Uechi-Ryu.com

Hi Robb ,

Sorry if I came across a bit cynical , but I am very passionate about the real world of violence as I deal with it constantly in my work and I debrief victims and attackers [ the ones that survive ] as a matter of routine ! I also read quite a volume of psychiatrists reports relative the serious emotional impact on these people !

You are certainly entitled to your opinion in your pacifists views , and as much as I respect them , they are not shared by many in the world of martial arts ; I do not necessarily agree with them as most others here do not ! The pursuit of peace , although very admirable, is no great bargain if it comes at a very high price ! Re-read Dr. Knight's post !

Good luck and thanks for your contribution to these forums !




------------------
Van Canna

Ok guys - time now for a touch of the feminine. I've enjoyed watching this thread develop! Many excellent points are interwoven - as Michael san says - like a tapestry - lets see if we can determine the warp from the woof and the weft.

Portions of this debate have raged since the beginning of recorded history - and choices made remain individual - the survival of the species seems not to have removed either persuasion - indeed the philosophers of old and the lobbyist of today continue to fight these same battles...

Active vs. contemplative life - intent in kata vs. mushin - activist vs. pacifist - gun control vs. right to bear arms - the extremes of these and other "sides of the fence relate well to this issue - when to step in and when to not.

As relates to defense - the choice again comes down to an individual one - that must be contemplated BEFORE the action occurs. I believe that none of the martial artists that have contributed to this thread are advocates of a brute "kill or be killed" philosophy - until reaching a line each has set for themself. Certainly - cultivation of an awareness of escalating violence will preclude necessary action in many circumstances - though as deBecker says in his book - unfortunately there are no statistics available on situations AVOIDED through an adherance to the inner signals we receive from an unknown subconcious or otherwise source. I believe we all would prefer to avoid conflict if at all possible. But times arise when action becomes necessary in spite of our awareness and avoidance skills. And how far we choose to take the awareness and avoidance is again a personal choice. You can turn the other cheek as much as you like - but while your cheek is turned - a loved one - or even your own self - may be violently assaulted or even killed in the process. And if the violence is not of a physical nature - the tactics employed to avoid said violence may perpetuate a violence of another sort - the kind evidenced in the numerous psychological reports of demolished self-esteem and dwindling self-confidence (and a sense of masulinity as well!) from a choice where hindsight seems to be 20/20!

So what is the best course of action? If you are reading this forum and trying to debate which person's view is the "best" or the most "right" - you are missing the point. Each view is correct in it's own bearing - but only for that individual - you must make your own choice based upon your own set of morals and standards. There is one thread that warps through this tapestry however, that each individual can adopt as an immutable truth. You must decide where your lines are BEFORE the situation occurs! (Tune in next week for the next installation of a re-run on "mindset" as so eloquently defined on the "Realities" forum!)

If your choice is to avoid violence at all costs - I applaud you. Yet you must consider seriously all impliations this avoidance will impose upon you and the lives of your loved ones. Can you still maintain the code of non-violence in the face of the situations Van-san has outlined from some of his cases? Ghandi could - would he have maintained the same view if his wife was being raped and murdered before his eyes? Some would say yes - his non-violent standard was that ingrained. If this is the path you choose - again I applaud you. Only choose this path after considering seriously all aspects of this decision - do not follow blindly a philosophy that appeals to your morality as imposed upon you by parents, teachers, or clergymen. Make it YOUR informed decision. Lest you become one of the casualties in the psychiatric journals.

If your choice is to fight and not be slaughtered as a sheep - again I applaud you. But again - I admonish you to consider all of the consequences of this decision. When and where will your line be - and how strongly will you react when that line is crossed. You may say - "I have decided to fight to defend myself and my family" - I ask you - how far are you willing to go? Have you considered the nuances of each situation? Are you never going to try and de-escalate the situation if you feel the line has been crossed - even if the result could have been that you walk away angry but alive? Or out of jail? How far is too far? The elevator situation? A dark parking lot? The presence or absence of a weapon? Whether you perceive the person/predator to be in their right mind or not? (Is it right to destroy someone who has had too much to drink and is merely being annoying?) Consider - and consider well. Then decide on your lines and prepare your own mindset the best you can to hold to them. For under the influence of the infamous "chemical cocktail" you will not have time to debate the moral ramifications and the psychological consequences of your actions as the event occurs!

