If the SHTF will you be capable of Physical Violence against another? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : If the SHTF will you be capable of Physical Violence against another?


DoctaGlockta
05-22-2012, 13:07
Not sure if I've seen this topic on here but it is a good one to consider.

Some of you are most likely military or LEO so you may have shot at someone before perhaps even wounded or ended a life.

But for civilians these days some or quite possibly most have never really had to 'fight' someone or have physically injure someone on purpose.

Back in the day fist fights on the playground were common and that is how things got settled. However these days this is a no-no. Some may have never been in a real life physical confrontation before.

If society goes awry chances are that you might have to defend yourself. Quite possibly in a face to face close encounter.

Have you ever been attacked before by someone that wanted to inflict harm on you or a loved one and what did you do?

If you have never been in that position you may want to really think about what you could do.

alabaster
05-22-2012, 13:16
This could go in that other thread about questions that ought not be asked on the interweb........

concretefuzzynuts
05-22-2012, 13:19
Careful answering this. Think of the trove of evidence a prosecutor could glean from your answer.

cyrsequipment
05-22-2012, 13:20
I could NEVER hurt another person. That is why I gave away all my guns and sharp objects.

thesurefire
05-22-2012, 13:23
Careful answering this. Think of the trove of evidence a prosecutor could glean from your answer.

Keep this in mind.

Avoiding conflict is the way to go. That said, ask a solider if they felt guilty about firing back once engaged.

tuica
05-22-2012, 13:24
If we did not have that ability, we would not have survived as a species. And if good citizens did not have the capacity for violence - evil would rule the earth. A right, and comforting notion. Cheers.

Snaps
05-22-2012, 13:26
I'm a combat vet, I had enough of violence. Now instead of the NRA I'm a member of the DAV and Wounded Warrior Project. I have sold or turned in all my guns as well as blunt or sharp objects to prevent more violence.

pugman
05-22-2012, 13:28
Rule #1 is to avoid the conflict if at all possible. World goes to *&^$ something tells me you can't call 911 (even if you win the fight) if/when you get injured. I don't think a doctor is a phone call away and hosptials might be so jammed full the broken arm you have might be a long way down the priority list.

Rule #2 Don't underestimate your opponent.

At 5'7 I have no disillusions about my ability to fight a larger opponent. I've been in two fights my entire life...one I ran from (and the guy eventually became my best friend :dunno:) the other I stood my ground and the guy just walked away..

Well I guess I've never been in a fight.

If the world goes to heck, my job is to fight as absolutely as dirty as possible to incapacitate a person as quickly as I can.

Hand, foot or whatever I can get my hands on...meet b****

kirgi08
05-22-2012, 13:34
If threatened,yep.'08.

93GT
05-22-2012, 13:38
..........

bdcochran
05-22-2012, 13:49
I will respond to the caption.

1. anyone is capable of physical resistance except perhaps a quadriplegic.

2. any person with martial artist experience will inform you that the first thing a competent instructor emphasizes is to avoid a fight and to avoid contact.

3. there is a mantra in competent shooting instruction that distance means safety. The same applies in physical combat.

4. Pugman - the smaller person in trained in the martial arts actually has the advantage over a larger person.

5. no matter what the training, when you grapple, you give up a lot of your advantage, if any.

6. OP - even monitored, careful practice in the fighting skills produces injuries - been there (hospitalized).

7. As Bruce Lee said, you need only 5 moves. Human ergonomics dictates the basic (same ) moves in escrima, knife fighting, entrenching tool fighting using your arms.

8. I don't advocate hurting people. I advocate learning human ergonomics, daily exercise, situational awareness and being physically fit. No, I haven't had a fight since probably 1957. And then, OP, I had no choice and took on 7 and only needed to beat the first opponent before the others ran.

concretefuzzynuts
05-22-2012, 14:35
On a side note, I'll be interested to see if the prosecutor in the Zimmerman case has any internet forum posts from George. For example a gun forum.

Quigley
05-22-2012, 14:55
I am Caucasian and I grew up in the hood, so yes


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

wjv
05-22-2012, 16:06
In a REAL SHTF scenario, my family's chance of survival would be greatly decreased if I was killed/injured. .

I have no desire to see my daughters or my wife die, so the answer is yes. .

TactiCool
05-22-2012, 17:49
During said scenario, I will simply push the red button. Many complicated and marvelous things will happen when I do that.

jdavionic
05-22-2012, 18:07
To protect myself and my loved ones, yes. I have no desire to hurt an innocent person. Once that line is crossed from innocent to threat, I have no issues at all in responding to ensure that there is no longer a threat.

beatcop
05-22-2012, 18:10
...not worried about my proclivity...worried about the other guy's.

When two rational "armed" people meet, they may have a thought process. When a hood rat decides to jack me for sneakers, that's a problem...not sure what he's thinking.

The real issue is what degree of pre-emptive violence are inclined to perform, what level of physical discomfort will you endure before you place your needs ahead of others-and act.

Prior threads have revealed juveniles, predators, and morally compromised persons posting here...sometimes "don't go there" is best.

RMTactical
05-22-2012, 20:24
I don't ever want to harm another person. However, I will not flinch in defending my family from great bodily harm or death. I feel that I am charged with their personal protection and it is a sacred duty IMO, and it is something I take very seriously.

G29Reload
05-22-2012, 20:53
I'm capable of self defense right damn now if necessary.

RedHaze
05-22-2012, 21:15
I went there, I did that, and I got the ribbon for it. I have no issue with putting down the wolves that mistake me or my family for sheep.

http://www.semperfico.com/px/images/combat-action-ribbon.jpg
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/2065_1015186783111_1328317000_30057129_3992_n.jpg

concretefuzzynuts
05-22-2012, 21:26
i'm capable of self defense right damn now if necessary.

You. Are. Awesome. Sir.

oldman11
05-22-2012, 21:33
If you are not capable, then you should not be carrying.

NEOH212
05-23-2012, 02:46
I'll put it this way. Having to hurt anyone isn't something that I want to do. Ever. With that said, if it came to what the OP is speaking of, I would be looking for a way to stay from the said encounters.

If I did for some reason find myself in a position in which I had to defend myself, I would not hesitate to use whatever force necessary to protect myself. Even if that meant that I had to take the life of another person.

I don't want that to ever happen but I'm prepared to protect myself and not become a statistic.

TangoFoxtrot
05-23-2012, 04:32
The bottom line is to avoid violence. I think if a civilians loved ones or supplies are threaten most will stand up and defend them.

eracer
05-23-2012, 04:49
As a CCW permit-holder, I've made the conscious decision that, if necessary, I will shoot someone who is immediately endangering my life, my family's lives, or is committing a felony during which I feel that someone else life is in imminent danger. In this I am supported by the rule of law.

