Ban Hammers???

[Autolite]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080910/world/subway_hammer

This news article caught my attention because of the comments made by the police commissioner. It is the first time that I recall reading about a law enforcement official encouraging bystanders to pro-actively take action against an assault on a third party. Is anyone familiar with the state laws in such a situation? Do they permit carry? What would you do if you where on that subway during the attack???

"They better pray they're never a victim, because if someone was attacking them that way they would certainly hope someone would step forward and help, and it starts with stepping forward and doing something yourself," he said.

This incident brings to mind the Canadian Grey Hound murder several weeks ago. In both cases nobody was willing to help. I find it odd that a police official is making negative comments reference a situation that the police themselves have helped to create...

[GreNME]

This incident brings to mind the Canadian Grey Hound murder several weeks ago. In both cases nobody was willing to help. I find it odd that a police official is making negative comments reference a situation that the police themselves have helped to create...

How did the police help create this situation? The man sounded obviously deranged. Should the police have instead held the man on his previous charges for fear of what he might have done? I'm not sure that's a legal precedent I want in this country.

I was horrified at the bus incident, and I'm horrified at this one. I couldn't conceive of not stepping in under such circumstances.

[Drudgewire]

Is anyone familiar with the state laws in such a situation? Do they permit carry? What would you do if you where on that subway during the attack???

I'm not sure about Pennsylvania, but here in SC the right to defend oneself extends to protecting others who's life or safety is in immediate danger. It gets real tricky, however, since by pulling a firearm in public you risk shooting someone else. It comes down to personal choice.

Personally, I don't know what I'd do. Since I carry, I guess I'll find out if I'm ever in the middle of such a situation.

[BPSCG]

Kitty Genovese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_genovese).

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I hope they seriously think about banning hammers. What use could an average citizen have for a hammer? The only people who want hammers are those who want to kill others with them. There is no legitimate reason for regular people to have hammers. I will automatically vote for any politician who promises to ban these dangerous instruments of evil.

[Drudgewire]

I hope they seriously think about banning hammers. What use could an average citizen have for a hammer? The only people who want hammers are those who want to kill others with them. There is no legitimate reason for regular people to have hammers. I will automatically vote for any politician who promises to ban these dangerous instruments of evil.


Can't speak for hammers, but I will say using a screwdriver as a weapon on a subway certainly doesn't seem like that great an idea these days (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz). :)

[Autolite]

How did the police help create this situation?

I get the impression that the police in general do not want bystanders to intervene. I don't remember ever hearing about a police official publicly encouraging private citizens to act (as a third person) to aid an attack victim, nor do I recall anyone in law enforcement publicly supporting private individual carry. The police commissioner in this incident was critical of people not inclined to attempt to subdue the attacker. His comments imply that private individuals must assume responsibility for the security and safety of themselves and those around them. SO WHICH IS IT? Are we or are we not responsible for our own safety?

How do you confront a deranged hammer wielding madman anyway? A rolled up newspaper perhaps???

[ImaginalDisc]

Can't speak for hammers, but I will say using a screwdriver as a weapon on a subway certainly doesn't seem like that great an idea these days (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz). :)

Ugh. The guy ran for mayor because he wants New York's kids fed vegetarian lunches at school. Young children need fat and protein in their diet.

[Drudgewire]

Ugh. The guy ran for mayor because he wants New York's kids fed vegetarian lunches at school. Young children need fat and protein in their diet.

He's a nutcase. Had a legendary appearance on Opie and Anthony (http://www.foundrymusic.com/media/displaymedia.cfm/id/9649/page/show_video_number_9649.html) where he... well, the segment is entitled "Bernard Goetz loses his mind." (the associated URL is entitled "Bernie for Mayor, INDEED." :D)

[Autolite]

And then there was this recent little occurrence in my own neck of the woods.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2008/08/20/6509021-sun.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/08/20/Beheading_threat_made_on_Canadian_bus/UPI-80611219235548/

Of course many others would say that we mustn't be concerned about protecting ourselves. That's the job for the ever present police. These incidents are just too infrequent to worry about... :rolleyes:

[GreNME]

I get the impression that the police in general do not want bystanders to intervene. I don't remember ever hearing about a police official publicly encouraging private citizens to act (as a third person) to aid an attack victim, nor do I recall anyone in law enforcement publicly supporting private individual carry. The police commissioner in this incident was critical of people not inclined to attempt to subdue the attacker. His comments imply that private individuals must assume responsibility for the security and safety of themselves and those around them. SO WHICH IS IT? Are we or are we not responsible for our own safety?

How do you confront a deranged hammer wielding madman anyway? A rolled up newspaper perhaps???

