your life is endangered. When the guy broke into my cousins house her gun wasn't a safety blanket...it was a tool to protect herself and her baby.

Nor was she walking around with it on her hip under the mistaken belief it somehow made her invincible - well, I assume not anyway...

Because, y'know, that's the stereotype.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I wanted to show this video as a way to highlight how an implied message is pushed and how an organization can take the personal beliefs and perspective that a group may have and then turn those beliefs and perceptions into a message.

Here's another one. If you wake up and someone suffocating you, then a gun will probably not be an option at that point either unless it's under your pillow or in your hand.

There are many more ads like this. The one thing that they have in common is that these ads play on the some of the misconceptions and inaccurate information that people may have. For example, the guy at the end speaks about problems that are going on in society as if the government isn't trying to address the problem. He even says, "if the politicians are using the carnage that they refuse to stop." This is the narrative that the organizations pushes. They push this narrative not because the organization believes it, they push it because they know there are people in their market believes it. To them it's a business decision.

He says that what is allowed to happened in the inner city is an absolute disgrace. Then he talks about if the same happens in the politicians neighborhoods then they would be talking about real solutions. This plays on peoples ignorance and or quick judgement. By ignorance I mean the person does not have the knowledge. It causes people to grasp onto their emotions instead of thinking if the message is true are not. Here's the reality.

Drugs infect the well to do neighborhoods. Mass school shootings happen in non-inner city schools. Mass killings often don't happen in the inner cities. The inner city has a problem with the frequency of shooting and not so much with 15 people getting shot on the same day at the same location. What also isn't mention is that gun control isn't directed at law abiding citizens. It's directed at criminals. It's no different than laws against murder or drunk driving. We don't see the same argument (at least I don't) that drunk driving laws some how attacks law abiding drivers. The reason you don't hear these is because they are pushing the message that will be beneficial to their bottom line.

In this case the example is NRA, but "pushing the message" is not an NRA thing. It's a business thing. It's not a stereotype thing it's a marketing thing. The stereotype is where people's beliefs are. The message plays off of those stereo types that people have. The NRA plays off both side, but for them it's just a message to help there business be more successful.

 

[drop bear]

Its about having the tools needed to protect yourself when your life is endangered. When the guy broke into my cousins house her gun wasn't a safety blanket...it was a tool to protect herself and her baby.

Except if you are carrying a gun because that one time your cousin got broken into.

It is a safety blanket.

I mean I had a friend who had a tree drop on his head. I don't wear a helmet.

 

[drop bear]

I wanted to show this video as a way to highlight how an implied message is pushed and how an organization can take the personal beliefs and perspective that a group may have and then turn those beliefs and perceptions into a message.

Here's another one. If you wake up and someone suffocating you, then a gun will probably not be an option at that point either unless it's under your pillow or in your hand.

There are many more ads like this. The one thing that they have in common is that these ads play on the some of the misconceptions and inaccurate information that people may have. For example, the guy at the end speaks about problems that are going on in society as if the government isn't trying to address the problem. He even says, "if the politicians are using the carnage that they refuse to stop." This is the narrative that the organizations pushes. They push this narrative not because the organization believes it, they push it because they know there are people in their market believes it. To them it's a business decision.

He says that what is allowed to happened in the inner city is an absolute disgrace. Then he talks about if the same happens in the politicians neighborhoods then they would be talking about real solutions. This plays on peoples ignorance and or quick judgement. By ignorance I mean the person does not have the knowledge. It causes people to grasp onto their emotions instead of thinking if the message is true are not. Here's the reality.

Drugs infect the well to do neighborhoods. Mass school shootings happen in non-inner city schools. Mass killings often don't happen in the inner cities. The inner city has a problem with the frequency of shooting and not so much with 15 people getting shot on the same day at the same location. What also isn't mention is that gun control isn't directed at law abiding citizens. It's directed at criminals. It's no different than laws against murder or drunk driving. We don't see the same argument (at least I don't) that drunk driving laws some how attacks law abiding drivers. The reason you don't hear these is because they are pushing the message that will be beneficial to their bottom line.

In this case the example is NRA, but "pushing the message" is not an NRA thing. It's a business thing. It's not a stereotype thing it's a marketing thing. The stereotype is where people's beliefs are. The message plays off of those stereo types that people have. The NRA plays off both side, but for them it's just a message to help there business be more successful.

