T Nation

Frank Mir on Self Defense

I’m a big fan of Frank Mir not so much for his MMA track record but because he’s a humble, unassuming guy who can string together a bunch of well-reasoned sentences.

As such, I think he’s a great MMA announcer for the WEC. I like him a lot better than all the others I’ve heard.

His opinions on firearms and self-defense are just as good:

Frank Mir humble? News to me. Last time I checked he was commonly referred to as a “shit talker”

In my eyes, Frank Mir has a great attitude and is a good representative. He’s got great skills on the ground and his striking has improved.

Shame the opposition has improved a little faster than him. He’s a great guy. I also sometimes think he’d have been a beast if it wasn’t for that crash.

[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
In my eyes, Frank Mir has a great attitude and is a good representative. He’s got great skills on the ground and his striking has improved.

Shame the opposition has improved a little faster than him. He’s a great guy. I also sometimes think he’d have been a beast if it wasn’t for that crash.[/quote]

What the fuck are you talking about? When his head’s in it he’s as dangerous as anyone in the HW division, and he proved it last night.

Interesting. Not bad for an MMA fighter who’s talking on self-defense.

I think his idea of a housewife militia bearing down on an attacker is ridiculous though.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Interesting. Not bad for an MMA fighter who’s talking on self-defense.

I think his idea of a housewife militia bearing down on an attacker is ridiculous though. [/quote]

His basic point was that attackers will be much more cautious if they know little housewives are armed with firearms. For my part, I’d prefer it if my wife were allowed to carry a gun in certain situations when I’m not with her.

Thank you for understanding the point of this thread though.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Interesting. Not bad for an MMA fighter who’s talking on self-defense.

I think his idea of a housewife militia bearing down on an attacker is ridiculous though. [/quote]

His basic point was that attackers will be much more cautious if they know little housewives are armed with firearms. For my part, I’d prefer it if my wife were allowed to carry a gun in certain situations when I’m not with her.

Thank you for understanding the point of this thread though. [/quote]

I know what his point was. But aside from the rare woman that really invests a lot of time and energy into learning how to use a pistol, qualifying with it, and keeps up with it, guns in the hands of housewives would be a bad, bad idea.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Interesting. Not bad for an MMA fighter who’s talking on self-defense.

I think his idea of a housewife militia bearing down on an attacker is ridiculous though. [/quote]

His basic point was that attackers will be much more cautious if they know little housewives are armed with firearms. For my part, I’d prefer it if my wife were allowed to carry a gun in certain situations when I’m not with her.

Thank you for understanding the point of this thread though. [/quote]

I know what his point was. But aside from the rare woman that really invests a lot of time and energy into learning how to use a pistol, qualifying with it, and keeps up with it, guns in the hands of housewives would be a bad, bad idea.[/quote]

I don’t see why. There’d be a few accidental discharges, like Mir said, but we let housewives tool around in 10,000 lb SUVs that can easily kill a family of 5. If we’ll let them do that, we should let them defend themselves against violent men with firearms.

I agree with you, btw, that women are generally disinterested in such things. But crime is relatively under-control right now. If it goes back to the levels of the 1970s and 80s, their attitudes might change. Really, right now, men are disinterested in defending themselves. Crime has dropped precipitously since the 90s.

We’re entering a whole new era right now with the economy the way it is. Crime may go way up if the “recovery” disappoints.

Sorry, guys… but I’m coming from a country, where getting a gun is pretty hard. Still, we’re one of the safest countries in the world, crime-wise (look it up, it’s Austria).

Right next to us, there’s Switzerland. The Swiss are obligated by law to keep their military weapon at home. Go figure. There’s at least one gun incident there every day (again, it’s all in the statistics).

As for the “nuclear power” thing… how’s the drunk rapist supposed to know a woman is carrying a gun? Besides, quite frankly, anyone thinks getting out a gun, getting it ready and shooting someone is such an easy task, considering the extreme situation and the resulting stress? Smells like a fairy-tale to me.

The worst thing was the part about “teachers having guns”. Now come on… that serious? Think the other way. If you’d enforce a stricter gun law (ok, now that’s the point I became an asshole in everyone’s eyes, I know), oh wonder, those kids would have a hard time putting their hands on a gun in the first place.

