RoR: Forum

Just in case I've managed to offend anyone with the 'bipedal cheeseburger' thing: the term came up on another website (Self Defense Forums, which has since been abandoned by the moderators & overrun by trolls). It was first used by Ken Cook during a rant about people who refuse to take responsibility for their own defense:

The simple fact is, there are people out there who are nothing more than a bipedal cheeseburger. They're a self propelled snack pack looking for someone to eat them. There is no helping the truly consumable among us.

I was for many years such a cheesy comestible (yes I'm a Python fan), but have since ammended my ways; in fact, the more I adopted a philosophy of rational self-interest, the more I realised that I am worth protecting, and ultimately I'm the only one responsible for it.

Thus I arm myself to the greatest extent I can (within the law) when leaving my house, stay aware of my surroundings to the greatest extent I'm capable, and try to pursuade those important to me of the value of self-defense. Hence this poll, & this post :-)

If you want to lead a joyous, rational, self-interested life, you should try your damndest to prevent someone taking it from you - not to mention your loved ones who bring so much joy to your life, and the property you've worked so hard to acquire.

Post 1

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 3:40pm

I carry around a knife most of the time even though they're illigal here on campus (New York). At home (Louisiana) I frequently ride around with a gun in my truck.

Post 2

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 4:16pm

It is illegal own handguns in the city of Chicago where I live, therefore I choose not to deal with owning one.

Post 3

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 4:50pm

Pete, that's why I don't own & carry a handgun here in NZ - the likely penalties for being caught by the Police include imprisonment, a permanent criminal record etc. etc. - or just plain being shot, depending upon the armament carried by the Police who caught me.

I've done my own risk analysis, & decided that I'm better off carrying legal self-defense weapons.

I strongly suspect that my analysis would be different if I were a 55kg five foot tall woman, however.

Post 4

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 5:24pm

Bipedal-cheeseburger - haha good one. :-(

I'm not enthused by this poll. Basically because it implies that unless you own a gun you are a weenie.

Yes it is sensible to take precautions against attack. Yes it is wrong for the government to prevent citizens from owning the means to defend oneself. But whatever form that means takes (if it takes one at all) has to be up to the individual.

Firearms are only any good if you are prepared to use them. Otherwise they are an expensive hassle.

-You should know how to use it and maintain it.
-You should be prepared go without alcohol and drugs while carrying one.
-And lastly you should be mentally prepared to kill your attacker, because unless the guy gets immediate medical attention a gunshot wound that isn't instantly fatal will likely kill via shock.

I'm fine about 2 and 3. But number one is a pain for me. It would be expensive considering that I probably need to expend 3-500 rounds a year to become be satisfied - in my own mind - that I am proficient with it.

Then there are the gun clubs. The last gun club I went to had entirely too many weirdos who look liked they masturbated to pictures of TAR-21s. These are the sort of arse-hats who believe that firearms should be compulsory because the Swiss require (compulsory) military trainees to take their rifles home with them. So f-ing what? The Swiss like Cuckoo clocks and yodeling too - how sane do they look now?

Weapons are an insurance policy. And like any insurance policy you need to think long and hard before cashing it in.

I think that it is still a good idea to minimise the chance that you will be attacked (without compromising your lifestyle) whether you are armed or not. It isn't Bipedal-cheeseburgerism to avoid bad areas in town after dark, to take a taxi rather than walk home alone etc.

It's common f-ing sense. Something certain NZ gunners are sadly bereft of, and this is the reason I am very picky about who I go shooting with.

Post 5

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 5:38pm

Winefeild makes a good point. The mere act of owning a gun will do little to make you safer. One is well served to learn to use the weapon and maintain a level of proficiency.

Post 6

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 5:42pm

Robert,

It certainly wasn't my intent to accuse those who don't carry guns of being weenies - indeed, I don't myself, for the aforementioned reasons.

W.r.t. being mentally prepared to kill an attacker - yes you're right, but in fact, you should be prepared to kill someone the moment you lay your hands on him aggressively, either armed or unarmed. People do, regularly, die from even the slightest assault; typically, from trauma to the head after falling. This is why assault of *any* type should be a very serious crime indeed; there's simply no way to safely attack another human being.

Also, I've been giving some serious thought to behaviour modification to make myself less of a target for crime, violent or otherwise.

