Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:In Switzerland, by law people have guns as I understand it. If this is true, what is the crime rate there?

You have to remember that vitrually ever Swiss male undergoes national service, and after discharge remains active in the Swiss Milita, retaining both their weapons and a stock of ammunition (all of which are inspected regularly). After service, they can then choose to retain their weapons (in which case they are taken away and converted to non-automatic fire), or give them back.

So unlike most countries, weapons and the appropriate training and dicipline are actually combined for the majority of the population.

They also have very strict laws on gun control and use, as well as for the sale of ammunition.

All the above combined with the general level of education and high standards of living mean that rates of any crime, but especially gun crime is very low.

Relapse wrote:In the end of all this discussion, I don't think a lot people here really know how they'd react if confronted by a robber. It's all theory until you get there.

Oh I think some of us do.

I only just saw this thread, but as a Ken-Jutsu student, I'd judt like to say that the blow which appears to have killed the other guy seems to have been a standard 'kote' strike. That's about as low level as it gets, being one of the three basic cuts. It's aimed at the wrist, and is designed to slash the opponents veins, causing them to bleed to death. If this guy was killed by one of those, than it was from blood loss, and he must have been crawling around on the floor for a while before he died. I'm not too sure how long death from blood loss is, but one would have thought that there would be ample time to call the medical authorities, or at least attempt to staunch the bleeding once he passed out.

Ketara wrote: I'm not too sure how long death from blood loss is, but one would have thought that there would be ample time to call the medical authorities, or at least attempt to staunch the bleeding once he passed out.

Having worked on several cases with sword attacks and similar, even the vague description of the injuries in the original report suggest death would be in a matter of minutes. Staunching the blood flow from a severed or mostly-servered arm is really hard. You'd need a tourniquet, fast, and a decent amount of luck. If the chest wound damaged a lung, major blood vessel or heart, you pretty much need a paramedic on-hand to prevent very rapid death from combined blood loss. Obviously, there are cases of people surviving far worse injuries, but those are the lucky few rather than the norm.

I would suggest that if you don't want someone bleeding to death in front of you, hit them with something other than a sword. Sharp metal plus adrenaline makes for some hideous damage very, very quickly.

M.

His hand was nearly cut off... and you bleed to death really really quickly.

Anyone who has had a serious open wound would know this. The movies portray death as some epic fight to survive, when more oft than not, you die in a matter of minutes from such wounds.

No ambulance could have saved this guy, especially when he got cut twice, and rest assured that this kid was not in the mood to stop the bleeding.

From reading a few more posts, and reviewing some of the article, this kid seems to have intentionally "hunted" this guy down. Going all the way from the house to the garage is just odd to me, especially when a freaking sword is this cat's self defense weapon of choice.

If I have the opportunity, I would use a paintball gun just for kicks . The hilariousness and ability to quickly incapacitate someones vision would not be short lived.

Pepper paintballs... that is so boss.

Well seeing as he had already been done over I'm guessing his car might have been the only thing worth serious $ he had left.

Not his sword though, he's lucky he's got an understanding roomie or he might have been stabbed when he took it without consent.

Yeah I changed my post to another picture summing up my thoughts on the event

Just a quick explanation for the non-martial artists out there...

Ken-Jutsu is a term that encompasses most Japanese styles and techniques with a blade. It's learning how to handle and kill with different weapons, ranging from the basic Katana, to Kodachi, Wakizashi, and so on. Kendo, Battojutsu, Iai-jutsu and more, all these are specialised fields in, or derivatives of Ken-Jutsu. It's a rare dojo that teaches Ken-Jutsu, most specialise in something like Kendo or Aikido, which will only teach you to use a blade in a specific way(although there are some key principles common to virtually all the arts)

Batto-Jutsu is about drawing your sword, and slashing your opponent in one lightning fast smooth attack, and then resheathing it, as opposed to keeping a blade out, and fighting with it.

I'm not too sure the Kenpachi v Ichigo picture is quite relevant, as Kenpachi(the large guy in white) wields a blade with one hand. Whilst this is possible, unless you specialise in one of the styles that has a weapon in each hand, you would use both hands to grip your sword. Here's a good example between Kendoka.

So you read my post before it was changed then?
The reason I changed it is I don't really like to talk about it all that much.

The way I meant the picture was the position of the sword and the description given about the wounds on the guy. They can't even find the weapon the other guy had which is why I mentioned the weapon as "knife". Kenpatchi would be the one with the "knife" in that picture.

Battojutsu usually leaves the sword in one hand as the other holds the saya. Because of how you have to draw the weapon to attack it's generally a good idea to also know an unarmed style equally as well. I see it more of a counter attack like style, rather than just attacking them out right.

Obviously he just swang it at him and there really wasn't a style. It looks like they just went for the weapon, maybe in an attempt to knock it away.

