Carrying a Baton

[mrt2]

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.

15 years of work as a defense attorney has me convinced this is not at all the case. A d-ckhead who goes armed is now an armed d-ckhead. the weapon does nothing but make that individual a more dangerous person. And now, a confrontation between two armed d-ckheads suddenly becomes a deadly fight, rather than one that might result in a black eye.

 

[oftheherd1]

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?



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



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.

There is some evidence that where concealed carry can be legal, there is a reduction in crime. I haven't analyzed the studies, so I don't know if there are other factors that also play into it.

But how do you think it is irrelevant if you have ever faced attack(s) by someone armed with a blunt force object or a knife? Or since you brought up that aspect, how a smattering of knowledge will make it less dangerous for you?

 

[Runs With Fire]

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.

Yup

 

[oftheherd1]

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.

Sadly, over the last twenty years of so I have seen that change. When I first got to the greater Washington, DC area, people would climb the sidewalks to allow any emergency vehicle to pass. Now they seem to be looked at more as a bother to be endured, and emergency vehicles should wait for lights and traffic like most other drivers. I have seen people insolently cut all kinds of lines, including voting lines (apparently the desire to exercise citizenship practices runs strong). Normally nobody calls them on it.

Hmmmm, maybe I need to start concealed carrying. Or not. But I have considered it.

 

[pdg]

But how do you think it is irrelevant if you have ever faced attack(s) by someone armed with a blunt force object or a knife? Or since you brought up that aspect, how a smattering of knowledge will make it less dangerous for you?

The smattering of knowledge doesn't make it less dangerous.

What it does is give me an idea as to how each item can be used, how easy it is to use them to what effect and a bit of how I might defend against them - or not.

Give me the guy with a stick over the guy with a knife any day.

 

[Tez3]

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)?

It's dependent on a few things, where you carry it, can you get to it quickly, do you have time to extend it for example. Police officers carry their on their belts, easy to get to, they more or less know in advance they are likely to need it so will have it to hand and extended. One on one it's fine but if there's a few people it can be hampering. I saw an RMP hit one of my colleagues with a baton because he missed his target when jostled by someone else. They are a limited use weapon, I rarely used mine.

it's just standard in my social group.

Is that a good reason to do anything?

Like how the French noblemen carried swords about.

They carried them because of robbers etc. times were violent and there were no police. They also needed them in times of war when they were expected to lead men into battle. They also like to duel each other. They weren't carried for fun or fashion.

 

[oftheherd1]

The smattering of knowledge doesn't make it less dangerous.

What it does is give me an idea as to how each item can be used, how easy it is to use them to what effect and a bit of how I might defend against them - or not.

Give me the guy with a stick over the guy with a knife any day.

Inasmuch as an attack with either can be dangerous, I wish you luck first, in never having to defend against either, and second in a successful defense.

And in truth, I wish the same for myself.

 

[pdg]

Inasmuch as an attack with either can be dangerous, I wish you luck first, in never having to defend against either, and second in a successful defense.

And in truth, I wish the same for myself.

While I very obviously can't guarantee success (nor can anyone else) I know against which I rate my chances higher.

Your wishes are reciprocated

 

[oftheherd1]

It's dependent on a few things, where you carry it, can you get to it quickly, do you have time to extend it for example. Police officers carry their on their belts, easy to get to, they more or less know in advance they are likely to need it so will have it to hand and extended. One on one it's fine but if there's a few people it can be hampering. I saw an RMP hit one of my colleagues with a baton because he missed his target when jostled by someone else. They are a limited use weapon, I rarely used mine.






Is that a good reason to do anything?





They carried them because of robbers etc. times were violent and there were no police. They also needed them in times of war when they were expected to lead men into battle. They also like to duel each other. They weren't carried for fun or fashion.

You know Tez3, I think this is a discussion that just leaves people baffled. Different countries/societies are different, and attitudes and/or laws change.

In the US history, there was a time when good, law abiding British citizens carried firearms for a variety of reasons; protection against robbers, protection against hostile natives who seemed to think the British were encroaching on their land, and the occasional chance to secure tasty meat for the supper table. During westward expansion, the need for firearms continued to be considered a part of one's tools, again by the British, and eventually by American citizens. They weren't carried 24 hours a day by everyone, especially in larger cities, but it became a part of clothing for some. In the plains and in cattle country, guns could be protection against the occasional bad guy, pesky natives who hadn't been exterminated, or snakes and bears who might attack them or their livestock.

Especially in the fantasized old west, they were sort of an item of clothing, only to be used when needed of course, and everyone was an expert in their fair and proper use against the bad guys, the pesky natives, and dangerous wildlife.

