Jump to content

Anyone do self defense? Lets all help each other?


Recommended Posts

Yeah, I've done Aikido in t-shirts and was still man handled. I disagree with most of what you have said, but I would point this out...since learning Aikido I have learned to keep myself out of situations where I might get a gun pointed at me...

There are several schools of Aikido, some focus on the more spiritual side, I was fortunate enough to have a teacher that was more interested in abusing us. And I say that in the most endearing sense. Very physical.

Also, you are almost never to grab an opponent, I was always chastised for it. It has more to do with flowing with them. I've only had to use it once, and contrary to the pricipals of Aikido, I destroyed the guy...a good friend of mine had to use it against a cowboy who attacked him with a golf club...that guy went to the hospital, then jail. I think you may have seen some bad pseudo-Aikido. I would check out US Aikido Federation or Hombu Dojo, they are true to the founder's ways. But we each choose our own path, mines been Aikido and it has helped me tremendously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A few more points on Aikido and martial arts...

Concerning guns...

Very, very, very rarely are you going to find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun...unless you've already made some unwise choices...(like chasing down some guy for cutting you off, or anyother circumstance where you could avoid conflict but instead choose to escalate it)

But it can happen and the basic rule is...charge a gun, run from a knife...it's very logical...if you run from a gun it allows the attacker to take aim...as for a knife, even if the attacker is some master ninja it would be hard if not impossible to kill you as you flee. If you don't know the proper techniques, maybe you should do whatever you are told...but that can be even deadlier...like when they tell you to lay face down.

Aikido is meant to promote harmony, that is why the uke (attacker) is supposed to flow with the nage (defender) in Aikido practice. But that is for the benefit of the attacker, if he does not flow it will been the destruction of tendons and joints. And these are your friends you are practicing with, why would you want to hurt them. I have to admit, I thought it was hokey to when I first saw it...but then theres a big difference between seeing and experiencing. The ultimate goal of Aikido is not to destroy your opponent, but to show them the error of their ways and put them back in harmony. Concerning my experience with using it...I was a very angry young man at the time I used it. I really didn't have to, I chose to use it and violated the teachings. I have since had other "opportunities" to use it, but have not, and guess what, I'm still a man and still haven't had a gun in my face.

Like they say...There are many paths to the summit of Mount Fuji...Aikido has worked for me in keeping myself and my family safe...I hope others may go and experience it (not merely see it) as well. I only have a small amount of MA experience outside of Aikido (a little jujitsu) but my instructor had belts in jujitsu, wing chun, judo, and I think some others...he assured me Aikido was what worked best...I take his word for it after having experienced it.

I would also like to add, I was fortunate to have an instructor who appreciated practical aspects of self defense-some Aikido schools won't apply joint looks to the point of having to tap out...ours did. At seminars we attended, other schools thought ours was pretty nuts because we enjoyed throwing and pinning each other so "aggresively" and we were smiling the whole time! Because we were having fun, and no one was getting hurt! The nature of Aikido allows you to practice at full speed with out getting hurt...but accidents can happen. Saw a few broken bones.

That's my 2 cents...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what both of you are saying, and don't think Aikido is a bad MA at all.

 

I just personally believe anyone, trained at any level of a traditional MA, will not be able to defend themselves at all times in all situations. If someone wants to kill you or hurt you, no matter what you have learned, they can do it. You could be walking in a crowd or down stairs and someone could hit you in the head with a bat from behind and you'd have no idea. You can be shot from a distance. Also, most MA's do not teach you how to be hit or build up your resilience to pain. This also doesn't help in reality. You need to have things broken, be head-butted, be punched, kicked, and hurt, in order to a) not be afraid and b) have the stamine/pain resistance to continue. Many MA's train in padding, or have off limit areas or things you can do, which are detrimental to quick reflexes of striking vital areas. In fact the training is almost counter-productive since it does this.

 

Muay Thai is one that I can think of that accomplishes these aspects.

 

And LIB - I knew you were a gunman!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Muy Thai has always interested me, but I know next to nothing about it...

But be serious...why would some just randomly club you from behind? Unless maybe you've already made some pretty bad choices. This is part of the reason Morehei Uesheba founded Aikido...when he was younger he studied under some jujitsu guy who was one of the last roaming samurais. He saw how he was tormented in his sleep by those he had cut down, as well as constantly looking over his shoulder for those who would avenge thos e he had killed! That is why Aikido is as it is.