Which finally brings me to the crux of this thread - when to defend - and when not to. As a woman - I tend to agree with Cecil's view that regardless of how "tough" and independent the female - and whatever her protests - she will probably feel inside that the man she is with - if he cares for her - will defend her - no matter her protests that she can handle herself etc. I like his examples - even if it is just a protective arm and reassurance that her man is there if he needs her - this is a type of defense as well - she may need to tell a "woofer" to get the hell out of her face - herself - but she most likely will want to know that her partner gives enough of a damn that he will back her up if necessary - and - being female - a little reassurance never hurts!

If a woman feels so strongly as to need to fight her own battles at any cost - then she needs to discuss this with her partner again - BEFORE an incident happens. Perhaps that is a form of "couple mindset" for two people intimately linked - will need to share more than their bodies for a strong bond - they must share their hopes and dreams and convictions. They need not be the same convictions - but each must respect the other's - and do what they can to foster the positive growth in the other - this means support - whether it is reassurance that you are there to back up your partner or handling it for them - they will never know - as you won't - if it is never discussed.

Prepare yourself - educate yourself - and communicate.

Peace,
Lori

Herr Canna:

Two things!!

1) On 5-25 you wrote: "avoidance , especially when tactically sound is the
best defense !"

Could you plez explain...vat perzakly ist "tactically sound?"

2) From the same post: "Again , you will find a huge difference between ego and self respect...unless they can rationalize the submission to tactical advantage , they are usually scarred for life."

My understanding of the term ego is: I in relation to all else.
In the past, wouldn't you agree, self respect has been a result of cultural conditioning? Lately though, more people are asserting their prerogatives and defining it for themselves. Thus the interest in Cultural Diversity, for example. So, I'm curious about what you see as the "huge difference." Would you please elaborate?

Lori San et al.:

To return to the elevator (yet again). The original scenario was sexist because it inferred that the woman, like a thing, would not react, but wait to be protected. I personalized it to dramatize the distinction that my partner, and, I suspect, any woman with a "normal" ego, would not wait for me to intervene on her behalf. She would protect herself, as would any "normal" human being. As for my behavior, her gender is irrelevant, it's the relationship. The line is the same regardless of who I am with, probably even a stranger. And I suspect this is true for nearly everyone contributing. Once it is crossed, I admit, I attack. The outcome is fate, assuming everyone is operating instinctually, like the bull, not the hunter.

What's interesting is the variety of mindsets and locations of "lines". The encouraging aspect, to me, is the mind's ability to preempt the hairiness. But pride in instinctual behavior is nothing more than misplaced vagina envy!! Afraid to care, as males, we have to have a rationale to hide behind, an explanation for our "apparent" inability (to care). Lacking emotional content, we take pride in our n, where n = something, ANYTHING, other than empathy...our ability to defend, even!! Excuse me?!!! Which century did you come from?? And it's this SOMETHING, and in this culture it is usually a thing, that gives us self respect. But we're moving beyond it. Why just yesterday two, count ‘em, TWO, guys asked me for directions!!!!!!!!!!!

Honor through small battles with one's self!

Herr Knight: *Where* does Van point out about "the most important observer?" Did he really say that?!! (Ah swear, that boyz jus' gettin' more insiteful evry day!)

Peas...und Carrots!! (For significance of carrots see http://www.iac1.freeservers.com/)

MFH

[This message has been edited by MFH (edited 05-26-99).]

Good morning, everyone!

Lori, I DID miss a great pun. Cheers to you for your wonderful sense of humor. Your summary of this thread was well-written.

Van, thanks for your compliments. I appreciate your liberal use of quotations in your posts.

MFH:
I found myself thinking, "Did he really mean that?" a few times while reading your recent post. Thanks for the stimulating ideas. To comment on a few:

Your question about where I think Van presented the idea of the "most important observer being in the depths of the man himself"? In his quote, "we lie loudest when we lie to ourselves" --Hoffer.

Which raises the point of ego vs self-respect. You define ego as "I in relation to all else" and suggest self-respect is the "result of cultural conditioning." To me, ego is what some meditation teachers call "monkey mind," a continuously chattering, curious, ever-changing agent. They say, and I agree, that any felt sense of real stability in the ego is delusional. Though I honor and value the ego as a kind of "chairman of the board" of my mind, it is only a part of my self. Yes, self-respect is affected by culture, but cannot be said to be caused by it. Self-respect is, to me, a holistic concept, the mind-body-spirit as a whole functioning with integrity, validating truths great and small, mental, behavioral, emotional, and INSTINCTUAL. Yogananda's "Autobiography of a Yogi" nicely illustrates how easily instincts, habits, emotions, ego, and all that jazz can be validated even in the enlightened being.