We just got used to the idea and have a hard time understanding those who don't see things like we do.

You and other societies feel the same way about our "fascination" with "guns."

Just ain't never goin' to be any agreement as I can see.

 

[Runs With Fire]

Funny, but true
I spent alot of spare time in the woods and swamps. The state record black bear was killed thirty minuets from my house. I go on woods walks all the time. If I should run in to a grumpy mamma bear or a massaug rattler, I,ll have options. I have a 2/3 acre vegetable garden so I'm outside alot. I also raise ckickens and ducks. I watched a red tailed hawk grab my rooster last fall. I carry a .22 revolver in case I need it for lthat hawk or the golden eagle that keeps flying over the hen house tries to take another chicken. ( lost five fowl last year). I have a small shotgun that sits against the wall in my garden shed. I lost 87 pole bean plants and 200 row feet of radishes from rabbits last spring. Ended up with five pots of rabbit stew.

 

[pdg]

firearms continued to be considered a part of one's tools

You and other societies feel the same way about our "fascination" with "guns."

Well, I have something for you (and others) to consider before you jump to any conclusions about my feelings concerning a "fascination" with "guns".

Growing up, around the farm, everyone had a gun of some description within reach - we might not have had bears, but foxes and rats etc. can cause a lot of damage.

They were just another item in the toolbox, much like fencing pliers for instance.

They got used for protection of livestock or crops, and sometimes for food (I actually think it's better to shoot some food instead of going to the supermarket and being removed from what it was before it was food).

Here's a roughly 4 year old me...



Don't judge the clothes, the 80s had only just started


The part I struggle to understand is how otherwise normal people feel their society is so dangerous they aren't comfortable unless carrying lethal force.

 

[Tez3]

You know Tez3, I think this is a discussion that just leaves people baffled. Different countries/societies are different, and attitudes and/or laws change.

I have already said as much and that was why I wasn't commenting on Americans and their weapons.

However perception of gun carrying in the UK is somewhat different from how it really was. Gun carrying has never been prevalent here for many reasons, cost being probably the foremost one, availability being another. Most people here have never carried guns in the UK at anytime in our history. That's not say they didn't carry weapons, these would edged or things like heavy walking sticks/clubs though. The military of course carried firearms both at home and abroad. Most gun owners would have been wealthy people who would use them for shooting (what we call standing on the moors shooting game birds driven towards you by beaters), duelling pistols were fashionable for a long time but not used that much, more beautiful objects to be looked at and a bit useful at other times. Poor people which was actually most of the UK had to do without.

The gun laws here were aimed at specific groups because of the real fears of uprisings. After the Gunpowder Plot laws against Roman Catholics stopped them serving in the Army and Navy, being lawyers among other things but also from carrying guns. Most of these laws laws weren't repealed until the late Victorian times in England, in Northern Ireland is was much much later. We still can't have a Catholic monarch though. Much has been made of so called gun control in the UK but the truth is there has never been much of a gun culture here, guns have always just been seen as something some people need for work ie gamekeepers. I've seen articles saying British people want their guns back but the truth is few had them to start with and certainly no one within living memory. There was an influx of hand guns at the end of the two world wars but as these were only issued to officers they were still in the hands of the well off upper classes!

As with most things in the UK, class has a lot to do with whether you would have owned a gun or not.

 

[Tez3]

Growing up, around the farm, everyone had a gun of some description within reach - we might not have had bears, but foxes and rats etc. can cause a lot of damage.

They were just another item in the toolbox, much like fencing pliers for instance.

Exactly!

 

[pdg]

I've seen articles saying British people want their guns back but the truth is few had them to start with and certainly no one within living memory

I'm British, loosely able to be classified as a person - and I'd "like my guns back"

More specifically, easier access to them - I used to like pistol target shooting, but that's entirely out now unless I go the low powered air pistol route (and that option may well be gone before long too).

Rifle target shooting has become much more hassle - mandatory club membership and minimum attendance and the like - the cost for doing it has rocketed over the last 20 ish years.

Shotguns are still relatively straightforward I suppose...

 

[Runs With Fire]

I have already said as much and that was why I wasn't commenting on Americans and their weapons.

However perception of gun carrying in the UK is somewhat different from how it really was. Gun carrying has never been prevalent here for many reasons, cost being probably the foremost one, availability being another. Most people here have never carried guns in the UK at anytime in our history. That's not say they didn't carry weapons, these would edged or things like heavy walking sticks/clubs though. The military of course carried firearms both at home and abroad. Most gun owners would have been wealthy people who would use them for shooting (what we call standing on the moors shooting game birds driven towards you by beaters), duelling pistols were fashionable for a long time but not used that much, more beautiful objects to be looked at and a bit useful at other times. Poor people which was actually most of the UK had to do without.

