NationStates Jolt Archive

OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.

And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular phone.

Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?

The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.

Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.

OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.

Are you serious? Nearly every media form and outlet maintains that one has to conform to the wills, norms, and fads of society. If one doesn't bend and flow with society it is generally assumed that one will be left behind and/or run over.

Are you serious? Nearly every media form and outlet maintains that one has to conform to the wills, norms, and fads of society. If one doesn't bend and flow with society it is generally assumed that one will be left behind and/or run over.

Yes, they tell you to conform, but they tell you your self-esteem will suffer if you don't.

Let me just start out by saying it's nice to see a well-though out post. I don't agree with everything you've said, but you make some interesting statements/points.

If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity.

Surely, then, taking someone's life is the greatest possible violation of their dignity?

Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.

I disagree. To me, my life > my dignity.

I disagree. To me, my life > my dignity.

If someone wants to murder you, you not only lose your dignity, you lose your life.

So, is your life and dignity worth preserving?

This post brings up a good point. Before 9/11, airline pilots were taught to just do what the Hijackers tell them to. Of course back then, most Hijackings were flown to Cuba, or Mexico. Its sad how death of 3,000 people had to occur before people can see what is wrong with that system. Airline pilots are now taught to FIGHT. Believe it or not, alot of Airline pilots now and days ARE packing. Not only that we got plain clothes police force, and other agents.

On the General Aviation side, (the side I'm on), we are taught to not let anyone into our aircraft, unless we know who they are.

I think its time we started fighting back, we can't just lay on our back and let crooks and criminal get what they want. I say we all pratice some form of self defense.

If someone wants to murder you, you not only lose your dignity, you lose your life.

So, is your life and dignity worth preserving?

I would quite like to preseve both. But according to your definition of "dignity", murder must be the ultimate violation of a persons dignity. So surely it'd be better, if, say, someone threatened to shoot you if you didn't hand over your money or whatever, to hand it over and lose your dignity (and your money) than lose your life (and your dignity with it).

If you're dead, you're certainly no longer "a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others".

EDIT: Of course, if I thought there was a good chance of me being able to fight back and keep my money AND my life, I'd do that.

If a person is to avoid being a slave, or someone else's pawn, then they should defend their own dignity as well as their life.

I'm not saying we should run around fighting duels of honor. But it is an incredible affront to ask someone to submit to rape, just so that they might live.

To tell someone that "it's more moral for you to submit to rape than it is to kill your attacker" is rather hard for me to digest.

Yes, they tell you to conform, and they tell you your self-esteem will suffer if you don't.

So are you agreeing with my point, that our society believes the only purpose for a backbone is to be broken?

As for the rest, I agree that one should stand up for him/herself, but one should be rational about it.

Am I worth defnding? Yes. Are you? No.

So are you agreeing with my point, that our society believes the only purpose for a backbone is to be broken?

As for the rest, I agree that one should stand up for him/herself, but one should be rational about it.

Then why do so many people say that "we should not offend certain groups, because we don't want to hurt their self-esteem," or, "we should make sure they have good role models, so we help their self-esteem," or, "we should find ways of disciplining children that reinforces their self-esteem."

The same people who usually say, "if you're confronted by a criminal, give him whatever he wants."

I find the idea of giving a criminal "anything he wants" to be arrant nonsense.

When it is clear that there is a wrongdoer involved then fighting, physically and lethally if necessary, is justified. This applies in the cases of rape and attempted murder etc. Yes one should fight to preserve your dignity here.

What is a problem is when the dignity that is to be preserved becomes a political stance not a refusal to be physically violated. This "dignity" in the past included not sharing a space with blacks, the destruction of the Jews in the holocaust etc. It still exists in the attempts to bar women from Augusta, the targetting of certain religious groups for surveilance etc.

So long as self defense is clearly defined as being the defense of ones physical person (and in some cases property) then it is acceptable. When it becomes defense of an ideology it is totalitarianism in disguise.

So long as self defense is clearly defined as being the defense of ones physical person (and in some cases property) then it is acceptable. When it becomes defense of an ideology it is totalitarianism in disguise.

Let's limit this to individuals who might be deciding questions of personal defense against physical crime. Rape, robbery, murder, assault.

If a person is to avoid being a slave, or someone else's pawn, then they should defend their own dignity as well as their life.

I'm not saying we should run around fighting duels of honor. But it is an incredible affront to ask someone to submit to rape, just so that they might live.

To tell someone that "it's more moral for you to submit to rape than it is to kill your attacker" is rather hard for me to digest.

