Women's Fear of Random Attacks

Off Topic
241

[quote]Alffi wrote:

And the statistics I’m referring to concern the USA. A relatively large percentage of US rape victims are non-white and a relatively high number of the rapists are black. Canada is far more white so we can deduce that there would be a lot less rape going on.

So according to the stats of back then, less than 1% of US american women are raped and the USA may well be the rape capital of the west. You could multiply that to your heart’s content and you would still have trouble coming up with 1 in 6.

I did not make up what I said about studies. I just wanted to be fair and cited the lower assumed figures and the higher figures. You can go to some men’s advocacy sites for example and come up with those having faith in the high figures or feminist sites,biased to the opposite direction,who would have one believe that hardly any woman would ever bend the truth. [/quote]

So are you removing the non-whites to come up with the number of real rapes?

242

As for the rest of you, I started this thread thinking “yeah, it’s crazy to be worried about being attacked when I’m out running.” For me, much better to be worried about a broken leg.

And now I’m whipped up into a complete frenzy of fear over people whose throats I’m supposed to punch and bored kids with hunting knives. Not only that, but last night I was reading in bed (alone, husband’s gone) and came across this lovely bit by a psychologist:

A few years ago I attended a standing-room-only workshop on violence. The presenter asked people in the room who had been assaulted by clients to raise their hands. Tow-thirds of the room did so. Then he asked people to raise their hands if they had required medical care because of a client’s assault. A hundred therapists in our small, relatively safe state had been hurt by their clients or their client’s relatives.

I’ll be hiding under my bed for the rest of the day if anyone needs me.

Court, my experience has been the same. Rapes are not uncommon. Rape reports are. And although not all of them have been raped, most women I know well have stories of having felt threatened by male sexual aggression.

243

[quote]Alffi wrote:

And the statistics I’m referring to concern the USA. A relatively large percentage of US rape victims are non-white and a relatively high number of the rapists are black. Canada is far more white so we can deduce that there would be a lot less rape going on. [/quote]

Have you ever been to Canada? Something tells me…no.

[quote]So according to the stats of back then, less than 1% of US american women are raped and the USA may well be the rape capital of the west. You could multiply that to your heart’s content and you would still have trouble coming up with 1 in 6.

I did not make up what I said about studies. I just wanted to be fair and cited the lower assumed figures and the higher figures. You can go to some men’s advocacy sites for example and come up with those having faith in the high figures or feminist sites,biased to the opposite direction,who would have one believe that hardly any woman would ever bend the truth. [/quote]

Why would I go to an advocacy site (male or female) for an accurate, unbiased statistic? Besides, I think the majority here will agree that statistics, going by what’s reported, is not an accurate measure of actual incidents that have occurred.

I can tell you right now that I have a personal story that I could post here that I will not, because of people like you. Oh, but I’m white and live in Canada so that didn’t happen.

244

[quote]Westclock wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Serious question here because I have no idea, but how easy is it to find a decent course taught by a competent instructor?

Are most courses good or is it like Self Defence courses where most of the available ones would leave you worse off than not taking them?

By themselves self defense courses serve only one real purpose.

To make the female more confident and practiced in what should come naturally.

Females are not as aggressive as males, and hence their immediate reaction is panic, fear, and generally fleeing. This is normal and very much the correct response if under attack by a male.

The classes teach you to run, to throw your purse, throw your keys, etc. And flee. It supposed to keep you calm so you make CORRECT decisions.

IF you cant get away immediately your supposed to go for soft spots, groin, eyes, neck, face.

Attacking these spots is intended to stun the attacker long enough to allow you to, again, run as fast as you can.

Its not so much “self defense” as a “how to punch a guy in the throat and run like hell”, class.

Which is the best decision.

The gun opens up a different option, instead of having to run from the guy and risk him catching you, or punch, kick, stab the guy in the eyes, when he tries to catch you…

You just open up on him with a .38 and then run like hell, if you hit him even once hes not going to be able to catch you.

And even if somehow you miss, hes not going to go after a chick who just shot at him, hes going to get out of there.

My future ladies are getting both a self defense course taught by my incredibly badass uncle who owns a martial arts studio.

But also the shaved .38’s from my grandfather.

[/quote]

Incredible post and very true. My Sensei had a very serious and practical approach to self defense, especially concerning women. We were always taught to never purposely put ourselves in a dangerous situation. Should it happen, you be aware of ALL of the people around you and ALL of your surroundings, basically anything that can be used as a weapon.

