enough is enough

[Milt G.]

I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.

It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness?

I for one am kinda getting tired of it. I do not feel that I have to fear for my life and safety in order to do anything.

It's kind of a rant, but what do you guys think of this? I'm tired of telling our students to get away if you can. I want to start telling them to destroy the guy if opportunity presents itself.

That's my wallet or my money or my things, I'm not willing to give up the things I've worked hard to get. Can they be replaced? Yes, but why should I have to replace them?

So, what do you guys think?

Hello,

I fully agree... Good points.

Sadly, liability, or the potential thereof, directs and orchastrates the responses that are recommended and sanctioned by society and law enforcement. It is "safer" from a liability (only) standpoint for you to do nothing. It is VERY sad. If you go over the amount of force necessary, even slightly, to neutralize a threat you can be liable. Criminally, or financially. Often both!
We all know it is difficult "in the moment" with the adrenalin pumping and "stuff happening" to gage what force is just enough, but not too much to protect ourselves. That is the biggest concern and issue.

I vote that one follows their heart and the situation at hand to decide what is "enough". Let the courts figure it out later, if necessary. You may well be sorry later but you, or your loved ones, may also still have their lives. Train and live for keeps. Sometimes the confidence, alone, you develop will lessen the chance you will become a potential target.

The criminal and anti-social elements are slowly getting a foothold in our society. We, as law abiding citizens, have the obligation to do what we can to negate this situation. The key phrase there is "what we can". Perhaps that phrase means something different to each individual?

The Police are there to protect us. Too bad that often there is not a good opportunity to summon them before a "problem" is truly upon us. Not their fault, but a systems problem. The system is more "reactive" rather then "proactive". Sadly, more cost effective that way.

Thank you,
Milt G.

 

[jks9199]

OK... A couple of things.

Let's begin with the simple observation that there can be no hard and fast rule -- except that you absolutely never ever want to let an assailant/robber/ogre move you from where you started. (And I know half a dozen cases off the top of my head that the victim did this, and survived, and, in one case, even were able to get the bad guy arrested by doing so! These are the exceptions, however.)

Second, there is a vast difference between a robbery and a predatory attack like a rape or some sort of beating. Note that the predatory attack may precede and be a tool for committing the robbery -- but the dynamics are very different. A robber must communicate with you, if his goal is to get your stuff through threat or display of force. If he's just going to pound you, then find your wallet -- there's not much you can do. You may talk your way out of many encounters -- but not the true predator's attack. A lion waiting to pounce on an antelope isn't going to meow or purr at it; it waits and pounces from ambush. Predatory attacks work the same way.

My personal suggestion is simple: Make the call that you think, in your evaluation of the circumstances gives you the best chances to get out in one piece. If that's giving up material stuff... give it up. If it's telling the bad guy/ogre to do something that's anatomically unlikely... then do that. And if it's defending with everything you've got, and eliminating any need for a trial... go for it.

Rather than try to collect a perfect answer, develop the tools and understanding to help you assess and respond appropriately and within the law.

 

[MJS]

That's all I've said. An attorney might suggest you are opening yourself up to a liability lawsuit by telling them to always resist. However, of course you should do as you wish.



I think I said that. If I can't determine if the gun is real, I'll have to assume it is.



That's fine with me.

Ok.

I think I've said before, but I will repeat in this thread, that I take a home invasion as a very different circumstance than a public mugging. My response would be different as well. However, you continue to insist that I *assume* nothing bad will happen to me. I do not. I base my decisions on actual statistics and my own judgment. I *assume* nothing - including that I do not *assume* something bad WILL happen to me.

Different locations really. I'm at the ATM, getting into my car or sleeping in my home. In all of those cases, someone is invading my personal space, or my home, with the intent to forcefully take something of mine. Chances are they'll be armed. Bill, as I've said before, the main difference between you and I, is when we will act. You choose to wait and see what happens if you comply and if it heats up then you act. I choose to act as soon as the threat is made.

Whichever it is, the chances are much higher that someone will be injured or killed once battle is enjoined.

Probably.

Your statement is incorrect. FBI crime statistics clearly show that most home invasions do not end in injury, just as most muggings do not end in homicide. We are both free to harbor our own opinions about how best to respond, but criminal statistics are what they are.