An intersting statistic came out of criminological research recently; photos of people going about their day to day lives were given to a group of convicted, jailed criminals who were asked to selected targets from amongst them, based upon appearance, body language etc.

95% of the criminals picked the same targets.

When asked, it seems they based their decisions on two factors:

- whether the person in the photo had what the criminal wanted (apparent wealth and gender were the factors, depending upon whether the criminal was in jail for theft or sexually related crimes)

- whether the person in the photo looked capable of self-defense (physical condition and confident body language were the main factors)

Furthermore, from reading reports of criminal activity & attacks, one sees a common thread: lack of situational awareness.

This ranges from people actively ignoring a gun-wielding mugger (perhaps the greatest example I know of reality evasion in action), to leaving car and house doors unlocked, to walking alone in areas known to be favoured by criminals.

So, my conclusion is that by dressing plainly, carrying myself with confidence, and employing common-sense daily measures (locks, paying attention to my surroundings, and owning a couple of loud dogs) I should be able to drive the chance of being a victim of some kind of attack down *well* below the average.

Even more worrying than the bipedal cheeseburger is the kind of person who'll arm himself to the teeth, without examining any of his own behaviours in an effort to reduce the likelihood of attack.

Personally, I suspect such people are just *itching* to be able to employ their weaponry on someone, but that's psychologising without any real evidence.
(Edited by Duncan Bayne
on 5/01, 5:46pm)

Post 7

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 6:26pm

Duncan, my views generally coincide with yours. When I was a kid, I used to get beat up by the hard guys in the neighborhood. When I was in college, I took tae kwon do as a physical education elective and the problem went away without my doing much else. Situational awareness and not looking like a victim are key factors in avoiding trouble.

One aspect of the "world affairs" arguments on SOLO that comes up often is the supposed need to "retaliate" against "aggressors." The scenarios beg a basic question: How did this situation come to be?

Duncan wrote: "People do, regularly, die from even the slightest assault; typically, from trauma to the head after falling."

When I worked as a security guard, that was one of the things we learned. When you take someone down, you literally take them down: you do not let them fall. Any assault -- even defensive and unarmed -- can be lethal.

Robert Winefield wrote: "I probably need to expend 3-500 rounds a year to become be satisfied ..."
Different studies on different skills vary, but three to five thousand repetitions are closer to what is required for muscle memory. Extinguishing of learning happens quickly. About a month after practice, you are close to zero again. (Your other points were all well made and I generally concur.)

When I go out, I usually carry survival tools of some kind, often matches and a knife. A few years ago, I worked for a company that put us through team building exercises. The last of them was a survival scenario. You crash in the jungle with five or six friends. The pilot is killed, but the plane is in tact and you have this gear in back, but you cannot carry it all. What do you take? Which way do you go? I could not get the others to see the folly in bringing along both the pint of rum and the handgun. "We're not all coming out, if we do that," I said. Anyway, the answer from the back of the book -- from US Army Ranger trainers -- was that you need fire and knife absolutely. (One of the other idiotic "strategies" suggested was to leave the big decorative Christmas candle behind because "you can always build a fire in a jungle." No one had ever tried it, of course.) Not so easy to carry is a pry bar. Discussing what is in our kit bags, one of the security supervisors pointed out that even in New Mexico, your chances of getting stuck in an elevator are greater than your chances of being abandoned in the desert. No kidding, on one force I worked for, we had guards routinely stuck in elevators.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Post 8

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 6:27pm

Robert, if you think the NZ Herald story you linked to showed a deplorable lack of common sense, how about this one?

Senior Sergeant Dave Donaldson said the men left their guns on the ground near the boys.

"It appears that the 6-year-old boy may have handled a .270-calibre rifle which has discharged and the bullet has struck the 10-year-old in the abdomen," he said.

Abso-fucking-lutely unbelievable >:-(

Post 9

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 6:29pm

Duncan,

I realise that you aren't one of the weirdos I'm talking about. I also realise that bipedal-cheeseburger has a funny ring to it and that polls are supposed to generate amusing discussions.

But the "no gun = weenie" argument is one I've come across too often when talking to other shooters. For some reason when some people talk about firearms their eyes glaze over, they stare straight through you and a deeply disturbing smile spreads across their face as they discuss what their gun can do to their intended target. These people are ever-present in pro-self defense forums and I just wish they'd keep their creepy little thoughts to themselves.

