(Žvelgiant į mūsų brangiosios Lietuvos situacija perspektyva neatrodo perdėtai viliojanti...)
Pirmiausia gal atkreipsiu dėmesį į patį posto pavadinimą, o tiksliau į vartojamą jungtuką. Jis yra ‚&‘, o ne ‚vs‘, būtent todėl, kad tai nėra vieno daikto priešpastatymas kitam – jie gali būt naudojami kiekvienas atskirai arba abu kartu, bet jie nėra vienas kitą pakeičiantys (pasinaudojant eiliniu kvailu palyginimu :) – taip pat kai sriuba ir desertas, - jie gali būti valgomi ir kartu (na, vienas po kito) ir kiekvienas atskirai, bet jie nėra vienas kito „pakaitalas“).
Taigi. Pereinant prie pačios temos.
Tarkim. Naktis. Grįžtam namo iš darbo (užsisėdėję iki vėlumos dėl to, kad reikia priduoti kokią nors ten ketvirčio ataskaitą). Galvoje vis dar sukasi mintys apie darbą ir ką ten dar reikia suspėt nuveikt per rytdieną. Ir staiga „iš niekur“ išdygsta koks nors įkaušęs bičas smegenų masės trūkumą (sėkmingai) kompensuojantis raumenų mase ir „paprašo cigarečių“. Mes mandagiai atsakom, kad nerūkom ir ruošiamės eiti toliau. Bet tas bičas turi kitų planų... jam gal gyvenime tiesiog trūksta pramogų ar šiaip draugė „nedavė“, bet jis nusiteikęs pramankštinti tuos savo raumenis pasinaudodamas mumis kaip bokso kriauše. Hmmm... nemaloni perspektyva. Ir kas toliau?
„Protingiausias“ pasakymas šiuo atveju žinoma yra tas, kad reikėjo būti budresniam ir tiesiog nepakliūti į tokią situaciją etc etc etc... ir tai žinoma yra tiesa. Bėda tik, kad kai jau papuoli į tokią situaciją – išvedžiojimams yra per vėlu. Kitas logiškas sprendimas būtų pabėgti. Bet įsivaizduokim, kad bėgti negalim nes vakar besportuodami raumenį pasitempėm :)
Taigi – kas toliau?
Čia kartosiu tai, ką esu rašęs (ir matyt ne kartą), bet mūsų interesas tokioj situacijoj yra NE nužudyti kažką, NE sužaloti, NE išgąsdinti... – mūsų interesas yra paprastas, - kad mus paliktų ramybėje. Mūsų interesas yra nutraukti užpuolimą. Tik tiek.
Aišku, kad kiekvienas normalus žmogus nori, kad ta kaina būtų kuo mažesnė (geriausia, kad užpuolikas tiesiog pabėgtų), bet tai jau priklauso ne tik ir ne tiek nuo mūsų, kiek nuo užpuoliko. Jei pakanka vien psichologinio poveikio – pvz. jei užpuolikas pabėga jau vien pajutęs mūsų intenciją gintis – tas puiku. Toks variantas yra pats geriausias.
Bet jei to nepakanka?
Koks yra vienintelis absoliučiai patikimas būdas nutraukti užpuolimą?
Užtikrinti, kad užpuolikas fiziškai būtų nepajėgus to padaryti.
O kokiu būdu tai užtikrinti?
Čia atsakymai gali būti įvairūs: jei kažkas turi keletą kovos menų juodų diržų (ir atitinkamos spalvos batus) – jis (galbūt) gali fiziškai užpuoliką nukenksmint („išjungt“). Žinoma čia tuo atveju, jei tas užpuolikas nėra pakankamai fiziškai stiprus ir/ar pats mokantis muštis, kad pasipriešintų (ir jei tas užpuolikas neturi kokio nors ginklo (nebūtinai šaunamojo), ir jei... ir jei...).
Bet koks kitas būdas irgi yra tinkamas jei tik jis (pasirodytų besąs) efektyvus.
Na, ir žinoma galima pasinaudoti (turimu) šaunamuoju ginklu tam, kad sukelti užpuolikui pakankamai fizinės žalos, kad jis nepajėgtų tęsti užpuolimo. (Nesigilinkim šiuo atveju į visokius ten mentalinius aspektus, kad norint naudotis ginklu reikia mokėti tą daryti, be to norint apsiginti reikia būti morališkai pasirengusiam jį panaudot... etc.). Ir nors žmogus net su peršauta širdimi dar gali pakankamai sėkmingai funkcionuoti net iki 15 sekundžių, tačiau didelio kiekio kraujo praradimas sukeltas keleto taiklių pataikymų yra patikimiausias mechanizmas nutraukti užpuolimui (pataikymas į smegenis ar stuburo smegenis žinoma dar efektyvesnis, bet tai per maži (+judantys) taikiniai... hmmm... užmesti ant užpuoliko (statybinį) bloką matyt būtų dar efektyviau, užtat visiškai nerealu). Taip, tai gali sukelti mirtį (bet neprivalo – pagal amerikiečių statistiką berods daugiau nei 80 proc. pašautų žmonių sėkmingai išgyvena). Ir taip, žinoma, kad analogiškus sužalojimus galima sukelti ir pvz. peiliu ar kokiu nors kitu aštresniu daiktu (nusmailintu pagaliu pagaliau), bet šaunamasis ginklas leidžia apginti save nesueinant į fizinį kontaktą su užpuoliku – kur lemiamą reikšmę turi fizinė jėga ir tokio „rungimosi“ patirtis.
Būtent dėl to šaunamasis ginklas yra efektyviausia įmanoma savigynos nuo gyvybei ir sveikatai pavojingo kėsinimosi priemonė. Ir taip – juo reikia mokėti saugiai naudotis – to niekas neatšaukė. Ir taip pat taip – ginklas nėra visko pradžia ir pabaiga – kai kuriais atvejais jo panaudojimas gali būti netinkamas (neįmanomas, nepateisinamas).
Taigi, čia pakartojau tai, kas jau ir taip žinoma apie ginklus (ir ką jau esu rašęs).
Bet kaip yra su dujų balionėliais (susitarkim , kad čia kalbam apie pipirinį (OC) purškalą, nes jis bendrai imant (su tam tikrom išlygom) efektyvesnis nei ašarinės dujos (CS/CN))?
Fiziologiškai purškalas yra (turėtų būti) labai efektyvus – sekundės papurškimas į užpuoliko veidą sukelia skausmą, deginimo pojūtį, nevaldomą akių užsimerkimą, tampa sunku kvėpuoti (ir dar visokių kitokių „malonių“ pojūčių) kurie turėtų užpuoliką „išvesti iš rikiuotės“ 30-60 minučių. Pipirinis purškalas nėra mirtinas (sveikam žmogui – nors yra pasitaikę (nykstamai mažas procentas) mirčių dėl jo panaudojimo, kai žmonės sirgo astma etc.) ir nepalieka liekamųjų pasekmių, dėl to gali būti naudojamas kiek „laisviau“ negu šaunamasis ginklas. Išties galima matyt netgi teigti, kad balionėlis yra „švelnesnė“ (mažiau pavojinga kitam asmeniui) poveikio priemonė negu smūgių sudavimas (ypač jei jie suduodami instrumentu – lazda etc.).
Kita vertus, jei mes kalbame apie savigyną, dujų balionėlis turi pakankamai ribotumų (trūkumais to nepavadinčiau – tai tiesiog ypatumai, kuriuos reik turėt omenyje).
Pirma, tai gana ribotos jo praktinio panaudojimo galimybės. Jis turi būti purškiamas užpuolikui į veidą (akis, burną, nosį). Papurškus kitur jis nebus itin efektyvus. Naudojamas gali būti tik ~1-5 metrų atstumu (t.y. arčiau kaip ~1 metras yra per arti, nes galima gauti dozę pačiam, o toliau kaip ~5 metrai, jau per toli – nepakaks balionėlio „toliašaudos“). Nelabai gali būti naudojamas uždaroje patalpoje - kambaryje, lifte (pažymėtina, kad šaudymas uždaroj patalpoj irgi gali (dėl didelio garso) būti traumuojantis - sukeliantis laikiną klausos netekimą, bet regos netekti (dėl pipirų poveikio) yra gerokai blogiau savigynos situacijoj). Atviroje erdvėje, vėlgi – reikia kreipti dėmesį į vėjo kryptį, kad pačiam negauti „porcijos“. Be to lyjant lietui purškalo efektyvumas krenta (tuo labiau, kur stipriau lyja).
