General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOn Defending Oneself from Random Violence
The recent attacks in the UK, along with various and sundry mass shootings here in the United States, makes people fearful. Rightly so, too. The world we live in can suddenly become a dangerous place, due to all sorts of things, including random violence by terrorists or anyone else with a wish to harm others.
For many, it's tempting to try to find some way to protect themselves. Some want firearms for that job. Others search out and buy defensive weapons of all sorts. By acquiring those things, people can sometimes reduce their apprehensions about going out and about in public. Sadly, none of those defense methods really work against random violence very well.
A car jumping the curb and hitting pedestrians can't really be defended against. Neither can some radical person wearing a suicide vest be defended against with any such items. Even the mad slasher, armed with a long knife, acts too quickly for the average person to shift into defensive mode, really.
In fact, if you have time to pull out your firearm, knife, or pepper spray in such a situation, you also have time to put the most effective defensive strategy into use. In almost every situation where random violence begins, the absolutely best defense is to RUN AWAY from whoever is perpetrating such violence. Turn and flee, as quickly as you can. The mass shooter, the knife slasher, and the suicide bomber will injure or kill people near him or her. Every second you run, you are farther away from danger.
It's simple. Random violence happens quickly. More quickly than you can react, in most cases, to defend yourself. Distance is the best protection, so turn and run away immediately. Rehearse that in your head, and you'll react more quickly if danger presents itself. Just run way and put distance between yourself and what is happening. Odds are that you'll live to see what happened in news reports.
Run away from danger. I know of no better advice to offer.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)If there is a shooting and you actually have several good guys with guns (average joes not cops) at hand.......well once the guns come out how do the good guys with guns know the bad from the good guys with guns.
Do the good guys with guns have the wherewithal to deal with a firefight or just wet themselves or freeze?
Are the good guys with guns really that well trained and can hit what they shoot at without shooting unarmed innocents by accident who are running away in a panic.
It seems they live a world, where real life is like the movies, and the good guys with guns will always know who the bad guy is and with one shot kill him.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)of those gun-toters around when stuff happens. The odds of someone who is competent and carrying a firearm nearby are tiny, at best. Turn and run. That's my advice. Just get the Hell away from there.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)I heard an interview with him after the fact. He almost shot the wrong person:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"
But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.
Zamudio agreed: "I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."
<SNIP>
The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."
More: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41018893/ns/slate_com/t/armed-giffords-hero-nearly-shot-wrong-man/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 5, 2017, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)
...and in fact, never drew his weapon.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)I'm not sure who the other person with a gun was. Not Loughner, the other by stander who DID pull a gun. He was not identified in the article I cited or in any of the other stories I checked while looking for the interview I remembered.
trentwestcott
(83 posts)Is this an argument against concealed carry? Because if it is, it's not a good argument against concealed carry.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...(or should have been) and scarpered.
My one and (hopefully only) defensive gun use came when I was not in a position to get the hell out.
Thankfully, no shots were fired, and the only casualty was the miscreant's underwear...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 5, 2017, 05:19 PM - Edit history (1)
Just curious, as you are not the first to propose such a thing.
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)the fetishists propose this as if it is some silver bullet, pun intended, to solve the bad guy with the gun. my comment is not one good guy with a gun but many. You know....more guns, we are more safe argument. We are not.
Particularly if the good guys with guns are hanging out in a bar drinking when one of these situations happens......
I am not sure you understood my comment.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and offered it up as evidence that legally carrying a gun is not a good idea.
Legal carriage of handguns is now legal in more states than it is not:
Why, then, hasn't your 'shootout' happened yet? Perhaps it has- but you've not, as yet, cited
any actual examples
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It would help ff you had offered up some real-life examples in lieu of armchair telepsychology.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Still - given the choice I'd rather be armed.
I can't imagine a scenario in which people were trapped in a building where a mass shooting was taking place (perhaps a school or a mall) and they all look at one another and someone says, "OKAY, DOES ANYONE HERE HAVE A GUN?" and then they all breathe a deep sigh of relief when they confirm that they are all completely unarmed.
"Whoosh, I was scared there for a minute, but now that I know for sure that we're all unarmed I feel much better! There won't be any shootings based on mistaken identity today. That was close!" as the gunshots in the background get closer and closer to them.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)I'd say it depends on the individual.
