To what extent are you willing…and capable of saving your life? If no gun were available could you …would you…are readily capable of doing so with a knife.

Would you slit an attacker’s throat?

Could you use a knife to filet three inches of forearm off of a rapist, a serial killer?

Employing a firearm for self-defense comes with the benefit of range; this not only increases your choices and gives you "breathing room" for thinking and acting, it also allows you to distance yourself – mentally and physically – from the damage you are inflicting upon your attacker. Unfortunately, a knife has none of those advantages, and thus requires an arguably different, or at least altered, mindset to employ effectively in self-defense scenarios. Knives are one of the simplest differentiators between "animal" and "man" and serve unquestionable numbers of purposes around the house and office, but they also beat bare hands when it comes to ensuring your continued breathing. But, like all tools, the efficacy of a knife is purely dependent upon the willingness of the user to employ it.

One important thing that Matthew did not touch on (but may in future posts) was a line that my old Tae Kwon Do instructor drilled into us during knife-defense training – If you get into a knife fight, you will get cut. Period. Even if you are the one with the only knife. Now, that may or may not be necessarily true in all cases at all times, but that is the mentality you need to adopt if you have resolved to use that specific tool for your self-defense, if only because then you can learn how to keep those cuts confined to non-vital areas.

- Proximity
- Class size (and which direction is preferable / ideal class size)
- Specific style
- Cleanliness
- Cost
- Separation of child/adult classes
- Testing fees
- Franchise membership / corporate backing
- Federation/association/etc. membership
- Format / formality of classes
- Complimentary style training
- Anything else you can think of to add

This is not going to be used for anything other than my own edification, so feel free to be honest.

Screwed up the Fifth Road of Tán Tuǐ* a little, and missed a step in my third staff spin during its form, but I did them all perfectly during the pre-test earlier this week, so I guess the instructor bore that in mind.  Still, it feels good to have something around my waist, even if it is a floppy little sash thingy…  (Tae kwon do belts are remarkably stiff, bordering on starched, and stay that way for a while.)

(* – The kung fu name for the first round of basic “forms”.  Translates to “springing leg” or “lake leg”.) 

Yesterday, with no change in our diet, I was still 6’2”, I weighed 160 pounds, and had about 8% body fat. 

Not too shabby for someone who spends the vast majority of his day behind a computer screen at one location or another.  So much for all those stereotypes, eh? 

He did not get it.

*sigh*

Kung-fu is kicking my ass in ways I did not even know it could be kicked (primarily through the means of “low stances”… the insides of my thighs my never forgive me), but this happy-fun exercise is definitely one of the Devil’s own creations. The good news is that this training will be just as useful on the competitive shooting field as it will be on the mat…

You will note that one weblog in particular is not listed there…

(Courtesy of the always-piquant North.)

[Update] Image appropriately linked. [/Update]

In other news, why is it that no martial arts’ uniforms have pockets? What did these guys do… carry purses?

If I ever find myself in a fight, I might lose. It’s true. It is a possibility. But there is one thing I told myself many, many years ago – someone may beat the dog out of me, but I will never be their victim.

And that mentality, I dare say, is what sets us apart. On the one hand, pro-rights activists have not only decided to never be victims themselves, they do not want anyone to be victims. On the other hand, anti-rights nuts want everyone to be victims.

To which camp would you rather belong?

Ow.

Because I think I seriously freaked out my mother-in-law by running mine through the dishwater after washing all the dishes…

Just sayin’.

“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

“I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”

…

“It’s something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign,” he said. “There are obviously a number of things that are — that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so, I’m not sure exactly what the sequencing will be.”

(Emphasis added.)
Ok now… deep breaths… we knew this was coming, boy have we known this was coming, so this should really come as no surprise to anyone.
In reality, the impending promise of a ban-on-guns-that-look-evil really is not that interesting any more… what is interesting is the rationale used to support said ban. Just becuase one of our neighboring nations cannot be bothered to keep their criminal elements in check, our Attorney General and President are proposing limiting the rights of our own law-abiding citizens. Just be cause our government, and the government of that neighboring nation, cannot be bothered to secure the border between our two nations, our Attorney General and President are proposing abridging the rights of our own law-abiding citizens. Just because criminals (in both countries) are doing what criminals do, and breaking the various laws of those countries, our Attorney General and President are proposing infringing on the rights of our own law-abiding citizens.
And that makes sense… how?
Part of the problem is that the American gun industry has been systematically demonized over the past few years, and held up as a scapegoat for the crimes being committed in Mexico, despite the accuracy of such claims being highly suspect. The above article even links to another article doing just that:

But U.S. efforts to stop the smuggling of tens of thousands of guns to Mexico, including high-powered assault weapons, have been hampered by lenient American gun laws and the Bush administration’s failure to give priority to anti-gun smuggling efforts…

Bullshit. It is illegal to sell firearms to anyone who is not a US citizen or a legal immigrant with an INS green card. It is illegal to buy a firearm for someone else (otherwise known as “straw purchases”). It is illegal for a citizen to knowingly perform a private sale with someone who is not eligible to own a firearm (someone who is not a US citizen or a legal immigrant with an INS green card). It is illegal to transport both firearms and ammunition across international boundaries without appropriate documentation. It is illegal to commit murder, and it is even more illegal to commit murder with the assistance of a firearm, both here in and in Mexico. And these are “lenient American gun laws”? If these are so ineffective, than what rational person would honestly think that another gun law would actually make a difference?
The article goes on, unfortunately:

The drug cartels’ weapons of choice include variants of the AK-47, .50-caliber sniper rifles and a Belgian-made pistol called the “cop killer” or “mata policia” because of its ability to pierce a bulletproof vest.

