Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-20-2010, 10:03 AM   #51
dps
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,300
Offline
Re: Madman With A Gun

The list of attacks in the OP's article range from a motive to kill specific people to unknown motive to kill unknown people.

So I think the killings at the Del Taco restaurant in San Bernardino are within the parameters of this discussion.

The defining factors are,

"The attacks occur in public places where civilians are banned from carrying guns".

The attacks include four or more people.

Has anyone heard anything from the news media about "Madwoman With A Gun".

Has anyone heard anything about "Madman or Madwoman With A Gun" being stopped before they killed and how that was accomplished?

Would that make the news?

David

Last edited by dps : 06-20-2010 at 10:09 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2010, 11:19 AM   #52
Buck
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 950
United_States
Offline
Re: Madman With A Gun

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
It was a targeted killing with an unknown motive as of yet, one in which the killer and victims knew each other. The killer had a prior criminal record including violent crimes. While you may argue that anyone who kills someone else in a non-self-defense situation fits the definition of "mad", this does seem to be different from the "madman with a gun" scenario originally hypothesized.
FWIW, in a nutshell, I posted that post because I too felt it was a sad and tragic event which William brought to our attention. Second, I didn't call the event a domestic violence act, the media did and that is why I provided the links in the post. More importantly, Mark being the framer of the thread, we need to ask him if domestic violence is a component to his questions. Lastly, am really not sure if it is important to discuss how domestic violence does or doesn't fit. The question is asking how we plan or prepare for a "very rare" occurring act of violence by a "madman with a gun."

With that in mind, I figured domestic violence wasn't part of the questions because his original post states, "...for that very rare occurrence of a madman with a gun?" And the quote from the article by Lott, dealing with gun laws that Mark used. Domestic violence happens more frequently that say a "madman with a gun" like the horrific sniping done by Brenda Ann Spencer killing elementary children and two adults. This such event is what I understood the original post's questions to be. But I will welcome any changes to that by Mark, as he is the original framer of the questions.

Last edited by Buck : 06-20-2010 at 11:23 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2010, 11:42 AM   #53
Aikibu
Dojo: West Wind Dojo Santa Monica California
Location: Malibu, California
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,295
United_States
Offline
Re: Madman With A Gun

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
It was a targeted killing with an unknown motive as of yet, one in which the killer and victims knew each other. The killer had a prior criminal record including violent crimes. While you may argue that anyone who kills someone else in a non-self-defense situation fits the definition of "mad", this does seem to be different from the "madman with a gun" scenario originally hypothesized.
You are correct in my opinion. I originally posted this with the scant information that was available at the time....However my point is training for this scenario when it escalates to someone surprising you in public by whipping out a pistol and blasting away is pointless. The moment the gun is drawn and fired you're in God's hands. There are somethings you can do to raise your odds of survival to be sure...and I not really sure if Martial Arts will apply though Martial Resolve and the will to live may help.

William Hazen
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2010, 12:15 PM   #54
Buck
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 950
United_States
Offline
Re: Madman With A Gun

Now that I think about it, If domestic violence is specifically a part of the question, that a madman with a gun is different, Mary like you said, then my answer would be to the original question: To prepare etc. for a domestic violence by a madman (madman in my use implies both sexes) with a gun is much more complexed and complicated than I personally can go into beyond becoming trained by professionals and experts in I.D.ing and acting upon the signs of potential D.V. and how to avoid it. Of course martial arts training, self-defense , and combat fighting skills could help. The choice is up to the individual to choose the best fit. Because I personally don't have to be concerned about D.V. I don't plan for it. FWIW.

Last edited by Buck : 06-20-2010 at 12:18 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2010, 07:00 PM   #55
lbb
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,163
United_States
Online
Re: Madman With A Gun

Buck, you keep using the phrase "domestic violence". I didn't use that phrase because I'm not sure it makes sense in this situation, particularly not when it is used as a synonym for an abusive relationship (which has not been established or AFAIK even suggested in this case). The "nut with a grudge" scenario (which is what this looks like so far) is a bit different, and self-defense tactics if you have any advance warning are different too.