Some train, others don't.
Also depends on how seriously they take the responsibility, and how much they enjoy shooting/practicing.
Anyway - tough call choosing to be an unarmed 'victim' if that concerned, when other options are out there, and often readily available.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)trentwestcott
(83 posts)Most people who carry guns (who aren't cops) worry about the same thing. Cops don't seem to worry about it as much, which is probably why they shoot the wrong people at a much higher rate than armed non-cops.
https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/17/fact-police-are-much-more-likely-to-shoot-the-wrong-person-than-armed-citizens/
As someone who has carried in the past (I no longer carry, it's not legal where I live now), I can say that my plan was to do both; to have a weapon on hand and to run away from danger if at all possible. My plan to identify "bad guys" was that if anyone was shooting at me that person would be a bad guy and might be shot back at if necessary to ensure my survival, since I'm the only person I can be sure is a "good guy".
There are a lot of people who carry a gun and believe that it makes them a protector of the general public and who seem to salivate about someday getting the opportunity to kill a bad guy. These are the types who would shoot the first armed person they saw and would likely wind up shooting another "good guy" in the scenario you describe. In every concealed carry class I've ever taken (three, to be exact) the instructors have fervently tried to dissuade students from this type of action, reasoning that unless you know exactly who's who and exactly what's going on you stand a great chance of shooting the wrong guy, and unlike police, private citizens don't have qualified immunity and would face the legal and civil repercussions of any mistakes.
Your point is well taken.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)He is not an appropriate role model.
B2G
(9,766 posts)And carrying a defensive weapon does not preclude or impede your ability to run if you are able.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I'm offering advice for such situations that is proven to be the most effective means of preventing yourself from being a victim. You can take that advice or not. I'm just offering it.
B2G
(9,766 posts)It's not always possible to do so however.
I appreciate your advice, but I will continue to advise my young daughters to carry pepper spray and carry mine. You are free to advise your children to do whatever you think is best.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)that pepper spray. That's what I hope. Odds are that you won't.
B2G
(9,766 posts)I view my pepper spray as an insurance policy. You hope you won't need it, but in the event you do, you will probably be glad you have it.
PBass
(1,537 posts)People who talk about arming themselves, as a defense against attacks like what happened on the London Bridge, have no idea what they're talking about. It takes a couple of seconds to unholster a gun, aim and fire. But it only takes a split second for an attacker with a knife to strike. Sadly, this is also why the argument that police should "shoot to wound" knife attackers is misguided. Under pressure from an attacker, even highly trained shooters often miss their target, a wounded attacker can continue to advance, and a 20 yard gap between knife-wielding attacker and police officer can be closed in 3-4 seconds. If lucky, you can get off one or two shots, but it's easy to miss.
I'm sorry to make such a grim comment. Run, and create distance.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)At least in that type of situation. It's best to get away and be safe. Life's not a movie script.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)Guns are pretty unwieldy, and against a determined attacker who is less than five meters away, pretty much useless.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)
Runningdawg
(4,520 posts)You won't know when to run if you aren't paying attention.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)around us at all times. That's the first thing. You're absolutely correct.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Don't go to a seedy bar to pick a fight and then complain that you got punched in the face by a Trump-supporting drunk.
Granted, some random violence happens in ordinary places to innocent bystanders, but most of the day to day violence, is not of the "mass" kind, and happens one on one in venues that are intrinsically dangerous, or in situations that escalate gradually over anything from days to mere minutes. In any case, the advice to run away is the best advice, but a close second is the advice to stay away, or WALK away from any suspicious or dangerous situation and avoid the need to run.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I'm really not talking about predictable situations, but rather random situations one might rarely encounter. A lot of people tend to simply freeze when something occurs. That's almost never the best option.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)I guess most people can't imagine that something like that could happen, so when it starts to happen right in front of them they are probably paralyzed by disbelief, coupled with the fact that they have no idea what they SHOULD do.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)reactions to a variety of situations. When I was learning to drive a car, the best advice my father gave me was to always have in mind a way to avoid a collision. Basically, he said that we all drive under the belief that everyone else will follow the rules and pay attention. But, he said, that's often not the case, and things can change instantly, so it's best to always be looking for ways to avoid problems.
