I've never done one of these before, but the answers to this question are significant to me. The answer doesn't necessarily have to be an either/or. There are no correct or incorrect answers, of course.
You are being held at gunpoint and told by your assailant that you have the option of facing him or turning you back to him to meet your demise. What do you choose to do?
I know my answer, but I want to know yours first.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 81
The other is reflexes. If the assailant were stupid enough to stop and pose a question to his victim, he would be stupid enough to pause and wait for an answer. If I am close enough to a gun wielding attacker...I can grab the attacker's gun before the attacker can pull the trigger. I've done it (in practice)...and so can you....with practice.
I can't prove this to you personally, but I can show you a video. Go to this website:
http://www.judoinfo.com/katagosh.htm
Scroll down to "Shomen zuke", "Koshi gamae" and "Haimen zuke"...watch the videos.
These techniques are not really very difficult. I have played the attacker and tried to pull the trigger before my gun could be grabbed. I have played the victim and grabbed the gun before my attacker could pull the trigger.
If you don't think the effort to survive is worth the risk...consider the alternative...certain death.
"If the assailant were stupid enough to stop and pose a question to his victim, he would be stupid enough to pause and wait for an answer."
There you go again, seeing yourself as ever so clever, rather than attempting to see this question in terms of what must be going on in the mind of your captor. You cannot resist seeing yourself as far more intelligent than this person, when in actuality, the fact that they asked this question does not indicate a lack of intelligence at all, but rather, the presence of some form of "mercy", hopefully. And therein lies the only thing which, according to the scenario given, hope lies.
You can make the person slow and stupid, so as to be susceptible to your incredible smarts and quickness, if you wish, but that is not in evidence, and does not demonstrate anything but self aggrandizing tendencies. Assume this person is roughly as intelligent and fast as yourself, or you miss the point of the query, says I.
I can't make an attacker "slow and stupid"...I can only deal with the attacker with whom I am confronted. My "incredible quickness" is that of a 58 year old but I can still take a gun away from a 20 year old...if I am close enough and as long as the attacker has not yet begun to pull the trigger.
Again...I really don't expect you to take my word for this. Perhaps you would be willing to do a little research...you obviously won't accept any references I would furnish.
You're a silly man. You bore me with your silly rationalizing.
Can't carry on with JK. I'm too silly for him. And...I bore him!
Or else...or else JK is out of ammo.
The Colonel does not disappoint. I can just see him squarely looking into the eye of his assailant, virtuously demanding an answer despite facing gut wrenching prospects. He's an American hero.
I can see that cute, Peter Swanson giving him a dirty look, interpreted by the assailant as a possible coqutettish come on, thus saving the life of the beloved and deft author of fantasy.
dickhead nomenclature because it's so honestly Slim.
Larry's got the idea.
John joins in with his usual, captivating eloquence and further food for thought.
Katie makes a nice, non-committal comment.
Slim makes another entry, making us not quite sure where he stands, because now he's decided to take an active, aggresive, role rather than mere talking.
Larry now sees this as a concerted effort.
Slim comes back to be more specific, and basically says that all's fair in love and war. He also states that the worst thing you can do is nothing at all. (I don't disagree with any of that, Slim.)
Mini comes in with a determined statement from experience. (Thank you, mini. I love reality.)
Pamela dies , but nobly.
Zan graces us with some comedy.
Rob does what I would do if I had the courage.
John comes back seeing the whole thing from the perspective of the assailant. (A very valuable angle)
Slim takes umbrage at John's remarks. ( I must tell you now that I love the pseudonym because I have great difficulty typing Michael correctly but, once again, I agree that inertia is sure death.)
John coes back with what liberals like to call ad hominem attacks.
I interfere.
John tries to keep the conversation at an intellectual level, but all he has to answer is poor Slim, and he''s just worn out by now. In his next comment he just graciously says, "good night."
"And nothing in the query that suggests the assailant is capable of presenting some sort of "mercy"...."
