news.com.au
URBAN ninja mums are urging frightened women to take back the streets.
The fear factor, fueled by reports of weekly stabbings and bashings in Melbourne, is feeding a revival of the ancient Japanese art of fighting.
And nunchukkas, sais and staffs are not always the weapon of choice.
“I am a weapon,” black belt ninja Annette Christopherson declares.
At just 150cm tall, the 50-something mum is a force to be reckoned with, without all the brawn.
One Melbourne establishment, the Kevin Hawthorne Ninja School, is training mums and dads – and even kids as young as five – in the art of ninjitsu to protect themselves from street violence, bullying and home invasions.
Whats needed is a public inquiry as to why the Police Chief is not doing his job===aka===the interview before he gets fired and replaced.
This item is probably a plant by the local Ninja School needing more students.
Ok. So I can enroll in Ninjitsu/Karate/Taekwondo or whatever and spend thousands of dollars and hours and hours of my time just to put myself on a little bit higher footing compared to my attacker who will still have the advantage of surprise and maybe a weapon, and then I’ll probably still be hurt, injured or killed.
Here’s my plan for getting attacked.
1. Run away if possible.
2. Shoot the bastard with my Keltec if #1 doesn’t extract me from the situation.
Seriously. I’m a middle age guy who isn’t getting any younger. The only way I can defend myself against some young tough is with a handgun.
Australia has effectively banned handguns and so the people have to resort to hand-to-hand combat with criminals. Great going guys!
So George–do you think you would be safer by having everyone armed in Oz or by having a more effective police force?
#3 The police aren’t obligated to defend you. They are more suited to shooting dogs and seizing assets.
Well BJ–the police ARE obligated to defend us. Thats why you fire police chief until you get one that understands that obligation rather than thinking like you.
So simple really.
I’d rather be left the hell alone by criminals and by cops. Having a handgun allows me to have both.
Cops don’t have to waste their time protecting me and criminals are deterred by the possibility that a citizen may be armed.
This is typical anti-gun lawmaking. Australia takes guns from citizens, so now they have a crime problem, so now they need more policing. Wasn’t the idea of taking guns away to decrease the crime problem and thus lessen the need for policing?
George of Oz==I won’t look it up but please correct me if I am wrong. Oz outlaws guns and the innocent civilian death and injury from criminals having guns is one tenth the rate as found in the USA where guns are plentiful.
You however are righteously upset over the absolute level of criminality in your country so your solution is to get more guns into your society?
Have I got that right George? Imagine you lived in a swamp with too many moisquitoes breeding and causing disease. Would your solution be to add more moisquitoes?
Gun nuts. Too bad they weren’t a crunchy morning breakfast.
If I were a criminal, who would I attempt to rob, a possibly armed victim or a disarmed victim? Let’s use common sense here. If I get accosted by a criminal, he’ll be done with me and long gone by the time the cops arrive. I’d rather protect myself than hope the police chief is doing his job. And good luck with that! The government has a monopoly on force, meaning no competition, meaning they don’t have to improve a thing.
You liberal vaginas kill me. Waiting around for your knight in shinning armor to come save you. And the police do not deter crime. The best they do is punish after the fact. That’s not going to do much for me. I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!
Finally, gun laws don’t deter crime. They disarm victims and criminals just have to pay more to get them in the black market. Yes, an armed society is a polite society. And gun nuts sounds disgusting…like grape nuts!
Why, you couldn’t be more bad, boy! Another vote for moisquitoes.
Land of the free, behind locked doors with guns in hand, but we’re FREE!!!!
Don’t mind the statistics, nothing to see here, move along.
Gun ownership should be mandatory.
Maybe these Ninja Mums are planning to move to Arizona.
Arizona. A place where there is no violence, where everyone lives in peace, and the Police are allowed to do their job.
Bobbo’s paradise.
Ah yea==everything you say about Az is wrong.
What should anyone think of your post?
#5 # 5 bobbo, ignorant of court precedent said, on July 30th, 2010 at 8:49 am
“Well BJ–the police ARE obligated to defend us. Thats why you fire police chief until you get one that understands that obligation rather than thinking like you.”
I would have gotten back to you sooner, but things like work intruded. I will call your attention to Castle Rock v. Gonzales, South v. Maryland, and Bowers v. DeVito. The court found in Bowers v. DeVito that “…there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.” Fortunately we do have a Constitutional right to bear arms.
