Be Like Rabbit, or Be Like Tiger?
I saw a remarkably (but not surprisingly) misleading segment on CNN tonight.
It demonstrated, in microcosm, all that is wrong with the worldview of the left.
It concerned whether or not you are better off to resist when someone comes at you with a gun.
The "experts", of course, counselled that resistance is futile, and it's absolutely the best thing to always, always do when someone pulls a gun on you is to hand over whatever they want, don't try to "incite" (where have we heard that word before recently???) them, follow their orders, and leave them a route of escape.
Because after all, getting hurt or killed over mere property isn't worth it, right?
They pounded that point home.
Then they showed 3 carefully-chosen videotapes of people resisting a robber that turned out badly, which apparently proves that's foolish to do 100% of the time.
This is all so deeply wrong it's hard to know where to begin!
First, let me say, the RIGHT answer is that THERE IS NO SIMPLE ANSWER on how to respond to such a situation!
It is GROSSLY irresponsible for CNN to portray it as truth one should never resist.
Sometimes it's best to be passive. But many times it's also best to fight back!
Every situation is unique, and all one can say is "be alert, be aware, and use your best judgment."
The "experts" also oddly seemed to be operating on the assumption of PERFECT FOREKNOWLEDGE of the criminal's intentions! They kept harping on "all they want is your property."
That's blatantly FALSE.
And everyone knows it.
We've read plenty of times how the convenience store employees were marched into the freezer and shot in the head for no reason at all.
The BTK killer, for example, convinced his victims to think he was "only" going to rape them and they wouldn't get hurt if they didn't resist, which made them cooperative in their own demise, and his self-confessed "payoff" was their surprise at finding out he meant to kill them all along.
I could go on and on with such examples. But I won't, because it is best that the memory of these monsters is erased from the minds of men so that they truly die completely.
Suffice to say, it may be for fun. It may be to eliminate witnesses. It may be they don't know what else to do.
Maybe they get mad you don't have more money on you.
Who knows?
Who cares?
Someone with a gun is ipso facto an unpredictable predatory animal and should be presumed to be such. It is patently insane to expect a criminal, often high on drugs, to behave rationally! Impulse control is not one of their strong suits.
The cherry-picked examples they showed prove nothing. For anecdotes on the other side, see here.
The "experts" also assumed the quarry (you) would be unarmed. If anything, that's an argument to be better prepared for armed defense in your real life!
My understanding is statistically, it's somewhat better to fight back when mugged, to avoid being hurt, because they tend to like to hurt you anyway.
That is, if they think you aren't going to maybe hurt THEM!
The weakness, the passivity.
Imagine if everyone actually decided that was the "best" way to behave.
How long do you think law and order would last???
Once all risk of stealing was removed, stuff you thought you owned would become the new "riskless asset" to be taken at the whim of the brutal, of which there are plenty enough to reduce us all to poverty in a short time.
But that's just the attitude they peddle with regard to international relations as well, isn't it? Don't incite the terrorists, maybe if we appease them enough and give them what they demand they won't hurt us?
It's a pernicious philosophy that leads directly to enslavement and the loss of dignity.
As commenter Solomon2 said at Belmont Club about a crituque of the la-la-land of the left that I thought was apropos of this other issue as well,
My judo instructor, who was twice the Korean National Champion, I recall would often say:
It demonstrated, in microcosm, all that is wrong with the worldview of the left.
It concerned whether or not you are better off to resist when someone comes at you with a gun.
The "experts", of course, counselled that resistance is futile, and it's absolutely the best thing to always, always do when someone pulls a gun on you is to hand over whatever they want, don't try to "incite" (where have we heard that word before recently???) them, follow their orders, and leave them a route of escape.
Because after all, getting hurt or killed over mere property isn't worth it, right?
They pounded that point home.
Then they showed 3 carefully-chosen videotapes of people resisting a robber that turned out badly, which apparently proves that's foolish to do 100% of the time.
This is all so deeply wrong it's hard to know where to begin!
First, let me say, the RIGHT answer is that THERE IS NO SIMPLE ANSWER on how to respond to such a situation!