Right . . . offering the choice doesn't imply the possibility of "mercy" . . .
Good night, and sweet dreams.
No, John, you were supposed to be clamoiring for my purpose of the post. Have you lost all sense of constancy?
Well, we all have seen the grave and despairing witness of those having made their decisions for the Presidential victor based on partisan appeal. I see the two major choices we have as being asked to make a choice while held at gunpoint by the assailaints that control and determine our fate. The people believe that they have no real hope for tomorrow except to decide whether their fate should be to face it forthrightly or to turn their backs and take the shot from behind.
There are few who see it as a challenge to supercede the obvious, and break loose from the spoon fed and supercilious notions, that conceding to the ordinary factions of right and left will afford them the life that they will lose should they merely decide to face it head on or to turn their backs without a concerted effort to fight against both. The end result will be the same, and will result in our ultimate death as a nation.
Exactly, Michael. I do see some loose parallels here as to how people formulate decisions. Of course, the scenario I depicted is one under duress, unlike the voting scenario, but people like you and the Colonel do seem to parallel the example.
I don't know Rob's or Larry's views on the election though.
John's stand surprised me somewhat.
Please keep in mind;
we wrestle not with flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
I do, and that leads to actions which are not easily reduced to something so simple as a correlation between voting for a candidate, and my "faith" in that candidate. It would take many pages of comments to explain the "basics" of my reasoning for leaning toward voting for Mr. Obama, but I will provide this much now; I do not perceive that we are being accosted by a single, "monolithic" assailant, nor do I perceive the outcome of this election to be particularly significant in and of itself, in terms of the possibility of "disarming" our assailants.
Perhaps it would be helpful to think in terms of what the assailants themselves would most like to see happen, and what "voices" would be quieted, or amplified, by this or that outcome. There are many with voices that those assailants would like to see marginalized, and the bulk of them, as far as I can tell, would be stifled by a Repub win, more so than by a Dem victory.
Also, I perceive the distinct possibility that this very medium upon which OUR voices are heard, may be silenced, and the longer it, and other means of speaking about a certain bit of "good news" remain active, the more chance there is, come what may, that the lost, will be found. As someone of little account said long ago now; If you don't lose long enough, you win. Let's not forget what the battle really is about, for we who search in his name. If America ceases being a place where that "news" is "spreadable" in its true form, it has no particular place in my heart. The name, is not the thing ; )
Of course, to me, this is axiomatic. Absolutely! I will not vote for a major party candidate though. I simply will not cave to voting for a lesser of the two evils. There may be varying degrees of evil, but evil is still evil.
"There are many with voices that those assailants would like to see marginalized, and the bulk of them, as far as I can tell, would be stifled by a Repub win, more so than by a Dem victory."
I don't know from whence this comes, what you may know that I don't know or in what way you process information to come this conclusion, but from what I know and process, this is not so. Neither party is less suppressing, though the Democrats seem to talk a better talk. I just find them deceptive.
"If you don't lose long enough, you win."
I don't understand that line.
"There may be varying degrees of evil, but evil is still evil."
Well, of course, but if one evil happens to be in FAVOR of war, and dismantling the Constitution in the name of "security" . . . then time may run out, on disarming our assailants before the trigger is pulled, and there's no more "problem" to try and solve. This Repub crew, does not seem even slightly hesitant to continue down those paths, at full throttle. We cannot win, if we lose right off, but there is some hope if we can delay the actual firing of the gun.
The election of Mr. McCain, who actually SINGS little ditties about bombing people . . . may just be suicide. That don't mean the alternative is not, but as an old bridge player (and game strategist in general), I learned that if there is only one lay of the cards that can result in making the bid, you play for that one way to be true, no matter how remote the chance.
