@siayn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I was 275 when I started, and I am down to 240. I am \”big boned\” as they say, so my optimum healthy weight is around 200-210. Krav has helped me get halfway to my goal.
I spent alot of time my first few classes with my hands on my knees, breathing violently, trying not to pass out. I puked my first class. Don’t worry, all of this is normal, but as hard as they push you, this isnt like the army boot camp drill instructors you see in the movies. They want you to come back, so they will push you as far as you can go, but they are not going to stand over you and scream while you die from a heart attack on the mats.
\”do whatever you are told to do and hope that the guy is just threatening you, with no intent to use the gun.\”
Not to rag on your old instructors, but re-read that sentence and think about how \”victim\” oriented it sounds. If someone puts a gun in my face, I am not going to \”hope\” for anything. I personally am not a mind reader, so I am not going to bank my life on hope. I am going to take action.
Another thing, and this kinda ties in FFDO’s comments. A while back I was talking to my instructor who had just come back from a seminar. At the seminar, there was a police video from a dashboard of a cop car where a guy being arrested pulled a gun on a cop. The cop executed a perfect disarm (not Krav, something else) and took the gun away. He immediately HANDED THE GUN BACK TO THE CRIMINAL.
Why? – Because thats what they did in their definsive tactics class for hours on end. Practice disarm, then hand gun back to your partner. When people say that martial arts builds muscle memory, it is very true…so be careful what you are building into memory.
I am a gun owner, so even though my instructor did no teach us this, when we work gun disarm I back away from my partner, rack the slide, and point the gun at him. For real life, this builds the muscle memory for me so that if I jam the gun on the disarm I automatically clear the spend casing to ready it for fire. (Example, watch here http://media.putfile.com/KMGDVID )
I would not recommend this for everyone though. If you do not know how to handle firearms, your best bet might be to just run away with the gun, or use it like a blunt object like FFDO suggested. Or if you are not a fan of guns, learning to eject the magazine and throwing both pieces in different directions is also a viable option.
I guess this seems fairly simple to me.
If there is a gun, there is a chance you will get shot. If I take the gun, then I eliminate the chance of me getting shot.
In case you dont have access to that Comcast link that BBB posted.
Cause I want to be like J-Lo
Not really, I haven’t even seen that movie….
I agree with what many people have said above. I did not want to learn Kata’s. I wanted to learn a form that would be effective immediatly, not after years of mastery.
I have heard too many stories of black belt’s in traditional forms getting their butts kicked in street fights because all they trained for was point sparring.
But what got me hooked…as we were doing bag drills on my first night of class during my free introductory week, my instructor walked by screaming in my ear like a drill sergent – \”Kick that bag HARDER! If you walk downstairs at 3am and there are 4 guys breaking into your house, you are not going to win that fight. That means you have to kick the first guy so hard that his friends run in fear. KICK THAT BAG HARDER!\”….and then I went to the bathroom and puked.
How could I not sign up after that?
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20051215-112826-9119r.htm
Kravmaga1 – This is something that has been debated many many times on this forum. And your question has been answered many many times over. Please do a search into past threads and you will find your answer. There is no need to hash this stuff out all over again.
Edit – Oh, and to help, they are usually the threads that are 5+ pages long that are locked because they have gotten out of hand. Just go back through the list and look for those.
Quote \”How many of those bartenders/waitresses are themselves smokers who didnt want this law enacted? I bet most of them didnt want it.\”
You are absolutely correct, they didnt. I was actually living in Cali the year this went into effect and was friends with a few people in the business. They were angry that the govt thought it was OK to do this.
But because a group of waitresses had sued a large chain of diners, OSHA, and the state about not doing enough to protect their rights as workers, the whining of a few cost the state big $$$ which was paid out once again in taxpayer dollars.
I vote we kill all the lawyers who make a business out of frivilous lawsuits, get rid of all these over-bearing laws, and purge the victim mentality from our society. When someone wants $10mil for burning themselves with hot coffee at McDonalds, we should tell them to F-off.
