Tag Archives: self-defense

Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt

In marketing, the term, F.U.D., shows up from time to time. Those letters stand for fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It’s a strategy used to keep people from accepting a new product or proposal by making people afraid to change from some old and settled way of doing things. But these days, this concept is used more generally to discuss attempts in a debate to sow F.U.D. against an idea without bothering to show any actual errors in facts and logic.

One example of this can be found in debates on-line about gun rights:

1.  What are you afraid of?


Say that you carry a handgun for self-defense, and someone will ask you what you’re afraid of. It’s an inevitability, just like questions about penis size and other silly examples of ad hominem fallacies. But in addition to mocking a supporter of rights, the purpose of the question is to create fear in the minds of undecided people about those of us who are exercising our rights. The insinuation is that you wouldn’t want fearful and thus unstable people running around in public, now would you.

But let’s consider the data. Violent crime certainly does occur. The rate is down from years gone by, but attacks on good citizens do still occur. Preparing for a potential bad event is not fear. It’s a rational calculation.

On the other hand, carry license holders commit crimes at rates much lower than the average population. Consider these numbers on people who legally carry in Texas. Year after year, license holders represent a fraction of one percent of convictions. These data match reporting across the whole nation.

2.  But how can we know?


How can we know that a person with a gun is a good person and not a bad person? We can spend endless hours debating epistemology, but specifically on this question, the essence of American values is the belief that human beings are good until proved otherwise. Asking how can we trust someone with the exercise of basic rights betrays the kind of attitude found in Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan, a view that we must be strictly controlled to restrain our evil natures. That is a reasonable view to hold–one that I certainly don’t accept, though–but it is fundamentally contrary to the principle underlying a free society.

3.  What if I don’t believe you?


In many discussions, there comes a point at which someone rejects not only interpretations based on judgements but facts as well. The facts about guns in the United States are mixed, leaving both sides the opportunity to have valid positions derived from their values–freedom or safety–without being compelled to choose one answer or another to be intellectually honest. For example, some 30,000 Americans die each year from gunshots, while something like 80,000 suffer non-fatal injuries. At the same time, hundred of thousands use firearms to defend their lives annually. But facts have an unyielding quality that creates cognitive dissonance in the minds of people not willing to ground their beliefs in reality.

So what do we do? We have to admit that we can’t reach everyone, but we can persuade those who are undecided, and we might persuade some who haven’t thought things through. My choice is to advocate for basic rights, a view I call eleutherianism.

Getting Out of Condition White

One of my places to get out into the open air and take a constitutional is Lake Fayetteville on the north end of the town of the same name in Arkansas. Some fellow on Youtube provides a tour of the soft trail:

and for rainy days like today, there’s a paved path. But in addition to staying in shape, the trails offer another opportunity–namely to get out of Condition White.

“What do I mean by that?” you ask. Well, you ask if you don’t know Saint Jeff of the Corps (Jeff Cooper, if you really don’t know). To review, he identified four conditions of awareness:

Condition White: Oblivious. Your response to being attacked is, “How can this be happening to me?” In fact, very little of the world around you enters into your attention without forcing its way in.

Condition Yellow: Relaxed alert. Nothing is threatening you at the moment, but you’re aware that something could come along at any time. You’re aware of your environment and what’s going on in it.

Condition Orange: Specific alert. Something is wrong. You’ve spotted a specific danger and have a plan for how to respond to it, while not losing track of the rest of the world around you. At this point, if possible and sensible, you should put distance between yourself and the danger.

Condition Red: Fight. You are fighting for your life, perhaps based on the plan you had in Orange, but be aware that few if any plans survive contact with the enemy.

We Trekkers understand the concept here.

At any rate, a lot of people talking about self-defense discuss these conditions, but what I don’t see is much on how to get over the Condition White that most people spend their lives in. The point of this article is to fill that gap.

1. Lose the gadgets.


The world is an interesting place. If you can’t enjoy it without being absorbed into technology (another Star Trek reference), this article and blog isn’t for you. But cell phones, iPods, and other such foolishness take your attention away from what’s going on around you. With ear buds, you can’t hear what’s coming up behind or to the sides. If you’re sending messages (not texting, as there’s no such word), you might as well be safe at home under your covers. At the very least, look up and around from the toys now and then and again.

