Glenn E Meyer said:
Haha, conservative rationalizations why I should get shoot for you and you wont' even give my family a buck. I ain't talking about welfare or food stamps or some other conservative talking point.
I remember you mentioning some time back that you never served in the military nor served in law enforcement.
No big deal. Probably the majority of folks here can say the same.
However, ask any combat vet what he was fighting for. He won't tell you all the romantic, academic Hollywood BS like "Mom, apple pie and the flag." Nope. You fight for your buddies.
Me-first attitudes don't last long in that society, nor should they.
And your attitude stinks of "me-first" when it comes to your fellow citizens and neighbors. So if nobody is going to pay your family off in the event you might get hurt, then THAT'S the deciding factor as to whether or not you'll use all this fancy training you write about participating in . . . in order to save someone from harm or death?
Every person alive who is a bread winner with dependants on that "bread" need be prudent and have life insurance in place to replace the breadwinners income in the even of a premature death.
I would venture that I live a more "comfortable" life than you, and only mention it because "how your family presently lives" seems to be at the root of any decision you would even consider that might even give you a hangnail, let alone a nosebleed or worse in the defense of someone defenseless.
My wife is already taken very well care of. If I have a premature death, she'll be hurting--because no amount of money will replace me, nor her.
And THAT'S what matters to me as a husband, adn to her as a wife.
Not how "comfortably" she'll live if I get killed.
But likewise, if I refused to help a mugging or rape victim because I might get hurt or killed, she'd leave me on the spot and go looking for the man she married and not the selfish wuss that was suddenly standing before her.
Money and comfort aren't everything to us. In fact, on our list of priorities, they're pretty damned low.
Is it prudent to save the lives of those who won't even commit to helping your family after you save them? I won't have a premature death if you weren't so damn unprepared as a warrior. Oops.
Well, reckon I oughta quit doing these charity medical flights where I fly kids with leukemia to various chemo centers. I could crash my airplane and none of the families I'm helping would be able to give me a dime.
You see, they're already struggling--that's why vounteer pilots like myself volunteer our own money, time and resources to fly their children to medical treatment centers.
But I guess I'm more important and of greater worth to my wife and society than they are--not worth risking MY life to help maybe save theirs.
Ooops yourself.
It's all about some folks who want to be hero in a gun fight as a prime motivator and being able to say that on the Internet. If you want to help people you should intervene in the gun fight and financially for the worthy needy.
So why all the killer commando gun training and IDPA competition you seem to be into?
I've smelled more than enough hostile gunpowder in my lifetime and survived to enjoy a fruitful and fulfilling life. I've got exactly zero interest in all that combat/tactical/pretend-police/SWAT training and competition. I like shooting at things that don't represent things that shoot back. Bullseye and sillouhettes and steel plates come to mind.
BTW, altruism is very heavily researched and one major motivator is self-image rather than the true charitable impulse. That's my major point on such internet postings.
Yep, and I've said more than once that I'd have a hard time looking in the mirror for the rest of my life if I simply walked past a group of thugs raping some poor woman and I did zilch about it.
But maybe if she--in between gasps for breath--promised to pay my family a buck or two if I didn't survive my attempt to defend her. . . .
Jeff