As such, I prepare myself to act decisively and responsibly should the need for such action arise. In a defensive situation, the biggest error one can make is not recognizing an imminent threat in time. The second worst is not acting decisively enough to defeat it.

SHTF presents some additional considerations. Namely, protection of property. I believe that in a situation where I'm forced into a survival mode brought about by the loss of societal checks and balances, the rules will change, and an assault on my property will become an assault which puts me in imminent danger. In a SHTF scenario, where the rule of law is absent, or greatly reduced, I will defend myself, my family, and my property against attack.

DrSticky
05-23-2012, 07:00
This is a great subject that we could (and many people should) discuss over a beer. Unfortunately in our litigious society, I can only contemplate a response that I will not give in a permanent and written format.

That being said...

I am willing to negotiate with those who wish to do me, and my family, harm.

Toyman
05-23-2012, 09:45
I don't see what is so hard about "It's either me or them". When they have initiated it, I would have no problem doing what I need to do.

CigarandScotch
05-23-2012, 10:29
If presented with no alternative, I will fight to defend myself, family, etc. But I will always seek to avoid a violent encounter until it cannot be avoided.

TN.Frank
05-23-2012, 19:45
This pretty much sums up how I feel on the subject.
Firefly - Our Mrs Reynolds - "kill'em right back" - YouTube

AK_Stick
05-24-2012, 01:55
The bottom line is to avoid violence. I think if a civilians loved ones or supplies are threaten most will stand up and defend them.




I dunno, there's an awful lot of credible evidence that indicates most people will not willingly kill another human being without some significant conditioning.


For anyone who's interested, Col Grossman has a very informative book "On Killing" that gets into the nitty gritty of it.


But the long and short of it is, that most people, will not kill others. And that even though we've greatly increased our training to get people to fire, we're still struggling with getting people to actually aim to kill the enemy.

LongGun1
05-24-2012, 04:54
Have you ever been attacked before by someone that wanted to inflict harm on you or a loved one and what did you do?



I have been in some interesting situations earlier in my life..

Attacked by those wielding a chain, or broken bottles, or guns, or knives, or wooden batons/boards/tool handles, etc..

..or a combo of the above..

..one "friendly fire" close call was late one night when a Turkish soldier with a bayonet on his locked & loaded G3 jumped out of the bushes onto the road..

..yelled "Dur"...with his weapon pointed at me & him in a "not budging an inch" stance...

..with (long hair & fu-manchu mustache) me running full bore towards him down a hill in civilian clothes in a leather coat carrying a black bag. After he jumped out, I started yelling "Hava Asker, Hava Asker" & stopped so short his bayonet cut thru my coat & pricked my chest. Still amazed he did not pull the trigger (we were forbidden to wear uniforms off site
{TUSLOG Det 121} & had 35-10 hair waivers due to assassinations by leftist terrorists...I had just arrived back on site..I guess to him I looked like a leftist terrorist with a bomb... http://www.zone-interdite.net/P/zone_2930.html)

One of the most frightening was when I was just a skinny kid in the 9th grade...cornered in a darkened high school basement stairway & being robbed by a gang of "underprivileged minorities" with their knives & sharpened 'rakes' being pressed to my chest, throat & face. My new northside lily white high school had recently complied with a desegregation order (we had sold our home & moved away from a bad south-end neighborhood to get away from that sort of thing) & now had an influx of too-old-to-be-in-high-school-thugs...basically throwing wolves in a sheep pen! The next year, the entire 10th grade was then bussed across town to an all minority high school!! Interesting year that was!! :steamed:
Easy to empathize with Bernhard Goetz during those years! ;)


One such attack necessitated an ER visit..(the chain)

..the chain attack, the knife attack & a few others left permanent scarring..

..stabbed with a pencil a couple of times..

..still have a rise below my wrist from a tool handle being broken over my arm.

Been thrown thru a wall on more than one occasion! :whistling:


In response...people have gotten injured...some seriously.. (I will leave it at that)..

..and I have used a firearm on more than one occasion to stop an assault!

I have stayed in an area so bad (drug deals, prostitution & gang activity...gunfire in parking lot), every time my roommate & I exited our room at night, our pistols were in hand (low ready) & we were providing mutual cover to make it safely to our vehicles. It was like a bad B-movie!

Situational awareness, posture, bearing (& my adult size ;)) have stopped many others without presenting a weapon!

Observation skills, situational awareness & divine providence were key in my recognizing the prep work of 3 operatives in a pending terrorist attack in Yesilköy, near Istanbul..

..a previous attack by the same cell had cut short the lives of 4 Americans (3 contractors & 1 NCO)!

The next would have almost certainly claimed at least 6 to 8 or more Americans...possibly myself included.

I consider that long ago incident my greatest achievement in life...so far!




Concerning the mindset of physical violence & predatory behavior...have read several books recently on the subject..

..in the order of those I liked best to worst...

"Facing Violence: Preparing for the Unexpected" :supergrin:

Amazon.com: Facing Violence: Preparing for the Unexpected (9781594392139): Rory Miller, Barry Eisler: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/417oTh-iQfL.@@AMEPARAM@@417oTh-iQfL


"The Little Black Book on Violence: What Every Young Man Needs To Know About Fighting"

Amazon.com: The Little Black Book of Violence: What Every Young Man Needs to Know About Fighting (9781594391293): Lawrence A. Kane, Kris Wilder, Lt. Col. John R. Finch, Marc "Animal" MacYoung, Rory Miller: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ySDW2es7L.@@AMEPARAM@@51ySDW2es7L


"The Gift of Fear"

Amazon.com: Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence (9780747538356): Gavin De Becker: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31ZGFIZrraL.@@AMEPARAM@@31ZGFIZrraL


Wish they were around when I was younger..

..but I learned the hard way! :rofl:


As far as using deadly force to protect the innocent..

One of my old quotes (now copyrighted? & on t-shirts by an enterprising relative)..

"Making the World a Better Place....One Bullet at a Time"


YMMV

UneasyRider
05-24-2012, 05:14
Most people don't know how to apply violence in my opinion. I would rather be insulted to death and walk away from a fight and have done just that more than once. There is however a time for action and knowing when that is and not hesitating is the key to saving my life and the survival of my family or some innocent person. This is where most people screw up, not recognizing a deadly threat until it is too late or mistaking a hothead or or junkie for a physical threat when you can walk away from them if you have the ego for it.

That said I have a strong moral compass and a desire to protect the innocent that is very strong, so yes, I would not be bothered by using deadly force if I had to, and no I would not shoot someone that I could walk away from.

DoctaGlockta
05-24-2012, 07:46
I dunno, there's an awful lot of credible evidence that indicates most people will not willingly kill another human being without some significant conditioning.


For anyone who's interested, Col Grossman has a very informative book "On Killing" that gets into the nitty gritty of it.