He was right, and that has saved my sorry ass multiple times on the road. From a wheel coming off a truck and heading toward me to someone pulling out from a stop sign in front of me, my father's advice has let me avoid many accidents.
I apply the same rules to pretty much everything I do, really.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,359 posts)Teaching situational awareness will help people get over the inclination to freeze, and will give them tools to determine quickly whether it makes more sense to run or hide. Getting trauma first response training is also important; it goes beyond regular "first aid" training and will help prepare people for the specific realities of a public attack.
hamsterjill
(15,222 posts)I would hope that I would do that (i.e., run away) were I ever in such a situation. I'd also hope that, given no other option (i.e., being cornered with no means of escape), that I would fight with every fiber in my being.
The truth is, however, none of us truly know how we would react in a dangerous situation until we are actually in that situation. That's what always cracks me up about the gun people. Pulling the trigger knowing you're going to kill someone is a lot different than shooting at a target.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Is that the easiest way to win and survive a fight is to avoid it.
Keep your eyes open. Observe around you. Always look for exit routes. Don't go places and get into situations that place you at greater risk.
Your firearm or other weapons are for situations where either retreat is impossible (like you are cornered in a place with no exits) or when there is a clear danger to others and you judge that you are willing to accept the risk to your own life and safety in an attempt to aid those who cannot fight or flee.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Personally, I think British and Australian type laws greatly minimize the times one is in a life-and-death situation where a gun is the only means of self-defense. Not that the risk is very high in the first place.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)The idea that in the midst of a violent attack or sexual assault a victim who chooses to defend themselves should have to worry about if a cop or jury might second guess them and say they had a chance to retreat makes the victim accountable for their attackers safety. That's an absurd standard of law.
Particularly when it's very subjective. What defines a safe ability to retreat? How much risk of further injury or death is "acceptable" in a retreat attempt before it's deemed unsafe to retreat? How is that judged in the moment by versus hindsight from a jury box?
I oppose any law or situation of law that requires a victim of a violent crime or sexual assault to be held responsible for the safety of their attacker if they choose to defend themselves or to limit their options for self defense or if concern of harm for their attackers.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)where he could pull his gun and shoot a skinny, unarmed black kid.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)It's about that simple really.
The only thing that got Zimmerman off is there wasn't a video or credible witness to dispute his account and the prosecution totally failed to put a convincing account of how they felt it went down to the jury to give them a more believable account of the events than what Zimmerman gave. They poked holes in his story but that isn't enough, they needed to poke holes in his story and present a compelling account of how it went down instead. They failed on the latter.
In fact I use his case in my classes as a perfect example of what not to do.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)situation, etc., didn't matter because ZMan had the right to shoot Martin if Zman was scared for his life. Well, Zman, like most gunners, are always irrationally scared for their lives. That's one of the main reasons they arm up. Intimidation and Racism are other big reasons.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)But that's not surprising.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)of us.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Your predators like your rapists, racists and robbers who all know that an armed victim is their worst danger tend to really, really dislike the idea of anyone being armed.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I believe the preceding quote might explain our interlocutors' dislike
of members of the general public being legally armed...
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)It's why a robber would want it and why they rarely choose a victim that may be armed.
It's why all your cowardly mass shooters tend to pick target locations where they are unlikely to encounter armed resistance. And why most of them either give up or end their own life as soon as armed resistance shows up.
It's why all your gun control laws in the south originated from the desire to keep blacks disarmed to ensure they were easy targets for racial violence and intimidation.
The mentality all stems from the same desire- they don't want someone with the ability to resist to interfere with their plans to victimize them. There is no difference between the motivations of the robber who wants his victims disarmed so he can safely steal from them and the racist who wants minorities disarmed so they can safely intimidate them and commit hate violence upon them.
trentwestcott
(83 posts)...but I guess I missed the part where Zimmerman threw himself under Martin and began beating his own head into the ground and then grabbed Martin's hands and used them to break his own nose.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)black kid and taken off after him like a cowboy policeman, nothing would have happen. Poor ole Zimmy, who had been training 3 days a week to beat people up -- but carried a gun in case that wasn't working for him -- should have left him alone. I know Zman's wife had just kicked him out of the house, but he shouldn't have taken it out on an unarmed kid.