I wasn't saying that at all. I was thinking more that it might be better to give the attacker what they want rather than fight back when they threaten lethal force in order to protect your own life, not the attackers.

Basically, I was saying:
my life > my dignity,
not:
my attacker's life > my dignity.

Personally speaking I would rather be a rape victim than a killer, but I would not expect everyone else to behave the same way. I would however have very few qualms about inflicting non-lethal physical damage on someone to protect myself or my property.

Like some other guy said, there are plenty of causes that are worth dying for, but none killing for. We should defend ourselves. That means that one can maintain is value in himsel, without accepting the indignity of criminal assault. I can do whatever i want, follow my will, my self determination, but i can also stop others from trying to stop that. It is because I have dignity, that i have self determination, that i have the choice to either give away my goods, or fight for them. This also doesnt give me the right to do the other way around, i.e., i doesnt give me the right to be a criminal, or to treat a criminal the way he wants to treat me. I will defend by all means necessary.. But I wont attack.

according to article 16 of the universal declaration of human rights everyone has the right to own property and not to have it damaged or taken from them.

Then why do so many people say that "we should not offend certain groups, because we don't want to hurt their self-esteem," or, "we should make sure they have good role models, so we help their self-esteem," or, "we should find ways of disciplining children that reinforces their self-esteem."

That is the arrant nonsense. In our society it is very unlikely to succeed if you don't conform. The wildly successful generally don't conform and form their own path, but for the rest of us, conformity is our only chance. If anything, the politically correct talk that you mention is mainly to not point out the differences, not to glorify the differences. But I think that we are not discussing the nature of your original post.

The same people who usually say, "if you're confronted by a criminal, give him whatever he wants."

I find the idea of giving a criminal "anything he wants" to be arrant nonsense.

Their rational for that is that it is not worth risking one's life for possessions. The idea is that the experience of living is worth far more than anything one might own. When it comes to rape, it is a difficult question since they are taking one's body.

Isaac Asimov wrote in his Foundation books that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, and I've always agreed with that. If a situation has come down to violent confrontation, something somewhere has been screwed up along the line. So, while I obviously don't disagree with people's rights to defend themselves, I do generally disagree with violence as a first resort.

Isaac Asimov wrote in his Foundation books that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, and I've always agreed with that. If a situation has come down to violent confrontation, something somewhere has been screwed up along the line. So, while I obviously don't disagree with people's rights to defend themselves, I do generally disagree with violence as a first resort.

Robbery is in itself violent as you are being threatened w/ some form of bodily harm if you don't give in to the demands.

Their rational for that is that it is not worth risking one's life for possessions. The idea is that the experience of living is worth far more than anything one might own. When it comes to rape, it is a difficult question since they are taking one's body.

Let's suppose that you have the means to defend yourself. So it's no longer a question of "do I give him the stuff, or die?", but, "do I give him the stuff, or tell him to get stuffed and show him what would happen if he tries anything?"

Or even, "if he tries something, I kill him", in the extreme. Not saying that it's always going to come to the extreme - but where would you draw the line?

according to article 16 of the universal declaration of human rights everyone has the right to own property and not to have it damaged or taken from them.
I don't think anyone would dispute that right, that's why theft is illegal.

The tendency of arguments of this sort which are argued in sentiments of "dignity" and "becoming people's pawns" and so on is to lose a sense of pragmatism- to homogenise all crimes into a one grouping and to see all types of resistance to mean lethal force. I think a sense of proportion is needed. The original poster talks of both rape and being compelled to hand over a wallet equally as 'loss of dignity', but in no way does that mean that the level of force in defence used in each case should be equal. While I would not seek to encourage women to meekly submit to rape, I will not countenence that any life is worth less than a wallet and would not feel safe in a society that held this belief.

I don't think anyone would dispute that right, that's why theft is illegal.

The tendency of arguments of this sort which are argued in sentiments of "dignity" and "becoming people's pawns" and so on is to lose a sense of pragmatism- to homogenise all crimes into a one grouping and to see all types of resistance to mean lethal force. I think a sense of proportion is needed. The original poster talks of both rape and being compelled to hand over a wallet equally as 'loss of dignity', but in no way does that mean that the level of force in defence used in each case should be equal. While I would not seek to encourage women to meekly submit to rape, I will not countenence that any life is worth less than a wallet and would not feel safe in a society that held this belief.

It's possible to resist with a weapon and not kill anyone. It happens 2.5 million times a year in the US. Would it be OK if no one was hurt?

Let's suppose that you have the means to defend yourself. So it's no longer a question of "do I give him the stuff, or die?", but, "do I give him the stuff, or tell him to get stuffed and show him what would happen if he tries anything?"

Or even, "if he tries something, I kill him", in the extreme. Not saying that it's always going to come to the extreme - but where would you draw the line?

I don't personally think that theft is a act of domination, per se.

As for my physical well being, or the physical well being of those I care about, I would certainly be willing to kill anyone who would infringe on that.

I don't personally think that theft is a act of domination, per se.

As for my physical well being, or the physical well being of those I care about, I would certainly be willing to kill anyone who would infringe on that.

Leaving out the killing for a moment...

If you have the means to reverse the domination to the point where the crime stops, without killing anyone, is that OK?

Or would you rather submit to the robbery?

There is an aspect of the policy of adopting lethal force as defence of the self and of property that is not being considered.
With regard to defending your physical person from being killed this makes no difference, but in protecting your worldly goods it does.

Recently theives here have taken to shooting first, stealing afterwards, as too many people resisted the thefts. In the past you lost your wallet or car, or watch. Now you lose your life first. That way you can not resist, the thief gets what they want at no risk. It is not a matter of the thief coming up to you and threatening. They just shoot you in the back of the head/neck.

This is just a ppint to be considered. I still hold that you should defend your properety, but there is a risk involved if it becomes kill or be killed society.

There is an aspect of the policy of adopting lethal force as defence of the self and of property that is not being considered.
With regard to defending your physical person from being killed this makes no difference, but in protecting your worldly goods it does.

Recently theives here have taken to shooting first, stealing afterwards, as too many people resisted the thefts. In the past you lost your wallet or car, or watch. Now you lose your life first. That way you can not resist, the thief gets what they want at no risk. It is not a matter of the thief coming up to you and threatening. They just shoot you in the back of the head/neck.

This is just a ppint to be considered. I still hold that you should defend your properety, but there is a risk involved if it becomes kill or be killed society.

There's no evidence to support the idea that there is an increase in thieves shooting first in the US now. In fact, there's evidence to support the idea that armed civilians stop crimes. Without killing.

Robbery is in itself violent as you are being threatened w/ some form of bodily harm if you don't give in to the demands.
It is... but how often have you been threatened with robbery? Probably not often, because there are ways you can avoid being robbed. I'm just saying the right to defend oneself shouldn't supplant smart planning and prior preparation. Preventing the situation entirely is preferable to ending it violently.

Recently theives here have taken to shooting first, stealing afterwards, as too many people resisted the thefts. In the past you lost your wallet or car, or watch. Now you lose your life first. That way you can not resist, the thief gets what they want at no risk. It is not a matter of the thief coming up to you and threatening. They just shoot you in the back of the head/neck.



I've seen it the other way. People were told not to resist for years, the criminals kept killing anyway so the public (and some gov't agencies) wised up and are now encouraging defense.

It is... but how often have you been threatened with robbery? Probably not often, because there are ways you can avoid being robbed. I'm just saying the right to defend oneself shouldn't supplant smart planning and prior preparation. Preventing the situation entirely is preferable to ending it violently.

No, I'm not saying you shouldn't have other methods.

But, at the point where it happens, what should you do?

Does the mere display of a gun mean that violence will definitely happen? It seems that it happens 2.5 million times a year in the US - the crime stops - no one is killed. So is the display "violence" or is it merely "intimidation"?

And aside from the fact that intimidation works in the US, is it "right" to use reverse intimidation?

Whispering Legs, dont you have anything else to do than to push your agenda with ever-changing words? This is the same old self-defense theme you like to vary but which ultimately boils down to: I need my gun to feel secure.
Another question, have you ever been in a situation where you had to choose between dignity and life? Or are you just making theoretical statements which is easy? If someone has a knife at your throat and is deciding about your life nearly everyone will beg for his continued existence.

I do not know what is happening in the US. I was referring to here in Brazil. If the trend is one way in one country and another in a different one, then there are obviously more factors at work than just resisting theft. I would guess that the police effort in solving murder compared to theft is significant, but in practice unmeasurable.

Does the mere display of a gun mean that violence will definitely happen? It seems that it happens 2.5 million times a year in the US - the crime stops - no one is killed.
More information is needed. How many times does it happen total and what proportion of those times constitutes the above? If a gun is displayed three million times and in 2.5 mil of those the crime stops, that's a great method. If it's ten million times and in 2.5 mil of those the crime stops, it's a lousy one. What's the actual success rate?

So is the display "violence" or is it merely "intimidation"?
I don't think the display is violence. Intimidation is a good term. I think it ups the ante, but presumably there are going to be people who are willing to call or raise, so to speak, in addition to the ones that fold. Thus the above question.

Leaving out the killing for a moment...

If you have the means to reverse the domination to the point where the crime stops, without killing anyone, is that OK?

Or would you rather submit to the robbery?

Of course I would not simply submit myself to someone.

If I could stop someone from stealing my possessions, I would.

I do not know what is happening in the US. I was referring to here in Brazil. If the trend is one way in one country and another in a different one, then there are obviously more factors at work than just resisting theft. I would guess that the police effort in solving murder compared to theft is significant, but in practice unmeasurable.

I believe that the psychology and social reaction of criminals differs from culture to culture.

More information is needed. How many times does it happen total and what proportion of those times constitutes the above? If a gun is displayed three million times and in 2.5 mil of those the crime stops, that's a great method. If it's ten million times and in 2.5 mil of those the crime stops, it's a lousy one. What's the actual success rate?

The National Self-Defense Survey was the first survey specifically designed to estimate the frequency of defensive gun uses. It asked all respondents about both their own uses and those of other household members, inquired about all gun types, excluded uses against animals or connected with occupational duties, and limited recall periods to one and five years. Equally importantly, it established, with detailed questioning, whether persons claiming a defensive gun use had actually confronted an adversary (as distinct from, say, merely investigating a suspicious noise in the backyard), actually used their guns in some way, such as, at minimum, threatening their adversaries (as distinct from merely owning or carrying a gun for defensive reasons), and had done so in connection with what they regarded as a specific crime being committed against them.

The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

I read the post until I realized WL was talking about america ^_^

Nonconformity...right.

Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?


For me, it depends on what the person wants. I don't care about my material possessions. If someone needs something I own more than I do, then it is theirs for the asking. However, if someone tries to take it by force, then they will be met with a greater force and bested.

I will not, however, carry a gun. :p

The National Self-Defense Survey was the first survey specifically designed to estimate the frequency of defensive gun uses. It asked all respondents about both their own uses and those of other household members, inquired about all gun types, excluded uses against animals or connected with occupational duties, and limited recall periods to one and five years. Equally importantly, it established, with detailed questioning, whether persons claiming a defensive gun use had actually confronted an adversary (as distinct from, say, merely investigating a suspicious noise in the backyard), actually used their guns in some way, such as, at minimum, threatening their adversaries (as distinct from merely owning or carrying a gun for defensive reasons), and had done so in connection with what they regarded as a specific crime being committed against them.

The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

That's better, but it still doesn't address a success rate, unless I am misreading it. I see an absolute number of culled defensive events compared against a number of criminal events to achieve a ratio, but it seems to me that they are pulling "genuine" events out of a total number of respondents not presented, meaning that any evaluation of the successful defensive events to total events would be impossible from this data. Am I missing something? It's possible.

This following essay was in a chain email I received and saved some time ago, it seems valid to post here. Bare in mind that this is intended to be read to soldiers and as such focuses on that particular type of individual. If you see it as glorifying them, that is why. When I first read it, it really put things in perspective for me as a person who since 9/11 wished he could have been on one of those planes.
_______________________________

ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS

This essay, by Lt.Col. Dave Grossman, former West Point psychology professor
and retired Army Ranger, was sent by the wife of a retired Marine. She
notes, "I've met many Marines in the past 25 years, all the same type:
Strong, compassionate, patriotic, brave. Many of our non-military friends
say they can't understand why Marines are the way they are. I thought the
following article shed a bit of light on these brave men."

Warrior Ethos
"Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so
because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things
that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that
may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as
always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending?
What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?" - William J. Bennett -
in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy, November 24, 1997
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most
of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive
creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true.
Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated
assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast
majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.
Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent
crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record
rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which
means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less
than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent
crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent
citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We
may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still
remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who
are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme
provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the
pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will
grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard
blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that
shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something
wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the
predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves
feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there
that will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are
evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you
forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safetyin denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to
protect the flock and confront the wolf."


If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive
citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for
your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf.
But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your
fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who
is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness,
into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves,
and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, which is what makes
them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world.
They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire
extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their
kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police
officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more
likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but
the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea
of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they
chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like thewolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is
that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any
sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished
and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a
representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that
there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them
where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our
airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather
have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go,
"Baa."

Until the wolf shows up! Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide
behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high
school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had
the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had
nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWATteams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically
peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs
feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard
on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently
about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how
many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog;
it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny
critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the
breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a
righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous
battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to
the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep
pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After
the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens
in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs,
the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of thoseplanes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly
transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into
warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he
does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to
survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the
population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of
violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of
violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast
majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language:
slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their
victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd
that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically
primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose
which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans
are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was
honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was
the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert
an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the
other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped hisphone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a
signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one
hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business
people and parents. -- From sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the
wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

"Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after
that?"

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil
of evil men." - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize; especially to the thousands of
police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real
sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves.
They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, youcan be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but
you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your
loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you.
If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to
hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if
you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a
conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare
yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes
knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well
concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters
tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of
religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your
congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual
in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your
loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break,
one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other
cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why
he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was
at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a
mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning
down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved
every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot,
and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die.
That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it
would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was
carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probablyscorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for
"heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were
defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids'
school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic
accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often
their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdogquietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live
with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to
stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically
destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is
counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and
horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when
you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't
train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy.
Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive,
you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at
your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in "Fear Less," his superb post-9/11
book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms
with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an
insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by
saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all
the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in
small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some
level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his
life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you
step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that
the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime.
Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and
you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to
yourself... "Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy.
It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a
continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other
end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or theother. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone inAmerica took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a
few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors
started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up
that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you
and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your
moment of truth.

That's better, but it still doesn't address a success rate, unless I am misreading it. I see an absolute number of culled defensive events compared against a number of criminal events to achieve a ratio, but it seems to me that they are pulling "genuine" events out of a total number of respondents not presented, meaning that any evaluation of the successful defensive events to total events would be impossible from this data. Am I missing something? It's possible.

Statistics aside, from a philosophical point, where do you personally draw the line?

This following essay was in a chain email I received and saved some time ago, it seems valid to post here. Bare in mind that this is intended to be read to soldiers and as such focuses on that particular type of individual. If you see it as glorifying them, that is why. When I first read it, it really put things in perspective for me as a person who since 9/11 wished he could have been on one of those planes.

Meh ... nationalistic drivel designed to cause an emotional reaction and a physical one:

Emotional reaction: Call me a sheep will ya? I'll show you!
Physical reaction: Enlist in the US Military.

Propoganda. Very poorly disguised propoganda as well. The Islamic Jihad Army has better propoganda.

Statistics aside, from a philosophical point, where do you personally draw the line?
Well, I'm not a pacifist. I did spend seven years in the Air Force, and I learned how to use a gun as a kid. My dad taught me. However, I don't personally own a gun and am not particularly interested in owning one. I really believe what I said before, that if it comes down to having to use a gun I have already failed.

If I had a gun, though, and my wife was in danger, yeah, I'd pop the guy.

Well, I'm not a pacifist. I did spend seven years in the Air Force, and I learned how to use a gun as a kid. My dad taught me. However, I don't personally own a gun and am not particularly interested in owning one. I really believe what I said before, that if it comes down to having to use a gun I have already failed.

If I had a gun, though, and my wife was in danger, yeah, I'd pop the guy.

I'm only using the gun as an example. Whatever was at hand - given the chance - is it worth doing something to defend your life or your dignity?

I'm only using the gun as an example. Whatever was at hand - given the chance - is it worth doing something to defend your life or your dignity?
Life? Yeah. Property? Maybe. Dignity? Probably not. My dignity is not predicated on my alpha-maleness. ;)

Life? Yeah. Property? Maybe. Dignity? Probably not. My dignity is not predicated on my alpha-maleness. ;)

So you would be OK with someone raping you?

So you would be OK with someone raping you?

Depends on who she is. ;)

Depends on who she is. ;)

And whether or not she's wearing a strap-on...

And whether or not she's wearing a strap-on...

With razor blades...

So you would be OK with someone raping you?
Ah, that's a semantics issue. I wouldn't put that under the heading of "dignity". That kind of physical assault would fall into the "life" category for me, because (a) there's no way I could know it was going to stop at rape and (b) even if I did know, I wouldn't know what kind of sexually transmitted diseases the guy would be "sharing" with me in the process of the assault. I would therefore treat the situation as if my life were in jeopardy and act accordingly.