Here, in europe, everytime some school-shooting happens (very rare thing, thank god, still too often, though), police finds out the weapon belonged to the shooters father/uncle/big brother who owned it legally.

Now I’m sure that’s different in the US (is it?), but here, newspapers never talk about someone shooting an assailant in self defense. If there’s a shooting, the guy with the gun started it.

While we’re at it, I’m questioning the need for SUV’s (as they were brought up) for someone living in the city… But that’s a different story alltogether.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

I don’t see why. There’d be a few accidental discharges, like Mir said, but we let housewives tool around in 10,000 lb SUVs that can easily kill a family of 5. If we’ll let them do that, we should let them defend themselves against violent men with firearms.
[/quote]

Different situations. Sounds cute but it’s not comparable.

[quote]

I agree with you, btw, that women are generally disinterested in such things. But crime is relatively under-control right now. If it goes back to the levels of the 1970s and 80s, their attitudes might change. Really, right now, men are disinterested in defending themselves. Crime has dropped precipitously since the 90s.

We’re entering a whole new era right now with the economy the way it is. Crime may go way up if the “recovery” disappoints. [/quote]

I absolutely think that women… hell, everyone, should be trained with guns. But the great masses of untrained women carrying them around in their purse? Nah. No thanks.

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:
Sorry, guys… but I’m coming from a country, where getting a gun is pretty hard. Still, we’re one of the safest countries in the world, crime-wise (look it up, it’s Austria).

Right next to us, there’s Switzerland. The Swiss are obligated by law to keep their military weapon at home. Go figure. There’s at least one gun incident there every day (again, it’s all in the statistics).

As for the “nuclear power” thing… how’s the drunk rapist supposed to know a woman is carrying a gun? Besides, quite frankly, anyone thinks getting out a gun, getting it ready and shooting someone is such an easy task, considering the extreme situation and the resulting stress? Smells like a fairy-tale to me.

The worst thing was the part about “teachers having guns”. Now come on… that serious? Think the other way. If you’d enforce a stricter gun law (ok, now that’s the point I became an asshole in everyone’s eyes, I know), oh wonder, those kids would have a hard time putting their hands on a gun in the first place.

Here, in europe, everytime some school-shooting happens (very rare thing, thank god, still too often, though), police finds out the weapon belonged to the shooters father/uncle/big brother who owned it legally.

Now I’m sure that’s different in the US (is it?), but here, newspapers never talk about someone shooting an assailant in self defense. If there’s a shooting, the guy with the gun started it.

While we’re at it, I’m questioning the need for SUV’s (as they were brought up) for someone living in the city… But that’s a different story alltogether.[/quote]

Absolutely agree on everything. Teachers with guns? C’mon.

He used some awful examples too, such as comparing a precint to a school.

Again, it wasn’t as bad as I thought it was going to be though… I expected much less from a cage fighter.

fuckin sick he’s into that. i just got my firearms licence, so I can finally make it down to the shooting range and practice. Got some good combat classes in my area that specilize in knife/gun as well. WoohoO!

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:
Sorry, guys… but I’m coming from a country, where getting a gun is pretty hard. Still, we’re one of the safest countries in the world, crime-wise (look it up, it’s Austria).

Right next to us, there’s Switzerland. The Swiss are obligated by law to keep their military weapon at home. Go figure. There’s at least one gun incident there every day (again, it’s all in the statistics).

As for the “nuclear power” thing… how’s the drunk rapist supposed to know a woman is carrying a gun? Besides, quite frankly, anyone thinks getting out a gun, getting it ready and shooting someone is such an easy task, considering the extreme situation and the resulting stress? Smells like a fairy-tale to me.

The worst thing was the part about “teachers having guns”. Now come on… that serious? Think the other way. If you’d enforce a stricter gun law (ok, now that’s the point I became an asshole in everyone’s eyes, I know), oh wonder, those kids would have a hard time putting their hands on a gun in the first place.

Here, in europe, everytime some school-shooting happens (very rare thing, thank god, still too often, though), police finds out the weapon belonged to the shooters father/uncle/big brother who owned it legally.