I doubt seriously, your boys head was being beaten in the concrete because his head only had some minor scratches. Fact is, like most gunners, Zman pulled his weapon at the first opportunity. And his training had taught him well what to say to police -- "I was scared for my life."
Please let me preface this by saying I'm 1/8th African American. My dad was 1/4, and while I didn't know him, I identify as at least half African-American, mathematics be damned.
I'm not going to be forced into defending Zimmerman; his approach to the whole situation was antithetical to my whole approach to...everything I guess. Zimmerman wasn't my kind of guy that night, and he's only proven himself to be a shit magnet and a drama queen in the years that have followed. I don't like and won't defend Zimmerman, period. Having said that, I also don't approve of the actions of the other individual involved in the Zimmerman/Martin confrontation and I believe we can't really assess blame accurately without giving Martin some of the credit for his part in the incident.
I waited for the DOJ report before I made my mind up because I figured that the local police would minimize Zimmerman's wrongdoing if for no other reason than to justify their own decision to not arrest him until the pressure was on them to do so, but in the DOJ report there was nothing that conflicted with Zimmerman's defense, which means that in all likelihood Martin made a decision to straddle Zimmerman's chest and punch him in the head, based on physical and forensic evidence and witness testimony. I don't know about you, but I trust Eric Holder and Barack Obama to get to the bottom of what happened, and that's what came back.
I don't know what your level of experience is with traumatic injuries, but it's not like on cartoons where someone gets an anvil dropped on their head and then they shake their head back and forth a few times and then everything goes back to normal. Blunt force trauma delivered to the head has lifelong consequences, up to an including immediate death in some cases, but also including other long term effects which can lead to a reduced lifespan. It is for that reason and many, many others that I (unlike Zimmerman) avoid trouble whenever I can. I don't confront people on the street, especially younger looking people who likely don't yet have fully developed brains and the cognitive capacity to make good decisions about regulating their own behavior.
Now having said all that, while I don't in any way support Zimmerman's actions or the decisions he made that led up to his fight with Martin, there's nothing in evidence that supports any kind of charges against Zimmerman, other than the charge that he was and is an idiot with terrible decision making skills, which isn't something addressed in the Florida statutes nor the Federal code. He was in an area where he was legally entitled to be present, engaged in a legal activity and broke no laws, or at least that's what both the DOJ and his jury decided was a fact. Once again, for the record, I think Zimmerman has an established track record of idiocy that started before that night, was at play on the night he shot Martin, and has continued to be documented in the years since then. What you're failing to acknowledge is that Martin also had a shorter but still very impressive track record of poor decision making, and what happened that night probably wouldn't have happened if either one of them were normal and reasonable people.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I can't really say that you can over minimize the number of times it would happen. When you realize that most police officers never actually use their weapons, it's hard to say that the average citizen is particularly exposed to this kind of danger. Heck, in WWII only 25% of American combatants used their firearms. Of course, individual results may vary.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)use "crime" as an excuse rather than the truth.
My favorites are the gunners who cite places like the South Side of Chicago as the reason they tuck a gun in their pants to walk out the door. When questioned, the honest ones admit they have never been there.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)My department considered any time you drew and aimed it to be a use of force requiring a report. Because that is a use of the firearm, it is demonstrating that it is present and able to be readily used.
Both in law enforcement and in the vast majority of civilian cases where a gun is used defensively the gun is only actually fired a small percentage of the time, in most cases the presentation of the fact that the officer, or victim in cases of civilian defense use, is armed and willing to use the firearm resolves the situation without a shot having to be fired.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)courage to walk down the street. And those are not legitimate reasons to tote in a non-war zone.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)But please, don't become discouraged by your continuing failure to understand the situation...
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The procedures dictate the use so it gets used. When you consider how few police in foreign countries even CARRY guns, the vast majority of the "uses" you describe are basically "unnecessary" or in essence "overly cautious". It's the "I have it so I use it" philosophy. "When all you have is a hammer...".
hunter
(38,318 posts)It's not because I can't shoot, it's not because I can't be cold and calculating in a dangerous situation, and it's not because I've avoided dangerous places.
