 |
| Dr. Ben Carson |
Dr. Ben Carson stepped out on the thin ice when he publically discussed a couple of his views on gun violence and legislation. With some qualification, and as something of an authority on gun violence and protection practices, I would be happy to walk out on that ice with Dr. Carson.
In the context of the Umpqua College mass murder, he
mentioned that individuals in that situation should immediately resist, even
attack the shooter; and not allow the shooter to take control of the
situation. I tend to agree. That is the best option.
However, it is very ‘human,’ when faced with immediate
danger and possible death, to acquiesce and cooperate with the assailant. Even among mature adults, it would be very unusual
for someone to spring into action and theoretically rush an armed individual –
facing, what would be perceived to be at the time, almost certain death. Some would do it; and reportedly some did
demonstrate exceptional courage at the college.
Most would not. Unless, they have
received training to overcome those natural tendencies to submit. Such training is what the military and law
enforcement attempts to instill in their personnel; but with far less than 100%
success.
I have given presentations at various seminars on personal
protection measures. An example might
be: A woman is walking to her car at
night in a mall parking lot. She is
confronted by a man with a gun who orders her into his car. My recommendation to the ladies in attendance
was to fight back, run and scream as loud as they can. Do not, under any circumstances, get into the
car. Women sometimes have responded that
they would be afraid that the assailant would shoot them as they ran. My answer:
Yes, he might shoot, but odds are he won’t. But, if he does shoot and hits you, your
chance of survival is very good – emergency services would be there
quickly. If, however, you get into the
car, you will have given your assailant the opportunity to kill you at his
leisure. This is an example where
training might instill in a woman a proper, and statistically preferential, reaction
to a threat.
Secondly, Dr. Carson referred to the ‘Holocaust,’ and the
confiscation of weapons that took place prior to rounding-up the Jews and other
minorities – stating that an armed Jewish population could have launched a
significant resistance. He has been criticized by the uninformed and the liberal media (of course) that he had stated or implied
that personal weapons could have prevented the ‘Holocaust.’ I don’t think he said that or even remotely
implied it. In my opinion, Dr. Carson is
exactly right. What was the Jewish
option at the time? Walk to the train
station and be loaded on box cars, or be forced to your knees and shot on the
spot; because the Jews at that juncture had no real way to resist the Nazi maniacal
machine.
This is at the heart of the gun rights issue. Some believe that the government, under all
circumstances, will protect them. I don’t
happen to agree. You’d have to be a
little dense, in my humble opinion, to not understand that civilization, as we
know it, could be swept away in an instant.
Will it happen tomorrow, next year, fifty or a hundred years from
now? No one knows for sure. It could be a natural disaster, or even man
caused. Some will say if that should
happen that they are willing ‘to go gentle into that dark night.’ Some will say that they will resist with
their last breath. I prefer to associate
with the latter group.
To be continued...
To be continued...
True Nelson
No comments:
Post a Comment