Kitas dalykas, kad kaip rodo praktika (pvz. ši studija) purškalas yra efektyvus tik 80-90 procentų atvejų, taigi ne visada...
Gal galima paminėt, kad JAV jūrų pėstininkai (kartais ir policininkai) mokomi kautis netgi gavę purškalo... Ne, aš nemanau, kad nusikaltėliai treniruojasi taip kaip jūrų pėstininkai :), bet atsižvelgiant į jų „darbo aprašymą“ visai gali būti, kad jiems jau yra tekę ragauti tokio purškalo, dėl to jie žino, kas tai yra – o tai reiškia, kad jie gali tęsti užpuolimą net ir po „dozės“.
Kitas dalykas į kurį kažkodėl :) norėtųsi atkreipti dėmesį, tai kad minėtoj studijoj kalba eina apie policininkus ir nusikaltėlių sulaikymą, cituoju: „incapacitated enough to be effectively arrested“. T.y. mes kalbam ne apie visišką agresoriaus „nukenksminimą“, o tik tokį, kurio pakanka tam, kad jį efektyviai areštuoti. Lyg ir norėtųsi galvoti, kad jei žmogus pakankamai nukenksmintas, kad jį areštuoti, tai turėtų būti nukenksmintas pakankamai ir kad nuo jo pabėgti – bet akivaizdu, kad taip yra ne visada. Nes jei užpuolikas pvz. užspaudė (silpnesnę) auką į kampą, tai jis netgi nieko nematydamas gali neleisti jai pabėgti ir sukelti kūno sužalojimus. T.y. pipirinis purškalas iš esmės yra tik „minkštiklis“ skirtas „suminkštint“ užpuolikui ir suteikiantis galimybę panaudoti prieš jį kitas poveikio priemones. Na, arba tiesiog pabėgti.
Lygtai atrodytų, kad aš visai nuvertinu pipirinį purškalą ir iškeliu kaip „vienintelį teisingą“ daiktą skirtą savigynai šaunamąjį ginklą? Taip nėra. Kaip jau minėjau – kaip kirvis nėra „blogiau“ už benzopjūklą, taip ir dujų balionėlis nėra „blogiau“ už šaunamąjį ginklą. Abu turi tam tikrų pranašumų ir trūkumų.
Įsivaizduokim save (jei norim, gale save įsivaizduoti patrauklia jauna moterim :) ) pvz. daugiaaukštėje automobilių stovėjimo aikštelėje. Naktis. Apšvietimas nekoks. Stovime prie automobilio ir rakiname dureles, kai pamatome staigiu žingsniu tarp automobilių prie mūsų artėjantį tikrai labai įtartinos išvaizdos tipą kuris visiškai akivaizdžiai turi kažkokių negerų kėslų.
Ką tokiu atveju daryti?
Pirmas dalykas kurį reikia daryti, tai garsiai komanduojančiu balsu rėkti: „STOK!!! Nesiartink!!!“, ir rodyti atitinkamą ženklą ranką. Jei žmogus normalus ir mums tik pasivaideno – jis iškart sustos vietoj (net jei jis užsienietis ir net jei jis kurčias) ir pabandys paaiškint kas vyksta: „Jūs pamiršot piniginę – vijausi Jus, kad atiduočiau...“ ar „aš tiesiog einu prie savo automobilio – va to va“... Po to galima paprašyt jo apeit aplink ar parodyti tą piniginę.
Bet ką tokiu atveju, jei komanda neturi poveikio ir jis nesustoja, o tik paspartina žingsnį?
Išsitraukti ginklą ir imti pleškinti nelabai yra pagrindo (tokiu atveju gali ir nepavykti įrodyti būtinąją gintį (priklausomai žinoma nuo konkrečių aplinkybių)). Va tokiu atveju balionėlis ir yra itin tinkama priemonė – jei asmuo nereaguoja į komandą sustot ir grėsmingai artinasi toliau, reikia jam priartėjus per 2-3 metrus (t.y. neprisileidžiant prie pat) papurkšt į veidą pipirų. Be perspėjimo, nes perspėjimas leidžia užpuolikui pasiruošti fiziškai (pvz. stengtis išvengti) ir psichologiškai.
(Čia vėlgi, viskas priklauso nuo situacijos - jei tas besiartinantis rankoj turi „svinorezą“, tada balionėlis matyt jau nebūtų tinkamiausias atsakas...)
Tikiuosi daugmaž paaiškinau, ką turėjau omenyje sakydamas, kad tai, nepaisant kai kurių panašumų (abu naudojami savigynai) yra du skirtingi dalykai su skirtingom funkcijom.
Ginklas nėra „geriau“ už dujų balionėlį, nes jo panaudojimui keliami daug didesni (griežtesni) reikalavimai nei balionėliui ir dėl šios priežasties jį gali būti ne visada įmanoma suspėti panaudoti laiku. Dujų balionėlį gi galima panaudoti (palyginus) labai anksti, nelaukiant, kol susidariusi situacija eskaluosis iki tokio lygio, kad bus pateisinamas šaunamojo ginklo panaudojimas.
Savo ruožtu dujų balionėlis nėra „geriau“ už ginklą, nes jis neturi to „gebėjimo“ nutraukti gyvybei ir sveikatai keliančią agresiją vienareikšmiškai ir visiškai, nepaisant užpuoliko valios, kas deja, bet kartais gali būti būtina.
Dujų balionėlis nėra pakaitalas šaunamajam ginklui. Ir atvirkščiai.
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: “Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.” This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.
"Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself.The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?"
- William J. Bennett
In a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997
Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin’s egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
“Then there are the wolves,” the old war veteran said, “and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.” Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
“Then there are sheepdogs,” he went on, “and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.” Or, as a sign in one California law enforcement agency put it, “We intimidate those who intimidate others.”
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath--a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.
The gift of aggression
"What goes on around you... compares little with what goes on inside you."-Everyone has been given a gift in life. Some people have a gift for science and some have a flair for art. And warriors have been given the gift of aggression. They would no more misuse this gift than a doctor would misuse his healing arts, but they yearn for the opportunity to use their gift to help others. These people, the ones who have been blessed with the gift of aggression and a love for others, are our sheepdogs. These are our warriors.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
One career police officer wrote to me about this after attending one of my Bulletproof Mind training sessions:
"I want to say thank you for finally shedding some light on why it is that I can do what I do. I always knew why I did it. I love my [citizens], even the bad ones, and had a talent that I could return to my community. I just couldn’t put my finger on why I could wade through the chaos, the gore, the sadness, if given a chance try to make it all better, and walk right out the other side."
Let me expand on this old soldier’s excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids’ schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid’s school. Our children are dozens of times more likely to be killed, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured, by school violence than by school fires, but the sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their children is just too hard, so they choose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”
Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog. As Kipling said in his poem about “Tommy” the British soldier:
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001, when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently.
The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, “Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes.” The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, “Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.” When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
While there is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, he does have one real advantage. Only one. He is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.
There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory acts of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
However, when there were cues given by potential victims that indicated they would not go easily, the cons said that they would walk away. If the cons sensed that the target was a "counter-predator," that is, a sheepdog, they would leave him alone unless there was no other choice but to engage.
One police officer told me that he rode a commuter train to work each day. One day, as was his usual, he was standing in the crowded car, dressed in blue jeans, T-shirt and jacket, holding onto a pole and reading a paperback. At one of the stops, two street toughs boarded, shouting and cursing and doing every obnoxious thing possible to intimidate the other riders. The officer continued to read his book, though he kept a watchful eye on the two punks as they strolled along the aisle making comments to female passengers, and banging shoulders with men as they passed.
As they approached the officer, he lowered his novel and made eye contact with them. “You got a problem, man?” one of the IQ-challenged punks asked. “You think you’re tough, or somethin’?” the other asked, obviously offended that this one was not shirking away from them.“
As a matter of fact, I am tough,” the officer said, calmly and with a steady gaze.