I heard a lot about this kind of situation from my brother, who worked in HR for a state agency that dealt with some rather volatile clients who sometimes developed grudges. They had a very well-rehearsed script for dealing with threats, suggestions of violence, "funny feelings", etc. It was really educational. What it basically boiled down to was that this agency was on the lookout for threats of violence (including very subtle ones) and took them very seriously.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2010, 08:57 PM   #56
Buck
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 950
United_States
Offline
Re: Madman With A Gun

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
Buck, you keep using the phrase "domestic violence". I didn't use that phrase because I'm not sure it makes sense in this situation, particularly not when it is used as a synonym for an abusive relationship (which has not been established or AFAIK even suggested in this case). The "nut with a grudge" scenario (which is what this looks like so far) is a bit different, and self-defense tactics if you have any advance warning are different too.

I heard a lot about this kind of situation from my brother, who worked in HR for a state agency that dealt with some rather volatile clients who sometimes developed grudges. They had a very well-rehearsed script for dealing with threats, suggestions of violence, "funny feelings", etc. It was really educational. What it basically boiled down to was that this agency was on the lookout for threats of violence (including very subtle ones) and took them very seriously.
Initially, it was the media reporting it as domestic violence, I was just saying the media is reporting it as D.V. I guess the media used D.V. to differentiate from those cases where you have someone not knowing the victims at all and random shooting people in line of sight. That is my guess. You will have to check with the journalists who wrote the news of the shooting to be certain. Personally, like I said before, I wasn't bringing in D.V. into the argument. It was your comment to me that I starting thinking about it. Honestly, I thought you where bringing in D.V. into the argument-no criticism about that from me- thinking about it, I offered my answer. D.V. does broaden the argument. I am fine with it. But, essential, I never considered bringing D.V. into the argument. I was just making an observation of a horrible and sad act of violence, unattached to the thread.

Per your post, I agree about self-defense tactics etc. I was saying the same thing in my other post. And, I am not sure either if it the phrase D.v. makes or doesn't make sense. Like I said before, is it really necessary to the thread? I don't know. Mark defined clearly the perimeters for the discussion in the opening post. And I implied I he can call the shots in defining "madman." I said this to avoid possible thread drift into D.V.

I guess we simply may have crossed lines sort of speak in our discussions, or I missed something in your posts and got confused. The reason doesn't matter, but now that has been cleared up, let us get back to the thread.

Last edited by Buck : 06-20-2010 at 09:05 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2010, 09:09 PM   #57
lbb
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,163
United_States
Online
Re: Madman With A Gun

Quote:
Philip Burgess wrote: View Post
I guess to differentiate from those cases where you have someone not knowing the victims at all and random shooting people in line of sight.
So any case in which the shooter knows the intended victim is "domestic violence"? Obviously not. Equally obviously, not all cases where the shooter does not know the intended victim are "random".
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2010, 09:52 PM   #58
Buck
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 950
United_States
Offline
Re: Madman With A Gun

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
So any case in which the shooter knows the intended victim is "domestic violence"? Obviously not. Equally obviously, not all cases where the shooter does not know the intended victim are "random".
I don't know? That was my best guess for why the media reported the shooting as domestic violence. And like I said, your questions are best directed at those reporters. Cause I have no idea why they see it as domestic violence. All I can do is guess.

I personally feel, I don't need to prepare for a madman (which implies women) with a gun. To prevent redundancy I will not repeat my reasons. But I will add, I hope that I will never have to. I hope such incidents cease but that is unrealistic. Therefore, I hope they will never stop being "very rare." I hope as well, there will be no copy cats in relation to this recent horrible incident in California.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2010, 07:31 AM   #59
lbb
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,163
United_States
Online
Re: Madman With A Gun

Quote:
Philip Burgess wrote: View Post
I don't know? That was my best guess for why the media reported the shooting as domestic violence. And like I said, your questions are best directed at those reporters.
Well, no, they're really not, because supposedly this is a discussion thread about how to handle the "madman with a gun" scenario, and you're mistaking what I've said for a hairsplitting digression on terminology. My point is a very simple one, and this is the last time I'll attempt to make it: in order to train to defend yourself, you must first take note of meaningful distinctions between different self-defense scenarios. See? If you are attacked by someone who wants your wallet, that is a different situation from being attacked by a drunk sports fan who doesn't like the cap you're wearing, and both of those situations are different from a disgruntled employee who's after you because you denied him a promotion. Their intent is different, their preparation is different, and what you have to deal with is different. Don't you think your response should also be different -- and, since we're talking about training for self-defense, don't you think your preparation must also be different?