Ahh, I had a feeling this was going to be a precursor to a concealed-carry discussion, but I didn't want to pre-empt the conversation.

I don't know that police want people actively taking part in trying to stop crimes, but I do know that where police are hesitant to encourage people stepping in is when the violence is going to become a situation of continued escalation of violence. That tends to be the reasoning from police against the idea of concealed-carry for protection by citizens-- police don't want to come on the scene and have to spend the first few minutes trying to figure out which person shooting in public is the 'bad guy'. On the other hand, police often encourage public self-defense courses and regular general defensive training classes, especially for women (who tend to be victims of rape from assault more often).

So I don't think the question can be answered in absolute terms. I personally think that, in the circumstances of a subway car where there's nowhere else to go and numbers being the only advantage, it's not wrong to think the other people present should have tried to at least tackle the guy and hold him down. If the fear is "what if the guy hits you back" my usual response is what makes you think someone who is beating on someone for no reason in front of you wouldn't turn on you in the first place? In most situations there's no way to tell such a thing, and in situations like that my first reaction is to attack the threat, hopefully with sufficient force to neutralize the threat. It sometimes amazes me that this isn't a more common reflex with people (considering our drive for survival).

[Drudgewire]

I will admit to some confusion when I opened the thread for the first time and didn't see an attack on a JREF member, since on my forum when someone calls for a banning it's "drop the ban hammer on this idiot." :)

[dudalb]

Ban Hammers??
Not if this guy has his way:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1884048c835a4a7754.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13760)

Go Tell Thor he has to turn in Mjolnar and see what happens......

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Ban Hammers??
Not if this guy has his way:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1884048c835a4a7754.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13760)

Go Tell Thor he has to turn in Mjolnar and see what happens......


He'll just thump it on the ground and turn it back into a walking stick.

"Hammer? What hammer??"

....

Darned deities and their slippery definitions of reality....

[marksman]

I hope they seriously think about banning hammers. What use could an average citizen have for a hammer? The only people who want hammers are those who want to kill others with them. There is no legitimate reason for regular people to have hammers. I will automatically vote for any politician who promises to ban these dangerous instruments of evil.

You'll get my hammers when you pry them from my dead, cold fingers. Which means my hammers are safe because you'd need to use this to do it:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:hsBggRenwkQyoM:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Hammer.jpg
Image allowed under Creative Commons license.

[Autolite]

Ahh, I had a feeling this was going to be a precursor to a concealed-carry discussion, but I didn't want to pre-empt the conversation.

I will try and tone down the "IF I WAS THERE WITH A GUN" angle, but I would like to learn more about this Commissioner Ramsey fellow and what he is all about. Does he advocate a legally armed populace? Did he expect folks to risk their own safety (or perhaps legal liability) by attacking the fellow waving the hammer? I was just surprised to hear a police commissioner publicly say the things he did.

I would like to know how a high ranking police official can openly encourage private citizens to take responsibility for there own safety, and the safety of others, when that is suppose to be the duty of the police. It is almost as if he has admitted that the police cannot be everywhere all the time and that it is sometimes up to the individual to take matters into their own hands. That's the message I'm getting from his comments...

[GreNME]

I will try and tone down the "IF I WAS THERE WITH A GUN" angle, but I would like to learn more about this Commissioner Ramsey fellow and what he is all about. Does he advocate a legally armed populace? Did he expect folks to risk their own safety (or perhaps legal liability) by attacking the fellow waving the hammer? I was just surprised to hear a police commissioner publicly say the things he did.

Meh. You don't know Philly like I do. ;)

I would like to know how a high ranking police official can openly encourage private citizens to take responsibility for there own safety, and the safety of others, when that is suppose to be the duty of the police. It is almost as if he has admitted that the police cannot be everywhere all the time and that it is sometimes up to the individual to take matters into their own hands. That's the message I'm getting from his comments...

Just keep in mind that "being prepared for self-defense" does not have to equate to "packing at least a nine-millimeter." I tend to be prepared for a fair bit of self-defense (though I've had my tail kicked plenty enough to keep in mind I'm no fighter), but I eschew firearms actively. It's not that I fear them or can't use one-- I'm actually not a bad shot (not a great one either)-- it's that I know my limits, and carrying a firearm is one of them. That doesn't make me helpless, though, not by any stretch. When either being attacked or stepping in when someone else is being attacked, you're not in a gladiatorial scenario or a fighting ring, you're usually in a situation where either making the attacker flee or just throwing whatever you can grab to distract the attacker might be your safest bet.

When police or other sources tell you not to fight or try to take the law in your own hands has to do with robbery and mugging-- people who want to take your stuff. Stuff can be replaced and isn't worth trying to start a fight for your life over. If you're already in a position where your life is in danger, though, I've never heard anyone say that you shouldn't fight back.