The two looked at him for a long moment, and then without saying a word, turned and moved back down the aisle to continue their taunting of the other passengers, the sheep.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I’m proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, “Let’s roll,” which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers--athletes, business people and parents--from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
“Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?”
"here is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men."Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn’t have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior’s path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
- Edmund Burke
Reflections on the Revolution in France
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to slaughter you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, “I will never be caught without my gun in church.” I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a police officer he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas, in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down 14 people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy’s body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, “Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?”
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for “heads to roll” if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids’ school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, “Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?”
The warrior must cleanse denial from his thinking. Coach Bob Lindsey, a renowned law enforcement trainer, says that warriors must practice “when/then” thinking, not “if/when.” Instead of saying,“If it happens then I will take action,” the warrior says, “When it happens then I will be ready.”
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: You didn’t bring your gun; you didn’t train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by fear, helplessness, horror and shame at your moment of truth.
Chuck Yeager, the famous test pilot and first man to fly faster than the speed of sound, says that he knew he could die. There was no denial for him. He did not allow himself the luxury of denial. This acceptance of reality can cause fear, but it is a healthy, controlled fear that will keep you alive:
"I was always afraid of dying. Always. It was my fear that made me learn everything I could about my airplane and my emergency equipment, and kept me flying respectful of my machine and always alert in the cockpit."Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation:
- Brigadier General Chuck Yeager
Yeager, An Autobiography
"..denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all theAnd so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.
peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn’t so, the fall they take
when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling. Denial is a
save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in
the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level."
If you are a warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be “on” 24/7 for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... “Baa.”
This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-grass sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
(From the book 'On Combat')
So here we are in the "Age of Extortion." Our local friendly felons have finally discovered what has long been taken for granted in what we used to call "more backward countries"—that crime does pay—in millions. All you need to do is threaten to do something terrible and people will throw money at you. You don't need any particular talent or skill to get rich this way, and you don't need education or training. The only requisite is nastiness, and that is no rare quality.
We can speculate at length upon why this foulness has come upon us so strikingly at this point in our history, but I doubt that any incontrovertible conclusion will result. My own suggestion is simply overpopulation. Like rats, we get testier as we get crowded. By simple arithmetic, if the proportion of goblins to people in our society remains constant, doubling our population doubles the number of goblins. And they reinforce each other as their numbers rise.
But such speculation is academic. We have the problem; never mind why. What shall we do about it? In a socialist atmosphere, the immediate response is to hand the problem to the state. Pass a law! Any law. Just so you can say that something has been done. And above all, spend money. We have come to assume that the more money we spend on a problem, the quicker it will go away.
Now it is quite true that the state can indeed abolish extortion, terrorism, and crime. History offers many examples of nations in which none of these things existed. We can start with Senacherib of Assyria and browse on up to Porfirio Diaz of Mexico. An iron fist will do it. That's the state's simple and effective answer to disorderly conduct. If you want it arranged so that the state will protect you, you can do so. What you give up in return is your liberty.
The man to protect you is you. Not the state, not the agent of the state, and not your hired hand—YOU!
How often is our intelligence insulted by the fatuous claim that we should rely on the police for our physical security! I cannot believe that the people who advance this idea believe it themselves. The police do indeed abort a certain amount of violent crime by their coincidental presence on the scene, and that's fine. But to tell us that all we have to do is call a cop when confronted by a troll is to talk like a fool—and those who tell us this know it.
The "in" crime today is kidnapping. The police have never prevented a kidnapping. Not once. On the other hand, the intended victim often has. You don't hear much about these latter episodes, because a crime that does not take place is not newsworthy, but it is my business to know about such things and I keep track of them as best I may, and there have been at least a dozen instances brought to my attention in the last two years.
Hiring other people, public or private, to protect yourself, is perhaps not totally futile, but it must never be considered more than marginally effective. Both policemen and bodyguards can be suborned, and skill levels are problematical.
Pistol skill is not something to count on in a hired hand. Two recent examples stand out because they were caught by television cameras. These were the attempts on Governor Wallace and Imelda Marcos. In each case, guards were plentiful, and armed, but not sufficiently skilled. In each case, there was plenty of time to hit the attacker before he acted, but those responsible reacted only afterward.
On the other hand, the intended victim can seek his own skill level, and he can put it to use more quickly than any other person when he suddenly finds that he himself is a target.
Your best protector is you!
Apart from the skill factor, there is the matter of reliability. A man you hire to protect you can be hired by somebody else not to. It is nerve-wracking to be dogged about by armed men on your daily rounds, and it is also both conspicuous and un-private.
Some years ago, I undertook to train the personal guard of a certain chief of state in pistolcraft. When the course was completed, I was able to address my client thus:
"Your Excellency, 24 of your 28 men are now distinctly more efficient with their sidearms than the generality of those who guard the President of the United States. They are very good, but I don't know who they are—I hope you do."
He knew what I meant. One of his predecessors in office had been murdered by one of his own guards. Of my students who previously employed bodyguards, most now do not, except as car watchers.
Your best protector is you!
Still we hear, over and over again, that we should not be armed, that we should not resist, that we should rely on the police for our personal safety—that our best answer to violence is to give up. Such drivel demands a stronger stomach than mine.
One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.
Your best protector is you! The obvious way to eradicate crime is to eradicate criminals, but neither the lawgivers nor the constabulary seem inclined to do this. The man who elects to prey upon society deserves no consideration from society. If he survives his act of violence, he rates a fair trial—but only to be sure that there has been no mistake about his identity. If he is killed in the act, there can be little doubt about whose act it was.
But we don't want a "Porfiriato," in which the police simply shoot all suspects out of hand. Such a regime may indeed have a certain austere appeal in today's climate of urban chaos, but to trade one's liberty for security is to sell one's soul to the devil, as Ben Franklin noted. And, to quote James Burnham, it is both our lives and our liberties that are at stake.
Laws are not the answer. We have laws against murder. We have laws against kidnapping. We have laws against extortion. And murder, kidnapping, and extortion are on the rise. The answer, it seems to me, is wrath. Let the thug take his chances with an alert, prepared, and angry citizenry. It may very well spoil his whole career.
This is not a call for vigilantism: It is a call for self-reliance. For those who feel short on self-reliance, I have a suggestion. Take up practical pistol shooting as a recreation. It is a good game. It is fun. It is "relevant." And it does wonders for your self-reliance.
Your best protector is—as it always has been—you!
(Originally published in the 1975 Guns & Ammo Annual)
I carry my pistol always, whenever the law permits, inside or outside the house; at night it goes under my pillow, where I have slept with one on and off for 45 years. Am I utterly paranoid, do I feel that evil out to get me is lurking everywhere, am I so ruled by fear that I must have my security blanket at all times?
No. To think so would be to completely misunderstand the role of the personal gun in my life. My pistol, combined with some competence in its use, has indeed been a wonderful comfort in a few potentially unpleasant circumstances, and the knowledge I can retain command of my immediate environment does tend to encourage a calm self-confidence in everyday life, while precluding panic in an emergency.
The chief virtue of the pistol is that I wear it; you do not have to go and fetch it when criminal violence threatens with shocking suddenness out of the blue, as can happen even in peaceful Llano County, Texas, where I live. If you have time to fetch a gun, you would do better to grab a shotgun, probably. Wear your pistol, keep all other firearms locked away. On you, it is safe from kids and other unauthorized persons, you do not have to remember where you stashed it or fumble with the combination lock of a pistol safe. It is there, instantly ready to protect you and your family. On the street concealed carry is usually required either by law or social usage and has the advantage of protecting everyone, even antigun liberals, because criminals cannot tell which of their potential victims might be armed.
Yet my pistol is more than just security. Like an Orthodox Jewķsh yarmulke or a Christian cross, it is a symbol of who I am, what I believe and the moral standards by which I live. It symbolizes the Social Contract between myself and society and declares that I am no mere subject but a free and independent citizen of the Republic who holds inalienable rights while honoring the responsibilities that accompany those rights. My pistol states that I will defend the common weal, that I will uphold what is right and decent and that I am willing and able to protect myself and mine. (The police cannot and are not required to protect the individual person or family. They are spread too thin for that. When called they will do their best, but all too often they can get there only in time to clean up the aftermath. You are responsible for your own safety.)