But the long and short of it is, that most people, will not kill others. And that even though we've greatly increased our training to get people to fire, we're still struggling with getting people to actually aim to kill the enemy.

This is exactly the reason I started the thread.

It is easy to say what one would do. But I feel is it foolish not to really examine what you would be capable of doing in a SHTF situation of any sort.

In fact not really looking deep into that subject could get yourself or others in deep trouble or even killed.

If you have been in a situation where someone has tried to cause you harm and you had to fight back then you know what you are capable of. If you have not then you need to think about it. Perhaps read up on the subject - the books mentioned are appreciated. LG1 appreciate your input.

Just something I think is important for those who are preparing. Hadn't seen the subject discussed here.

UneasyRider
05-24-2012, 07:52
This is exactly the reason I started the thread.

It is easy to say what one would do. But I feel is it foolish not to really examine what you would be capable of doing in a SHTF situation of any sort.

In fact not really looking deep into that subject could get yourself or others in deep trouble or even killed.

If you have been in a situation where someone has tried to cause you harm and you had to fight back then you know what you are capable of. If you have not then you need to think about it. Perhaps read up on the subject - the books mentioned are appreciated. LG1 appreciate your input.

Just something I think is important for those who are preparing. Hadn't seen the subject discussed here.

Good post! Been there, done that, made up my mind that the innocent get protected at almost any cost and the guilty must be stopped at almost any cost from raping and killing the innocent.

series1811
05-24-2012, 07:54
The truth is, some people can and will, and some people can't and won't.

And, from experience, it is sometimes really hard to tell who will be one way or the other, until that time comes.

The only ones who know for sure, are the ones who have already been there.

Aceman
05-24-2012, 20:18
Yes I would, but I'd really rather rather not unless absolutely necessary.

+1,000,000 to "insulted to death and walk away"

Lowdown3
05-25-2012, 06:32
The better question might be how many of us fight regularly and/or train regularly for the fight?

Here's a clue- the fight may involve more than just firearms ;)

wjv
05-25-2012, 12:24
For anyone who's interested, Col Grossman has a very informative book "On Killing" that gets into the nitty gritty of it.

There is a difference between tossing a 19 year old on a line with a rifle and saying "kill the enemy".

versus

Those people there want to steal your food, rape your daughters and kill the rest of your family. . so shoot back. .

I Shooter
05-26-2012, 23:26
There was a study dun some years back that questioned how far a person off the street would go when told by a person in control that every thing was fine. The set up was that the person off the street was told to push a red button every time a person got a question wrong and the yellow when they got it right. The control person would ask a question then tell the person off the street if the person got it right or not then he or she was to push the right button. If he pushed the red button he would here the person scream in pain. Out of the 100 people tested only eight refused to push the red button and out of the 100 two got up and walked out before they wold push the red button and hurt another person. That means that 82% of people would hurt some one because they were told to by a person in control. Now if they do that with nothing on the line what will they do to keep them and there family fed or safe? I think that most of mankind is about two steps from being animals. Look all around us the wars and what we do to each other. Yes we will kill and hurt each other. We do it every day around the world. Hear in the United States it just hasn't gotten that bad yet but we are all capable of great evil. We have proved it to many times.

Dexters
05-27-2012, 06:46
There was a study dun some years back that questioned how far a person off the street would go when told by a person in control that every thing was fine. The set up was that the person off the street was told to push a red button every time a person got a question wrong and the yellow when they got it right. The control person would ask a question then tell the person off the street if the person got it right or not then he or she was to push the right button. If he pushed the red button he would here the person scream in pain. Out of the 100 people tested only eight refused to push the red button and out of the 100 two got up and walked out before they wold push the red button and hurt another person. That means that 82% of people would hurt some one because they were told to by a person in control. Now if they do that with nothing on the line what will they do to keep them and there family fed or safe? I think that most of mankind is about two steps from being animals. Look all around us the wars and what we do to each other. Yes we will kill and hurt each other. We do it every day around the world. Hear in the United States it just hasn't gotten that bad yet but we are all capable of great evil. We have proved it to many times.

That study was discredited years ago.

But, to your point, deprive people of food or limit calories and you can get people to do a lot of things to get food.

kirgi08
05-27-2012, 07:11
That's how the UN controls folks.'08.

Never become a refugee.

Stevekozak
05-27-2012, 07:14
That study was discredited years ago.

But, to your point, deprive people of food or limit calories and you can get people to do a lot of things to get food.
Dexter is right about that not being a valid study, but I think that at the core, all humans are hard wired to kill for survival. Only our societal or moral values prevent us from doing so. I think that when the time comes, if it does, most ppl will do what they have to do to defend themselves. I could be wrong.

Aceman
05-27-2012, 10:12
There was a study dun some years back that questioned how far a person off the street would go when told by a person in control that every thing was fine.

That study was discredited years ago.



The 'study' was done by Stanley Milgram. It was the seminal study on obedience and destructive behavior. A couple of things to remember -

1. Everybody tries to 'generalize' the results far beyond the specific conditions. Bad business to get into scientifically speaking.

2. The study was NOT discredited. It certainly had some ethical implications for doing such studies, and as mentioned, is highly criticized depending on how you want to use the results.

3. There were MANY variations of the study conducted (until that sort of study was shut down). They showed many credible 'general' results regarding people's willingness to harm others under many conditions that were far far less than SHTF.

It had some serious implications for the people involved that would absolutely convince you it was not bogus. It also raised quite a number of good questions. It was not the be-all end-all definitive work (nothing ever is) and it has been blown way far out of context (nothing ever should be). But one would be foolish to ignore it. Or over rely on it.

Dexters
05-27-2012, 11:13
2. The study was NOT discredited.

It was discredited - you will have to find research it.

From what I can remember some of the problems were with how he advertized for and selected the participants - biased the results.

Also, not a double blind experiment. The professor was a key participant and wrote up the results and conclusions.

This is from memory so research it.

Glockdude1
05-27-2012, 11:21
If threatened, yep.' 08.

:agree:

AK_Stick
05-27-2012, 17:04
There is a difference between tossing a 19 year old on a line with a rifle and saying "kill the enemy".

versus

Those people there want to steal your food, rape your daughters and kill the rest of your family. . so shoot back. .



Somewhat.

But there's alot that is the same as well. Read the book. I'd bet you come away with a different understanding of the topic.

I read it after two deployments, and much experience, and it changed quite a bit about how I dealt/worked with it.

I Shooter
05-27-2012, 17:41
I found this on the experiment.
Discussion of the Milgram Experiment

While Milgram’s research raised serious ethical questions about the use of human subjects in psychology experiments, his results have also been consistently replicated in further experiments. Thomas Blass (1999) reviewed further research on obedience and found that Milgram’s findings hold true in other experiments.
Why did so many of the participants in this experiment perform a seemingly sadistic act on the instruction of an authority figure? According to Milgram, there are a number of situational factors that can explain such high levels of obedience:


The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance.
The fact that the study was sponsored by Yale (a trusted and authoritative academic institution) led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random.
Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert.
The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.

