Sunday, December 13, 2009

Frank Mir on guns knives and self defense

Frank Mir has some very interesting things to say about self defense and weapons.
Seems he takes classes too.



FerFAL

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Frank Mir is a BAMF

General CHA0S said...

Yeah I have seen this video and when I did it made me an even bigger frank mir fan.

Unfortunately, I have heard him say some things since that support socialism, which is disappointing.

Anonymous said...

"it's well shown that because the states have more guns, there's a lower crime rate"
WHAT!?
majority of criminals=everyday civilians=firearms more readily available and hence used

DB said...

@Anonymous:

It is not quite as simple as your equality suggests. I don't think he was arguing that a well-armed state means a lower crime rate, as much as a state that has lots of private ownership has lower crime rates.

I'm not sure what you mean by "majority of criminals=everyday civilians". Do you mean as opposed to employees of the state, or military? Because the equality doesn't work if you reduce it; most civilians are not criminals.

While the connection between gun ownership and crime is complex, there does seem to be one relationship of note. Violent crime is less in places where victims are more likely to be armed. Criminals will take greater care that places are unoccupied before burglarizing, etc., to avoid confrontation.

It might not actually reduce crime, but I'd argue that a substitution of non-violent crime for violent crime is a positive.

Anonymous said...

Let's resolve this debate about guns versus crime with the only statistically valid study done to date. Even the statisticians who don't like the results of the study admit that the data and methods used in the study cannot be refuted, and therefore, neither can the results. Just check wikipedia for "Gary Kleck" to find out who he is. Then, very importantly, read this quote by someone who has always disagreed with Kleck's conclusions. It is a review of Kleck's work by one of his peers: http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/peer.html

Now you know the objective facts. It's up to you to decide if you will live in accordance with those facts, or with your personal feelings.

Pitt said...

Having been an LEO, I can tell you that Mir has obviously thought out his views and is frankly basing them greatly on reality. As a police officer we almost are never available to catch a criminal in the act or commission of a crime. What criminal is going to be stupid enough to commit a crime with the police around. Therefore if behooves the average person to have the ability to defend themselves.

Anonymous said...
"it's well shown that because the states have more guns, there's a lower crime rate"
WHAT!?
majority of criminals=everyday civilians=firearms more readily available and hence used.

There is a glaring hole in your logic. Look at all the cities in America with high crime rates (NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, DC). They all have very high rates of violent crime. These are the also interestingly enough the places with the strictest gun control. No handguns are allowed in DC, NYC, or the president's hometown, yet they have ridicolous crime rates. In the Florida, the first state to liberalize conceal carry laws, their crime rate dropped approx. 15% the first year they allowed concealed carry.

Do the math. Human beings are the only animals stupid enough to feel bad about defending their own lives.

Anonymous said...

He's a proponent of self defense training hand to hand and especially firearms for civilians. So thats what he means about people carrying guns. I'm sure he envisions a future where they teach kids especially girls on how to defend themselves using knives, tasers and firearms. If such teachings were given in school by the time they are eighteen they will not be sitting defenseless ducks.