Understanding the opposition - how do we convince others?

Thanks, I'll try to download that, but not sure I can listen to it. I have a SLOOOOOOW dial-up connection.

Sometimes I may fail to be certain my readers understand the most basic foundation of my words and actions:

No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. The Zero Aggression Principle

This would preclude the idea of "looking for an excuse" to use lethal force, I'd think. I am very disturbed when I listen to people who do seem to be "looking."

My fondest wish is never to NEED to use my gun in any situation outside a range or when hunting, but I have to balance that with the determination and guts to be WILLING - and yes, TRAINED - to use that kind of deadly force against another human being if necessary. I don't expect it to be easy, but I damn well intend for it to happen if it must.

I do not see retreat as a viable option in a life threatening attack. If one had plenty of time to evaluate the situation, and lots of room to maneuver, that might work... but the reality of a violent encounter is not likely to give us that luxury. We might try other things in a non-violent confrontation, of course, but we'd have to make up our mind FAST.

Someone who violently attacks another person must bear the responsibility for the response they get. Once faced with probable death or serious injury, we have really two choices: surrender, or resist as hard and fast - yes, VIOLENTLY - as we are able. We simply won't have any time to weigh the ins and outs of various shades of gray. A split second of delay could mean the difference between life and death. And such imminent threat is the only legitimate place for defense with deadly force, of course.

I spent more than 20 years as a nurse, first in ER triage, then visiting house to house in some of the worst metro areas of Southern California. I was never "allowed" to carry any means of self defense, and didn't even have a cell phone for most of it.

I was vulnerable every day, everywhere I went. I learned to watch my surroundings, to evaluate people all around me for threat level, and took evasive action according to that potential threat. It was nerve wracking and gut wrenching many times. A lot of people who really needed to be seen had to be abandoned because the threat was just too great.

And sometimes I took my life in my hands to go in anyway... a few times where paramedics and ambulance crews had refused to go... We do what we have to do.

I was never attacked directly, and never suffered even damage to my car. A lot of the otherwise vicious criminals of the inner city will cut some slack for a nurse, it seems. But I wouldn't want to walk those streets at dusk as an ordinary woman... armed or otherwise!!

Thank God for Wyoming! I'm not sure that respectful armed society can exist in the big city, though anything would be an improvement on what we have now. But here in Wyoming it already works that way. It's only the city transplants who get excited when they see a lady with a gun on her belt.

Thanks for your comments. :) ML

Hi ML,

We've not chatted directly before on this site, I believe, but from your comments I thought that you might enjoy some of Robert Heinlein's writing on individual freedom and liberty. I hope you don't mind this comment, but as I read your response, I immediately thought of Heinlein and his ideas on individual freedom. I agree with your zero aggression principle.

(incidently,many years ago I worked as a close protection agent - i.e., body guard - for a federal agency. And in that scenario, there was no luxury for deep and considered thought regarding the use of a weapon. It was based on a very quick appraisal of the circumstances. Fortunately, I never had to use my firearm, and am glad of that. The first Q people used to ask me in those days was often, "how many people have you shot" and other disgusting facile variations on that, implying a rather unhealthy interest on their part. But I was quite prepared to use a firearm or anything else as might be required to protect me first, and the principle - i.e. the person protected - second. In my mind, if someone put themselves in a situation whjere it was obvious that they intended to violate my basic right to life, then in my mind they had already forfeited theirs...)

As for where our society is going and why, there are some dysopias available that discuss those things from different perspectives (although the loss of freedom is ineviatably central).

Thanks, Shaun!

And just where do you suppose I got a lot of my ideas and attitudes? LOL I've read everything Heinlein ever wrote, and memorized a lot of that...

Indeed, he says it all pretty well, and yet he seemed to have a lot more tolerance for government and bureaucrats than I do. Maybe he was simply more willing (and in those days, able) to ignore them.

The idea that someone who carries a gun is just itching to shoot/kill is a part of why I carry openly... When people see this old lady and really think about it, they begin to understand that I am no threat to anyone.

But make no mistake about it. I am both willing and able (well trained) to shoot to kill if ever forced to do so. I am at peace with it.

No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. The Zero Aggression Principle