In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Self-defense: A Firearm Or Car Keys?
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Self-defense: A Firearm Or Car Keys? What Would You Recommend?Which of these scenarios are true? A U.S. Army or Marine Corps infantry company commander stands in front of his men and recommends that they no longer use M-16 rifles or other small arms in combat situations because their weapons can be taken away by the enemy and used against them. Instead, he recommends using car keys, which can be effective in close quarters combat when properly trained. True or False? A Chief of Police of a major west coast city announces to patrol officers that all handguns and cans of pepper spray will be turned in prior to starting their shift. He feels, as did the infantry company commander, that they can be turned against his officers by an assailant. He also recommends using car keys as an effective tool to subdue criminals. True or False? A Chief of Police for a major southwestern city announces to a group of civilian women engaged in self-defense training, that using a firearm or pepper spray for self-defense was not recommended because an assailant can take them away and use it against them only worsening the situation. Instead, the chief recommended using a set of keys, among other tactics, as an effective tool to defend themselves. True or False? If you discerned the first two scenarios are false and grounds for removing the infantry company commander and police chief from their positions simply because they are nuts, you are correct. Astonishingly enough, the last scenario is true. When it comes to government officials recommending means of self-defense to civilians, as of late, their statements are illogical and flat out stupid. No one in their right mind who has familiarity with firearms or non-lethal defense tools can, with a straight face, believe that car keys are a better self-defense tool than a firearm. It defies human nature. For proof, let's look at another scenario: One of the women who attended the self-defense training class is asleep late at night and is awakened to the sound of breaking glass. As she quickly slips on her robe and moves down the hallway, she peeks around the corner into the living room and sees a man entering her house through a broken window. She runs back to her bedroom and opens up the night stand drawer door. She has a choice of a revolver or a set of car keys. Decisions, decisions! Would she naturally grab the car keys and leave the revolver behind? Of course not. That would be utterly ridiculous considering the circumstances. Why then, when a normally prudent and sane person is confronted with a dangerous situation, and possibly in a state of fear of being attacked or killed, do they automatically grab the most lethal means to defend themselves? It's called human nature. Human nature dictates that the victim will take whatever means necessary, by utilizing the most forceful defense available to them, to prevent harm to themselves or preserve their life. Yet, there are women in a major southwestern city taught to believe, based on "expert" advice from a senior law enforcement official, that using car keys can be one of the most effective and safest tool available to them when confronted by an assailant, more so than a firearm or pepper spray. A firearm or pepper spray would only aid the assailant and be detrimental to the victim in the eyes of this person. Some of the students, in their hearts, cannot possibly believe such a statement because it defies logic. Unfortunately, some do because they blindly believe anything a government official tells them. Many of us would not sleep well at night if one of the members of a self-defense class met serious injury or death at the hands of a rapist, but fought valiantly with a set of car keys because that's the advice we gave them. As citizens we should speak out against such statements simply because they defy commonsense. Officials who make such statements should be publicly ridiculed because what they say places their own constituency in danger. Imagine the outcry if police officers were told they would no longer be armed. Imagine the chief of police declaring they personally would no longer carry a firearm because they pose a danger to themselves and the community. What would people think? That question requires no answer because the scenarios are without logic. Yet, when civilians are repeatedly bombarded with statements that they are a danger to themselves, it is accepted as some form of gospel truth. Civilians are perceived by some government bureaucrats and politicians as incompetent bumbling fools unable to make a correct decision when it comes to defending their lives or the lives of loved ones. We would submit that a civilian is in a far better position to make a correct decision because, by definition, civilians know who the victim is. It is us! It is understood who is the assailant and who is the victim. In police work, discerning who-is-who can sometimes be difficult upon arrival at a crime scene. So, most police officers, and rightly so, assume they are in danger until they determine the level of danger that may still exist and who poses that threat. That is why some senior law enforcement officials make such statements. They are tainted by their years of experience on the streets as law enforcement officers. But that is not the case for civilians involved in one-on-one crimes. It is us, the law-abiding citizen, being accosted by a robber, rapist or burglar. It requires no special intellect to figure out that the man entering the broken window into our home is a danger to us. It doesn't require weeks of self-defense training or months at a police academy to understand what is going on. And, it certainly doesn't warrant being left virtually defenseless using car keys as was recommended by a Texas city police department described in the story earlier. Society must stop assuming that in order to survive a criminal act perpetrated upon a victim, that the victim play the game of victim-hood and hope for the best. If it is clear the assailant is intent on killing the victim, does the victim have an obligation to a create a "safer society" by dying for the cause? Armed citizens create a safer society. And, if that means an assailant is apprehended, or killed in the process of a law-abiding citizen defending themself from serious injury or death, society wins. When we allow victim-hood to permeate our society, the criminals win by working their trade with impunity. Self Defense Armory http://www.selfdefensearmory.com/firepower.html
Comments
PC=BS
"The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."