Author Topic: Fight or Flight (Read 1627 times)

Shifty · « **Reply #15 on:** August 18, 2006, 05:09:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
I think the future holds no weapons of any sort as long as sheeple keep electing governments that continually erode constitutional rights. So many people are willing to just piss away their rights in exchange for government promises of safety. Look at all the guys on this very forum defending domestic spying with no warrant. Frog, pot, hot water, etc.

Part of me agrees with you about eroding constitutional rights leading to an un-armed society , unable to protect it'self. That concerns me deeply.

The other part of me says if your recieving phone calls from Pakistan f**k your constitutional rights.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #16 on:** August 18, 2006, 05:51:16 PM »

What if it's grandma calling to say happy birthday?

Flit · « **Reply #17 on:** August 18, 2006, 05:59:02 PM »

What Grandma doin in Pakistan ? Shopping ?

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 18, 2006, 06:03:10 PM »

Just chillin' in the ancestral compound.

Maverick · « **Reply #19 on:** August 18, 2006, 06:04:45 PM »

A disarmed nebbish is less likely to be a problem so it is in the interest of the govt., burglars and robbers to keep the population unarmed. Apparently the govt. and obviously quite a few folks here on the bbs have no clue as to the danger of a home invasion. The "burglar" is now commiting a robbery by entering a home occupied by the person who has a legal reason to be there. The fact that an ocupied home invasion is contemplated by the offender indicates that they are not concerned about a confrontation with the resident or they already have in mind to do you harm rather than just commit a property crime.

Another thing that seems to be absent here is an actual experiance or whaqt it feels like to have your home burglarized. It tends to give the victim a feeling of being violated and now fearfull inside their own domicile since they know the offender can come back and get inside the home again. Repeat burglaries are very common.

Maverick · « **Reply #20 on:** August 18, 2006, 06:07:32 PM »

Goth,

The "fight or flight" situation is called that because it is the body's uncommanded response to severe stress. It is an "instinctual" and autonomic response. That takes it out of the "learned behavior" category.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 18, 2006, 06:43:17 PM »

Oh come on guys, don't you know it’s better to be civilized and dead then alive and have deprived so poor, poor person his next crack hit etc?

Criminals have rights too, you should just let them take what they want, they need it more then you, you rich selfish, bastages!

Freedom is so overated anyway.

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #22 on:** August 18, 2006, 08:22:36 PM »

A real man wouldn't even both calling the cops. He would kill the robber, strip the meat from the bones, grind it up, and flush it down the toilet. Then he would dissolve the bones in his bathtub and let them ooze down the drain. Because real men don't like court.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #23 on:** August 18, 2006, 08:31:49 PM »

"Never, EVER, give up the possibility of attack."

Not just defense, attack. It always throws everyone for a loop when you go all out when you're down.

Shifty · « **Reply #24 on:** August 18, 2006, 08:43:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
What if it's grandma calling to say happy birthday?

Then what are you worried about? Unless you talk dirty to your grandmother.

john9001 · « **Reply #25 on:** August 18, 2006, 09:02:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
A disarmed nebbish is less likely to be a problem so it is in the interest of the govt., burglars and robbers to keep the population unarmed. Apparently the govt. and obviously quite a few folks here on the bbs have no clue as to the danger of a home invasion. The "burglar" is now commiting a robbery by entering a home occupied by the person who has a legal reason to be there. The fact that an ocupied home invasion is contemplated by the offender indicates that they are not concerned about a confrontation with the resident or they already have in mind to do you harm rather than just commit a property crime.

Another thing that seems to be absent here is an actual experiance or whaqt it feels like to have your home burglarized. It tends to give the victim a feeling of being violated and now fearfull inside their own domicile since they know the offender can come back and get inside the home again. Repeat burglaries are very common.

Nash · « **Reply #26 on:** August 18, 2006, 10:58:58 PM »

Hmm....

It's a great topic - it has got it all: fear, government, guns, and a dash of science thrown in for good measure.

