- Kurt Hofmann: “Resolved to be a gun criminal.” Well, now there’s a resolution that should be pretty easy to keep!
- Starbucks orders little pub to cease and desist. Little pub tells Starbucks …
- This cop n gun story is so scary-weird on so many levels, I can hardly believe I exist in the same universe with it. (H/T Hobbit)
- Take this FWIW, but here’s a former cop on how to behave if somebody puts a gun to your head. The one time something like that happened to me, calm (which said cop recommends) was definitely an asset. But I was mostly only able to stay calm because I was too dumb to believe the person would actually kill me. Not sure what I’d do in a different circumstance.
- “I’ll be available until I’m assassinated to answer questions.” (A cryptography expert on the NSA.)
Didn’t read the article yet on what to do if someone holds a gun to your head. Here’s a way to make yourself stay calm in that situation. By realizing that being anything but calm is more likely to get you killed. Not being calm also makes you blind to any opportunities to do something to get yourself out of that situation. Talk or fight? One of the things that can help you is to make a decision beforehand, even if you never in a million years ever get in that kind of situation, of what you are going to do, panic or stay calm?
Of course if you panic and go hysterical, the “Perp” may decide holding you is not worth it and you become dangerous to him, and then what do you think he’ll do?
In a nutshell, that’s pretty much what the guy in the article said. Only in more detail and with specific advice for various scenarios.
What was only mentioned in passing is the “stupid” test. Don’t go stupid places, with stupid people and do stupid things. Staying away from KNOWN dangerous places would cut the risk to a microscopic level. If, for whatever reason, a person could not avoid such a place, those who are most vulnerable need to go in at least pairs. You cannot effectively “watch your back” in such a situation, all by yourself, and criminals are increasingly attacking in groups. Even armed, you may have zero chance to defend yourself in that case.
The wearing of high heels and tight clothing in such a situation obviously fits into the don’t do “stupid things” part above. I’d have to include anyone carrying concealed who had to “hide” it so deep they had no realistic chance to draw in time to do them any good. I do CC at times, but I’ll be darned if I’m going to put myself into a position where I have to half undress in order to get to it.
The very most important part of this, however, is the call to situational awareness. Without that, all bets are off… Know your surroundings, what BELONGS, as much as possible. This will make the thing or person who does not belong stand out… and you’ll notice them before they get too close to you. This isn’t going to happen just because you agree with it. This has to be practiced constantly, everywhere you go, all the time, consciously and religiously. My book has specific drills to make it easier. http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/?page_id=846
The other part too often neglected is the idea of being “nice.” I was never indoctrinated into any sort of meekness or passiveness, but it is a factor in a lot of older or middle aged women. They were carefully trained to be polite to everyone, “nice” to a fault, and discouraged from any sort of physical fighting or even self defense. They have a tremendous lot of conditioning to overcome in order to be willing to defend themselves. I’ve had many in my classes, and they struggle hard, even when they understand intellectually.
These folks have as hard a time with learning to trust their gut instincts as they do with situational awareness. They have to learn that it is much better to be thought impolite by a stranger than to be a victim because they were afraid not to be “nice” – even though they were uncomfortable and KNEW something was wrong about the situation. How sad is that?
More spectacularly good links, Claire; I’ve sent some of them on. I expect to get feedback about the gun to the head article, which seems like reasonable advice to me. Applebaum certainly has guts.
[The other part too often neglected is the idea of being “nice.”]
Amen. I’ve heard WAY too many variations of that story. I may have already posted this here, but “Dying of Embarrassment.”
http://www.corneredcat.com/article/understanding-crime/dying-of-embarrassment/
Cop n gun? So much for the “cops are on duty 24/7 and need to be carrying with standard magazines anywhere in the U.S. and even after they retire” gun control theory.
Kurt Hoffman:
[And still, gun owners are rushing, scrambling, and even waiting in long lines–to facilitate the eventual confiscation of their own firearms.]
I’ve often wondered about statements like this, that is, how true they are (not to mention the overheated rhetoric). When confiscation comes, it doesn’t matter if your gun is registered or not; you still have to shoot the confiscator. And if you are making the case that registering puts you on a slippery slope, isn’t that true of virtually all laws? Why get a driver’s license then? Is that any different?
As Heinlein put it, “I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” That seems to be a reasonable course to me – at least until the next reset, where the only reasonable course would be to disallow even the tiniest encroachment, as we have learned from history.
“When to resist. When to submit.”
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle589-20100926-07.html
Registration tells them where to go to get the guns? They already know that; it’s called NICS.
On the other hand, low compliance rates certainly do send a message to the ruling class, – but so does buying lots of guns and ammo. In fact, ironically, NICS is itself a wonderful conduit for that message.
Finally, slippery slopes are a form of logical fallacy, FWIW.
I keep going back and forth on this one. For example I might see registering a gun you routinely carry – particularly one that you carry “legally”; but not the rest. Of course if you carry in a non-compliant fashion, that is something else again…
I enjoyed the Starbucks/Exit 6 exchange. Britton should hang those letters up in his bar. In fact he should publish them in the local news rag, as a form of advertising.
The cop ‘n gun story is an example of the excursions into the realm of the absurd one gets with the government religion. Life will be so much more sensible, maybe a bit less exciting, when people give up on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU
I had a gun pointed at me once, right in the Park Blocks in Portland. I remember not only calm, but everything going in slow motion. The article makes a lot of sense, but I also think it is tactically foolish for a bad guy to be well within grabbing range of his victim, due to reaction times.
Thanks for that NSA link, it’s been forwarded…
I didn’t think to mention about the Starbucks issue. It used to be (and I presume still is) the responsibility of the holder of a Trademark to protect that Trademark from becoming a general usage term. The Coca-Cola Company had people whose job it was to go to restaurants and ask for a Coke; if they got anything else they would inform the owners that there was a problem. If it continued for a prolonged time, they would sue. I once heard the head attorney of that department be introduced as a man who had never lost a case. So Starbucks simply was doing what Trademark law requires, although if it was worth it to send a letter to the Exit 6 people is a question I can’t answer. The law may require that their actions be consistent.
Some detail on the NSA activities can be found at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-nsa-uses-powerful-toolbox-in-effort-to-spy-on-global-networks-a-940969.html
Applebaum early in his video recommended that journalists use the Tails operating system. I was wondering if anyone has had any experience with it. https://tails.boum.org/about/index.en.html
Shel — I believe you’re correct. Trademark law requires TM holders to defend their rights or lose them. Part of me always hates to mock the big corps for doing what the law says they pretty much have to. Still, the spectacle of giant Starbucks hunting down and singling out some humble pub is absurd.
But you have to admit, ML, that sometimes the stupid comes to you, regardless of your efforts to *not* go looking for it.
I would agree, though – I make it a definite point to not wear high heels or tight clothes. 😉
Sure, Hobbit… but the proportions are rather high for people doing the stupid to themselves. A locked door and adequate training will deflect an awful lot of stupid coming at you. And that includes the official, uniformed version of stupid…
The mental image of you in high heels and tight skirts was hilarious. But any woman who insists on that kind of wardrobe is living in a fantasy world anyway, and changing her clothes will do little to change her indoctrination to accept a role as a helpless victim, and far too many men are being destroyed with similar conditioning. Those who accept that role will probably not survive much longer.
Concerning the cop carrying off duty, This is why ALL laws concerning a mental health check to own firearms should be abolished. The statists pretty much all agree that the mental health SHOULD be “approved. A dangerous practice. More “thought crimes” for the state to enforce.