Now I’m sure that’s different in the US (is it?), but here, newspapers never talk about someone shooting an assailant in self defense. If there’s a shooting, the guy with the gun started it.

While we’re at it, I’m questioning the need for SUV’s (as they were brought up) for someone living in the city… But that’s a different story alltogether.[/quote]

Around here most of the gun crimes are committed by people who got their guns illegally off the street. You saying that it’s a good idea to only allow those who purchase them illegally to carry them? Even if you could take away all the illegal guns off the streets, someone will be trying to get you with a baseball bat, a knife, a taser, etc, etc. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

Also you don’t think people use their guns for self defense? Just click on any aticle on this site.
http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/department54.cfm

[quote]elano wrote:

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:
Sorry, guys… but I’m coming from a country, where getting a gun is pretty hard. Still, we’re one of the safest countries in the world, crime-wise (look it up, it’s Austria).

Right next to us, there’s Switzerland. The Swiss are obligated by law to keep their military weapon at home. Go figure. There’s at least one gun incident there every day (again, it’s all in the statistics).

As for the “nuclear power” thing… how’s the drunk rapist supposed to know a woman is carrying a gun? Besides, quite frankly, anyone thinks getting out a gun, getting it ready and shooting someone is such an easy task, considering the extreme situation and the resulting stress? Smells like a fairy-tale to me.

The worst thing was the part about “teachers having guns”. Now come on… that serious? Think the other way. If you’d enforce a stricter gun law (ok, now that’s the point I became an asshole in everyone’s eyes, I know), oh wonder, those kids would have a hard time putting their hands on a gun in the first place.

Here, in europe, everytime some school-shooting happens (very rare thing, thank god, still too often, though), police finds out the weapon belonged to the shooters father/uncle/big brother who owned it legally.

Now I’m sure that’s different in the US (is it?), but here, newspapers never talk about someone shooting an assailant in self defense. If there’s a shooting, the guy with the gun started it.

While we’re at it, I’m questioning the need for SUV’s (as they were brought up) for someone living in the city… But that’s a different story alltogether.[/quote]

Around here most of the gun crimes are committed by people who got their guns illegally off the street. You saying that it’s a good idea to only allow those who purchase them illegally to carry them? [/quote]

Are they exactly allowed to own guns if they buy them illegaly? Don’t think so…
That’s like saying people should be allowed to buy drugs because it’s kind of unfair only criminals are “allowed” to enjoy that wonderful high? Sorry, that analogy sucks, but you know what I’m getting at…

Sure. After all, people killed themselves before Schwarz discovered gunpowder, right? I’m pretty sure you can think of a couple of easy, quick ways to kill someone without a weapon at all.

Anyhow, that’s a totally different story. It really is.
Also, against a knive, a bottle or the like, why not use a pepper spray or tear gas? Easier to handle, non-lethal (yes, that’s a good thing, actually, before you ask),

[quote]
Also you don’t think people use their guns for self defense? Just click on any aticle on this site.
http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/department54.cfm[/quote]

Reading comprehension, pal. I pointed out I was pretty sure it’s different in the US (which it apparentaly is), only here, in (western and central) europe, guns are rarely, almost never used for self defense.

Can’t read those articles, by the way, they require registration. I’m definately not going to register to usconcealedcarry… but then you didn’t expect me to, did you?

Also, I feel something like pride coming from you guys when talking about how people gunned down other people as a means of self defense… Now I won’t be judging your sense of ethics here, but I’m sure that’s a difference between europe and the US, too.

[quote]elano wrote:

[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:

Around here most of the gun crimes are committed by people who got their guns illegally off the street. You saying that it’s a good idea to only allow those who purchase them illegally to carry them? Even if you could take away all the illegal guns off the streets, someone will be trying to get you with a baseball bat, a knife, a taser, etc, etc. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

Also you don’t think people use their guns for self defense? Just click on any aticle on this site.
http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/department54.cfm[/quote]

There are definitely upsides to allowing gun possession for law abiding citizens, but let’s not pretend like there’s no downsides either. Especially for a self defence conscious physically able male (I don’t mean guys who think they can MMA their way out of a bad situation), the gun is a great equaliser against them somewhat because of range but mostly because of the feeling of empowerment it gives an attacker. There are pros, yeah, but it’s definitely not something that doesn’t need individual consideration from each government and people.