As I said, I take all stats with a grain of salt. Of course, a simple google search will show that there are many invasions in which injury did happen.

Math and probability is on my side, and it's easy to demonstrate. If you don't want to see that, it's your issue.

But your last statement is the controlling one for you. You would rather fight and die than not do anything - even if doing nothing would not result in you being injured. I get that. I call it macho ********, and I'm sorry if that fashes you, but it's the term I use. I don't 'get it' because I have no macho in me.

Bill, I really don't think that you know me. You're reading what I say and are twisting it around, making me out to be macho. I'm macho in your eyes because instead of trying to run or apologizing until I'm blue in the face, I choose to still use verbal methods, but I'm giving a confident attitude. Lets use this as an example: Im in a bar. I get accused of looking at a guys girl. He comes up to me and asks what I'm looking at. So, instead of me saying, "Please man, dont hit me, I'm really, really, really, really, really sorry. I didn't mean to. It was an accident, and I'll never do it again." So, I'm macho because I say, "Hey man, I'm waiting for a friend to show up, your girl is sitting right near the entrance. Tell ya what, the next round is on me." I'm showing this guy that I'm not afraid of him, I really have nothing to say I'm sorry for, and all it costs me....hopefully is a few bucks for a round of beers.

I'm macho in your eyes because when that guy in my condo complex asked what I was looking at, I didnt show fear or intimidation, and simply replied no. I dont see why I have to beg and plead with the guy, when I did nothing wrong in the first place.

I'm macho in your eyes, because I dont want to give up my car. Stop and think about it Bill...if I give the guy the car, and he tells me to get in with him, then you're telling me that you would then fight. Isnt that being macho? Why not just get into the car and see what happens next? I mean, if your thinking is that odds are good if you comply, just comply and get in the car. Just comply when he takes you to a house with 5 other people there. Just comply when they tell you to get on your knees so they can blow your head off.

So lemme get this straight....I'm macho if I fight first, but not macho if I comply and then fight afterwards, if I'm attacked further?

Plan B, fighting.



Plan B, fighting.

Which is.......???????

I said nothing about leaving anyone behind. If I have people with me whom I wish to defend, my responses will be different. I believe I have said there are no set rules, just guidelines. And plans change based on changing circumstances.

So, I'm macho if I'm by myself and choose to fight, but suddenly I'm allowed to be macho if my wife is with me? Lemme ask you this...if someone is with you, would you a) still comply or b) fight back right away?

If that works, you bet. I know that makes me less of a man in your eyes, and I really do not care at all. I only care about my own life (and yes, of course, the lives of those around me, but when I'm solo, then just me).

Likewise, I dont care if someone thinks I'm a ***** either. Difference is again, that because I'm confident or in your eyes macho, and choose to let them walk away, without me kissing their ***, you frown upon that. Why? I've had more success than you can imagine, by talking my way out of a bad situation. But its the attitude that I present. Yes Bill, I've tried the begging for forgiveness routine many times, and it didnt work for me. I've found for me, that you can still be firm, get your point across, without sounding like some chicken **** *****.

You bet. I did it the other night. I came back from the dojo and climbed my apartment stairs and there was some local badass talking to his girlfriend and he saw me in my gi bottoms and tee-shirt and he blocked my way up the stairs. I looked down, eased to one side, and said "Excuse me, buddy," and climbed past him, shouldering him only to the extent that I needed to in order to get past him. I didn't puff up, lock gazes, challenge him, or make any hostile move.

And I didn't puff up or challenge the guy that confront me either. I stood there. I didn't get all defensive and ball my hands into a fist. I stood there with the dog. Why is that so wrong in your eyes? Christ, I guess we can't even look at someone anymore without making is seem like we're macho. I'm addressing the person blocking my way, not the ground.

I heard him laughing at me as I walked past. He 'won' the show in front of his girlfriend. Yay him. I didn't have to knock his teeth out or risk getting mine knocked out. I see no reason to have done anything differently.

