Thursday, September 28, 2006

Comments, part 2

From Wolfwalker:

A 60-year-old woman or a 50-year-old politician can't possibly be as good as a 25-year-old commando-trained bodyguard at any kind of combat.

Agreed, yet not the point.

Queen Elizabeth has two military units guarding her at Buckingham Palace, both units no doubt filled with strikit, braw young men who eat snakes and can kill people with an emory board.

Not only that, but she has an entire dedicated police Special Operations Unit who probably drag their knuckles on the Persian carpets and practice leg-breaking 14 hours out of the day.

Three units of dedicated professionals and not a one of them was anywhere useful during the 12 minutes that Michael Fagin sat within arms reach of his target, cradling a jagged piece of glass.

What does it matter how good they are, if they aren't there?

You will always be there for you. You cannot be bribed away from your side. You will not be walking your corgis when the Poster Child for the Mildly Bewildered shows up in your bedroom and menaces you for twelve minutes. You will not be under a pile of Chilean Security Forces while you are undefended in a building 20 yards away.

This is why you are your best defense: You are the only person who will always be there for you.

Is this really so difficult to understand?

LawDog

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

It seems almost like a waste of breath, doesn't it, ElDee? You say it and refine and re-define and re-explain, show numerous examples while 'they' put their hands over their ears, hum lalala, and then just repeat the same crap.

Same deal with the 'torture' issue. We say, terrorists are not citizens, nor formal army, it's not torture - nobody's being tortured, it has NEVER affected the murderous treatment our own troops have received and.....they just rinse and repeat like they never heard a word we said.

I'm done (yeah right, til the next time I get torqued up). 'They' think you can reason and negotiate with facts; you can't.

Col. Cooper said one cannot just survive, one must prevail.

Cindi

PubliusCicero said...

I would preface by saying that I am pretty certain that Nony Mouse is a personal friend of mine who I directed here some time ago, as an example of good, common-sense and friendly conservative thinking (not to mention funny as hell). On that note, I have to say I am disappointed with the rudeness and knee-jerk responses of some of my fellow conservatives/libertarians (not you, LD).

I think the problem is that in this context the word "best" has multiple meanings Nony Mouse understood "best" to mean "most effective." In that case, his/her and Wolfwalker's interpretation bears considerable validity.

However, "best" in this context also has other meanings, like "most reliable," "uncorruptable" and "ever-present." With that meaning, Col. Cooper's insistence is entirely reasonable.

Nony Mouse's comments also do not take into account the radically different level of the security problem, and here in some ways Lawdog's choice of examples added to the confusion. The President has far more dedicated, sophisticated and more numerous enemies to be defended from - terrorists, snipers, bombers, you name it. Even if he chooses to go armed himself, he still needs the Secret Service to help counter a more dedicated, better-equipped and numerous foe. The average man or woman in the street is concerned with a mugger, a rapist, a home invasion burlary - rarely more than one antagonist, at most two or three. This is a threat much more easily managed by an ordinary individual. Moreover, you have a huge psychological advantage if you are armed and willing to defend yourself in that situation, because CRIMINALS DON'T EXPECT RESISTANCE.

Finally, Nony Mouse, we're not paranoid, and we're not nuts. We don't want to be heroes, or vigilantes, or volunteer cops. All we want is, if (and it's a big IF) something bad happens to be allowed to make a choice between being tried by twelve or carried by six. Being already armed in that situation improves our odds immeasurably. It's just another form of insurance policy. Nothing more.

Kiki B. said...

I'm going to catch A LOT of flak for what I'm about to say, but I could care less.

There were 6 girls who attended a High School in CO that could have seriously used some guns a few days ago. A 53 year old pervert, sex offender walked into their school trying to dress like a teenager. One boy even saw him shortly after he entered the school, and decided to steer clear of the pervert, as he was trying to dress like a teenager(hooded sweatshirt), and could tell the guy was weird. This pervert then went to take 6 girls hostage, and raped every single one of those poor, defenseless girls(yes, they were truly defenseless unlike terrorists). He then let 4 of them go, and kept 2 of them. Why he decided to keep those 2, instead of letting them all go, we may never know. Anyway, the SWAT team broke into the room he was in. One brave girl that he was using as a human shield when they broke in attempted to get away from him. He shot her at that time, and killed her. The putrid, pervert coward then turned the gun on himself and killed himself. Too bad the cops couldn't have done it for him. I would have appreciated that justice more.

Do you see a problem here? I do. A murderous pervert had a gun to commit crimes, but innocent children who could have been quite proficient at handling a weapon were left defenseless. For shame!

I even heard it asked by a journalist if the school had a security guard. Why we should even need those at a school is beyond me. Children should be able to go to school and be in a safe environment to learn, but that is another issue(pathetic state of public education) to be discussed at another time. What we found out about the security guard was that he/she was off-campus at the time investigating another case. Again, those children went to school, and adults expected them to be protected by one well-trained security guard who was actually an off-duty police officer, and he can't be everywhere at once.

If some are horrified at the thought of children handling weapons, let me tell you that my dad taught me how to load a rifle when I was 4 years old. He wouldn't let me shoot it, as the gun was bigger than I was. :-) However, at 10, we were visiting some friends in OH, and the husband was an avid hunter, and had all sorts of weapons around the house. He took us out target shooting, and this time I got to use a pistol. Much easier for me to handle at that age, although I could shoot a rifle, too. This friend of ours saw my shooting, and with awe on his face and his voice said I could be a "Little Miss Annie Oakley", because I was that good.

We need to quit being so afraid of guns. We need torealize that we can train people how to handle them, shoot them, threaten children in the home with the worst spanking of their life if they ever touch them without permission(and follow through on it), and people will end up proficiently and safely handling guns, and that includes children.

It's not a matter of who is more proficient than someone else. What matters is that we can ALL handle guns in an appropriate manner, and proficiently enough to keep us safe.

wolfwalker said...

I think you're making more of this than it deserves, 'Dawg. We're 95% in agreement; the last 5% is mostly a matter of semantics, a minor disagreement over definitions. "Best" means different things to different people, or in different contexts. That's why I said I thought your position could benefit from a subtle change in the wording. Trust me, that's the way I talk when I'm thinking "you have a good argument, here's a way you can make it better and short-circuit any disagreement before it begins." Some people can argue with the phrasing "you are your own best protector." But no rational person can argue with "you're your own last line of defense" or "you're your own most reliable defender." No one else can ever be relied on to be there 100% of the time. No one else can possibly be as motivated as you are to protect yourself, your family, your property. It's the old proverb of the fox and the rabbit in a newfangled guise: the fox is only running for his dinner, but the rabbit is running for his life.

But make no mistake, you and Col. Cooper _do_ have a good position, and one with which I agree. I was trying to help, not to argue.

Mark@home said...

It IS difficult for some folks to understand. If they did see that they are their own, best defence, then what of their carefully cherished illusions? Life is fair, the world cares, and someone, somewhere, has the DUTY of ensuring they are provided for and defended from all the ills that flesh is heir to.
Does this remind you of any particular political affiliation?

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but the phrase "you are your BEST defense" says you are better than other options. In other words, if your wife has to be walking down the campus at 11 pm, she is safer by herself, being her BEST defense, then with 5 armed guards, or with YOU to protect her. Now if anyone here agrees, then you're lying. Should you be prepared to defend yourself? Yes. Should you accept responsibility for your own safety? Absolutely. But to say that you are your BEST safety, is ridiculous.

Law Dog, do you ever call for BACKUP? Why? After all, your back up could be bribed, could shoot you by accident, could show up late….. There is a DIFFERENCE between being helpless and expecting others to accept responsibility for your safety and saying you are your BEST safety. Yes, others can drop the ball. So what? Your gun could jam, does this mean that you should only rely on your bare hands for defense? After all, your hands will always be with you, will never jam etc. All the other tools could fail. Therefore, your bare hands are your BEST defense. That is the argument presented here. If y’all truly believe this, then you may as well sell your guns, walking sticks etc, because only your hands will always be with you. Y’all are refusing to understand that just because something will always be available, does not mean its best. Your feet will always be with you, does that make them your BEST form of transportation????? COME ON! If you have the means, hiring others to protect you will make you safer. You are your FINAL defense. Not BEST. Just like if your car breaks down, you will have to rely on walking. That doesn’t mean walking is the BEST way to move from A to B.

IS THAT THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND ?????

Anonymous said...

Publiuscicero and Wolfwalker finally made me see the light! We really ARE mostly in agreement and arguing about the 5%. Basically, when I heard BEST, I heard most effective, and that was the whole argument. I fully agree with the reasoning of "best" meaning always available......

(BTW, now I also wonder if I am the person Publiuscicero directed over here a while back......)

1894C said...

Anonymous,

You are being obtuse in order to get more attention.

By your reasoning we should all travel with an armored tank division, or "just take off and nuke the place from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.."

Bah! What anyone with a lick of sense is saying here is It's YOUR A$$! You have a vested interest in seeing it taken care of.

So, for the record, armored is better than un-armored, armed is better than un-armed, escorted is better than un-escorted (assuming discresion is not the goal).

Having said all that what Col. Cooper and LD said stands, you are your last best line of defense.

Kelly(Mom of 6) said...

No, it's not hard to understand. I got it the first time. It would appear that there is a faction in this country that would just like "someone else to do it"...that way they can have someone to blame when people are...well, people. It's bad to put absolute faith in anyone.

True story..the senior chief and I went to play some pool one night and before I knew it there was an obnoxious guy in my face..he'd been leaning that way all evening..and when he finally cornered me, my husband was WAY across the room with no buddies and this guy had a BUNCH of buddies. The only person who was going to get me out of that corner...was me. And I managed without starting a fight.

Calico Jack said...

Even if I had the US Presidential security detail 24/7, I'd still pack my pistol with me, and I'd do it for the same reasons LD stated. I've been this way for a long time and I see no reason to change.

Firethorn said...

I might not use the word 'best', but I say that you are your first and last line of defense, whether it be from somebody attacking you to a natural disaster. For the same reason, that you're always available, always there.

Help from others is great and often essential, but if you look after yourself (first line), you're a lot less likely to be in debt and need saving. This allows the EMTs, Police, Firemen, National Guard to concentrate on saving someone else in need. If everybody does this, these resources are more likely to be available to bail you out when your first line fails.

Why the last line? Well, when the chips are down, everybody else is unavailable for whatever reason, you'll still be there.