"Encouraged by preempting hairiness?" This sincerely troubles me. Robert Bly wrote "Iron John" in hopes of countering this destructive denial of a beautiful part of the male psyche. One after another book on the "Wonder of Boys" theme exhort us to embrace the hairiness. Boys are fascinating in their boyishness! BTW, I have several feminist and lesbian friends who are parents and who would enthusiastically agree with me.

Pride in instincts = vagina envy? My envy is of the womb, not the vagina. Or perhaps the breast, in the sense of being able to feed a child a complete nutritional diet from your own body. Mind-blowing, isn't it? Make a life, then nurture it. Enviable indeed! PRIDE may be the sticking point. How about just VALIDATION of instincts?

Males unable to care or have empathy? A modern myth not supported by literature, art, history, or experience. I believe the industrial revolution has something to do with this, pulling men out of homes and into cities and factories, gradually leaching a family-centered ethos out of them. Women are following, and are also in danger of losing connectedness. But we recognize the problem and are taking steps to correct it.

Thanks to the forum for a most stimulating discussion.

Mike

Hi All-

Loved your post Lori-San.

Oooohhh, I like this self respect stuff. That is precisely the reason that I would not expect my SO (significant other) to defend me. I am capable of defending myself, and as stated earlier, so is my SO.

I am not a militant feminist, at least I don't consider myself a militant anything.
And is feminist a dirty word? What is a feminist? My dictionary says "a supporter of women's claims to be given rights equal to those of men." That doesn't sound that bad to me, I think that describes most people I know, heck, even my man is a feminist. I don't want to be a man, and I don't want men and women to be the same. Equal but different.

Every one has a different place in the sand where they would draw the line. His and mine are probably not the exact same. Everyone has a different tolerance. Would Lori and I react the same to the elevator situation? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe I would react in a way that would cause Lori to seek counselling after a few years. Maybe the opposite. Is anyone getting my point here? It is not anyone else's right or even responsibility to decide how to react to an attack on my person. It is my right as a PERSON in charge of myself, not as a man or woman. If I think it is not serious enough to respond, or if I choose to diffuse the situation, or respond with swift force, it
is my choice. I know right now that I would not be a happy person if I was walking around worrying about emasculating my husband and about whether my preference would drive him to seek therapy in a few years! It is my belief that he is strong in his masculinity, and my actions will not threaten that.

Now is it my SO's responsibility to back up my stand? Oh yea! He better! And vice-versa. I would back up any stand (or lack of) that he decided on. But I would not expect him to level the guy in the elevator. Most likely, he would not get the chance. They guy would (maybe) be picking himself off of the floor. And I would not be worried about any legal ramifications to my actions. I was simply responding to his sexual assault upon my person. Legally, that would probably be easier to deal with than my husband hurting the guy.


Cecil-San,

I understand you were basing your post on your personal beliefs and experience. But I can assure you I am not "talking crap". Stating that all women want or expect the same thing is like me saying that all men love football. They don't. Let's embrace our differences, this is a great place to discuss them. Keeps things interesting.

Respectfully,
Natalie

MFH

You only fight if you perceive endangerment for you and your family ; however in a human being , danger , as is more often the case , is perceived by symbolic threats to self esteem and dignity if the man has any character ! This triggers the limbic surge that has a dual effect on the brain by the release of catecholamines preparing you for vigorous action of the fight or flight persuasion depending upon how your emotional brain sizes up the opposition ! [ tactical mode]


Self respect has nothing to do with cultural upbringing , that is fallacious thinking ! It has all to do with who you are in your emotional growth and maturity ! Emotional self regulation starts to build from infancy ;the kindergarten year ripens feelings such as pride and confidence , insecurity and dignity , humility , jealousy and envy ! At puberty great changes occur , biologically , in thinking capacities and brain functioning !

The transition to teen years and High school__ ends childhood and a formidable emotional challenge arises with great blows to self confidence , social self esteem , questions as to who they [students] really are along with a jump in self consciousness ! That is the crucible of the development of self respect ! It is a natural instinct giving impetus to the survival of the specie , i.e., self worth !

The body of social skills develops as emotional intelligence and forms the character of the man !

As to this 'sexist ' ' feminist ' __ vagina envy __ woman with a "normal ego" __ women's rights , feminism etc. thing , some of you are so far out into the twilight zone with this thinking when you seek to relate the issues to street violence, that it becomes very sad and dangerous and laughable at the same time ! That is what programs you to get killed by a street urchin !

Granted I may be biased here due to my upbringing in the south of Italy ; but Today in my frequent trips to Italy , both Men an women laugh at this neurotic fixation of Americans !