Well, maybe you don't. I have no idea what you're thinking. But using one term, whether it be "domestic violence" or "banana", to discuss all attacks between family members, is a failure to make a meaningful distinction. We human beings use language, and when we make note of distinctions, that tends to be reflected in the language we use. If I talk about "a line of cars", either I don't notice any distinctions between the cars, or I discard them as meaningless. The distinctions aren't meaningless in this case.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2010, 08:08 AM   #60
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Madman With A Gun

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
Well, no, they're really not, because supposedly this is a discussion thread about how to handle the "madman with a gun" scenario, and you're mistaking what I've said for a hairsplitting digression on terminology. My point is a very simple one, and this is the last time I'll attempt to make it: in order to train to defend yourself, you must first take note of meaningful distinctions between different self-defense scenarios. See? If you are attacked by someone who wants your wallet, that is a different situation from being attacked by a drunk sports fan who doesn't like the cap you're wearing, and both of those situations are different from a disgruntled employee who's after you because you denied him a promotion. Their intent is different, their preparation is different, and what you have to deal with is different. Don't you think your response should also be different -- and, since we're talking about training for self-defense, don't you think your preparation must also be different?
Haven't been following the discussion involving Mr. Burgess. However, to reiterate the thread focus and distinction, you are correct (I added the underlines just for extra emphasis).

Thank you,
Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2010, 08:14 AM   #61
DonMagee
Location: Indiana
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,311
United_States
Offline
Re: Madman With A Gun

Quote:
David Skaggs wrote: View Post
The list of attacks in the OP's article range from a motive to kill specific people to unknown motive to kill unknown people.

So I think the killings at the Del Taco restaurant in San Bernardino are within the parameters of this discussion.

The defining factors are,

"The attacks occur in public places where civilians are banned from carrying guns".

The attacks include four or more people.

Has anyone heard anything from the news media about "Madwoman With A Gun".

Has anyone heard anything about "Madman or Madwoman With A Gun" being stopped before they killed and how that was accomplished?

Would that make the news?

David
http://www.ktvn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8378732
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum51/39816.html
http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=43109
http://www.examiner.com/x-2206-Cleve...ot-report-that
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_James_Church_Massacre
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=1446
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2005/02/...t-holders.html

There are a few I found with a quick google.

- Don
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2010, 11:19 AM   #62
Buck
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 950
United_States
Offline
Re: Madman With A Gun

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
Well, no, they're really not, because supposedly this is a discussion thread about how to handle the "madman with a gun" scenario, and you're mistaking what I've said for a hairsplitting digression on terminology. My point is a very simple one, and this is the last time I'll attempt to make it: in order to train to defend yourself, you must first take note of meaningful distinctions between different self-defense scenarios. See? If you are attacked by someone who wants your wallet, that is a different situation from being attacked by a drunk sports fan who doesn't like the cap you're wearing, and both of those situations are different from a disgruntled employee who's after you because you denied him a promotion. Their intent is different, their preparation is different, and what you have to deal with is different. Don't you think your response should also be different -- and, since we're talking about training for self-defense, don't you think your preparation must also be different?

Well, maybe you don't. I have no idea what you're thinking. But using one term, whether it be "domestic violence" or "banana", to discuss all attacks between family members, is a failure to make a meaningful distinction. We human beings use language, and when we make note of distinctions, that tends to be reflected in the language we use. If I talk about "a line of cars", either I don't notice any distinctions between the cars, or I discard them as meaningless. The distinctions aren't meaningless in this case.
In all kindness and sincerity, I am sorry, this has become an issue of great importance to you, as it is an important issue. As a person who values your opinion, let me clarify all I have said for the purpose of illustrating your points better. The follow comments have spanned across my many posts which I will put here for easy of reading.

a) I agree with you,
b) can't give you and answer concerning how domestic violence does or doesn't play in the thread, ask Mark.
c) per your other concerns addressing domestic violence, I was only repeating what the news reports said, best to ask the reporters those questions to get the answers as I don't have them.
d) I don't know if Mark intended to include domestic violence, if he did my answer to his question then would be I don't prepare at all. And, I don't know if domestic violence is or isn't important to the thread.
e) most of all, the topic of domestic violence isn't something I am an expert at, thus be able to discuss in this sense.