“It’s in high demand by your violent drug cartels, their assassins in Mexico,” said Newell of the ATF. The gun can fire a high-powered round used in a rifle.

Now, the writer is very careful not to specify which handgun he is referring to, however, anyone with a relatively firm grasp of firearms and their associated technology would know that he is obliquely referencing the FN FiveseveN, and it does use the same ammunition as its big brother, the FN P90/PS90. However (and this is a very large “however”), the ATF has ruled that the publicly-available 5.7x28mm ammunition is NOT “armor-piercing”:

FTB has also examined a 5.7 X 28 mm projectile that FN Herstal has designated the “SS196.” The SS196 is loaded with a Hornady 40 grain, jacketed lead bullet. FTB classified SS196 ammunition as not armor piercing ammunition under Federal firearms statutes.
According to FNH USA, FN Herstal tested the SS192 ammunition. SS192 ammunition did not penetrate the Level IIIA vests that were tested. FNH USA states that SS196, Hornady V-Max 40 gr. bullets fired from a 4-3/4 inch barrel did not penetrate the Level II vests that were used in testing.
FNH USA has informed FTB that SS192 is no longer imported for commercial sale to the United States and that commercial sales of 5.7 X 28mm ammunition are restricted to the SS196 (not armor piercing).

(Emphasis from the original.)
I chose this example because it more-than-adequately demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty of the hoplophobic community, and why we are finding ourselves in our current predicament. The author of this news article intentionally presented the FN FiveseveN as being capable of piercing a bulletproof vest, right out of the dealer’s cabinet, when that is a bald-faced lie. Ammunition currently described as “armor piercing” by the ATF is not legally available to civilians, so if criminals are still getting their hands on it and using it, then how is making it more-illegal going to help?
Simply put, it would not. And neither would a specious “assault weapon ban” help the crime situation in Mexico. Those criminals are already procuring their firearms through illegal and unlawful methods – yet another law on the books will do absolutely nothing, except make the lives of honest, law-abiding citizens that much more onerous.
Of course, here is a crazy idea: enforce those laws already on the books.
Better yet, do your job and secure our gorramed borders. Not only will that stem the supposed flow of firearms into Mexico, but it will also have the added benefit of decreasing the number of illegal immigrants coming into the nation, putting a hamper on the drug trade coming up from Mexico, and maybe even discouraging a big, bad terrorist or two from making use of our swiss-cheese border with Mexico to enter the country.
Four birds with one stone – I consider that a win. Unfortunately, the folks up in D.C. cannot even seem to wrap their heads around a concept that simple.
There is, potentially, some light on thie horizon, though:

In a brief interview with ABC News, Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said, “I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder’s comments right now.”

I have no doubt that he is correct, because just about every Democratic legislator remembers, or has been educated on, how many seats they lost in the 1994 election due to the pointless Assault Weapon Ban, and I seriously doubt they are willing to go through that all over again. Even Nancy Pelosi seems to be against the idea, even going so far as to use the “enforce the laws on the books” line. In reality, though, this could just be another extension of her and the new President not getting along, at all. At any rate, that light is a very dim one, due to two little words: “executive orders”, and the fact that the BATFE falls under the control of the Executive Branch of our government. The next ban-on-guns-that-look-evil might not even have to make its way through Congress before we start feeling the effects of it…
So here we are, facing down the barrel of yet another incarnation of a law that did absolutely nothing in the past (apart from the demonization of firearms), only this time we are being fed the excuse of some other country’s crime, as opposed to our own. Yeah, because the ban did so much to decrease our country’s crime (or not, as the case actually was) back when it was in effect.
*sigh*
I guess I should be happy I have my two lowers, because if the Obama-induced gun buying was bad before, it is about to get all manner of worse. My distinct lack of an upper, however… that is annoying. As for magazines, you can never have too many, right?
Even more depressing, however, is the consideration of what some people will think they need to do in response to this new ban-on-evil-looking-guns. If this new, proposed, yet-to-be-specified ban turns out to be something similar to the last one, wherein it only bans the production and sale of new products, then I seriously doubt anyone will do anything untowards – after all, the insurrectionists did a grand total of “squat” when the last ban was in effect (so much for “shooting anyone who infringes on their rights”, eh?). However, if this new ban involves registration or, God forbid, confiscation, you are going to see widespread civil disobedience, and the insurrectionists will undoubtedly believe that their time is nigh, probably even before the new ban is signed/enacted/enforced. And if there was ever anything that would guarantee that a new ban would be enacted, and enforced with an iron fist, it would be a group of insurrectionists, fulfilling their wet dreams, and providing the government and media all the material they need to permanently bias Americans against firearm-owners.
The next four years just seem to get longer and longer, every day.
Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, , third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Stageleft, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.