The most hilarious of them all is when American women on vacation to Italy , who have been hard at work for a generation or more at male bashing , exclaim with relief " now there is a man " when courted by a wild , primitively masculine specimen who displays qualities she subliminally has longed for all her life ! Yet , back in the States , the same woman is hard at work , through the media , arts, politics, sociology and much else , busily doing all she can to destroy such vestiges of manhood !

MFH _ then writes : < What's interesting is the variety of mindsets and locations of "lines". >

Oh brother !

Mike , do yourself a favor and heed these words by the noted Jeff Cooper :

" In this day and age , advice to "cultivate the tiger " may not set well with many ! Just as revivalists make " decisions for Christ" , which are designed to save their immortal souls , those who wish to survive in today's urban society must consciously make " decisions for life " , which are designed to save their physical bodies ! Once you have made the decision and-- REALLY UNDERSTAND IT ---most don't have a clue --- you will have taken the first and most important step toward meeting personal violence ! "

The reason we are in this predicament today with rampant street crime and pampering of criminals [ attend criminal court session and you want to start vomiting on the judges and mouthpieces] , is because we have allowed the scum who chooses to advance itself by unchecked savagery , as worthy of our compassion and sympathy by turning the other cheek and offering our buttocks !

" The first element of personal success in personal action is the proper mental attitude which combines alertness , awareness, confidence and HOSTILITY TOWARD AGGRESSION ! This is the street mindset of those who will survive ! " { Cooper}

Try and discuss this with your spiritual advisor and you will find out that this is an argument theologians have been debating for two thousand years ! But you must make the decision for yourself ! You may think you got it together because you may have survived a face slapping contest with a punk , but when the time comes for the real thing , your primal brain will know and you will shut down in prey mode for lack of schooled response programming !

Read " SHARPENING THE WARRIOR'S EDGE " By Bruce Siddle ! And go into this forum's archives !

Natalie,

My message here is not to deny you or any female the right / opportunity to strike the first blow ! I am talking generalities and tactical !

Generalities : not all women are martial arts trained and or have the will or capabilities , mental or physical to engage such an assailant under the shock of the moment !

Tactical : The first rule of combat is never to fight anyone fair ; there is no such thing ; you always bring into play overwhelming force to annihilate your opponent as quickly as possible before he has a chance to react ! This means that both you and your husband pummel him / them at the same time as a team , provided the decision has been made to engage after all !{ Lori is 100% correct in pointing this out } __ It depends on the nature of the transgression , whether in fact you feel violated , what intent you read on the aggressor's mind and so on ! You may be dealing with a drunk from a party coming down the elevator who all he wants to do is lift your skirt up to take a look at your legs and nothing more ! Does he deserve a beating or a slap to his face ?? [ happened to a friend ] __ that is your decision of the moment ; The working of the emotional mind is to a large degree , state specific dictated by the particular feelings ascendant at a given moment !! But what would you program to do in such an instance in prior discussions with your husband ??

Some sociopath fly into a rage when hit by a woman no matter how skilled or strong and will respond in extreme counterattack as opposed to taking a licking by the husband whom they expect to get hit by anyway ! A woman hits a punk especially in front of his peers and he will take it very personal to his self esteem and go berserk ! It's a man thing … and some experts recommend the man to hit the guy first and the woman next to give the assailant a face saving way out and cease and desist sooner !

The problem here is that not too many people in the martial arts really understand the tactical concepts of street fighting and resort to abstract concepts out of sheer stupidity that will get them killed !
That is why I always keep recommending attending the lethal force institute seminars where street survival concepts are taught by hands on police combat / veterans experts as opposed to cookie jar karate masters in oriental pajamas on a flat mat whose goal appears to be teaching students how to say "front kick" in Japanese and spend most of the karate class in getting the students " in shape "with exercises !

Peace ,


------------------
Van Canna

Mr. Canna:

Thanks for clarifying that we may hold judges, moutpieces (attorneys?), and compassion responsible for the scum running loose on the street. I had erroneously focused on the absolute failure of the "War on Drugs" (seems to me about 75% of all crimes these days are drug related), an escalating reliance upon a failed penal system, an oppressive economy that either requires two wage earners to support a family or a one parent family wage earner to take on multiple jobs, a legacy of social injustice traceable to the nation's founding, and other complex economic, educational, and social issues as contributing to the rise in violence. I even thought there might be some correlation between access to guns and violence. Wow, what was I thinking.

Peace
Robb in Sacramento

Move to adjourn!

Hi, Robb,

When I referred to lawyers as "mouthpieces" there was no offense intended to you as an attorney !