Fear is primal and necessary, and without it man would not have risen to the top of the food chain. Guns are a great equalizer, allowing weaker men to protect themselves, and leveling the playing field from becoming some kind of Darwinian free-for-all. So far, so good.

But here's what I don't get...

(brace for it).... I don't get why you call the Brits out on this, while ignoring - nay supporting your own government's massive and successful effort to get y'all spooked and manipulate you into supporting such ludicrous things like a war against Iraq or rah-rahing the erosion of the Constitution and championing diminishment of your own freedoms... through fear.

While I could care less about guns, it's hard not to notice the common denominator here.

Gun owners tend to be Republicans, and Republicans tend to be uniquely responsive to threats no matter how vague, how unlikely, and no matter how distant.

Why do such fearing people generally tend to align themselves with the Republican party? Why does fear have such an impact on them? Why does Rove feel so comfortable on basing an entire campaign on fear alone were it not for the fact that it drives directly at the heart of a huge segment of the population whose default position tends to be one of fear?

I dunno...

I guess I'm just curious. And... the science of fear could be enlightening and no doubt has something to do with it.

It's like a chicken and egg thing. I'm not sure if the Republican leadership is playing their base for the frightened people that they are, or if the Republican party is made up of sincerely frightened people.

Ultimately, it struck me as kind of absurd that a post would be made here which attempts to explain fear and then tie it in with England's gun laws while oblivious to the fact that the USA is overwhelmingly being driven and governed through the use of fear as an acceptable, even embraced tactic.

And it's working. Perfectly.

To sum up - you know what they say about people living in glass houses...

(and no, the answer isn't to start stockpiling ammo, plastic sheeting, electrician's tape and canned tuna)

Goth · « **Reply #27 on:** August 18, 2006, 11:29:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Goth,

The "fight or flight" situation is called that because it is the body's uncommanded response to severe stress. It is an "instinctual" and autonomic response. That takes it out of the "learned behavior" category.

Although the source documentation is usually suspect (by me at least) it is a good basis for what I was trying to interpret pre-research. According to this article, conditioning and environment play a role.

Instinct

Now, in your defense Mav, when stimulus occurs it creates a chemical reaction which is something that is instinctual. That reaction further influences the brain into making the body respond in fight or flight.

I say influence, because the brain of human beings (or beings with reason) can further influence through learning and break chemical reaction. Thus, those prone to flight, with training can learn to fight.

Shuckins · « **Reply #28 on:** August 19, 2006, 12:21:26 AM »

Nash,

I'm kinda late getting back to this thread, and I don't have a lot of time to go into any kind of lengthy explanation of what my original purpose was in posting it. So I'll try to clarify things as quickly as possible.

This was not meant to be a post about guns, but about a changing attitude. The reference to the British came to the fore because of some incidences others have mentioned in related threads on violence; specifically, those incidences in which British citizens had used some type of implement in the application of deadly force in defence of home and family.

Whether they used baseball bats, fireplace pokers, shotguns, or a blunt excrement, the common theme of these posts was that prosecutors went after the law-abiding citizens for using "undue" force.

Thus, the question, rephrased; Is modern political-correctness attempting to erase and deny the existence of one of the most basic of human instincts, the fight for self-preservation, leaving only the option of flight as a legal option when faced with deadly violence?

And, secondly, is this becoming a prevailing trend in other nations as well?

Republican paranoia and the war in Iraq eh? Way to stay on topic there my man.

Regards, Shuckins

Seraphim · « **Reply #29 on:** August 19, 2006, 12:34:13 AM »

I have a curious question.. How many of you have been a victim of a violent crime? Like, getting robbed at gunpoint, knife point, beaten up by a mob,....etc...

I was victim of an inhouse robbery by a knife . And I promise, it's not going to happen again. Now that I have a family & a child to take care of, never will I be afraid of someone walking in this house & threatening to harm us. Before I was robbed, I wasn' sure if I should buy a gun. Now I have 5, I'm in the NRA, I go to the range to practice routinely, I'm training my lady to fire safely, and I will Never be afraid of someone trying to harm us, nor will my family.