Likewise, I've been there. Whats funny though, is the people who've done that to me, are the ones that're always walking away. I'm sitting somewhere, minding my own business, I see no reason to have to run away. If I had a dollar for everytime someone said that I was a *****, a wimp, said that they could kick my ***, I'd be a very rich man. I"ve had people laugh at my training, saying that they could kick my ***. My reply of, "Yup, you're probably right." shocks the hell out of them, and leaves them speechless. Why? Because I was confident in my reply and didn't give them the reply they thought I would. I won, and they walked away.

I risked less by responding as I did. I say that's a better way to do it, but I support your right to do whatever you wish.

Likewise, you're free to do what you want as well. Notice though, how I'm asking you why you feel I'm macho. I'm not saying you should do this or that, like you're making it sound. You're coming across as if your way is "The way" when in reality, it isn't. Its Your way, thats all. To each his own.

Talk, yes, but not give up your wallet. You've said that, too.

I'd go so far as to reach for it and hand it to him, but yes, as soon as he goes for it, as soon as he's distracted, that is when I'm doing something. I'm not just going to hand it over and pray that nothing else happens. Oh ****..theres that machoness coming out again.

If I can avoid all of that nonsense by dropping my wallet on the ground and walking away, I think that is a better way to protect my own life.

To each his own.

No. If I cower and run like a coward (there's that word again, I'm a 'coward'), I win because I live. Self-defense is about defending my life, not my ego.

My above posts have addressed this.

Please let me know if you're accusing me of lying.

Is that how it sounds? Thats how you're reading it, but no, thats not the case. No worries, I'm not saying you're lying.

In law enforcement, I had a job to do which required me to subordinate my own safety in favor of protecting the public. As I am no longer in law enforcement, I have an obligation to save my own life first.

And my obligation is to save my *** and anyone thats with me, and if that means defending myself, yes, I will do it.

Actually, you have stated the opposite. If the math proves that running away or complying is more likely to result in your survival, you will still reject it - you just said as much. You are not in it to survive, you are in it to survive and protect your ego and self-image.

Where is the proof? Please show me stats that say that if you comply that you will be unharmed. And yes, I'm in it to survive. The other parts of your statement is your distorted image of me, and a shot as well. But thats ok. I'm familiar with your tactics from that other thread. Oddly enough, there're a few others on this thread that have the same ideas as I, yet you're not hounding them like you are me. Why is that Bill??

If you go to Vegas and use your own logic, you will lose consistantly. But that's what happens. People go to Vegas and lose consistantly. Most of them don't believe the odds. If they did, they would not gamble.

More talk about stats and odds. Proof please, as I asked above.

I would hope I would respond before the punch is thrown. Once I believe it is going to be thrown would be a good time to attack, I think. But every situation is different.

Why wouldn't you just wait until it was half way to your face?

 

[shaolinmonkmark]

Me too.

i concur!

 

[mwd0818]

[/LIST]

...

I'm really glad I put some thought into this. Having made the decision before hand may save some time.

Jen

Regardless of your decision (to fight back in most case, to stand your ground, to run if need be, to talk out of everything, to comply at first, etc.), it is important that you understand the implications of your actions and have thought about them before it is necessary to act on them. In the moment is not the time to consider your options and what you "feel comfortable" doing.

Women do have different concerns from men in many cases, and those with families have different concerns as well. Manny also apparently has different concerns too, because my sound system IS worth protecting. (Just kidding - I got it free, but it is nice!)

In any case, to the original post, I do agree that it gets annoying to always be presented with the victim mentality - comply comply comply and you'll survive. That is not ALWAYS the case. At the same time, fighting back all the time isn't the right option either. Everyday I find further proof that Siddhartha had the right idea - moderation and the middle way. Black and white only exist as shades of grey.

I have been fortunate to not have been faced with a ton of circumstances to draw from, but I think I've had my share. I've dealt with them in the entire spectrum.

1) I've used humor to diffuse a situation and trump my ego with his to diffuse it.
2) I've held my ground and used my confidence and unwavering assuredness to make him back down.
3) I've walked away and gave up a position that I saw no reason to fight for.
4) I've struck first and never even thought of talking.