But thanks for the opportunity to engage in a good argument !

Actually I agree on most of your points except a couple !

When you speak of a failed penal system you are correct ; actually it is more of a collapse of our criminal justice system which emboldens the career criminals ! Every American knows the truth about our revolving door justice system and knows that every day it places him or her in harm's way . Acts of excessive leniency have become self inflicted wounds , or more aptly , wounds inflicted on others .

Lt. Strong writes that the root of the crime problem facing us all in our everyday lives are the recidivists . They are the 10 % of the criminal population responsible for two-thirds to three quarters of all crime . He goes on " Some wrongly say that our skyrocketing crime rate and level of fear are fueled by the vicious and lethal use of guns .The facts are , guns are used to kill , the killers are our skyrocketing numbers of recidivists , America's career criminals "

But for America releasing them from prison time and time again , between 70 and 80 percent of the increase in all crime would not have occurred and we would not be looking down the barrel of their guns !

The wailing cry today is how could judges grant probation to perpetrators of violent crimes and put them back in our neighborhoods ? Victims of crime are mistreated , the "halls of justice" seem far more concerned with protecting criminal defendants ; victims of crime have no right to be informed of the proceedings involving their case , no right to be heard at the most critical stages , indeed no right to even be present in the court room during the trial of their case , such as the parents of a murdered child being told that they must wait outside the courtroom while others testify about the murder ; such as when the victim of a brutal assault finds out by reading the paper that that his attacker has been has been released to the streets __ and he, the victim , has not been given an opportunity to speak regarding the release !

In addition to "soft judges" Many Americans blame unscrupulous defense attorneys for the problem who argue that because criminals were abused as children they should go free ; especially appalling when the defendant is accused of a heinous crime ! Now you might say the attorney has an ethical duty to defend to the limits of the law ; still at times the law seems to be far too accommodating in favor of the criminal and the victim be damned ! If the argument , as flimsy as it is , yet succeeds , the proper approach is to ask why the judge found it so persuasive , and why the judge still sits on the bench !

I don't know how long you have practicing law Robb , but I , as a special investigator and litigation manager of catastrophic cases , could tell you some pretty disgusting stories about the legal mill ; again this is meant as no offense to you !

Plea bargaining is another problem of huge proportions ;sentencing is minimal ; some prosecutors need to be thrown out on their heels !

Then you wrote : < I even thought
there might be some correlation between access to guns and
violence. Wow, what was I thinking. >

Your thinking is correct but needs to be explored further !

Guns are not the only deadly weapons ! How about knives ? Ice picks ? Ordinary claw hammers? Broken glass bottles ? Do we care about people who get their throat cut or their heads bashed in ? Do people stop being dangerously irresponsible when they don't have a gun ?

Correlation between guns and violence ? The more proper correlation , according to studies , may be that in states where guns are widely owned , criminals are more careful . Or conversely , that in States where citizens are disarmed by law , crime is a little safer !

We don't have to be geniuses to know that criminals prefer defenseless victims !

Now if you bring up the subject of the school massacres , that is a different story ! Leaving aside the real roots of the problem for the moment , the truth is that anger run amok is what is destroying society these days ! " Our emotions evolved when we did not have the technology to act so powerfully on them . In prehistoric times , when you had an instantaneous rage and for a second you wanted to kill someone , you could not do it very easily , now you can "

Guns are only a component part of lethal weaponry at people's disposal these days but I agree that certain controls are necessary . It starts with education and responsibility and lock up measures by the gun owners !

Get the guns off the street not by new draconian laws aimed at law abiding people , but, according to police lt. Strong by giving police the authority to stop'n' frisk down suspected gang members and search their cars in order to enforce laws already on the books against carrying illegal weapons . After all half of all homicides are caused by gang members killing each other and bystanders !

Peace ,


------------------
Van Canna


[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited 05-27-99).]

Mr. Canna:

I sense your frustration with the American legal system, and as Bill C. observes, I feel your pain. As the old joke goes, the difference between a lawyer and a judge is the judge knows the Governor. I'm not entirely sure this is the best qualification for becoming a judge.

As to blaming lawyers for the morass that is the American judicial system, not even lawyers have the power to so totally screw things up. I fear it is a combination of problems fueled by an apathetic and uninformed electorate that will blithley embrace the latest neuvo political panacea with an ardor and abandon similar to an inmate facing a conjugal visit. SO, the fault is lawyers and not stupid laws. The fault is lawyers and not a citizenry that prides itself on avoiding jury duty. The fault is lawyers, and not witnesses who refuse to come forward and testify. The fault is lawyers, and not the investigators who muck up everything from the crime scene to the probation report. Yep, the fault is lawyers.