Too much color highlights in posts - eyes bleeding!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:You have to remember that vitrually ever Swiss male undergoes national service, and after discharge remains active in the Swiss Milita, retaining both their weapons and a stock of ammunition (all of which are inspected regularly). After service, they can then choose to retain their weapons (in which case they are taken away and converted to non-automatic fire), or give them back.

So unlike most countries, weapons and the appropriate training and dicipline are actually combined for the majority of the population

So? Most personal gun owners in the US are also trained, often ex-military.

But really, a military assault rifle is unwieldy for home defense. I'd rather have a shotgun or handgun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:If I have the opportunity, I would use a paintball gun just for kicks . The hilariousness and ability to quickly incapacitate someones vision would not be short lived.

Pepper paintballs... that is so boss.

*Bleach* paintballs... That would be awesome!

JohnHwangDD wrote:Too much color highlights in posts - eyes bleeding!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:You have to remember that vitrually ever Swiss male undergoes national service, and after discharge remains active in the Swiss Milita, retaining both their weapons and a stock of ammunition (all of which are inspected regularly). After service, they can then choose to retain their weapons (in which case they are taken away and converted to non-automatic fire), or give them back.

So unlike most countries, weapons and the appropriate training and dicipline are actually combined for the majority of the population

So? Most personal gun owners in the US are also trained, often ex-military.

But really, a military assault rifle is unwieldy for home defense. I'd rather have a shotgun or handgun.

How about we say their culture is different enough that pretending that just using one barometer to determine something about the firearm issue is not very useful, or valid.

Stopping people from owning guns for target shooting and hunting is unfair to those who want to pursue those hobbies. There have been cases of gun control helping in the US and hurting in the US, but ultimately it's the motivation for the crimes that's behind the huge amount of armed violence in America.

Bullet control man... it is the only way, and Chris Rock shall guide us unto the light... epic pause... and thus we shall be one with him that is the, erm... tapioca pudding? No... Banana cream pie, that shall be so duly noted as such we deem to be as fit as a pigeon... or a horse rather, that makes more sense.

Relapse wrote:In the end of all this discussion, I don't think a lot people here really know how they'd react if confronted by a robber. It's all theory until you get there.

Yeah, exactly.

And I bet you wouldn't be trying to calculate if the intruder has stolen $499 or $501 dollars to check if he's a felon and legally open to heavier retaliation.

One thing that I hadn't seen discussed yet is, is it self defense to kill an intruder because you are afraid, that if you let them go, they may come BACK with more buddies.

I don't know if that kind of fear makes it legally justifiable to end someones life if they had entered you abode, but I certainly can see someone not wanting to risk retaliation from said robber if he escaped.

Just throwing that out there.

GG

no not legal. Generally its a standard of fear of immenent harm to yourself or another person. obviously there are codicils to that depending on state.

@gg: You can be in mortal fear that there are more of them nearby outside, who are also going to attack you...

And again, if they move toward you, that's an aggressive move.

Perhaps if there were multiple intruders in your house you may be forced to kill one because you can't let him run and regroup with the others and you can't injure him and then turn your back on him to go after someone else?

It doesn't seem like a very probable circumstance at any rate, unless you have a history with the mafia or something.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Perhaps if there were multiple intruders in your house you may be forced to kill one because you can't let him run and regroup with the others and you can't injure him and then turn your back on him to go after someone else?

It doesn't seem like a very probable circumstance at any rate, unless you have a history with the mafia or something.

Way too much thinking. Better to be

AH AH intruder I'm afraid

blam blam

Frazzled wrote:

Relapse wrote:In the end of all this discussion, I don't think a lot people here really know how they'd react if confronted by a robber. It's all theory until you get there.

Oh I think some of us do.

Hence my use of the phrase a lot. I've known people that by their talk, you'd think would drink blood from the skulls of those who offend them, but when it came down to a nasty situation, they'd be the first to run. On the other hand I've also seen people that were really quiet turn into frothing maniacs when it got time to fight.

wrexar, you're a lot smarter then you seem at first glance.

You've earned a bonus point : )

I like the way I'm portrayed as some lunatic by having my words switched around.

Look, I know my states laws. I've read the statutes. 4 of my buddies are cops, another dozen (including the cops) are military or ex-military. I think I know the damn laws concerning MY state of Mn. So unless you live here (and nobody in this thread that I'm aware of does in fact live in MN) I believe I know the law for my state better than you.

I also believe in my right, granted to me by the US Constitution to own a handgun, m16, shotgun, ak47, m1 garand, etc. etc. etc. Just because some of you feel that the US would be a happy place where we all get along and sing Kumbaya around a campfire if it weren't for the 2nd amendment granting us the right to own a gun does not make your opinion right and mine somehow wrong.

Seriously, if you honestly want to believe someone breaking into your house has no intention of committing a crime (and they already have unless your state doesn't consider B&E and trespassing a crime) than I will not feel pity or remorse when they steal your plasma tv and your movie collection and then kill you and your entire family because "well, I thought shouting at him and threatening him with my spork in a non-violent way would make him realize the error of his ways."