Of course even if you can find your hypothetical police chief who understands that obligation, he can’t be everywhere. You do have to take responsibility for yourself or hire armed guards to protect you like anti-gun mayor Daley of Chicago.
Hey bub, I got a statistic for ya! 95% of statistics are b.s.! Why not use common sense instead? The police can’t be everywhere all the time. But, everybody can be armed all the time.
What percentage of the population are violent criminals? Let’s go crazy and say 20% for arguments’ sake. Wouldn’t it be a bigger deterrent to those 20% if the other 80% were packing? Let’s contrast this to relying only on cops for protection. What do they make up, maybe 5%? And that’s ignoring the corrupt cops who are themselves criminals. Now you do the math.
And your mosquito analogy is piss poor. The mosquitos would be the criminals, not the guns. So no, you wouldn’t get more mosquitos, you’d arm yourself with some RAID!
#14–BJ==I’m glad and hope to continue to see you keep your priorities straight. Yes, I spoke too quickly but the import is there. If you aren’t getting the police protection you want==then fire the current police chief and get one who will. Perhaps not a “right” and certainly not a “constitutional right” but in effect the same thing.
Guns don’t protect you when there are too many guns around. Perhaps you feel more secure, as you might by praying or having a luck rabbits foot, but real protection comes in having an ordered society with an effective police force averting crime by catching the criminals, having a social safety net, and reasonable laws.
Certainly a mix of things that guns aren’t a part of. In fact, your call for guns only shows that the requisite parts of a sane society are breaking down. Rather than take a fractured society to the bottom of the barrel, I simply call for correcting what’s wrong with it.
Gun nuts.
Bad boy==here’s some more common sense: if you don’t have a gun, your gun can’t be stolen, your gun can’t accidently kill your kiddie, and guns won’t be used in drive bys. Guns don’t kill people, people do. so why not give evryone a bazooka? Because bazooka’s DO kill people just as guns do. If you think the damage caused by gun availablity is worth that price, then argue THAT, not that guns don’t kill.
So–if your town was suffering from malaria, you wouldn’t drain the swamp because moisquitos aren’t the problem? Haw, Haw
Gun nut isn’t an insult to me. But wanting to own a gun for personal protection doesn’t qualify one as such.
“Guns don’t protect you when there are too many guns around.” What? That statement is absurd. Of course you have to use your judgement. If pulling out a gun isn’t going to help you, don’t. But at least I’d like to have the option.
Proposing the government be the only ones with guns is promoting a police state. That’s the reason it was included in the constitution, an admittedly flawed document with it’s heart in the right place. Besides, the government is incapable of providing this ordered society you dream of. Government is about power and who wields it. Those attracted to government are attracted to power. They are not concerned about your welfare and anything they say is purely lip service.
What morons.
Ninjitsu was an art of assassination, and was not designed for direct hand-to-hand combat or self-defense.
The ninja often worked in groups of two or three and would ambush their targets catching them off guard. They would usually work discretely killing their targets in their sleep, or any other situation where they would be alone and unable to attact attention.
The idea of a 150 lbs woman defending herself from attackers just because she knows a martial art is ridiculous. Not only do women have less muscle mass per pound, 150 lbs is a pathetic fighting weight. The average male will weigh 30-50 lbs more.
If you want to use that lower weight to your advantage… then run!
Women are well known to have higher running endurance than the average male. Teaching a woman to fight instead of flee is teaching women to allow themselves to be put into danger. This goes for children as well.
When I was young and learning karate, I was always told to run unless I was restrained, and not only run, but make a lot of noise and attract attention to the situation. If you are small and you want to survive use your instincts.
Run and scream. Don’t wear high-heels, stay in public areas, and don’t stay out at night. Don’t put yourself in danger just to prove you are a strong female. That’s a good way to get killed, raped, mugged, and/or robbed.
-Brad
10 years Krav Maga, 20 years Karate (5th degree black belt), 3 years Brazilian Jujitsu (black belt)
Ha ha. That is hilarious. Those scare tactics may work on suburban moms scared of black people, so save it for them. My kids, when they come of age, will be taught all about guns. It won’t be some mystery to them. They will be taught how to deal with them responsibly.
While we’re at it, why don’t you rid society of anything that could possibly harm or kill your kids accidentally. There go the kitchen knives. Ok, only 1 story houses from now on, and barricade all windows above that. No more strong cleansers in the house. Where do you stop?
And please, stop making these asinine analogies! They are so lame, not to mention irrelevant!
No guns no knives so its back to bare hands with the edge going to youth, size, and power.