Should anything happen, you get the hell out of there now, never mind if you dropped something, lost a shoe, whatever. Don’t EVER let a man approach you from behind - you will not get out of it. Lastly, should you be forced to hurt your attacker, don’t just hit him lightly or point the gun at him, you use it and you fuck him up so that you know he’s not getting back up again.

This all sounds very extreme, and it is, but it’s real. Besides, when you have something like what happened to Marvel Girl and her mom, you had better be able to do something. These people want to do nothing but hurt you. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a bubble.

245

[quote]MsM wrote:
Alffi wrote:

I can tell you right now that I have a personal story that I could post here that I will not, because of people like you. Oh, but I’m white and live in Canada so that didn’t happen. [/quote]

Yeah, mine neither. That’s a hell of a load off my mind.

246

[quote]MsM wrote:
Alffi wrote:

And the statistics I’m referring to concern the USA. A relatively large percentage of US rape victims are non-white and a relatively high number of the rapists are black. Canada is far more white so we can deduce that there would be a lot less rape going on.

Have you ever been to Canada? Something tells me…no.

So according to the stats of back then, less than 1% of US american women are raped and the USA may well be the rape capital of the west. You could multiply that to your heart’s content and you would still have trouble coming up with 1 in 6.

I did not make up what I said about studies. I just wanted to be fair and cited the lower assumed figures and the higher figures. You can go to some men’s advocacy sites for example and come up with those having faith in the high figures or feminist sites,biased to the opposite direction,who would have one believe that hardly any woman would ever bend the truth.

Why would I go to an advocacy site (male or female) for an accurate, unbiased statistic? Besides, I think the majority here will agree that statistics, going by what’s reported, is not an accurate measure of actual incidents that have occurred.

I can tell you right now that I have a personal story that I could post here that I will not, because of people like you. Oh, but I’m white and live in Canada so that didn’t happen. [/quote]

I don’t get your attitude. People were discussing the chances of getting assaulted and what are reasonable precautions. I was simply adding to that. If the stats I reported are true,then I think you should welcome them as a relief because then things are not as bad as you could be led to believe they are. I don’t really have any personal dog in this fight. I’m not saying that rape is not a serious issue when it happens,regardless of how frequent or infrequent it is. I’m just reporting.

And I agree stats are not everything,but they are for real. The rest is speculation about what might be. I don’t have a problem with accepting that a lot goes unreported but 1 in 6? Maybe something in the middle,which is a huge distance.

247

[quote]debraD wrote:
This is something that’s been getting on my nerves lately: the ridiculous fear of women getting attacked.

I rarely drive anywhere and so I end up walking alone in the dark quite frequently, in the morning on my way to work it is dark and its dark when I leave at night. It’s dark when I run in the morning, hell, it’s dark most of the time because it’s WINTER.

But this is apparently quite irresponsible, so much so that everyone and their dog must offer me a ride home, lecture me on personal safety moan and groan about the bad men hiding in the bushes and tell me I’m CRAZY for stepping outside unchaperoned.

A short while ago I was on my way to work, waiting for the light to change at an intersection downtown, and a woman standing next to me says “Oh my, all these men…It’s just not safe to be a woman alone!!!” WHAT??? I looked around me and there were some city workers across the street and a few guys here and there going about there business getting coffee and getting to work. Yes, very scary indeed. That dude with the briefcase is clearly about to attack.

A couple of weeks ago a co-worker was discussing his wife getting a job offer downtown. She declined the job because it required her to be downtown between 6 and 7 am and she felt it just wasn’t safe. WTF??? He agreed with her and felt this was a fine reason for her to turn down a good paying job and stay on the fucking couch. Another co-worker (woman) also agreed and said she wouldn’t do that either.

Am I crazy??? Is this not over the top ridiculous?[/quote]

We experience what we think, so being in you I would stop thinking to those kind of things because as you think them you are attracting them and I would not be surprised if you would experience something someday.
It is the law of attraction.
If you do not want to experience something , simply do not think to it, because the Universe does not distinguish if you want or not something that u think. It simply responds us sending the object of our thoughts

Think to good things, beautiful situation, relax, have fun, watch life through the eyes of love and everything will unfold beautifully :))))))))))))))))))))))))

248

There is only one way to change what happens at this world and it is : changing our thoughts!!!
action is ridiculously weak when compared to vibration

we create with the vibration, and then the vibration calls the action for us

So let’s vibrate good, let’s offer perfect good love thoughts, the world will become the beautiful place that we all dream about.
but to make it happen we , each of us as to awake and change the way of thinking, otherwise it simply can’t happen because it will continue to be the equivalent of the thoughts that we always have been offering…

249

[quote]Alffi wrote:

I don’t get your attitude. People were discussing the chances of getting assaulted and what are reasonable precautions. I was simply adding to that. If the stats I reported are true,then I think you should welcome them as a relief because then things are not as bad as you could be led to believe they are. I don’t really have any personal dog in this fight. I’m not saying that rape is not a serious issue when it happens,regardless of how frequent or infrequent it is. I’m just reporting.

And I agree stats are not everything,but they are for real. The rest is speculation about what might be. I don’t have a problem with accepting that a lot goes unreported but 1 in 6? Maybe something in the middle,which is a huge distance.[/quote]

That is alright and many people don’t. I’m not going to try to convince anyone otherwise.

Just because you read something somewhere, whether it’s called a stat or a study or whatever, does not mean that it’s accurate.

I had worked with the police department for a number of years so I got to hear the lunch room talk as well as see the reports. If you think that everyone reports everything that happens, you couldn’t be more wrong. The majority of officers, before they even take a call, would already get a feeling of defeat because they knew the majority of the time, the woman would want to drop things and let them go, as in not wanting to report or pursue a day in court. Their reason is usually because they don’t want to deal with the kinds of comments that you have made here.

250

[quote]Alffi wrote:
MsM wrote:
Alffi wrote:

And the statistics I’m referring to concern the USA. A relatively large percentage of US rape victims are non-white and a relatively high number of the rapists are black. Canada is far more white so we can deduce that there would be a lot less rape going on.

Have you ever been to Canada? Something tells me…no.

So according to the stats of back then, less than 1% of US american women are raped and the USA may well be the rape capital of the west. You could multiply that to your heart’s content and you would still have trouble coming up with 1 in 6.

I did not make up what I said about studies. I just wanted to be fair and cited the lower assumed figures and the higher figures. You can go to some men’s advocacy sites for example and come up with those having faith in the high figures or feminist sites,biased to the opposite direction,who would have one believe that hardly any woman would ever bend the truth.

Why would I go to an advocacy site (male or female) for an accurate, unbiased statistic? Besides, I think the majority here will agree that statistics, going by what’s reported, is not an accurate measure of actual incidents that have occurred.

I can tell you right now that I have a personal story that I could post here that I will not, because of people like you. Oh, but I’m white and live in Canada so that didn’t happen.

I don’t get your attitude. People were discussing the chances of getting assaulted and what are reasonable precautions. I was simply adding to that. If the stats I reported are true,then I think you should welcome them as a relief because then things are not as bad as you could be led to believe they are. I don’t really have any personal dog in this fight. I’m not saying that rape is not a serious issue when it happens,regardless of how frequent or infrequent it is. I’m just reporting.

And I agree stats are not everything,but they are for real. The rest is speculation about what might be. I don’t have a problem with accepting that a lot goes unreported but 1 in 6? Maybe something in the middle,which is a huge distance.[/quote]

It looks to me like you’re downplaying the subject matter, and dismissing what the ladies are telling you. I think their “attitude” is justified.

1 in 6 is still too many REPORTED rapes. Do you know any women that have been through this? Do you understand the profound effect that it has on their lives?

251

[quote]MsM wrote:
Alffi wrote:

I don’t get your attitude. People were discussing the chances of getting assaulted and what are reasonable precautions. I was simply adding to that. If the stats I reported are true,then I think you should welcome them as a relief because then things are not as bad as you could be led to believe they are. I don’t really have any personal dog in this fight. I’m not saying that rape is not a serious issue when it happens,regardless of how frequent or infrequent it is. I’m just reporting.

And I agree stats are not everything,but they are for real. The rest is speculation about what might be. I don’t have a problem with accepting that a lot goes unreported but 1 in 6? Maybe something in the middle,which is a huge distance.

That is alright and many people don’t. I’m not going to try to convince anyone otherwise.

Just because you read something somewhere, whether it’s called a stat or a study or whatever, does not mean that it’s accurate.

I had worked with the police department for a number of years so I got to hear the lunch room talk as well as see the reports. If you think that everyone reports everything that happens, you couldn’t be more wrong. The majority of officers, before they even take a call, would already get a feeling of defeat because they knew the majority of the time, the woman would want to drop things and let them go, as in not wanting to report or pursue a day in court. Their reason is usually because they don’t want to deal with the kinds of comments that you have made here.[/quote]
So if I don’t think that the figures are as high as some think,then I’m discouraging women from reporting rape?

252

[quote]Alffi wrote:

So if I don’t think that the figures are as high as some think,then I’m discouraging women from reporting rape? [/quote]

My point is, it doesn’t matter what you think. It’s not about you anyhow.

As far as the rest of the thread, I can sum it up in one sentence:

Hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

253

[quote]imhungry wrote:
Alffi wrote:
MsM wrote:
Alffi wrote:

And the statistics I’m referring to concern the USA. A relatively large percentage of US rape victims are non-white and a relatively high number of the rapists are black. Canada is far more white so we can deduce that there would be a lot less rape going on.

Have you ever been to Canada? Something tells me…no.

So according to the stats of back then, less than 1% of US american women are raped and the USA may well be the rape capital of the west. You could multiply that to your heart’s content and you would still have trouble coming up with 1 in 6.

I did not make up what I said about studies. I just wanted to be fair and cited the lower assumed figures and the higher figures. You can go to some men’s advocacy sites for example and come up with those having faith in the high figures or feminist sites,biased to the opposite direction,who would have one believe that hardly any woman would ever bend the truth.

Why would I go to an advocacy site (male or female) for an accurate, unbiased statistic? Besides, I think the majority here will agree that statistics, going by what’s reported, is not an accurate measure of actual incidents that have occurred.

I can tell you right now that I have a personal story that I could post here that I will not, because of people like you. Oh, but I’m white and live in Canada so that didn’t happen.

I don’t get your attitude. People were discussing the chances of getting assaulted and what are reasonable precautions. I was simply adding to that. If the stats I reported are true,then I think you should welcome them as a relief because then things are not as bad as you could be led to believe they are. I don’t really have any personal dog in this fight. I’m not saying that rape is not a serious issue when it happens,regardless of how frequent or infrequent it is. I’m just reporting.

And I agree stats are not everything,but they are for real. The rest is speculation about what might be. I don’t have a problem with accepting that a lot goes unreported but 1 in 6? Maybe something in the middle,which is a huge distance.

It looks to me like you’re downplaying the subject matter, and dismissing what the ladies are telling you. I think their “attitude” is justified.

1 in 6 is still too many REPORTED rapes. Do you know any women that have been through this? Do you understand the profound effect that it has on their lives?

[/quote]But I think we already agreed here that regardless of the true number of rapes, less than 1 in 6 are reported.

I don’t claim to understand it. I can only try to empathize with it. This discussion has nothing to do with the seriousness of rape as a crime,or its effects on an invidual. It’s only about the chances of it occurring.

Inflating statistics (in some cases maybe out of simple misandry,miscalculation or to justify a budget) has the effect of making monsters out of a lot of harmless men,which is an offense in itself.

254

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Would it be a fair assessment to say that you don’t believe anyone can prepare themselves for the unexpected, so why bother?

[/quote]

It depends, someone who is in a high risk job such as the police force, prison guard or whatever should certainly be training in as realistic a way as possible to defend themselves.

Someone who percieves themselves to be in a high risk situation (regardless of the risk) has every right to choose to try to prepare themselves however they should be aware of the fact that lots of people will try to prey on that fear to sell them something.

They should also be aware that what they are being sold is no guarentee and in quite a lot of situations will actually leave them worse off.

My worry is that a lot of people buy into something that gives them a false sense of security and actually causes them to increase the riskiness of their behaviour.

The example of the woman alone in the house, hearing a noise. Her best course of action is probably to leave the property by another exit and call the police, regardless of whether she has a gun or not. However because she has a gun, she feels safe and powerful and confronts the suspected intruder.

Now there are a number of things that can happen, she shoots the intruder and now has to live with the trauma of having killed someone. She panics, freezes up and gets raped and murdered. She acidentally kills the family pet.

Any self defence program (including firearms or not) should have as its primary focus avoiding being in the dangerous situation in the first place. It should also include the best ways to de-escalate a violent confrontation. The use of violence should always be a considered decision and a last resort.

If you are the one that takes the decision to escalate the situation to violence then that violence needs to be overwhelming. If you have a gun, you must be prepared to shoot to kill. If you are using grappling, you must be prepared to break limbs. Otherwise you have just defined the rules as anything goes to the other person but still limited yourself. In this situation you will lose.

255

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

The example of the woman alone in the house, hearing a noise. Her best course of action is probably to leave the property by another exit and call the police, regardless of whether she has a gun or not. However because she has a gun, she feels safe and powerful and confronts the suspected intruder.
[/quote]

To leave the house and call the police (waking neighbors to use the phone, thereby frightening another person or set of people) and THEN to discover the family pet knocked over the kitchen garbage…how many times will the police respond in a timely manner to her calls?

256

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

The example of the woman alone in the house, hearing a noise. Her best course of action is probably to leave the property by another exit and call the police, regardless of whether she has a gun or not. However because she has a gun, she feels safe and powerful and confronts the suspected intruder.

To leave the house and call the police (waking neighbors to use the phone, thereby frightening another person or set of people) and THEN to discover the family pet knocked over the kitchen garbage…how many times will the police respond in a timely manner to her calls?[/quote]

Exactly, I don’t think many guys can grasp how a gal looks at personal safety. I have seen many women and teenagers have no grasp of personal safety at all. they don’t seem to notice anything around surroundings wise. That’s one type.

Then there are the over the top scared types, the macho types and so on. But the type that uses a common sense approach of alertness, preparedness, and possible self defense if they are capable of will have the most success.

Being prepared is making sure you have adequate gas in your car, the car is maintained well, and you have your cell phone charged as well. I would recommend all women that drive get a Triple AAA membership. Get directions before hand and such.

Keep some cash on you, some warm clothes in the car, hat and such in case of a breakdown.

Self defense is great for anyone who is physically capable. Learning effective strategies and some street smarts is something anyone can benefit from. This would include unarmed all the way up to a gun.

The more prepared you are, the less likely you are to call the cops because a raccoon got in your garbage.

257

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Would it be a fair assessment to say that you don’t believe anyone can prepare themselves for the unexpected, so why bother?

It depends, someone who is in a high risk job such as the police force, prison guard or whatever should certainly be training in as realistic a way as possible to defend themselves.

Someone who percieves themselves to be in a high risk situation (regardless of the risk) has every right to choose to try to prepare themselves however they should be aware of the fact that lots of people will try to prey on that fear to sell them something.

They should also be aware that what they are being sold is no guarentee and in quite a lot of situations will actually leave them worse off.

My worry is that a lot of people buy into something that gives them a false sense of security and actually causes them to increase the riskiness of their behaviour.

The example of the woman alone in the house, hearing a noise. Her best course of action is probably to leave the property by another exit and call the police, regardless of whether she has a gun or not. However because she has a gun, she feels safe and powerful and confronts the suspected intruder.

Now there are a number of things that can happen, she shoots the intruder and now has to live with the trauma of having killed someone. She panics, freezes up and gets raped and murdered. She acidentally kills the family pet.

Any self defence program (including firearms or not) should have as its primary focus avoiding being in the dangerous situation in the first place. It should also include the best ways to de-escalate a violent confrontation. The use of violence should always be a considered decision and a last resort.

If you are the one that takes the decision to escalate the situation to violence then that violence needs to be overwhelming. If you have a gun, you must be prepared to shoot to kill. If you are using grappling, you must be prepared to break limbs. Otherwise you have just defined the rules as anything goes to the other person but still limited yourself. In this situation you will lose.[/quote]

To simplify what you’ve said:

  1. Unless you are a cop, there is no need to learn self preservation skills.

  2. If you chose to ignore #1, you will likely be worse off (and out some money).

  3. If you are home alone, and you hear a noise, leave your house.

  4. If you do end up in a fight, fight to win, or else be a victim.

I’m thinking your rules #1, 2 & 3, practically ensure that by the time they get to rule #4, they already have the victim mentality.

I’m so glad I’m not a Brit.

258

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Would it be a fair assessment to say that you don’t believe anyone can prepare themselves for the unexpected, so why bother?

It depends, someone who is in a high risk job such as the police force, prison guard or whatever should certainly be training in as realistic a way as possible to defend themselves.

Someone who percieves themselves to be in a high risk situation (regardless of the risk) has every right to choose to try to prepare themselves however they should be aware of the fact that lots of people will try to prey on that fear to sell them something.

They should also be aware that what they are being sold is no guarentee and in quite a lot of situations will actually leave them worse off.

My worry is that a lot of people buy into something that gives them a false sense of security and actually causes them to increase the riskiness of their behaviour.

The example of the woman alone in the house, hearing a noise. Her best course of action is probably to leave the property by another exit and call the police, regardless of whether she has a gun or not. However because she has a gun, she feels safe and powerful and confronts the suspected intruder.