So, let lock up all the criminals. That's the answer. But let's not forget, a prison gang was so powerful in California that it could dictate an end to street gang warfare. While the prison may keep in the criminals, the wall don't stop the criminal influence.

As for guns. You are right, there are other weapons out there. Knives, clubs, arrows. But, it's really hard to do a drive-by with most of these weapons. It's really hard to pick off folks from a bell tower with most of these weapons. It's really hard to change the course of history from a book depsitory with most of these weapons. And yes, it is really hard to execute a senseless act of mass aggression with most of these weapons.

I find it amazing that the NRA and other gun nuts argue for the absolute right of every citizen to keep and bear arms. I'm sure all the crackheads out there appreciate the NRA's efforts. AND while we are addressing absolute constitutional rights, how is it that people believe they have a right to bear arms outside the scope of a "well regulated militia." (And historically, didn't arms include more than fire arms. Try strapping a sword to your belt and walking down main street.) Meanwhile, you have suggested we set aside the fourth amendment, you know, search and seizure, so we can protect the right to carry a gun. The drug war and racism (ie, driving while black) already have stripped away much of the protection our constitution gave us with regard to freedom from warrantless search, and now you advocate taking away more protection. How do you pick out a gang member from a wanna be? Dress like one and lose your rights?

In this country, we have already concluded that congress making no law restricting our freedom of speech really doesn't mean that congress can make no law. If this fundemental freedom can be restricted, why can we not place limits on guns. Perhaps, as one observer has suggested, we make it perfectly legal to carry the fire arms that were available at our nations founding. How may drive bys can one do with a musket?

While I sympathize with making guns more available to law abiding citizens, the one problem I have is we are basically stupid. We can't even drive right. Road rage with a gun is a bit too scary for me. I don't know that I would want to board a plane knowing some idiot could discharge his fire arm and kill us all. And what about the fools who feel compelled to show off their weapons.

I appreciate your perspective. You are clearly putting yourself in harms way and doing your best to make society better. I am just not convinced we need more guns. As the rock group observed, we should put them at the bottom of the sea before some fool comes around here and shots either you or me.

Sorry Mr. Knight, I will try and stop.

Peace
Robb in Sacramento

Hi Robb,

You wrote < As to blaming lawyers for the morass that is the American judicial
system, not even lawyers have the power to so totally screw things
up. >

No , they don't ! But unscrupulous lawyers are certainly a solid component part of the total screw up !

You wrote : < So, let lock up all the criminals.>

Okay , lets set them all free ! Especially the sex offenders as it was done in Minnesota through the " Community Corrections act " as promoted by the anti-prison lobby ! They were placed in 65 homes [ community residences] in the Minneapolis area alone ! This aberration was sold to the people with the promise that putting this scum back on the streets would not increase the risk to citizens ! and so after these "reforms" took effect , women and children of Minnesota suffered record levels of sexual violence !

You wrote : < While the prison may keep in
the criminals, the wall don't stop the criminal influence.>

This is the ploy of the powerful well funded anti-prison lobby selling deception to the American people ! The facts speak otherwise …..DR Michael Block , professor of economics and law at the University of Arizona and a former member of the United States sentencing commission , has shown that for every 10% increase in the certainty of punishment by incarceration , the violent crime rate can be expected to fall by 7% ! In contrast , the ten States with decreases or the smallest increases in their imprisonment rates averaged almost A 9% increase in their crime rate ! From 1960 the 1980's the results of getting tough on criminals were crime rates taking a significant dive ! The ten States that had the highest increase in prison population relative to total FBI index crime , experienced a decline of 20% in crime rates !
Getting tough works ! If nine thousand more criminals went to prison each year , almost 140,000 violent crimes would be prevented annually !

You wrote : < It's really hard to pick off folks from a bell tower
with most of these weapons. [ knives etc.] >

True ! I suppose it is better to die en masse by pipe bombs / fertilizer bombs among other ingenious , diabolical ways demented people would certainly perfect as time goes by !

You wrote : < I find it amazing that the NRA and other gun nuts……. >

How about anti-gun nuts ? Jeff Cooper coined a phrase I like : HOPLOPHOBIA i.e., hysterical neurosis rather than a legitimate political position ! A mental disturbance denoting unreasoning panic rather than normal fear ; irrational aversion to weapons ! A hoplophobe is not just one who holds an opposing view , he is an obsessive neurotic to whom you cannot say calmly " come lets us reason together " … as a victim of Hydrophobia will die horribly rather than accept the water that his body desperately needs , a victim of hoplophobia will die before he will accept the fallacy of his emotional fixation for what it is !