Banning guns to citizens would not deter those obtaining them illegally. Gun running is huge and some assault rifles, like ak47's, are so damn cheap that even a jobless thug could obtain them fairly easily. Sell 1 pound of marijuana and viola, enough cash for 2-3 ak47's.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Stopping people from owning guns for target shooting and hunting is unfair to those who want to pursue those hobbies. There have been cases of gun control helping in the US and hurting in the US, but ultimately it's the motivation for the crimes that's behind the huge amount of armed violence in America.

Yeah, pretty much. Where there's poverty and drugs there'll be violent crime, whether you have guns or not.

There's another issue with gun culture and paranoia, but that's not something gun control can address.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:One thing that I hadn't seen discussed yet is, is it self defense to kill an intruder because you are afraid, that if you let them go, they may come BACK with more buddies.

I don't know if that kind of fear makes it legally justifiable to end someones life if they had entered you abode, but I certainly can see someone not wanting to risk retaliation from said robber if he escaped.

Just throwing that out there.

GG

I think it's pretty dubious. I mean, imagine that Dave's buddies are waiting for him for him to get back from breaking in to ol' man Peterson's joint. Dave gets back to his buddies, he's breathing heavy and sweating, and he tells them it's because Peterson had a gun, so Dave turned and legged it out of the house and ran all the way back.

Or imagine scenario two, where Dave's buddies are waiting for him to get back from ol' man Peterson's house when they hear a shot. Dave doesn't come back, and they find out the next day Dave was shot in the back when he was running away.

Which scenario do you think is more likely to lead to the gang coming after ol' man Peterson?

I want to shake this kids hand and pat him on the back.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Too much color highlights in posts - eyes bleeding!

Indeed :(

So? Most personal gun owners in the US are also trained, often ex-military.

I gather that because the US does not believe in state funding for anything, a lot of people wanting to go to university will go through via an army/navy/etc placement, meaning that a large proportion of your population will have been trained by the armed forces. However, that is a far cry from national service, where everyone of the correct age range (unless otherwise disqualified by mental health issues, etc) serves.

I also know that the US has quite a large active reserves list (about 850,000 I believe), and an even larger "ex-service" list (due to the high through put of your armed forces), but again, that is still a relatively small proportion of your population that is trained to perhaps the highest standards, those of the armed forces.

Even more so than America (though I would not have thought it possible), guns are engrained into the Swiss way of life. Given the vast number of guns in the country, there are relatively few gun crimes (or crimes all together) with "34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault" in 2006 for example.

But really, a military assault rifle is unwieldy for home defense. I'd rather have a shotgun or handgun.

I would rather there be no guns, and have some kind of blunt instrument to hand.

SilverMK2 wrote:

I would rather there be no guns, and have some kind of blunt instrument to hand.

Well, you live in the UK. Wish granted.

Lordhat wrote:Well, you live in the UK. Wish granted.

I was talking about in a generalised way, rather than in relation to any specific nation.

However, the lack of guns is one reason that I am happier to live in the UK than I would perhaps be to live in the USA. Though I have to say that the times I have visited the US I have not really noticed the gun culture (other than seeing the odd gun shop in the shopping centres, or "malls" as you heathens call them ).

Though it is sad that our law makers have now made it almost impossible to go shooting in the UK. I would love to be more free to go target shooting here.

But when it comes to the theoretical break in of my house, wherever it is located, I would rather there be little to no chance of guns being involved than for guns to be a very real possibility, either on one or both sides.

frgsinwntr wrote:wrexar, you're a lot smarter then you seem at first glance.

You've earned a bonus point : )

I knew I heard something behind me... Where are you man... TELL ME!!!

Here is an AP clip summarizing the whole situation. One thing that strikes me as odd is that this guy "theoretically" stole the guys game system a few hours earlier. This story does not add up for me at any rate, but I don't think that the kid should be charged anyway though.

There is definitely a point to be had about him going from the house to the garage (which was entirely separate apparently), which I find to be a bit odd and vigilante-like, but at least in some way within his "feasible rights". Running into a dark area like a samurai just reeks of this kid being totally hyped to murder, that is all.

SilverMK2 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Most personal gun owners in the US are also trained, often ex-military.

However, that is a far cry from national service,

a relatively small proportion of your population that is trained to perhaps the highest standards, those of the armed forces.

National conscription isn't such a great benefit, nor does it drive high standards - ask Russia. I'm not impressed.

But really, a military assault rifle is unwieldy for home defense. I'd rather have a shotgun or handgun.

I would rather there be no guns, and have some kind of blunt instrument to hand.

I would rather that retards not break into people's homes.

But as they do so, they should get whatever the hell that they deseve.

And if we honest, innocent taxpayers can be saved the cost of trail and incarceration, so much the better.

JohnHwangDD wrote:And if we honest, innocent taxpayers can be saved the cost of trail and incarceration, so much the better.

More or less.

*prisons create career criminals... cough cough*