Author Topic: Fight or Flight (Read 1638 times)

Nash · « **Reply #30 on:** August 19, 2006, 12:34:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
Nash,

...

Regards, Shuckins

You ask:

"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?"

I ask:

Is modern political.... something... exploiting the existence of one of the most basic of human instincts, the fight for self-preservation?

Hey - I'm all for the acknowledging of the central nervous system's, brain's and hell, amygdala's role in all of this.

And I think you raised a great question.

Now...... Who's scared of the answer?

Shuckins · « **Reply #31 on:** August 19, 2006, 12:45:44 AM »

Nash,

Fair enough. Although you might have started your OWN thread with that question.

Demagogues and yellow journalists and kings and counselors and jihadists have been exploiting that instinct for thousands of years.

Sometimes they've been right. Sometimes they've made mistakes and been wrong. And sometimes they have flat-out lied about it.

And we've already plowed that ground many times. I don't think there is anything new that any of us could add to that debate that we haven't already discussed, ad nauseous.

Regards, Shuckins

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #32 on:** August 19, 2006, 03:06:46 AM »

I got punched in the back of the head at a bar one time. The guy ran away while I was looking for my glasses

eagl · « **Reply #33 on:** August 19, 2006, 04:07:38 AM »

I still think the popularly quoted bible phrase "the meek shall inherit the earth" is a bad translation... It seems just as likely to mean "if you don't stand up for yourself you'll end up dead and buried"

Nilsen · « **Reply #34 on:** August 19, 2006, 04:15:12 AM »

If your, or your families life is threatened you may kill an intruder with a knife, gun or any other means. All of them are available in most homes.

Rolex · « **Reply #35 on:** August 19, 2006, 06:02:53 AM »

Hi Shuckins,

The world population increases about 6,000,000 people every month. What information are you using to say our species is in danger? Not just posts from the O'Club, I hope?

Without parsing your entire post, suffice it to say I don't think your premise is valid.

cpxxx · « **Reply #36 on:** August 19, 2006, 06:57:45 AM »

I don't believe that shuckins original premise that defending yourself in your home could render you liable to prosecution in every case and I don't think there is a general wimpifying of the male population in the west. We are no more or less aggressive than we've ever were. But it is fair to say that violence is less and less acceptable in our society. That is a good thing. In an ideal society there is no need to have a gun or a knife to defend yourself. In practice in many areas of Europe and North America this is virtually the case. Where I live right now it's unheard of.

It does happen that every now and then someone kills a burglar in their house but each case needs to be treated on it's merits. In fact there is a notorious case here recently. A farmer shot an intruder on his farm. At first it looked open and shut, self defence. But it transpired later that the farmer had shot the intruder then followed the wounded man, beat him with the stock of his gun, then reloaded and finished him off with a shot in the back. He was convicted of manslaughter in the end, very reluctantly by a jury. Unfortunately he crossed the line from self defence into attack. There were all kinds of mitigating circumstances but it was the final fatal shot that got him into trouble in the law's eyes. If he had killed him with the first shot he would never have been prosecuted. A useful lesson not lost on the criminals. Farm burglaries dropped since then, naturally all farmers have shotguns.

In general in nature flight is preferable to fight for the simple reason that fighting is dangerous to both parties. As a rule most burglars will run rather than confront a houseowner even if the houseowner is a little old lady.

I think at one point there was a tendency in some places or countries to favour the criminal in this situation but the public in general and even the media have expressed disquiet about it and in general the police and politicians have taken note. It is too easy to take a general snapshot of a time and say this is the trend for the future. The fact that many people notice a trend means it may well be stopped in it's tracks.

Nashwan · « **Reply #37 on:** August 19, 2006, 08:22:22 AM »

Quote

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.

Can you give some examples?

The British press are known to twist a fact or two in the search for a good story (eg Tony Martin, Carl Lindsay)

aztec · « **Reply #38 on:** August 19, 2006, 09:09:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Hmm....

Gun owners tend to be Republicans,

Lol...Would like to see your source for this little gem of knowledge.

You're a very smart guy Nash, without a doubt but honestly do you actually believe what you wrote above?

lazs2 · « **Reply #39 on:** August 19, 2006, 09:28:26 AM »

straffo.. interviews with criminals in the U.S. shows that they do not go into homes when they know the person may be home because they fear being shot by the homeowner more than they fear the police. You are the one who is making outlandish claims... people in england are dumber than in America? what about french?

nash.. you seem to be saying that people who want to own firearms for protection are unduly paranoid and the republican party preys on this paranoia. I honestly think that in some twisted way you believe this... it would explain your bizzare attitude towards firearms.

In the first place... many firearms owners place protection far down on the list of reasons they own guns so... that part is not all that relevent. they vote republican because democrats would deprive them of the right to own firearms.

But.. there is a very large group of firearms owners... maybe 60-80 million and even ones who don't but sympathize... that realize that firearms rights are for the reasons that the founders explained and... a right.

As for "paranoid" your chances of being the victim of a violent crime or burglary is about 1 in 4 in America and other countries... to own a firearm and have it handy seems a reasonable precaution rather than a paranoia...

On the other hand... lets take the democrats... your chances of getting into a car wreck where a seatbelt will save you or make a difference in injuries or.. you chances of a helmet saving your life are more like 1 in 20 or so yet... the democrats will mandate and... we will wear such uncomfortable and ridiculous devices no matter what.... so who is the paranoid here?

who is the party playing on paranoia? A 12 oz .357 magnum in a front pocket holster is a hell of a lot less trouble and intrusive than putting on an annoying seatbelt 5 times a day or more or wearing a hot and muffling helmet to run to the store.

The democrats are welcome to prey on my paranoia as far as firearms are concerned... all they have to do is recognize the second amendment and we can get on to more important political matters.... course then... they wouldn't get money from sorros and other foreigh and domestic billionaires with whacko fear of firearms.

lazs

straffo · « **Reply #40 on:** August 19, 2006, 09:57:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
straffo.. interviews with criminals in the U.S. shows that they do not go into homes when they know the person may be home because they fear being shot by the homeowner more than they fear the police. You are the one who is making outlandish claims... people in england are dumber than in America? what about french?

Here they fear Alarm system because they know police will be present within 5 minutes.

lazs2 · « **Reply #41 on:** August 19, 2006, 10:04:20 AM »

only a fool would put his life and his families in the hands of the police and an electronic alarm system.

I am sure that even in your country of very rich people and very nice crooks.... that there a few sociopaths and that there are a few people that can't afford an effective alarm system..... there may even be a few non metrosexuals who live out in areas that a 30 minute wait or longer is not uncommon.

What would you have them do?

Oh wait... I believe you have a tradition for that? "let them eat cake" is the policy I believe that you invented.

lazs

Nilsen · « **Reply #42 on:** August 19, 2006, 10:07:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
only a fool would put his life and his families in the hands of the police and an electronic alarm system.

Perhaps only a fool living were you do. Around these parts its common to do so and it works well.

lazs2 · « **Reply #43 on:** August 19, 2006, 10:11:32 AM »

my guess is that you would be fine in your white bread country even without any police or alarms. I don't want to live in your country either tho.

lazs

Nilsen · « **Reply #44 on:** August 19, 2006, 10:15:38 AM »

White bread? dunno what that means.

We sertainly need police. There is crime but you dont need guns to defend yourself because burglars usually hit houses with noone in them or run if you hit the light switch. If you knowlingly seek out dangerous parts of cities at night in high heals and your purse flapping in the breeze you ask for trouble.