Why the variance? I've had to trust my instincts and go with the best option at the time. I do appreciate the idea of "not being the victim" but at the same time, my ultimate goal is to get out of the situation with least amount of harm done to me or people in my protection. I don't care about what happens to the criminal that initiates it, but a fight does increase the odds that injury happens to me. If I really think that giving him the wallet and pulling an impression of Jesse Owens will get me out of the situation, then guess what? I do it because it's the least risk to me. If I don't think it will stop there, you had better be assured that I'm only going to feign compliance in order to regain the initiative. But I'm going to be constantly assessing what the attacker is doing to figure out the best and most effective way of ending the confrontation. If that involves me completely destroying my opponent, then sure. Hopefully, there will be a better, safer alternative, but I will do what it takes to survive and continue on. It's not about my ego, his safety, my wallet, vigilante justice (teaching him a lesson), etc. It's my survival, and I will play the comedian, the egotistical a**, the sprinter, the meek, the gunslinger, or Steven Seagal as needed - I'm going to do what it takes to move on from the encounter.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Chances are they'll be armed. Bill, as I've said before, the main difference between you and I, is when we will act. You choose to wait and see what happens if you comply and if it heats up then you act. I choose to act as soon as the threat is made.

I agree that's where we are different.

I believe the chances are they won't be armed. My source is the Bureau of Justice.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#violent

In 2005, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with 22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2005.

As I said, I take all stats with a grain of salt. Of course, a simple google search will show that there are many invasions in which injury did happen.

All statistics are subject to error, accidental and intentional. The Bureau of Justice statistics are most likely the best we have. Certainly better than Google.

Bill, I really don't think that you know me.

Back atcha.

You're reading what I say and are twisting it around, making me out to be macho.

You're reading what I say and twisting it around, making me out to be a coward.

Where is the proof? Please show me stats that say that if you comply that you will be unharmed.

Again, the BoJ provides convincing evidence. There are far more robberies than murders or assaults resulting in injuries. That would indicate that more robberies result in no murder or injury than the opposite.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ivc98.htm

Of the violent crimes measured by the NCVS, a higher percentage involved injury when committed by an intimate partner (48%) or a family member (32%) than when committed by a stranger (20%).

These stats do not show that if you comply you'll be unharmed. And I have not said that. They say that the chances are you will be unharmed in any case.

There have been books written attempting to divine whether it is better to resist or comply, and no one has come up with a catch-all general answer yes or no.

What I said was that when you engage in a physical struggle with an attacker, the chances are much higher that you will be injured than if you do not. That's simple and easy to grasp. If I walk up to you and throw a punch, the chances are 100% that one of us will be injured. If I walk past you and do not, then the chances are 0% that either of us will be injured. Likewise, if confronted by an attacker, there is a chance I'll be injured. If I immediately attack him, the chances are 100% that someone will be injured, and it might well be me. As long as I believe the chances are lower that I'll be seriously injured or killed by complying, I will comply. If I cease to believe that the odds favor compliance, I will stop complying.

I do not know how else to put it.

 

[Xinglu]

There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Dirty Lies, and Statistics.

 

[Jenna]

There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Dirty Lies, and Statistics.

You forgot advertising, corporate accounting and political spin!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Dirty Lies, and Statistics.

What sort of data would you find acceptable?

 

[Xinglu]

You forgot advertising, corporate accounting and political spin!

No, no, those fall under the others: Advertising = Lies, Corporate accounting = Lies, and Political spin is somewhere between Damn Dirty Lies and Statistics. :wink:

 

[Xinglu]

What sort of data would you find acceptable?

Just adding levity.

However, there is wisdom in not putting too much stock in statistics, they are not an accurate reflection of all cases, only those reported and/or those solved.

For example rape statistics are unreliable due to the high volume of unreported rapes. The same is true for all violent crimes, many just simply do not get reported. Therefore statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Just adding levity.

However, there is wisdom in not putting too much stock in statistics, they are not an accurate reflection of all cases, only those reported and/or those solved.

For example rape statistics are unreliable due to the high volume of unreported rapes. The same is true for all violent crimes, many just simply do not get reported. Therefore statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Indeed, the crime statistics are only as good as the reporting of those crimes. And I believe I said that in my statements previously. However, they are the best we have, and considerably better than Google.

 

[MJS]

Just adding levity.

However, there is wisdom in not putting too much stock in statistics, they are not an accurate reflection of all cases, only those reported and/or those solved.