Mostly it's because I'm not going to let some imaginary "bad guys" live in my head. Life's not like the movies. There's nobody I'd care to shoot.
I don't trust most cops with guns, and I'm even harder on cops who are ex-military with hair-trigger responses honed in training and on the battlefield.
Guns are generally bullshit. Once the guns come out everything is fubar.
I'm not going to badmouth anyone who hunts for the dinner table, of has to occasionally deal with rabid racoons and the like, but otherwise it's just a way to make yourself deaf, get lead poisoning, or kill yourself leaving a horrible mess for someone else to clean up.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I'm not fond of arguments that start with "I never...". But generally I agree with you. In a slightly less anecdotal observation is when I was involved in suicide prevention. We would go out on "calls". Some how we'd get notified of an attempt of one sort or another. Invariably, before or after we got there, somehow the police would be called. It never helped. It escalated everything. It always helped if we got there first because usually that meant we were already engaged with the individual and we could in essence "speak for them" with the police. As you, say, if the guns came out, everything went bad fast.
I noticed a few departments around the country are beginning to switch away from "escalation" tactics, towards "de-escalation" tactics. Basically, it can make the guns come out slower/later.
hunter
(38,318 posts)Our local police now receive mandatory training on how to recognize people who are mentally ill and de-escalate the situation. This happened after a few high profile incidents where people known to be harmless were shot and killed by police.
But it's not enough.
In order to be an armed cop I think something like seven years of exemplary service as a middle school teacher in a rough public school would be a good prerequisite. Teachers are not allowed to shoot or physically assault the little darlings; they have to learn other methods of asserting their authority.
trentwestcott
(83 posts)I think you're right to call the police reluctantly, if at all. When you call them you roll the dice about who's going to show up and what they're going to do when they arrive, and even if they screw up mightily and use unnecessary force it's really hard to get any kind of consequences, especially if it goes to a jury. A few months back there was a lady sitting in her truck for over an hour out in front of my house, and when I went out to check on her I found her weeping and basically incoherent, and I didn't know if she was drunk or just despondent or whatever, but I asked her if she was in medical distress (didn't see a medic alert bracelet on either wrist), and when I was satisfied that she wasn't in medical distress I offered to call her a cab and she declined, and then I went back about my business. A neighbor suggested calling the cops, but I said I thought that was a very bad idea based on what can happen in situations where the cops are called to deal with vague circumstances involving emotionally disturbed individuals. It very often doesn't turn out well.
I think you're right about there being an unarmed pre-requisite for armed police duty with the general public. Hiring 22 year olds with no experience and giving them the power of life and death without any previous experience in being in a position of authority seems like a bad idea. It used to be that Sheriffs had to work in the jails (where there aren't guns) before they could be assigned to patrol, but I've never heard of the city police having to do that. I think it would help if they had experience asserting themselves without weapons. I think your idea is good too, but I just don't know how much overlap there is between great teachers and aspiring cops, and I worry that if the only route to a badge was through the public school system the quality of teachers would suffer.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)We've created a job where they are to be part soldier, part meter maid, part social worker, part lawyer, and part mediator. And then we take high school graduates, put them through a few months of training and let 'em loose. And a large percentage were attracted to the job because of the gun, the uniform, and the badge.
The best we can do is to change the training. But that's hard to do since it is not centralized and is often run by people already committed the current system. It has been done in a few places, but they are swimming up stream. It doesn't help either that one way into the profession is through military police training.
trentwestcott
(83 posts)They are expected to be all the things you listed and more, but you don't see hordes of women with sociology degrees or peace corp veterans with advanced training in conflict resolution flocking to the profession. When little kids play cops and robbers, they aren't trying to resolve the confrontation peaceably. The profession attracts "hard chargers" who usually view the other less action packed aspects of the job with contempt and often try to avoid those aspects of their duties. Maybe they should break the job "cop" up into smaller pieces, giving the action part to those who want it and the other part to other kinds of public employees. Maybe instead of having the choice of calling the cops or calling no one at all when you see someone in emotional distress there should be a third option, like a "Care Corp" of people who can deal with these kinds of issues empathetically instead of in a quasi military fashion. I know, I know, you'd have to raise taxes, so it won't happen.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)That's being tried in small ways. Some departments have specialty units trained in certain techniques for certain situations. I've heard of mental health units, domestic violence units, etc. Still all within the department, but in essence it is 911 operators deciding who gets sent.
kairos12
(12,862 posts)The stabbings in Portland give me a bit of pause. Cops told me to stay out of it and just report.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Although rarely, situations where someone is hassling someone else can turn really, really ugly and right away. It's always a tough call on what to do, especially in a closed environment. A call to 911 is always in order, though.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)In more than one instance, it was important to know which way to run. It isn't always obvious. In the case of the London Bridge, there was one gentleman who would have been better off just hitting the deck. Instead, he was shot by the police.