I am convinced beyond any perceivable doubt that the repubs will NOT disarm our assailants, but there remains a slight doubt about the Dems. At least they talk about the danger we face, in SOME fashion. It is possible they intend to back us away from the cliff, but I see no intention of doing anything but continuing to step on the gas, from the Repub camp. It's still all about fighting the "religious extremist" bogeyman (now adding the Russian bear, for good measure), and protecting the hyper-wealthy. They're PROUD of doing these things.
I see inconsistency after inconsistency with what Obama says and what he ends up actually doing. To vote for the Democrats just because the Republicans are so bad, and it makes the Democrats actually look good is exactly what they're counting on.
Well I am thoroughly unimpressed with Mr. O, believe me, but that does not mean he's actually the ONLY voice which is empowered by a Dem win. Within the ranks of that party, are people that DO speak of this colossal fraud which has left us in such dire straights, and those voices will also be empowered, even if only to a modest extent. Like I said, it ain't a big chance, its a chance though.
I don't believe that the Repub general "badness" implies a Dem general "goodness" (hell, at this moment I'm off on another thread trying desperately to get some of the brighter bulbs in that camp to come on in this regard), but rather, I believe there is at least the POSSABILITY that enough are aware in that camp, of the truly wicked nature of this beast we face, to provide the foundation for more "revelation" about it, and as long as that wheel keeps spinning . . . the beast is made uncomfortable. At least we can spit in its eye a bit, before the hammer falls, so to speak.
I do wish the "third party option" wasn't so damn dead, for I would much prefer that approach, if say a Ralph Nader, or some other noisy wheel, like Ron Paul, were involved seriously. I just see no signs of life out there, at least not yet . . .
You'd have to ask him, Berf.
Kath M for Obama!, Sep 18, 2008, 9:37pm EDT
"Cool, I've heard some "expert" types say that's the best way to respond, if you've got a clear path away. Turns out hitting a moving target with a handgun is not nearly as easy as the movies make it out."
John Knight, Sep 18, 2008, 9:49pm EDT
I thought you would just stand there and hope for mercy JK.
I realize you have a very active (and convincing) imagination, but I have another tool to bring a bit more "reality" into the picture; The question said "held at gunpoint". Again, one can imagine the question itself is somehow wrong, but that pretty much defeats the whole point of such hypothetical explorations, to my mind.
The assailant is the he we're talking about, right?
That's why I am asking you........:>)
Are you sure you couldn't just pray your way out of this? :-)...just kidding...I couldn't help myself.
It would be wise to remember that bargaining with a sociopath usually yields results in the favor of the sociopath....especially if the sociopath is holding the high card.
Like I said, it would depend on a number of factors. I'm not what one would call a big girl, physically. If I could gouge his eyes out, I'd do that before succumbing, but unless I knew jujitsu to the black belt extent,or some form of martial arts, I might not have the strength to physically overtake him. I once read or saw in a movie, not sure now of which one, (unless it happened in Cape Fear, and I both read and saw the original and remake of that) where the woman tried oral sex and bit it to shreds. I think it was Cape Fear.
Bargaining with sociopaths is certainly risky business, unless, of course, you're more nuts than they are. ")
"Success" is a subjective term and the benefits of martial arts training are broader than just one's ability to overcome a much larger opponent. One of the benefits is a sense of confidence and a positive attitude which are a great asset when confronted with danger.
I also studied Aikido a few years back. Now this is a martial art that can equal the size difference of two opponents. Aikido uses leverage and there are many techniques in which a small person can effectively control a larger, more powerful person.
There are other effective self defense training methods which can be very effective for self defense. These"street fighting" techniques offer the dirty stuff as practical defensive methods. This is where you learn to claw the eyes, pop the ear drum...cup your hand and slap your attacker's ear...you'll break his ear drum which is very painful and will disrupt your attacker's sense of balance. A knuckle to the attacker's wind pipe or larynx...a (hard) blow to the side of the neck can render an attacker temporarily immobilized... in short...if you want to learn the most effective self defense with the least amount of training, go for the dirty street stuff.
Thanks for reminding me of these very vital life saving tips.