First, I was not offended at all. Besides, it would take a heck of a lot more then that to offend me. I myself enjoy the use of sarcasm, both as a humor style, and to make points. However, your sarcasm was directed at a caricature of my argument, and not the real one. I do believe my point still stands. I was not directly a personal attack at anyone here, but rather the whole idea that in violent confrontations, one must suffer almost anything before using deadly force, a view which I believe contributes to the victimization of our society.
While it is not a sense of false bravado or machismo which prompted my original comment, I am man enough to apologize for any offense given. If you were insulted, for that I apologize. I'm here to engage in rational, albeit somewhat heated discussion. Sometimes youthful enthusiasm is mistaken for arrogance or rashness. While I still stand by my argument, I want to make it clear that I am interested in constructive discussion, and have most definately considered the issue thoughtfully.
To make you happy, I won't even mention the idea that the people in the first two planes on 9/11 likely went along with the hijackers because of a misguided view that "If we go along we won't get killed." But I won't even bring that up.
(BtW, this was in no way directed at anyone here, but rather the sheeple in our society.
I value the comments made in your second paragraph, that's what I like to see, a reasonable discussion of the issue. The focus on thinking things through prior to the event is one of the things that drew me to TFL. While I may disagree with your conclusion, I believe we all benefit from a rational discussion.
I appreciate the advice for pursuit of practical training. As soon as my budget and schedule permit (spending lots of time in remedial US history will hurt
), I plan to do so. Most of the time in these scenario threads I sit by quietly and observe what the older and wiser have to say. I do enjoy playing devil's advocate, and was trying to make a point that would not attack others, but hopefully prompt some thoughts, and I hope that you look at the article I linked to, it has some great points. There was so much of a non-confrontational attitude portrayed in the thread, I thought I'd spice up the intellectual debate with a few comments. I hope they haven't gotten out of hand on either side.
Lastly, I never intend to charge into any situation half-cocked, waving a suicidal banner of mistaken principles. Far from being a reckless kid, I have devoted more time to studying the great minds of personal defense, from both the legal and tactical side, then most CCW holders I know. I believe that when I do get my CCW, I will be both a concerned citizen with not only street smarts, but a rational argument for why I believe what I believe, and do what I do. I've enjoyed our exchange, and hope that we all may have learned from it. While I firmly stand by my position as strongly as ever, I think the emotion on both sides has gotten out of hand. Let's get back to discussing this lose-lose scenario, shall we?