Wednesday, April 20, 2011

I'm not trying to blame the victim but...

Holly Bobo, the missing college student from Tennessee, has now been missing for over a week. Allegedly, a man dressed in camouflage garb dragged her from her carport to the woods behind her house.

And that's about all I know about the case, from the 2 news articles I've read about it. So I don't know much about her or about the circumstances of her disappearance, other than what has been relayed via the media.

But this I do know; and I know I am going to get a lot of hate mail for writing this, but I have to say it anyway:  Had she been armed, she would have had a fighting chance to resist. There is no evidence that she made any attempt to shoot her abductor, which probably means she was not armed, or if she was, she was not trained to, or prepared to use her weapon.

If you are abducted, RESIST AT ANY COST. Do not comply with the assailant's request, do not negotiate, do not get in the car, do not stop striking; if the kidnapper has demonstrated that he/she is not interested in your money or your property, you can assume that they are after YOUR LIFE. This means that you are involved in a critical dynamic incident, and in such an incident, you must KILL or GET KILLED. Make it as difficult for the kidnapper(s) as possible. Become more trouble than you are worth.

Location "A" is where the abduction takes place. Location "B" is where you are being taken to, and is where you are going to be KILLED. If you allow your abductor to relocate you to location "B", you are royally screwed. Your best chance of escape is while you are still in transit. The closer to location "B" you get, the smaller your chances of survival are. Yes, I will not lie to you, there is a good chance you might get injured or killed while attempting to resist or attempting to escape. But it is you best chance of survival. Because if you find yourself at location "B", the game is over and you are already dead; you might as well just slit your own throat at that point. Millions of years of evolution have hard-wired a fight or flight response into your nervous system, because it worked for your ancestors, going back millions of years, it kept them alive. Discover the learned evolutionary lessons programmed into your genetic code. Do not go gentle. Run, and if you cannot run, fight. And if you cannot fight, SHOOT. And if you cannot shoot... buy a gun in your next life.

"Before all else, be armed" Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527)

9 comments:

  1. And if you shoot yourself accidentally because you wanted to be armed on the remote chance it could save you from a crime... what do you recommend in your next life? What about the next life of a kid who shoots himself while playing around with daddy's gun, which he has because the niggers down the street make him uneasy?

    Owning a gun doesn't make one safer, even if one is the victim of a crime. I think it's irresponsible to glorify guns this way. A gun is more likely to be stolen than ever used to defend yourself, and it's also more likely to harm you or someone else in an unintended manner.

    Really poor form trying to use an emotionally compelling public crime to preach a ridiculous belief. There were armed people at the Giffords shooting, but nothing was prevented there using guns.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I guarantee you I am not going to accidentally shoot myself.

    BTW, I don't want to change the topic, but though I understand you were speaking in the third person, I still find offensive use of the n-word.

    Owning a gun does not make one safer; using it in the right way at the right moment does.

    I don't think I'm glorifying anything, I think I am being very pragmatic. A gun is a tool meant for self-defense. Yes, you could use pepper spray or a club. But why choose inferior weapons? Perhaps a sickle sword is less 'glorious'? How about a pointy stick?

    Those vague 'likelihood' statistics are as meaningless as saying that owning a swimming pool makes one more likely to drown. It's inhaling the water that makes someone drown, not the pool itself. And yes, one should take swimming lessons before getting into the pool, it's part of the unwritten swimmer's responsibility code. Based on the same principle of personal responsibility, I don't advocate that untrained, developmentally-challenged individuals acquire firearms unless they receive proper safety and handling training.

    Everyday, soldiers and law enforcement officers successfully use firearms in self-defense. Why should the outcomes be any different when similar firearms are used by law-abiding civilians of similar or sometimes even superior intelligence?

    As far as kids getting a hold of their parents/guardians weapons and killing themselves, I guess it's darwinism at work; children of stupid, careless adults do not live past breeding age to be able to pass on their inferior genes. There is such a thing as a safe, and unless the kid is skilled in safecracking or in the use of a drill or of an angle grinder, I don't think it's an issue most people need to worry about. Besides, the kids shouldn't have access to angle grinders or power tools at all anyway.

    Some people prefer to have a fighting chance, and firearms are effective tools to fill that niche.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Last week it was reported that a three year old took his parents' loaded gun with him to kindergarten. It accidentally discharged and caused minor injuries to other children. If this sort of thing can happen, it would indicate to me that there's something wrong with your country's gun laws. Please discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What law do you propose would have prevented this tragedy? A law forcing people to keep firearms in a safe perhaps? While I am not opposed to such a law, I fail to see how it could be enforced without warrantless searches and seizures, which would be illegal on the basis that people are innocent until proven guilty and have a legal right to be secure in their effects and persons.

    A law preventing toddlers from stealing their parent's guns? Well yes, 3-year olds are well known for their compliance with laws, are they not?

    How about a complete ban?

    The right to keep and bear arms is entrenched in the US Constitution because of the revolutionary origins of the country. It was armed civilians that organized to fight off the malevolent British Army, and as such, they saw firearm possession by civilians essential to prevent future tyranny. That at least is the legal basis for the apparent laxity of US gun laws.

    But the number 1 reason to allow civilians to be armed is the fact that self-defense is a fundamental human right, and firearm bans amount to nothing less than human rights violations. How many genocides throughout history could have been prevented had civilians been allowed to be armed so that they could resist extermination?

    Ask yourself: would the Tasmanian Aborigines be alive today had they owned guns? Would the Holocaust have happened if European Jews had had guns to shoot at the Gestapo agents knocking on their doors in the middle of the night?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not going to speak on behalf of Tasmanian Aborigines. Actually, there's plenty of them still around to speak for themselves who can comment on the atrocities committed against them in the past. It's a common misconception that they were wiped out.

    I know about your Second Amendment. There is no such clause in Australia's Constitution.

    Speaking of Tasmania, after the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, in which 35 people were killed, the Australian government outlawed semi-automatic handguns and rifles; the same weapons used by the killer. We haven't had a comparable tragedy since.

    As I've written here before, Australia's gun laws are quite stringent compared to the United States, and are supported by all sides of politics and the silent majority of Australians, apart from some extreme right wing fruit loops.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry, I thought Tasmanians were extinct. Thank you for correcting me.

    The majority of Americans are willing to accept the risk of a potential lunatic rampage in exchange for the right to keep their firearms. It is a potential risk they are willing to live with. Americans regard guns as personal property, and personal property is viewed as sacred. Perhaps future advancements in the field of psychiatry will offer early detection methods to identify potential mass murderers and provide them with the medical treatment they need.

    But a complete ban to be fully effective would have to be global, because of smuggling. And if History is a guide, the will never be peace on Earth, so a global ban will never happen.

    Because guns (or future laser weapons or whatever) will always exist, the need for equivalent self-defense weapons will always exist. Now, don't forget that ingenious people will always find ways to manufacture weapons in their workshops using rudimentary tools. The machinegun was invented before the airplane and the telephone by people who rode horses and did not have access to modern tools.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And didn't every former British colony inherit the right to keep and bear arms from the 1689 English Bill of Rights?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I just looked up the Australian Attorney General's Department website, and there is no constitutional right to bear arms in Australia. As I explained above, firearm ownership is tightly regulated by the government, and licensing is mandatory.

    ReplyDelete