For example rape statistics are unreliable due to the high volume of unreported rapes. The same is true for all violent crimes, many just simply do not get reported. Therefore statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Thank you. I noticed that there was a 3-4 year gap, depending on what was looked at, on those stats, in addition to what you said....crimes that go unreported.

 

[MJS]

Regarding google...there is alot that you can find there. Things such as real incidents, such as the home invasions, that have happened. As for the rest of my post that was quoted, I'll comment on that when I have a bit more time.

 

[MJS]

I agree that's where we are different.

I believe the chances are they won't be armed. My source is the Bureau of Justice.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#violent

All statistics are subject to error, accidental and intentional. The Bureau of Justice statistics are most likely the best we have. Certainly better than Google.

I commented on google in another post. I still stand on what I said regarding the stats. I may be wrong,but those stats seem to be a compilation of many areas. The town where I live is going to have different stats than a larger city, even though we live in the same state.

Back atcha.

Touche' I'm sure you're a nice guy Bill, and despite what you think about me, I'm really not the hot headed macho guy you think I am. I am passionate about SD though, and as I've said, we all train for different reasons. Just because you don't like mine, doesnt make then wrong. Notice how you're coming across as me being wrong, yet I've said to you that you're free to do as you wish. We're not clones Bill, who all are programmed to be the same.

You're reading what I say and twisting it around, making me out to be a coward.

I'm reading it as I see it Bill. You're making me sound like the bad guy, because you disagree with my views. So many others are saying the same things, yet you're focusing on me. Interesting.

Again, the BoJ provides convincing evidence. There are far more robberies than murders or assaults resulting in injuries. That would indicate that more robberies result in no murder or injury than the opposite.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ivc98.htm

These stats do not show that if you comply you'll be unharmed. And I have not said that. They say that the chances are you will be unharmed in any case.

There have been books written attempting to divine whether it is better to resist or comply, and no one has come up with a catch-all general answer yes or no.

What I said was that when you engage in a physical struggle with an attacker, the chances are much higher that you will be injured than if you do not. That's simple and easy to grasp. If I walk up to you and throw a punch, the chances are 100% that one of us will be injured. If I walk past you and do not, then the chances are 0% that either of us will be injured. Likewise, if confronted by an attacker, there is a chance I'll be injured. If I immediately attack him, the chances are 100% that someone will be injured, and it might well be me. As long as I believe the chances are lower that I'll be seriously injured or killed by complying, I will comply. If I cease to believe that the odds favor compliance, I will stop complying.

I do not know how else to put it.

As I've said, oh...how many times now....we agree on certain parts. What we disagree on, is when we will act. What I'm curious about is...why do you care when I choose to act? We are 2 different people. What makes your methods so much more superior? Notice how, at least I dont think I have, not said that my way is the best way. You state your reason for doing what you do, but tell me...what makes your way so much better? I'm listening.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As I've said, oh...how many times now....we agree on certain parts. What we disagree on, is when we will act. What I'm curious about is...why do you care when I choose to act?

I don't really. You offered your input, and I offered mine, and we differed, which led to a discussion. I have no reason to care how you react to a threat, other than to hope that if anything like that should happen, you would not be hurt.

We are 2 different people. What makes your methods so much more superior? Notice how, at least I dont think I have, not said that my way is the best way. You state your reason for doing what you do, but tell me...what makes your way so much better? I'm listening.

I have tried to explain it, but I think I must be doing a poor job. But I've been giving it a lot of thought about how I could more properly explain it.

What if I were facing a dangerous critter rather than a human being?

I am out walking through the park at night, and I come around a thicket, and there in my path is a dangerous critter. I recognize immediately that it has the ability to injure or kill human beings and it appears that the dangerous critter is not going to retreat or get out of my way. Instead, it makes threatening noises and advances on me.

I am already at risk of serious injury or death. The amount of risk I am incurring is unknown, but it more than zero.

Now, I have several choices. I could attack the dangerous critter before it can attack me. Or I can retreat.

Let's say that I have a gun with me, and no easy escape route. Plus, I am pretty sure the dangerous critter can outrun me and will give chase if I run. That's not from statistics on dangerous critters, it is just an assessment I have made in that moment, like anyone would. So I draw my gun and shoot that critter right between the running lights.