But since that will never happen, government has to make petty laws to protect themselves from lawsuits that are paid for by a waste of taxpayer dollars…
Just to be clear on the smoking laws…they were not enacted to protect patrons from other patrons. They were enacted to create a healthy work environment for the employees. It was under the workers protection act that the smoking ban in California was enacted.
This goes back to my line of reasoning about the government creating laws when they will end up paying for the consequences. In terms of law-making, being a patron and choosing to go to a bar that smokes, and being a employee and choosing to work at a bar where people smoke, are two different things. I understand the same line of reasoning applies \”If you dont like it, get a job somewhere else.\” but that is not how the laws work when it comes to employee safety.
If you went to your office and the upstairs bathroom was leaking sewage on your desk, and your employer said, \”Tough, deal with it. I like the smell of sewage and I choose to run my business this way.\” There would be a lawsuit brewing and you would win because your employer created a unsafe work environment. Same thing with smoking at a bar. Since smoking causes cancer, the bar tender, bouncers, and servers should not be forced to work in an unsafe work environment just because they chose to be a bar tender.
Ultimately non-smokers who chose to work as a waitress in a smoking diner, or a bar-tender in a smoking bar, have just as good a chance of getting lung cancer. In these cases, lung cancer will be a work related injury resulting in full payout of workers comp and coverage by the government for work related injuries.
I am not saying I agree with this line of reasoning, but I just wanted everyone to be clear exactly why the smoking bans got passed. Its about protecting employees, not patrons.
The reason I support gov’t regulation in many of these cases is purely for financial reasons. The arguement I hear most in cases like this is \”But America is a free country.\” Well, yes, its free, but the stuff people do costs money.
For example:
Someone who smokes technically has a right to smoke. But when they are 65 and have lung cancer, emphazema, and need oxygen tanks to live, they expect for medicare and our taxdollars to pay for their freedom of choice to smoke. Sorry, I don’t think that my tax dollars should have to pay for the aftermath of someones stupid life choices.
Same thing with the seatbelts. Wether you have insurance or not, either the government, or an increase in private insurance rates occur with increased injury due to not wearing a seatbelt. You wear a seatbelt, it reduces the over-all tax burden that society pays for government assisted medical care.
An extreme example that I read a news story about a few years ago were base jumpers that were getting hauled off to prison for base jumping in National Parks. They claimed they had a right to use the mountain as they wish, just like the hikers, rock climbers, etc… However, when one of them jumped, the parachute didn’t deploy and he survived the fall. Our taxdollars went into caring for him, even though he was breaking the law. Not to mention, it ruined the vacations of countless others who witnessed the accident or were denied access to the national landmark because someone got hurt.
In all of these cases, stupid choices lead to a waste of taxpayer dollars. My favorite quote is one used for the war effort…\”Freedom isnt free\” This is without a doubt true. You want freedom to smoke, or not wear a seatbelt, or base jump, it is going to cost everyone money.
So we have two choices on how to handle this… deny taxpayer dollars to people that have inuries due to bad choices, or make laws that prohibit people from making bad choices.
In reality, I would prefer the first option along with 100% full freedom of choice and no govt regulations. BUT, this means that if you are a smoker, and you get lung cancer, then you don’t get taxpayer dollars…you get to die. Choices have consequences. Of course, our pity the helpless society will never let that fly.
So the only other option is to make laws that regulate bad choices. This way the people becoming a burden on society through stupid life choices are reduced, and the government does not go bankrupt paying for those things.
I fully support a government that does not regulate any personal choices, but the reality is that as long as the government is responsible for paying for the result of bad choices, they should be able to regulate those choices to some degree.
Quote – \”tell me when is the last time that the govt was willing to reduce taxes?\”
Once again, it is clear you did not read my post in full. I did not say the govt is going to reduce taxes, I said they were discussing retooling them so they could collect MORE taxes to fill the gap created by hybrids.
