Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Victims-In-Training

Earlier this week, I was faced with this comment in an online forum:

“If I had to defend myself, I would not be able to and that does not bother me in the least.”

I think it actually caused me physical pain to read that comment. How can a person have such little regard for their own life, or the lives of their loved ones, as to be comfortable with accepting their own rape or murder? I feel more sorry for any children who might be in this person's care than I do for them. Not everyone can, or should, carry a weapon for self-defense. But everyone should care about their loved one's safety, if not their own.

In the recent Orlando terrorist attack, the victims waited three hours to be rescued. We now know the jihadi took time to make phone calls to friends, he also stopped to wash his hands and even clean his gun!!!! Yet no one in the night club stepped up in their own defense, they simply waited. The killer was greatly outnumbered, he was often distracted. There's a reason a group of street thugs will approach their victim from opposite directions at the same time. You can't watch in two directions at once. This isn't meant to blame the victims or play Monday morning quarterback. I'm pointing out a mindset that has become so predominant in this country.

Americans today are brainwashed to think that must obey direction from any authority figure, without question. (And the jihadi with the gun IS an authority figure.) Americans are taught that someone else will save them. Federal and local government agencies, school systems, all teach "cower in place" as a defensive technique. People are trained to mindlessly do what they are told by people who want to kill them. I've lost count of the number of security videos I've watched where a criminal holding someone at gunpoint will actually turn his back, or set the gun down and start grabbing money from a cash register, and the victim just stands there, even when next to an exit. It's pathetic conditioning promoted by the leftist leadership; progressives savor mindless cooperation. And it creates victims.

A gun in the criminal's hand is a dangerous weapon. That's why a gun in the hand of a competent law-abiding citizen is the best defense. People need to plan, and train, before they face the need to defend themselves. Unless you have decided in advance that you will not go quietly, you will indeed go quietly.

I often think that Colonel Jeff Cooper's "Principles of Personal Defense" should be required reading in schools. I re-read it frequently. The wake up call has already come. How will you answer?


I'm even willing to help you get started.

13 comments:

  1. Working on a federal facility in the not-so-free state (MD), I have two strikes against me where exercising a right would turn me into a felon. I have mulled over numerous times of alternative means of defense. Short of being taken out by a "scorched earth" attack, this guy's not going out without a fight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sure that federal facility has highly perfected security measures in place to keep you safe. ;-) I have friends in the same boat, and it pains me to hear. But as you say, the key is having a plan and not going out without a fight. Stay safe.

      Delete
    2. But, hey, I'm assuming you have to watch the "active shooter" training video so you know that if you run out of places to cower you can jump him with a fire extinguisher.

      Delete
    3. And hope that everyone in the room also jumps in!

      Delete
    4. To add a bit, it's of course unlikely that your facility will be targeted. And its further unlikely that any facility you can think of will be targeted. But that's why policies preventing concealed carry a mistake. It's precisely because we cannot, ever, predict what can be targeted, but we also know that something is going to be, that people have to presume that their only likely defense will be themselves.

      I'm babbling on something I babbled on my own blog about as well, so I'm obviously running on, but in at time of urban guerilla was, which we're now fighting for the first time, it is more logical to assume that a widespread ability of the population to individually react to any one threat is a lot more of a deterrent than preventing the population from reacting. Indeed, in a few examples, which I cited in my blog entry, some governments and societies have occasionally come to that conclusion and it has to be presumed to be at least as effective as simply telling everyone "call the police."

      Delete
  2. I consider that person fodder for Darwin. I just hope he isn't responsible for anyone else. And I bet the instant before his assailant pulls the trigger he will reconsider and regret.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm sure you are familiar with the essay "A Nation of Cowards". I point that out not in regards to the victims of this terrorist attack, but rather in response to a person who will not defend himself or those around him.

    And here is where I pose a question. At what point does a person who can defend himself, and believes he may be placed in a position to defend himself or others, have a duty to do so?

    And at what point does a society that's decent have an obligation to allow an individual to do so.

    Had there been one armed person in that bar, or perhaps two, the results may have been very different indeed. And had there been an armed person in the crowed in Boston, and we now had two instances in which the armed prevented a tragedy, would be getting these events?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's my belief that a person always has an obligation to defend himself (or herself) from grave bodily harm or death. The same obligation is held towards those in that person's care. And this is not restricted to armed defense. We are now learning that the jihadi went into a bathroom to kill folks hiding there -- leaving other patrons unattended, and yet they still waited for him to come back instead of leaving or mounting an attack. That is the mindset we have to eliminate.

      A people who are made defenseless, either by disarming OR mindset, are no more than slaves. And that is exactly to status that the leftist leadership of this country prefers for the citizens.

      Delete
  4. I just posted an item sort of related to what you have here on my own blog, here: http://lexanteinternet.blogspot.com/2016/07/packing-heat.html

    And I also linked in the essay A Nation of Cowards, which definitely taps into what you've commented on: http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

    It's really remarkable to live in one of the periodic times when people think being unable or unwilling to defend themselves is a virtue of some sort. And the concept that some outside body can actually protect the population here at home from any on terrorist attack or an attack motivated by terrorism is simply delusional. To some extent, people have to be willing to defend themselves and their fellows, or be complicit in there being no defense at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very interesting post. Thanks for sharing. What passes for virtue these days is sad, and frightening. Being unwilling to defend oneself is the surf path to slavery and destruction.

      BTW, I've added a link to Lex Anteinternet on my Shooting links tab. I look forward to reading more.

      Cheers.

      Delete
    2. Thanks!

      I've been following your blog for awhile and always enjoy it, given that it touches on three of my favorite topics, those being; 1) our shared Faith; 2) firearms and 3) beer.

      Delete
  5. My feeling is this. I will try to defend myself without a gun but if it comes down to it, there's a verse in the Bible that says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. I know how to shoot an M16 (or AR15 in the civilian world). Maybe I'm a wimp but seeing people carrying scares me and I'd prefer not to have a gun but that's just me.

    ReplyDelete

Comments to posts older than 10 days will be held for moderation.