My pistol is my family's shield, my guarantee that upon my life I will let no evil touch them. When a malefactor demands, Your dignity and your money, or your life!" my pistol introduces a very sobering third alternative: No - if you persist in this criminal endeavor, it is your life that will be at hazard."
Many people will suggest that the contents of your wallet are not worth jeopardizing your life for, just hand it over to the thug and move on. By doing so you are encouraging crime - success ensures the robber will seek another victim. I consider it to be a citizen's duty (a hard word to the me generation) to resist attempted violent crime by all means at his disposal, even at considerable risk to himself. Remember, action is always faster than reaction (unless your assailant has the reaction time of a Bill Jordan). Dissemble, pretend to go along. 'I don't w-w-want any trouble, you can have my wallet, I'm getting it out of my hip pocket now.' As your hand closes on your gun, yell: "Look out, behind you!" Side-step as you present the pistol, and when he turns back your front sight rests squarely on his chest. With variations to suit the particular circumstances, this sort of ploy will work far more often than most victims would believe. Statistics suggest that an intended victim who resists with a firearm is by a good margin less likely to be injured than one who does not resist at all. On the other hand, the surest way to survive a gunfight is not to get into one. Stay alert and avoid potentially bad situations if you possibly can.
Research by Professor John Lott, Gary Kleck and others into the effects of concealed carry laws prove beyond quibbling that they reduce violent crime quite considerably. Since it began to license responsible citizens to carry arms, Florida's murder rate has sunk from 36 percent above the national average to well below it, and overall the decline in violent crime in states with concealed carry laws (compared to the others) runs at least 15 percent for murder, II percent for robberies and 9 percent for rape, according to Professor Lott. Private citizens are said to use firearms in self-defense as often as a million times a year. In the vast majority of these incidents no blood is shed; the thug flees or surrenders. Nevertheless, it is claimed that private citizens justifiably in twice as many criminals as the entire law enforcement establishment in any given year.
Obviously, an armed and responsible citizenry is a very potent force in keeping crime in check. In many nations where private citizens are denied firearms - as most recently in Australia - violent crime is on the upswing, whereas in the U.S. the rate is declining.
However, the right to be armed does not depend on these facts; it goes way back to our very beginnings. Long before the Second Amendment and the rights acknowledged by English Common Law traditions, the right of a free man to bear arms was recognized by almost every culture or civilization that comes to mind. Until well into this sorry century, free men were armed, and like the yeomen of England and our own militia, they constituted the backbone of their societies.
Every right includes commitments, not least the right to bear arms. Anyone who carries a pistol in public has an obligation to society to be reasonably competent with it, able to hit his target - under stress - rather than uninvolved bystanders; he must know and abide by the laws limiting the use of lethal force; he must avoid quarrels and altercations and understand that he will be held to higher standards of restraint and responsibility than an unarmed person. The course of instruction that is rightly required (in addition to background checks) in order to earn a Texas Concealed Handgun License teaches all this, and more, including conflict resolution. Passing a shooting test is mandatory, but the class does not include shooting instruction; you are expected to have arranged for adequate training beforehand. It is a fine course; anybody who intends to go armed ought to take a similar one.
My pistol has aided no evil, it has added not a tittle of gratuitous violence to the world. On the contrary, its presence on my hip or on the Land Rover seat very definitely defused a couple of dangerous situations in the old days in Kenya. More recently, on a dark street, I am convinced the mere suspicion of its presence, engendered by my alert, confident demeanor, averted what could otherwise have been a nasty incident. Colt got it right; a pistol in the hands of a decent, courageous citizen is a convincing peacemaker. My pistol is a positive influence for stability, for decency, for righteousness, for freedom from fear and violence, for all that is right and proper. (If anyone can present a rational argument that factually disproves this statement, I will discard the gun and never carry it again.)
One's self-image matters a great deal; it is what charts one's course through life. If I refuse to compromise my integrity, my self-respect and what the Founding Fathers referred to as their sacred honor, it is because my image of myself will not permit it. Self-images are complex, of course. Basically I see myself as a sound and responsible citizen, a scrupulously law-abiding, friendly, reasonable, middle-class, normally intelligent and fairly well educated paterfamilias with some understanding of true values who has been blessed beyond his deserts in this life and is truly grateful.
At the very root and foundation of my being, though, I am a warrior - a very mild one, but a warrior nevertheless - as any man must be to some degree. My pistol symbolizes that as such I will not be coerced by fear or by any political, social or physical threats whatsoever into doing anything I consider dishonorable or unworthy of my self-respect. You can push me only so far, but no farther. It symbolizes the positive side of the warrior spirit, which is the one force that can maintain respect for the law, stability, freedom, peace and decency in this world. Without it we are done.
Warriors and hunters tend to be fascinated by fine personal arms and will often cherish one above all others, far beyond its utility as a tool. That is why embellished firearms are commonplace, while engraved carpenter's hammers are not. I dote on my Colt Officer's ACP carry gun, and delight in its presence on my hip. Now do you begin to understand what my pistol means to me?
Be that as it may, our body of armed citizens has always been a potent force for law and order, liberty and all that is good in the land. If we allow the hoplophobic left to destroy it on an emotional whim, to make themselves 'feel good,' or in accordance with their unrealistic and failed political philosophy, we will come to rue the day.
- Via keepandbeararms.com
Taigi. O paskui vieną dieną visai netyčia benaršydamas internetą imi ir užklysti kažkur, kur randi kito žmogaus parašytas mintis. Ir supranti, kad tu pats galėjai ir nesivarginti rašinėt :DDD
Aš šiaip nieko iš Libba Bray kūrybos nesu skaitęs (ir nemanau, kad skaitysiu), bet šis tekstas iš jos blogo labai stiprus. Must read. Netgi "teisuoliams". Nemanau, kad perskaitymas pakeis jų nusistatymą, bet gal bent privers trumpam susimastyti...
What can we say about Polanski?
1. He's a rapist. He raped 13-year old girl. There can be no excuse.
2. He's very good director. Really good.
Some people just can't get these two facts into their heads...
One "party" thinks that because he's a rapist he can't be an artist.
Another "party" thinks that because he is a really good artist he can not thought of as a rapist.
Well, here is the news: he is both.
He's a rapist. And an artist. Both.
Being an artist does not excuse the rape.
Being a rapist does not mean he's not an artist.
It's really that simple. But some people just don't get it... somehow...
Bet pati esmė - pasaulėžiūra, "filosofija", jei norit, - ji išlieka. Ir ji negali keistis (imho).
Šiandien pirmasis toks tekstelis:
Jeffrey R. Snyder
OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.
And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular phone.
Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?
The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.
Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.
The Gift of Life
Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one's duty to one's community. A sermon given in Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend oneself with suicide:
He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for
that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self
murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and
Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself.
"Cowardice" and "self-respect" have largely disappeared from public discourse. In their place we are offered "self-esteem" as the bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity. "Self-respect" implies that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree to which one lives up to them. "Self-esteem" simply means that one feels good about oneself. "Dignity" used to refer to the self-mastery and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of life's vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others. Now, judging by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully, evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others. These are signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the hollowness of our souls.
It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.
Do You Feel Lucky?
In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the FBI's annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he will be in an auto accident. Despite this, most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim of a crime.
Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.
Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone. Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to show up. Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls are responded to within five minutes. The idea that protection is a service people can call to have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, "Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first."
Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves that they live, work, and travel only in special "crime-free" zones. Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these imaginary boundaries. If, however, you understand that crime can occur anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that you can be maimed or mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in the hands of others.
Power And Responsibility
Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you wrong -- since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so -- but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?
Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?
One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence.
Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone -- the handgun. Small and light enough to be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or sword, not demanding great skill or strength, it truly is the "great equalizer." Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against the many.
The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a teacher a chance of protecting children at recess from a madman intent on massacring them, a family of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway station the means to protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with razors and knives.