Also I don't know why the reporters called that sad and horrible act an act of domestic violence, and others not. All I did was give you my best guess cause you asked so passionately. I call that horrible and sad event senseless,unnecessary, heart wrenching.

In my book it was simply nothing more than murder like any other murder. What makes it even more sad, is that a family was attack where members died at the hands of someone they knew. Because that hits home stronger than per se a stranger attacking a family. Or a hidden freeway sniper, or someone walking into a building and randomly like Brenda Ann Spencer or that like what happened at Columbine. Or why someone breaks into a home killing everyone inside (apparently not so uncommon). I don't know any of the whys of any of these horrible and deranged acts. I lump such violent acts into one thing, called murder. How labels are parsed out, how each is defined separate from another is something I have control over or is something am I interested in doing.

For me, the horrible act of murder be it from someone the victims know tends to hit home harder that if it was by a stranger. I don't think anyone wants to be killed by a madman whether they know him/her or not, whether the police or the news stamps it as domestic violence, or a random shooting, or what have you. Even more so how it is being argued here, I think has little importance to the fact that people are murdered sitting down at a meal, and the whole family was shoot, which included children. As most of us, we can put ourselves in that situation, as we have or are a part of a family, and that makes us feel very scared and vulnerable. More so because it isn't a random act. There are no odds in place when someone you know (and all its complexity) points a gun at you and your family and pulls the trigger. That is based on the feeling of all those I have talked to about this, and my own personal "what if" feelings.

Mary, I respect your concerns and I have no contentions or opinion concerning them. You're not getting any argument from me.

Personally, I don't know the constructs of how this would or wouldn't play in the discussion. Simply, those are my feelings as described here in this post. I am not able to determine what definitions and labels should be placed on someone killing their family members, people they know or randomly shooting anyone in their line of sight( they have to be mentally ill imo to do so). I don't have the knowledge or expertise, or interest to do so, that isn't what concerns me. All I know and concerned about is it was a sad, tragic, horrific,senseless act of murder. My heart goes out to the surviving victims and their friends and loved ones.

I am sorry to repeat this, but for the sake of the thread, I don't plan for any one, regardless if I know them or not, shooting me. It is too difficult and too many variable to cover. You can't sanely live your life worrying about who is going to shoot you. Unless, you see the signs, or are threaten, etc. by people you know or don't know. As far as I know, I have no strong indications of that happening in my life, to warrant concern.

But on the other hand, and now that I think about it, what is more likely is some people you may come across gets really unreasonable, irrational, becomes emotionally unbalanced over a comment, an opinion, a verbal disagreement, a gesture, a look, or simply by your appearance. And as a result, not matter what you do to reverse that situation wants to kill you and all members of your family. That is the risk we all take when we have contact with people. That is something I can plan, prepare and act on. Not that is will many any difference with someone who is mentally ill.

Mary, I hope this has helped lay things out in addressing your concerns that I am not debating you or contesting your comments or views in relation to the constructs of domestic violence in relation to this thread. I hear ya, I agree with you, I understand where your points are coming from as you articulated them very well. I respect all that. And I am glad you have posted to me, as your content in this thread brings up some very good questions, points, and presents very good information that I am sure will help others.

In all sincerity,

Last edited by Buck : 06-21-2010 at 11:33 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2010, 11:58 AM   #63
Buck
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 950
United_States
Offline
Re: Madman With A Gun

Maybe a madman (including women) isn't as "very rare" as Mark states in his original post, as seen in the links above. I thought he was referring to events like Columbine, the sniper in the above link, and alike. Therefore, if such occurrences are less rare than presented, it looks like the best planning and preparations involve a gun. Frankly, my Aikido or other martial arts waza training isn't going to stop a bullet. It may take a gun a way in the right circumstance or situation. But, we never know if that is the circumstances or situations we will be in.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2010, 08:48 PM   #64
lbb
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,163
United_States
Online
Re: Madman With A Gun

Quote:
Philip Burgess wrote: View Post
In all kindness and sincerity, I am sorry, this has become an issue of great importance to you, as it is an important issue.
As is often the case when stating what someone else believes, you're wrong. You mean well, but you're wrong. That's the danger in making statements about what other people believe.