I love the standard flight attendant announcement that "the nearest exit may be behind you". One must also realize that the nearest exit may be on fire.
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)Excellent book by a well-known security expert on protecting yourself through being more aware and recognizing your evolution-given sense for something in your environment being "just not right".
GoneOffShore
(17,340 posts)Not to say that one shouldn't take evasive action.
But I'm not going to stop travelling because of these kinds of things.
Though most of the US is off the table for me. The climate and the cultural climate. Big cities are fine, mostly, but the rest of the US. No, not a place I want to be.
I prefer to be elsewhere.
duncang
(1,907 posts)is me. Being big, ugly, and mean looking can help. But I always try to be aware. I own guns, but agree with you completely. I don't think it is worth carrying one for the same reasons you cited.
Personally I'm more worried about that person texting or driving drunk down the street. And the only defense against that is awareness.
Remember when they said everyone should go out and buy duct tape and plastic to be safe in case of biological or dirty bomb attack? About the same mindset got people to buy them.
pansypoo53219
(20,981 posts)Sculpin Beauregard
(1,046 posts)But perspective is important. More people will die from the 'new and improved' ACA than will die by random violence - by an order of magnitude greater.
Also, more women are subject to violence in their own homes than both men and women are to random or terrorist violence - again by an order of magnitude greater.
Perspective. Is. Important.
Maeve
(42,282 posts)Told them the first class to run rather than fight if it was an option at all; the best way to survive a fight is not to get into it.
HeartachesNhangovers
(814 posts)terrorist attacks. A typical person in the US or western Europe (or most places in the world - excluding active war zones) is unlikely to ever be threatened by a terrorist, even considering the most broad definition of "terrorist". I believe it's well-established that people are most frightened of highly-publicized risks (like plane highjackers and suicide bombers) rather than the everyday risks that are most likely to pose a danger to them.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)You might be too slow. Or maybe your friends and family are too slow.
Or maybe your point is that you don't have to be fast, just faster than they slower person who will be attacked.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)If you are pinned down and can't run, throw something, anything at the attackers face. Your phone. A water bottle. Your purse. Anything you can grab. Even trained military will flinch and try to cover their eyes, the reaction is that automatic. And then run AT them, scream, hit them as hard as you can or kick them in the knee or groin or poke their eyes. And then run away.
Krav Maga is interesting. It's supposedly the best self-defense system. They advocate using regular objects as self-defense. Here is an interesting video about dealing with a knife attacker since that seems to be popular these days. Statistically, there is minuscule chance that this will ever happen, but it settles my mind a bit to feel like a have a tiny clue about what to do if the situation does unfold like that. I'm also taking karate, both as a stress reducer and defense training.
Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)I've always been one to stand back from the crowd since I have claustrophobia so bad.
In my younger days of doing the night life thing, I would have a panic attack if I got surrounded in a crowd. That happened at Mardi Gras one year. The street continued to pack in the people, until you couldn't move. I remember a guy in front of me arguing with somone who he thought had pick-pocketed his wallet.They started arguing and shoving and here we were, packed in together like sardines. I had a panic attack and God only knows how I shoved my way out of that crowd. Adrenaline rush I'm sure. It scared the ever-loving shit out of me!
Since then (it's been years ago) I just don't do crowds real well. But, it was a huge lesson that you need to always be aware of your surroundings.
Captain_New_York
(161 posts)As a former medic in the 82nd airborne with a Combat Medical Badge, I have a black bag in my car with tourniquets and combat dressings. With that I can keep some one alive until more sophisticated help and equipment arrive. It is sad that I feel the need to have that bag with me as much as possible.