The gun laws here were aimed at specific groups because of the real fears of uprisings. After the Gunpowder Plot laws against Roman Catholics stopped them serving in the Army and Navy, being lawyers among other things but also from carrying guns. Most of these laws laws weren't repealed until the late Victorian times in England, in Northern Ireland is was much much later. We still can't have a Catholic monarch though. Much has been made of so called gun control in the UK but the truth is there has never been much of a gun culture here, guns have always just been seen as something some people need for work ie gamekeepers. I've seen articles saying British people want their guns back but the truth is few had them to start with and certainly no one within living memory. There was an influx of hand guns at the end of the two world wars but as these were only issued to officers they were still in the hands of the well off upper classes!

As with most things in the UK, class has a lot to do with whether you would have owned a gun or not.

Sounds strange, but it makes sense.

 

[Tez3]

I'm British, loosely able to be classified as a person - and I'd "like my guns back"

More specifically, easier access to them - I used to like pistol target shooting, but that's entirely out now unless I go the low powered air pistol route (and that option may well be gone before long too).

Rifle target shooting has become much more hassle - mandatory club membership and minimum attendance and the like - the cost for doing it has rocketed over the last 20 ish years.

Shotguns are still relatively straightforward I suppose...

Ah but as I said we've never had the handgun ownership there is in the US so we 'can't have our guns back', the articles telling us that we want our guns back are invariably American and hark back to a golden age of gun ownership in the UK that never happened. As you say though you want something new.

My OH goes rifle and pistol shooting and has little bother, perhaps it's where you go? As with H&S a great many places make things far harder than the law actually demands because they fear being sued or closed if they allow things to be easier.

 

[Tez3]

Sounds strange, but it makes sense.

Not strange at all, different countries are just that ..different. Different cultures, different customs, different beliefs, it's not yours but it's not strange, we just have a couple of thousand years more history than you do.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's dependent on a few things, where you carry it, can you get to it quickly, do you have time to extend it for example. Police officers carry their on their belts, easy to get to, they more or less know in advance they are likely to need it so will have it to hand and extended. One on one it's fine but if there's a few people it can be hampering. I saw an RMP hit one of my colleagues with a baton because he missed his target when jostled by someone else. They are a limited use weapon, I rarely used mine.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, so bear with me. I don't see those as problems specifically for civilians, and perhaps some of them less so for civilians. If there's no time to get it out and extended, you just don't get it out. It hasn't made the situation worse, at that point. And in most (certainly not all) cases, civilians aren't going to find themselves fighting for their lives in a group, so collateral damage is perhaps less of an issue. Even when it is an issue, if someone has decided they are in danger enough that they need a metal stick in their hands at that moment, even the chance of accidentally hitting a friend is maybe worth the risk.

Personally, I think it's a better choice for civilians than a gun or knife (again, assuming competence and legality). A stick might be a better choice in the moment of the fight, but would be harder to carry (the whole reason the collapsible batons are used).

 

[jobo]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, so bear with me. I don't see those as problems specifically for civilians, and perhaps some of them less so for civilians. If there's no time to get it out and extended, you just don't get it out. It hasn't made the situation worse, at that point. And in most (certainly not all) cases, civilians aren't going to find themselves fighting for their lives in a group, so collateral damage is perhaps less of an issue. Even when it is an issue, if someone has decided they are in danger enough that they need a metal stick in their hands at that moment, even the chance of accidentally hitting a friend is maybe worth the risk.

Personally, I think it's a better choice for civilians than a gun or knife (again, assuming competence and legality). A stick might be a better choice in the moment of the fight, but would be harder to carry (the whole reason the collapsible batons are used).

Agree, but Battons like most other things are banned in the uk, so it makes little difference to me if they are effective or not, if they were allowed i would certainly consider one of i needed to be armed

 

[CB Jones]

The part I struggle to understand is how otherwise normal people feel their society is so dangerous they aren't comfortable unless carrying lethal force.

Again it just about awareness and prepartion.

If you feel you reside in a place that you will never be in danger.....good luck, I hope you never do.

Some of us believe that sometimes things change and that there is no guarantee that your life will never be in danger. Due to this, we just choose to be prepared....just in case.

I’d rather spend my life carrying a weapon I never use than being in one situation of needing a weapon I never had.

As a former homicide detective.....I also may have a little different perception of things.