Now there are a number of things that can happen, she shoots the intruder and now has to live with the trauma of having killed someone. She panics, freezes up and gets raped and murdered. She acidentally kills the family pet.

Any self defence program (including firearms or not) should have as its primary focus avoiding being in the dangerous situation in the first place. It should also include the best ways to de-escalate a violent confrontation. The use of violence should always be a considered decision and a last resort.

If you are the one that takes the decision to escalate the situation to violence then that violence needs to be overwhelming. If you have a gun, you must be prepared to shoot to kill. If you are using grappling, you must be prepared to break limbs. Otherwise you have just defined the rules as anything goes to the other person but still limited yourself. In this situation you will lose.

To simplify what you’ve said:

  1. Unless you are a cop, there is no need to learn self preservation skills.

  2. If you chose to ignore #1, you will likely be worse off (and out some money).

  3. If you are home alone, and you hear a noise, leave your house.

  4. If you do end up in a fight, fight to win, or else be a victim.

I’m thinking your rules #1, 2 & 3, practically ensure that by the time they get to rule #4, they already have the victim mentality.

I’m so glad I’m not a Brit.

[/quote]

Yep, this kind of attitude and bad teeth to boot.

259

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Would it be a fair assessment to say that you don’t believe anyone can prepare themselves for the unexpected, so why bother?

It depends, someone who is in a high risk job such as the police force, prison guard or whatever should certainly be training in as realistic a way as possible to defend themselves. [/quote]

We are not talking about high risk jobs. We are talking about the average person’s everyday situations. My husband is an ex-cop, would you say he should not be allowed to carry anymore since he is not on duty?

This makes no sense. You just spent multiple posts trying to convince women that they are wasting time and making themselves a danger to other people because they “perceive” themselves to be in a high risk situation, and they have no right to arm themselves just because they PERCEIVE themselves to be in a risky situation.

[quote] They should also be aware that what they are being sold is no guarentee and in quite a lot of situations will actually leave them worse off.

My worry is that a lot of people buy into something that gives them a false sense of security and actually causes them to increase the riskiness of their behaviour. [/quote]

Please read my post a few pages back about how people who own guns are responsible their use.

I’m not sure if you are talking about me or MeesusPush. However, in my case, it was not “a noise.” I took the time to confirm that there was actually a person in my home. I didn’t just hear a bump in the night and go wildly hunting for something to load bullets into because it set me into an irrational state of genocidal panic. Calling the police was not a helpful option because it would have taken them several minutes to arrive, while the threat was already present. My immediate response was to establish if it was a true threat, which could be done in a matter of seconds. And I had no cell phone, so running outside and calling the police was not an option.

Hey, guess what! None of those things happened!

Any self defense program (which should include firearms) should have as its primary focus how to mentally react when you are in a dangerous situation. Because it doesn’t matter who you are, you are not immune from a situation where the use of violence has already been decided by your attacker.

Is it so foreign to you that people would be willing to defend themselves, to the point of taking a life, when that other person may have disregard for your own life? What you’re saying is not some sort of psychological breakthrough, you know. The guy that breaks into my home may be prepared to shoot to kill, why is it wrong for me to be the same? That certainly does not make my a psychopath, it makes me realistic. It MIGHT HAPPEN. Regardless of who I am.

260

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
To simplify what you’ve said:

  1. Unless you are a cop, there is no need to learn self preservation skills.

  2. If you chose to ignore #1, you will likely be worse off (and out some money).

  3. If you are home alone, and you hear a noise, leave your house.

  4. If you do end up in a fight, fight to win, or else be a victim.

I’m thinking your rules #1, 2 & 3, practically ensure that by the time they get to rule #4, they already have the victim mentality.

I’m so glad I’m not a Brit.

[/quote]

1 - not at all, everyone should learn self preservation skills but there is a hell of a lot more to self preservation than fighting and firing guns. Fighting and Firing guns comes a long way down the list. The problem is that many people jump to Fighting and Firing guns and think they have self preservation covered.

2 - in general from what I have seen, yes. I am still waiting for someone to enlighten me about the kind of gun courses that people commonly take in the US though as I have no direct experience of this.

3 - Quoting confucious ‘Of all the thirty-six alternatives for escaping danger, running away is best.’

4 - Absolutely

And as for the teeth thing. LOL! But at least I am now in Mexico where dentistry is cheap!