[dudalb]

Hi




He'll just thump it on the ground and turn it back into a walking stick.

"Hammer? What hammer??"

....

Darned deities and their slippery definitions of reality....

It's going to be interesting to see how Marvel handles Thor in their film version, which is scheduled for 2011. Hope it is as good as Iron Man was.

[BPSCG]

Seems to me a subway car full of people should be able to subdue a lunatic with a hammer. Good thing those worthy people in that subway car weren't on United Airlines' flight 93.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I will try and tone down the "IF I WAS THERE WITH A GUN" angle, but I would like to learn more about this Commissioner Ramsey fellow and what he is all about. Does he advocate a legally armed populace? Did he expect folks to risk their own safety (or perhaps legal liability) by attacking the fellow waving the hammer? I was just surprised to hear a police commissioner publicly say the things he did.

I would like to know how a high ranking police official can openly encourage private citizens to take responsibility for there own safety, and the safety of others, when that is suppose to be the duty of the police. It is almost as if he has admitted that the police cannot be everywhere all the time and that it is sometimes up to the individual to take matters into their own hands. That's the message I'm getting from his comments...


The Supreme Court stated, in DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=489&invol=189):
(a) A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.


...so, it's NOT their job to protect YOU. It's their job to enforce the LAW.

Guess whose job it is to protect you.

Before you answer, I'd like to draw your attention to Sir Robert Peel, the father of the modern police force, who said:
The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Ok, I'm done. Go ahead, now, and guess.

[xinit]

This incident brings to mind the Canadian Grey Hound murder several weeks ago. In both cases nobody was willing to help. I find it odd that a police official is making negative comments reference a situation that the police themselves have helped to create...

Nobody was willing to help? I didn't know we had anyone here on the JREF forums that was on that bus, who could so well know the minds and hearts of those in that situation.

Seriously, from the accounts of the witnesses, the victim had been stabbed multiple times (over 10 according to the one witness I can think of, and he was in front of the victim). At that point the decision is pretty simple; either defending a corpse from further mutilation or work to save the other 50 people on the bus.

The rest of the scenario was horrible, vile, and disgusting, but mutilation of a corpse is nothing compared to the making of more corpses.

[PhantomWolf]

Hit him with your luggage.

Actually to be honest I'd rather confront a person with a hammer than one armed with a screwdriver or a knife. If they have a knife you WILL get cut, it doesn't matter how good you are, taking a knife off someone will result in an injury to you. Taking a hammer off of some one can be done without getting yourself sliced up. Even if they manage to get a hit on you you can deflect the blow in such a way that it does relatively little damage to you and leaves them totally defenseless to counter attack and if you screw up you're not likely to end up dead from one blow.

As to banning them, well honestly, unless someone has a very good reason for carrying knives, hammers, screwdrivers, etc, I think they should be banned in public, especially on public transport.

[Autolite]

As to banning them, well honestly, unless someone has a very good reason for carrying knives, hammers, screwdrivers, etc, I think they should be banned in public, especially on public transport.

I've carried a pocket knife since the age of seven and still find myself using it several times a day. I also have a Gerber multi-tool in my possession daily because as they say "it's better to have a multi-tool and not need it than to need a multi-tool and not have it". I would hate to have to give those up because someone felt that banning them would deter homicidal lunatics. (I can see it now. Zero tolerance. Grandma gets busted for her concealed carry bingo hammer while on the way to the church Tuesday night. I'm sure that that would make everyone feel so much safer...)

OTOH, as I understand it, Grey Hound bus drivers have always maintained the right to determine what could or could not be carried on-board their buses. A sign recently posted at our local bus depot reiterates that policy. After that Manitoba incident, I don't think that I would try to board a Grey Hound bus with anything more dangerous than a soggy toothpick...

[Autolite]

Seems to me a subway car full of people should be able to subdue a lunatic with a hammer.

No doubt that that seems likely. However, as I had mentioned on the previous "bus" thread, anyone inclined to take action must assume that they will be going it alone. An assumption that seems reasonable when you consider what happened when that Grey Hound driver asked for help...

BTW, does anyone know if there are transit police on the Philly subway? Perhaps no-one intervened during the hammer attack because they thought the cops would magically show up at any moment and save the day...

[Autolite]

When police or other sources tell you not to fight or try to take the law in your own hands has to do with robbery and mugging-- people who want to take your stuff.

That's a reasonable rationalization, but when does one make the determination that your life is now in danger? The thief grabs your purse. Are you then suppose to wait until after he brains you with a hammer before fighting back???

[GreNME]

That's a reasonable rationalization, but when does one make the determination that your life is now in danger? The thief grabs your purse. Are you then suppose to wait until after he brains you with a hammer before fighting back???