Quote – \”By the way that doesn’t change the part about it being a potential deathtrap in an accident.\”
Technically all cars are deathtraps in an accident. I have a fireman friend who went through specialized training to deal with hybrid accidents. Calling a hybrid a death trap is misleading. Firemen have special trianing to deal with leaking gas tanks, hazmat, and other bad things that happen in accidents. The electical in a hybrid is just another deadly thing that can happen in an accident. So making that a reason not to buy once does not stand up to logic, since all cars can kill during a rescue in some fashion, the hybrid just presents a new variation on the old theme of deadly cars.
Quote – \”And Hummer owners actually do pay their fair share in taxes because they have to buy more petrol then others, right…?\”
No, because they still have huge tax cuts and tax credits through loopholes I explained earlier. I am not posting a spreadsheet here, so you’ll just have to take my word for it.
Quote – \”And being in the tax industry doesn’t exactly make you impartial arbitor.\”
Not in the tax industry, I am in software consulting. I build the software programs that they use to collect taxes. I don’t make laws, or even enforce them, but I have to know them like the back of my hand because I program the systems they use to collect taxes. So I know everything about how they are collect, without having any reason for bias. I just code what the government says the laws are. So once again, you are completely off base.
Quote – \”At this point your just being argumentative.\”
For the record, you are the one that came out swinging insulting me for sharing my personal experience….then it was you that asked why people hate hummers. It is your posts that have completely derailed this thread, so I am sorry, but you don’t get to call me argumentative.
Done with this thread at this point. I contributed to the original topic in a meaningful way and the people that cared got what they needed out of it.
Later
As with most of his point, Andre is only arguing the extremist point of view.
I work with the department of transportation in multiple states in the US. It’s my job to know how vehicle taxes, road use taxes, and gas taxes work. Anyone (Andre for example) can spin this just like a politician would so that it sounds as bad as possible. Let me give you an educated and professional view of the gas tax issues.
The one thing that Andre said that is correct is that the hybrid vehicles are reducing tax revenue for governments. Just like with any revolutionary change (like hybrid technology) the impact is felt throughout society, government being one of the big ones.
The Use Tax or \”per mile tax\” that is being discussed my many states is not anything revolutionary. If you know anyone that drives a big rig for a living, ask them how they pay taxes. A commercial trucker pays taxes based on the weight they haul, per mile that they haul it. Since 90-95% of vehicle taxes are used to build and maintain roads. So the most fair way to tax big rigs that use new roads and damage those roads is to tax them directly based on how much they use them, and how much they damage them (ie weight they haul). I think everyone would agree that this is about the most fair system you could come up with.
All the Use Tax (per mile tax) being proposed for regular cars is the same use tax that big truckers pay. You car has a weight, and the miles you drive would be tracked. You would pay taxes based on the amount of road you use. The thing that Andre fails to mention is that if/when this type of vehicle tax goes into effect, registration taxes will be eliminated or reduced to a flat tax that covers paperwork and plate fees. Also, gasoline taxes will be reworked if a per-mile tax goes into effect.
To translate this, people who drive a hybrid and has average 5-10 mile commute to work will pay roughly the same or a little more. Someone that drives a hummer and has a 60 mile commute will pay alot more than they do now. Someone that drives and average 4-door sedan and has a 1 mile commute to work will pay MUCH less than they do now. Someone with an H2 that drives 1 mile to work will pay about the same as they do now.
Ultimately a per mile tax is the best form of vehicle tax we could have. It is the most fair form of taxation because it ignores income levels and car models, and focuses purely on what matters: how heavy your vehicle is, and how much of the road you use.
As with any tax issue, there will be people who skew the facts and make emotional outbursts crying foul, but the info above are the facts from someone in the industry.
KravRon – The cold front that was sitting on us a few days ago is over you right now. Hope you are enjoying!!!
The front choke he showed us did not come accompanied with a name. I dont want to attempt to describe the entire movement, but in the end my forearms am crossed-over making an X grabbing opposite sides of the coat collar, pulling the collar tight for the choke. When applied correctly it seemed to feel just as constricting as a rear naked choke.