I read this on an American pro gun forum. The best self defence is moving to somewhere where there is less crime.

 

[pdg]

What also isn't mention is that gun control isn't directed at law abiding citizens. It's directed at criminals. It's no different than laws against murder or drunk driving.

I disagree a bit with that.

I was under the impression that in most areas in the US you weren't allowed to own a gun if you had a criminal record - is that wrong, a bit wrong or slightly misinformed?

In any case, murder being illegal targets everyone. The act itself makes you a criminal whether you were of a criminal mindset before or not. Ditto drink driving.

It's the likelihood of getting caught and punished that's the deterrent, in the hope it keeps people on the right side of the law.

With gun control, how do you restrict said control to existing criminals? How do you identify who is a criminal if they have no record but are only obtaining a gun in order to carry out a criminal activity?

There's a saying, "if you criminalise guns, only criminals have guns".

Following that, it's self fulfilling - you've made having a gun illegal, so anyone with a gun is breaking the law and is automatically a criminal irrespective of their intent.

Over here, guns are very restricted with handguns being extremely difficult to get licenced - I couldn't qualify because I don't have "good reason".

I could source one if I wanted though. Say I wanted one because I thought it was pretty and never intended to use or even load it - getting it would instantly make me a criminal...

 

[JowGaWolf]

There's a saying, "if you criminalise guns, only criminals have guns".

This is not a true statement. In the U.S. you cannot make owning a gun a crime because it is protected as a right defined by the Constitution. You would have to have a constitutional change in order to ban all guns, and I can tell you that most people don't want that unless they are a pacifist.

Even congress cannot make a law banning all guns. They would have to make a change to the constitution before it even becomes possible and as far as I know, not a single politician has ever pushed a constitutional amendment to outlaw all guns. Outlawing all guns not only affects individuals but it also affects the hunting industry, which in turn affects the nature conservation efforts.

So to say "If you criminalize guns, only criminals have guns." is a generalized statement that makes the assumption that all guns are criminalized. If you criminalized, say shot guns, then people would still be able to buy hand guns, and as such that statement still wouldn't be true.

See it's stuff like that saying that I will often refer to as a messages that are pushed, not because it true or not, but because they know people have this misconception. So instead of explaining it just like I did, they will use statements like this to play off the fears and the ignorance and or the misinformation that others may have. Think of it this way. If I can spark an emotional response in you, then you are less likely to think it out. This is true to every human that I know of including me.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I read this on an American pro gun forum. The best self defence is moving to somewhere where there is less crime.

I do that and have a dog that can freak out about things I'm unaware of. Entertaining story. We had a dog that didn't like any strangers in the yard. She was actually a really good guard dog with the exception that she was prone to bite the neighbor's kids, and there was a time where she slipped by the door and went after the UPS guy. But anyway. We had no problem when we had her. Houses in the same neighborhood experienced break ends. We got rid of the dog, a few months later we got robbed. They stole some iron furniture that was outside. The furniture was about 200 years old. Gone, which is a shame. So we got another dog. Now we don't have those problems again.

Nothing beats a good dog as an early alert system. A stray pit bull took over my yard one day and people were scared to walk by. One of my neighbors got into his car just to ask me if that was my dog. I don't blame him, because that dog scared to crap out of me. I just had to hold the fear in lol. Other than that dog trying to stare me down in my own yard, it would have been a cool pet to have, just not that one.lol

This is the type of dog that took over my yard. Minus the play. He just looked serious. lol

 

[pdg]

This is not a true statement. In the U.S. you cannot make owning a gun a crime because it is protected as a right defined by the Constitution. You would have to have a constitutional change in order to ban all guns, and I can tell you that most people don't want that unless they are a pacifist.

Even congress cannot make a law banning all guns. They would have to make a change to the constitution before it even becomes possible and as far as I know, not a single politician has ever pushed a constitutional amendment to outlaw all guns. Outlawing all guns not only affects individuals but it also affects the hunting industry, which in turn affects the nature conservation efforts.

So to say "If you criminalize guns, only criminals have guns." is a generalized statement that makes the assumption that all guns are criminalized. If you criminalized, say shot guns, then people would still be able to buy hand guns, and as such that statement still wouldn't be true.

See it's stuff like that saying that I will often refer to as a messages that are pushed, not because it true or not, but because they know people have this misconception. So instead of explaining it just like I did, they will use statements like this to play off the fears and the ignorance and or the misinformation that others may have. Think of it this way. If I can spark an emotional response in you, then you are less likely to think it out. This is true to every human that I know of including me.