It is GROSSLY irresponsible for CNN to portray it as truth one should never resist.
Sometimes it's best to be passive. But many times it's also best to fight back!
Every situation is unique, and all one can say is "be alert, be aware, and use your best judgment."
The "experts" also oddly seemed to be operating on the assumption of PERFECT FOREKNOWLEDGE of the criminal's intentions! They kept harping on "all they want is your property."
That's blatantly FALSE.
And everyone knows it.
We've read plenty of times how the convenience store employees were marched into the freezer and shot in the head for no reason at all.
The BTK killer, for example, convinced his victims to think he was "only" going to rape them and they wouldn't get hurt if they didn't resist, which made them cooperative in their own demise, and his self-confessed "payoff" was their surprise at finding out he meant to kill them all along.
I could go on and on with such examples. But I won't, because it is best that the memory of these monsters is erased from the minds of men so that they truly die completely.
Suffice to say, it may be for fun. It may be to eliminate witnesses. It may be they don't know what else to do.
Maybe they get mad you don't have more money on you.
Who knows?
Who cares?
Someone with a gun is ipso facto an unpredictable predatory animal and should be presumed to be such. It is patently insane to expect a criminal, often high on drugs, to behave rationally! Impulse control is not one of their strong suits.
The cherry-picked examples they showed prove nothing. For anecdotes on the other side, see here.
The "experts" also assumed the quarry (you) would be unarmed. If anything, that's an argument to be better prepared for armed defense in your real life!
My understanding is statistically, it's somewhat better to fight back when mugged, to avoid being hurt, because they tend to like to hurt you anyway.
That is, if they think you aren't going to maybe hurt THEM!
Fifty-six percent of the felons surveyed agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun;" 74% agreed that "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot."But the deeper reason I find this disgusting is the message it sends.
A 57% majority agreed that "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
The weakness, the passivity.
Imagine if everyone actually decided that was the "best" way to behave.
How long do you think law and order would last???
Once all risk of stealing was removed, stuff you thought you owned would become the new "riskless asset" to be taken at the whim of the brutal, of which there are plenty enough to reduce us all to poverty in a short time.
But that's just the attitude they peddle with regard to international relations as well, isn't it? Don't incite the terrorists, maybe if we appease them enough and give them what they demand they won't hurt us?
It's a pernicious philosophy that leads directly to enslavement and the loss of dignity.
As commenter Solomon2 said at Belmont Club about a crituque of the la-la-land of the left that I thought was apropos of this other issue as well,
I've been reading up on Dark Ages history. As you might expect, it is rather depressing.In the Hobbesian world of reality, one can choose to either be a Rabbit, or a Tiger.
Consider the development of European serfdom: as Rome weakened, citizens sought security by selling their property or even themselves to stronger landowners or military men who could offer them protection (in exchange for service) against the growing anarchy. As the "lords" grew stronger and battled each other, this movement accelerated, and Roman government revenues and manpower declined.
Civilization thus decayed because our ancestors chose the short-term security offerred by supporting the local bully - "Roman" or invader - rather than risk their own necks to remain free men. It was a false choice -- death and destruction came anyway, but it was slower and longer-lasting than the defeats suffered by the Roman Republic.
The modern-day Left is behaving the same way too many Europeans behaved 1500 years ago. They would have us "kiss up" to the invader -- be they Soviet Communists or Islamic militants. This, they think, is a good strategy for survival.
My judo instructor, who was twice the Korean National Champion, I recall would often say:
Don't be like Rabbit! Be like Tiger!!!
posted by RDS at 11:28 PM
2 Comments:
Story from the local paper--late at night, woman is mugged. Her boyfriend is nearby. She calls for him. Mugger runs off with purse. BF pursues for several blocks, tackles mugger. Mugger has knife. BF, chef at a local club who just goto off work, has boxcutter in pocket. BF cuts mugger's throat. BF jailed overnight, faces manslaughter if mugger dies. Mugger lives. BF released.
Spokesman for mayor says, 'we don't want vigilantes, but if criminals know people will fight back, crime rates might fall.'
Indeed they will! This link may be of interest: The Armed Citizen.
Post a Comment
<< Home