Now let's say I have no gun, but I am reasonably sure that the critter cannot run as fast as I can, so I turn tail and take off like an Olympic sprinter, given extra speed by my fear. The dangerous critter is unhappy, but is unable to keep up with me, and so I escape.

Now let's say I have no gun, and I'm not sure if I can outrun the critter, and yes, it can climb trees too. But I happen to be carrying a doggy-bag from a nice restaurant with me, and I know the dangerous critter eats nice restaurant food. So I toss the bag to the critter and wait to see if it will take the food and ignore me, or if what it really wants to do is eat me instead. If it takes the food, I'm out of there. If it does not, and retreat is not an option in my opinion, then I have to steel myself and attack the creature and hope that I can prevail. But I know that the chances are high that win or lose, I'm going to get hurt.

Why am I referring to a dangerous critter and not a human being?

Because I wanted to remove notions that seem to be irrelevant to a logical decision-making process. Those notions are what I have termed 'macho' and what you have termed 'cowardly'.

There is no cowardice in fleeing from a dangerous animal that can't catch you, nor is there machismo in attacking a dangerous animal when you believe you have no choice but to fight. They are just logical results of a rational decision-making process.

Why do I think my way is 'right'? Mainly because by choosing the response that I believe is lower-risk for my health and life, I am not giving up the option of attacking, so at the very least, I've delayed the moment that I will have to attack or defend myself physically. The moment I engage in violent struggle, my risks go up.

What is different between us? I see it as where we draw the line over what we will not do in order to lower the risk to ourselves. I will hand over my wallet. You won't. I will run away, you won't.

You don't simply say you won't do those things because you don't think they'll work, or you don't think they'll be safer responses, but because you see them (in your words) as cowardly, groveling, pleading, praying, and hoping. Those are emotionally-charged words that tell the tale - you hold those sorts of actions in disdain. That's not a logical response, it's an emotional response. Hence, my statement that I believe you hold your machismo in higher regard than your safety. it's not unusual, but I don't, for whatever reason, have that gene.

If your threat was a dangerous critter instead of a human being, you would not consider climbing a nearby tree as 'cowardly', but if it was a bad guy, you would see it as cowardly, and therefore would not do it. I see them as basically the same thing, and ignore my feelings about my self-esteem to do what I think is most likely to save my life.

And that is the difference I see between us.

As to why I respond to you and not everyone else in this thread, it's probably because you are responding to me and we're having a discussion. The other comments I've read are along the lines of 'BS' or 'Fricken A, d00d.' I really can't comment on those sorts of statements. You're intelligent and therefore we can sharpen our swords on each other's logic. I certainly bear you no ill will.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.

It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness?

I for one am kinda getting tired of it. I do not feel that I have to fear for my life and safety in order to do anything.

It's kind of a rant, but what do you guys think of this? I'm tired of telling our students to get away if you can. I want to start telling them to destroy the guy if opportunity presents itself.

That's my wallet or my money or my things, I'm not willing to give up the things I've worked hard to get. Can they be replaced? Yes, but why should I have to replace them?

So, what do you guys think?

Right! part of the whole point of training is to decide what you will fight and die for. If its for a pair of shoes, your priorities are all messed up.... a Mountain Bike? is it a Wallmart brand or a Shwin?
Sean

 

[just2kicku]

Right! part of the whole point of training is to decide what you will fight and die for. If its for a pair of shoes, your priorities are all messed up.... a Mountain Bike? is it a Wallmart brand or a Shwin?
Sean

It's not about a pair of shoes or a bike or anything else for that matter, it's about the fighting back.

If you get mugged, what are the chances this guy will be caught? 1 out of 10 or maybe 1 out of 20? When do we fight back? Oh let's just wait for the next guy, I'll comply, but maybe the next guy is willing to sacrifice a little to try and stop this. That to me makes about as much sense as not voting, yet crying about political issues you don't like.

And this is my point, if more people decided to get involved and not be sheep, then maybe we might make a difference.

 

[yorkshirelad]

and this is my point, if more people decided to get involved and not be sheep, then maybe we might make a difference.

qft!!!

 

[shaolinmonkmark]

was actually looking at Arizona's statistics!
Gee, they have the right to carry!
Hmmm, think we are on to soemthing here!