Ok, modify it slightly - if you criminalise *guns then only criminals have *guns.

In the same way, once it was legal to drive drunk - criminalising drink driving made all drink drivers criminals.


I'll repeat and reword my question...

How does any form of gun control only target criminals?

Firstly, define criminal - someone who has already done something illegal? In at least a few shootings, the perpetrator had not physically done (or at least been caught for doing) anything illegal to make them an existing criminal.

I have to agree with some of the pro-gun propaganda I've seen on an interpretive level. It's stated as a right, introducing licencing or any other form of control impinges upon that right.

Anyone introducing control of a certain category of arms, say EBRs, is playing with interpretation.

 

[pdg]

She was actually a really good guard dog with the exception that she was prone to bite the neighbor's kids

Playful nip or chase and bite as they walked past your property (or were in their own)?

If my neighbour's dog, unprovoked, bit my kids it wouldn't finish the day - same goes for my own dogs actually.

 

[Buka]

One must understand what gun ownership in The United States is. It's BIG F'kn Business.
Big business rules America, baby.

Stereotypes were created for a necessary anthropological need of common tribal bonding.....for telling jokes.

Speaking of stereotypes, you're probably not aware of the one depicting Martial Artists who never actually trained together, arguing about.......everything!

 

[lklawson]

What I'm saying is that stereotypes are no longer stereotypes, once it's pushed through organized efforts. Once an organization starts pushing the idea or belief becomes a message. It doesn't matter if the message is true or false. Because it's the message the organization want others to believe.

So who do you think is pushing this stereotype-that-no-longer-is? Is it the people carrying guns for self defense or is it some other person or group?

And, for the record, I find your proposition that "stereotypes are no longer stereotypes, once it's pushed through organized efforts" to be a bit, um, labored.

This is not a true statement. So you can tell me that 100% of the people who carry guns in the U.S. believes this?

OK. Give me an example. What's the person's name? What did he say and what was the context?

So far, I've seen lots of claims that "people carrying guns for self defense in the U.S." think this morph into "some people carrying guns for self defense in the U.S." which morphed into "I believe some people carrying guns for self defense in the U.S." But I haven't seen any actual references or evidence. Just some examples of "there exist some poorly dressed fat people so my supposition must be true."

Not all of them think this, which is why we have gun related crimes and killers.

Which has nothing to do with people in the U.S. who carry for self defense, which is what this thread is about and what the gun question was in reference to: Self Defense.

I happen to have it on excellent authority that many Americans are overweight,
This is true and not a stereotype. The only word I changed was All to Many.
Here are the stats:
Source: Overweight & Obesity Statistics | NIDDK
Fast Facts
According to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2013–20142,3,4,5

• More than 1 in 3 adults were considered to be overweight.
• More than 2 in 3 adults were considered to be overweight or have obesity.
• More than 1 in 3 adults were considered to have obesity.
• About 1 in 13 adults were considered to have extreme obesity.
• About 1 in 6 children and adolescents ages 2 to 19 were considered to have obesity.

Does this mean that there aren't Americans who are fit and not overweight. Nope. But my statement never make that claim. The only thing that would make your statement a stereotype is the use of ALL.

That's nice. It's also estimated that 2-6% of the U.S. has red hair. Which proves nothing about the proffered stereotype of U.S. self defense gun carriers supposed believe that the gun is "the only option."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Yet the phase God created man and Colt made them equal gets used enough.

Talking to American gun owners they want their cake and eat it too.

So I will hear it is only a tool when the reliance on guns to function is mentioned.

And the horror that I can't stop ninja's raping my children when I say I don't carry one.

And so will just flip from one end to the other depending on what they think makes them seem more reasonable at the time.

Can you rephrase that as a logical, coherent question or statement with less babble?

 

[lklawson]

Unfortunately, that's false on two counts

Skip the first one...

Give two people guns, one will be faster and better than the other - there's no equalisation.

The intention of the statement is to simplify the concept of Disparity of Force and Force Multipliers. The concept of Disparity of Force, a general legal concept in the U.S., is that people are physically unequal. The classic example is a 90 pound aged grandmother matched against a 300 pound muscle-bound athlete or one person against 2 or more. Many times the U.S. legal system considers these sort of Disparity of Force attack situations to be the equivalent of Deadly Force threats.