But since we live in a society that by and large outlaws the carrying of arms, we are brought into the fray of the Great American Gun War. Gun control is one of the most prominent battlegrounds in our current culture wars. Yet it is unique in the half-heartedness with which our conservative leaders and pundits -- our "conservative elite" -- do battle, and have conceded the moral high ground to liberal gun control proponents. It is not a topic often written about, or written about with any great fervor, by William F. Buckley or Patrick Buchanan. As drug czar, William Bennett advised President Bush to ban "assault weapons." George Will is on record as recommending the repeal of the Second Amendment, and Jack Kemp is on record as favoring a ban on the possession of semiautomatic "assault weapons." The battle for gun rights is one fought predominantly by the common man. The beliefs of both our liberal and conservative elites are in fact abetting the criminal rampage through our society.
Selling Crime Prevention
By any rational measure, nearly all gun control proposals are hokum. The Brady Bill, for example, would not have prevented John Hinckley from obtaining a gun to shoot President Reagan; Hinckley purchased his weapon five months before the attack, and his medical records could not have served as a basis to deny his purchase of a gun, since medical records are not public documents filed with the police. Similarly, California's waiting period and background check did not stop Patrick Purdy from purchasing the "assault rifle" and handguns he used to massacre children during recess in a Stockton schoolyard; the felony conviction that would have provided the basis for stopping the sales did not exist, because Mr. Purdy's previous weapons violations were plea-bargained down from felonies to misdemeanors.
In the mid-sixties there was a public service advertising campaign targeted at car owners about the prevention of car theft. The purpose of the ad was to urge car owners not to leave their keys in their cars. The message was, "Don't help a good boy go bad." The implication was that, by leaving his keys in his car, the normal, law-abiding car owner was contributing to the delinquency of minors who, if they just weren't tempted beyond their limits, would be "good." Now, in those days people still had a fair sense of just who was responsible for whose behavior. The ad succeeded in enraging a goodly portion of the populace, and was soon dropped.
Nearly all of the gun control measures offered by Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) and its ilk embody the same philosophy. They are founded on the belief that America's law-abiding gun owners are the source of the problem. With their unholy desire for firearms, they are creating a society awash in a sea of guns, thereby helping good boys go bad, and helping bad boys be badder. This laying of moral blame for violent crime at the feet of the law-abiding, and the implicit absolution of violent criminals for their misdeeds, naturally infuriates honest gun owners.
The files of HCI and other gun control organizations are filled with proposals to limit the availability of semiautomatic and other firearms to law-abiding citizens, and barren of proposals for apprehending and punishing violent criminals. It is ludicrous to expect that the proposals of HCI, or any gun control laws, will significantly curb crime. According to Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) statistics, fully 90 percent of violent crimes are committed without a handgun, and 93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through the lawful purchase and sale transactions that are the object of most gun control legislation. Furthermore, the number of violent criminals is minute in comparison to the number of firearms in America -- estimated by the ATF at about 200 million, approximately one-third of which are handguns. With so abundant a supply, there will always be enough guns available for those who wish to use them for nefarious ends, no matter how complete the legal prohibitions against them, or how draconian the punishment for their acquisition or use. No, the gun control proposals of HCI and other organizations are not seriously intended as crime control. Something else is at work here.
The Tyranny of the Elite
Gun control is a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric citizenry. This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it focuses on restricting the behavior of the law-abiding rather than apprehending and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration that gun control proponents heap on gun owners and their evil instrumentality, the NRA. Gun owners are routinely portrayed as uneducated, paranoid rednecks fascinated by and prone to violence, i.e., exactly the type of person who opposes the liberal agenda and whose moral and social "re-education" is the object of liberal social policies. Typical of such bigotry is New York Gov. Mario Cuomo's famous characterization of gun-owners as "hunters who drink beer, don't vote, and lie to their wives about where they were all weekend." Similar vituperation is rained upon the NRA, characterized by Sen. Edward Kennedy as the "pusher's best friend," lampooned in political cartoons as standing for the right of children to carry firearms to school and, in general, portrayed as standing for an individual's God-given right to blow people away at will.
The stereotype is, of course, false. As criminologist and constitutional lawyer Don B. Kates, Jr. and former HCI contributor Dr. Patricia Harris have pointed out, "[s]tudies consistently show that, on the average, gun owners are better educated and have more prestigious jobs than non-owners.... Later studies show that gun owners are less likely than non-owners to approve of police brutality, violence against dissenters, etc."
Conservatives must understand that the antipathy many liberals have for gun owners arises in good measure from their statist utopianism. This habit of mind has nowhere been better explored than in The Republic. There, Plato argues that the perfectly just society is one in which an unarmed people exhibit virtue by minding their own business in the performance of their assigned functions, while the government of philosopher-kings, above the law and protected by armed guardians unquestioning in their loyalty to the state, engineers, implements, and fine-tunes the creation of that society, aided and abetted by myths that both hide and justify their totalitarian manipulation.
The Unarmed Life
When columnist Carl Rowan preaches gun control and uses a gun to defend his home, when Maryland Gov. William Donald Schaefer seeks legislation year after year to ban semiautomatic "assault weapons" whose only purpose, we are told, is to kill people, while he is at the same time escorted by state police armed with large-capacity 9mm semiautomatic pistols, it is not simple hypocrisy. It is the workings of that habit of mind possessed by all superior beings who have taken upon themselves the terrible burden of civilizing the masses and who understand, like our Congress, that laws are for other people.
The liberal elite know that they are philosopher-kings. They know that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way.
The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach.
The Florida Experience
The elitist distrust of the people underlying the gun control movement is illustrated beautifully in HCI's campaign against a new concealed-carry law in Florida. Prior to 1987, the Florida law permitting the issuance of concealed-carry permits was administered at the county level. The law was vague, and, as a result, was subject to conflicting interpretation and political manipulation. Permits were issued principally to security personnel and the privileged few with political connections. Permits were valid only within the county of issuance.
In 1987, however, Florida enacted a uniform concealed-carry law which mandates that county authorities issue a permit to anyone who satisfies certain objective criteria. The law requires that a permit be issued to any applicant who is a resident, at least twenty-one years of age, has no criminal record, no record of alcohol or drug abuse, no history of mental illness, and provides evidence of having satisfactorily completed a firearms safety course offered by the NRA or other competent instructor. The applicant must provide a set of fingerprints, after which the authorities make a background check. The permit must be issued or denied within ninety days, is valid throughout the state, and must be renewed every three years, which provides authorities a regular means of reevaluating whether the permit holder still qualifies.
Passage of this legislation was vehemently opposed by HCI and the media. The law, they said, would lead to citizens shooting each other over everyday disputes involving fender benders, impolite behavior, and other slights to their dignity. Terms like "Florida, the Gunshine State" and "Dodge City East" were coined to suggest that the state, and those seeking passage of the law, were encouraging individuals to act as judge, jury, and executioner in a "Death Wish" society.
No HCI campaign more clearly demonstrates the elitist beliefs underlying the campaign to eradicate gun ownership. Given the qualifications required of permit holders, HCI and the media can only believe that common, law-abiding citizens are seething cauldrons of homicidal rage, ready to kill to avenge any slight to their dignity, eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless. Only lack of immediate access to a gun restrains them and prevents the blood from flowing in the streets. They are so mentally and morally deficient that they would mistake a permit to carry a weapon in self-defense as a state-sanctioned license to kill at will.
Did the dire predictions come true? Despite the fact that Miami and Dade County have severe problems with the drug trade, the homicide rate fell in Florida following enactment of this law, as it did in Oregon following enactment of similar legislation there. There are, in addition, several documented cases of new permit holders successfully using their weapons to defend themselves. Information from the Florida Department of State shows that, from the beginning of the program in 1987 through June 1993, 160,823 permits have been issued, and only 530, or about 0.33 percent of the applicants, have been denied a permit for failure to satisfy the criteria, indicating that the law is benefitting those whom it was intended to benefit -- the law-abiding. Only 16 permits, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, have been revoked due to the post-issuance commission of a crime involving a firearm.
The Florida legislation has been used as a model for legislation adopted by Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Mississippi. There are, in addition, seven other states (Maine, North and South Dakota, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and, with the exception of cities with a population in excess of 1 million, Pennsylvania) which provide that concealed-carry permits must be issued to law-abiding citizens who satisfy various objective criteria. Finally, no permit is required at all in Vermont. Altogether, then, there are thirteen states in which law-abiding citizens who wish to carry arms to defend themselves may do so. While no one appears to have compiled the statistics from all of these jurisdictions, there is certainly an ample data base for those seeking the truth about the trustworthiness of law-abiding citizens who carry firearms.