It's a bit complex if you're searching for an "if/then" guide to reacting, but in all honesty it doesn't take that much brain power in most cases to tell if an assailant is looking for your money/valuables or is looking to attack someone.

[xinit]

Grandma gets busted for her concealed carry bingo hammer while on the way to the church Tuesday night.

I have to ask; what is a bingo hammer... I've played bingo before, and I can't for the life of me figure out why you'd need a hammer, unless you're using spikes to mark your card...

[PhantomWolf]

I've carried a pocket knife since the age of seven and still find myself using it several times a day. I also have a Gerber multi-tool in my possession daily because as they say "it's better to have a multi-tool and not need it than to need a multi-tool and not have it". I would hate to have to give those up because someone felt that banning them would deter homicidal lunatics. (I can see it now. Zero tolerance. Grandma gets busted for her concealed carry bingo hammer while on the way to the church Tuesday night. I'm sure that that would make everyone feel so much safer...)

While a pocket knife may or may not fall into the catagory of a weapon, I'd ask the question, as far as a "weapon" goes, if you can't carry it onto a plane or into a school ground, why should you be able to carry it onto a bus or a train?

[TragicMonkey]

I keep seeing the thread title and thinking "Ban Hammer" would be an awesome name. Like Race Bannon's cousin or something.

[ImaginalDisc]

...so, it's NOT their job to protect YOU. It's their job to enforce the LAW.

Guess whose job it is to protect you.

I wonder whose job it is to serve and protect. Oh, wait, that would be the police.

Before you answer, I'd like to draw your attention to Sir Robert Peel, the father of the modern police force, who said:


Ok, I'm done. Go ahead, now, and guess.

That's nice, but the statement of such a man in the past is not sufficient grounds to say police officers are not charged with protecting people. Police procedure is filled with proscriptions for handling dangerous people and dangerous situations beyond merely enforcing the law.

Or, are you going to claim that all the police officers who died on September 11, 2001 were not trying to protect people? They were there primarily in a rescue capacity.

[Autolite]

I have to ask; what is a bingo hammer... I've played bingo before, and I can't for the life of me figure out why you'd need a hammer, unless you're using spikes to mark your card...

A small tack hammer the gals would use to secure their bingo cards to the tables. Perhaps it was just a local thing...

[Autolite]

While a pocket knife may or may not fall into the catagory of a weapon, I'd ask the question, as far as a "weapon" goes, if you can't carry it onto a plane or into a school ground, why should you be able to carry it onto a bus or a train?

So where then do we draw the line? Nail files, letter openers, lighters, scissors, No. 1 pencils? In addition to my pocket knife and multi-tool, I generally have one or more of those items in my possession at any time throughout the day. I suppose its just best that I just avoid buses, planes, street cars, trains and the subway. Walking is good exercise anyway...:D

[GreNME]

Or, are you going to claim that all the police officers who died on September 11, 2001 were not trying to protect people? They were there primarily in a rescue capacity.

Please don't Giuliani the conversation. Police serving in a rescue capacity is not the same as expecting police to be your personal bodyguard as you walk through the streets of a city.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

It's not difficult to do an internet search and find a host of deadly, evil everyday objects that must be outlawed. Among them: hammers, wrenches, prybars, screwdrivers, two by fours, rocks, barbells, tire irons, electrical cords, neckties, pantyhose, and table legs. With the scourge of lawn darts finally eliminated, I encourage our elected officials to finally ban everything that can be used as a weapon. Remember as you attempt to remove a hubcap with your fingernails, that inconvenience is a small price to pay for all this added public safety. After all, it's for your own good.

[xinit]

A small tack hammer the gals would use to secure their bingo cards to the tables. Perhaps it was just a local thing...

Ah... that even makes sense. I worked in a bingo hall when I was in high school, and we sold the players tape for that purpose. Tacks would have been easier to deal with than cleaning the tape off the tables nightly.

[xinit]

With the scourge of lawn darts finally eliminated, I encourage our elected officials to finally ban everything that can be used as a weapon.

Man, I miss lawn darts. We used to play tag with them. We'd also throw them straight up in the air as far as we could, and then try to dodge them as they fell. Only one of us ever got hit in the head or drew blood; he was one half of a set of twins, so his parents had a spare anyhow... once he had a bandage on his head, we went back and continued the game.

A little bit of danger is to be expected in life, even without seeking it out as we did.

[bozothedeathmachine]

Ban Hammer?????

Any relation to Jan Hammer? That guy made Miami Vice rock as much as the pastel linen jackets and sockless loafers did.

[Autolite]

Ah... that even makes sense. I worked in a bingo hall when I was in high school, and we sold the players tape for that purpose. Tacks would have been easier to deal with than cleaning the tape off the tables nightly.

