🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3b2er2$efn@news.cs.tulane.edu>,
Frank Silbermann <fs@cs.tulane.edu> wrote:
>When karate is used against a truly violent attacker,
>you go for unprotected vital spots (e.g. front of throat)
>and you don't pull your punches.  If your life is at stake,
>you don't waste time trying to "beat him up a little."
>You go right for the kill.

In the past anti-gun posters have claimed that non-violent
arts such as Aikido could be used to defend oneself without
requiring that the attacker be killed or injured.  They have
also claimed that mace, pepper sprays, and other non-lethal
weapons were adequate.  My comments were directed at the
original anti-gun poster who claimed that firearms had
no purpose and were unnecessary in our 'civilized' society.  
 
>
>The only difference between defending yourself with karate
>vs. a gun is that karate is much riskier (the criminal
>has more chance to land a lucky blow), and is much more
>demanding in terms of training, commitment, and physical fitness.
>
 Exactly.  With a firearm you can use the distance between
you and your attacker to your advantage.  If non-violent 
conflict resolution is the goal, the threat of deadly force
can be used to end a conflict without injury to either party.
The firearm also gives you the capability to strike quickly
and effectively to end the attack if necessary.

In order to use any hand-to-hand technique you place yourself
at higher risk.  In situations where an attack begins "up close"
those techniques may be more valuable than a firearm, depending
on your training.

Karl
rehn@arlut.utexas.edu