Anyway, with any luck this technology will revolutionise firearms by making them safer and easier to use. But if firearms aren't your thing and you want to arm yourself then you should look at Krav Maga - unarmed combat sans mystic-shit.

Post 10

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 7:29pm

Learned my unarmed from Bruce Tegner many many years ago - no mysticism, just the facts....... yes, may well be the persona, since have never been attacked here, even tho for years have had to use cane to get around......

Post 11

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 7:31pm

Robert,

I guessed as much from your post, but thought I'd make it clear. That's the problem with electronic fora, there's an incredible loss of context due to not being able to see each others body language.

W.r.t. weirdo shooters, I've had the misfortune of meeting my fair share, and I tell you, they give me the willies. It's not so much that I fear they are dangerous, but that people will equate them with people like us. I mean, imagine the worst possible example of the camo-wearing, fundamentally untrained, violence-worshipping weirdo ... and then realise that many people associate gun ownership & self-defense advocacy with that kind of person.

I do like the idea of smart guns - both from the political aspect w.r.t. safety, and the fact that if you managed to lose your handgun in a fight, the worst case scenario is that the bad guy would have a handy metal club with which to hit you.

Lastly, I fear you're wrong about Krav Maga - I've heard tell that it actually translates into "sore testicles" :-) Seriously, I had no luck finding a KM school here in Auckland. I have found The School of Self Defence, with whom I will be training as soon as money permits.

Post 12

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 8:47pm

Duncan,

Does Krav Maga translate as "sore testicles?"

I remember when I was a teenager in Israel. My aunt returned from her IDF service as a Krav Maga instructor. She was passing a group of Italian volunteers when one of them approached her from behind with the apparent intention of pinching her ass. One couldn't see her break her stride, but in the next moment the ass-pincher-wannabee was on the ground, contorted in obvious pain.

So maybe if it doesn't translate as "sore testicles" it should.

Post 13

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 9:39pm

Adam,

No, Krav Maga actually means "Contact Combat". The "Sore Testicles" thing is easily understood by watching a demonstration of KM techniques; many involve strikes to the groin.

What your aunt *might* have done was a reverse-hand loose-wristed slap to the groin which, if your attacker is "serious" can then be followed up by driving the elbow up into the face, as the attacker is busy bending over forwards ...

I've seen this technique demonstrated and I can only imagine the pain & destruction it would cause if performed with intent.

Post 14

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 10:02pm

No one has ever attacked me or even thought about it in my adult life. Reasons are that I don't leave home without my killer smile, razor-sharp wit, laserlike glance and a tertiary appendage which can inflict serious damage on the unaware and unsuspecting.

Post 15

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 11:43pm

Exactly Duncan,

Self defence as it should be taught, hit the bastard hard in the vulnerable spot, disable him, and walk away laughing.

Philip,

I've heard blokes brag about the "power" of their "tertiary appendage" but never on a self defence forum!!?!??

:-) :-) :-)

Post 16

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 7:00am

Hi guys,

I took a self defence course a few years back. I am certainly not well trained, but the main thing it did for me was to make me feel more confident and aggressive. I look less like a victim, and I know that I could make it pretty hard for an unarmed attacker to subdue me. We did some exercises where we were attacked by real men, and my strength surprised and fierceness surprised me. Now I know that that fierceness if my greatest asset in both avoiding danger and surviving it. I was taught not to try to go for the groin, as it is easy to miss if you aren't well trained. I was taught to go for the instep (following the leg down with my foot), the nose (with the base of my hand), and the torso (with my elbow). Do you think that's right?

Kelly

Post 17

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 7:08am

Go for whats open Kelly. That could be the groin, the windpipe, nose etc. And when you go for it, mean it.

Post 18

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 7:59am

I quite liked Stephen Fry's technique of self defence when he was at school. Whenever threatened, he would plead, "Oh, for God's sake Fotherington, don't hit me. It will only give me such an erection."

...presumably his tormentor's name was Fotherington, otherwise it would just be peculiar.

(Edited by Fraser Stephen-Smith on 5/02, 8:00am)

Post 19

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 8:42am