Other evidence also suggests that armed citizens are very responsible in using guns to defend themselves. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year. In 98 percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high.
It is simply not possible to square the numbers above and the experience of Florida with the notions that honest, law-abiding gun owners are borderline psychopaths itching for an excuse to shoot someone, vigilantes eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless, or incompetent fools incapable of determining when it is proper to use lethal force in defense of their lives. Nor upon reflection should these results seem surprising. Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is higher.
Arms and Liberty
Classical republican philosophy has long recognized the critical relationship between personal liberty and the possession of arms by a people ready and willing to use them. Political theorists as dissimilar as Niccolo Machiavelli, Sir Thomas More, James Harrington, Algernon Sidney, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all shared the view that the possession of arms is vital for resisting tyranny, and that to be disarmed by one's government is tantamount to being enslaved by it. The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed. As Kates has shown, the Second Amendment is as much a product of this political philosophy as it is of the American experience in the Revolutionary War. Yet our conservative elite has abandoned this aspect of republican theory. Although our conservative pundits recognize and embrace gun owners as allies in other arenas, their battle for gun rights is desultory. The problem here is not a statist utopianism, although goodness knows that liberals are not alone in the confidence they have in the state's ability to solve society's problems. Rather, the problem seems to lie in certain cultural traits shared by our conservative and liberal elites.
One such trait is an abounding faith in the power of the word. The failure of our conservative elite to defend the Second Amendment stems in great measure from an overestimation of the power of the rights set forth in the First Amendment, and a general undervaluation of action. Implicit in calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment is the assumption that our First Amendment rights are sufficient to preserve our liberty. The belief is that liberty can be preserved as long as men freely speak their minds; that there is no tyranny or abuse that can survive being exposed in the press; and that the truth need only be disclosed for the culprits to be shamed. The people will act, and the truth shall set us, and keep us, free.
History is not kind to this belief, tending rather to support the view of Hobbes, Machiavelli, and other republican theorists that only people willing and able to defend themselves can preserve their liberties. While it may be tempting and comforting to believe that the existence of mass electronic communication has forever altered the balance of power between the state and its subjects, the belief has certainly not been tested by time, and what little history there is in the age of mass communication is not especially encouraging. The camera, radio, and press are mere tools and, like guns, can be used for good or ill. Hitler, after all, was a masterful orator, used radio to very good effect, and is well known to have pioneered and exploited the propaganda opportunities afforded by film. And then, of course, there were the Brownshirts, who knew very well how to quell dissent among intellectuals.
In addition to being enamored of the power of words, our conservative elite shares with liberals the notion that an armed society is just not civilized or progressive, that massive gun ownership is a blot on our civilization. This association of personal disarmament with civilized behavior is one of the great unexamined beliefs of our time.
Should you read English literature from the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries, you will discover numerous references to the fact that a gentleman, especially when out at night or traveling, armed himself with a sword or a pistol against the chance of encountering a highwayman or other such predator. This does not appear to have shocked the ladies accompanying him. True, for the most part there were no police in those days, but we have already addressed the notion that the presence of the police absolves people of the responsibility to look after their safety, and in any event the existence of the police cannot be said to have reduced crime to negligible levels.
It is by no means obvious why it is "civilized" to permit oneself to fall easy prey to criminal violence, and to permit criminals to continue unobstructed in their evil ways. While it may be that a society in which crime is so rare that no one ever needs to carry a weapon is "civilized," a society that stigmatizes the carrying of weapons by the law-abiding -- because it distrusts its citizens more than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers -- certainly cannot claim this distinction. Perhaps the notion that defending oneself with lethal force is not "civilized" arises from the view that violence is always wrong, or the view that each human being is of such intrinsic worth that it is wrong to kill anyone under any circumstances. The necessary implication of these propositions, however, is that life is not worth defending. Far from being "civilized," the beliefs that counterviolence and killing are always wrong are an invitation to the spread of barbarism. Such beliefs announce loudly and clearly that those who do not respect the lives and property of others will rule over those who do.
In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance, does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. In truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.
While gun control proponents and other advocates of a kinder, gentler society incessantly decry our "armed society," in truth we do not live in an armed society. We live in a society in which violent criminals and agents of the state habitually carry weapons, and in which many law-abiding citizens own firearms but do not go about armed. Department of Justice statistics indicate that 87 percent of all violent crimes occur outside the home. Essentially, although tens of millions own firearms, we are an unarmed society.
Take Back the Night
Clearly the police and the courts are not providing a significant brake on criminal activity. While liberals call for more poverty, education, and drug treatment programs, conservatives take a more direct tack. George Will advocates a massive increase in the number of police and a shift toward "community-based policing." Meanwhile, the NRA and many conservative leaders call for laws that would require violent criminals serve at least 85 percent of their sentences and would place repeat offenders permanently behind bars.
Our society suffers greatly from the beliefs that only official action is legitimate and that the state is the source of our earthly salvation. Both liberal and conservative prescriptions for violent crime suffer from the "not in my job description" school of thought regarding the responsibilities of the law-abiding citizen, and from an overestimation of the ability of the state to provide society's moral moorings. As long as law-abiding citizens assume no personal responsibility for combatting crime, liberal and conservative programs will fail to contain it.
Judging by the numerous articles about concealed-carry in gun magazines, the growing number of products advertised for such purpose, and the increase in the number of concealed-carry applications in states with mandatory-issuance laws, more and more people, including growing numbers of women, are carrying firearms for self-defense. Since there are still many states in which the issuance of permits is discretionary and in which law enforcement officials routinely deny applications, many people have been put to the hard choice between protecting their lives or respecting the law. Some of these people have learned the hard way, by being the victim of a crime, or by seeing a friend or loved one raped, robbed, or murdered, that violent crime can happen to anyone, anywhere at anytime, and that crime is not about sex or property but life, liberty, and dignity.
The laws proscribing concealed-carry of firearms by honest, law-abiding citizens breed nothing but disrespect for the law. As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people. A federal law along the lines of the Florida statute -- overriding all contradictory state and local laws and acknowledging that the carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens is a privilege and immunity of citizenship -- is needed to correct the outrageous conduct of state and local officials operating under discretionary licensing systems.
What we certainly do not need is more gun control. Those who call for the repeal of the Second Amendment so that we can really begin controlling firearms betray a serious misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, such that its repeal would legitimately confer upon government the powers otherwise proscribed. The Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people.
At one time this was even understood by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the first case in which the Court had an opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment, it stated that the right confirmed by the Second Amendment "is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The repeal of the Second Amendment would no more render the outlawing of firearms legitimate than the repeal of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would authorize the government to imprison and kill people at will. A government that abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with or without majoritarian approval, forever acts illegitimately, becomes tyrannical, and loses the moral right to govern.
This is the uncompromising understanding reflected in the warning that America's gun owners will not go gently into that good, utopian night: "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." While liberals take this statement as evidence of the retrograde, violent nature of gun owners, we gun owners hope that liberals hold equally strong sentiments about their printing presses, word processors, and television cameras. The republic depends upon fervent devotion to all our fundamental rights.
(Originally published in Fall, 1993 issue of The Public Interest, a quarterly journal of opinion published by National Affairs, Inc. )
- Via rkba.org
Kartais diskusija išsivysčiusi po posto būna geresnė negu pats postas :) Tai ir šis įrašas yra diskusijos vykusios po šiuo postu pratęsimas... bet kadangi komentaras gavosi jau labai ilgas, tai įdedu jį atskiru įrašu bloge.
Tai jau tampa juokinga :DDD
Na gerai, dar kartelį, šį kartą iš eilės papunkčiui:
reprezentatyvi visuomenės dalis, ir ką čia dabar padarysi? Nelabai matau, kur tame kyla problema.
Dar kartą: problema tame, kad rezultatas ekstrapoliuojamas visai visuomenei. Jei norima tą daryti reikia atrinkti imtį, kuri reprezentuotų tą visuomenę. Negi tas neaišku?
Toliau, apie psichologinius ir fizinius barjerus: šaunamasis ginklas reikalauja mažiau fizinių pastangų ir labiau nuasmenina žudymą, galima žudyti per atstumą. Taigi, abiem požiūriais nušauti žmogų lengviau nei užkapoti jį kirviu.