I read several articles on this experiment and in no place have I read that it was discredited. I have read that people didn't like his findings or how he went about getting them. I also think that it is of some concern that the information is being used by our military. It is my understanding that his information is being used be a lot of people and that many have built on it. It was never discredited.

emt1581
05-28-2012, 18:21
If I felt myself or loved ones were threatened by someone or a group I'd like to think I'd react swiftly and effectively. Unless we're talking psychological warfare, pain would not be a variable. The point is to stop the enemy and protect myself/loved ones through whatever means necessary. SHTF/WROL just gives everyone far more options which I think is good for those that can think outside the box.

I don't care if you respect me, I don't care how big your group is, and I don't care how crazy you think you are. I will go until I die if need be. I was actually thinking about something a little different but similar in the shower today. If I ever found out my kid needed an organ or he would die quickly. I'd immediately get tested to see if I were a match and would have no problems helping him out post-mortem. Whether it be that or fighting "zombies"....I just need to know I did the right thing in the best interest of my family.

So yes, I would have no problem on a mental level using physical/lethal force against an enemy trying to do myself/loved ones harm.

But I think the more important thing to look at is the circumstances. I highly doubt that it'll be roving gangs or solitary thugs doing the harm. It'll be mothers and fathers trying to feed their kids. The have nots that never thought to prepare.

What would you do if it were an 80 year old grandmother limping to your door asking for food/water?

What about a 5 year old that lost their family and needed a place to stay?

I don't stress about the gangs or individuals....I think a lot about how I would react to the people I felt sorry for on some level. What if that were my kid? Would I want a stranger to ignore or kill them just because I was dead even though I did more than 90% of the people in this country to prepare?

-Emt1581

emt1581
05-28-2012, 18:26
I found this on the experiment.
Discussion of the Milgram Experiment

While Milgram’s research raised serious ethical questions about the use of human subjects in psychology experiments, his results have also been consistently replicated in further experiments. Thomas Blass (1999) reviewed further research on obedience and found that Milgram’s findings hold true in other experiments.
Why did so many of the participants in this experiment perform a seemingly sadistic act on the instruction of an authority figure? According to Milgram, there are a number of situational factors that can explain such high levels of obedience:


The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance.
The fact that the study was sponsored by Yale (a trusted and authoritative academic institution) led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random.
Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert.
The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.

I read several articles on this experiment and in no place have I read that it was discredited. I have read that people didn't like his findings or how he went about getting them. I also think that it is of some concern that the information is being used by our military. It is my understanding that his information is being used be a lot of people and that many have built on it. It was never discredited.

I didn't read every reply...but is this the one where they built a mock prison and some were prisoners and some were guards and the guards got really carried away and were cruel??

If so we looked at this quite a bit in undergrad.

We also looked at the diffusion of responsibility. Basically this is where someone is being harmed, tons of people watch, and no one calls for help or helps because they assume others are doing it.

Then you can look at historical accounts of soldiers intentionally missing their targets/enemy during battle.

I think statistics and experiments have their place but for every one someone can name you can name another one that contradicts it in some way.

-Emt1581

Just1More
05-29-2012, 08:27
Only in a last resort situation.

Catshooter
05-29-2012, 15:41
This actually is a more important question than it first seems.

A fully honest answer to this question should come before even buying your first gun for self defense.

It is more important than most anything else in self defense. If you're not willing to harm another, will you even slap them? Let alone anything further.

Many, many people with less than zero training (they've seen movies/TV) have sucessfully defended themselves because they made the decision to use violence if it was needed beforehand.

Honestly making the decision is more important than owning or training with a weapon.


Cat

LongGun1
05-29-2012, 22:30
This actually is a more important question than it first seems.

A fully honest answer to this question should come before even buying your first gun for self defense.

It is more important than most anything else in self defense. If you're not willing to harm another, will you even slap them? Let alone anything further.

Many, many people with less than zero training (they've seen movies/TV) have sucessfully defended themselves because they made the decision to use violence if it was needed beforehand.

Honestly making the decision is more important than owning or training with a weapon.


Cat


+1 :thumbsup:


Here is a tragic reminder of what happens when you are NOT willing to use deadly force when it is called for! There may (or may not) be time for commands & if ignored ....especially ignored with an obvious deadly intent...everything else is secondary to stopping the threat... post haste!

The video is very graphic...not for the squeamish! :shocked:

LiveLeak.com - GRAPHIC - Deputy Kyle Dinkheller

I understand the LEO was a really good guy, & had just been informed that day his wife was pregnant with their 2nd child. He was about to get off shift when this encounter ended his life! :patriot:

Angry Fist
05-29-2012, 22:31
Screw SHTF. You **** with me or mine, and you're dead.

Hour13
05-29-2012, 22:49
Screw SHTF. You **** with me or mine, and you're dead.

... or get between me and my 1st morning cup 'o coffee.

Bad idea!

Angry Fist
05-29-2012, 22:50
... or get between me and my 1st afternoon beer.

Bad idea!
Damn straight!

Hour13
05-29-2012, 23:16
Damn straight!

:thumbsup:

TangoFoxtrot
05-30-2012, 04:19
If the SHTF will you be capable of Physical Violence against another?
Absolutely! Especially people already dislike. Hopefully they would come around during that SHTF incident.

Stevekozak
05-30-2012, 06:02
+1 :thumbsup:


Here is a tragic reminder of what happens when you are NOT willing to use deadly force when it is called for! There may (or may not) be time for commands & if ignored ....especially ignored with an obvious deadly intent...everything else is secondary to stopping the threat... post haste!

The video is very graphic...not for the squeamish! :shocked:

LiveLeak.com - GRAPHIC - Deputy Kyle Dinkheller (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=969_1263249923)

I understand the LEO was a really good guy, & had just been informed that day his wife was pregnant with their 2nd child. He was about to get off shift when this encounter ended his life! :patriot:
Wow! That is really sad! The officer seemed like he was really uncertain about what to do when the guy wouldn't obey his orders.

UneasyRider
05-30-2012, 06:25
Wow! That is really sad! The officer seemed like he was really uncertain about what to do when the guy wouldn't obey his orders.

That's what I thought too. That little crazy dance put the officer off guard like he was dealing with an idiot as opposed to a killer.

Once the gun comes out you say yes sir or you get shot around here. Good rule to follow.

Aceman
05-30-2012, 19:15
It was discredited - you will have to find research it.

From what I can remember some of the problems were with how he advertized for and selected the participants - biased the results.

Also, not a double blind experiment. The professor was a key participant and wrote up the results and conclusions.

This is from memory so research it.


Well, when I taught the study (having read it - the original, half a dozen variations, seen the films of it, and studied it in coursework in grad school)...as I said - there were some issues. But nothing so wrong that it should be ignored.

Sincerely, Dr. Aceman, PhD, Psychology. Or we can go with your comment.

Aceman
05-30-2012, 19:18
I think one thing about the trained vs untrained crowd is this:

Trained crowd is much more likely to AVOID need for force in general. Untrained crowd is more likely to both attempt to use it and get their @$$ kicked for it.

Mid set is definitely the bigger issue. Mindset plus training - the ideal place.

LongGun1
05-30-2012, 22:29
I think one thing about the trained vs untrained crowd is this:

Trained crowd is much more likely to AVOID need for force in general. Untrained crowd is more likely to both attempt to use it and get their @$$ kicked for it.

Mid set is definitely the bigger issue. Mindset plus training - the ideal place.


+1 :thumbsup:

Mindset, situational awareness, skillsets & preparedness... :)

series1811
05-31-2012, 03:42
I think one thing about the trained vs untrained crowd is this:

Trained crowd is much more likely to AVOID need for force in general. Untrained crowd is more likely to both attempt to use it and get their @$$ kicked for it.

Mid set is definitely the bigger issue. Mindset plus training - the ideal place.

Good point. The best way to win a fight is to not have to have it in the first place.

(See my sig line).

series1811
05-31-2012, 04:32
The closest thing I can think of to this issue is having your child molested. Early in my LE career, I had to work child molesting cases. Now, everyone pretty much says, and really thinks, they would kill anyone who molested their kids. I know I feel the same way.

Yet, out of all of the child molesting cases I worked, I only saw it happen one time. And, that was a mother, who within a few minutes of finding out, took a butcher knife and tried as hard as she could to stab her daughter's attacker to death. And, then, three months later, she was living with him again.

I saw a lot of people get really mad, but I never saw anyone else actually do anything.

But, you ask anybody, me included, and we all say we would kill the bastard.

Catshooter
05-31-2012, 10:53
The closest thing I can think of to this issue is having your child molested. Early in my LE career, I had to work child molesting cases. Now, everyone pretty much says, and really thinks, they would kill anyone who molested their kids. I know I feel the same way.

Yet, out of all of the child molesting cases I worked, I only saw it happen one time. And, that was a mother, who within a few minutes of finding out, took a butcher knife and tried as hard as she could to stab her daughter's attacker to death. And, then, three months later, she was living with him again.

I saw a lot of people get really mad, but I never saw anyone else actually do anything.

But, you ask anybody, me included, and we all say we would kill the bastard.


Yes indeed! My point exactly. So many on the net emphasis training, training, training. They totally miss the first step of making the decision first. It is far, far more important.

Wasn't it Pat Garrit who said that many men have the skills, but few have the willingness?


Cat

Berto
05-31-2012, 11:00
BTDT, went to jail for 8hrs...then dismissed by judge.
It sucks, but I wouldn't have done anything different.

Haldor
05-31-2012, 21:14
Hell, I'm capable of it now. I wouldn't own self defense weapons if i was incapable of violence.

My opinion is that everybody is capable of violence. The real question is how you respond when suddenly thrust into a situation where you must fight to survive. That is where experience, training, social conditioning and your own mental makeup really determine the outcome.

Not ever having been in one of these situations I don't really know for certain how I will respond. I do believe that thinking through the issues before being put into a bad spot makes sense (so I am not trying to figure out what I could/should do in a certain situation instead of responding). Training and discussion is a way to work out what the appropriate responses would be beforehand and the more realistic the training the better.

The second to the last thing I would ever want to do is kill someone when I absolutely didn't need to. The very last thing I would ever want to do is let someone harm me or a member of my family due to my own inaction/paralysis.

I am not looking forward to the idea of using violence and I have no doubt that if I was forced to use it that it would cause me mental distress afterward. Beats losing a loved one though.

greentriple
05-31-2012, 21:37
This could be a GREAT thread, but it's not.

First, nobody can be prosecuted for their admission to violence without a crime: corpus delecti.
Second, it's more relevant what you've experienced.
Third, if you've run it over in you head you are probably in better shape...
Fourth, training is great, but self defense training is not.

I've been in more fights than I'm proud of and had knives, bats and 2 guns pulled on me. I'm still breathing, more from luck than skill. I believe if you're over 35 (my last fight) and still at it you're an idiot. I avoid fights now like I avoid fat people, both are signs of weakness.

Can you kill? Anyone can. Can you live with it and not be a PTSD victim is the real issue.

Movies are Fiction!, but the fight scene in Die Hard is a good example of adrenaline and determination v "training". I've had "trained" fighters bloody me and then give up when my thumb was in their eye socket or my middle finger was up their nose. I've also been smacked around a time or three.

Nobody wins a fight. NOBODY wins a shooting, just ask Mr. Zimmerman.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Catshooter
05-31-2012, 21:48
Hell, I'm capable of it now. I wouldn't own self defense weapons if i was incapable of violence.

My opinion is that everybody is capable of violence.
Yes, everyone is capable of it. But are they willing? The difference is everything.

The real question is how you respond when suddenly thrust into a situation where you must fight to survive. That is where experience, training, social conditioning and your own mental makeup really determine the outcome.

Nope. Before experience, training, social conditioning and mental make up come willingness. Willingness controls everything else.

Not ever having been in one of these situations I don't really know for certain how I will respond. I do believe that thinking through the issues before being put into a bad spot makes sense (so I am not trying to figure out what I could/should do in a certain situation instead of responding). Training and discussion is a way to work out what the appropriate responses would be beforehand and the more realistic the training the better.

Correct. All that can lead to the correct decision. But the decision must be made or one will hesitate/dither. People can die in those gaps.

The second to the last thing I would ever want to do is kill someone when I absolutely didn't need to. The very last thing I would ever want to do is let someone harm me or a member of my family due to my own inaction/paralysis.

I am not looking forward to the idea of using violence and I have no doubt that if I was forced to use it that it would cause me mental distress afterward. Beats losing a loved one though.

A person is never 'forced' into violence. A bad guy about to rape/kill your wife forces you into nothing at all. Many, faced with that circumstance succumb. Violence is a choise we make when faced with circumstances that it would solve to our benefit. Begging for mercy is a choice too, and one picked by many.

Or so I think. :) You're of course welcome to think otherwise. But this is what my experience with and thinking about violence has brought me to.

As I type this I am facing my sliding glass door. If someone were to come smashing through it right now it would be my choice to pick up the .45 next to the 'puter and see if I could stop his actions/plans. I've got 15 chances! :)


Cat

Catshooter
05-31-2012, 21:53
I agree with most of what you've said Mr. Greentriple. Except that nobody ever wins a gunfight.

Those that don't make the stupid mistakes that Zimmerman made and don't live in a communist state can easily win gunfights. Actually happens here in Florida about on a weekly basis. A quick tour of the news will comfirm it.


Cat

greentriple
06-01-2012, 08:45
I agree with most of what you've said Mr. Greentriple. Except that nobody ever wins a gunfight.

Those that don't make the stupid mistakes that Zimmerman made and don't live in a communist state can easily win gunfights. Actually happens here in Florida about on a weekly basis. A quick tour of the news will comfirm it.


Cat

True, I was a bit too "broad stroke" with that statement. What I should have written is that even if you survive, face no prosecution or civil liability, the psychological/emotional ramifications can be devastating.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

DoctaGlockta
09-21-2012, 06:34
Apologies for bringing back an old thread but I found a decent discussion about this subject today.

http://www.survivalblog.com/2012/09/mental-preparation-for-lethal-force-by-mark-b.html

bdcochran
09-21-2012, 09:36
What is the difference between an opinion essay & a discussion essay?



... ...
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
An opinion essay is just that; an essay based on someones opinion of a topic or topics. A discussion essay is factual information presented on the topic(s). You are discussing a subject; typically with or to other people.

I think that this thread started with a thrust of "will you" instead of "can you".

The "will you" answer would be that it matters primarily to you - and you probably won't be posting here after shtf.

The "can you" answer is a bit different based upon factual observations that are elsewhere (and not by me) documented:

1. most people forced into combat never fire a weapon.
2. most people forced into combat do not fire accurately for effectiveness as a matter of choice.
3. most people don't accept that bad things can happen to them.
4. most people do not think that they will die (that is why 50% of the lawyers and 10% of the general population ever write a will).

The gentleman's essay reinforces what you probably already know, but implicitly reject in your life style:
1. training is superior to not training;
2. piling up supplies is not the same as training;]
3. experiencing a dose of reality under fairly safe conditions is educational.

Paranoia is not the unreasonable belief that somehow, somewhere, some person would want to kill you for your wallet, your girlfriend, your house, your religion or your political opinion.

Paranoia is baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.

wjv
09-26-2012, 12:13
Here is a tragic reminder of what happens when you are NOT willing to use deadly force when it is called for!

>> Dinkheller encountered a speeding Toyota pickup truck near Dudley, Georgia, which he clocked at nearly 100 miles per hour

>> Dinkheller fired a shot at Brannan but missed. After the first shot, Brannan returned fire and a barrage of gunfire was heard. Dinkheller did not strike the suspect initially and thus, was forced to reload.

>> After being captured, Brannan was asked why he killed Dinkheller. His response was, "Because he let me."

Sadly this POS is still alive. . .

wjv
09-26-2012, 12:21
Wow! That is really sad! The officer seemed like he was really uncertain about what to do when the guy wouldn't obey his orders.

Wonder how many cops now days would have went for their Tazer first. .

I guess that would have been an OK move BEFORE the M1-Carbine came out. But once that guy pulled the rifle.

The officer did seem very flustered and nervous (don't really blame him given the situation). But I wonder how much that contributed to his inability to hit the given that the officer did fire first.

Easy to hit a man sized target at 50 yards at the range. Another thing to hit someone at 20 yards when the guy is waving an M1-Carb around, trying to kill you.

GlockFanWA
09-26-2012, 20:36
Here is a tragic reminder of what happens when you are NOT willing to use deadly force when it is called for!

We don't know if Officer Dinkhetter was unwilling to use deadly force or if he was caught in a loop (mentally speaking). My take on this he was caught in a loop that he couldn't get his brain to break free from at all.

UtahIrishman
09-26-2012, 21:21
That video was very unsettling I turned off the sound half way through.

Everyone's capable but the trick is not only to be capable but to be ruthless about it.

I've only been in one situation in my life where my life was seriously threatened. Luckily the other guy didn't have the nerve to continue what he started. I think he knew it and that's why he ran.

I preferred that outcome, especially after the shaking stopped.

AK_Stick
09-27-2012, 01:33
Everyone's capable but the trick is not only to be capable but to be ruthless about it.




Statistically speaking, this isn't true.


There's been a whole lot of research, and money spent by the .mil to figure out the best way to program soldiers to kill, and even then, they still haven't reached 100% yet.

kirgi08
09-27-2012, 01:56
A .gov program will not change a response ta a survival situation.Unless psych are involved.'08.

TangoFoxtrot
09-27-2012, 03:21
Q: If the SHTF will you be capable of Physical Violence against another?
A: Absolutely! Bottom line eat or be eaten.

jdavionic
09-27-2012, 03:50
The closest thing I can think of to this issue is having your child molested. Early in my LE career, I had to work child molesting cases. Now, everyone pretty much says, and really thinks, they would kill anyone who molested their kids. I know I feel the same way.

Yet, out of all of the child molesting cases I worked, I only saw it happen one time. And, that was a mother, who within a few minutes of finding out, took a butcher knife and tried as hard as she could to stab her daughter's attacker to death. And, then, three months later, she was living with him again.

I saw a lot of people get really mad, but I never saw anyone else actually do anything.

But, you ask anybody, me included, and we all say we would kill the bastard.

I served on a GJ for 6 months and heard testimony on 500-600 cases. The demeanor of the GJ, including fairly liberal individuals, changed dramatically when the case involved a child. I could tell others (not you, since you've been exposed to it) stories that would just absolutely shock and horrify them.

Now would these people act on their emotions? Would they freeze part of the way through? All I can say is that I learned a long time ago that you cannot count on someone to behave as you think they would or should because when the rubber meets the road...that's truly the only test.

Bren
09-27-2012, 04:44
But for civilians these days some or quite possibly most have never really had to 'fight' someone or have physically injure someone on purpose.

Back in the day fist fights on the playground were common and that is how things got settled. However these days this is a no-no. Some may have never been in a real life physical confrontation before.

I can't even imagine a life where a person has never been in a fight. Guess what, if you first fight is for survival in a SHTF world with no law, you're not going to win, much less become Rambo. I don't care how many books you read or how many classes you take, If you ahev to ask the question, "am I capable of violence agaisnt another," you're not prepared and you won't survive.

This reminds me of that thread the other day with the gangsta guy's video. I don't think the "survivalists" who post here have any idea how weak and timid they are, in comparison to the people who will be taking their food, guns, ammo, etc., in a SHTF situation.

UneasyRider
09-27-2012, 07:19
Q: If the SHTF will you be capable of Physical Violence against another?
A: Absolutely! Bottom line eat or be eaten.

The law of the jungle will always exist in this way. We are very insulated in the U.S. at this time.

quake
09-27-2012, 10:02
...Bottom line eat or be eaten.

The law of the jungle will always exist in this way. We are very insulated in the U.S. at this time.
Agree with both; just have concerns with the apparent belief by some that if you don't immediately turn into - and constantly remain - a predator, you automatically become prey. On the surface, it seems like a logical argument that you're one or the other, but I'm sure I'm not the only one that can think of people who went their entire lives as neither prey nor predator. I'd add a third option - protector. When I'm in uniform (heck, all the time), my default setting isn't 'predator' and it certainly isn't 'prey'; I'm a protector. Now, a circumstance may kick me temporarily into 'predator' mode, and honesty requires that I acknowledge that a bad enough circumstance can even plunge me into 'prey' mode. But that's a situational thing, not a constant state-of-living thing. Could be argued that since we're talking about shtf situations, that's inherent in the discussion; I just want to make sure that that's what we're talking about, and not the concept of "you either live as a predator or live as prey" on a macro, overall-life, level.

Some of the comments in these threads tend to sound as though they're from people that can't wait to "go predator" (a la gunkid), and some level of social collapse or disruption is seen as the license or opportunity to do so.


...the trick is not only to be capable but to be ruthless about it.
Definite +1. Violence is hopefully a last resort, but it's sometimes a valid resort. But it's called 'violence', not 'debate'. See the dinkheller video for an awful example of the price of avoiding violence when violence is the logical, rational, and moral choice.

When violence is called for, it must be violent.


...I don't think the "survivalists" who post here have any idea how weak and timid they are, in comparison to the people who will be taking their food, guns, ammo, etc., in a SHTF situation.
Shame you feel that way, and that you see it in such a broad generalization. Is 'nice and decent' synonymous with 'weak and timid' to your way of thinking? Genuinely curious, because gentleness isn't weakness; true gentleness is controlled strength. A true weakling can't be gentle because lack of strength causes a lack of control. That's true in physical terms and psychological terms both.

Lone Kimono
09-27-2012, 14:01
Hopefully, I never have to find out. It's one thing to defend myself and another when my family is in danger. I don't consider it violence at that point...I consider it my duty to both my family and God who's entrusted them to me.

UneasyRider
09-27-2012, 16:51
My evolving thoughts are that a man would have to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to the use of violence to promote justice in a scenario with no law enforcement.

For example in a situation where a man says "Give me your back pack or I will kill you," you need to believe him and put 2 in the chest and one in the head.

The option is that while some guys would just be barking, many will be unleashed from the rule of law and ready to bite. If you do not take the lead you will end up dead, it's a numbers game. Again, this is only in a no rule of law, complete societal meltdown, your on your own scenario.

Stevekozak
09-28-2012, 00:14
Agree with both; just have concerns with the apparent belief by some that if you don't immediately turn into - and constantly remain - a predator, you automatically become prey. On the surface, it seems like a logical argument that you're one or the other, but I'm sure I'm not the only one that can think of people who went their entire lives as neither prey nor predator. I'd add a third option - protector. When I'm in uniform (heck, all the time), my default setting isn't 'predator' and it certainly isn't 'prey'; I'm a protector. Now, a circumstance may kick me temporarily into 'predator' mode, and honesty requires that I acknowledge that a bad enough circumstance can even plunge me into 'prey' mode. But that's a situational thing, not a constant state-of-living thing. Could be argued that since we're talking about shtf situations, that's inherent in the discussion; I just want to make sure that that's what we're talking about, and not the concept of "you either live as a predator or live as prey" on a macro, overall-life, level.

Some of the comments in these threads tend to sound as though they're from people that can't wait to "go predator" (a la gunkid), and some level of social collapse or disruption is seen as the license or opportunity to do so.



Definite +1. Violence is hopefully a last resort, but it's sometimes a valid resort. But it's called 'violence', not 'debate'. See the dinkheller video for an awful example of the price of avoiding violence when violence is the logical, rational, and moral choice.

When violence is called for, it must be violent.



Shame you feel that way, and that you see it in such a broad generalization. Is 'nice and decent' synonymous with 'weak and timid' to your way of thinking? Genuinely curious, because gentleness isn't weakness; true gentleness is controlled strength. A true weakling can't be gentle because lack of strength causes a lack of control. That's true in physical terms and psychological terms both.
Well reasoned and written posts! I agree with this thinking.

I have seen the other thinking in ppl for much of observing life. Those that think strength must be exhibited constantlhy through aggression of manner and behavior. The person that knows his strength and capabilites does not have a need to display them until the situation calls for it, and at that time, it is applied with no hesitation and no mercy. Knowing when that time is, is the key. These persons are a lot easier to live around than the former type.

bdcochran
09-28-2012, 03:12
"I don't think the "survivalists" who post here have any idea how weak and timid they are, in comparison to the people who will be taking their food, guns, ammo, etc., in a SHTF situation."

I will tell you why I agree. 1968 US Army. One day I realized in a cold sweat that a younger emaciated guy on the other side with no education, but better eyesight and reactions could shoot me dead faster than I could react. And, the guys you would be going up against had probably been living in the field for years.

When a issue of M16s came in, they were first given out to the guys going right over to Vietnam. Then the tears started with the big, strong rah rah guys. Most of them had never been camping, been in the Boy Scouts, made a meal for themselves or knew the basics about first aid or personal hygiene.

When shtf in your community, your most difficult opponents will be guys who have basically lived the gang life for years. You will be their tuna fish and they will be the sharks.

There will be a lot of people going through a learning curve after shtf. You really don't want to be behind the curve or moralizing. You can get yourself up the food chain a bit if you work on your skills and physical health now.

Intellectual debates are worthless in my opinion.

TangoFoxtrot
09-28-2012, 03:39
Agree with both; just have concerns with the apparent belief by some that if you don't immediately turn into - and constantly remain - a predator, you automatically become prey. On the surface, it seems like a logical argument that you're one or the other, but I'm sure I'm not the only one that can think of people who went their entire lives as neither prey nor predator. I'd add a third option - protector. When I'm in uniform (heck, all the time), my default setting isn't 'predator' and it certainly isn't 'prey'; I'm a protector. Now, a circumstance may kick me temporarily into 'predator' mode, and honesty requires that I acknowledge that a bad enough circumstance can even plunge me into 'prey' mode. But that's a situational thing, not a constant state-of-living thing. Could be argued that since we're talking about shtf situations, that's inherent in the discussion; I just want to make sure that that's what we're talking about, and not the concept of "you either live as a predator or live as prey" on a macro, overall-life, level.

Some of the comments in these threads tend to sound as though they're from people that can't wait to "go predator" (a la gunkid), and some level of social collapse or disruption is seen as the license or opportunity to do so.



Definite +1. Violence is hopefully a last resort, but it's sometimes a valid resort. But it's called 'violence', not 'debate'. See the dinkheller video for an awful example of the price of avoiding violence when violence is the logical, rational, and moral choice.

When violence is called for, it must be violent.



Shame you feel that way, and that you see it in such a broad generalization. Is 'nice and decent' synonymous with 'weak and timid' to your way of thinking? Genuinely curious, because gentleness isn't weakness; true gentleness is controlled strength. A true weakling can't be gentle because lack of strength causes a lack of control. That's true in physical terms and psychological terms both.

My thought process is that if you can remain civilized and work with others in a crisis to get through it..fine. But you always must be ready to become the prediator if need be and do it with extreme conviction.

AK_Stick
09-28-2012, 11:43
I can't even imagine a life where a person has never been in a fight. Guess what, if you first fight is for survival in a SHTF world with no law, you're not going to win, much less become Rambo. I don't care how many books you read or how many classes you take, If you ahev to ask the question, "am I capable of violence agaisnt another," you're not prepared and you won't survive.

This reminds me of that thread the other day with the gangsta guy's video. I don't think the "survivalists" who post here have any idea how weak and timid they are, in comparison to the people who will be taking their food, guns, ammo, etc., in a SHTF situation.



The sheep do not understand how the wolf sees them.


Look know further than the "grey man" myth that they not only beleive, but perpetuate believing themselves to actually blend in.

Stevekozak
09-28-2012, 11:55
The sheep do not understand how the wolf sees them.


Look know further than the "grey man" myth that they not only beleive, but perpetuate believing themselves to actually blend in.
While this is undoubtedly true, I suspect that there will be a number of wolves that get suprised by the sheep when they come to prey. What is that line from that movie "the greatest trick the Devil played on man was convinving them that he doesn't exist?"

kirgi08
09-28-2012, 12:09
Usual Suspects.'08.

UtahIrishman
09-28-2012, 21:45
"I don't think the "survivalists" who post here have any idea how weak and timid they are, in comparison to the people who will be taking their food, guns, ammo, etc., in a SHTF situation."

I will tell you why I agree. 1968 US Army. One day I realized in a cold sweat that a younger emaciated guy on the other side with no education, but better eyesight and reactions could shoot me dead faster than I could react. And, the guys you would be going up against had probably been living in the field for years.

When a issue of M16s came in, they were first given out to the guys going right over to Vietnam. Then the tears started with the big, strong rah rah guys. Most of them had never been camping, been in the Boy Scouts, made a meal for themselves or knew the basics about first aid or personal hygiene.

When shtf in your community, your most difficult opponents will be guys who have basically lived the gang life for years. You will be their tuna fish and they will be the sharks.

There will be a lot of people going through a learning curve after shtf. You really don't want to be behind the curve or moralizing. You can get yourself up the food chain a bit if you work on your skills and physical health now.

Intellectual debates are worthless in my opinion.

I've never been in the service so I can't speak from that point of view, but I have had experiences where I felt that cold sweat of fear that I might die.

I agree on not being behind the curve. But it's as much mental as it is physical. And thus I think some intellectual debate, ahead of time, can be useful. Otherwise why would we be posting here? Hopefully it's to help rather than brag.

I also think that everyone needs to experience being in severe danger at least once. I'm not talking about sky-diving or some other dangerous sport. You know the odds there are in your favor. Those are a calculated risk.

I'm talking more about situations in which you have no idea whether the outcome is going to be in your favor or not. Though hopefully the deck is stacked some with preparation.

I suppose the only way you can really prepare that way is to be a soldier a cop or a criminal. Since many of us aren't soldiers or cops and don't want to be criminals the preparation has to be mental.

I hope I'm making sense here. It's hard to articulate exactly what I'm driving at. It's kind of you've either seen the elephant or you haven't. But any preparation, both physical and mental, is better than nothing.

Ruble Noon
09-29-2012, 06:16
I can't even imagine a life where a person has never been in a fight. Guess what, if you first fight is for survival in a SHTF world with no law, you're not going to win, much less become Rambo. I don't care how many books you read or how many classes you take, If you ahev to ask the question, "am I capable of violence agaisnt another," you're not prepared and you won't survive.

This reminds me of that thread the other day with the gangsta guy's video. I don't think the "survivalists" who post here have any idea how weak and timid they are, in comparison to the people who will be taking their food, guns, ammo, etc., in a SHTF situation.

I agree Bren. When the SHTF a lot of good people will perish during their first encounter with violence because they hesitate to act, afraid or unable to break out of that societal box that they are in.

UneasyRider
09-29-2012, 07:04
I agree Bren. When the SHTF a lot of good people will perish during their first encounter with violence because they hesitate to act, afraid or unable to break out of that societal box that they are in.

Very true!

quake
09-29-2012, 13:33
...When the SHTF a lot of good people will perish during their first encounter with violence because they hesitate to act, afraid or unable to break out of that societal box that they are in.
With that, I agree 100%. I don't at all disagree that some - likely many - will experience a horrible rude awakening when faced with true fear and violence for the first time. I just think it's a mistake to assume that all will; much as it's a mistake to assume that none will.

The laudable (and often tactically preferable) desire to avoid violence turns into self-endangerment if it's allowed to manifest as hesitation when faced with the need for violence.

That's what I meant earlier by the 'when violence is called for, it must be violent' comment.

JuneyBooney
09-29-2012, 14:09
First, soft tissue injuries hurt like hell. But getting shot in the bone is really painful. The problem with violence is that once you turn it on it is hard to stop. Learning a "controlled" response in any situation is critical to maintaining yourself.

samuse
09-29-2012, 17:33
I don't think that everyone is really capable of violence.

Technically they're physically able, but without a mental command to act, they are not capable.

There are different kinds of violence. Each needs to be studied and understood. One needs to able to recognize them.

I am a very non-violent, non-confrontational type of person. I'd like to think that I'm all macho and able to turn on a switch and be ruthless, but I'm not quite like that. I hope that training and mindset conditioning will allow me to act appropriately if the need arises.

UneasyRider
09-29-2012, 18:08
First, soft tissue injuries hurt like hell. But getting shot in the bone is really painful. The problem with violence is that once you turn it on it is hard to stop. Learning a "controlled" response in any situation is critical to maintaining yourself.

There is a turning point in society when controlled will get you killed too. Not of course while there is still rule of law.

jdavionic
09-29-2012, 18:35
There is a turning point in society when controlled will get you killed too. Not of course while there is still rule of law.

When you look back in history, you see many examples of 'uncontrolled' that resulted in instilling fear in the enemy.

JuneyBooney
09-29-2012, 20:43
I don't think that everyone is really capable of violence.

Technically they're physically able, but without a mental command to act, they are not capable.

There are different kinds of violence. Each needs to be studied and understood. One needs to able to recognize them.

I am a very non-violent, non-confrontational type of person. I'd like to think that I'm all macho and able to turn on a switch and be ruthless, but I'm not quite like that. I hope that training and mindset conditioning will allow me to act appropriately if the need arises.

I agree. But even though I was brought up as a non violent there are people I would love to execute if it was legal..:rofl::whistling: