Blablahb said:
Ussually the more methodical violence gets, the lesser the overall damage. How do you think it comes that security guards, doormen and policemen who deal with violence on a professional basis all get trained in fighting techniques? Because it allows them to minimise the violence.
Do you know any children, or are you at least aware of them? They look a little like tiny adults, but they function very, very differently. Generally, they don't have years of experience and training in hand-to-hand combat.
If some idiot pulls a knife at work at monday, I could for instance choose to deliver a crippling kick on his liver that would incapitate him for minutes, totally safe.
You could try, I suppose. Even cursory experience in full-contact fight situations, or training from any reputable, experienced fighter would tell you that if the other person has a knife, you're getting cut if you close distance. You kick, he reflexively grabs the leg, swipes with the knife, and you begin bleeding.
Compare that to the 'American alternative' of me using a weapon to commit murder on that person, or go at him flailing my arms, hoping I'd hit something before he stabs me.
I'm going for the methodical unarmed approach in this case.
And again you're being intentionally antagonistic regarding your blatant bias against Americans. It would be better if you confined your comments to the issue, rather than painting an entire country with such broad strokes.
I've already had someone pull a knife in a fight between clients, and I talked him out of it and into putting it away without even raising a fist. If it's frustration-agression, let them wave their weapons as much as they want. If you don't kick them even further out of their tree, nothing will go wrong.
It's fortunate that you ran into someone who wasn't truly determined to use the weapon. I'd count your blessings, rather than praising your perceived genius. Again. Teenagers. We're not dealing with people that have training or experience. We're dealing with a gang of bullies that beat up on an isolated target. Try reasoning with kids like that sometime, particularly in a situation in which
they have the advantage.
So then what? Murder someone for the heck of it, and take decades of his life away from him and cause grief to his family? That's hardly a solution either.
Strawman. This wasn't "murder" and it wasn't "for the heck of it." The kid
demonstrated that he was trying to avoid the fight.
He walked away. They pursued.
Kids at that age don't even have the power to actually injure eachother with bare hands. And if they do, that's what you have a police force for: to ensure the perpetrator wishes they hadn't by the time they hear their sentence.
1. You are very gravely mistaken. Kids at that age can, with bare hands, cause serious bodily injury to each other. I've witnessed it myself, working with middle schoolers and high schoolers every day for years.
2. Let's also consider that if a group is ganging up on you, and things begin escalating, the longer it goes
the worse your chances. One of them finally decides to grab a weapon... the another... and then you're dead. Even a minimal amount of actual experience in this area would have taught you how quickly things like this can get out of hand when dealing with teens.
3. The cops? Here's how that call goes: "Hey, cops: A bunch of kids just beat me within an inch of my life. I'll try to give you the address, but with my teeth missing it might not be very clear."
Yes, carrying a weapon with the sole intent of committing murder upon someone is always wrong.
Self-defense with weapons is a myth anyway, all it does is increase the amount of violence.
And there goes any credibility you may have had. Any reputable self-defense instructor will tell you that RULE ONE is "try to run away" (This kid did) and RULE TWO is
Grab something to use to fend them off. There's no honor in going hand-to-hand, because they're not trying to play fair with you. This isn't some little point-bout in which the winner gets a nifty belt to go with his gi.
And the rest of your post is just another bias-fueled rant about what you think you know about America. Simply because you've never been in a situation doesn't mean that situation can't exist. It's easy to sit back, after the fact, forgetting that these are children, and talk about whatever class or training you think you've had that would have allowed you to Superman your way through this. Reality disagrees with you, and reality has provided countless pieces of evidence against your claims.
