I asked this in a previous thread that was closed and I think it has some merit.
People on this board, and those in the firearms/self defense industry have varied opinions on all sorts of things. However one commonality that I have found in their opinions and teachings regarding self defense is that when a person is presented with a deadly threat they can and should do everything in their power to neutralize the threat. That means a knee to the groin, and elbow to the face, throwing dirt, gouging eyes and all of the other things that have been "traditionally" viewed as fighing dirty.
No one here would look down upon a person who utilized the above tactics to ward off an attacker while they were minding their own business on their way home. Quite the contrary, we would say they were resourceful, and pat them on the back.
Why is it then that what we applaud on a personal level, we denounce on a national level? In modern times, America is the man on the street walking home, and terrorism is the thug trying to take our wallet, and our life if he can. Preventing the CIA from having secret prisons or conducting "forceful interrogations" is the same as telling the individual no matter what happens you can't use your elbows.
The common reply to this has always been, "we are better than they are", or "we're not going to stoop to their level" or "this is what separates us from the terrorists". I submit to you this is not what separates us from the terrorists. What separates us is that we don't start wars. We constantly, and sometimes to our detriment, strive for peace. Look back over the last 100 years and ask yourself what it took for us to become involved in all of our major conflicts. When we pick up the sabre, it has always been with reluctance.
For those of you that disagree, let me ask you this. If you were to protect your family, what kind of methods would you use? Would you temper your response taking into account how your friends viewed your action? Would you take into account what issues the attacker might be going through or what kind of adversity he has faced? Would you only limit yourself to a knife if that's what he was carrying?
Most of you here have already stated your answers to this question, in one thread or another. In fact, some of you have stated what would happen to an intruder or an attacker shouuld you find them, leaving little to the imagination.
Is it not complete hypocracy to on one hand say that you will show an attacker no mercy, but on the other hand mandate your nation deal with attackers in a far different manner.
People on this board, and those in the firearms/self defense industry have varied opinions on all sorts of things. However one commonality that I have found in their opinions and teachings regarding self defense is that when a person is presented with a deadly threat they can and should do everything in their power to neutralize the threat. That means a knee to the groin, and elbow to the face, throwing dirt, gouging eyes and all of the other things that have been "traditionally" viewed as fighing dirty.
No one here would look down upon a person who utilized the above tactics to ward off an attacker while they were minding their own business on their way home. Quite the contrary, we would say they were resourceful, and pat them on the back.
Why is it then that what we applaud on a personal level, we denounce on a national level? In modern times, America is the man on the street walking home, and terrorism is the thug trying to take our wallet, and our life if he can. Preventing the CIA from having secret prisons or conducting "forceful interrogations" is the same as telling the individual no matter what happens you can't use your elbows.
The common reply to this has always been, "we are better than they are", or "we're not going to stoop to their level" or "this is what separates us from the terrorists". I submit to you this is not what separates us from the terrorists. What separates us is that we don't start wars. We constantly, and sometimes to our detriment, strive for peace. Look back over the last 100 years and ask yourself what it took for us to become involved in all of our major conflicts. When we pick up the sabre, it has always been with reluctance.
For those of you that disagree, let me ask you this. If you were to protect your family, what kind of methods would you use? Would you temper your response taking into account how your friends viewed your action? Would you take into account what issues the attacker might be going through or what kind of adversity he has faced? Would you only limit yourself to a knife if that's what he was carrying?
Most of you here have already stated your answers to this question, in one thread or another. In fact, some of you have stated what would happen to an intruder or an attacker shouuld you find them, leaving little to the imagination.
Is it not complete hypocracy to on one hand say that you will show an attacker no mercy, but on the other hand mandate your nation deal with attackers in a far different manner.