2. Clear your baffles.


The baffles are the deaf spot for the sonar behind a submarine. Fighter pilots call it the six, as in check six. The idea here is that you can’t see behind you, so turn around periodically to see what’s back there. Prey animals have eyes on the sides of their heads to make this happen naturally, while predator species have forward-mounted eyes to provide stereoscopic vision and have to check astern. As the image of the poker hand should remind you, James Butler Hickok died when he sat with his back turned to the entrance to the saloon. Don’t make that error. Sometimes the path or the terrain gives you the chance to see a lot of where you came from. Use that. Use it also if there’s a long view ahead.

3. Keep your eyes open and your head up.


The ground immediately around you may be interesting, but that’s not the sum of your environment. Look at the scenery. Trees have low branches that want to grab you. A copperhead may be crossing the path, or an armadillo could be rooting about on the hillside. I’ve seen both, and they were beautiful, showing that many things are simply a pleasure to notice. Deer fade into the background when you’re not looking.

4. Don’t fixate.


You aren’t looking for anything in particular. You are just looking. You can appreciate the attractive person who just passed by, but don’t be a boor, and don’t forget that using a distraction is a smart tactic for an attacker. And there are interesting things all over to see.

5. Don’t fret.


Your attention will wander. That’s fine, so long as you bring it back and keep bringing it back. At first, someone will pop into existence near you where no one was a moment before, but the more you practice paying attention, the farther out things will appear suddenly, and distance is your friend.

And that’s the idea. It’s not hard in concept, but it does take attending to what you’re doing. And it does get easier.

Or you can be surprised.

How Many Do You Need?

One common meme among the gun control freaks is the idea that a gun’s magazine should be allowed to hold no more than ten rounds. (Or seven, if you have the misfortune to live in New York.) Things like this:


send them the vapors. And if you have the temerity to say that round limits make no sense, they will sneer that you must be a bad shot if you need more than ten rounds to drop a deer.

There are many things wrong with this point of view:

1. Hunting


In many states, hunters are limited to five rounds, not ten, indicating what the control freaks would like to see, perhaps–on their way to banning everything, that is. But the constant reference to deer shows a lack of awareness about what firearms are for. Yes, hunting is one purpose. Self-defense is another. To bring hunting into every discussion implies that this use is the only acceptable purpose to which a firearm may be put. However, people defend their lives with firearms, and that needs to be considered.

2. Power


Not all cartridges are equal, and handgun rounds are much less powerful than rifle rounds. In fact, while a handgun can be used to good effect, unlike what Hollywood wants us to believe, one shot is unlikely to get the job done. A woman in Atlanta, for example, fired six shots at a home invader, five of which hit the man in the face and neck, and he was able to get away, only to be caught later when the cops finally arrived in the area. The woman’s revolver was a .38 Special, a common and worthy self-defense piece. Whatever the typical effect of X rounds of Y caliber happens to be, in this case, five weren’t enough. Had there been a second invader, even more would have been needed.

3. Defense


The attacker chooses the time and place of the attack. But we as good citizens are obliged to wait. This gives the attacker a tactical advantage. The gun control freaks ask me how many rounds I need. A good answer to that is that I don’t know. That’s precisely the condition that a defender is in. Before the action starts, there is often no way to anticipate how many attackers there will be or how many rounds will be required. The reports that I’ve seen suggest that a gunfight will be over most of the time after three or four shots, which is why I accept necessity and carry only one gun and a spare magazine, typically, but that is not a guarantee. While we all make concessions to what’s practical, I see no reason to tell you how many rounds you may have.

4. Rights


When gun control freaks ask me why I need X number of rounds, my answer is that the question is wrong-headed. I don’t have to justify to the government why I want so many of whatever. It’s the government’s job to explain what need it has for requesting me to limit myself and beg my permission to enact such a limit.

But since some people are obsessed with limiting magazines to ten rounds, I have a proposal: Let’s make it a separate crime to use a magazine of more than ten rounds in the commission of another crime and apply an extra ten-year sentence for using such a magazine in a criminal act. That way, we all may have as many rounds as we find appropriate, but those who misuse a firearm will receive additional punishment for their evil ways.

Don’t Bring an Olive Branch to a Knife Fight

The irony was thick last Sunday (27 January 2013) when the Pope released doves in celebration of peace. Here’s the full story.

Reality was smiling on this scene. A seagull, figuring that a dove would be an easy target, swooped in to attack. The dove, perhaps being a regular reader of blogs like this one, fought back and was able to escape.

What we see here is the fact that violence, used by an innocent person (or dove, as the case may be), can be the answer to violence. Or to put the matter into my way of saying things:

Don’t bring an olive branch to a knife fight.