You wrote : < AND while
we are addressing absolute constitutional rights, how is it that
people believe they have a right to bear arms outside the scope of a
"well regulated militia." >

A common claim ! The self proclaimed interpreters of the constitution also ignore the 2nd amendment 's specific reference to " the rights of the people" and the fact that these rights also appear in the 4th , 9th, and 10th amendments as well , and that the courts have ruled repeatedly that these rights belong to individuals ! The Boston massacre fueled the debate of the right of the common people to be armed ! John Adams , defending one of the redcoats in the shooting acknowledged that " Here , every private person is authorized to arm himself , and on the strength of this authority , I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves for their defense , not for offense "

Then there was the British confiscation of arms and the co-authoring of the second amendment by George Mason who made a clear distinction between a "standing army" , such as a guard unit , and a 'militia' composed of private citizens ! Mason's sentiments were echoed by Samuel Adams ! Then Jefferson penned these words in the Virginia constitution of 1776 " No free man shall be debarred the use of arms within his own land "
And George Mason , in the debate on the ratification of the constitution before the Virginia assembly " I ask sir , what is the militia ? It is the whole people , except for a few public officials " In 1790 , since the population of the United States was only about 800,000 Madison wasn't referring to "State reserves" but to every able bodied man able to bear arms !

And , according to an article in the encyclopedia of the American Constitution summarizing second amendment literature in 1986 , of the 36 law review articles published since 1980 , only four support the anti-gun position !

And professor Levinson of the University of Texas law school , co-author of the standard law school text on the Constitution , in his 1989 Yale law Journal article , admits to his own embarrassment at having to conclude from his research that private gun ownership cannot be prohibited ! [ He must have hoped to find the opposite}

And Yale law professor Akhil Amar , a visiting professor of constitutional law at Columbia University , held in high repute by liberal constitution scholars , trounces the anti-gun States' rights theory , emphasizing the right to arms to " the people " !

And , professor Robert Shalhope , a non gun - owning intellectual historian , whose interest is the philosophy of the founding fathers wrote that the Madison bill established two distinct principles : 1] the right of the individual to posses arms for self defense ..2] the states retaining the right to maintain militias composed of these individually armed citizens !

You wrote : < Meanwhile, you have suggested we set aside the
fourth amendment, you know, search and seizure, so we can
protect the right to carry a gun >

Lets get one thing clear , Robb ; I did not suggest anything ; I merely reported the views of a nationally famous law enforcement officer , Lt. Strong , featured on National TV !

Secondly yours is a simplistic view ! Lt. Strong writes that law enforcement and community members know who their local criminals , gang members and drug dealers are ; but they are often stopped from taking effective action by the federal courts and laws that protect the individual 's civil liberties at the expense of the community 's needs and rights to protect families ! In 1994 a gang ridden drug infested Chicago housing project was stopped from taking tough rights intrusive , hard line measures to protect their homes and families from gang warfare when a civil liberty " Attorney" defended one gang member 's right to come and go as he pleased ! The rights of the children in that project came second !

Contrast ….1989 …California legislature banned "assault weapons " and required gun registration !
The vast majority of Californians did not register their guns !
….Orange County Register …august 16 -- 1993 --- " we estimate hundreds of citizens have been arrested and prosecuted for firearms not on the regulated list "

No , lets protect the gang -bangers from unlawful search and seizure but harass the law abiding right ?

Are you familiar with the BATF ? Of those 1982 congressional hearings , syndicated columnist Paul Craig Roberts on June 3, 1993 , for the Scripps Howard news service : " The Senate judiciary committee concluded that BATF was a rogue operation that trampled all over the second , fourth and fifth amendments to the point that the treasury department drew plans to abolish the agency ! Ronald Reagan was so outraged that he wanted to move its enforcement activities to another agency !

You wrote ;< we are basically stupid. We can't
even drive right. Road rage with a gun is a bit too scary for me.>

Again your contention is not supported by the evidence ! Look at the Florida example ; where are the predicted wild west incidents by the hoplophobes ?

Please don't stop Robb , I enjoy a good fight !

Peace ,



------------------
Van Canna

What's that smell?
Why, dang my hide if you boys haven't gone and started a Uechi-style barbecue, just when I thought this topic had been "milked" dry.

Don't let me stop you, boys! I'll just go rustle up some Carolina Bobbycue sauce while you cook a bit longer.

