Apr 22, 2023·edited Apr 22, 2023Liked by Bill Astore
Roger's comment is apt. He could have empowered himself, but he didn't and was glad of it. He could have dished out injury or death and instead has lost $20. That's smart.
But I think of a big change in mindset. The vigilance thing and the irrational fear that drives it.
When I was a kid and a young adult, one never thought about being vigilant or as they say "prepared" for danger to oneself. Do what you want, go where you wish, not a thought of danger. Nobody thought of guns, far less of having one. If something did happen, confusion would be the first thing - surely this can't be happening to me - followed by - what do I do to get out of this ASAP? Though it might be possible to overpower a threat, that was secondary to just being gone.
Now vigilance and suspicion are becoming obsessions in a search for personal justice. Look out for the worst and most of all never, ever be a victim, make the person assumed to be or actually being threatening pay for it, most of all because one should never under any circumstances be a dupe to be taken. Running away? That's for cowards and so we have the perfectly named law for our time - stand your ground. John Wayne in the head.
I ride a bike and occasionally have people notice that I am not locking my bike. They warn me to lock it. I tell them, truthfully, that I have not been locking it for many years and it hasn't been stolen. They can't believe it. I tell them that I'm being logical rather than fearful. Bike theft is a crime of opportunity. Yes, locking it is insurance, but the crime requires a person looking out to commit the crime. And this is the big thing - I trust that my fellow citizens are most unlikely to have a thief among them. Were I in downtown Chicago with thousands walking by, then I'd use the lock. So far, I've not been disappointed and the big benefit is the subject has left my mind, a real freedom from something that seems to dominate thinking now.
I asked one woman what she thought of trust, that the idea is to extend it rather than be looking for violators, assuming they are all around. She proceeded to tell me of her mother-in-law who was a retired police officer who listened to the police radio and reported on what she would hear. I recommended the police radio be turned off. TV news does for everyone what the police radio does for the MIL, ingrain distrust and suspicion based on listening to points of collection for bad behavior. I worked in TV and the news area always had several police radios going.
We are losing our sense of civilization, where trust is required. Fear and what I call toxic individualism are taking over.
I'll continue to leave my bike unlocked and risk being called a dupe. Do I need to say I don't watch the news? Call me an ostrich, but I base my daily behavior on my experience and my desire to be civilized.
I suppose that if a thief wants something in a car, he'll break a window to get it, so in that case, it would be better to "only" lose the item and not pay for the window, too. I truly don't know how much of a deterrent a locked car is, in general.
Our next-door neighbor called us a few evenings ago. Her husband keeps all his tools and equipment in their garage, well secured (he'd had hundreds of dollars' worth of stuff stolen before he beefed up security). As a result, their cars stay out in their driveway all the time. Early this week, their security cameras caught someone trying their car doors at midnight, then 2:00 AM, then 3:00 AM. Whoever it was then came into our driveway, seeking a way into their yard, apparently. Their newly installed 7-foot fence evidently thwarted the thief. All this is anecdotal, I admit, but all things considered, I'd come down on the side of keeping things locked. I've had my purse stolen, our garage has been invaded, and our townhouse long ago was broken into, so I may be more paranoid than some people.
You base your view on personal experience, a logical thing to do. My objection is to those who fantasize the criminal, but haven't been a victim. I would feel foolish if I went down the street asking people if they would steal my bike, because I know I can assume they wouldn't. I go on that reasonable assumption. As for the home break-in fear, I would have to ask who specifically is thought to be a potential home invader, what person by name is a reasonable suspect? Of course the answer is always, I don't know, I can't say.
It's fear of the unknown stranger that is generating fear. Is it reasonable to fear the unknown? My contention is it is far better to trust if only for one's own peace of mind. Err on the part of trust because the stranger with mal intent is a rarity, but one has to live with the phantoms in the head.
I take your point, Clif, but, well....I wouldn't say the stranger with mal intent is exactly a rarity. Our street has 14 houses, and at least 5 have been broken into, with another couple experiencing property/car thefts, along with several attempts. We had a drug dealer across the street for years, and there was another one catty-corner from us. But we're in the 'hood, with much increased gang activity over the last 15 years.
Still, even the more well-to-do suburbs in this part of the state are seeing more and more break--ins, property thefts, and drug activity (or at least, friends, family, and news reports say so). The suburban police respond much more rapidly and forcefully, however. In the city proper, one has to report active gunplay before police will respond quickly. At one point, there was a pitched battle going on out on the main drag, with shots fired back and forth along a whole block. The residents on the periphery had to make four calls before one cruiser showed up. Of course, the shooters went silent, so the beat cops just turned around and drove away. A mere break-in frequently warrants at least a 24-to-48-hour wait time. A blasting stereo at 3 AM? Fuggedaboutit.
Without a degree in criminal justice, I can't cite sure-fire answers, but I'd say we need increased police manpower, but definitely not increased militarization. Crack-downs on cowboy cops. There was a famous car chase on the east side of town a few years ago that involved a dozen or more cruisers and over a hundred shots fired into a car full of unarmed people. That kind of idiocy has to be reined in, because it has a domino effect.
More community policing (do you have that as a specific concept in NZ?), more emphasis on de-escalation, perhaps more trained mental health personnel. But, once criminals are convicted, not letting repeat offenders go through the revolving door and back onto the street; make them do something useful, such as build Habitat for Humanity housing or retrofit older homes for energy efficiency. Or dig ditches, for that matter.
When I was in my late 20s, and working at the time for the municipal PD, I had a pistol concealed carry permit, "just in case". I infrequently carried the pistol, but the permit made it easier to do so without fear of legal trouble.
On one occasion, going to meet a friend at a bar in a notoriously rough part of the city, I contemplated taking the gun along for protection; but in the end left it home. After parking in the back lot, a fellow young man came up to ask for a match. Having seen this scenario before, I was immediately wary, and sure enough, in my peripheral vision I caught his two partners approaching from the sides. The robbery was in progress. As there was no escape, I handed over the $20 bill from my wallet without much protest.
It was a bit later, when I reflected on this, that I counted my blessings for having not to carry the gun. For if I had, I'd have had the immediate dilemma, upon being approached, of either trying to keep it concealed (and risking having it taken), OR of pulling it out in defense.
If I'd done the latter, it's possible it would have deterred them. But if they doubted I'd use it, or if one of them was armed himself, I might have had to shoot one or more. And I had already been trained well enough to know that if it was dangerous enough to pull the weapon, it was important to shoot to kill.
Somehow, I had made the right choice before setting out. I didn't have any killing on my conscience, 3 punks got home alive and my gun wasn't stolen so wouldn't be used in some other shooting. And I paid $20 for avoiding those bad outcomes... pretty cheap, if you ask me.
Yes, I count myself both lucky and happy. When I think what would possibly have happened otherwise, and how difficult it would have been to carry that for the rest of my life, I am grateful.
i would modify that wise old, retired police officer's lecture to read:
If You have a gun and unholster it, you need to be ready and able to first wound, and then ~ as and only if necessary ~ to kill. And if You are not able to wound before killing because You can't shoot to wound rather than to kill, then you should not have it.
I believe that U.S. law enforcement officers are universally taught to aim for center mass, if they must shoot. They're also taught de-escalation techniques, but don't seem to use them much.
The first folks that "First Shoot-to- Wound; then, if necessary, Shoot-to-Kill" should apply to and be trained in are all federal, state, and especially local Law Enforcement personnel.
And people will ALWAYS have Guns, Dennis, Even if ~ or rather, Especially if ~ Guns are outlawed or "controlled" beyond a certain critical level.
Just like they will always have Drugs [like they had Booze during Prohibition], and get Abortions [like they did before Roe v Wade, and are doing now since RvW was overthrown.
In War, it is almost always better to Wound ~ rather than Kill ~ an enemy soldier. It takes a lot more resources [human and medical] to deal with and treat a wounded soldier than it does to deal with and dispose of a dead one.
Yes Jeff, but isn't the goal of "Gun Control" to have ONLY trained and mentally equipped people with firearms. Hence less guns per capita. The outrageously high US gun deaths per 1,000 is because the US is awash with 400-million guns as a result of 2A - many in the hands of nut jobs who should not have a firearm. Gun Control works in reducing gun violence, eh? Less guns equals less gun deaths. And reduces suicides. It's harder to kill yourself with a box cutter, and harder to use a baseball bat to kill someone who mistakenly turned up your driveway. Yes?
Interesting fact about "better to wound" in war. I did not know that. But surely we are not talking about war here. Police in peace time mostly shoot fellow citizens committing crime, not enemies. Eh? And I agree with you that cops should not be trained to always shoot to kill. And I realize that a minority of criminals try to kill the police - as in war. See my first paragraph.
The US will NEVER have effective Gun Control because of the 400-million guns already out there as a result of 2A. That horse is long out of that barn, and will never be put back in. In retrospect 2A was a mistake by the founding fathers. At least the way it is being interpreted now because of SCOTUS. Let's not get into the Gun Control in the US debate here Jeff. Its like banging your head on a brick wall, and this 75-year-old does not have the energy to go there eh.
Heh. So You go into an extended rant about why we “need” Gun Control, and that the Second Amendment was a mistake, and is WHY the US has so many gun deaths, and then declare that You have neither the time nor the energy to debate it.
Let me know when and if You do have the energy and time to discuss it, then.
As we blast away, we are a perfect reflection our nation as it uses force versus statecraft to force its authority in the world. Until this changes, we will only see violence escalate in communities. Violence is our very ethos.
I don't own a gun (and never have) or a baseball bat and yet somehow I can answer the door without fear. Someone tried to get in my car at the hardware store a couple weeks ago (before the parking lot shooting), and she and I had a good laugh. Just sayin'....
Yes..., "Gentle Ben" there Spiderman's Unc., but when a Armed to the teeth's Nation namely US meets fear & paranoia-- this will keep happening again, and again, and again ad nauseum!!! Where will it stop? Maybe being executed for using harsh language, or taking a buddies Cigarillo without paying. A uniquely American problem.
Roger's comment is apt. He could have empowered himself, but he didn't and was glad of it. He could have dished out injury or death and instead has lost $20. That's smart.
But I think of a big change in mindset. The vigilance thing and the irrational fear that drives it.
When I was a kid and a young adult, one never thought about being vigilant or as they say "prepared" for danger to oneself. Do what you want, go where you wish, not a thought of danger. Nobody thought of guns, far less of having one. If something did happen, confusion would be the first thing - surely this can't be happening to me - followed by - what do I do to get out of this ASAP? Though it might be possible to overpower a threat, that was secondary to just being gone.
Now vigilance and suspicion are becoming obsessions in a search for personal justice. Look out for the worst and most of all never, ever be a victim, make the person assumed to be or actually being threatening pay for it, most of all because one should never under any circumstances be a dupe to be taken. Running away? That's for cowards and so we have the perfectly named law for our time - stand your ground. John Wayne in the head.
I ride a bike and occasionally have people notice that I am not locking my bike. They warn me to lock it. I tell them, truthfully, that I have not been locking it for many years and it hasn't been stolen. They can't believe it. I tell them that I'm being logical rather than fearful. Bike theft is a crime of opportunity. Yes, locking it is insurance, but the crime requires a person looking out to commit the crime. And this is the big thing - I trust that my fellow citizens are most unlikely to have a thief among them. Were I in downtown Chicago with thousands walking by, then I'd use the lock. So far, I've not been disappointed and the big benefit is the subject has left my mind, a real freedom from something that seems to dominate thinking now.
I asked one woman what she thought of trust, that the idea is to extend it rather than be looking for violators, assuming they are all around. She proceeded to tell me of her mother-in-law who was a retired police officer who listened to the police radio and reported on what she would hear. I recommended the police radio be turned off. TV news does for everyone what the police radio does for the MIL, ingrain distrust and suspicion based on listening to points of collection for bad behavior. I worked in TV and the news area always had several police radios going.
We are losing our sense of civilization, where trust is required. Fear and what I call toxic individualism are taking over.
I'll continue to leave my bike unlocked and risk being called a dupe. Do I need to say I don't watch the news? Call me an ostrich, but I base my daily behavior on my experience and my desire to be civilized.
Great comment Cliff. Thanks for that.
I have never ever locked anything. My car and my house. In the US, Italy or NZ.
My wife the opposite. Her locking fetish drove me crazy.
One day someone smashed the window out of her brand-new locked pickup!
And stole her umbrella.
I could never get her to believe that the outcome would have been better for me.
Wadda yuh think?
I suppose that if a thief wants something in a car, he'll break a window to get it, so in that case, it would be better to "only" lose the item and not pay for the window, too. I truly don't know how much of a deterrent a locked car is, in general.
Our next-door neighbor called us a few evenings ago. Her husband keeps all his tools and equipment in their garage, well secured (he'd had hundreds of dollars' worth of stuff stolen before he beefed up security). As a result, their cars stay out in their driveway all the time. Early this week, their security cameras caught someone trying their car doors at midnight, then 2:00 AM, then 3:00 AM. Whoever it was then came into our driveway, seeking a way into their yard, apparently. Their newly installed 7-foot fence evidently thwarted the thief. All this is anecdotal, I admit, but all things considered, I'd come down on the side of keeping things locked. I've had my purse stolen, our garage has been invaded, and our townhouse long ago was broken into, so I may be more paranoid than some people.
You base your view on personal experience, a logical thing to do. My objection is to those who fantasize the criminal, but haven't been a victim. I would feel foolish if I went down the street asking people if they would steal my bike, because I know I can assume they wouldn't. I go on that reasonable assumption. As for the home break-in fear, I would have to ask who specifically is thought to be a potential home invader, what person by name is a reasonable suspect? Of course the answer is always, I don't know, I can't say.
It's fear of the unknown stranger that is generating fear. Is it reasonable to fear the unknown? My contention is it is far better to trust if only for one's own peace of mind. Err on the part of trust because the stranger with mal intent is a rarity, but one has to live with the phantoms in the head.
I take your point, Clif, but, well....I wouldn't say the stranger with mal intent is exactly a rarity. Our street has 14 houses, and at least 5 have been broken into, with another couple experiencing property/car thefts, along with several attempts. We had a drug dealer across the street for years, and there was another one catty-corner from us. But we're in the 'hood, with much increased gang activity over the last 15 years.
Still, even the more well-to-do suburbs in this part of the state are seeing more and more break--ins, property thefts, and drug activity (or at least, friends, family, and news reports say so). The suburban police respond much more rapidly and forcefully, however. In the city proper, one has to report active gunplay before police will respond quickly. At one point, there was a pitched battle going on out on the main drag, with shots fired back and forth along a whole block. The residents on the periphery had to make four calls before one cruiser showed up. Of course, the shooters went silent, so the beat cops just turned around and drove away. A mere break-in frequently warrants at least a 24-to-48-hour wait time. A blasting stereo at 3 AM? Fuggedaboutit.
So Denise, what's the solution?
Well, obviously, it's NOT more guns!
Without a degree in criminal justice, I can't cite sure-fire answers, but I'd say we need increased police manpower, but definitely not increased militarization. Crack-downs on cowboy cops. There was a famous car chase on the east side of town a few years ago that involved a dozen or more cruisers and over a hundred shots fired into a car full of unarmed people. That kind of idiocy has to be reined in, because it has a domino effect.
More community policing (do you have that as a specific concept in NZ?), more emphasis on de-escalation, perhaps more trained mental health personnel. But, once criminals are convicted, not letting repeat offenders go through the revolving door and back onto the street; make them do something useful, such as build Habitat for Humanity housing or retrofit older homes for energy efficiency. Or dig ditches, for that matter.
When I was in my late 20s, and working at the time for the municipal PD, I had a pistol concealed carry permit, "just in case". I infrequently carried the pistol, but the permit made it easier to do so without fear of legal trouble.
On one occasion, going to meet a friend at a bar in a notoriously rough part of the city, I contemplated taking the gun along for protection; but in the end left it home. After parking in the back lot, a fellow young man came up to ask for a match. Having seen this scenario before, I was immediately wary, and sure enough, in my peripheral vision I caught his two partners approaching from the sides. The robbery was in progress. As there was no escape, I handed over the $20 bill from my wallet without much protest.
It was a bit later, when I reflected on this, that I counted my blessings for having not to carry the gun. For if I had, I'd have had the immediate dilemma, upon being approached, of either trying to keep it concealed (and risking having it taken), OR of pulling it out in defense.
If I'd done the latter, it's possible it would have deterred them. But if they doubted I'd use it, or if one of them was armed himself, I might have had to shoot one or more. And I had already been trained well enough to know that if it was dangerous enough to pull the weapon, it was important to shoot to kill.
Somehow, I had made the right choice before setting out. I didn't have any killing on my conscience, 3 punks got home alive and my gun wasn't stolen so wouldn't be used in some other shooting. And I paid $20 for avoiding those bad outcomes... pretty cheap, if you ask me.
Sounds like a pretty good investment for $20, Roger.
Yes, I count myself both lucky and happy. When I think what would possibly have happened otherwise, and how difficult it would have been to carry that for the rest of my life, I am grateful.
In our office we had a wise old, retired police officer who was really into guns.
He always used to lecture......
"If you have a gun you need to be ready to kill someone if you unholster it. If you are not - you should not have it."
I have thought about that for many years - sometimes it makes sense to me - other times not!
I went with him to the range once - just to fire a gun - but I never bought one.
i would modify that wise old, retired police officer's lecture to read:
If You have a gun and unholster it, you need to be ready and able to first wound, and then ~ as and only if necessary ~ to kill. And if You are not able to wound before killing because You can't shoot to wound rather than to kill, then you should not have it.
Jeff, the same guy, whom I respected, did not agree with shooting to wound.
He was always taught that your first shot should be to the largest body mass.
To me the fatal flaw of 2A is that untrained people have guns.
Holy cow -I am getting into something I know nothing about!
I believe that U.S. law enforcement officers are universally taught to aim for center mass, if they must shoot. They're also taught de-escalation techniques, but don't seem to use them much.
The first folks that "First Shoot-to- Wound; then, if necessary, Shoot-to-Kill" should apply to and be trained in are all federal, state, and especially local Law Enforcement personnel.
And people will ALWAYS have Guns, Dennis, Even if ~ or rather, Especially if ~ Guns are outlawed or "controlled" beyond a certain critical level.
Just like they will always have Drugs [like they had Booze during Prohibition], and get Abortions [like they did before Roe v Wade, and are doing now since RvW was overthrown.
In War, it is almost always better to Wound ~ rather than Kill ~ an enemy soldier. It takes a lot more resources [human and medical] to deal with and treat a wounded soldier than it does to deal with and dispose of a dead one.
Yes Jeff, but isn't the goal of "Gun Control" to have ONLY trained and mentally equipped people with firearms. Hence less guns per capita. The outrageously high US gun deaths per 1,000 is because the US is awash with 400-million guns as a result of 2A - many in the hands of nut jobs who should not have a firearm. Gun Control works in reducing gun violence, eh? Less guns equals less gun deaths. And reduces suicides. It's harder to kill yourself with a box cutter, and harder to use a baseball bat to kill someone who mistakenly turned up your driveway. Yes?
Interesting fact about "better to wound" in war. I did not know that. But surely we are not talking about war here. Police in peace time mostly shoot fellow citizens committing crime, not enemies. Eh? And I agree with you that cops should not be trained to always shoot to kill. And I realize that a minority of criminals try to kill the police - as in war. See my first paragraph.
The US will NEVER have effective Gun Control because of the 400-million guns already out there as a result of 2A. That horse is long out of that barn, and will never be put back in. In retrospect 2A was a mistake by the founding fathers. At least the way it is being interpreted now because of SCOTUS. Let's not get into the Gun Control in the US debate here Jeff. Its like banging your head on a brick wall, and this 75-year-old does not have the energy to go there eh.
Take care my friend. Hope you are copacetic.
Heh. So You go into an extended rant about why we “need” Gun Control, and that the Second Amendment was a mistake, and is WHY the US has so many gun deaths, and then declare that You have neither the time nor the energy to debate it.
Let me know when and if You do have the energy and time to discuss it, then.
"Castle" I think comes from the saying, "A man's home is his castle." The sentiment (in writing) dates back to Roman times (as noted in Wikipedia):
quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium?
(What more sacred, what more strongly guarded by every holy feeling, than a man's own home?)
—Cicero
Did the Romans have as many guns per capita as modern-day America Alex?
Hope you are well my friend.
I'm guessing they had as many swords per capita. Or Gladii Per Capita (GPC). Which, curiously, is the same abbreviation as Guns Per Capita. So, yes.
As we blast away, we are a perfect reflection our nation as it uses force versus statecraft to force its authority in the world. Until this changes, we will only see violence escalate in communities. Violence is our very ethos.
I don't own a gun (and never have) or a baseball bat and yet somehow I can answer the door without fear. Someone tried to get in my car at the hardware store a couple weeks ago (before the parking lot shooting), and she and I had a good laugh. Just sayin'....
As i just posted to Bill's previous piece "Shootings Are Us":
This about says all that can or needs to be said about all of this: https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/our-top-photos-of-the-week-idUSRTSIDOCO .
Yes..., "Gentle Ben" there Spiderman's Unc., but when a Armed to the teeth's Nation namely US meets fear & paranoia-- this will keep happening again, and again, and again ad nauseum!!! Where will it stop? Maybe being executed for using harsh language, or taking a buddies Cigarillo without paying. A uniquely American problem.
We've collectively become "Magnum Force."
Here's an article about the guy who killed 5 people at a Louisville bank and who was motivated in part by a desire to demonstrate that guns are too easy to obtain: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11995155/Louisville-bank-killer-left-13-page-manifesto-revealing-three-motives-shooting.html No wonder the story disappeared so quickly from the pages of the news media.