Taip, lengviau. Bet jau 4x kartoju – paskaityk knyga :)))
Ar su BMW M3 „lengviau“ viršyt greitį nei su BMW325? Taip, „lengviau“. Ir ką? „Lengvumas“ yra faktorius, bet tik vienas iš faktorių ir ne pats pagrindinis.
Beje, daugelis kirvį turinčių žmonių jo pastoviai nesinešioja už diržo.
Vadovaujantis tamstos teorija tai neturėtų būti reikšmingas veiksnys, nes vis tiek žudoma namie.
Toliau, galbūt nesiremkime bulvarinių laikraščių straipsniais, o paimkime vienareikšmiškesnį kriterijų (violent crime apibrėžimai skirtingose šalyse skiriasi, todėl lyginti šį rodiklį sudėtinga), pvz., nužudymų skaičius 100 000 gyventojų. Ir pamatysime, kad JAV lenkia D. Britaniją 2,5 karto ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate ).
Tu atmeti smurtinius nusikaltimus kaip argumentą. Hmmm... Gerai, tebūnie - apsiribokim „vienareikšmišku kriterijum“ - tik nužudymais.
Palikime nuošalyje „bulvarinius laikraščius“? Gerai, tebūnie - pasinaudokime Tavo siūloma wikipedija...
Taip ir padarysim, tik prieš tai atsakysiu į likusias Tavo mintis:
Citatos iš, vėl gi, lobistinio websaito manęs neįtikina.
Vėlgi, Tave kažkodėl įtikina citatos iš priešingos lobistinės pusės saitų. Kodėl? :DDD
Tik. Kai aš pateikiu kokį peidžą - aš ir neneigiu, kad jis pro-gun. Tuo tarpu, kai Tu pateiki kokį 'anti' peidžą – Tu vaidini, kad jis objektyvus...
Ar nemanau, kad tavo pozicija šiek tiek susijusi su tuo, kad tu „domiesi“ informacija būtent iš tokių websaitų? ;)
Taip, vienareikšmiškai. To aš neneigiu. Tačiau...
Nemanai, kad Tavo pozicija šiek tiek susijus su tuo, kad Tu šia tema išvis nelabai domiesi (na, iki šio momento), o žinai tik tiek, kiek „populiarioji žiniasklaida parašo“? ;) Iš esmės – vadovaujiesi emocijom (nepaaiškinamom baimėm), o ne žiniomis ir protu? Ne, atsakyti visai nereikia... :)))
Kalbant apie principus: o kodėl neprieštarauji, kad valstybė neleidžia žmonėms įsigyti tankų? Berods, pats nesi nuoseklus savo principuose. Kodėl savigynos ribą nubrėži ties kulkosvaidžiu, o ne ties branduoline galvute?
Nemanau, kad principai privalo būti absurdiški.
Pakartosiu: ribą aš nubrėžiu ten, kur kalba eina apie savęs ir savo artimųjų gynimą (žinoma čia vėl gali bandyt suvedinėt i tai, kad visa „Lietuva man giminės dėl to man reikia bombos“, bet tai ir vėl bus niekur nevedantis ad absurdum). Valstybės/visuomenės kaip visumos gynimas gi (imho) yra tai ką mes pagal „kontraktą“ pavedėm valstybei.
Nelabai įsivaizduoju situaciją, kada gali prireikti atominės bombos savigynai. Kaip (nežinau ar) pastebėjai, kulkosvaidį ir tą aš parašiau tik su „uragano išlyga“ (N.Orleane po uragano siautėjant gaujoms nutikdavo taip, kad vienam-dviems žmonėms tekdavo ginti savo būstą nuo didelės krūvos plėšikų. Pilnai automatinis ginklas net ir tokiu atveju realiai nėra niekuo itin geriau nei pusautomatis išskyrus (imho) du gan svarbius faktorius – serijom šaudančiu ginklu galima sukurt „ugnies užtvarą“ plius kai šaudoma serijom, tai „skamba“ labai baisiai (baisiau nei pavieniai šūviai :)). Jei atmetant tokį retą atvejį, tai nelabai matau, kam ir tas kulkosvaidis galėtų būt reikalingas savigynai...
Savigyna ir kariavimas labai labai labai daug skiriasi. Tiek „filosofiniu“ tiek ir praktiniu požiūriu. Gal dėl to ir ginklams yra keliami skirtingi reikalavimai.
Ir taip, aš manau, kad teises reikia riboti tiek, kiek būtina. Kad apsaugoti kitų teises. Ir aš manau, kad mano teisės kur kas geriau apsaugotos, kai gatvėje nesišlaisto gausybė ginkluotų žmonių.
Tai, ką Tu čia stengiesi racionalizuot, būtų galima išreikšti labai paprastai: „aš bijau ginklų“*.
O va aš ginklų nebijau (nes tai daiktai kurie patys, be žmonių, nieko nedaro). Aš bijau blogų žmonių (nesvarbu kuo jie ginkluoti). Ir tikrai nesijausčiau mažiau saugus (atvirkščiai – daugiau saugus), jei ginkluotų gerų žmonių gatvėje būtų daugiau (ir jei žinočiau, kad jie moka tais ginklais naudotis).
Ir šiaip... jokio realaus faktinio pagrindo Tavo baimėms nėra – legaliai turimų ginklų nuolat daugėja, bet nusikaltimų, padarytų panaudojant ginklą, skaičius nuo 2000 metų Lietuvoje iš esmės išlieka stabilus...
O apskritai visa šita „savigynos teorija“ paremta klaidingu kriminalistinės situacijos supratimu.
Tas dalykas vadinasi kriminologija. NE kriminalistika (tai visai visai kitas mokslas).
Kotais aš abejoju, kad Tu geriau „supranti situaciją“ negu aš, jei net pavadinimo nelabai žinai ;)
Taip, jei įsivaizduosime, kad yra tie „geri žmonės“, kurie niekada nedaro nusikaltimų, ir kuriems reikia ginklo savigynai, ir yra „nusikaltėliai“, kurie padaro visus nusikaltimus ir kurie vis vien turi ginklus, jei manysime, kad daugelis nužudymų įvykdomi profesionalių recidyvistų, iš anksto suplanavusių nusikaltimą ir apsirūpinusių ginklais – atrodytų, kad ginklas savigynai yra puiki idėja.
Taip iš esmės ir yra, jei imsime visus smurtinius nusikaltimus, o ne tik nužudymus
Kaip jau minėta anksčiau - Tavo logikoj yra viena yda (matyt yra ir daugiau :) ). Tai prezumpcija, kad ginklas yra skirtas gintis vien tik nuo nužudymo, o kitkam jis "nereikalingas". Kai tuo tarpu išties jis skirtas gintis ir nuo kitų sunkių nusikalstamų veikų, kaip kad: plėšimo, žaginimo, sunkaus sužalojimo etc.
Ir jei recidyvistas ruošiasi moterį „tik“ išžaginti, bet visai nesiruošia jos nužudyti, tai, bent jau mano nuomone, ji turi teisę gintis (imho išties – ji privalo gintis, bet šiuo atveju ne apie tai kalba). Ir jei nuo vieno vyro ji dar turi nedidelę teorinę galimybę apsiginti ir be ginklo... Nedidelę. Teorinę. Tai nuo daugiau...
Pagal vertinimus yra pranešama apie mažiau nei pusę pavykusių išžaginimų. O apie kiek nepavykusių (t.y. tokių, kur auka vienu ar kitu būdu sugebėjo apsiginti) Tavo nuomone yra pranešama? Nustebčiau jei susidarytų bent dešimtadalis procento.
Problema su tais „neįvykdytais nusikaltimais“ ir yra ta, kad apie juos labai sunku surinkti kažkokią statistiką – skirtingai nuo Tų pačių nužudymų.
Bet kaip jau ne kartą sakiau: statistika man būtų giliai px jeigu tektų ginti save ir savo artimus nuo nusikaltėlio kėsinimosi. NET jei pastarasis būtų ginkluotas ne šaunamuoju ginklu, o „tik“ peiliu ar beisbolo lazda.