Great. Can you carry a baseball bat? Er I guess that’s cricket bat. A game so boring you can’t tell if the audience is alive or dead.
Bobo, did you know that in 2009 the United States violent crime rates dropped to a 35 year low? The murder rate dropped to a 43 year low. During that same year gun sales were at a all time high (around 14 million). In the past 15 years the amount of guns in the US has steadily rose while crime has plummeted.
#8, #10
You are NOT a criminal.
Criminals do not think if a person armed or not.
They think is that person easy to take. Whenever
possible most theft will be from burglary, shoplifting, smash and grab or snatch and run.
IF a person has upped the ante and started doing violence to rob, they are in no way scared about an armed person. They will just shoot or stab you and run off. Most people are not trained to pull and shoot in these situations.
You have to get training. And that means a defensive gun course. That is why soldiers can fight with a gun and LE can. They are trained to react the correct way. Just arming people will mean people will get injured or killed. Violent criminals don’t give a shit about you. They have even convinced themselves they will get killed as well and have nothing to
lose.
#19
There is no such thing as ninja. It is a fairy story. Something that sounds good to Hollywood.
There were assassins and nothing more. They had no special secret mystical clan, no unusual training or special powers. They were regular people, trained
to get in, steal, kill or disrupt and get out. Every culture had them.
No ninja, just a good story to scare people. Fear works very well, ask anyone in christian clergy or politics.
#22
Where did you get that stat?
US Bureau of Justice and the FBI show that in 1960 the violent crime rate per 100k of population was 160.9 with a 5.1 rate of homicide and 1726 rate
of property crime.
In 2008 the rates were 454.5 for violent crime, 5.4 for homicide and 3213 for property crime. That is down from the 1991 high of 758.1, 9.8 and 4738.
So I am not sure where that stat came from. Especially when the stats for 2009-10 are not even out yet.
Cursor_
#22–Og==generally aware yes, not to that detail. A function of the aging of society. Seems that strapping up and going out to look for trouble is a youth thing.
Bad Boy==if you think the mosquito analogy is bad, imagine what any sane person thinks of: “Guns don’t kill people.”
So, sad that statistics don’t bear out a 1:1 correlation, only a positive one. The more guns: the more death by guns. Somalia has lots of guns and no police force. The only 1:1 correlation is no guns: no deaths by guns but the gun nuts ignore that logic.
As with all issues of import, it would be ok with me for you retards to have your beliefs IF it didn’t take me down with you. But it does. Course, not “me.” Just all too many innocent people killed every year to maintain the illusion of Freedom.
Cursor==you really ought to link when you confront a stat so directly. I’ve been hearing general reports of declining crime for the last 3-5 years.
And just lately its been “fun” to catch the debate about crime in Arizona. On different shows, you hear experts say the violent crime/crime by immigrants/crime by illegal immigrants is going up or down.
I guess when you don’t provide your sources/link anyone can say/think whatever they want to?
Bad Boy===all I care about is what works. When I look at all the studies and the variations in them, I conclude we all would be safer with as few guns as possible. Of course, any transition period is rough==death by guns probably spike right up.
but you can’t escape the logic of no guns = no death by guns.
After laws were passed including no guns by police–instead relying on team responses, ok=a swat team backup fully loaded, data basis, public cams, arrest for possession, life/death sentence for use during a crime, it wouldn’t take that long for them to fall away.
Or not. Its not going to happen until the next revolution but the idiocy of your own position will not end until you admit what any SANE PERSON SEES: guns kill people.
In Soviet Russia, Ninja Mama is married Sergei Norris.
RE:#27 Guns do kill people, so do cars. Cars kill about 3 times more people than guns each year. Why aren’t you asking for cars to be banned?
Og==cars should be made as safe as possible which is always a hurdle and a fight against the industry that makes them.
Cars serve a necessary need that has no replacement. Neither element is true re guns.
Bobbo, all I care about is freedom. As long as I don’t infringe on someone else’s person or property, I should be able to do whatever I want, including owning a gun, which haas many uses including self protection, hunting, recreation, or because I feel like having one. And all your little studies aren’t going to console me when I’m lying dead in the gutter waiting for the police to arrive. Seconds count when it takes there police minutes to arrive. The police are a clean up crew. They’ll write up a nice report after.
Do you really think you’ll be able to rid society of violence by writing laws and punishing people? That sounds rather delusional. What about psychotic people? What about serial killers? What about desperate people? You’ll always have violence in a society. No matter how many freedom robbing laws are passed.