Weapons are considered Force Multipliers. A weapon, any weapon, will allow someone to project more force using it than bare handed; someone with a stick or a rock will be able to inflict more damage and injury, for good or ill, than they would be able to do bare-handed. The firearm is generally considered the current apex of personal carry weapons; able to project the most force with the least training and physical requirements of the user.

Thus a gun is the most efficient and effective force multiplier in situations where Deadly Force is justified because of Disparity of Force. The phrase "God mad man, Col. Colt made him equal" is nothing more than shorthand for that. It means that a smaller, weaker, frailer person with a gun will be able to protect themselves from attack by a stronger, larger person, or persons. That's all.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

I think I can see what you mean.

It's like a security blanket?

Either-or fallacy. The tool can be both a tool for protection & self defense and also a tool for entertainment and enjoyment. Much in the same way "traditional" martial arts can be studied for self defense, entertainment, health, social reasons, etc.

But whatever the colt marketeers meant, it's never about equalisation, it's about gaining an advantage...

Nah. That's not right. This is generally attributed as an old West adage but may not predate the 20th Century (research is sketchy). I don't recall it being a Colt invented marketing slogan. It appears in various statements such as "Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal" and others which include "small, large" and "men and women." But it's a phrase about Self Defense and Disparity of Force.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

I wanted to show this video as a way to highlight how an implied message is pushed and how an organization can take the personal beliefs and perspective that a group may have and then turn those beliefs and perceptions into a message.

Here's another one. If you wake up and someone suffocating you, then a gun will probably not be an option at that point either unless it's under your pillow or in your hand.

There are many more ads like this. The one thing that they have in common is that these ads play on the some of the misconceptions and inaccurate information that people may have. For example, the guy at the end speaks about problems that are going on in society as if the government isn't trying to address the problem. He even says, "if the politicians are using the carnage that they refuse to stop." This is the narrative that the organizations pushes. They push this narrative not because the organization believes it, they push it because they know there are people in their market believes it. To them it's a business decision.

He says that what is allowed to happened in the inner city is an absolute disgrace. Then he talks about if the same happens in the politicians neighborhoods then they would be talking about real solutions. This plays on peoples ignorance and or quick judgement. By ignorance I mean the person does not have the knowledge. It causes people to grasp onto their emotions instead of thinking if the message is true are not. Here's the reality.

Drugs infect the well to do neighborhoods. Mass school shootings happen in non-inner city schools. Mass killings often don't happen in the inner cities. The inner city has a problem with the frequency of shooting and not so much with 15 people getting shot on the same day at the same location. What also isn't mention is that gun control isn't directed at law abiding citizens. It's directed at criminals. It's no different than laws against murder or drunk driving. We don't see the same argument (at least I don't) that drunk driving laws some how attacks law abiding drivers. The reason you don't hear these is because they are pushing the message that will be beneficial to their bottom line.

In this case the example is NRA, but "pushing the message" is not an NRA thing. It's a business thing. It's not a stereotype thing it's a marketing thing. The stereotype is where people's beliefs are. The message plays off of those stereo types that people have. The NRA plays off both side, but for them it's just a message to help there business be more successful.

What you are not seeing is a lot of subtext about policies in inner-city areas related to how crime and criminals are treated. Much of it surrounds the "revolving door of justice" conversation but this is a seriously huge topic, best covered in multiple books, classes, or at least weekend-long seminars.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Except if you are carrying a gun because that one time your cousin got broken into.

It is a safety blanket.

I mean I had a friend who had a tree drop on his head. I don't wear a helmet.

Which is why you don't have fire insurance or a fire extinguisher.

 

[pdg]

The intention of the statement is to simplify the concept of Disparity of Force and Force Multipliers. The concept of Disparity of Force, a general legal concept in the U.S., is that people are physically unequal. The classic example is a 90 pound aged grandmother matched against a 300 pound muscle-bound athlete or one person against 2 or more. Many times the U.S. legal system considers these sort of Disparity of Force attack situations to be the equivalent of Deadly Force threats.

But however you dress it, it's not about equalisation.

In a punching match, the disparity of force is in favour of the athlete, not the granny - unfair on granny?

Giving granny a gun doesn't equalise the situation, it shifts the disparity of force to be in her favour instead - unfair on the athlete?



As an aside - it's somewhat intriguing how a thread started as "I was pleasantly surprised I instinctively used my training" turned into a gun suitability debate...