Bėda, kad dažniausiai žmogžudystės įvyksta buitinio konflikto metu, tarp tų pačių eilinių „gerų žmonių“, be jokio planavimo ir pasiruošimo. Ir čia galimybė greitai ir nesunkiai pribaigti artimą savo tampa lemtingu kriterijumi, apsprendžiančiu, ar viskas apsiribos snukių daužymu, ar lavonu.
NET jei ir taip, NET jei šitas Tavo teiginys būtų visiška absoliuti ir nepajudinama tiesa – net ir tuo atveju tai NIEKO nepasakytų apie būtinumą uždrausti ginklus. Nes kalba eina tik apie pakankamai nedidelę dalį visuomenės. Nes, kaip matyt pats (tikiuosi) žinai butiniai nužudymai vyksta paprastai ne tarp „pačių iškiliausių visuomenės atstovų“, o tarp tam tikro gan specifinio „kontingento“...
Bet grįžkim atgal prie Tavo įmestos wikipedijos nuorodos ir pasinaudokim ja.
Tu teigi, kad ginklų skaičius neigiamai įtakoja nužudymų skaičių. Plius tu teigi, kad tai itin reikšmingas veiksnys įtakojantis nužudymų skaičių (kiek supratau ir visą nusikalstamumą irgi – bet dėl pastarojo dalyko galiu klysti). T.y. anot Tavęs - jei valstybėje daugiau ginklų, tai bus daugiau ir nužudymų.
Aš teigiu atvirkščiai. Imho ginklų skaičius nėra perdėtai reikšmingas veiksnys (nes esminis veiksnys vis tik yra žmonių mentalitetas) tačiau, jei kalbam būtent apie ginklus, tai imho ginklų skaičius teigiamai įtakoja smurtinių nusikaltimų skaičių. T.y. jei ginklų daugiau – smurtinių nusikaltimų mažiau (taigi ir nužudymų irgi).
Tu sakai: More guns = more homicide.
Aš sakau: More guns = less homicide.
Jei imam tiesiog konkrečias valstybes rezultatai gali nebūti perdaug sakantys: Tu va lygini US su UK ir gauni vieną rezultatą, bet aš galėčiau pvz. lygint Jemeną su Kolumbija – ir rezultatas būtų priešingas.
Bet galima pabandyti palyginti ne atskiras valstybes, bet bendras tendencijas. Kas teisus, o kas ne, turėtų aiškiai matytis sugretinus Tavo pateiktą sąrašą su va šitu.
Jei Tu teisus – turėtų matytis akivaizdi tendencija, kad kuo daugiau valstybėse ginklų, tuo daugiau nužudymų. Žinoma kiekviena šalis turi savo specifiką, todėl konkretūs skaičiai gali būti įvairiausi, bet pati tendencija turėtų būti akivaizdi.
Jei teisus aš – tendencija turi būti atvirkščia.
Paėmiau (nieko neatrinkinėdamas ir nemanipuliuodamas) šalis iš „list by gun ownership“ sąrašo ir prie jų prirašiau nužudymų skaičius iš Tavo nurodytos lentelės (skaičiai apvalinti (tingėjau su tais po kablelio terliotis) – bet tai esmės nekeičia).
Country/Guns (per 100)/Homicide (per 100000)
Jau krenta į akis kokios nors tendencijos? Sakysi nelabai?
O jei pažvelgtume taip:
Pirmo 10tuko 'guns' vidurkis 43.3, 'homicide' vidurkis 4.2
Paskutinio 10tuko 'guns' vidurkis 6.9, 'homicide' vidurkis 10.1
(Likusių vidurinių 13-os 'guns' vidurkis 18.2, 'homicide' vidurkis 9.3)
Taigi... gautų rezultatų „paklaidoms“ nenurašysi. -> Pataisymas: ghoul, kuris geriau išmano statistiką patikslino, kad rezultatas statistiškai nereikšmingas (žr. komentarus)
Kadangi esi mąstantis žmogus – pats turėtum suprasti ką tai reiškia :)
Pakartokim: jei manytumėm, kad Tavo teiginys apie tai, kad ginklų turėjimas neigiamai įtakoja nužudymus šalyje yra teisingas, tada nužudymų skaičiaus tendencija lyginant įvairias valstybes turėtų iš esmės atkartoti ginklų skaičiaus tendenciją. T.y. daugiau ginklų – daugiau nužudymų.
Bet (primenu - žiūrime ne atskiras konkrečias valstybes, o bendras tendencijas) yra visai atvirkščiai – kuo daugiau ginklų, tuo nužudymų mažiau :)
Aišku, kad skirtingose valstybėse skaičiai labai skirtingi, bet bendra tendencija YRA akivaizdi.
Ok, dabar gal sakysi, kad tai nesiskaito ir kad reikia imt ne bendrą visų nužudymų skaičių, o tik nužudymų panaudojant ginklus skaičių?
Kaip minėjau – mano nuomone tai neteisinga, nes, kaip jau sakiau, cituoju:
nelogiška išskirti vien nusikaltimus susijusius su ginklais. Kodėl? Todėl kad mes būtent apie tai ir kalbam – ar ginklų minusai (kad juos panaudojant padaromi nusikaltimai) "atperka" tai, kad jais kažkas apsigina nuo smurto. Dėl to jei apie kažką kalbėt, tai apie bendrą smurtinių nusikaltimų skaičių.
Ginklų skaičius valstybėse*** vs nužudymai ginklu****
Country/Guns (per 100)/Gun homicide(per 100000)
Pirmo 10tuko 'guns' vidurkis 37.5, 'gun homicide' vidurkis 0.8
Paskutinio 10tuko 'guns' vidurkis 8.9, 'gun homicide' vidurkis 15.2 (net atmetus Kolumbiją ir PAR vidurkis gaunasi 3.2, kas lyginant su 0.8 yra keturis kartus daugiau – taigi apie „paklaidas“ kalba neina...).-> Pataisymas: ghoul, kuris geriau išmano statistiką patikslino, kad rezultatas statistiškai nereikšmingas (žr. komentarus)
Taigi. Ir pagal šitą palyginimą: daugiau ginklų – mažiau nusikaltimų. Ką pastarasis palyginimas dar parodo, tai kad kuo daugiau yra ginklų šalyje, tuo su jais atsakingiau elgiamasi...
Jei dar to nesupratai: aš ką tik Tave sumušiau Tavo paties pasirinktais ginklais.
Fair and square.
Jei čia šita diskusija išties buvo „racionali“, tai dabar Tu turėtum prisipažinti klydęs ir pripažinti savo pralaimėjimą. Nes visa kita ką sakysi, tebus bandymai išsukti uodegą...
p.s. Kita įdomi tendencija, kurią nesunku pastebėti, tai kad ginklų yra daugiau "išsivysčiusiose" valstybėse, negu tose "antrojo" ir "trečiojo" pasaulio. Įdomu - ką gi tai galetų reikšti? ;)
* Nors, pripažįstu, galiu ir klysti: gal Tu tiesiog esi socialistas pagal savo vidinius politinius įsitikinimus ir tai niekuo nesusiję su baime? "Valstybė kaip motina turi rūpintis savo vaikais, nušluostyt jiems tekančia nosį, apginti juos nuo skriaudikų, bla bla..."... :)
**Kadangi apie Nigerijos nužudymus info nėra, tai ją išbraukiau iš lentelės (Bandžiau „ant greitųjų“ paieškot info, kiek ginklų turima Lietuvoj, bet radau tik tiek.)
*** Iš tos pačios lentelės.
**** 'Firearm homicide' iš čia. Nemanau, kad logiška būtų įskaičiuot savižudybes (mes pagal jas sėkmingai pirmaujam ir be ginklų) ar atsitiktines mirtis (nes kalbant apie atsitiktinumus tai aš linkęs būčiau tikėti (o tikrint tingiu), kad kuo daugiau ginklų, tuo daugiau atsitiktinumų su jais ir nutinka) .
***** Išmečiau iš lentelės visas valstybes apie kurių 'firearm homicide' nebuvo duomenų.
****** Beje, pas kai kurias valstybes ‚gun homicide‘ gaunasi didesnis nei ‚homicide‘ ankstesnėj lentelėj – taip yra todėl, kad duomenys šitose lentelėse skirtingų metų.