Are the Brits capable of embarrassment these days?

[JohnStrangeway]

Here's a video demonstrating a very useful knife defense that I've actually employed in the past.

Effective Knife Defense

Thats fantastic.
That is basically how I teach knife defense. Honestly the casual student is not going to train enough to make anything effective.
It's in our syllabus but I make sure they know it doesn't make them invincible. An exercise I do is have one wear an old white tshirt and disarm another student armed with a black marker so they can see how much they will be cut in the process.

[Mark Rippetoe]

The bottom line is that I have a hard time in believing that ordinary citizen Garry (53) is able to make a good judgement call on when it's justified to fire and kill. I actually believe that such an important, and literary life altering decision, requires training (read: police).

Have you ever been hit in the face?

[Espen Lund]

LOL - you must be joking right? Cops pretty much have immunity from all but the most blatant bad shoots.

Which is why some countries do not even arm the police. We're having an interesting discussion about this very topic in Norway as we speak, where our minster of justice want to arm the police. I see good points being made on both sides.

And I believe you. But Shakespeare pretty well defined your purposefully blinkered view of reality with that Horatio guy in Hamlet. As in, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Come to think of it, Horatio was Scandahoovian too. So it must be a problem of long standing.

And if the police happen to be there, we'll leave it to them.

If I had a real fear of ill things happening to me, and carrying a gun would make me feel more safe, then I would take your side on this matter. But I do not regard it as probable that I will ever come in a situation where a gun would solve things. The incidents on the news (in Norway) were burgulars have entered people's home, while they are there, and murdered them, are so rare that I can't even remember the last time it happened.

It's usually spouse killing spouse, or criminal killing criminal. Neither situation would be solved by MORE guns.

Designing a society based on worst case conditions and fear mongering is not the way to go, imo. But then again, I'm a socialist hippie from Scandinavia.

Have you ever been hit in the face?

Not sure if you think it's a shame that I haven't been so far based on my meanings, or if the fact that I have not is somehow an explanation for my naive opinions.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I ask because I would like to know what you did in response, and why. But if hitting people in the face is illegal in Norway, then it could not have happened. My mistake.

[Eric Schexnayder]

Designing a society based on worst case conditions and fear mongering is not the way to go, imo.

While I agree, it’s not so much that society is designed that way in the US (not sure if you were trying to imply that) as it is the desire of US citizens to have the right to protect ourselves with guns should we decide to.

[Espen Lund]

I ask because I would like to know what you did in response, and why. But if hitting people in the face is illegal in Norway, then it could not have happened. My mistake.

Of course I've been in several situations where that might have happened had I responded in an aggressive manner. But I always shun away from fights, because a) the person you're fightning might have a 130 kg friend nearby, b) he might even be a professional boxer, or c) he might pull up a knife, d) the fight might end in grappling on the ground where said friend comes and stomps on your face. Even if e) you win the fight, chances are the police will arive, and you will have to spend the night in an isolation cell. The possible outcomes are generally not worth it just to satisfy your impulse right then and there. Hope this answers your question.

[Daniel Cavallari]

I was not aware of the fact that police in Norway is unarmed, but it does seem to be true. It is very weird how docile men in Europe have become since WW2. No surprise knife wielding immigrants are raping your women without consequence.

I come from a country where drug lords shoot police helicopters out of the sky using military grade weapons, so I guess that's why this "no-gun" narrative has no hold on me.

[Mark D]

...

The bottom line is that I have a hard time in believing that ordinary citizen Garry (53) is able to make a good judgement call on when it's justified to fire and kill. I actually believe that such an important, and literary life altering decision, requires training (read: police).

Oh, I can provide that training right here in one sentence, with a few more sentences as explanation.

A person is justified (legally, morally, and ethically) in using deadly force if they reasonably believe they, or some third party, are in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm at the hands of an attacker.

There, one sentence, as promised.

Now explanations:

Deadly force is deadly force. Gun, knife, baseball (or cricket) bat, or even fists. Once you're justified in responding with deadly force the implement doesn't matter.

A reasonable belief means that a reasonable third party could look at what happens, knowing no more than you do at the time, and conclude that you had a reasonable fear. Someone comes up to you with his hand in his pocket and announces "I'm gonna shoot you!" has given you a reasonable fear, even if the only thing in his pocket was his hand.

Imminent: Your ex calling you on the phone threatening you doesn't mean you can drive to her house and kill her in self defense (but it certainly means you can make sure your crap is all in one bag in case she comes to YOUR home intending you harm, at that point the danger becomes imminent and probably happens before the cops you called arrive).

Death or severe bodily harm: You can't shoot someone if you catch them picking your pocket, or for stealing your credit card number and buying stuff on Amazon. Assault, battery, rape, etc all qualify.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Of course I've been in several situations where that might have happened had I responded in an aggressive manner. But I always shun away from fights, because a) the person you're fightning might have a 130 kg friend nearby, b) he might even be a professional boxer, or c) he might pull up a knife, d) the fight might end in grappling on the ground where said friend comes and stomps on your face. Even if e) you win the fight, chances are the police will arive, and you will have to spend the night in an isolation cell. The possible outcomes are generally not worth it just to satisfy your impulse right then and there. Hope this answers your question.

That's not what I asked you, but you told me what I wanted to know.

[Eric Schexnayder]

Of course I've been in several situations where that might have happened had I responded in an aggressive manner.

Obviously the best thing to do is avoid confrontation altogether. Pick enough fights and you'll eventually end up in one where you lose.

But this is about self-defense. You can't passively respond to someone who is already being aggressive. Perhaps the probability of that occurring is fairly low in some places, but I can't think of any situation where I'd rather something awful happen to me or a family member just because I couldn't efficiently arm myself (i.e., carry a gun). That is to say that even if the rate of such crimes was 1/10,000,000 citizens, I still would not want that to be myself, my wife, or my kids.

Years ago when I did Karate, Sensei used to tell us that even a Black Belt is defenseless against a loaded gun pointed at your face, the point avoid confrontation rather than pursue it. Obviously there are cases where this is an advantage and training to disarm an attacker has probably helped someone do so in the past. But why rely on that when your odds of protecting yourself are higher with a more effective weapon?