As for suprising an Aikidoist from behind...I wouldn't recommend it. I use to always sneak up on a fellow Aikidoist and grab or push him from behind, knowing that I quickly needed to let go and move out of distance or risk serious pain. Once I was too slow and almost lost my arm at the elbow. Yikes! The idea is if I let go...where's the danger? It's when you grab hold and try to hold on that an Aikido practitioner can do some serious damage! In Aikido, alittle resistance means a little pain...massive resistance means massive pain!!!!

I was very fond of resisting as you suggested when I first took up the art...I learned not too for my own safety!

A friend of mine recently showed me some Aiki-jujitsu-an early version of Aikido that was truer to its Jujitsu roots-Yikes!!!!!That stuff was brutal! Imagine if you know the lingo- Ikkyo wrist lock, bent at the waist...step over shoulder with inside leg...kick in neck/jaw/nose...pull back arm while centering weight on shoulder rotator!!!! There's 2 snapped joints and broken jaw/nose and opponent is completely immobilized!! The founder modified this to be less damaging...now the same moves simply immobilize without long term damage...unless there is resistance...then snap...it's a nice remimnder that you are out of harmony and need to get back quickly before you get hurt!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken jiu jitsu on and off for years. id have to say for a one on one fight there is nothing better. However if your gonna get jumped by a few guys I would say that youd be screwed. However I think in reality even with other MA training you would be screwed if 5 big guys tried to jump you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found that with any MA training you're chances of getting in fights goes down dramatically...and your chances of getting jumped by 5 guys goes down even more!

I think you all are underestimating Aikido...to reach Shodan (1st blackbelt) you have to take on 4 guys at the same time for an indefinite amount of time...I've heard stories of it going close to a half hour! Nidan is 5 guys. The constant motion allows you to take on many attackers...I've seen it work! And it basically is Jujitsu just with a bit more control so as to prevent the joint and tendon destruction and also you don't get tied up with one person which allows you to take on numerous attackers.

 

But I have to concede...it's all about technique, and it might take some one years to get some of the more effective techniques down. Because I'm not sure about some of my Aikido, I might be tempted to do Jujitsu in certain situations.

Some one said earlier that strong guys could resist some joint manipulation...thats not true if you know your technique...I'm 185 lbs and have been completely manhandled by a 105 lbs woman...not too mention the 5" 2' 100lbs 70 year old who made me feel like a rag doll!

One of the things that makes Jujitsu so effective is the intensity of the training. I've met very few "weekend Jujitsu warriors"...they are usually WAY into it...and all that training makes the difference for them...like they say...no superior martial art, only superior martial artists! But having said that, everyone thinks their MA is the best...that's why they study it...I'm guilty too

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading what yall have posted and yall have made some very good comments. I think that all martial arts have advantages and disadvantages. I have had a LOT of self defense training. I have had muy thai, BJJ, aikido (mostly joint locks and submissions relating to those locks), and numerous clasees that have a little of various styles thrown in there. I apply these defensive (and offensive) tactics at work often, and I have seen what works and doesnt work for me. Key words...for me...What works for some doesnt work for others. I have put huge guys in wrist locks and arm bars, and they go to their knees. Other guys are out of it before it is locked in, or even worse, i have had them look at me like i was an idiot. Then what do you do. Think quickly, change tactics, and hit or kick damn hard. I am in the process now of gettin back into my martial arts training. My personal feeling is that you need to train in various disciplines. Aikido is great, with limitations. Muy Thai is great, as long as you are on your feet. BJJ is great, but what if they guy you are goin up against has a great sprawl. What you gonna do when u cant get him down. It will happen. By no means do i consider myself an expert. I just have seen what works for me. Hope that helped. If not, then i worked on my typin skills.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Next poll.... "Can vegans have guns?"

 

Why couldn't we? Even Canadians can!

 

Vegans are supposed to be peaceful animal loving beings, that are definitley against killing. Guns are not a form of self-defense or a form of peace-keeping, rather they create unharmonious and crime ridden societies. This is proven throughout the world, in those nations where guns are illegal or prohibited to the general public, the nations are more peaceful and have less crime. Just look at Japan and the UK. Even the general police don't need to carry guns.

 

It is also a complete waste of natural resources to manufacture guns, ammunition, and most technology is first designed/tested by the military/police and is also tested on animals for "effectiveness" such as peircing ability, and the industries that create guns are the same that provide weapons for other very bad sectors such as the military and used for wars, which means your money goes towards supporting very bad people and supressing other nations and the killing of other people! If guns were not made or the companies not supported, then less people would die and society would be more peaceful.

 

I know all the arguments that well if we didn't have guns then people could invade and kill us and would couldn't defend ourselves..etc..etc... well, India managed to defeat the brits without arms didn't they? There are peaceful ways to shape society and fight against supressors. And killing is never the answer. I think Vegans should not have guns.

 

Bad Lib! That's two strikes!!!!!

Edited by veganmonk
Link to post
Share on other sites

But be serious...why would some just randomly club you from behind? Unless maybe you've already made some pretty bad choices.

 

This is serious! Today's society is crime ridden, and there are many wackos out there. Why would some guy chop up people and put their body parts in his fridge? Why do some men rape and kill women or children? Why do some teenagers get pleasure out of beating up people in gangs/groups just for fun?

 

There is truth to what you say, that those that are in bad crowds, or associate themselves in bad scenes, are much more likely to get in trouble. However, even a peaceful person can be attacked, such as after leaving a bank machine, someone could have watched you from afar, see you take out cash, and either themselves or over a cell tell someone else to club you in the head from behind or gang up on you in a corner, for money. Woman/children have even more to be afraid of from all the nutcase men that have sanity issues.

 

There are so many unpredictable situations, and this is why it is best to learn what is not taught in traditional MA, techniques that are used and practices for the purpose of disabling a person very easily, and in any situation. These as I truly believe, are things such as groin hits, peircing eyes, palm strikes to the nose/jaw, and other critical point styles, and taught in ways that you know how to use them on the ground, when being grabbed from behind/in-front, etc..etc.. These need to be VERY simple techniques, one strike motions. You also need to be taught the mental and street smart techniques, which are not MA related at all, but how to deal mentality and verbally in certain situations, such as saying or acting in certain ways to make a situation to your advantage (ie: a woman pretend to go along with a raper to give an opportunity to strike hard at the groin, or some other mental or physical trick, such as tossing your wallet in one direction and running in another, there are so many of these types of things that are simply not taught in MA.

 

My major point, is that most MA restrict you from learning or using vital/critical point techniques, due to sport rules and/or protecting other students. They also do not teach you how to take a beating, thus building up your actual experience and courage.

 

I'm not a fighter or a violent person, but I have been in situations ever since elementary school, throughout highschool, and after. Because I've been in fights, I can say the majority end with 1 hit, or when someone gives you their best shot and you just stand there and it had no effect, they are a bit in shock. For example, getting headbutted in the face (nose), and just standing there as if nothing happened and talking like normal or even laughing. That really intimidates someone and pretty much stops it right there. These kinds of things only come if you are used to being in fights and can take some massive shots. (not saying I can do this anymore by the way, so nobody test this on me please - it is just an opinion from prev experience when my nose was broken)

 

Luckily, I've not been involved in any such bad things for 10 years now, and none of it was because I was doing anything wrong, or in a bad scene, it is just the nature of some guys, they like to fight and will do so if you just look at them for a second, cut them off in traffic by mistake, or they are just insane. I once accidentally cut off a car and the car pulled up beside me and two steroid monkies came out with a bat and wanted to kill me, I apologized, and they still wanted to beat me up just because of an accident that I apologized for? Insane.... I was also once followed by a group of 4 guys from highschool, who I didn't know, and for no reason, they just wanted to beat me up and started hitting me with some sticks they made and tossing rocks at me? What did I do? Nothing? What could I do? Walk away, and that's what I did. But that's when they started throwing the rocks

Link to post
Share on other sites

VM,

 

I am / strive to be a peaceful person and generally oppose killing. The reason I own guns is primarily for self-defense & they are definitely valuable for that purpose. In some situations they are the best or only option.

 

Guns are not a form of self-defense or a form of peace-keeping, rather they create unharmonious and crime ridden societies. This is proven throughout the world, in those nations where guns are illegal or prohibited to the general public, the nations are more peaceful and have less crime. Just look at Japan and the UK. Even the general police don't need to carry guns.

 

Sorry, this is simply false my friend. This issue has been discussed in depth in the Liberals with Guns thread here and at VF. Quick version: Guns are only one part of any society's issues with crime/violence. If anything, guns in the hands of normal folks who have them for self-defense and/or sporting purposes make a society safer with less violence and crime. The UK a peaceful place? Last I heard, violence and crime there is rising and is already at the highest levels in the "developed" world!

 

I largely agree with much of the rest of what you wrote but that has very little to do with civilian gun ownership. Even in the US, the vast majority of

guns & ammo go to the military and police forces - which I advocate abolishing asap!

 

"If guns were not made or the companies not supported, then less people would die and society would be more peaceful."

 

Maybe but I seriously doubt it. More likely folks who like to hurt others would simply find other ways to do it. Realistically, guns are here to stay and I'd rather not have the military, police and other criminal thugs be the only ones armed!

 

I am no expert on the subject but from what I've read the Brits left India primarily for economic reasons, and they were only hurried along by the Indian peoples resistance - which included armed resistance. Our dear Ghandi advocated that people take up arms if they could not hold to the strictest form of nonviolence and also spoke of the Brits disarming the Indian people as amoung the "darkest" of their attacks.

 

"And killing is never the answer." The "answer"? To what? It sure beats being killed, raped or permanently disabled - and these are the only times I advocate using firearms.

 

"Bad Lib! That's two strikes!!!!!"

 

Do I get a prize when I hit my third strike? :lol

Edited by loveliberate
Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much support gun ownership. I dont think gun legalization promotes crime at all. I think the deep racial and social inequalities that are a major part of america today are the cause of these problems. If you take away gun ownership from the average citizen, then you allow the government complete control over its own population. One of the main purposes for the 2nd amendment was the ability for the people to rise up against their government if they felt it nessecary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I very much support gun ownership. I dont think gun legalization promotes crime at all. I think the deep racial and social inequalities that are a major part of america today are the cause of these problems. If you take away gun ownership from the average citizen, then you allow the government complete control over its own population. One of the main purposes for the 2nd amendment was the ability for the people to rise up against their government if they felt it nessecary.

 

Great to hear that! Lots of folks here feel the same. Personally, I see it as a human rights issue - as VeganMonk points out there are far too many situations where we may be forced to defend ourselves and we need to have the option to do so as we choose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Killing others with guns is not the way to defend yourself. What if a gang is attacking you, maybe you should legalize grenades for those situations

 

Other countries can and do live just fine without them, and have lower rates of crime than the USA.

 

Also, you americans aren't doing a very good job of rising against your suppressive world dominating illegal militant government that is in power right now are you?

 

Why is it that you think people have to rise up by using violence? Violence is not the solution to problems, it never has been. Peaceful non-cooperative methods have been proven to work the best. A government has no power in a society that does not cooperate. Killing everyone would be useless. Ghandi and India proved this against the suppressive English, without violence.

 

The key lies in an educated, unified, and peaceful society, not in guns and violence.

 

Governments no longer control their populations through force anyway. It is done through media brainwashing and propaganda. The governments rely on people to do all the work. The only way they remain in power, is if the majority of people support them and continue to work in the society.

 

If you wanted to take your government out of power, the majority of people simply need to stop going to work and society them comes to a halt, and government change needs to occur to rectify the situation. People can rise up without taking arms.

 

And, supposedly you are not living in a militant regime that and are in a democratic system, whereby there the people elect their representative government, and if they are not doing as expected, there are processes to impeach and re-elect, etc. Supposedly there is a proper legal and peaceful process to deal with these things. We're not in the dark ages? If the government takes force with military power, people and their little guns don't have a chance anyway. Will you shoot down planes and tanks?

Edited by veganmonk
Link to post
Share on other sites
Killing others with guns is not the way to defend yourself.

 

Other countries can and do live just fine without them, and have lower rates of crime than the USA.

 

Also, you americans aren't doing a very good job of rising against your suppressive world dominating illegal militant government that is in power right now are you?

 

Why is it that you think people have to rise up by using violence? Violence is not the solution to problems, it never has been. Peaceful non-cooperative methods have been proven to work the best. A government has no power in a society that does not cooperate. Killing everyone would be useless. Ghandi and India proved this against the suppressive English, without violence.

 

The key lies in an educated, unified, and peaceful society, not in guns and violence.

 

 

Come on! I just could not disagree with this more. Your points are very idealistic to say the least. No one here is saying that non violent means of revolution arent effective forms of fighting opression. We are simply pointing out that militant and peacful means can be used to create change. Malcom X was just as beneficial to the civil rights movement as Martin Luther King, the same could be said of the black panthers. Also, what about the Zapatistas? They use violence as an effective means to an end. Violence is not a good thing, in this aspect you are right. However, to say that violence is never nessecary is just plain false. Should we have marched into Nazi Germany with peace banners, and protest chants? Also you are right to say that an educated, peacful, unified society is the key to happiness however this just isnt consistent with the world we live in. Your point about crime is rather bias, especially considering 99% + of gun crimes are commited with guns that are illegally obtained. So how would making guns illegal stop this problem? The only way to stop gun crime is end the inequality that promotes it. PERIOD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are these illegally obtained guns coming from? Wouldn't it reduce the overall availability of guns in the USA if it were illegal for citizens to have them, thus reducing the number of guns in the society, and less stolen ones, less being produced, less in stores that can be stolen, etc..etc.. thus making it harder to obtain by criminals?

 

There are also quite a few tragic deaths by kids/teens shooting others with guns they can get from there own houses (and you can blame the parents for not keeping it thoroughly locked away, but then again, if it is too securely locked away, what is the point, as in an emergency, how could they get to it quickly?)

 

All I know is I would never want to live in a society full of guns, and knowing that anyone and everyone has them. That doesn't feel safe to me at all, and sounds like a very hostile culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

VM,

 

I respect your opinions and your choices and I hope you feel the same about mine. That's the primary issue - choice/freedom. I'd prefer to discuss these issues in person so I wont go into great detail with my reply here.

 

Guns have a place as a self-defense tool. If you dont think so, fine - dont get one. I'm pretty sure grenades are legal for private folks here in Oregon by the way.

 

"Other countries can and do live just fine without them, and have lower rates of crime than the USA."

 

Which countries and crime are you referring to? I'm not aware of any countries where no one has guns...

 

I do not advocate using violence or force to change political or social problems and I wont argue for it.

 

Why do you just focus on the USA amigo? There are many countries to look at - you seemed to ignore my response to what you said about the UK... Canada, as one other example, has a comparitively high level of gun ownership, fairly tight victim disarmament (aka "gun control" laws) and rising rates of violence, both with and without firearms - what about ya'll?

 

The vast majority of us folks who own guns for self-defense or sport will never use our guns to harm anyone so why should we be punished for what criminals do?

 

There are serious problems with the misuse of guns and these problems must be addressed. The answer is education and personal responsability - not prohibition and bans.

 

The answer to keeping a gun safely ready for use in an emergency and not accessible to kids, etc is to keep it under your direct control at all times and to educate the kids in what the misuse of a firearm can cause while allowing them to handle/use the guns safely any time they like - with proper supervision.

 

You DO live in "a society full of guns" my friend. Also, I have guns, did/do you honestly find me to be a hostile person?

Edited by loveliberate
Link to post
Share on other sites
Where are these illegally obtained guns coming from? Wouldn't it reduce the overall availability of guns in the USA if it were illegal for citizens to have them, thus reducing the number of guns in the society, and less stolen ones, less being produced, less in stores that can be stolen, etc..etc.. thus making it harder to obtain by criminals?

 

There are also quite a few tragic deaths by kids/teens shooting others with guns they can get from there own houses (and you can blame the parents for not keeping it thoroughly locked away, but then again, if it is too securely locked away, what is the point, as in an emergency, how could they get to it quickly?)

 

All I know is I would never want to live in a society full of guns, and knowing that anyone and everyone has them. That doesn't feel safe to me at all, and sounds like a very hostile culture.

 

 

You pretty much side tracked my point about violence being nessecary. and to your other point, guns would just get smuggled in the very same way drugs do. Making them illegal wouldnt solve anything except make it so that the average everyday law biding citizen would not be able to have them. If history has shown us anything, simply making something illegal does not solve the problems associated with those things. i.e. prohibition. As long as there is demand there will be supply. By reversing the inequalities that promote the demand for these guns you could stifle gun crimes.

Edited by xdarthveganx
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can buy grenades???? I think I'd prefer to host you guys in Vancouver rather than come to Portland

 

Scroll down on this page a bit to see the table, correlating gun control/ownership/resctriction percentages of nations to gun related deaths:

 

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html#access

 

I respect others rights to have their own opinions, but I can't say I agree with them!

 

If guns = Peace, than nukes must = heavenly bliss. So we should allow all nations to have nukes in order to promote a peaceful planet. In fact, everyone should have a nuke at home, just in case they felt threatened by a neighbouring country someday, they could quickly kill them off and maintain peace.

Edited by veganmonk
Link to post
Share on other sites
You can buy grenades???? I think I'd prefer to host you guys in Vancouver rather than come to Portland

 

Scroll down on this page a bit to see the table, correlating gun control/ownership/resctriction percentages of nations to gun related deaths:

 

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html#access

 

I respect others rights to have their own opinions, but I can't say I agree with them!

 

If guns = Peace, than nukes must = heavenly bliss. So we should allow all nations to have nukes in order to promote a peaceful planet. In fact, everyone should have a nuke at home, just in case they felt threatened by a neighbouring country someday, they could quickly kill them off and maintain peace.

 

 

you keep ignoring my points. But whatever

Link to post
Share on other sites

VM,

No one said that "guns = Peace". What is obvious is that having folks owning them for personal defense and/or sport does not = more violence.

And you Canadians can and do own plenty of guns, etc. As an example, here's a local (for you) Van. City gunshop: http://www.leverarms.com

Amazingly most folks here seem to do just fine. You wont likely see guns here (excluding cops & the like) unless you want to. But if you host a meet-up in Vancouver I'd love to come up! Maybe we can even go out shooting together! Did I mention that Canada's gun laws are LESS restrictive than those of the US about folks from other countries owning and/or useing guns?

Edited by loveliberate
Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada sucks! But I've never met anyone that owned a gun, and our annual deaths by guns pale in comparison to the states, even if you factor in the population difference. All I can think of is all of our guns belong to hunters/sport, and there are no home owners buying them for defense.

 

I had no idea our regulations were less strict, but that would explain our rise in gun crime I suppose

 

xdarthveganx, didn't mean to ignore, I didn't notice all the posting going on. I agree with your points on the societal problems being a factor for sure. I think fear is one of the biggest issues, and people in the US are pumped way too much full of fear. I do however think that making things illegal, makes them less obtainable, thus reducing the overall problem, but agree, that it would never stop smuggling of a product that is still manufactured outside the nation that banned it. The world needs global government cooperation to deal with large scale issues like gun control.

 

Have either of you watched bowling for columbine?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Canada sucks! But I've never met anyone that owned a gun, and our annual deaths by guns pale in comparison to the states, even if you factor in the population difference. All I can think of is all of our guns belong to hunters/sport, and there are no home owners buying them for defense.

 

I had no idea our regulations were less strict, but that would explain our rise in gun crime I suppose

 

xdarthveganx, didn't mean to ignore, I didn't notice all the posting going on. I agree with your points on the societal problems being a factor for sure. I think fear is one of the biggest issues, and people in the US are pumped way too much full of fear. I do however think that making things illegal, makes them less obtainable, thus reducing the overall problem, but agree, that it would never stop smuggling of a product that is still manufactured outside the nation that banned it. The world needs global government cooperation to deal with large scale issues like gun control.

 

Have either of you watched bowling for columbine?

 

yes. I think Michael Moore made it perfectly clear in that movie that gun crime is not related to gun ownership. So given your point, then alcohol consumption during the prohibition should have fallen but it didnt, it actually rose. Also the united states has one of the highest drug use rates in the world, and the netherlands where drugs are legal has some of the lowest. A world ban on guns, will never happen and that is exactly WHY i am a gun owner. As long as governments have guns, so will I.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...