Quote:
Philip Burgess wrote: View Post
As a person who values your opinion, let me clarify all I have said for the purpose of illustrating your points better. The follow comments have spanned across my many posts which I will put here for easy of reading.

a) I agree with you,
b) can't give you and answer concerning how domestic violence does or doesn't play in the thread, ask Mark.
c) per your other concerns addressing domestic violence, I was only repeating what the news reports said, best to ask the reporters those questions to get the answers as I don't have them.
d) I don't know if Mark intended to include domestic violence, if he did my answer to his question then would be I don't prepare at all. And, I don't know if domestic violence is or isn't important to the thread.
e) most of all, the topic of domestic violence isn't something I am an expert at, thus be able to discuss in this sense.
Again, I don't know why you keep bringing it up with me. I didn't say or ask anything about domestic violence. That's not the issue that I've addressed. But I've explained this, I think very clearly, several times, and it's not getting across to you, so it's time for me to just give up.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2010, 10:23 PM   #65
Buck
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 950
United_States
Offline
Re: Madman With A Gun

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
As is often the case when stating what someone else believes, you're wrong. You mean well, but you're wrong. That's the danger in making statements about what other people believe.
Thanks for pointing that out, and clearing up any confusion I have on this matter. I will take note of your advice.

Quote:
Again, I don't know why you keep bringing it up with me. I didn't say or ask anything about domestic violence. That's not the issue that I've addressed. But I've explained this, I think very clearly, several times, and it's not getting across to you, so it's time for me to just give up.
Point well taken. Will make future note of it. Thanks.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2010, 10:45 PM   #66
Buck
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 950
United_States
Offline
Re: Madman With A Gun

As the events of the day unfolded in a NY Court room I wondered really how concerned should we be about a madman with a gun.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2010, 01:19 AM   #67
dps
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,300
Offline
Re: Madman With A Gun

Quote:
Philip Burgess wrote: View Post
Maybe a madman (including women) isn't as "very rare" as Mark states in his original post, as seen in the links above. I thought he was referring to events like Columbine, the sniper in the above link, and alike. Therefore, if such occurrences are less rare than presented, it looks like the best planning and preparations involve a gun. Frankly, my Aikido or other martial arts waza training isn't going to stop a bullet. It may take a gun a way in the right circumstance or situation. But, we never know if that is the circumstances or situations we will be in.
Yes, you are right Buck.
It seems the madmen were prevented from or stopped from further killing when someone with a gun(s) showed up.

David

Last edited by dps : 06-24-2010 at 01:24 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 12:04 PM   #68
C. David Henderson
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 606
United_States
Offline
Re: Madman With A Gun

This article seems germane: http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Loc...ke-OK-Corral--

Although the assault turned into a gunfight (ah, camping in the Pecos), there was a moment at the beginning when the attacker's gun failed to discharge. In that particular opening, a weapon take-away seems conceivable. Also, in this particular situation, while the campers were able to protect themselves because one of them had a gun, the opportunity to do so was provided by the same opening.

Obviously, each situation will be unique, but in this one there was a moment when the kinds of training people have been talking about could have helped. It also tends to fit David's description above. And it easily might have ended very badly for the campers -- bad enough as it was -- but for a moment of grace.

David Henderson
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 05:11 PM   #69
Eric Joyce
Dojo: Budoshingikan
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 179
United_States
Offline
Re: Madman With A Gun

Quote:
Charles David Henderson wrote: View Post
This article seems germane: http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Loc...ke-OK-Corral--

Although the assault turned into a gunfight (ah, camping in the Pecos), there was a moment at the beginning when the attacker's gun failed to discharge. In that particular opening, a weapon take-away seems conceivable. Also, in this particular situation, while the campers were able to protect themselves because one of them had a gun, the opportunity to do so was provided by the same opening.

Obviously, each situation will be unique, but in this one there was a moment when the kinds of training people have been talking about could have helped. It also tends to fit David's description above. And it easily might have ended very badly for the campers -- bad enough as it was -- but for a moment of grace.
Interesting story and I really feel for that family. Just goes to show you that something like this can happen anytime and anywhere, even in remote areas where you may feel relatively safe. Crazy people out there man.

Eric Joyce
Otake Han Doshin Ryu Jujutsu
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:38 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2017 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2017 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate