Thin line between paranoid and prepared

[rb4browns]

Obviously if this guy was a Kosher butcher I'd have thought him more than paranoid, given his job it sure seemed reasonable.

Given all the threads about being ready for a bear, I'm surprised nobody has asked what to do if a herd of pissed off cattle come a-lookin' for some payback.....I guess there aren't any Jewish butchers hanging out here .

[cheygriz]

Life's a crap shoot. You can't "protect" against everything. You can try, but at some point it becomes paranoid. Whatever makes you comfortable is going to be strange in someone else's opinion.

One of my neoghbors thinks that anyone who evens owns a gun for self defense is a dangerus paranoid.

He says that he would rather be killed than to kill another human being regardles of the circimstances.

[RsqVet]

Cheygritz --

Every so offten you run across someone like that, all too offten they are well educated and otherwise articulate.

I honestly can not fathom if these folks are simply clueless in regard to the big wide world or simply have near zero self respect / self worth.

But then folks without a clue are rapidly overwhelming the planet. Don't get me started.

[deadin]

He says that he would rather be killed than to kill another human being regardles of the circimstances.

Easy enough to say. I wonder if he would feel the same way when push came to shove and he had to put up or shut up.
My wife said she used to feel this way. Then we had kids........
Now she admits she could rip someones arm off and beat them to death with the bloody stump.

[jakeswensonmt]

I agree that there is a thin line between being prepared and being paranoid. Unfortunatly you cross the line a couple miles back!

Everything is relative to location and circumstances but the only place where someone needs to worry about ALWAYS having a gun within reach is a war zone. Some neighborhoods in the US are very bad but NONE justify you're level of paranoia. Maybe you should move? Oh wait, don't do that. You might end up in my neighborhood and my neighbors are already on the far side of nuts. .

Wrong, wrong wrong, and I hope that this person lives long enough to to know how wrong this is. There was once a time when I would have agreed, but now through terrible experience I know that this is totally, totally wrong.

Everyone (including me, once) thinks that it will never, never happen to them until it does, and then you just can't believe it's real.

Believe me, it's not paranoid to have a gun at hand whenever possible. The things that people think can never happen to them have happened to me, and it can happen to you too. I was unprepared the first time, and only luck and a strong will to live allowed me to survive. The next bad guy who comes through my door is going to be full of a lot of lead because I am always prepared now.

[JohnKSa]

I was unprepared the first time, and only luck and a strong will to live allowed me to survive. The next bad guy who comes through my door is going to be full of a lot of lead because I am always prepared now.

Maybe your story will help others to learn. Learning from experience is hard. Learning from the experience of others is much easier.

It's very simple--One can decide to become prepared AFTER being attacked once or one can decide to become prepared BEFORE being attacked. It's pretty easy to see which is better.

Just remember. It can't happen to YOU...until it does.

[Mike P. Wagner]

He says that he would rather be killed than to kill another human being regardles of the circimstances.

I actually have some respect for people who really believe and practice this. The pacifist point of view seems entirely respectable to me.

I had a Jewish professor in college who was a Holocaust survivor, and the whole experience convinced him to become an absolute pacifist. He was not speaking lightly - he was the only survivor of his immediate family, and I am not sure if any cousins made it through. He became a Quaker as a result of the whole experience.

I disagree with his point of view - I think that we have an ethical burden to resist evil, even to the point of killing the evil doer. But I did respect the man and his position.

Mike

[Tamara]

She's naive.

I'm prepared.

You're paranoid.

[Baba Louie]

Chance favors the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur

A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Prepared mind... free state... keep and bear arms... kinda blends together well.

I'd opine that 18th century monarchies thought that the rabble republic of the newly formed United States were all paranoid as well. "Why must they INSIST they have a right to keep and bear arms? Are they truly threatened by their betters in government?"

Or those who thought (and some still do), "If we just showed the natives love and friendship they'll respond in like kind."

[cheygriz]

My wife said she used to feel this way. Then we had kids........
Now she admits she could rip someones arm off and beat them to death with the bloody stump.

Funny how some folks' attitudes change with circumstances.

My wife was never a complete pacifist, but she came close. And then our son was born, and she became a lot like a mother grizzly!

I've tried to "gently" discuss this subject with my neighbor, but when you're dealing with a pacifist, intellectual, athiest, liberal democRAT, it's very difficult to use logic.

But, I guess that I do respect his right to hold that veiwpoint, evn though I strongly disagree with it.

OTOH, as Edmund Burke said: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Sometimes, methinks the "sin of ommission," is as great, or perhaps even greater, than the "sin of commisssion."

[buckster]

Yeah I got a lecture here while back, from a friend [architect] that said, if you shot a burglar, wouldn't you be putting your family in jeopardy if they retaliated? I said no. He couldn't understand my logic. That's what so[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]m does, makes you lay down and take it to avoid peer pressure against self preservation. Thankfully a county judge visiting also, piped in and said I was right, it's better to nip it in the bud by taking the offensive. I'll bet if it ever gets gets crazy [shtf] he'll be calling me to borrow a gun. You see, recently they were at a public event and someone threatened his wife and he did nothing. His wife never has forgiven him for that.

I'm not paranoid, I'm prepared. I'm not naive, I'm informed. I'm ready to defend, I have trained. I will not be a victim, they will be.

[tharmer]

CheyGriz,
Doesn't sound like you respect his opinion. After all, he's a democRAT.

[DeathRodent]

My house sounds similar to the original poster's - the front doorway is between the bedrooms and the Familyroom & kitchen.

If I was in either the Familyroom or kitchen and someone enterred the front door they would be between me and the hallway to the bedrooms.

I usually open the safe when I get home and take out a gun that I keep on my nightstand - occasionally, I'll move it into the familyroom where I spend most of my time.

The way I figure it is how can I get to my gun on the nightstand if a BG is in between? It doesn't do much good that far away.

Paranoid? No I doubt I will ever need it - but just in case that one in a jillian happens.

[Mike P. Wagner]

..., it's very difficult to use logic.

It's hard to know what you are calling "logic". In general, pacifism seems to be derived from axiomatic values ("sanctity of all life", etc.). Logic is a useful tool for deriving ethics from values - but I am not sure that it's very useful for committing to those values.

If two people have adopted different axiomatic value, no amount of "logic" will bring agreement.

For example: The pacifists I have known have been so for largely religious reasons - if you believe that all human life is sacred, it's pretty easy to logically derive that it is a sin to kill another human being under any circumstances. The fundamental idea is that if you kill me, you sin. If I kill you - even to prevent you from killing me - then I sin. If it is better for me not to sin, then it is better for me not to kill you. Why should I allow you to lead me to sin?

I disagree with this analysis, but I think it's logically consistent.

Mike

[cheygriz]

CheyGriz,
Doesn't sound like you respect his opinion. After all, he's a democRAT

.

I didn't say that I respected his opinion!:barf:

I said that I respected his right to have an opinion!

[PT-92]

MPanova,

You are only taking the necessary precautions needed in this ever-increasingly dangerous world we live in. Sounds only prudent to me.

-Cheers

[CALNRA]

see this thread:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...56#post2312556

never hurts to be prepared

[Kreyzhorse]

He says that he would rather be killed than to kill another human being regardles of the circimstances.

I'm guessing his attitude might change if someone was attacking a member of his family. I've heard lots of people make statements like the one above claiming the high moral ground, but push comes to shove and the fight or flight instinct is strong.

[JohnKSa]

He says that he would rather be killed than to kill another human being regardles of the circimstances.

So this person wouldn't call the police if he were in danger, right?

After all, if it's wrong for HIM to kill, it's even worse for him to summon someone else to kill on his behalf.

[cheygriz]

So this person wouldn't call the police if he were in danger, right?

After all, if it's wrong for HIM to kill, it's even worse for him to summon someone else to kill on his behalf.

Hadn't thought of that argument, John! Thanks. I'll run it past him!

Hell, it makes as mcuh sense as his argument.

[computerguysd]

Basically, I live in an area that "when seconds count, 911 can be there in minutes" is really true. It can actually take hours to get patrolman to respond to a call, depending on what's going on the our county at the time.

We have lots of square miles, very few LE...

I'm not paranoid, I just tend to have a firearm within reach.

My neighbor has a year's supply of food stocked up because of his religion. I think my neighbor has a good plan, regardless of the motivation. Have a hand pump for the well, have a generator ready, a fuel tank is good to have & these are just things you have available when you live in the country.

We have winters that justify all of the above, we don't even need an Apocolypse!

[Mike P. Wagner]

see this thread:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...56#post2312556

never hurts to be prepared

A pacifist might argue that incident backs his point of view:

1. The woman didn't have a gun, and so she didn't shoot and kill the intruder.
   
2. If she had a gun, and had shot the intruder, then at least one person would have died in an incident where no one needed to die. (The evidence for that assertion that no one needed to die is the fact that no one did die.)
   
3. Because she did not have a gun, two people survived in a situation where only one would have survived if she had a gun.
   
4. It is better for two people to survive in a situation than it is for one person to live and one person to die. This is true even if the cost of both people's survival is a horrible experience for one of them. [This seems to me to be a key point of a pacifist philosophy - which may be wrong, but is not fundamentally illogical.]
   
5. Therefore, it is better that she did not have a gun.
   

Let me reiterate that I don't happen to agree with that point of view, but it may be illuminating to see why the same incident can be viewed to support both a pacifist and a non-pacifist point of view.

Mike

[cheygriz]

A pacifist might argue that incident backs his point of view:
The woman didn't have a gun, and so she didn't shoot and kill the intruder.
Therefore, it is better that she did not have a gun.

And I would counter that argument by saying:

"Yeah, BUT if Ted Bundy's FIRST VICTIM had killed him, at least 23 innocent lives would have been saved! And since Ted Bundy killed female college students, one of those young women just might have become the scientist that cured cancer, or the diplomat that prevented a major war, or the mother of the next Albert Einstein."

The life of one scumbag, to save the lives of AT LEAST 23 good people??? Some tradeoff. That ones a real no brainer!

[Mike P. Wagner]

Yeah, BUT if Ted Bundy's FIRST VICTIM had killed him, at least 23 innocent lives would have been saved!

That's part of the key to understanding this issue (for some pacifists): most of the time we can't know if we are killing Ted Bundy or someone who may in fact straighten out and sin no more!

It's entirely possible given the scenario in other thread, that the drug crazed man will learn from the incident and straighten out. Maybe the whole incident is his "low bottom" that leads him to change his life.

If you kill someone because they might be Ted Bundy, you may be killing someone who would have become a saint. If you don't kill someone because he might be a saint, he may in fact turn out to be Ted Bundy. Both are possible.

When you kill someone, it's hard to know that their future would have been.

Mike

[tharmer]

As Will Money said in "Unforgiven", when you kill a man you take away everything he's got and everything he's gonna be."

...or words to that effect.