Actually, 35 years ago, I custom made a bingo hammer for my mother in the high school machine shop. It had a fine, highly polished finish with a deadly sharp claw on one end for fast and easy removal of the card tacks.

Today, it would probably be considered an evil "assault hammer" and old mom, if caught with it, would likely end up spending the rest of her days yelling "Bingo" in a prison recreation hall somewhere...

[ponderingturtle]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080910/world/subway_hammer

This news article caught my attention because of the comments made by the police commissioner. It is the first time that I recall reading about a law enforcement official encouraging bystanders to pro-actively take action against an assault on a third party. Is anyone familiar with the state laws in such a situation? Do they permit carry? What would you do if you where on that subway during the attack???

"They better pray they're never a victim, because if someone was attacking them that way they would certainly hope someone would step forward and help, and it starts with stepping forward and doing something yourself," he said.

This incident brings to mind the Canadian Grey Hound murder several weeks ago. In both cases nobody was willing to help. I find it odd that a police official is making negative comments reference a situation that the police themselves have helped to create...


The problem is that getting involved is something that is problematic to advocate in the abstract. It seems likely, but you are injecting more people into a dangerous situation with no training, authority, or equipment.

As an EMT seeing someone getting attacked by a person with a hammer my specific training was to run away, and stay away until the sceen was made safe by police.

[ponderingturtle]

Seems to me a subway car full of people should be able to subdue a lunatic with a hammer. Good thing those worthy people in that subway car weren't on United Airlines' flight 93.

So suicidal charges are the best responce to witnessing an assault now?

[BPSCG]

So suicidal charges are the best responce to witnessing an assault now?Suicidal? Read the story again; he had a hammer, not a .38 Special or a Bowie knife. Even the guy he assaulted - repeatedly - didn't get killed.

There wasn't a single person on that subway with a briefcase, an umbrella, a heavy backpack, even a cup of steaming coffee? Ten people were helpless in the face of the onslaught of one wacko with a hammer?

Please. You're overheating my BS meter.

[Beerina]

"They better pray they're never a victim, because if someone was attacking them that way they would certainly hope someone would step forward and help, and it starts with stepping forward and doing something yourself," he said.


"Just make sure you use exactly the correct amount of force because there'll be no shortage of politicians looking to denounce you for going too far. And behind them will be lawyers ready to sue your ass off because the poor guy can't play his regular curling schedule with his now-broken arm, and you scared him so badly he'll can no longer work and will need government assistance the rest of his life, which the government also has lawyers to come after you for."


It's a world build by politicians and lawyers. The best thing is to let the victim die, lest someone looking for money, power, or both jump on your head because one of ten thousand possible things went wrong while you were saving the guy.

It's the same advice given to medical doctors who stumble across an accident scene. Note most still help in spite of the substantial legal danger lawyers and politicians create for their own enrichment purposes.

[ponderingturtle]

Suicidal? Read the story again; he had a hammer, not a .38 Special or a Bowie knife. Even the guy he assaulted - repeatedly - didn't get killed.

There wasn't a single person on that subway with a briefcase, an umbrella, a heavy backpack, even a cup of steaming coffee? Ten people were helpless in the face of the onslaught of one wacko with a hammer?

Please. You're overheating my BS meter.

No the goal is to crash the subway car killing everyone.

The point was that how someone would react in the subway and the way someone would react on a flight that they knew was going to be crashed into a building are in no meaningful way related. Suggesting that they are is silly and really is like godwinning the thread.

If the first person to charge will be hurt with sufficient likely hood it is strong enough to get most people to not be the first one. So as you are willing to be the one with the broken skull you should be the one to charge first.

[GreNME]

No the goal is to crash the subway car killing everyone.

The point was that how someone would react in the subway and the way someone would react on a flight that they knew was going to be crashed into a building are in no meaningful way related. Suggesting that they are is silly and really is like godwinning the thread.

If the first person to charge will be hurt with sufficient likely hood it is strong enough to get most people to not be the first one. So as you are willing to be the one with the broken skull you should be the one to charge first.

Oh, please. If you need the tactical advantage of rushing someone with a swinging weapon explained to you then the first thing I'm going to have to suggest is that you get television and movie images of what may happen out of your mind. Like BPSCG mentioned, a briefcase or a cup of coffee gives immediate assistance, and I can think of any number of normally-accessible objects that people may carry that can further equalize the situation (bottle of liquid, backpack, or heck even a belt with a normal-sized buckle). If there's a person with even a small perfume or hair spray bottle and a lighter, that can really eff an attacker's day up. Hell, I'd call someone swinging a stiletto heel or two against some whack job with a hammer a pretty decent equalizer.

Honestly, I think more people need to take a class at the School of Dirty Fighting. Violence isn't like how it looks in Hollywood productions or in a WWE ring, and I often get the impression from the way some people describe what could happen that there are too many people out there who thing it is (how violence works). Nine out of ten times an assailant is just as untrained or poorly trained at causing damage to a person as the victim is, and believe it or not that is a big deal (and why basic self-defense courses are highly recommended).

Oh, and I've already had a broken skull. More than once. I'm titanium-reinforced, so I generally wouldn't have a problem leading that charge. ;)

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, please. If you need the tactical advantage of rushing someone with a swinging weapon explained to you then the first thing I'm going to have to suggest is that you get television and movie images of what may happen out of your mind. Like BPSCG mentioned, a briefcase or a cup of coffee gives immediate assistance, and I can think of any number of normally-accessible objects that people may carry that can further equalize the situation (bottle of liquid, backpack, or heck even a belt with a normal-sized buckle). If there's a person with even a small perfume or hair spray bottle and a lighter, that can really eff an attacker's day up. Hell, I'd call someone swinging a stiletto heel or two against some whack job with a hammer a pretty decent equalizer.

Honestly, I think more people need to take a class at the School of Dirty Fighting. Violence isn't like how it looks in Hollywood productions or in a WWE ring, and I often get the impression from the way some people describe what could happen that there are too many people out there who thing it is (how violence works). Nine out of ten times an assailant is just as untrained or poorly trained at causing damage to a person as the victim is, and believe it or not that is a big deal (and why basic self-defense courses are highly recommended).

Oh, and I've already had a broken skull. More than once. I'm titanium-reinforced, so I generally wouldn't have a problem leading that charge. ;)


So we need to increase the violence of our society to make people able to come to the aid of others in society?

[GreNME]

So we need to increase the violence of our society to make people able to come to the aid of others in society?

No, but in a world where violence exists you either need to learn to defend yourself from it or welcome it when it finally comes knocking on your door. Those really are the only two options aside from hiding (and I'm assuming most people don't want to spend their lives hiding). The world doesn't need a bunch of Bruce Lees walking around in public-- though that probably wouldn't be that bad, considering Lee tended to be a generally nonviolent person-- but with the "not my problem, I don't wanna get involved" mentality involved with watching someone getting the stuffing beat out of him is positively abhorrent to me. Pacifism is no excuse for not getting involved (and, in many cases, is actually a reason to get involved).

[Autolite]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080910/world/subway_hammer"They better pray they're never a victim, because if someone was attacking them that way they would certainly hope someone would step forward and help, and it starts with stepping forward and doing something yourself," he said.

Beerina, I posted that comment in the OP but I am not an "asinine police officer from Canadia" and those are not my words. It was an excerpt from the news report link in the OP. That was a statement made by Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey. You can check the link yourself...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080910/world/subway_hammer

(disregard if your assumption was intentional sarcasm...)

[Autolite]

Never mind! OT...

[GreNME]

I think that I can see your point. Here's an incident where there was no need for any action(s) to be taken by the victims. The perpetrators made it absolutely clear that they were only interested in taking "stuff". There wasn't anything the victims could do about it anyway. The robbers know that in Canada, it is forbidden by law to keep a loaded, accessible firearm in the home for protection...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/080911/canada/calgary_cgy_home_invasion_folo

Because a firearm would have made that situation better how, exactly? Apparently one or some of the attackers pretended to be delivery men and then forced their way in. Without more detail (yeah, using news sources is like that, neh) I don't see the point you're trying to make.

Besides, I neither carry a firearm nor plan to start carrying firearms, but I can assure you to a reasonable degree that I am far less likely to get attacked than many other people. Why do you think that is? If necessary, remove the gender factor and assume I'm only comparing myself to other men-- why do you think I'm less worried about being attacked? Why would I assume I'm reasonably prepared to handle the situation if I were to be attacked, whether that means keeping the threat possibility low (meaning just giving them my wallet) or defending myself (if they take my wallet and still try to stab or beat on me)? I'm not a big guy, I don't carry, and to be honest I've been in better shape before in my life. By the way I hear some arguments on the general subject matter of this thread, I should be wetting my pants at the mere thought of being mugged. Assuming I'm not just an idiot (well, I like to assume as much), why would I not be worried?


p.s. - I'd use a home intrusion scenario instead, but I have circumstances that may not be typical (like 450+ lbs of canine presence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBblAmO30HE)) and thus not really fair to the conversation.

[Autolite]

Because a firearm would have made that situation better how, exactly? I don't see the point you're trying to make.

Your comments are valid. I ditched the post because home invasions are not what we are talking about here and you're right about the presence of a firearm. It wouldn't have made any difference after the perps gained entry. Canadians keeping loaded weapons in the home might be a deterrence to a home invasion but this particular scenario doesn't support that argument very well. Further reading and consideration makes this incident seem suspect. It's beginning to sound like this invasion was some sort of fraud. The police have commented that it didn't seem to be random...

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Hmmm...

I was trying to be entertaining and funny above, but reading it after a pain-pill and a giid sleep, it just came out snarky, didn't it.

Please disregard the above post.

[BPSCG]

No the goal is to crash the subway car killing everyone.:confused::eek:

You're not serious. Please tell me you're not serious.

Okay, look, I know they don't have subways in Westchester County, but surely you know that the driver of a subway train is in a cab in the front car and that a fracas in a car isn't going to cause the train to crash, any more than a fracas on a commercial jet would cause it to crash.

If the first person to charge will be hurt with sufficient likely hood it is strong enough to get most people to not be the first one. So as you are willing to be the one with the broken skull you should be the one to charge first.It seems to me that while the wacko is beating up someone with his hammer, he would be sufficiently occupied to not be paying much attention to the guy coming up behind him with an attache case or a cup of scalding hot coffee.

Or are you talking about a Planet X world, where attackers have eyes on the backs of their heads, and six arms all wielding hammers, as well as subway trains that crash just because a few people are hitting each other?

For the record, I've been in a similar situation in a subway station where an out-of-control guy was trying to drag off a screaming woman he evidently knew, who did not want to go with him. A bunch of us confronted him, and delayed him while the cops were called. The two of them eventually left together, before the police arrived (she was more or less willing, for some reason I couldn't fathom). At one point I was gauging the distance between him and me in case I had to duck. So it's not always like the story in the OP.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Did you know that in the United States, any child can walk into any hardware store and purchase a hammer? There are no background checks or waiting periods. There is no restriction on the size of the hammer. Absolutely frightening. Wake up America!

[Drudgewire]

If it was one of these bad boys (http://nexus404.com/Blog/2007/04/15/clever-multi-tool-hammer/) I might consider carrying a hammer. :cool:

[Autolite]

If it was one of these bad boys (http://nexus404.com/Blog/2007/04/15/clever-multi-tool-hammer/) I might consider carrying a hammer. :cool:

Whoa, that is one awesome piece of kit! Does it come in tactical black?

My own multi-tool is a Gerber 600 DET. It comes with a crimper for blasting caps (preparing non-electric detonators) and a hole punch for setting the detonators into the C4! No kid should ever be without one...:D

http://www.parisfranceinc.com/portfolio/gerberblades/products/view.php?model=7400

(It even has a bottle opener too so you can spend the day setting up high explosives while enjoying a few cold ones at the same time...)

[Autolite]

Did you know that in the United States, any child can walk into any hardware store and purchase a hammer? There are no background checks or waiting periods. There is no restriction on the size of the hammer. Absolutely frightening. Wake up America!

Oh my, that is disconcerting. Perhaps we could start by boycotting Fisher-Price. I say we need to nip it in the bud...

http://www.fisher-price.com/fp.aspx?st=8001&e=product&pcat=preschool_elmo_giggle&pid=35940

[GreNME]

Your comments are valid. I ditched the post because home invasions are not what we are talking about here and you're right about the presence of a firearm. It wouldn't have made any difference after the perps gained entry. Canadians keeping loaded weapons in the home might be a deterrence to a home invasion but this particular scenario doesn't support that argument very well. Further reading and consideration makes this incident seem suspect. It's beginning to sound like this invasion was some sort of fraud. The police have commented that it didn't seem to be random...

I think the other parts of my comments are valid to the topic, though. For the same reasons I have less worry of being mugged or even being accosted by someone on the street I would make it a point to get involved in a situation like that in the OP. I think the largest initial motivator would be empathy (for the victim), but self-preservation would kick in as soon as any attention was drawn to me. I tend to operate with self-preservation in mind most of the time anyway-- it's a default for me, and part of the explanation to why I wouldn't be worried per my previous post.

Let me relay an anecdote (I seem to have a lot of those): once, while with a date in a restaurant, I saw a guy being rough with his kid. It was a father, the son, and the mother at the table. All the guy initially did was grab the kid's wrist, pull him close, and tell him to stop acting up. The kid started sobbing (he was about 5-8 years old, a typical response), to which the father responded by slapping the kid in the head. Most other people in the restaurant had their eyes squarely on their plates by this time. The kid started crying, and the father slapped him again, telling him to be quiet. So I interjected, saying, "take it easy. The kid's not going to stop crying if you keep hitting him." The father got righteously ticked off and stood up, saying, "don't tell me how to treat my child." So I stood up as well, replying, "then don't beat on your kid in the middle of a restaurant where the rest of us are eating." The guy easily had six inches of height and at least fifty pounds of weight on me, so it's not like he couldn't have laid a pounding on me. Instead, he muttered something I couldn't hear, and he and his wife packed up and they paid their check to leave. No more problem.

What that has to do with the OP is that sometimes you don't even have to get physical to stop a situation where someone is hitting someone else. It wasn't likely the guy was intimidated by me, so it's not even that I can claim my imposing (to small children and rodents) figure was what diffused the situation. Instead, it was the fact that the other guy was put in a position where they had to stop and think for a moment, and that snapped him out of whatever had him ticked enough to go wailing on his kid. That's not quite as dangerous as a situation where you're facing down a mugger or some guy beating the hell out of some other guy on the subway, but the initial principle works. Depending on the type of situation your odds may be as high as fifty-fifty that it can come to blows, but if other people are present then emotions have a way of feeding off each other, and you'll likely find more people speaking up and the assailant could very well find themselves outnumbered-- and when people are doing something considered socially wrong they don't like knowing they're being observed (another piece of why I'm generally not worried about a mugging or being attacked in public). More often than not they'll leave, usually as quick as they can. For the other times, when it does come to blows, that's where the coffee-to-the-face, the scratches-to-the-eyes-and-nose, and knees-to-the-groin stuff (among other things) can come in handy. It sounds lame, and some people who watch too much television might laugh at the idea of slapping someone on the side of the head (very effective if you can cup their ear) as being 'too girly', but if it's come to blows then the thing you want most are the blows to stop. The smartest way to accomplish that is to make the blows uneconomical.

Someone would learn all of that (and more) from a basic self-defense class, but the instructor would begin with the most important lesson: if all they want is your wallet, give it to them, because it increases your chances of survival. That doesn't mean you should work only from that first lesson-- it obviously didn't apply in the case of the OP-- but in just that kind of course alone a person or persons would be equipped to have stopped the situation from getting as bad as it did.

In my own humble opinion, of course. :D

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Oh my, that is disconcerting. Perhaps we could start by boycotting Fisher-Price. I say we need to nip it in the bud...

http://www.fisher-price.com/fp.aspx?st=8001&e=product&pcat=preschool_elmo_giggle&pid=35940




It's worse than I thought. The hammer lobby is trying to indoctrinate our children into their sick death-cult! Where are our elected officials on this issue?


I banned all hammers from my household years ago, and I haven't had one single hammer-related fatality in all that time. If that isn't proof of the effectiveness of blanket prohibitions, I don't know what is.

[BPSCG]

I banned all hammers from my household years ago, and I haven't had one single hammer-related fatality in all that time. If that isn't proof of the effectiveness of blanket prohibitions, I don't know what is.Yeah, but you have duct tape, I'll bet. Can easily be used to immobilize, strangle, or suffocate.

See if I let my kids play at your house.

[GreNME]

You guys that want hammers banned are just afraid of them because you've never used one. Go ahead and hammer in a few nails and you'll see they're not as scary as you might think.

[marksman]

Did you know more hammer injuries are self-inflicted? Won't somebody think of the thumbs?!

[Autolite]

I banned all hammers from my household years ago, and I haven't had one single hammer-related fatality in all that time. If that isn't proof of the effectiveness of blanket prohibitions, I don't know what is.

"If we outlaw hammers then outlaws will just use wood screws"...or something...(Err, never mind)...

[marksman]

If we try to ban hammers, you're just asking for organized crime to infiltrate the construction busine-- hey, wait a minute...

[xinit]

There is no hammer cartel.

[A W Smith]

I hope they seriously think about banning hammers. What use could an average citizen have for a hammer? The only people who want hammers are those who want to kill others with them. There is no legitimate reason for regular people to have hammers. I will automatically vote for any politician who promises to ban these dangerous instruments of evil.


Only upon my death will you pry my estwing (http://www.antonline.com/p_E3-11-GP_400594.htm) from my cold dead fingers.

or something like that.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Oops! Perfectly good joke redacted.

[Autolite]

Only upon my death will you pry my estwing (http://www.antonline.com/p_E3-11-GP_400594.htm) from my cold dead fingers.

That's a nice looking hammer you've got there but check out this Stubai Hornet assault hammer!

http://store.everestgear.com/413797.html

My cousin managed to scoop up one of these beauties at a hammer show in Idaho a few years back. He must have acquired it through some sort of hammer show loophole because as far as I know he isn't allowed to possess anything like that ever since he was caught with an unlicensed ball peen back in '94...

[Hellbound]

When hammers are outlawed, only outlaws will build birdhouses.