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
In my eyes, Frank Mir has a great attitude and is a good representative. He’s got great skills on the ground and his striking has improved.

Shame the opposition has improved a little faster than him. He’s a great guy. I also sometimes think he’d have been a beast if it wasn’t for that crash.[/quote]

What the fuck are you talking about? When his head’s in it he’s as dangerous as anyone in the HW division, and he proved it last night.[/quote]

WHEN his head’s in it. When it isn’t, he seems to get caught cold - however as I’ve read a lot of your posts and you seem like you know what you’re talking about more than me, I’ll back off on this point.

EDIT: I agree mostly with what MIR said, accept as others have pointed out, how many women do you know would really take the training and everything SERIOUSLY? I mean sure they might attend and go through the motions, but for most women, it may just be like having a car. Just cause you’re allowed to drive a car doesn’t mean you’re not dangerous/any good at driving it. Hell, I’ll even say the same for GUYS having guns too. I’m not anti-firearm, but I know there are a lot of people who aren’t rational in this world.

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Frank Mir humble? News to me. Last time I checked he was commonly referred to as a “shit talker”[/quote]

Really? When did that last check-up happened? Who were the ones that referred to him as “shit talker” in sufficient numbers that it became a common occurrence?

That’s news to me, or I dunno, maybe I’ve been living under a rock deprived of news and edutaiment.

[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
In my eyes, Frank Mir has a great attitude and is a good representative. He’s got great skills on the ground and his striking has improved.

Shame the opposition has improved a little faster than him. He’s a great guy. I also sometimes think he’d have been a beast if it wasn’t for that crash.[/quote]

What the fuck are you talking about? When his head’s in it he’s as dangerous as anyone in the HW division, and he proved it last night.[/quote]

WHEN his head’s in it. When it isn’t, he seems to get caught cold - however as I’ve read a lot of your posts and you seem like you know what you’re talking about more than me, I’ll back off on this point.

EDIT: I agree mostly with what MIR said, accept as others have pointed out, how many women do you know would really take the training and everything SERIOUSLY? I mean sure they might attend and go through the motions, but for most women, it may just be like having a car. Just cause you’re allowed to drive a car doesn’t mean you’re not dangerous/any good at driving it. Hell, I’ll even say the same for GUYS having guns too. I’m not anti-firearm, but I know there are a lot of people who aren’t rational in this world.
[/quote]

Sorry if the “what the fuck are you talking about” came across as abrasive. I was hung over, haha. I agree with some of Mirs points and like his idea of handgun training while under duress. I also feel like most should be allowed to carry, but that there should be fairly strict testing to allow one that right and that there be a mandatory maintenance of the skills and procedures aquired through the testing.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Interesting. Not bad for an MMA fighter who’s talking on self-defense.

I think his idea of a housewife militia bearing down on an attacker is ridiculous though. [/quote]

His basic point was that attackers will be much more cautious if they know little housewives are armed with firearms. For my part, I’d prefer it if my wife were allowed to carry a gun in certain situations when I’m not with her.

Thank you for understanding the point of this thread though. [/quote]

I know what his point was. But aside from the rare woman that really invests a lot of time and energy into learning how to use a pistol, qualifying with it, and keeps up with it, guns in the hands of housewives would be a bad, bad idea.[/quote]

I don’t see why. There’d be a few accidental discharges, like Mir said, but we let housewives tool around in 10,000 lb SUVs that can easily kill a family of 5. If we’ll let them do that, we should let them defend themselves against violent men with firearms.
[/quote]

Yeah, but the intended function of a SUV is transportation. It can be used to kill someone, and it’s true that more people are killed in automobile accidents each year than by guns, but it has another useful function. Guns on the other hand were created with no other function in mind than killing other living creatures. And other than hunting rifles, and maybe shotguns, most guns were created with killing other human beings.

Not a great comparison. Nor would most women (or men for that matter) be able to effectively defend themselves against a violent attacker with a gun, even with some basic training. But I do agree that women should learn to defend themselves.

And if Tiger Woods Wife had a gun?

The majority of women I know are waaayyyy to emotional to have a gun.