Bud (Mike's inner redneck)

Dear Van-

Thank you for your post up above somewhere. I do agree with everything that you wrote when you were talking generalities and tactics.

It’s true that not all women would have the necessary mindset or strength to deal with someone assaulting her. In my earlier posts, I was referring only to the discussions that my husband and I have had, and the experiences we have had in everyday life. It is a personal choice, and communication with your partner is all important.


You Wrote-
It depends on the nature of the transgression , whether in fact you feel violated , what intent you read on the aggressor's mind and so on ! You may be dealing with a drunk from a party coming down the elevator who all he wants to do is lift your skirt up to take a look at your legs and nothing more ! Does he deserve a beating or a slap to his face ?? [ happened to a friend ] __ that is your decision of the moment ; The working of the emotional mind is to a large degree , state specific dictated by the particular feelings ascendant at a given moment !! But what would you program to do in such an instance in prior discussions with your husband ??

I would hope that my husband did nothing at all, and would push the drunk away myself with a verbal warning. This is a situation where I would probably not feel threatened, and I like to consider myself a reasonable person who wants to avoid making the world a more violent place than it already is. But as you said, it depends on what I perceive the persons intentions are. Earlier, when I said that the lines drawn in the sand are different for everyone, I said so because I believe that many problems have been avoided in the past because he knows he does not need to protect me.

I'm curious to know how the other people on this thread, both male and female, would handle the same situation. Any takers?

Natalie

Dear Natalie:

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I've been busy.

You wrote:

"Stating that all women want or expect the same thing is like me saying that all men love football. "

No Natalie, all men do not love football--I don't. However, I do catch the playoffs. No, I cannot say what absolutely ALL women want.

But I do think that 99.99% of the women in the world do like to feel that their mate will fight for them if there were no way out of fighting. I am sure that there is a 0.01% body of the female human population that does not want that in a man. But I wouldn't believe a woman if she said that. I would not believe a woman if she told me that it would not bother her if her man did NOT fight to protect her or make some sort of defensive response in a situation where he stood a REASONABLE chance of winning the altercation. Have I had to fight to protect a lady? Not yet. But I've come close. Very close.

Remember, it is just my own opinion,

Cecil

P.S. To Van:

Van, I like that Pajama Karate Master metaphor. Very good. Wish I had thought up that one myself!!!

I don't understand why streetwariness is not a part of martial training--not a part of the Way for a lot of people. If fighting and staying alive on the street and handling street situations is not dealing with conflict, than I don't know what is.

------------------
Email: <A HREF="mailto:creativebrother@yahoo.com">creativebrother@yahoo.com</A>
Web Page: http://creativebrother.freehosting.net

Dr. Groder writes :

1] fear is not a simple emotion ; it is a complex set of feelings that vary from situation to situations ! Knowing where fears comes from helps to distinguish them from one another and deal with them effectively !

2] man has the REPTILIAN BRAIN i.e., the spinal cord , medulla , pons and basal ganglia ! It is concerned mainly with survival and it's major interests are the four F's …. Food, fornication , fight or flight ! Our unsociable part of our brain !

3] Mammalian brain ; nicknamed the horse brain , it rides like a cap on the reptilian brain ….filled with emotions in pairs of opposites …rage/fear ; pleasure/pain ; love/hate ! It connects us to people and environment !

4] human brain …right and left cortical hemisphere …..the left is logical , digital , mathematical , verbal and analytical !
The right is intuitive- holistic - musical -poetic-logical and visual ! Primarily non verbal !

5] the reptilian brain is the survivor and experiences primal fear and gives us only two choices : kill or flee !

6] the mammalian brain [ limbic system] experiences fear of loss i.e., emotional support , money , supplies and people you need !

7] the human brain's right side fear the loss of meaning in their lives ; [ mid-life crisis ]

8] the left side fears chaos, not having all the facts , not having everything in order !

9] : if you don't understand the origin /onset of fears , they spread and result in brain lock ! The BIG ONE ….fear triggered by the reptilian brain ,,will cause a panic attack and you become unable of doing anything in an orderly , logical fashion !

10] the commingling of fears triggers , insidiously , subliminal questioning of one's basic worth as a human being and rage ! This is the real message I and my illustrious colleagues , such as dr. knight and dr. X have been trying to get across , albeit with great difficulty !

Perceived blows to your self worth can trigger black rage and homicidal instincts such as a man in his final stages of divorce finding out his wife and her lawyer went back on their word ! The reptile brain wanted to kill the wife and her lawyer with extreme prejudice …. Or the husband's reptile brain in the elevator incident wants to kill the nipple squeezer !


------------------
Van Canna